Matt Yglesias and Sam Rosenfeld have a big new article up in The American Prospect, which intends to eviscerate ‘liberal hawks’ on the basis that their only refuge is that – as they put it – “…the invasion and occupation could have been successful had they been planned and administered by different people.”
It’s a thin argument, well-padded, and it pretty much rests on one simple presumption – slipped in a rhetorical flourish in the beginning:
Victory, as John F. Kennedy observed, has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan. Abandoning the orphan that is the Iraq War has clearly been a protracted, painful process for the liberal hawks, those intellectuals and pundits so celebrated back in 2003 for their courage in coming forward to smash liberal expectations and support the war. Long criticized by fellow liberals for failing, amid much hand-wringing and navel-gazing, to express clear regret over their original support for the war, these hawks have started to become a bit more vocal about their second thoughts.
Let’s be clear. I don’t have any second thoughts about the invasion.
I have all kinds of criticisms of things that I wish had not been done or had been done better. I don’t blog about those because – first – I feel like it’s somehow expected of me, and I don’t like rising to that bait, and – second – because I have a finite amount of time to blog, and that’s not how I choose to spend it. Those issues are not, to me, the critical ones today.
But, as an opener in responding to Yglesias and Rosenfeld, did I somehow miss the line of Americans hanging from the skids of the helicopters as they flew away from the Embassy roofs? Was there a surrender as our troops streamed, bedraggled, weaponless, defeated, and under the watchful eyes of their Sadrist captors out to the safety of Kuwait?
When the hell did it become the accepted public wisdom that we have lost this war?
Because, guess what – we haven’t.It’s hard – damn hard. I am in awe continually of the men and women who are prosecuting it – from the sharpest tip of the spear all the way back to the butt of the shaft.
Taking on the arguments in the article isn’t, so I’ll handle that part.
Let me summarize the arguments they make:
* We’ve failed in Iraq.
* Liberal interventionists (like myself) who supported the war are damaging the cause of future liberal intervention by hanging on to their support for the war in the form of “if only Bush had been competent” and “if only we’d invaded Iraq with 500,000 troops.” As soon as we admit we were wrong, we’ll have credibility to suggest that we send troops to Darfur.
* We must accept that we cannot change the world, and therefore limit our military interventions where our efforts “can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life.”
Boy, there is just so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin.
Let me start with my own take on where we stand – we’re slowly winning, and will win in time. There will be ebb and flow, setbacks and breakthroughs, but the fundamental characteristic is to make it clear to the parties involved that we have the sitzfleisch to see this through.
I’ve got a simple indicator, and let’s use Vietnam as a good example.
The troops in Vietnam turned against the war before the mass American population did. As a ‘chickenhawk’ (and as a snarky sidenote, given the recent column about the wealthy and tax-avoiding Norm Chomsky – I’ll go back to my Black and suggest that when he advocates that Chomsky or George Soros pay what would be ‘fair’ for his taxes, as opposed to what he owes under law – I’ll gladly make a ‘chickenhawk’ pin and put it on the site), I guess I just ought to keep listening to the troops.
So no, I don’t think we’re losing. We’re certainly not winning as quickly as some had hoped, but here I’ll go to my own record and pass on (again) my own quote from before the war:
We’re in this for the long haul. We don’t get to ‘declare victory and go home’ when the going gets tough, elections are near, or TV shows pictures of the inevitable suffering that war causes. The Marshall Plan is a bad example, because the Europe that had been devastated by war had the commercial and entrepreneurial culture that simply needed stuff and money to get restarted. And while we’re damn good with stuff and money, this is going to take much more, and we’re going to have to roll up our sleeves, work, and be willing to sweat with this for some time.
Next, Yglesias suggests that the strategic justification for the war collapsed with the discovery that there was no nuclear bomb waiting to be primed in Baghdad or Tikrit.
He’s wrong there as well.
First, from before the war again:
So unless we shock the states supporting terrorism into stopping, the problem will get worse. Note that it will probably get somewhat worse if we do…but that’s weather, and I’m worried about climate.
What’s wrong with that? The reality is that even in a worst-case scenario such as I painted in Armed Liberal, our losses would be limited and readily survivable.
But I don’t think our reaction would be. I believe that a sufficiently aggressive terrorist action against the United States could well result in the simple end of the Islamic world as we know it. I believe that if nukes were detonated in San Pedro and Alameda and Red Hook that there’s a non-trivial chance that we would simply start vaporizing Arab cities until our rage was sated.
I’d rather that didn’t happen. I’d rather that San Pedro, Alameda, and Red Hook stayed whole and safe as well, and I believe the answer is to end the state support of terrorism and the state campaigns of hatred aimed at the U.S. I think that Iraq simply has drawn the lucky straw. They are weak, not liked, bluntly in violation of international law, and as our friends the French say, about to get hung pour l’ecourager les autres…to encourage the others.
