The main problem with Iraq isn’t just the problems in and around Iraq – it is the problems in and around the United States and the Western powers that joined the United States in the war there.
Now many of the antiwar writers – feeling kinda triumphant – have tried to put a stake into this argument. Eric Martin at American Footprints makes the argument that
It appears, however, that I underestimated the desperation of those suffering from Iraq war-related cognitive dissonace. Things have gotten so bad that instead of merely blaming liberals, the accountability-averse are taking to holding a much more inclusive category responsible for the war’s tragic descent.
in support of this, he cites Josh Marshall, who – if you actually click through – actually says
Stanley Kurtz’s excuse: “The underlying problem with this war is that, from the outset, it has been waged under severe domestic political constraints. From the start, the administration has made an assessment of how large a military the public would support, and how much time the public would allow us to build democracy and then get out of Iraq. We then shaped our military and “nation building” plans around those political constraints, crafting a “light footprint” military strategy linked to rapid elections and a quick handover of power. Unfortunately, the constraints of domestic American public opinion do not match up to what is actually needed to bring stability and democracy to a country like Iraq.”
It may be a form of literary grade or concept inflation to call it irony. But the irony of this ludicrous statement is that from the outset it has been the American political opposition (the Democrats) and the internal bureaucratic opposition (sane people in the US government and military, not appointed by George W. Bush) who’ve pushed for a much larger military footprint in Iraq and much more real nation-building. These weren’t ‘domesic political constraints’. These were ideological constraints the adminstration placed on itself.
And I’ve got to say that I agree with Marshall here – at least in large part. The constraints were put on by the Bush Administration. They chose to push back on nation-building, and to emphasize a light, lethal war.
Kurtz seems to suggest that the political constraints drove Bush’s decision on the kind of war to fight. Marshall replies that it was the institutional forces at State and DoD (not to mention the Democratic defense analysts) who supported a bigger footprint and nation-building, and that the Administration rejected them for ideological reasons. I’ll suggest something diferent than either; that the envelope of political support for the war was deliberately kept too small, both by the GOP and the Democrats. And that at the end of the day, the President’s job is to make that envelope big enough to contain the sustained effort needed to win.
He didn’t do so.
Was it for ideological reasons? Maybe, partly. But it was also for reasons that are easier to understand and harder to forgive. Because to achieve and maintain the political coalition necessary to support a larger footprint, and to have acknowledged a longer war would have meant that the pet domestic political goals of the GOP might have had to have been compromised. If guaranteeing a ‘permanent GOP majority’ was more important than setting the stage for winning in Iraq – and in retrospect, that certainly appears to have been the case – there is no one to blame but the White House.
The Democrats don’t get off scot-free; a small coterie of Democrats shared Bush’s concern that the threat posed by the Islamist movement is real and existential. Jane Harman and Joe Lieberman, to name two. The Party seems most interested in punishing them for their shocking! willingness to cooperate with the Administration. After all, winning a war isn’t as important as embarrassing and constraining the Administration.
I find some but not much of what the Administration has actually done horribly objectionable. Abu Ghreib was a tempest in a teapot, brewed by a failed commander and stirred by a reporter looking to relive the glory of his My Lai scoop. There are real, and complex issues about how to treat guerillas and terrorists captured in the course of conflict. They aren’t POW’s in any sense, nor are they criminals – the criminal justice system isn’t well-equipped to deal with the ambiguities created in wartime. It’s hard enough to sort the facts out in certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles – gathering the resources to do so in far corners of the world to a standard that would approximate modern judicial standards is a crackpipe dream. The overall level of brutalization and mistreatment of prisoners is probably lower – and the level of scrutiny higher – than at almost any time in history. Our erstwhile allies – the Europeans – were in fact the coalition of the bought and bribed. By the other side.
What I do find horrible, and hard to forgive, is the inability of the Administration to make the public case for what it was doing, and to open the doors enough to let the public see the surface of what was being done and to support it with arguments that told us why.
This isn’t a new complaint to me. I’ve been saying the same thing since 2002. I’m frustrated and angry that I didn’t make the point more strongly, and that I didn’t follow the line of reasoning to the logical conclusion – that the political support for the Administration and for the war effort would collapse, and that we’d be paralyzed in the face of any new challenges as the political consensus necessary to actually do anything evaporated.
That’s pretty much where we sit today. Some folks may view that as good news, and as many who opposed the war have said with no little satisfaction, the end of the era of American hegemony may be here.
I’m far less convinced that that’s a good thing. I’ll make a case for American and Western hegemony next, but for now want to point out that we’re about to be backed into a situation where – unless the expansionist trajectory the Islamists have been taking suddenly subsides – we’ll be faced with new challenges and very few tools to use to meet them.
There’s always the Duncan Black model of diplomacy:
…it’s you fuck with us a little bit and YOU NO LONGER LIVE BITCHES!
Which is, from the first thing I’ve written on the subject, exactly the situation I want to see us avoid.
I don’t want to be put in a position where genocide is either a reasonable option, or where my fellow citizens are so enraged that they are willing to commit it, and my opposition will be washed away in a tide of rage.
If we don’t find a way to build a national coalition focused more on dealing with the very real problem outside us, we spend it instead struggling with each other for temporary advantage. To quote myself again:
I’m genuinely afraid that the ruling cohort, and those who enable it by participating in the political process, have so much lost touch with the realities that we face that they are incapable of looking at an issue like Iraq, or 9/11, or the economic straits we have spent and borrowed ourselves into as a nation except as a foothold in climbing over the person in front of them. I imagine a small table of gentlemen and -women, playing whist on a train as it heads out over a broken bridge. The game, of course maters more than anything, and the external events – they’re just an effort to distract they players from their hands.
Until we do look outside – at the broken bridge we’re on in Iraq – Iraq will be well and truly f**ked. It’s never too late – but the cost of backing up and fixing things goes up by the day.
Armed Liberal: “The constraints were put on by the Bush Administration. They chose to push back on nation-building, and to emphasize a light, lethal war.”
No, they chose to fight a light, non-lethal war, remember?
From “bombing” Afghanistan with food packages on, we’ve accepted that it’s our responsibility to keep down enemy casualties, both civilian and military. Dead Iraqis and Afghans are our shame, hence the endless debates on how many dead there have been.
Our enemy, Islam, has retained a right, it now seems to be almost an exclusive right, to wage war intended to hurt, harm and conquer those the war is waged against, while we wage war against tyranny, poverty and drugs.
How has that worked out for us so far?
The enemy we are up against is a monstrous system. I want us to win. I am not happy with American defeats at this time or in general.
But I believe we will continue to be at a great disadvantage while we refuse to respect the spirit of war. If the enemy keeps waging real war – indeed holy war of a peculiarly vicious and pervasive sort – while we rely on a new style of war that in effect says:
War is nothing but a continuation of alms-giving, with an admixture of other means.
then I think we are in trouble.
For one thing, the enemy can trump this new style of war with the potent weapon of disgust, which first turned a simple photograph intro an American defeat in Mogadishu.
When war is alms-giving with military means, it can be sustained only so long as the great American public is in a giving mood. It’s easy for the death squads, decapitators and assorted sadists of Allah to wipe the smile right off a generous people’s face, and thereby wipe away a willingness to support war that has been placed on too artificial and insecure a basis to hold up for long against jihad.
DB, I think you’re exactly right.
But there is a big chunk of this country for whom war as alms-giving is the only acceptable war. For whom war in the national interest is a source of shame and horror. These are the sort of people who cheered Bosnia, a true war of choice with little to no significance to American interests (and we’re still there, BTW), but who are horrified at the thought that we might benefit from a war.
So it’s not easy, politically, to revive the spirit of war.
I often thought that the only way for the Dems to get sober wass for them to get behind the wheel.
They are behind the wheel and are sobering up fast.
I certainly don’t want to engage in mindless debate over an article that accuses us of engaging in mindless debate instead of fighting a war!
However, I just ain’t buying that it’s all Bush’s fault. Or the national tone. Last I checked, we paid a whole lot of these people a tremendous amount of money to tell us how to fight wars. They have schools, colleges, long traditions, and budgets that are bigger than the GDP of third world countries.
Bush tells me that he lets the generals fight the war and he gets out of the way. I understand that is open to some debate — perhaps the generals are just “yes men” and take the political temperature and act accordingly. Perhaps generals who don’t “get with the system” are shown the door.
A more nuanced view, however, is that there is a real and important debate that has been going on for decades around how light our armed forces need to be. The winners as of the day Bush took office was the camp that said light and lean.
These guys were smoking crack. Light and lean sounds great on paper, but it is not working for our current geopolitical stance. I think no matter what we think the cause, we can all agree on that point.
My question is very simple: who is covering our bets? So when we went into Iraq, and everybody thought things would work out quickly, who was investing money in case that it didn’t? Because that person would have us another 20K trainers by now, or a better system for vetting Iraqi police, or a footprint in Iraq. Sure, the existing strategy of light and lean is supposed to work like gangbusters, but who’s covering the risk that it isn’t?
I’ll go further: who’s covering the risk that in 2 years we’ll be pulling out of Iraq and need to leave a huge number of trainers behind with little FOBBIT support? Who’s covering the risk that our reserve forces are going to continue to be overused? It’s not enough that we blew it 4 years ago — we continue to blow it. Not only did we bet the farm that we were hot stuff back then, we continue to bet the farm that we can make no mistakes going forward. _Nobody is covering the risk that the national defense strategy might be misaligned._ Politicans would rather argue like those guys playing cards on a train, and the military folks just try to keep the procurement system humming along with as few hitches as possible. Administrations can come and go, but until the people that got all of that money start actually learning how to fight the war we have instead of the war we wanted to have, we’re just going to have the same discussion over and over again.
AL-
You say: “I don’t want to be put in a position where genocide is either a reasonable option, or where my fellow citizens are so enraged that they are willing to commit it, and my opposition will be washed away in a tide of rage.”
But, the other guy is not constrained by such a limitation, their stated goal is our submission or genocide come to visit us. We are long past Atrios’ sentiments. Time for them to no longer live as we are already past the time when anything less could be salvaged.
Uh, wake up and smell the coffee, it is getting stale!
The Hobo
David Blue – typo – should have been “less-lethal” – am correcting it right now.
A.L.
Basically, my assessment from before the invasion of Iraq was that domestic circumstances (whether political conditions outside the beltway or within) would not sustain a military effort that could achieve the presumed objective (a stable, liberal democratic Iraq friendly to the U. S.) in the timeframe required to achieve such a goal OR with the level of force necessary possibly to achieve the goal in a shorter period of time. That’s why I opposed the invasion.
I don’t think it makes a great deal of difference at this point whether it was due to ideology, idiocy, political calculus, or bureaucratic infighting. What happened happened and we’re in the situation we’re in.
M. Simon may be right about the Democratic Congressional leadership “sobering up” now that they’ve got the wheel. That’s what I argued for here.
I think it’s actually probably more likely that they’ll take the position that they’re just helpless bystanders as long as Bush is president.
“I think it’s actually probably more likely that they’ll take the position that they’re just helpless bystanders as long as Bush is president.”
Which is why it is important that members of the press remind the Ds that they campaigned on the Legislative Branch fulfilling its role as an equal branch of government. Now that they have both houses, and all of those leadership committees, I believe the question is: what are you going to do now besides argue the incredibly stupid run-away policy or whine about being helpless? Or in other words: We see the bun, but where’s the beef? Where’s the real leadership? You say Bush ain’t got it, so where is it?
Double penetration can be a difficult thing for any nation. Iraq has problems.
“Light and lean” certainly makes for smashing battlefield victories.
What’s seemed clear to a lot of people at State and DOD was that if we’re going to be in the occupation business, it’s 1) “light and lean” and leave the most of the enemy’s security forces intact, though subordinate – OR – 2) disband the enemy army, and go in heavy enough to fill the vacuum.
I never quite understood – maybe I never read it? – the counterargument that supported the prevailing policy.
If we thought we’d have enough time to rebuild Iraqi forces from scratch, and thus effect de-Bathicisation, how long did we expect unemployed soldiers to go hungry? What was the employment plan that was supposed to fill the gap?
Honest questions.
Bush may not be ‘to blame’ for all these problems (and he’s not), but he is responsible for them. That’s what counts. AL makes a really excellent point- this administration set the political parameters of how we decided to fight in Iraq, and it refused (even till this day) to alter them in any remotely significant way.
Leadership doesnt mean figuring out what you think people will tolerate and then figuring out how to do what you want without upsetting that dynamic. It means convincing people that the political dynamic you are proposing is the correct one for the circumstances. Bush has consistantly refused to do that ever since we crossed the border into Iraq.
Rumsfeld’s role in all of this is a bit different. I wouldnt say that his self-imposed restraints were idealogical- I would say there were purely egotism. Rummy’s number one goal for his tenure was to imprint his idea for a small, light army onto the Pentagon. Thats fine, in and of itself, and all things being equal it was necessary and in peacetime would have been very useful. But in wartime it is sheer madness to have a Secdef that considers his #1 priority to be proving his personal pet project to be correct. It led to willful blindness and the unwillingness to adapt to circumstances out of sync with what he wanted to be true.
_”If we thought we’d have enough time to rebuild Iraqi forces from scratch, and thus effect de-Bathicisation, how long did we expect unemployed soldiers to go hungry? “_
That would be a good question for Paul Bremer. Its overstating things (and somewhat unfair) to lay the biggest chunk of the blame for the schizofrenia in Iraq at that point at Bremer’s doorstep, but without question the policy decision embodied in his appointment was one of the bigger blunders of the war. Basically everything Garner and the Pentagon had spent their time arranging was undone on Bremer’s _first day_ on the job. Worse, if you take a lot of the first hand reports seriously, it was done in a rather offhand, ill informed manner that smacked of Bremer trying to put his stamp on the situation for its own sake.
Bremer’s defensiveness on his tenure notwithstanding (and even he cant seem to explain why he made most of his early decisions), that was a major turning point in the occupation. The Sunnis suddenly felt the rug pulled out from under them after a tentative understanding had been reached (debaathification was a much bigger mistake than disbanding the already disbanded army). Bremer can’t take too much of the heat- the people that sent him over never gave him (or anyone) the kind of authority needed. Its no wonder we’ve had such a slipshod fruit salad of policies in Iraq considering no-one has ever been completely (or even mostly) in charge. Someone with political and military control answering only to the President should have been (and still is) a no-brainer. History proves that conclusively.
Here’s my current theory about Bremer.
I think this all boils down to a lack of communication. When the national command authority asked the pentagon if they could “take Iraq”, they took those words to mean using high explosive, precision-guided weapons and light (by historical norms) ground forces removing Saddam from any control over his nation. This mission was accomplished in short order. Bush was right: the mission was accomplished. Kudos to those involved.
When Bremer took charge of Iraq, he thought we had “taken Iraq”, which in his mind meant total occupation and control over every aspect of the nation, from police forces to infrastructure to border security. So he started making changes assuming he had the entire reigns in his hands.
The problem is that armed forces are extremely complex and dynamic things. If you ask a simple question, like “can we remove Saddam from power” you are likely to get a simple answer, like “yes. Easily” While a true statement, it’s nowhere near sufficient enough. This argument is a strong case for putting a military person in charge, as we did in Japan, not a diplomat.
We are using the same words and phrases to mean completely different things. When Pace says we can still “fight another war” if necessary, I’m curious as to what exactly that means. It sounds good, and I know the general is not lying, but the phrase only carries a good feeling — not much meaning.
This is also, coincidentally, why I put more blame on the JCS for any problems we might be having in Iraq. At the national political level, we are forced to work in slogans, whether we like it or not. The JCS know better. I believe their job is provide consultantive services in support of the constitution to translate “fuzzy” things into concrete things. It appears those services were suboptimal.
God, you guys. What it all comes down to is your pride–you just don’t want to admit that your initial support for the war was a mistake, so you have to rationalize somehow that it is all someone else’s fault. You even manage to blame the Democrats who had nothing to do with it! No, to this crowd it’s all about Will to Win! Get over yourselves. Believe it or not, it is possible to be wrong about a war.
The real tragedy isn’t that the suckers who supported the war have to admit that they erred. The real tragedy is what is happeninng in Iraq and Afganistan because of the ineptitude of this administration and the hubris of the war supporters. If you guys hadn’t been irresponisble enough to support the invasion of Iraq, we might have been able to succeed in Afganistan. Your ego-centered approach to foreign policy and your need to feel mighty has lost us the war we really needed to fight.
What makes you think we’d be on the verge of success in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is a landlocked nation; the only ways we can even get supplies in is overland through the ex-Soviet Union, which is mildly hostile to our presense, and through Pakistan, which not only charges us for the privelige, but is the main supplier of the Taliban.
Pakistan is a large, populous nation with a population of a couple hundred million, armed with nuclear weapons and ICBM’s. I’m unsure what another division (that we’d be stretched to keep supplied) would be able to do about Pakistan, which is the real source of the problems in Afghanistan.
Thanks, mycat. I’d forgotten that it is really about deep feelings of inadequacy: I’d foolishly presumed it was about our people being killed.
I’ll try and keep in mind when I go get my soma this week…
AL
mycat wants to say the war was wrong, the supporters were wrong. All wrong! And if you try to look at attitudes and policies, why, you’re just covering up!
It is precisely this attitude — the war was wrong, supporters were wrong, and we should leave ASAP — that is as bad as “stay the course”. It’s just the reverse, and it’s wrong for the same reasons.
I especially like the phrase “…the suckers who supported the war..” as if somehow armed conflict were the equivalent of buying a used car.
For the record, mycat, I supported the war, I support the current armed conflict (which is not a war) in Iraq, and I support staying on in some fashion. If one supports a war, you should be willing to go yourself or send others, you should be willing to take responsibility for innocents killed, and you shouldn’t change your mind simply because some people won an election or some cars blew up.
BTW, Lindsey Graham was awesome on Russert on Sunday.
Having said all of that, that doesn’t mean we can’t try to make things better. Perhaps leaving to some degree is the right thing to do. In fact, this sort of “neener neeener” attitude is preventing the self-correction we need. Part of the political reason it’s so hard for any administration to change course is the chorus of nimwits on the sidelines yelling “See! I told you so!” As long as there are people who are convinced that we are losers, we will be losers. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Did we learn anything from the past?
Not a bad article. No egregiously apparent flaw.
The commentors here who don’t recognize, that, the Bush administration, despite the rhetoric, didn’t really prep the nation (or even the military) for the execution of a much more effective “war”, are simply blind, so it’s good of you to point that out. Bush’s exhortation to “go shopping and let’s cut taxes”, are not adequate responses to preparing for a “serious” war.
A.L., the biggest issue, of course, between Iraq hawks (which you are)and those not, is this issue of how to deal with what I can agree to call, Islamic fascism.
You guys see what happened on 9/11, as the start of WW4. I guess you guys “feel this in your gut”, or recognize this in some manner. But I simply cannot see this – at least as of yet. The evidence for this is not there.
And the “solutions” that you guys talk about – such as invading Iraq – simply CREATE the conditions that make a WW4 mentality more likely. As Mubarak said, the invasion of Iraq “births 1000 Bin Ladens”.
This ISN’T to say that the rise of the “Islamic with a grudge” mindset, in various countries, isn’t dangerous. It is. And what is required is a tough, clear-minded approach to deal with this mindset, that will oppose with military might WHEN APPROPRIATE, and with other, smarter, tools when not.
That particular “Islamic with a grudge” mindset is currently both:
a SUBSET of attitudes within Islamic countries
a lower level priority, that take a backseat to other priorities, in terms of acting on the grudge, even within those countries that DO have that mindset. (Sunni versus Shiite being another priority, practical dictatorship being another priority, etc). Meaning, there is still only a small population base within Islamic countries that ACT as if creating an Islamic empire is the most important thing.
Contra-indications to the global Islamic War mindset as a MAJOR WW4 type threat:
a. Turkey
b. Indonesia
c. Lack of a country that is a military threat, comparable to 30’s Nazi Germany, or Cold War U.S.S.R
Even Iran, clearly an Islamic country, has been shown to act LIKE a normal country, clearly acting as a rational actor doing things to improve its own position on the world stage.
So really – the WW4 mentality is ABSOLUTELY LACKING in any type of cohesiveness, military threat, or stable base of operations.
Not only that, but in the cheering section, the veering from the WW4 types, between celebrating democracy – viva Orange Revolutions! – up with Purple Thumbs! – to the desire to bomb indiscriminately – do a Dresden on Anbar! – Clear out the Swamp! Bomb Lebanon! – is almost split-personality in its nature.
So what is the response from you WW4 types? Despite the triumphalism and panicky assertions of the threat, the confident predictions of the last 4 years have turned out to be WRONG WRONG WRONG.
And the policy advocated from this wrongness ABSOLUTELY a break from the fairly “successful Acheson tradition”:http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/01/bush_foreign_policy_how_deep_is_the_failure
_The signal feature of this administration has not been merely its incompetence, but its rejection of the principles on which U.S. foreign policy was built after the Second World War. The administration’s strategy has been based, instead, upon four ideas: the primacy of force; the preservation of a unipolar order; the unbridled exercise of U.S. power; and the right to initiate preventive war in the absence of immediate threats_
So you guys don’t have a good track record.
So I have a request.
It’s time to STOP issuing sweeping declarative pronouncements of WW4. It’s time to get more evidentiary. It’s time to stop celebrating democracies progress in the M.E., and then when those democracies don’t elect the people who agree with the U.S., see that same democracy as evidence of a global Islamic movement.
It’s time to stop living a fantastical Lord of the Rings saga, with you behind the typewriter helping out Aragorn, best as you can, to sound the clarion call to bomb the Trolloc hordes.
That self-image is a beautiful thing – hey, I understand. But it is completely divorced from reality.
At any rate, do realize this. There are very good reasons why people do not buy into the “WW4 global Islamic threat – ACT NOW” – and it is time you guys acknowledge that the people who believe that way have good reasons for thinking the way we do.
On the other hand, if you guys continually do the Sky Is Falling act, without an evidentiary basis – you will simply be discounted as nutcases. And at some point – finally – the Sky Is Falling may need to be heard.
hypocracy –
Great and substantive comment. I disagree – strongly – in a few places, but it’s the basis for a potentially great discussion.
After work hours…
A.L.
HR — best post of yours in a while.
Aside from the huge brush which you use to paint everyone from reluctant war supporters to the armchair Pattons among us (which I resent and it makes you look lazy) I believe your argument cuts both ways.
3000 folks died on 9-11. To me, based on past history, this is an indication that the sky is, indeed, falling. That is, we should mobilize and start re-arranging large parts of the map.
Now. I certainly can understand some of us who have a higher tolerence for these things. The people that attacked us on 9-11, in fact, kept saying they were at war with us throughout the 80s and 90s. We, following HR’s guidelines, politely ignored them and treated it mostly as a police matter. So the other side kept escalating until they finally got our attention on 9-11.
Is any of this debatable? I don’t believe so. To me it seems like the most rudimentary view of recent history.
So if 9-11 wasn’t enough for the sky to be falling, then HR, please tell us what _is_ enough? It’s all fine and well to say “You guys are over-reacting, that was not worth the the reaction you are giving it.” but you are then constrained by logic to provide an example of what you think IS enough.
Nobody (at least not most people) is saying that some Islamic nation is going to rise up, governed by a Caliphate, to attack us in WWII fashion. So if that is the template you are using for “when is the sky falling”, then you’re going to have a long wait, punctuated by pieces of the sky continuing to fall. I want to hear from you how many people have to die in terrorist attacks before we should begin getting more serious about this. Thirty thousand enough for you? Want to wait until we lose a city? And then will you say, “thank goodness I waited until this was serious enough to call for this reaction.” or will you say “who can I blame for not protecting us from this catastrophe?”
I wonder.
A Winner!
Folks, we have a winner for the most pathetic Bush excuse yet competition. Please stop calling now.
You guys see what happened on 9/11, as the start of WW4.
No, I see Munich, 1972, as being the approximate start of WW4. It just took us a while to catch on. When our enemies were just killing Jews in the ME (1948, Suez, 6-day, etc), we could ignore them (not a terribly moral position, but a practical one), but once they started playing on “our” turf (doubly so when “our turf” became the US embassy in 1979), we should have landed on them like a ton of bricks. Fight in your crappy “refugee camps” all you want, but don’t try any extra-territorial crap.
Now, that’s not to say the Iraq war was well conceived or executed, or that I wouldn’t have preferred considerably more muscular rhetoric from Bush from day one (I would have been on TV urging young men to sign up that very day).
Just that we’ve been at war a long time now, and our enemies only seem to be getting bolder. Time to stomp on them, good and hard.
“Folks, we have a winner for the most pathetic Bush excuse yet competition. Please stop calling now.”
Davebo. The key phrase was “any administration”
And I’m not excusing anything. I am simply explaining why ANY administration has problems with course reversals. It’s simply modern politics. I didn’t say I liked it or even approved of it, I was simply explaining it. An excuse is something where one says “everbody does it therefore it is okay if I do it” — Remember that lying in court affair from old whatshisname? That was an excuse. I’ve repeatedly said the voters should take the Rs and the Bush administration to the woodshed. So I’m saying it’s NOT okay. That’s not an excuse.
Let me know if you ever figure out the difference.
Now. I certainly can understand some of us who have a higher tolerence for these things. The people that attacked us on 9-11, in fact, kept saying they were at war with us throughout the 80s and 90s. We, following HR’s guidelines, politely ignored them and treated it mostly as a police matter. So the other side kept escalating until they finally got our attention on 9-11
If only Bush hadn’t cut taxes, we could all learn to love him and his crazy war.
There is ample precedent. Lincoln dogmatically pursued his domestic agenda in the face of civil war: railroads, canals, national banks, disbursement of public lands, tariffs. Many Northern Democrats complained that they had in good faith embraced the cause of national unity, but were being forced to quietly abide the dismantling of the Jacksonian system.
The thing is, Lincoln thought his domestic policy was good for the nation, whether in war or in peace. I assume the same is true with Bush. The Northern Economy flourished during the civil war with people getting out of debt, wages increasing, and new business booming. Its not a small part of the ultimate victory.
For those upset with Lincoln’s domestic policies, three choices existed: Support the war unconditionally (the “War Democrats”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Democrats ), demand immediate peace (the “Copperheads”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_%28politics%29 ), or exist in quietude, hoping for a change in circumstance. Its never been clear to me that had Lincoln been less aggressive domestically that the breakdown of these groups would differ considerably. Many Democrats simply did not like Lincoln or his politics or his perceived views on race or slavery or the possibility that his success in the Civil War might be part of a permanent realignment of American politics.
I don’t think raising taxes would make one iota of difference to people’s perceptions of this war or the President. Success would make a difference and I think Daniel Markham asks a lot of good questions (#4) about how serious this administration or Congress is in succeeding.
Is it insensitive to express the opinion that i’m glad the thousands of jihadis including many hundreds of suicide bombers are blowing themselves up in Iraq instead of Boston (or Rome? Or Tel Aviv?)I absolutely dont think Iraqi lives are worth less than others, but I do think if these jihadis are intent on killing people it may be preferable that they are targetting people of vaguely their own community who have a chance to stop them, if they really decide they want to. Arabs need to figure out exactly what kind of world they want to live in, and maybe this is a good opportunity for them to look their societies in the face.
Hypocracy makes a strong argument. I disagree on most counts, but he lays out the debate we need to have (and my side needs to win). If i say Iraq was a good idea that has been so badly executed it only appears to have been a hopeless endeavor, I better be able to back it up.
One way of doing that (in my opinion) is by strongly pointing out all the things that were done so brazenly, stupidly, and inflexibly wrong. Especially those that anyone with a working knowledge of history should never make. That certainly doesnt prove that any course of action had the potential for success, but at least it provides a seperate rationale for why we are where we are. The good news is that many of us were screaming about these mistakes in real time (and have the google records to prove it), so we arent just talking about hindsight here.
But i would ask hypocracy (and anyone else who wants to join in) if i’m right about my first paragraph. Have we changed the field of the fight? For better or for worse, things are blowing up in Baghdad and Kabul, and not Manhattan over the last 5 years.
Re: #2 from Rob Lyman: thanks for the kind words.
Unfortunately, I think you’re exactly right too.
–
#4 from Daniel Markham: “The winners as of the day Bush took office was the camp that said light and lean.
These guys were smoking crack. Light and lean sounds great on paper, but it is not working for our current geopolitical stance. I think no matter what we think the cause, we can all agree on that point.”