Now this may seem like a week reed on which to base a war.
But it is stronger than it appears.
First, there is a legitimate case for regime change in Iraq, regardless. I’ll refer the reader back to Salon in 1998…
The reality is that positive news has outweighed the negative in the Muslim world recently.
* Support for suicide bombing is declining.
* Support for Islamists is declining.
* Sanity may rear it’s head in Palestine.
* Lebanon has kicked out the Syrians and now wants to kick out the Palestinians.
* The fact that vile, murderous dictators are now seen as vulnerable old men who may well wind up pulled from spider-holes to stand frustrated, arrogant, and powerless in the dock as they await sentencing from those they once terrorized.
So, what am I missing about the failure of the strategic justification?
* The war has left the U.S. isolated, alone in the West and without allies.
Yeah. tell that to Merkel, to Howard, Blair, and to Sarkozy.
So no, Matt and Sam, I appreciate the advice on how to rehabilitate myself, but I’ll just take a pass.
I’ll ignore the simple fact that the only alternative anti-Islamist policy to this one would involve bailing our CIA agents out of Italian jails.
So let’s check in a few years from now, and we’ll see whose reputation needs rehab.
Don’t worry. You are just watching people desparately trying to extract defeat out of the jaws of victory. Defeat is there only hope.
The war hasn’t been as easy as hope and charity would desire it to be, but its been a long time since I had a momentary lapse of faith and wondered whether there was anyway we could lose this war. There were a few scary moments in April 2004 were I wondered whether everything was about to fall apart, but now all I wonder is how many US troops will die before the enemy realizes how hopeless his cause has become.
Actually, for most of 2005 I’ve been more worried about the course of the war in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
“Victory, as John F. Kennedy observed, has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan …”
That was not JFK’s observation. It was the fascist Count Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini’s son-in-law.
If they’re going to get the very first sentence wrong – and quote a bunch of fascist stuff – I’m not even going to bother to read the rest. I’m not interested in what Mussolini’s idiotic relatives thought about Iraq.
A couple of small points:
One larger point. Yglesias and Rosenfeld aren’t trying to “eviscerate” Armed Liberal, or to advise him on how to “rehabilitate himself”. They’re addressing themselves to “liberal hawks” such as Gideon Rose or George Packer who agree, with the New Republic‘s editors, that “the strategic rationale for war has collapsed”, and that the post-war has gone badly. There’s no sign that they think that Armed Liberal’s position — that the strategic case is sound and the après guerre is going well — is even worth discussing.
Remember, this *is* the cocoon-based community we’re talking about here. Accepted “wisdom” and honest assessment have little to do with each other.
“If you wait by the river long enough, eventually you will see the bodies of all your enemies float by.”
– Sun Tzu (attrib) A vote to stay the course in Iraq. It’s amazing how little the anti-war forces know about warfare or history or wisdom passed down through the ages yet they alone believe they are best positioned to make the decisions in all matters marshal.
I have been noticing something with regards to people in other Arab countries. At first they watched, sometimes making typical negative comments. Then I started hearing a “hmmm” maybe it isn’t so bad. Now I’m hearing, “there is hope for *my* future too. They are starting to make negative comments about their countries and governments. This _is_ working.
Interestingly, Christine, Fouad Ajami “found much the same thing when he visited the region.”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006887.php
One of the truly amazing things about this war is its expose of so many so-called liberals as people without an ounce of real progressive belief or commitment.
Christine,Joe , Iraqis wake from their 30 year dream with the tyrant on trial. Never did they believe that they would ever see this day yet it is reality. If the tyrant is on trial what else is possible ? America has allowed them to ask optimistic questions about their lot in life. America has always been about “what is possible”. America does not ask why it asks why not ? Besides self determination this is the most precious gift america can leave to the Iraqis and the greater Middle East.
#7 Joe,
I have a very liberal/progressive mother (85 and still kicking). Every time I remind her that pprogressives used to stand for the extension of self government she goes silent.
BTW she still can’t figure why I voted chimpy. OTOH my vote for the communist Obama over the theocon Keyes has helped maintain some peace. In addition we both agree on Miers – bad choice.
AL,
Excellent assessment. I have no doubt at all whose reputation will need rehabilitation.
We’re winning.
Those with a big stake in being proven right that we would not succeed, are now faced with the reality of the nation being successful in a very ambitious foreign policy.
Someday, perhaps they will see the good that came from all this, but I doubt it. They will more than likely just move on to the next point of opposition to their sworn political enemies. This was never really about results, anyway.
“…victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan….”
Press conference, April 21, 1961, in response to a question asked by journalist Sander Vanocour, Public Papers of the Presidents: 1961, pp. 316-317, question #17.
“http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfkquote.htm”:http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfkquote.htm
Im sure others have also uttered similar phrases from time to time…
There is no question that the stated rationale for the war was a bunch of @#$%. There is no question I was against this war at the beginning. I believe and still believe most Americans are to racist and stupid to understand that other cultures have rational decision process that conflict with our Judeo-Christian version of law, government, religion and politics. I still think Bush is inept, class conscious and corrupt. I still believe that much of the ineptness in the war has been deliberate for the purpose of keeping the Republican party in power(It does not help the Democrats are insistent on destroying any repsonsibile message on the use of armed force to protect the nation). I stated it would be a mistake to go into Iraq without a more thorough victory in Afghanistan. Fortune smiled on me that I have the fourth rail to keep the story straight on how successful the military has been despite the ineptness of the politicians in Washington. It smiled on me again for in this blog Dan Darling has been superb in his layout of the nature and history of the Jihadist movement and its relation to Iraq. As a result of this I changed my mind. I have supported the war because despite of all the problems in America the out and out hatred of the Jihadists towards all things Western is far more dangerous to my families survival.
The liberal hawks position is that school yard bullies can not stand because they are just that. Even your complete subservience to them is not enough because they will frel and frack w/ you for the pleasure. Let a religious fanatic operate with the weapons and resources of the modern world and all that is ever going to happen is people are going to die. So for anyone who doesn’t get it try these images of terror from history(identify as you wish): al-Queda(AQ) = KKK, AQ = Gestapo, AQ = Khmer Rouge, AQ = Stasi, AQ = Janiss militia
“that the strategic case is sound and the après guerre is going well — is even worth discussing.”
The situation doesnt have to be going well, to say that we’re going to win ultimately, and it will ultimately be worth it.
Those guys are going to be calling Iraq a defeat even years from now when they’re an booming peaceful democracy country like everyplace else the US didn’t quit on. And it’ll be their shame.
“The war has left the U.S. isolated, alone in the West and without allies.”
Mickey Kaus used to have a rule, which might be called Kaus’ Razor: Any article which contains the words “Richard Mellon Scaife” is not worth reading. I’d say that goes double for the fatuous blubbering about the US having no allies. Any article, person, presidential candidate, or organization that parrots this stupid phrase should be considered moonbat and ignored thereafter.
I all seriousness, I would ask Mr. Yglesias which of the following explains his reason for repeating this idiotic sentiment:
1. He deliberately wishes to insult Britain, Israel, Australia, Japan, New Europe, every grown-up in Old Europe with an IQ higher than their body temperature, etc., etc., etc.
2. He suffers from temporary ideology-induced insanity.
3. He thinks words mean nothing, arguments are jokes, and the purpose of discourse is to repeat stupid slogans and generally annoy people.
4. Everything he says is directed at the new Democratic base (which consists mostly of white suburban punks in Che Guevara t-shirts) who are so poorly educated (and/or stoned) that they might actually believe him.
Beatin’ proudly on the chests, are we?
Yeah stupid! We are TOO winning! Dumb heads can’t see it.
Here’s what it will take years to undo. Torture.
The Bushies are like spoiled bullies, completely unable to see why the same rules should apply to them as to others.
The true test of strength is character, not war toys.
Wow, pretty searing attacks on two guys who said absolutely nothing about you guys. And AL, “summarizing” a piece by making up crap from thin air is what we call intellectual dishonesty.
And, when it is pointed out to you by a commenter, the least you could do is admit it rather than ignore it, thus multiplying the dishonesty.
The authors weren’t talking about Armed Liberal. They were talking about Liberal Hawks and specifically Liberal Hawks who’s views on policy are reported on and used to shape public opinion.
That fact that AL chooses to use the work Liberal in his moniker, or apparantly has deluded himself into believinig his blog posts have discernable impact on public opinion, doesn’t qualify him as a subject of the article.
In other words, he doth protest too much.
Are we winning in Iraq? That’s awfully hard to quantify. Will we win in Iraq eventually? That’s possible, though hardly inevitable. Regardless I can assure you that convincing the mainstream media to report that 138,754 US troops survived in Iraq today instead of reporting that 4 troops were killed isn’t going to affect the outcome.
Yossarian, the earliest attribution I’ve been able to find is to Italian fascist Galeazzo Ciano. I doubt that Kennedy read his works but I guess his speechwriters did.
Dave,
The phrase predates even Ciano. Which is he’s quoted as saying “There’s an old saying that victory has 100 fathers…..”
Not that any of this is relevant.
“I believe and still believe most Americans are to racist and stupid to understand that other cultures have rational decision process that conflict with our Judeo-Christian version of law, government, religion and politics.”