Only partly, alas. I am still an admirer of the Rumsfeld military revolution.
I agree that it is not working for our current geopolitical stance. However, I think that stance is fatally flawed anyway. Armed forces better aligned to it would be under less strain but still in a blind alley, and there would be no good alternatives on offer.
Rumsfeld’s army did brilliantly in the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, which I think was the only part that could have gone right. After that, I think cultural factors influencing the native populations and their neighbor pointed to unfavorable outcomes.
That means George W. Bush’s idea to make friends of our enemies by freeing them from their tyrants and giving them the vote doesn’t work well enough. Which means we’re in for an awful fight.
Rumsfeld did his best to make a sharper sword for America. It has not been well suited to the role of a serving tray to give the enemy good things. I think America will need that sharp sword. The enemy is not going to be appeased, whether we serve up the goodies expertly or inexpertly.
–
#6 from Armed Liberal: “David Blue – typo – should have been “less-lethal” – am correcting it right now.”
(laughing ruefully) I make so many typos myself I have nothing to say on that one.
–
#10 from Wastelandlive: “”Light and lean” certainly makes for smashing battlefield victories.”
Yes it does, and that’s why I’m still all for it.
#10 from Wastelandlive: “What’s seemed clear to a lot of people at State and DOD was that if we’re going to be in the occupation business, it’s 1) “light and lean” and leave the most of the enemy’s security forces intact, though subordinate – OR – 2) disband the enemy army, and go in heavy enough to fill the vacuum.
I never quite understood – maybe I never read it? – the counterargument that supported the prevailing policy.”
George W. Bush’s counter argument can be summed up in his three famous words: “Let freedom reign!”
I don’t think it’s possible to understand the military policies of George W. Bush unless you accept that, far more than most politicians, he means what he said.
The aim was never to conquer and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, but to liberate them from their tyrants. Then, like a volcano of liberty-loving passion at last uncapped by the removal of the thin layer of tyrants and henchmen blocking progress, the people empowered would explode with democratic civic-mindedness. They vote and self-organize, of course using some American help in technical matters (like how do you arrange the counting of votes in a national election?), but this could not be an imposed “made-in-America” democracy, it could only be an authentic, native creation of the liberated people’s own love of freedom.
Had Afghans and Iraqis acted like American founding fathers liberated from some tyrant’s yoke, this would have worked. De-Ba’athification (which I still think was the right idea) would not have been a problem. The amount of financial and general help the Americans and other allied countries were ready to put in would have been more than sufficient to cover any teething issues in the new democratic state.
If the people want to loot, and tear up and steal the copper cables from their own electricity systems, and blame the Americans for the lack of electricity, and launch attacks on any Americans trying to repair the damage, and join up with jihad forces because dammit the Americans still aren’t giving us free goodies faster than we can steal or destroy them, then George W. Bush’s theory doesn’t work so well.
If the people are so prejudiced that you make more enemies than friends just by being there, then “power to the people! (right on!)” is an unworkable policy.
The evidence from Afghanistan and Iraq generally shows that this is the situation we are looking at.
So: “What’s seemed clear to a lot of people at State and DOD was that if we’re going to be in the occupation business…” (My emphasis added.)
That “if” was never accepted. The alternatives are: rely on the people’s innate love of freedom, or be ready to break it and not own it. Which latter option is how war has been fought since apes stood upright and started to spread out across the globe.
I agree with AL that we’re f’ed, but for another reason: We aren’t fighting all our enemies. I see three enemies that we’ve given almost completely free reign: Iran, Syria, and the media.
The first two have funneled tons of equipment, thousands of personnel, and many millions of dollars into Iraq to destabilize it. They’ve provided training and safe haven. The US has done nothing effective to shut down the borders and make both of those countries regret their participation. (Conversely, the Stockholm Syndrome suffers of the Iraq Study Group think they’d make swell best friends!) They’ve dominated the battlefront, and until we directly engage them and take out their capabilities we will continue to sink deeper into the morass.
The media have actively worked against American interests by becoming both the propaganda arm of the enemy (the daily drumbeat of American casualties, the fake stories written by the AP, Newsweek, et. al), and the counter-intelligence capability (frequent disclosures of the secret methods and tactics used to observe our enemy).
The Pentagon should have, from day one, used the Internet (websites, podcasts, YouTube, etc.) to focus on the humanitarian successes we’ve achieved. Instead, they’ve tried to shut down war bloggers who are more effective at getting out a winning message. They’re in the tough position of effectively serving two masters: the elected officials, but also the “power behind the throne” of the American people. If they (and they have) let the poisoned press capture the ear of the people, the elected officials will follow suit and will make us lose.
Neither of the parties have the leadership nor the stomach to do what needs to be done to win, thus we will lose.
Ha, I missed Donald’s subsequent post while I was composing mine! Great minds and all…
Buying the prewar propaganda about Iraq was the equivalent of buying a lemon from a used car dealer. You should have known better. So should all the other people who continue to rationalize how the war in Iraq was a good idea.
The bottom line in your post is that Bush’s salespitch wasn’t good enough. Baloney. Better wrapping paper doesn’t improve the quality of the present. You are just indulging in an elaborate exercise in rationalizing.
A bipartisan approach to the question of what to do now would be great, but an intellectually honest array of options and an intellectually honest assessment of the options isn’t going to come from people who can’t face up to the fact of the initial mistake. The people who are still claiming that we were right to go in are just as involved in political angling and positioning as anyone else and the motivation-saving face- isn’t exactly pure. So the point of your post-that Bush should have sold a bigger war, and we can’t decide what to do now because of all the mean people who are pointing out how mistaken the war supporters have consistantly been about nearly everything– is just your way of angling and positioning. We can’t decide what to do now if we don’t stop conning ourselves about the situation in which we and the Iraqis find ourselves.
The order to disband the Iraq army did not originate with Paul Bremer, it originated in the Pentagon. The thought that Bremer was given that level of carte blanche runs counter to everything we’ve learned about Rummy’s involvement in the process.
This is an account of Jay Garner’s same-day meeting with Bremer on the subject (as recounted in Woodward’s book):
Garner headed immediately to Bremer’s office, where the new occupation leader was just settling in, and on the way ran into the CIA chief of station, referred to here as Charlie.
“Have you read this?” Garner asked.
“That’s why I’m over here,” Charlie said.
“Let’s go see Bremer.” The two men got in to see the new administrator of Iraq around 1 PM. “Jerry, this is too deep,” Garner said. “Give Charlie and I about an hour. We’ll sit down with this. We’ll do the pros and cons and then we’ll get on the telephone with Rumsfeld and soften it a bit.”
“Absolutely not,” Bremer said. “Those are my instructions and I intend to execute them.”
Garner, who will shortly be going home, sees he’s making little headway and appeals to the CIA man, who “had been station chief in other Middle East countries,” asking him what will happen if the order is issued.
“If you put this out, you’re going to drive between 30,000 and 50,000 Baathists underground before nightfall,” Charlie said…. “You will put 50,000 people on the street, underground and mad at Americans.” And these 50,000 were the most powerful, well-connected elites from all walks of life.
“I told you,” Bremer said, looking at Charlie. “I have my instructions and I have to implement this.”
The chain of command, as we know, goes through Rumsfeld, and Garner gets on the phone and appeals to the secretary of defense, who tells him that the matter is out of his hands:
“This is not coming from this building,” [Rumsfeld] replied. “That came from somewhere else.”
Garner presumed that meant the White House, NSC or Cheney. According to other participants, however, the de-Baathification order was purely a Pentagon creation. Telling Garner it came from somewhere else, though, had the advantage for Rumsfeld of ending the argument.
Well, mycat, thanks…since I predicted that it would be a long, hard war and that we’d want to quit around election time, and that we’d have to continuously figure out how to do cultural as well as physical rebuilding – that means my predicion average is right around 100%, so obviously I have a strong position of authority to argue from.
As opposed, for example, to the idea that we should all freely discuss the arguments that everyone makes and come to conclusions based on the arguments and supporting facts.
A.L.
On 9/12, the American people would have made almost any sacrifice to clean out the Taliban. Indeed, to date the American people have accepted a number of policies whose grounding in “security” strikes me as pretextual, such as all the barefoot people and confiscated toothpaste at the airport. (What ever will happen if a hijacker hides contraband in his or her underwear?)
But Bush and Rove made a number of decisions that, five long years later, have finally been seen as the errors they are. First was maintaining Rove’s 50 percent plus one strategy. But second was refusing to modify the domestic agenda. What PD Shaw misses is that while Lincoln’s domestic agenda might have been politically awkward for War Democrats, Bush’s tax-cut and no increase in the size of the military agenda rendered a more serious and capable effort flat-out impossible. As it is the economy suffers under unnecessarily large deficits. Somewhere in here I should wedge the crony-capitalist mess of our failed, but expensive, reconstructions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, although I can’t tell just where it should go.
When it came to Iraq, however, as opposed to Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was faced with a small—well, not so small—problem. Namely, while they had various public reasons, which have over the past years entered and exited the scene as convenient, even then they must have feared that many of them were inaccurate verging on lies, and the ones that were true were unlikely to generate much enthusiasm. (Please forgive my inability to link because of the web site filter in the following.) Our treatment of the UN Inspectors doesn’t look like we were so sure of the WMD, chasing them out before they could finish. And nothing was done to draw any conclusions from the UN inspectors’ failure to find anything at various sites for which we had given them location at the level of GPS coordinates. That’s not surprising, of course, since our information was so much com-man crap packaged up by Ahmad Chalabi. On the other hand, it wouldn’t have been that easy to ask Americans to die under the Cheney belief, picked up from Victor Davis Hanson, that great leadership could only be established in wartime. It’s true that Michael Ledeen and Jonah Goldberg spoke of how the USA should demonstrate its power every decade or so by beating up on some small country, but I don’t think that was a political winner either. The real reason that the White House came down so hard on Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson was not some security breach, but that the entire Iraq policy, from the entry into the war to the abrogation of the Bill of Rights to staying the same course in the presence of indicators of catastrophe was predicated on the omniscience and wisdom of the Administration, and most particularly the President, and Wilson had said in so many words that the Emperor was butt-naked.
Howard Dean couldn’t even get himself through the second month of the Democratic Primaries but to listen to people like Kurtz he was a man of such tremendous puissance he could stop the Administration and its exceptionally pliant Republican Congress dead in their tracks. It’s nice that Armed Liberal at least recognizes that this implausible story line should be rejected, that the War Party managed to get lost, and to lose the war, all on its own.
I’ve got a better one.
On 9-12, if you had told the average citizen: we’re taking out Afghanistan and then going after Saddam for this, then my contention is that most would have been very supportive.
Continuing, if you went into the “rest of the story” — ie, WMD, bad Bush policies, you pick your political narrative and make it as anti-Bush as you like — most folks would look at you like you were crazy and said something like “We’re in a war, man! Get a grip on yourself!”
That’s not saying that there weren’t major screw-ups. But we are an impatient bunch, and I bet half of those who would have shook you to your senses on 9-12 are the same ones who spout the new narrative about how we should never have gone into Iraq. In my opinion those people should be ashamed: either for being so easily emotionally swayed on 9-12 or being so fickle that their view of war is based on what idiot is in the White House or how much it costs.
#31
I think there’s an awful lot of truth in what you have to say. I think what’s missing is some humility from the people who write this blog and comment on this blog. We’ve had a steady diet of Krauthammer-manque disdain from people who have been awfully wrong for an awfully long time. And frankly some self-flagellation is in order. As recently as a couple of weeks ago WoC was focusing obsessively on John Kerry’s bad joke and refusing to admit to reality on Iraq.
I’ve done my own self-flagellation. I supported the war. I thought from the start it was a 51/49 proposition and I’ve done my share of breastbeating for the facile way in which I called for other men’s sons to die in what I fully expected to be a mismanaged mess. 51/49 and an insouciant “what the hell,” are not a justification for war.
Mea culpa.
That having been said, it was not immoral or evil to hope that we could bring liberty to people who had been in bondage. We wanted to be like the generation who liberated Auschwitz and Dachau. Call it a hero fantasy, have a gentle laugh at our naivete if you want, but understand that it’s not a bad thing to want slaves to be free. I hope there will never be a day when Americans won’t smile and raise a toast to mark the death of a tyrant.
There was nothing wrong with wanting to bring down a mass murderer. And there was nothing wrong with wanting to extend to Iraq the same liberty we have. The wrong was in screwing it up, not taking it seriously, and now, compounding the misery of the Iraqi people.
And along the way a great wrong was done by supporters of the war who refused to listen to valid, patriotic criticism. Had people like those here paid more attention earlier we might still have averted this tragedy.
So, to Armed Liberal: good post. You’re pretty much right. But I think it’s time to drop the consdescension once and for all.
Look. Apologies for the serial comments, but some of these posts are really ticking me off.
It seems from listening to some that you can only have it one of two ways: the first way is that the war was a good idea until wham! We lost all of those soliders, mismanaged it, debathificated the civil service — pick your mistake(s). This is “the price is too high” crowd.
The other way is that it was a dumb idea to begin with and still is a dumb idea. This is the “what were you idiots thinking” crowd.
Since I supported our actions, you idiot-callers can call me an idiot. We can just continue to disagree on whether it was a good idea or not ad infinitum. That’s a non-starter.
For those “cost too high” people, please tell me how much is too much? I simply do not understand this mindset. If we lost 3000 people, is that okay? How about 30K? How about 300? What’s the level at which the cost is too high? Do you have a number, or are you just reading the national press and the mood of the nation and jumping on the “me too” wagon? Sounds like “Hey — a few years ago when everybody thought it was great, I did too, but now that the press coverage has gone south…”
To say we made mistakes we need to fix, that’s one thing. To say we might need to redeploy to meet our goals of a stable, secure, and free Iraq is fair enough too. But for the same people to say the cost is too high and we need to cut our losses and leave, when they used to support the war? Well you can just go jump in a lake. I don’t know about you and yours, but I don’t make decisions to support a war based on popularity contests, the budget, or the ability of our armed forces or our current administration. If it is worth fighting over, it is worth fighting over. It’s a god-awful decision to send troops into battle. How dare you boil that down to “you war supporter guys need to wake up and smell the coffee”. I am awake, and I’m smelling the coffee. There have been a series of Charlie Foxtrots since we went into Iraq, so let’s deal with them instead of turning this into an “I told you so” contest.