Two things to note: First, that while Americans may be stupid and racist, I dare say that they are considerably less racist and stupid than much of the rest of the world. And the inherent flexibility that is part of American culture lets them overcome said racism and stupidity pretty quickly.
Secondly, under a strict understanding, you are correct that other cultures follow “raional decision processes” in a purely scientific way. However, the problem with such societies is that the actors undertaking those decisions are usefully woefully incomplete or inaccurate information. Based on what they know, they are acting rationally. But what they know is often wrong. This inaccuracy of information comes from their culture, with its own views on “law, government, religion and politics.” In a lot of cultures there is a great deal of signal noise that blocks or interferes with valid information. The end result is that many people and leaders in other cultures base their decision on inaccurate information. So they may be rational, but they aren’t necessarily right.
When it comes to Iraq, I still hope everything works out. I really do. However, I am extremely pessimistic. If we succed in Iraq, it will be in SPITE of this administrations planning, not because of it.
There’s so many basic needs we have yet to accomplish: lack of food, lack of electricity, lack of water, lack of fuel, lack of doctors or medicine, lack of security for both Iraqi officials as well as families…. yes we’ve worked hard to solve these problems and we have good intentions, but intentions are irrelevant. Without the basic life neccessities Iraq will not be able to grow.
And then there’s the border, which still is allowing foreign insurgents across. Sure it’s ‘hard work’, but until this problem is solved, it will be impossible to trap and crush the insurgency. The torture thing, of course, is complicated and a dialogue in and of itself.
The one thing we have done well is limit US casualties. A larger problem may be in post-traumatic stress disorder problems, or troop ‘burn-out’ from multiple years in Iraq. These things are a problem, but probably not as dire as our budget. In addition to large spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, our legistlature seems unwilling or unable to cut pork spending at home. We are burning the candle at both ends, and borrowing wrecklessly to do so.
Leaving Iraq, is obviously bad. But how long do we stay? Even if we are winning slowly (I can neither confirm nor deny that statement) how long will it take to bring peace. Can we afford 5 more years? 10? Every day we spend in Iraq is millions we can’t spend on security initiatives at home, or chasing after Al Queda directly. Assuming peace (or at least a reduction in violence) does not come quickly, we will eventually surpass a point where the losses outweigh the gains (though it’s location is arguable).
we are winning the war, we have just had a second election in the country, afghanistan had one two. How do I now they were siginificant, American media has ignored it in comparison to the continual drumbeat of bombings.
We are losing because of one word – torture. please that is not even a joke. Has thier been torture and other unpleasantness. You betcha. has there been in every war that man fights – right again. To hold up a false standard of perfection and then when we fall short offer that as evidence of total failure is absurd. Compare our torture to real torture and we are pikers. I am again missing the beheadings, rape gangs and shredder reports – but I guess I am a neocon so my heads up my a**.
We are winning because we are still there, we have not run away shamefully or set idiotic time tables for withdrawal, declared victory or went home – we are proving UBL and his ilk wrong on all thier counts. It just took a little gumption to ride out the rough spots. To muddle thru, adapt and overcome which is what we do.
Please spare me the lectures on changing rationales, the President has layed out a series of reasons for doing what we are doing, one of which was WMDs. That you fail to understand the argument is no longer my concern. That you reject the argument is meaningless because when the arguments were made (back in 2002 in congress) they were accepted by the majority of the peoples representatives. They were based on the best information at the time with an eye that that the status quo in the middle east served no one, least of all the people living there. We have affected a great deal of change in the middle east in 4 years. The victories we have won far outway prison abuse scandals, incidents of torture and whatever other mistakes we have made.
We are winning and the nattering nabobs of negativity can not change that fact.
Kevin
The American media ignored the elections?
Jeez, where do you get your news? Nickelodean?
AL — the dynamic of any war is escalation, and the war has escalated the tensions within American society.
Democrats have decided that the course of action in response to Islamic terrorism is to do what Clinton (and every other President before him back to Nixon) did. Minimal or no response; ignore the problem or use “outreach” and “sensitivity” plus law enforcement. If action HAS to be taken do what Carter did in Desert One or Clinton did with cruise missiles at some sand dune. Avoid killing anyone at any cost because terrorism is not real and 9/11 did not happen.
Democrats mock the very idea that terrorism could happen and have already stated that any attack would be a conspiracy by GWB. It’s lunatic city. Quite simply PC and Multi-culti require as an article of religious faith that all bad things be done by US white males and no person in a third world country could be evil or a true enemy of anyone.
I think there is a very good chance this view will prevail, Iraq and Afghanistan turned back over to “poor Father Saddam” ala Wyclef Jean and Christianne Amanpour; and some attack on a US city will provoke the very response we both fear. Concomitant to that response will be the evaporation like the Whigs of the Democratic Party as a force in US politics.
But this is not the first time religious faith (PC and multi-Culti ism is a religion) trumped reality. Dems have not been able to process the end of the Cold War and the rise of Islamism. The Soviets no longer restrain Arab terrorism from doing things like nuking US cities.
Davebo
compared to the exhaustive coverage given suicide bombings and the inanae Valerie Plame affair, yes they have ignored the elections. They have ignored the speeches given by the president explaining what we are doing. Nickolodeon probably could do a better job covering the war than the current crop of lightweights on network and cable news. Important stuff is happening in the world and they ignore it, downplay it or distort it
“The true test of strength is character, not war toys.”
That’s true. If we continue our proud history of running away from anyone who fights dirtier than us (Lebanonese terrorists in the 80’s, Somali warlords in the 90’s, now Zarquawi), then you can bet your bottom dollar all the ‘war toys’ in the world won’t mean a damn thing.
The world will know that behind all our million dollar equipment, America is a lost, small, and timid people, when pressed willing to sell out anyone, even themselves, for the illusion that by calling America the only evil in the world, they can ignore the evil actually threatening them.
And the Zarquawis of the world will be reassured that all they have to do is be as horrible as possible, and, like standing up to a boastful coward, Americans will conceed, and retreat, and flagilate themselves in appology as they slink away.
We indeed are in a true test of character. It’s stand or run. Standing takes character, running doesn’t.
Kevin
Exhaustive coverage? There have been 62 coalition casualties this month to date including four yesterday.
http://www.cnn.com
Feel free to look for the exhaustive coverage.
As to publicity surrounding the Plame affair. It seems quite possible that one or more senior administration officials may be facing indictment next week.
That’s not news to you?
Other cultures problems are not a scientific problem. It is a lack of coming to grips with and having a system to carry out what can only be called a reformation. You described the barrier to this as noise. But you have to understand what the noise is to send a canceling signal.
A good example is the possible burning of the dead bodies of the Taliban. An understanding of the religious mores of Islam regarding the dead would have prevent this. Now WE have to deal w/ the potential problem of everyone in Afghanistan turning against us simply because we could not show religious sensitivity. And not respecting someone religion is a form of racism.
The coverage of the Iraq war has focused on casualties and very little has been spent on progress. Its been a yes but, instead of yes, this is historic. Yes I expect the American Press to be American and look for good news to counter balance setbacks and misteps,
As for the valerie Plame affair, (this is not original with me) its quite ironic that all the stories having indictments of top white house officials arfe based on leaks. And yet the leak that set this all in motion was probably not a crime as it was from all reports, fairly well known around town who she was and what she did. So much for covert operative. Its a hit job.
Compare our torture to real torture and we are pikers.
But we don’t compare “our torture” to “real torture”.
We do what’s right and just. We don’t excuse torture on the part of our lads just because Uday was worse.
It was wrong to toss VC out of choppers, even if their side filled mass graves.
It was wrong to bomb German and Japanese civilians even if they did the same.
We have higher standards. That is what makes us who we are.
And in fufilling those higher standards we’re going to bring down Bush and the rotten gang. Maybe not in this decade, though I really want to start winning now.
But history will judge him harshly.
Kevin
“And yet the leak that set this all in motion was probably not a crime as it was from all reports”
Well, I’ll admit the CIA has made it’s fair share of mistakes in the past. But I’m pretty sure that they checked her status prior to requesting that the Justice Department launch an investigation.
And surely the justice department felt there may have been a crime involved when it’s head, attorney general Ashcroft recused himself and appointed a special counsel.
Then again, I have no way of knowing how Nickelodean has been reporting on the subject.
Now that you can buy chinese wisdom in paperback and play warrior in video games, every dipshit who has ever seen the History Channel thinks he has discovered the new Grand Strategy.
The amount of douchebaggery in the comments (from the usual suspects) is astonding
liberalhawk:
The situation doesnt have to be going well, to say that we’re going to win ultimately, and it will ultimately be worth it.
Equally, a Pyrrhic victory doesn’t justify the original intervention.
Glen Wishard:
The war has left the U.S. isolated, alone in the West and without allies.
I all seriousness, I would ask Mr. Yglesias [what] explains his reason for repeating this . . . sentiment . . .
In all seriousness, I would ask GW where in Yglesias’s article he can find that sentiment.
davebo (#17)
In fairness to AL, he didn’t explicitly attribute the “no allies” argument to Yglesias and Rosenfeld, and he might have had some other reason for raising it, than to mislead his readers into attributing it to them. But obviously, as written, it is liable to mislead, and obviously GW at least is misled.
I don’t think you were the target of Yglesias’ article, given your lack of realization that the war was a bad idea.
davebo – My God, forgive me. I didn’t realize that arguments about national policy were personalized; that one party had to call you out by name in order to participate – kind of like the child’s game Red Rover.