I’m not trying to be defensive, but I refuse to either say everything is perfect or the whole enterprise is screwed. The goals were and still are the appropriate goals. Let’s go make them happen.
takhallus –
Condescension? Toward whom?
And self-flagellation isn’t on the menu. If you need to see it before you’re willing to talk to someone, you’re in the wrong place.
A.L.
Daniel
We’re not going to make them happen. It’s over.
A.L.:
Arrogance should be earned. You haven’t earned it.
Um, arrogance where and how?
A.L.
A.L., its just projection on his part.
A.L., I’m not that interested in self-flagellation. But some self-analysis of whether there was anything you missed in supporting the Administration for so long might be useful, as would be a healthy dose of skepticism about claims from the unrepentant and unenlightened. There do seem, for example, to be commenters here who believe the biggest problem in Iraq is the biased press that isn’t reporting on the prevalent good news.
Well, Andrew, in the last two posts, I’ve pointed out two – which I happen to think are the two most significant – our (including my) overemphasis on the form of elections over the work of creating civil society, and Bush’s unwillingness to do the political work necessary to build the runway to accomplish what he set out to do – and my unwillingness to take that issue seriously enough.
In addition, I’ve been pretty scathing (and even sent a letter to the Whie House, no answer, sadly) about Bush’s cutoff of reconstruction aid.
I think my record’s pretty clear, and don’t see a lot in it that I feel compelled to run away from or justify. There are certainly places where I’d run time backward and suggest different things, or suggest things more strongly.
But given the core beliefs about the world – which are as yet not disproven – I’m kinda stuck where I am.
A.L.
You can’t have it both ways and really need to look deeper into Black’s arugment.
Today the History Channel had little known stories about the secret weapons of the South in the Civil War.
(Last first. The worst terror attack of the Civil War and worst US terror attack prior to 911 was the sinking of the Sultana with a Coal Torpedo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_torpedo )
The show discussed how the Southern Prez had agreed to begin production of a poison gas to kill first the congress and then large numbers of citizens using spys and agents instead of tracable uniformed troops. What saved the North was that Richmond fell two weeks after the decision and the South was reduced to confusion. They then go on to discuss one of the prime reasons Richmond fell when it did was the demoralization of Dixie’s troops upon learning of the destruction SHERMAN was waging on their homes and families. So one conclusion is that when at war it should be as swift as possible so the enemy can’t try stuff. Something we have forgoten since WW-II – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc.. not being swift. Now even Israel has this SLOW disease – no six day wars for them. It’s not PC.
PC rules are designed to lose!
Then back up and consider why WAR?
Why? Because nothing else works and all other methods and rules need to be thrown in the trash. If that is the case then one is stupid to add rules to it. War is something so horrible that it must by nature be brutal. If you can’t be brutal then don’t attempt it! Seriously.
Its sort of like the idiots who with our food distribution system get distracted from what it is that they eat – living stuff be it animal, veg or fungal and then start adding rules to it because it arrives in neatly wrapped packages and they disassociate from the source. Same for protesting SUVs using fuel while flying in on a private jet that burns more on that trip then my SUV would burn in several lifetimes.
Same for throwing blood on fur and leather wearers while wearing a polyester coat that will still exist and fill a landfill 15,000 years from now while the leather and fur will have long since rejoined the eco-cycle.
Then we need to discuss business and the structure of society.
The current forms do not deal with conflict well. Esp. the greed and stupidity aspects. Maybe shutting down Harvard, Yale and the Chicago School of Biz would make major improvements in that aspect. (As an older laid off telcom engineer I have no respect for their theories that deny work to native workers and gut our infrastructures in the name of Free Trade.. another name for looting by the wealthy without respect to the culture that made their wealth possible.)
War has to be a FULL SPECTURM FULL SOCIETY THING. It can’t be just a service thingy…
I have a lot more to say but I think both parties and the biz leaders should all be forced into the frontlines as grunts. Replace the parties with jury duty type elections would be a step in the right direction. Let’s elect people that don’t want to lead and likely know how to work then prima-donnas who sell their souls to the devil to be elected to rob.
#36 from m. takhallus: “I think what’s missing is some humility from the people who write this blog and comment on this blog. We’ve had a steady diet of Krauthammer-manque disdain from people who have been awfully wrong for an awfully long time.”
I’ll list ten of my own errors.
(1) On 11 September, 2001, I thought you could print out a world map of which states lost how many of their own on that day, and pretty much plot who was going to be against the terrorists and how severely, with the special case that Muslims were going to kill Osama Bin Laden within six months at latest for having associated their religion with crimes that will live in infamy. I also counted on German and French honor, since there was no way for them not to back their American and British allies that would be remotely honorable.
I will never forget how utterly wrong I was, on oh so many levels, but mainly about Islam. Lesson learned.
(2) In the runup to the war on Afghanistan, I didn’t see how the Americans could win this one quickly and safely, but I counted on American staying power and resourcefulness. Since the stakes of the war after 11 September, 2001 were the right of Americans to live and work in America without being slaughtered in their thousands, I expected the Americans to keep on keeping on regardless of what anyone else said till the job was done. (And I expected to see new tricks tried, till eventually something worked.)
Double wrong! There was a quick way to liberate Afghanistan, thanks to the brilliance of American armed forces, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, and the Americans are more forgetful of their interests than my lowest estimate.
(3) My estimates of the setup in Afghanistan have consistently been a little darker than subsequent events justified. I thought, and think, that this is bad ground for us. Maybe as I still suppose, “the check is in the mail,” or maybe I was just wrong.
At the end of 2007, if Afghanistan is basically sunshine and lollipops, I was all wrong – and so was Michael Yom.
(4) In the runup to the war in Iraq, I thought the Americans had to know where the weapons of mass destruction facilities were, otherwise they would have to fire the whole CIA and start again.
They didn’t know, and the CIA was not abolished and replaced. On it rolls, as inept as ever. Silly me.
(5) In the liberation of Iraq, I expected a great performance by the Americans, but nothing like what we saw.
I underestimated the value of the new light and fast approach to war, and I’m consciously not making that mistake again.
(6) I thought the Americans would use the liberation of Iraq as a threat against other countries, mainly and critically Saudi Arabia, and I looked to this as a key payoff for the risky and costly invasion.
I was dead wrong. What I got instead was hand-holding Crawford Mountain, and George W. Bush taking the view that anyone who doubts the peacefulness and wonderfulness of Islam and our rich Arab allies can probably be fairly called a racist. (And for that matter, I didn’t think George W. Bush would approve playing the “sexist” card over Harriet Miers. George W. Bush is more ready to use politically correct smears against conservatives than I thought he was.)
(7) I thought the Americans could and would deter or severely punish major Syrian and Iranian interventions in Iraq.
I was wildly wrong on that. The Americans haven’t even properly acknowledged Syrian and Iranian opposition in Iraq.
(8) I thought the consequence of the ambush and shaming of the four contractors in Fallujah had to and therefore would result in a U.S. Marine assault that absolutely, positively would not stop before the enemy there was dead, beat, crushed.
How wrong I was! The Americans have consistently punished enemies like Moqtada Al-Sadr far less than the least they had to do to avoid severe consequences down the track, and therefore far less than I thought they would do, regardless of how unpromising their previous conduct was. The American line has been to make, over and over and over, decision that I never thought military professionals would accept in good conscience.
(9) I thought that the Sunnis would eventually knock it off in the face of a de-Ba’thified and mostly Shi’ite national army and police force totaling hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Once we built this threat, the odds just wouldn’t add up for the bad guys.
How wrong I was! The Sunnis have persisted with a war of atrocities and mosque-bombing that points to a contest of ethnic cleansing to the finish – regardless of who would be the logical losers in that war. Often, the conduct and attitudes of Muslims in this war have been worse than even the worst I expected, but this is as crazy as it gets. (I hope.)
(10) Though I thought Iraqi popular support, political organization and military performance would be weak, they’ve been far worse than I expected.
Public opinion is poisonous, the government is dreadful (and no better government is on offer), the military is useless (it has not lead to any reduced need for American troops) and the police force seems to be a training facility for death squads.
Consequently, my basic line has shifted from:
There is a small chance we can avoid a war with Islam, and this has got to be tried in case it works.
to
We are in a war with Islam, and we should stop hoping we can get out of it and start fighting it to win.
Also, my opinion of America’s ability to fight for real when a lot is at stake has altered. I still think Australia should back America 100%. But before, I thought that, hoping to be on the winning side. Now I think we have to mark down on the bad side of the ledger the results of the wars in which we take the American side. Bluntly, we’re on the losing team. That doesn’t mean we should quit. I’d rather lose with our present friends than win with Al Qaeda, or France for that matter. But, this is something to be aware of, as long as the Americans stick to their present approach.
The enemy fights us, and out of fear, multiculturalism and oil power, we are in denial and basically, buckle at the knees. We would rather keep secret what Iran is up to than acknowledge the enemy and face an obligation to do something about it. It’s an obligation we are not up to. I would not have believed a few years ago that the enemy was going to enjoy such a great moral superiority over us. I was wrong.
By the way, I don’t see a lot of people who’ve guessed better than me. I just see a lot of people who prefer not to keep track of their errors and learn from them. They’d rather be stupid than take the occasional hit to the ego.
A.L., I didn’t mean to suggest that you personally had failed to examine what went wrong. I meant that this was, IMO, something that all supporters of the war need to do as the blinders drop. I’m not even asking that you-all admit that all possible forms of the Iraq War were bad (although, as you well know, I happen to think so myself). But I think that anyone who still thinks that some significantly different variation on the war would have been a good idea should ask himself why Bush and Rove and Cheney and Rummy didn’t conduct that war, despite a Congress that has given them everything they have asked for and a press that was remarkably cooperative for at least the first year of the war. There are, I suggest, many reasons, all of which can be traced to the stupidity, cupidity, stubbornness, and incompetence of our Dear Leaders.
Along these lines, via Atrios I found this remarkable timeline of Instapundit’s pronouncements on Iraq. As a tiny excerpt, this August Instapundit was favorably comparing the level of violence in Iraq to Philadelphia. What sort of delusion was the country under that this nonsense was taken seriously and the blog in question one of the most influential in the country?
#37 from Daniel Markham: “It seems from listening to some that you can only have it one of two ways: the first way is that the war was a good idea until wham! We lost all of those soliders, mismanaged it, debathificated the civil service — pick your mistake(s). This is “the price is too high” crowd.
The other way is that it was a dumb idea to begin with and still is a dumb idea. This is the “what were you idiots thinking” crowd.”
I think we were right to try this.
We had to open the door and find out if the lady or the tiger was behind it. The lady was: we can get out of our war with Islam. The tiger was: there’s no way out of this war, only through, and we have to win.
It’s the tiger.
The real mistake isn’t what we did years ago. The real mistake is acting as though we still didn’t know what we’ve paid the butcher’s bill to find out for sure.
Probably that puts me in the “cost too high” basket.
#37 from Daniel Markham: “For those “cost too high” people, please tell me how much is too much? I simply do not understand this mindset. If we lost 3000 people, is that okay? How about 30K? How about 300? What’s the level at which the cost is too high? Do you have a number, or are you just reading the national press and the mood of the nation and jumping on the “me too” wagon? Sounds like “Hey — a few years ago when everybody thought it was great, I did too, but now that the press coverage has gone south…””
“Too much” is a question of what color the litmus paper turned rather than how high the butcher’s bill was to make the necessary tests.
When the Iraqi army hit 300,000 without a reduced need for American armed support, when the Iraqi government chose Moqtada Al-Sadr over America, and when opinion polling in Iraq showed not just eight out of ten Iraqis wanting America out within a year but a growing majority (six out of ten) approving of attacks on Americans, the result of the test was in. It’s the tiger, not the lady.
On seeing these facts, I adopted a new position, which is that Iraqis are hostiles, not friendlies. Effort spent aiding them is counterproductive, or useless at best.
It’s not a question of how much it costs to strengthen our enemies, the point is we should be diminishing them instead.
This goes for Islam in general. We can’t reform it. We need to diminish it. Tragedy follows, but that’s how it is.
#46 from Andrew J. Lazarus: “But I think that anyone who still thinks that some significantly different variation on the war would have been a good idea should ask himself why Bush and Rove and Cheney and Rummy didn’t conduct that war, despite a Congress that has given them everything they have asked for and a press that was remarkably cooperative for at least the first year of the war. There are, I suggest, many reasons, all of which can be traced to the stupidity, cupidity, stubbornness, and incompetence of our Dear Leaders.
The acid test of Muslim and Arab democratic, reformist and liberal forces is not how they would react to someone like me, because within a year after 11 September, 2001, I was utterly suspicious of them all. Willing to be won over but now facts, sure. Desirous of new facts, sure. But basically negative and wary.
The acid test of Muslim and Arab democratic, reformist and liberal forces is how they would react to someone like George W. Bush, a fiery true believer in freedom, democracy and them, a man who put his country’s wealth, blood and national security policy where his mouth was. Nobody could have been more genuine about what he has attempted, and that has been the main cause of his second best decisions, but at the same time nobody could have been better at finding out what we had to find out.
If the American president is 100% gung ho for Muslim and Arab democratic, reformist and liberal forces, does he get important support from them in return?
No.
#18 hypocrisyrules,
A strong econjomy is essential for prosecuting a war so “let’s go shopping” is not a bad idea.
Second a lot of economists think the Laffer Curve peaks at 20%. If so, lowering taxes increases economic output and government revenue. Guess what? Lower taxes have increased economic output and government revenue. Just as expected.
Now I must admit that there needs to be more than just the economic angle to this fight. However, Bush got the economic angle right.
I largely agree with David Blue. I think the Iraq war is failing not because of the number of troops or the timing of de-Ba’athification or any other particular decision, but because the basic premise underlying the whole effort is wrong. The Iraqi people are simply not (at this point) culturally able to become a democratic polity.
That the administration believed an Iraqi democracy possible was not inherently bad, and perhaps even admirable. Having seen Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, the theory was a reasonable one. The experiment was worth trying. Had it been successful, it would have been easily worth the price.