It’s obviously irrelevant whether Matt was addressing me in the first post or not; he’s making a point on an issue of national policy about which I’m as qualified as you, or he, to hold and express an opinion.
Is there something unclear about that?
I apologized in the other thread for not clearly distinguishing the canonical argument that Matt didn’t make (America isolated) from the ones he did make. They’re equally specious arguments, and I should have so distinguished them.
A.L.
No matter what we say, we are just “Bushies” or warmongers. So, below are some other non-American opinions.
Handover of the power to Iraqis is frightening but necessary .The first step is always the hardest one. This may become the start of new era in the Middle East. Neighbors of Iraq like Iran do not want to see democracy to be exercised by Iraqis because it will endanger mullahs regime in Iran, people of Iran are watching their neighbor closely.”
The above words were not said by a pro-Bush American or some member of the neo-conservative clan; they came from an *Iranian* living under one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
*From an Egyptian:*
Iraq will succeed. For the sake of Iraq, Iran, the free world, and the future of this dark miserable region, Iraq must succeed. Don’t tell me it cannot be possible. Nothing is impossible. We learned that lesson from Winston Churchill, Anwar Sadat, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush will teach us this lesson one more time. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said that Hitler could be appeased and war avoided. Churchill said no. Arabs said that Egypt cannot have peace with Israel. Sadat said no. John Kerry said that “we cannot fight communism all over the world”. Reagan said no. Today, doomsayers are telling us that Iraq will fail. Goerge Bush must continue to say no. There is no room for failure in Iraq. Success is the only option.
These are only 2 of the many voices coming out of the Middle East. As the person from Egypt said:
_In Egypt people used to be scared to death to talk to each other about the ruling family. Now you name it you have it…Egyptians became more vocal and outspoken._
All I hear from you naysayers here in the US is whining. It is about politics, money or in my opinion, stupidity. The people who are involved in the terrorism are cultists. The ME is run by dictators and the citizens want out. To flat out deny this is stupidity. To flat out deny what the evil terrorists are really and truly about, is stupidity. If you would educate yourself then you would understand the threat that they have been and still are to us. You see, there are alot of us out here who really *do* care about people. That includes the soldiers who are risking their lives everyday. Soldiers who have reinlisted, who have volunteered to go over there or go *back* over there. You disrespect the very people who have sworn to protect you.
Robert: In all seriousness, I would ask GW where in Yglesias’s article he can find that sentiment.
Since everybody is apologizing, I add my apology to AL’s, above. I’m sure Matt Yglesias was as outraged as I was when John Kerry made that statement during the presidential debates. As indeed were all good Americans, and freedom-loving people the world over.
Centuries from now, that broadcast will reach extraterrestrial civilizations. They, too, will be as appalled as you and I.
_Exhaustive coverage? There have been 62 coalition casualties this month to date including four yesterday._
Yep, it’s interesting to note that it’s now the Left that’s fixated on “body counts” as some kind of measure of success or failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t believe me? Tell that to the American Friends Service Committee:
http://www.afsc.org/2000/
Having fund-raising parties to observe the deaths of American troops is nothing short of sick. Hey, just when I think the AFSC has sunk as low as it can go, it goes out of its way to prove me wrong. Way to go, guys.
Therefore, if we apply the Left’s metrics to our own Civil War, shouldn’t Abe Lincoln have started seeking an “exit strategy” in September 1862 after the Battle of Antietam (25,000 casualties on both sides in _one_ day)…or in July 1863 after Gettysburg (50,000 casualties for both sides in _three_ days)…or in September 1863 after Chickamauga (35,000 in _two_ days)…or in July 1864 after Grant took 50,000 casualties in _six weeks_ during Overland Campaign and Confederate General Jubal Early was knocking on the gates of Washington? Well?
After all, who should have willing to die for a few million unlettered Negros (who certainly weren’t considered the equals of whites) and invade a nascent nation that repeatedly said it posed no threat to the Union, but only wanted to go its own way and live under it’s own time-honored traditions?
_Tell me why baby, why baby, why baby why…_
Armed Liberal:
It’s obviously irrelevant whether Matt was addressing me in the first post or not; he’s making a point on an issue of national policy about which I’m as qualified as [davebo], or he, to hold and express an opinion.
True enough.
I didn’t realize that arguments about national policy were personalized . . .
Point is that you “personalized” it, when you describe Rosenfeld and Yglesias as making an argument about “Liberal interventionists (like myself)”, and thank them for the advice on “the advice on how to rehabilitate myself”. In fact the Y&R piece addresses liberal interventionists not like yourself. And the advice they offer, on how best to defend humanitarian interventionism, doesn’t pertain to your defence of the national security rationale.