But the theory has been tested, and reality has found it wanting. We need to reevaluate what approach best serves American interests. (Note that American interests may, and I believe do, diverge from Iraqi interests.) I do fault the administration for being unwilling to do that (Although interestingly, the recent Rumsfeld memo seemed to be moving in that direction.Good thing we’ve gotten rid of him ).
The problem I have with anti-war crowd is that the loudest faction seems to want America to suffer as a penance for having had the temerity to try to change the (toxic) status quo of the Middle East. Given the rancor of the debate over the war, some degree of “I told you so” is understandable, but there’s a sense of schadenfreude over their own country’s misfortune that I just don’t understand. No one other than the jihadis benefit from the US not succeeding.
While having failed to create a democratic Iraq is definitely regrettable, the current situation is not really that bad from an American perspective. We’ve got 150,000 troops positioned in the middle of enemy territory. Unless we do something really stupid like withdraw them all to Okinawa or invite the Iranians into Iraq, there still can be a qualified success even though it’s not the overwhelming victory that was hoped for. But anti-war folks don’t seem to even want a qualified success, they seem to want a humiliating defeat. Where’s the sense in that?
#18 HR,
Very few saw the Rhineland incident in 1936 as the start oif WW2. In 1938 according to most folks peace was at hand. It was grumblers and warmongers like Churchill who saw things differently.
The parallels? Just as in the 30s our enemies have laid out their program. Which many people then and now take/took as flights of fancy. I take them at their word.
#28 David,
Light and lean was the order of the day because we did not have enough boots for a bigger footprint. Still light and lean was enough to get Libya to surrender its nuke/WMD program. Want somebody to blame for light and lean? Clinton. Even more so the American people who traditionally want demobilization after winning a war.
#29 Blake,
In my opinion Israel dropped the ball this past summer by not going after Syria. They had an unprecidented opportunity to deal a crushing blow to their enemies. Sadly like the incident with Turkey in 2003, there is little recourse to unreliable allies except to adjust your alliances.
#32 Eric,
We got the same questions post WW2 re: de-Nazification. In the short run it was a hard policy. In the long run it served the Germans well. Given that the Baathists and the Nazis had almost identical political philosophies and political structures (secret police administer the country) de-Baathification is a very good idea. It has set us back. Not all policy decisions that are good long run are also good short run. Some time it takes energy input to attain a global minimum vs. a local minimum.
SG: “We need to reevaluate what approach best serves American interests. (Note that American interests may, and I believe do, diverge from Iraqi interests.)”
That’s a good way to put it.
If it needs to be said: where American interests coincide with Iraqi interests, I want American interests well served, and where American interests conflict with Iraqi interests, I also want American interests well served. And I would much rather see the Americans get half a loaf than none out of this mess.
#34 AJL,
We did find Saddam’s operational WMD programs. They were in:
Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya, Libya.
We won that one without a fight and without an occupation because we were fighting and occupying Iraq.
People forget that signal victory which broke a major nuke ring (Kahn) without firing a shot (at Libya). Saddam had outsourced a lot of his WMD program to Libya.
A lot of the critics of current policies leave out Libya. Can’t imagine why.
==================================================
The Saudis and Iranians are prepared to fight a war if we leave Iraq. Is that war a good idea?
Do we want the Saudis and Iranians in a full scale war over Iraq?
==================================================
#45 David,
Point (4). We found the WMDs. In Libya. Hopefully by now you know that.
#50 SG,
I still think self rule for the ME is a good idea. We just need to revise the time table and the intermediate steps. It is going to be 50 to 100 years.
Islam will have to be changed or destroyed. Tolerance must replace supremacism.
I suggest electricity and communications as our chief weapons.
A quick shove is not going to solve our ME problem (alas). What we need is a 100 year push.
===================================================
Short run what is to be done?
If this works out we could seriously reduce the need for ME oil and speed world development in a matter of 10 years. Proof of concept would take 1 year and cost $2 million.
Speaking of Southern secret weapons. America has a secret weapon.
Long run? They can’t win.
M. Simon:
Sure, a strong economy is essential if you are fighting a war.
But “let’s go shopping” isn’t the answer to that problem, not if most of the goods you’re buying come from China.
And the reason for that problem? Well, Europeans, particularly Brits, have that problem too. Simply put, it’s short-termism. If you’re a top exec, your bonuses depend on quarterly performance, and you’ll be gone in two or three years when the negative effects of your decisions hit, what will you do? Make decisions that are good for the long-term future of your company? Right. If you believe that, I have a nice tower in Paris I’d like to sell you.
I have not particular love for China or its political system, but one advantage they have over the West is that they can and do make long-term plans.
I’ve heard some interesting comments on this thread.
mt in #31 says “We’re not going to make them happen. It’s over.” — So we’re not going to have a democratic Middle East. Ever. These goals are to be abandoned.
That’s quite a statement. In my opinion, that means a lot more bloodshed to come, because either those people self-govern, or history tells us they will need to be externally controlled.
David in #28 “Only partly, alas. I am still an admirer of the Rumsfeld military revolution. I agree that it is not working for our current geopolitical stance. However, I think that stance is fatally flawed anyway. Armed forces better aligned to it would be under less strain but still in a blind alley, and there would be no good alternatives on offer.”
Which, if I understand him correctly, is saying that we had the right armed forces, we just had the wrong _war_. As if we should shop around for wars and only buy the ones that fit our budget or lifestyle. “I was going to support this war, but I just don’t see a use for sea-launched cruise missiles, so Saddam is just going to have to stay in power”
David Blue again in #47 — “On seeing these facts, I adopted a new position, which is that Iraqis are hostiles, not friendlies. Effort spent aiding them is counterproductive, or useless at best.”
Now think a minute about that, David. Are most Iraqis _actively taking up arms to attack the United States_, ie, hostiles? Or are they just ticking you off because they have different values than you have? ie, are they hostiles — armed partisans plotting our destruction and violently acting on it — or are they people of vastly different political opinions who might become violent if provoked enough? There’s a difference. The Russians are not hostiles, but I’d be strained to say they are our real friends. This gets back to that anthropomorphic discussion we had a while back. People are people. Iraq is full of them. It’s a mixed bag. I understand your frustration and impatience, but try to maintain level-headedness. The rest of all your comments were right-on.
Perhaps Iraq is full of people who do not like us. That would mean that once the people spoke, Iraq would become a peaceful nation that opposed us on many fronts. Fair enough. So is France.
Now I believe your stance is that there is a third option — “seemed like a good idea at the time” but now it doesn’t. That means you are tossing out our initial goals. But are you really tossing out a free ME? Or are you saying we just can’t immediately get to there from here? I’m with you if you’re saying that the armed forces of the US is not going to impose a world peace — that was obvious.
Wise words from SG in #58 — “While having failed to create a democratic Iraq is definitely regrettable, the current situation is not really that bad from an American perspective. We’ve got 150,000 troops positioned in the middle of enemy territory. Unless we do something really stupid like withdraw them all to Okinawa or invite the Iranians into Iraq, there still can be a qualified success even though it’s not the overwhelming victory that was hoped for. ”
Yes. There are places between “total victory” and “total defeat”. Places the partisans have a hard time going, but places that exist nonetheless.
#54 Fletcher,
Evidently you are unaware of the theory of comparative advantage. David Ricardo. 1817.
Mercatilism is not the best way to organize an economic system. Buy low, sell high is.
May I suggest a modern text on economics? Say Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” for a good overview.
==========================================================
Short aside: Once I studied economics my interest in promoting socialism and economic populism declined to less than zero.
An economy that can’t compete without government help will not be able to compete with government help.
Making stuff at prices people are willing to pay is very hard work. Protecting industry makes it less and less competitive in the long run. The greater the protection the harder to change.
There’s another way of looking at things and it’s what I’m trying to do. I thought it was a perfectly good idea impossible of execution under the conditions in which we found ourselves which include political considerations, bureaucratic considerations, and the fractious nature of Iraqi society. And so, consequently, I opposed the invasion as imprudent.
I also don’t think that contrition or breastbreating or whatever is called for. Rather than psycholanalyzing, second guessing, or impugning the motives of people with whom we disagree why don’t we consider the steps to be taken next? Day forward. Moratorium on “well, are you guys happy?”
Regardless of the present situation in Iraq we have persistent interests in the region and will, barring a miracle, continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Let’s deal with those.
#49 M. Simon,
That particular argument is so completely, utterly, absolutely, devoid of any truth, honesty, or perspective, it’s not worth responding to.
It’s not an accident, that we gone from a huge surplus, to a deficit.
“Look at this slideshow from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities”:http://www.cbpp.org/budget-slideshow.htm
The Jan 2001 projection – the Congressional Budget Office projected 5.6 Trillion surplus from 2002-2011.
Thu Aug 2006 CBO projection is a negative 3.2 trillion deficit.
Bush Tax Cuts if made permanent add 2% to the GDP deficit.
As comparison, 75 year shortfall in Social Security is less than 1%.
What has caused the deterioration in the budget?
49% comes from the tax cuts!!
Cui bono?
The middle 20% of wage earners in the U.S. receive $20 from the tax cuts.
The top 20% of wage earners in the U.S. receive $2000 from the tax cut.
Millionaires receive $42K from the tax cuts!
Tax Cuts for Millionaires, cost more than ALL the cuts in Discretionary Progams would save.
There’s more there, of course.
Anyone reading this – this far down – if you care at all about an honest economic debate, do NOT listen to this perspective by M. Simon. It’s worthless propaganda and obfuscation.
Not to mention, WWII was about SACRIFICING for the war effort, if you recall. Elits poured more of their money into the system, to support the war effort. Tax rates touched over 80% if I recall.
Now? The Repugs pander to the millionaires.
It’s good to remember that by voting for a Republican, you basically should go to the richest person you know, and write them a check for 20,000. And do that for EVERY year, afterwards. Because THAT is what you do to your own economic fortunes, if you are middle class, or lower working class.
Because that is who the Republican priorities serve.
M. Simon, #51. Loathe as I am to defend Clinton, it was the Bush 41 administration who conceived and planned the (nearly) 50% drawdown of our armed forces. We can blame Clinton for its implementation. You may recall this as part of the “peace dividend”.
Dave Schuler, #57 I agree. We are where we are. What now? I told you so’s and recriminations are worse than useless. They’re distracting us from solving the problem.
I didn’t like Bush’s tax cuts. Its one of the reasons I voted for Gore. I particularly like the idea of taxing the dead — I find that they complain little and have some to spare.
That said, I find it ridiculous — nay, “utterly, absolutely, devoid of any truth, honesty, or perspective” to conclude that Bush had to adopt the economic policies of his Presidential rival to show he was “serious.”
#58, Riight, we should go back to the confiscatory and redistributionist tax policies that served us so well in the 1960s and 70s. I seem to remember 13% inflation, 8% unemployment, 21% prime interest rate by 1979.
Hypocrisyrules, #58. The wealthy are paying a larger share of taxes now than before the tax cuts. Federal revenues are up sharply since the ’03 cuts. The “surplusses” of the Clinton years are myth, as you can plainly see from this chart:
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
You need to peddle your class warfare at the local socialists club.
HR: I’d say it’s utterly, absolutely, devoid of any truth, honesty, or perspective to consider the Social Security Trust Fund to be anything but an Enron-style off-balance sheet scheme which, to put it mildly, does not comply with GAAP.
Hey, the truth is the truth – remember –
By voting for a Republican, you basically should go to the richest person you know, and write them a check for 20,000. And do that for EVERY year, afterwards. Because THAT is what you do to your own economic fortunes, if you are middle class, or lower working class.
You can peddle all you want – but that’s the effect.
I’m sure some of the people here are part of the working class – I’m not the only one.
You want to keep voting against your best economic incentives, be my guest. But the fact remains, that the system has been rigged to disproportionally favor the wealthy – more so that ever befor.
That’s not socialism it’s a fact. The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the well-off. When Reagan’s former Secretary of the Navy agrees with that, you guys should re-examine your assumptions.
I’ve said mostly the relevant pieces over here at Neo’s two blog posts about Bush and the war.
Link
It is too bad that not too many people share your gracious humility, Neo.
I won’t act like steve with the “I told you so” act. Maybe because I’m more interested in how many terrorists can be terrorized and killed in the now and the future, rather than becoming fixated on past opportunities.
Whatever I may have recommended or whatever people were talking about in 2003, no longer applies. Because the situation has changed. There are no looters to shoot, and Sadr has now become a much bigger problem than just arresting him, executing him, and hanging his body on top of a Sunni mosque via US helicopter can solve. Fine, you adapt with the situation, go with the blows. It’s how you win a fight and a war. Adapt and overcome, or sit down and die. There are always options in war. Where there is a will, there is a way.
If Bush does what I recommend, which is to send US forces across Syrian and Iranian borders to take and hold a small, very very small, border town and construct Green Zone defenses and bunkers around it, this would help Maliki out a lot with the internal Iraqi problems.
Too many people have become tunnel visioned into the “my way or the highway” game where they have to, just Have To, get their pet theories implemented. It is the wrong way to look at things. For either the Left or the Right. Bush is not going to go Colonial on Maliki, and having recognized the futility of arguing with a brick, I simply try to bypass Bush’s stubborness by taking what his goal is and adapting my strategy to help Bush’s goal to stabilize Iraq. I am obviously not in favor of stabilizing Iraq so much as using it as a training and logistics base to get Iraqi shock troops that we will then use to purge the Middle East using Imperial logistical constructs.
Bush thought the Democrats, Chirac, and the CIA/State was actually helping him get his policies working. So he treated his enemies as friends, and his friends as enemies. Not only insane, but the results are pretty predictable as well, as you can see. This is demonstrated by Bush not overriding the Governor of L and just sending National Guard and telling people to evacuate.
Bush doesn’t like being a bully, but a war leader must both be ruthless towards enemies and honorable towards allies. Bush believes too many enemies and obstructions, are allies. Which hurts his real allies, when he is soft on their enemies. Soft on the UN, soft on the media, soft on the Democrats, soft on the Governor of L, soft on Syria, soft on Iran, soft on Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on.