As far as Rosenfeld and Yglesias on the one side, and Packer, Rose etc. on the other are concerned, the debate’s moved right on past where you are. You’re not engaged in countering R&Y’s arguments, but in questioning the common ground that they share with their present interlocutors. Which is all fair and fine, but it might be better to present it that way.
Glen Wishard:
I’m sure Matt Yglesias was as outraged as I was when John Kerry made that statement during the presidential debates.
I’m sure Matt Yglesias would have been most surprised if John Kerry had said that the war had left the U.S. “without allies”; as I would be if you could show that he ever did say it.
Armed Liberal:
I apologized in the other thread for not clearly distinguishing the canonical argument that Matt didn’t make (America isolated) from the ones he did make.
Why in the other thread not here where it’s relevant? Anyhow, when you state the argument in so crude and exaggerated a form — that the war has left the U.S. “without allies” — you’re knocking down strawmen, not engaging in debate with Yglesias or anyone near him politically.
Robert: In fact the Y&R piece addresses liberal interventionists not like yourself. And the advice they offer, on how best to defend humanitarian interventionism, doesn’t pertain to your defence of the national security rationale.
Explain how Y&R’s definition of “liberal interventionism” rises above “Democrat wars are good, Republican wars are bad.”
What lofty justifications uphold the interventions in the Balkans and Haiti, which are missing from Iraq – and, for that matter, from the first Gulf War (which goes unmentioned)?
Is is that the rationales were plainly and truthfully stated? LIKE HELL THEY WERE. We were told that we were upholding democracy and the rule of law when we risked a bloodbath in Haiti – but the Haitians themselves have since taken a different view. We were told that we would be defending Bosnia from evil Serbian ethnic cleansers, but the situation turned out to be vastly more complicated than that. Fortunately for Clinton, the establishment media performed its usual function of strewing roses in the path of “liberalism”, rather than asking how we wound up fighting the Croatian Army. (BTW – I supported the Bosnia/Kosovo/Former Yugoslavia/Etc. War/Humanitarian Intervention/Whatever.)
But then, I take it that this article is not intended to be a primer on “So You Want to Be a Liberal Inventionist.” That’s why there is no mention of Vietnam, or the Bay of Pigs (which was the occasion that prompted JFK to crib a quote from Count Ciano).
If and when we pull our troops out within the next few years, how long before we hear that the US is racist for doing so?
“Oh, the US can keep its troops in Japan for 50+ years to help out Asians, and can keep troops in Germany for 50+ years to help Causasians, but you can’t have the same commitment to help Arabs, can you?
duh
Causasians = Caucasians
Glen Wishard:
I see you’ve neither withdrawn nor substantiated your claim that John Kerry said the U.S. had no allies.
Concerning R&Y on differentia between Iraq and say Kosovo, a couple of points:
If you want more precise information, no doubt Rosenfeld or Yglesias can supply it to you, if they think it worth their while. In the meantime, you really should put up or withdraw re Kerry.
Robert –
I’ll gladly withdraw my unfair accusation against Kerry, since a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted” (Kerry at Drake U. Law School, Dec 16th 2003)is kind of like saying we have allies.
Your points on Iraq vs. Kosovo are nonsense. There was no “comparable mass slaughter” in Iraq, or are we going to dance around definitions of “on-going”?
It’s really, really funny to see you guys lecture the world on the dangers of democracy. Y&R instead prescribe that we should set up some “feasible” form of government – a point they gloss over pretty quickly, since the sight of so-called liberals prescribing dictatorship for the unimportant people in the world is so unseemly.
The fact is that there is no definition of liberal humanitarian intervention, except that it’s whatever “liberals” do.
bq. I have all kinds of criticisms of things that I wish had not been done or had been done better. I don’t blog about those because – first – I feel like it’s somehow expected of me, and I don’t like rising to that bait, and – second – because I have a finite amount of time to blog, and that’s not how I choose to spend it. Those issues are not, to me, the critical ones today.
Completely aside from the rest of AL’s post, this is the paragraph that completely stumps me. He argues for the war, and sees it implemented, but doesn’t comment on the errors in the prosecution of the war _because_ people somehow expect him, to, y’know, make comments on the results of his favored course of action.
And the war itself is of paramount importance to AL, but the execution of that war – including mistakes that many argue will shut down the war entirely – isn’t “critical”. (But Harriet Meiers is something that _has_ to be talked about.)
…ok…
Somebody want to help me out here? Because this just isn’t making sense to me…
Glen Wishard:
. . . a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted” (Kerry at Drake U. Law School, Dec 16th 2003)is kind of like saying we have allies.
Nah, the point is that membership of the “Coalition of the Willing” is not a prerequisite to being an ally. Britain was a U.S. ally while not participating in Vietnam; Turkey is a U.S. ally while not participating in Iraq.
You have got one point though (ref. comment #15): it was discourteous of Kerry to omit or mischaracterize Tony Blair. To “the coerced, the bought, and the extorted”, he should have added “the deluded”.
Your points on Iraq vs. Kosovo are nonsense. There was no “comparable mass slaughter” in Iraq, or are we going to dance around definitions of “on-going”?
t’s really, really funny to see you guys lecture the world on the dangers of democracy. Y&R instead prescribe that we should set up some “feasible” form of government – a point they gloss over pretty quickly, since the sight of so-called liberals prescribing dictatorship for the unimportant people in the world is so unseemly.
Robert –
This thread is winding to a close, but there are a lot of things here that merit some further discussion in the future. In the meantime, take a closer look at what Yglesias and Rosenfeld said here:
The writers have twisted themselves into a perfect pretzel here, being so desperate to avoid any point of agreement with the Satan Bush and his illegal war on Iraq. So the successful democratization of Germany and Japan (which occurred during military occupation and administration of those countries) was only made possible by Dresden and Hiroshima, says they. Barbaric, says they.
Of course the mass bombings contributed to the defeat of the Axis, but they contributed absolutely nothing to their subsequent democratization. So it would not be helpful, in the present instance, to nuke Baghdad. If a Democratic president (especially one named Clinton) were undertaking the current project in Iraq, Yglesias and Rosenfeld would have no problem realizing this.
We weren’t satisfied with any old successor regime in Germany and Japan. Not with some more tepid form of National Socialism or Bushido fascism, and neither were we satifisfied with just handing power back to the rotten elites who had stood by while those forces drove two great nations insane. We demanded and got something more than that, and the present day occupants of those countries can be very glad we did. Neither should we settle for more Arab National Socialism in Iraq, or support continued Sunni domination in order to appease Sunni terrorits who are waging a war of murder on the internationally recognized sovereign government of Iraq. And by the way, do Iraqis themselves have any say in this?
For sure, the anti-war liberal’s capacity to remedy any sort of injustice is limited indeed. It’s good for a couple of feeble cheers at best, and in some cases not even that. When it comes to doing anything, the excuses and equivocations are beyond belief. So we heard “liberals”, in the long diplomatic wranglings leading up to the war (and by the way, those liberals were little help during the peaceful process, either) saying that it was the responsibility of Iraqis to do something about Saddam Hussein.
BTW the bodies of the Taliban that folks are making such a fuss about were offered to the local Islamics but they were refused. Something about them being Pakistani.
The officer in charge then authorized burning the bodies for sanitation reasons. You know rotting dead bodies attract flies. Then the flies get in your MREs….
The psyops folks came along and then used the burnt bodies for their purposes. Which is an example of economy of force. No exta Taliban were killed for purpopses of taunting the enemy. The two dead were enough.
I will agree that had the psyops guys demanded the burnings for their purposes it would have been wrong. Had we been fighting India it would have been another matter.
Chris,
Errors are part of war. Name one war free of error.
It is the nature of the beast.
Naming or not of errors has nothing to do with winning. You suck up your losses. Improve your tactics. Carry on.
M. Simon-
bq. Naming or not of errors has nothing to do with winning. You suck up your losses. Improve your tactics. Carry on.
This is pretty much completely false: you _cannot_ “improve your tactics” unless you have a solid understanding of what you’re doing wrong. Beyond that, there are multiple levels of feedback loops that allow people – everyone from local field officers to the President of the United States, and his bosses, the US citizenry – to make informed decisions about how things are going.
This kind of free and open examination of error _is the very thing that made the US what it is today_. No, things aren’t perfect, and never have been, but under constant scrutiny, we have a chance to correct errors that might have gone unfixed in a more secretive society.
And for AL, one of the war’s biggest cheerleaders, to opt out of the process… well, it’s a free country, so he can certainly do so if he chooses. But why should anybody listen to his recommendations ever again, if he’s shown in the past that he feels discussing the negative fallout of his favored course of action is somehow unworthy of his time?
Would you do this in business? “I recommend you purchase this particular product – it’ll handle all your needs!” “Well, we went and tried that product, and it only fixed a third of the things you said it would, and furthermore, the product has caused many new problems!” “I don’t talk about those problems because I feel like it’s somehow expected of me, and I don’t like rising to that bait. But your problems _are_ being solved, trust me!”
How long would you stay _in_ business, at that rate?
it’s a shame this topic got so diluted, it started out with great promise….
Glen Wishard:
Since the thread is indeed, as you said, closing, I’ll just say that it’s that you’re grounding your latest arguments in what R&Y actually wrote.
Thanks for this one, mate. I was a bit stuck for a handle for my blog’s essay until I saw your posting.
“Link”:http://exile-blog.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-imperialism-should-be-defeated-and.html