You may be thinking, what about right after 9/11? Well, what you saw was the American military might unleashed. The ruthless effectiveness of the Special Forces in Afghanistan were unparalleled. President Bush benefited much, in terms of image, by the sheer destructiveness and killing ability of the United States military. Now, he has chained the only ally he had in government. The US military, by putting them in Iraq,
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 12.04.06 – 5:40 pm | #
Gravatar xxThe US military, by putting them in Iraq, and then just not moving at all. So his enemies converge, crush and constrict Bush’s sole loyal member of the government. The US military. Hemmed in, bogged down, not allowed to unleash their full power because of “Iraqi sovereignty”. Bush has cut himself off from all the power sources of the Presidency. He is committing virtual suicide and taking this country down with him in despair. His problem is not that Bush doesn’t care, Bush’s problem is that he cares too much. The absolute hatred and rage that is required to do the things that must be done, has dissipated, and so has Bush’s momentum. Bush had power when he was enraged and allowed the rage of the military to carry themselves through to victory. Now he talks about peace. Peace is for the dieing, not the living, Mr. President.
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 12.04.06 – 6:11 pm | #
Ever since I read Russel Meade’s expose on Jacksonianism, I understood that Bush’s “limited war” idea was going to get him in trouble. Vietnam was at the edge of my consciousness, but, I was mostly concentrated on how to deal with and understand iraq of 2004. Not the future. I tried to find ways that Bush could exert more force and action, therefore bolstering American morale. Bush didn’t do it. He didn’t do it because Bush hates nation building. He told you people so in 2000. Believe what he says. He says what he means and means what he says. You can count on that, if nothing else.
People have misread this President. But who else was available, Kerry/
Vote in Kerry and the fears of total nuclear annihilation just got their quantum collapse.
By voting for a Republican, you basically should go to the richest person you know, and write them a check for 20,000. And do that for EVERY year, afterwards. Because THAT is what you do to your own economic fortunes, if you are middle class, or lower working class.
I have NEVER, in my entire life, paid $20k in taxes in a single year. And even if I get there sometime, I would be surprised to learn that it was all being passed directly to some rich guy. I was under the impression that some fraction of it would be directed to the elderly, another to poor single mothers, and some to our men and women in uniform. Fortunatly, only a small amount (although not small enough for me) is allocated to the Cowgirl Hall of Fame.
And I have known poor people who got large checks from the government while paying essentially no taxes. None of them were asked to write checks to rich people.
So it’s hard for me to make sense out of your “fact.”
And in case you hadn’t noticed, Reagan’s Navy Secretary is…a Democrat. So it’s not surprising that he favors a leftist economic viewpoint. (And I suspect Reagan picked him for reasons other than his take on tax policy).
The wealthy are paying a larger share of taxes now than before the tax cuts.
This is a meaningless statistic, because it says nothing about the change in the wealthy cohort’s share of income and wealth. (Hint: up.) People who put forth this sort of argument are either deceptive or simply repeating talking points that they do not understand.
Speaking of which, the source for your table of indebtedness should have been the original, not the Limbaugh version. If you click there, you’ll see that debt held by the public went down during the latter Clinton years, because of the surplus. The difference is intragovernmental holdings. Just to show that there was a surplus, here is a statement from the Bush White House about it.
Late to the party, I read through all comments so far.
This is a great thread. By which I mean, useful. In particular, critics of A.L. and Winds of Change generally (Andrew Lazarus, mycat, m.takhallus, hypocrisyrules)–you’ve presented many and varied thought-provoking arguments, focused mostly on issues. Thanks for that.
Since m.takhallus asked for a reckoning from ‘pro-war’ commenters, I’ll add two more cents. I supported the war as a less-bad option. With a historical view that tends towards the tragic and pessimistic, the ‘me’ of early 2003 would have been shocked at the ‘low’ cost of initial victory in Iraq. And then stunned at the strategic and tactical mistakes of the Bush Administration (my list is very different from others’, maybe some other time). With benefit of hindsight, I’d have been anti-war for some of the reasons that Dave Schuler and m.takhallus have outlined already. The worst of all worlds is for a country to start an intervention such as this, while showing our enemies that there is a way for them to fight that is likely to make us abandon the project. We did, and (not being stupid) they did.
One great unknown is what the world would look like had Bush taken the counsel of the prudent and cautious, and abandoned his ‘New Birth of Freedom’ overthrow of Saddam in, say, late 2002. As bad as Iraq and the Mideast is now, I think that that alternate timeline would have given us a world that would be more-or-less as dark as what we now face (though with very different specifics). Both in terms of the suffering of Iraqis, and in terms of menace to legitimate US national interests. Blindness about the perils of that road-not-taken is a commonplace in these debates generally, though not in this particular thread.
#53 from M. Simon: “The Saudis and Iranians are prepared to fight a war if we leave Iraq. Is that war a good idea?”
Yes.
#53 from M. Simon: “Do we want the Saudis and Iranians in a full scale war over Iraq?”
We should.
–
David Blue in #28 “I am still an admirer of the Rumsfeld military revolution. I agree that it is not working for our current geopolitical stance. However, I think that stance is fatally flawed anyway. Armed forces better aligned to it would be under less strain but still in a blind alley, and there would be no good alternatives on offer.”
#55 from Daniel Markham: “Which, if I understand him correctly, is saying that we had the right armed forces, we just had the wrong war. As if we should shop around for wars and only buy the ones that fit our budget or lifestyle. “I was going to support this war, but I just don’t see a use for sea-launched cruise missiles, so Saddam is just going to have to stay in power””
For “war” substitute “doctrine”.
No more exaggerated than the example above: “According to our current doctrine we won’t need armored vehicles any more, just ice cream trucks and electrical repair vans. Since these will win the love of our enemies, we won’t need the capacity to fight them. Rumsfeld’s military revolution is obviously at odds with this new approach. Gosh darn it, the army is ill-suited to its mission! What a terrible Secretary of Defense!”
I don’t think so. There aren’t enough free goodies in the world to make our enemies love us.
War as alms-giving is an unsound idea. We will lose while we follow it, and building a larger army that conform more to the requirements of “nation building” and less to high-mobility, high-intensity fighting won’t prevent defeat … with a large and ugly war to follow, one that a lumbering, comparatively combat-ineffective army of charity workers would be ill-prepared to meet.
So we will need a sharp military sword, and good for Donald Rumsfeld.
–
David Blue again in #47 — “On seeing these facts, I adopted a new position, which is that Iraqis are hostiles, not friendlies. Effort spent aiding them is counterproductive, or useless at best.”
#55 from Daniel Markham: “Now think a minute about that, David. Are most Iraqis actively taking up arms to attack the United States, ie, hostiles? Or are they just ticking you off because they have different values than you have? ie, are they hostiles — armed partisans plotting our destruction and violently acting on it — or are they people of vastly different political opinions who might become violent if provoked enough?”
A main weapon of the enemy is the improvised explosive device as a mine, which we can’t turn against the enemy because it’s a ridiculous weapon. The whole neighborhood sees you plant the thing. Imagine if it was Americans planting those mines. They would be useless, even laughable. The real killing weapon is the hate that means nobody is going to warn the targets who will drive in front of it.
In the context of Iraq, approval for terrorist attacks on Americans translates directly into corpses and wounds. Those whose weight is on the scale for slaughter of our forces, where that is a real, practical issue, are hostiles.
The notion that nobody is a “hostile” unless they plant and trigger the bomb in person, and maybe only at that time since they may be unarmed the rest of the time, is part of an unsound approach to jihad warfare in my opinion. We may not fight the total jihad network, but it fights us anyway, both the unarmed guy at the mosque calling for American blood via loudspeaker and the guy who answers Allah’s call.
If you have enough demand for American blood, there’s going to be supply (assuming we let “unarmed civilians” like the workers at Moqtada Al-Sadr’s propaganda sheet organize as they like, which we do), and a growing majority of Iraqis are part of that deadly demand.
HR,
The more money invested per job the higher the job can pay. So who is going to invest? The rich or the poor?
I don’t care if the rich are 100X as well off as long as I’m 2X as well off.
Penalizing the rich means less money invested. Less money invested means lower pay.
I can tell you what I’d like tro see. Tax rates so low on the rich that they come from all over the world to live in America.
Of course we can raise taxes on the rich and at least drive their money out of America.
Which is a better idea?
#69,
Bribery has been an element of American foreign policy since the beginning.
A good policy when it works.
As to a war in the ME. I’m not so sure it is a good idea.
#71 from M. Simon: “As to a war in the ME. I’m not so sure it is a good idea.”
The Iran-Iraq war of September 1980 to August 1988 was a mother-beautiful war. More please!
Of course, that is completely consistent with a charitable approach to foreign policy and war.
Tax rates so low on the rich that they come from all over the world to live in America.
My understanding is that the rich in Haiti pay very little in taxes, and control almost all of the wealth. Nevertheless, the rate of immigration into Haiti is very low. Perhaps there is more to a desirable society than a free ride for the wealthiest?
I agree with HypocricyRules in this much, taxation is a matter of the swing of the pendulum. I can’t get too excited about whether the top rate is 39.6% or 36%.
I can get excited about an issue that can be framed as a ticking clock. If it is only a matter of time before something catstrophic arrives on America’s doorstep from the coming anarchy, then we’re wasting time arguing about tax cuts and shopping habits.
The clock versus the pendulum.
(I also agree with AJL if his point is that the rich are paying more taxes because they are making more money. The wealthiest always make more money, regardless of whether the tax code is adjusted up or down.)
David #69 “For “war” substitute “doctrine”.
(Buzzer sounds) Sorry David, that makes no sense at all. Our discussion revolved around the configuration of the military, I believe you stated you supported Rummy’s ideas, even though you understood the force posture to be misaligned. “Armed forces better aligned to it would be under less strain but still in a blind alley, and there would be no good alternatives on offer.”
I asked if if we should select wars based on our force posture, you said to substitute “doctrine”
If that isn’t bass-ackwards thinking I don’t know what is. You select doctrine based on highest liklihood of victory — that’s the whole point. If you trade a couple of aircraft carriers for a few medium infantry divisions you start making that trade on Sept 12, 2001. You DON’T shop around for doctrines for whatever you’ve already decided the solution is to be. We start with problems first, then work towards solutions. Not the other way around.
And for the record, I would like to volunteer for the 51st combat Ice Cream Truck Brigade once it forms. I only hope they have Chunky Monkey or that New York Super Fudge Chunk — I hate plain vanilla.
“The whole neighborhood sees you plant the thing. Imagine if it was Americans planting those mines. They would be useless, even laughable. The real killing weapon is the hate that means nobody is going to warn the targets who will drive in front of it.”
So passive acceptance is the same as armed conflict? David, say it ain’t so. This is beginning to sound profoundly colonial.
But I’ll throw you a bone: it may very well be that primitive societies are unable to completely modernize in just a decade or two. Going from cave man to I-pod man is a long haul. Sadly enough, we do not have the time to wait for everyone to catch up. So it appears that we are in a shooting war whether we wanted one or not. Now I would have us shoot the mininum number of people possible to convince the nuts to call it off. You would what? Abandon Iraq? Just let the violent 10% take over the angry 70% and run the show?
We have a real dilemma on our hands in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon. It may be that the majorities of these countries want western freedom and prosperity. The old, young, lost, stupid, and illiterate want things the way they’ve always been. So, as the Palis keep asking the world, do you punish the crowd for the nuts? You pull out and abandon 5 million Iraqis because 10 or 20K take up arms and half the people could care less if you die? Because I think if you do, you end up with the entire population radicalized, as in the Pals case. (We’ll just ignore regional war for a moment) We don’t need to buy them twinkies, but there will have to be some kind of control, external or internal, for populations with a significant mix of idiots to make progress. I do not have an answer of where the tipping point is — perhaps 50%? That would effectively make us at war with the Palistinians. But even at the high levels of beligerence found in the Pals, somehow I find that conclusion unsatisfactory.
I keep coming back to two examples I find illuminating. One is the Israeli experience with the Palis, where over time both sides got angrier and angrier. The second example is the American Indian, where it was just impossible and unacceptable for us and them to co-exist in modern society. Now the AmerIndians may be great warrior savages, yadda yadda, but there is no denying that the two cultures could not co-exist for whatever reason. A long period of debate followed, with a lot of bloodshed, until we finally lost patience and herded them into detention zones where we could control them and they could live mostly the way they wanted far from the rest of the world. We are already seeing a loss of patience in Iraq — we want total victory in a couple of years or dag blame it, we’ll just quit! In the Isreali example these cycles went on and on, each time getting more and more violent.
To cut to the chase, both examples have sucky endings. And both examples required boots, not brainy bombs.
Back to the point of this thread – there were some decent responses, to my initial comment here.
Markham:
“3000 folks died on 9-11. To me, based on past history, this is an indication that the sky is, indeed, falling. That is, we should mobilize and start re-arranging large parts of the map.
Now. I certainly can understand some of us who have a higher tolerence for these things. The people that attacked us on 9-11, in fact, kept saying they were at war with us throughout the 80s and 90s. We, following HR’s guidelines, politely ignored them and treated it mostly as a police matter. So the other side kept escalating until they finally got our attention on 9-11.”
You are setting up a strawman. I said, clearly, that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat. More than “police action” is required. Invading Iraq, was manifestly NOT required. Again, the Afghanistan invasion WAS a sanctioned, lawful, moral response to the attack on 9/11. U.N. blessings, a good coalition, pledges of support with troops and money from both CLOSE countries, and from european and asian allies. I’ll say again – an Acheson type of response.
Was that a police action? Of course not!
So drop the false strawman.
Now, you may say I do something similar:
“Aside from the huge brush which you use to paint everyone from reluctant war supporters to the armchair Pattons among us”
Okay, fine. Reasonable request. I won’t paint everyone with the same brush.
“Nobody (at least not most people) is saying that some Islamic nation is going to rise up, governed by a Caliphate, to attack us in WWII fashion”
Okay, fine – we actual AGREE on something. This isn’t a war against an empire, or even a “war” against some group that muster a division!
Then we agree that we have already reduced the threat level, yes? So how do we quantify that threat? Besides a “feeling in the gut?”
Russia is still more of a threat, as is China, than Islamic terrorists, if we actually came to blows.
But really – how can you then say “get more serious” about this? Here’s an alternate reality for you – we DON’T go into Iraq, we concentrate all that money and effort into Afghanistan, we DON’T leave Bin Laden alone in Tora Bora. Hussein becomes like Libya, neutralized third-world dictator, hemmed in by both Iran, Turkey, and a U.S. presence in Turkey.
We open up a relationship with Iran, offering the type of practical help and aid that we do other teetering governments. We get creative with this, and tie it to small acceptable changes in behaviour from Iran. This causes the mass of young people IN Iran, to look favorably on the U.S., and thus liberalization in Iran occurs.
Idealistic? Probably most definitely. But NO MORE idealistic than invading Iraq helps to kill terrorist, rathern than creating a thousand more Bin Ladens!
Why can’t you guys GET that?? After all, Markham, we have NOW lost MORE people in Iraq, than people who were killed in 9/11.
And for what? For what? To inflame the region? To put the region on the brink of a regional war? To kill 600,000 Iraqis? To spend 1 trillion dollars?
Really, as Iraq slides into 20 year permanent status as a failed state, thus making Iran the pre-eminent power in the region – is that what it was for? THAT is the effect, understand. THAT is what we have to show for the misadventure in Iraq.
At any rate – hopefully you guys can begin to characterize the seriousness of the islamic fascist threat, without grandiose panicky bedwetting statements (WW4!) Because if you can, I might learn something, which I would appreciate, actually. Eventually, crying wolf will be needed, but the threat needs to resemble the reality.
Now, Mark Buehner says a couple of things:
“Is it insensitive to express the opinion that i’m glad the thousands of jihadis including many hundreds of suicide bombers are blowing themselves up in Iraq instead of Boston”
If this is Iraq, of course, most of those people were fighting IN and FOR what they considered their country. Think Red Dawn, Middle East style.
“Hypocracy makes a strong argument. I disagree on most counts, but he lays out the debate we need to have (and my side needs to win). If i say Iraq was a good idea that has been so badly executed it only appears to have been a hopeless endeavor, I better be able to back it up.”
Well, that’s what we are discussing. I agree.
By the way, if you look at Imperial Hubris – Michael Scheuer – here is a guy who completey AGREES with you guys, on the MASSIVE threat of Islamic fundamentalism – but he pours utter disdain on the Iraq War, saying it is a “a sham causing more instability than it prevents”.
So – given how things are going in Iraq – why don’t you guys buy into the Scheuer frame? Time has proven now, that Schuer has more predictive value than the Bush model, right?
( A polical aside: On one level, of course, you guys were narcissistic. It was more important to conflate the “war on liberals” with the war on Iraq, than it was to convince liberals of WHY you thought the Islamic fascism threat was so high. Hoepfully, one or two of you guys will MAN UP, and admit that.)
If you take the “massive threat” position, Why weren’t you guys WITH SCHEUR, and heaping scorn on the Iraq misadventure the whole time?
Seriously – why don’t ONE of you guys should have some friggin’ realization of how MUCH the Iraq war has set back the confrontation with Islamic fascism – just ONE of you!!! JUST ONE!! Bush screwed up the war YOU guys cared about!!
How can you miss such an obvious thing??
Tell me, why is 2800 dead through what that Bin Laden and associated SCUM did – a world war – while what Bush has done – 2900 troops dead, and who knows how many Iraqis, a failed state for at least 10 years, and the inflamed birth of who knows how many Bin Ladens –
THAT is okay?? If you leave aside the INTENTION – and Bush’s intentions were ABSOLUTELY not to hurt America, I grant you – IMPORTANT that you don’t misunderstand me on that – what Bush has ACTUALLY set in motion, has so far been:
– More U.s. dead through his decision to invade Iraq, than dead from 9/11
– Worse international standing, and less cooperation in regions where we NEED more cooperation.
– A larger economic negative impact, from Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, than the negative economic impact from 9/11. “I am using figures here”:http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp
– The rise of a more pissed off ME youth, who ONLY recognize the U.S. as a threat. This actually, again, births more Bin Ladens. And makes the Islamic fascist threat GREATER.
Bush sold out the war YOU GUYS RECOGNIZED, for nothing, except advantage in a couple of elections!!
NOTHING! What have been the results of the Iraq invasion? Chaos, ten thousand more Bin Ladens, probably a failed state for the next ten years, and possibly a larger regional war!
Doesn’t that piss ANY of you off??
Okay, okay, end of rant….
Still – you have the Scheuer position, which at least MAKES SOME SENSE.
Iraq? Makes no sense, in terms of the Islamic threat. And time has borne that out. All I get from you guys about Iraq is some vague “domino effect”, that has ZERO predictive value, that selectively picks out some fact, while ignoring others. That isn’t analysis, that is again, propaganda.
And of course, the biggest PROBLEM STATE – is Pakistan. If Musharaff is killed, who knows what will happen, and that country HAS the bomb.
“Bush sold out the war YOU GUYS RECOGNIZED, for nothing, except advantage in a couple of elections!!”
That could be too strong – although clearly Bush and Rove weren’t above using the Iraq war as a political club, far from it – buy it could simply be one an incredibly massive error in judgment. But the bad effects of that massive error in judgment are getting clearer every day.
Hypocrisy,
Your claim about Scheurer’s predictive power is rather humorous when one looks at Scheurer’s predictions pre 9/11.
Your continual claims that the Bush administration policy has resulted in less international cooperation is simply and utterly the opposite of reality. Today the Bush administration has more international cooperation in the arena of counter-terrorism than any previous administration – and this includes cooperation between the US and Pakistan which you falsely assert is the “biggest” problem state. The Bush administration has more international cooperation in cutting off terrorist funding than any previous administration. Terrorist networks that were undisturbed for more than a decade have been disrupted and starved out. And more countries providing active intelligence and operational support to the US than ever before. We have ex-Warsaw Pact countries providing a wide range of support including boots on the ground.
Just the new US / India alliance built by the Bush administration alone is enough to refute your criticisms of Bush administration efforts in international cooperation. India had been allied with America’s enemies for decades before the Bush administration brought them into our camp.
Your “alternate realities” are nothing but baseless fantasies that ignore the actual events ( not that canard about Tora Bora again – its only been refuted scores of times on a nearly weekly basis ) that the Bush administration has dealt with and in fact has had great success in contrast to the predictions.
David #69: “For “war” substitute “doctrine”.
#75 from Daniel Markham: (Buzzer sounds) Sorry David, that makes no sense at all.
(Buzzer sounds) yourself. My explanation was tolerably clear. If you needed more clues, you also needed to think of yourself as more of an equal and less of a game show host passing judgment on an act.
#75 from Daniel Markham: “I asked if if we should select wars based on our force posture, you said to substitute “doctrine”
If that isn’t bass-ackwards thinking I don’t know what is.”
Evidently not. You’ve confused yourself there.
David #69: “The whole neighborhood sees you plant the thing. Imagine if it was Americans planting those mines. They would be useless, even laughable. The real killing weapon is the hate that means nobody is going to warn the targets who will drive in front of it.”
#75 from Daniel Markham: “So passive acceptance is the same as armed conflict? David, say it ain’t so. This is beginning to sound profoundly colonial.”
I’ve made it clear for a long time now I’m looking to British imperial and pre-Christian Roman practice for inspiration.
And you’re not managing to state my positions accurately.
#75 from Daniel Markham: “But I’ll throw you a bone…”
(Throws a bone right back) Here boy: fetch!
#75 from Daniel Markham: “Now I would have us shoot the mininum number of people possible to convince the nuts to call it off. You would what? Abandon Iraq? Just let the violent 10% take over the angry 70% and run the show?”
I would start by facilitating red-on-red attrition. The more of it the better.
#75 from Daniel Markham: “So, as the Palis keep asking the world, do you punish the crowd for the nuts?”
That crowd is nuts. It needs to be diminished in numbers, arms, zeal and any other way we can diminish it, or facilitate its self-reduction.
I think this conversation has ceased to be useful, and has become more of a rehash plus gratuitous patronizing shots to which I’ve held up a mirror till I’m bored with the exercise.
Robin,
If you think that comment, in any way, refutes min,e you are a bit out of it.
It’s pretty clear I’m talking about Scheuer’s comments since 9/11. Certainly much more accurate than any of the Bush spokespeople, or Bush himself.
and India – yes, they are one country we have a new treaty with – mainly, because we gave them what they wanted. However, the U.S. has been getting closer to India for at least 12 years now.
Its funny though – Iraq is now considered a mistake, by the majority of the US population. And if the course continues as it is, failed state of Iraq is the best to be hoped for.
so, instead of clouding the issue, and picking at the edges, you should engage straight up – also, with cites, not just your typical assertions and negations.
Lastly, I’m asking a couple of very important, existential questions. The level of the Islamic fascist threat, and the correct steps to combat this – and attempting to find out whey people believe things that seem so clearly not a reality. (for example, WW4).
hypocrisyrules:
What is it that you’re looking for? In #78, you seem to acknowledge that the current situation could have been entered into in good faith. I will agree that the Iraq war has not been the broad success that was hoped for, but it was done in good faith, received the approval of Congress and (initially) the broad support of the American people. As an action, it has as much legitimacy as anything the US government has ever done.
OK, let’s acknowledge that the idealistic impulses that led to the Iraq adventure are not a good basis for warmaking, recalibrate our expectations, and make the best out of the current situation. What’s the point in putting on a hairshirt?
For someone complaining mightily about the use foreign policy as a bludgeon in domestic politics, you certainly don’t seem to be above it yourself. But then again, hypocrisy rules, doesn’t it?
David — “I think this conversation has ceased to be useful, and has become more of a rehash plus gratuitous patronizing shots to which I’ve held up a mirror till I’m bored with the exercise.”
I was trying to understand what you were saying, David. If that makes you uncomfortable, then that is a good thing for both of us. Your last post had no meaningful content that I could discern, save for our mutual understanding that there are strategies that can work without direct military involvement. I’m certainly not opposed to them, nor am I opposed to pulling out (partially or completely). But the strategic situation remains the same, no matter what our frustration and no matter how bad we’ve botched it up so far. Red-on-red attrition is only going to do so much, and in my opinion it will not save the day in Iraq. Yes, the Iranians and Syrians are using it as part of a scorched-earth policy, mainly because both of those powers are close at hand. I’ve suggested that we consider just the same scorched earth policy in regards to oil production facilities, but it didn’t get a lot of play.
Same goes for HR. I’m repeating what I think you’re saying (with appropriate snarky asides to keep reader interest) in order to try to understand what you mean. I think we agree that there will be no new Caliphate to raise up divisions, that WWIV is going to be nothing like WWII. But then you say:
“Russia is still more of a threat, as is China, than Islamic terrorists, if we actually came to blows.”
See? I don’t understand that. I believe what you are saying is that _unless there is a seperate country with fielded armies, the threat is not as great._ At least that is what I think you are saying. But as Lebanon, Iraq, and other countries have clearly shown, public chaos is just as much (or more) of a threat to democracy as foreign wars. Governments fall. Armies are raised. Politicians are expected to go make _something, anything_ happen. To me, including that’s exactly what happened after 9-11, including Afghanistan. The “rightness” of who to invade or not takes second seat: democratic leaders are paid to make threats go away. In my opinion, this is true no matter the party or the nature of the man who lives at 1600 Pa. Avenue.
Now I supported (and still support) our mission in Iraq, mainly because in the 100-year time-frame Islamic societies are going to have to peacefully self-govern or face horrible consequences. I feel like trying to help them physically is morally the right thing to try, no matter the consequences. And I feel practically that our self-interest was involved. But that’s almost an aside. The nature of terrorism isn’t armies marching across the Canadian border, it’s people running in the street after 9-11, and Congress voting to go both into Afghanistan and Iraq. I would add that our experience with dealing with these conditions at the extreme in Iraq is going to be vital in gaining a national understanding of how to mitigate and not mitigate our responses in the future.
In fact (does a neat rhetorical pirouette) it can be argued that _because we’ve botched up Iraq so badly, that’s exactly the lessons we’re going to need to learn to move into the new century_. Asymetrical warfare. Democratic societies with large numbers of brutal, violent criminals. Tough peacekeeping missions. (Why doesn’t anybody call Iraq a peacekeeping mission? Because that’s what it is right now)
“is morally the right thing to try, no matter the consequences”
I overstated that. Apologies. I do feel that there are limits to our involvement. Primarily, I do not think the moral argument is the one to use (even though I believe in it) and the pragmatic argument is the one that should hold sway. As HR points out, we’ve already lost as many soldiers as we lost civilians on 9-11. Does that mean it is time to stop?
I honestly don’t know, HR. I know that both morale and the ability to change strategies and tactics is the key to our acheiving our short-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-50 years) goals. We haven’t been too good at either. In fact, for most the phrase “short-term” probably means in the next few weeks, which is a sad commentary on the attitude of the average American.
I think we are without a clear goal in Iraq, unless you call it a “Peacekeeping Mission” — perhaps a very heavy peacekeeeping mission. Because of that fact, we can neither be said to be winning or losing, since there is no measurable goal to either be working towards acheiving or not. If somebody could give me a measurable goal, then I would be glad to try to help figure out if the cost is worth it. In the long-term? Absolutely. But in the short-term? I don’t know, and that is what makes me open to suggestions to redeploy or re-position. But for those making those suggestions, I would ask the same questions: How does this help us in our short and long term goals? All I’m hearing so far from those folks, mostly, is how bad Bush and Rummy was. That’s not really an answer.
This thread should be on the must-read list of anyone trying to make sense of where we are and where we might go with our anti-terror efforts.
#80,
The red-on-red attrition you envision is certainly a way to win.
However, the problem is that it leaves the region ungovernable.
Think France post WW2 or Spain post Napoleon.
WW2 should have ended once we lost as many people as we lost in Pear Harbor.
Yeah. That makes sense.
No more wars. Just retaliatory raids. Once honor is satisfied go back to sleep.
It is a policy. Which leads to?
#84,
How about – we hang on in Iraq until rubbing shoulders with Americans starts having greater influence on the country.
More electricity, more internet, more sattelite TV, more cell phones, more time.
That is my policy.
M (#88)
If I had to pick a number from thin air, I’d say 20 years and 50K Americans lost. But that’s assuming that we have a policy that I view as being headed in some sort of desirable direction. I don’t see that now, perhaps because of the slant of media coverage. It appears that a lot of commenters on this board do not see tactics that are taking us somewhere in Iraq either. The battle of morale is being lost. I’m for taking action, but that doesn’t mean blind faith in whatever the leaders do, it means learning as we go. I’m the first to admit that I don’t understand all of the issues involved, but I am required as a citizen to try to become informed and assist in the discussion, which I hope I’m doing.
The type of action we took in Iraq should be the absolutely very last option we have left (instead of ones that are worse, of course). Because of that seriousness, we should not engage in these things frivolously. So in my opinion, our strategic commitment to Iraq is certainly much more than our current strategic commtiment in Germany or South Korea. I still don’t understand why we have this expediitionary force attitude about the whole thing. I’m not saying that we should occupy and control Iraq for the long-term, I’m saying that in regards to where the “home” of our forces are, it should be in that neighborhood (with people who want us there), not those other places.
“Lastly, I’m asking a couple of very important, existential questions. The level of the Islamic fascist threat, and the correct steps to combat this – and attempting to find out whey people believe things that seem so clearly not a reality. (for example, WW4).”
This is actually a good question. And I can easily believe that someone who doesn’t believe that is a growing jihadi threat would look highly skeptically at everything the US has done in Iraq.
Is there a threat from Islam? Well, the list of jihadi violence is enormous, and happens basically everywhere Islam touches a non-Islamic people. North (school kids in Beslan), South (Nigerian beauty pagent contestants), East (Thai Buddhists, Indonesian schoolgirls), and West (British, Spanishh and American commuters). There many and varied greivances expressed around these conflicts (some even legitimate), but the common underlying factor is Islam. Islam has an intolerant and violent teachings that have not been generally intrepeted out of the modern day practice.
What’s the level of threat? There are (depending on sources) between 1 and 1.5 billion Muslims. There are numerous Islamic republics, so Islam (and typically not the friendlier variety) has the resources and capabilities of nation-states behind it. Islamic nations control the majority of the most globally important natural resource, and have shown a willingness to use it as an economic weapon. Additionally, Pakistan has developed an atomic bomb, and Iran seems poised to develop one.
However much of the active Islamic threats are below the level of nation-state. Historically, these have been treated as low-level nuisance threats (highjackings, car bomobings, etc). But with an ever improving technology curve (check out biotech for some scary scenarios) and access to deep (oil-filled) pockets, the capabilities of the sub-nation-state actors is growing continuously and the calculus of deterrence is decidedly unclear against a culture that has venerated the suicide bomber.
What’s the correct way to deal with this threat? That’s the $64,000 question. No one has found an answer that is both politically viable and successful. The previous approach of law enforcement has been found wanting due to steady escalation by the Islamists. The Iraq adventure was an attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. If an Islamic nation/people could be turned into a modern, liberal democratic society and become a model for other Islamic peoples, the threat from Islamism would be greatly blunted, but as you’ve observed it worked.
The current plan seems to be hope. Hope is not a plan.
_”More electricity,”_
Almost makes me wish we’d spent the last 4 years with a comprehensive program to do something about this.
Anybody want to see something _horrifying_?
“Here:”:http://www.sigir.mil/reports/quarterlyreports/Oct06/figures.aspx#electricity
All the bitching i’ve done because we’ve treated Iraqi infastructure reconstruction with less concern than a pot-hole filling project on I-80, and the reply is always the same: we’re always just on the cusp of these long term projects that are going to finally fix everything, because despite all appearance to the contrary the US government is spending every possible iota of energy and resources to fix the electricity. BULLSHIT. Not even close, no resemblence to reality.
The truth is Iraqi is now, in the fall of 2006, producing about 4600 Megawatts of electricity, which is just over _half_ the demand, and is actually _dropping_ from its heights of the last couple years.
For reference, Iraq was generating 4500 Megawatts _before the invasion._ In 4 years we’ve barely raised the production to what it was before we showed up. That should have been done within 3 months of us getting there, excuses be damned. I dont care if GE had to be nationalized to turn out generators and high voltage cable.
And that, dear friends, is a microcosm of exactly why we are losing this war.
Whoops. Big typo in #90.
as you’ve observed it hasn’t worked.
D. Blue: _I’ve made it clear for a long time now I’m looking to British imperial and pre-Christian Roman practice for inspiration._
Well “here”:http://www.gavinsblog.com/2006/02/28/the-last-exit-from-iraq/ is a good summary of the British experience in Iraq. The British succumbed to public pressure to withdraw early. The results were agitation from neighboring countries and rising religious fundamentalism. Into the chaos, the Iraqi military became increasingly the only effective power. When the World War hit, Iraq bolted to the Axis side, forcing Britain to invade Iraq again, when those forces could obviously have been used elsewhere in the region.
It seems to me that if you anticipate a potential conflict in the Middle East in the next several years, it will be worth the time and effort to help stabilize Iraq so that it is not a contributor to the problem.
We have been waging this war symptomatically and not going for the sources. After 9-11 we needed to go the equivalent of apesh*t, well, controlled apesh*t.
0. Formal Declaration of War on those organizations that hit us, and on any and all governments that aid and abet those activities.
1. Pakistan needed to know that its enabling behavior of the Taliban needed to be stopped, or we would stop it ourselves with overwhelming force. Quick, brutal, ugly, complete. There would be no sanctuaries in the NWFP.
2. The Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US needed to be called in and told to clean up his financing of terrorism through his oil-tick princes. If the Saudi government was unable to do it, then we would do it by killing them, their wives, kids, and their little dog, too. Taking the money out of the equation would take care of a lot of issues in Pakistan, who depends on the Saudis to keep their operations going. Taking money out would starve the madarasas, which crank out jihadi robots.
3. Taking out Saddam was a good thing. When the 4 contractors protecting food convoys into Fallujah were murdered and burned, the town needed to be cordoned off, women and children told to move, and then the place would be levelled. House to house fighting is insane. The arabs respect power. Show them power and you would take the fight out of them. It does not mean going out and nuking them. It means taking out the leaders.
4. After the dancing and sweets handed out in Gaza after 9-11, we needed to shut down all aid to the Palestinians. Let the Euros finance them if they wanted to throw their citizens’ hard earned money down a rathole.
There also have been NO consequences for the terrorist enabling behavior of Syria and Iran in Iraq. Psychopaths are incapable of empathy. However, they will respond if THEY are hurt or have an imminent threat of being hurt. Look at Libya and G’Daffy. Reagan hurt him and he went back to his tent for a while. You have to get into these guy’s heads to see how they think, and once you figure that out, you can make a plan of action that makes sense.
Syria and the Mad Mullahs™ of Iran needed to have some covert hurt laid on them, personally and up close. THAT will get their attention. It is the only language that they understand. Talk their language.
Adminidijad of Iran, same way. He threatened the destruction of Israel, and the same for the US. We take threats seriously. Let him know that when he is travelling outside of Iran by plane, he will be taken out. You want to rattle your saber? Fine. We’ll take you at your word.
Now we are trying to run war by commission, which means that nothing will happen. Our enemies sense weakness and advance on every front. We have the greatest military in the world. We have the weapons, materiel, logisics, and despite what the dems say, the greatest, most dedicated and highly educated personnel in the history of the US military.
What we do not have is leadership. We do not have it in the executive, legislative, and in much of the top military.
So the problem boils down to—where do we get the leadership to lead this country in her time of peril? We won’t get it from the republicans or the democrats. So we must get it outside of the 2-party system. Independents, where do we get the smart, motivated independent thinkers that do not want to dip into the cess pool that is Washington? That is were we should be putting our energy. We have the means to solve these problems, but we do not have the will nor the leadership. My two cents.
Re: #93 from PD Shaw: thanks for the link. I agree that it is highly relevant.
I’m familiar with the story, because I grew up on Glubb Pasha (at this stage Captain John Glubb).
I think the key to this retelling of it is a bunch of optimistic speculations about the course of events if the British had stayed longer. I do not find them convincing. I do not think that the retelling gives sufficient agency to the natives themselves.
Had the United Kingdom stayed longer the first time around, much of this mayhem could have been avoided. […]
These restraints could have helped Iraq develop into a more stable society, in which Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and other minorities would have somehow found a way to live together peacefully.
Emphasis on the “somehow”.
Instead, these groups spent the next 70 years of Iraq’s independence with daggers drawn, each decade pocked by civil war.
The difference between the results of actual Muslim, Arab and Kurdish culture and optimistic “somehow” “could have” statements is wide.
Well, HR is more generous to the Administration than I am. What does it mean to have entered the war in good faith? That they anticipated it would be a mess? No, I don’t think so. I suspect it will be years before we understand fully how we got into Iraq, but it’s clear that the Administration went out of its way not to know how shaky (even, bogus) some of its anti-Iraq claims were even before the war. Bush wanted this war. He got it.
Speaking of faith, it’s also worth pointing out the faith-based nature of so much of our War on Terra. No, not faith as in Christianity. Faith as in faith in the Dear Leader. Habeas corpus and innocent until proven guilty are replaced by faith in the Leader to unerringly pick out the bad guys. Geneva Conventions? Gone. Replaced by faith in the Leader to treat prisoners “humanely”, but of course under new, alternative standards. Foreign policy that someone in Europe can support? Replaced by faith in our own righteousness. Flexible strategy and tactics on the ground? Replaced by dogma that the Will of the Leader will see us through. There have been other Administrations almost as bad, but this is the first to fail utterly from antinomian hubris.
Aside to Alaska: The arabs respect power. This is what Freudians call projection. As for quelling the insurgency by leveling a few towns, it hasn’t worked so well in Chechnya, nor Nazi-occupied Europe. But it does let you work out some frustrations.
“As for quelling the insurgency by leveling a few towns, it hasn’t worked so well in Chechnya, nor Nazi-occupied Europe.”
It worked exceedingly well when Saddam controlled Iraq.
D. Blue: I would agree that the linked history of the British mandate involves a bit of selective culling of the evidence without much promise of what the British should have done besides muddling along.
Remaining in Iraq in hopes that assistance and guidance might lead to a stable, liberal government is arguably a policy of faith. It was also a policy of faith to believe that things might work out for Iraq on its own too.
I think subsequent events judge the British harshly. By 1938-39, Chamberlain stressed that there were only 5 non-Imperial countries that were worth going to war for. (I believe they were France, Belgium, Iraq, Egypt and maybe Portugal). That is to say, the British had significant strategic interests in Iraq to go to war, but not seek to protect the peace. Withdrawal sent the message to Iraqis that Britain was a power in decline and fascism was the rising star.
I think that’s close to where we are today. Withdrawal in the hope that everything will work out. Yes, the U.S. has strategic interests in the Gulf and we will return if there is a problem, but we’re exhausted and demoralized. Hope nobody notices. Hope the Middle East turns around.
Habeas corpus and innocent until proven guilty are replaced by faith in the Leader to unerringly pick out the bad guys.
AJL, if you want to make a legal argument, make it, but this isn’t it. Because foreigners captured on the battlefield don’t get habeas or a presumption of innocence, and never have. Now, Padilla, a US citizen capture in Chicago, he deserves it, and he got it in the end. I disagreed with Bush there (and on a lot of his Executive power arguments) but I’d agree with a lot more if it were done by act of Congress.
Geneva Conventions? Gone. Replaced by faith in the Leader to treat prisoners “humanely”, but of course under new, alternative standards.
Again, a legal argument, please. The Conventions govern conflict between member states; not conflict with non-state actors or between members and non-members. Their signature feature is reciprocity, which means we can behead captured terrorists on live TV if we wish without violating the Conventions. Not, of course, that we should.
Foreign policy that someone in Europe can support? Replaced by faith in our own righteousness.
No such animal. Madeline Albright is a war criminal for bombing Bosnia; Madeline Albright is a war criminal for NOT bombing Rwanda. Support for Israel oppresses Palistinians; Support for Palistinians is hypocritical because it ignores the plight of the Kurds. AmericKKKa is evil for rejecting Kyoto; France can cheerfully violate its Kyoto targets and nobody bats an eye. No, really, I lived in Europe at the end of the Clinton Administration and had to listen to this crap. We do what is in our national interest, what’s wrong with that? It’s not like Europe is keen on adopting foreign policies that please Americans.
Flexible strategy and tactics on the ground? Replaced by dogma that the Will of the Leader will see us through.
OK, I’m with you there. If only all of John Kerry’s sensible, highly specific policy prescriptions had been adopted, things would be great now. (Seriously, the devil’s kind of in the details here, isn’t it?)
Crazy things happen when four members of the Supreme Court conclude that the United States is bound by international treaties it refused to sign. Congress not only takes an interest in the terms and conditions of the military tribunals, it takes in interest in the terms and conditions of the court’s review.
I’m sure if we had a blogosphere in the 1990s, AJL would have expressed outrage that Clinton signed a law restricting habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens in the name of anti-terrorism.
We must withdraw from Iraq, and we must do so immediately.
No ifs, ands or buts.
Most of the killing going on in Iraq is aftermath from our defeat of the Baathists.
Revenge killing.
Middle Easterners take their revenge seriously.
Who Is Killing Whom.
Leaving at once is a way of saying: ethnic cleanse the Sunnis. Or we want a war between Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) and Shia (Iran) in Iraq.
Increasing the level of murder may be a good idea. If so come out and say it direct.
===========================================================
I suppose, as in Vietnam and Cambodia the murdering eventually stops. About 3 million dead more or less.
So the rallying cry of the cut and runners is: a butchers bill no higher than Vietnam will be a victory.
Yes it will be. But for whom?
#102 from M. Simon: “Leaving at once is a way of saying: ethnic cleanse the Sunnis. Or we want a war between Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) and Shia (Iran) in Iraq.
Increasing the level of murder may be a good idea. If so come out and say it direct.”
I already did. I’ll say it again.
The Iraq-Iran was of 1980-1988 was a mother-beautiful war, and a ten year war between Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) and Shia (Iran) in Iraq would be a wholly desirable sequel.
I want a level of sustained attrition that we can’t impose but that Muslims are eager to impose on each other. I want our enemies to beat each other to a standstill instead of beating up on us.
Those who care about Iraq are the so-called warmongers who advocate continued American and allies efforts there. Not me.
Rob, I’m glad you and I agree about Padilla. I noted that at the time. And I believe Armed Liberal makes three. But then you take much of it away. Many of our captives were taken far from anything resembling a battlefield, except when you buy in with the idea that in the War on Terra, the battlefield is everywhere. But if you do buy that, well, all those habeas protections don’t count for much. As I understand the recent law, George Bush can pluck any resident alien out of any home in America, and sent him to an ex-KGB prison in Bulgaria. Lawfully.
There are parts of the GC that do not depend on reciprocity.
That last clause is pretty universal, wouldn’t you say?
And things probably would be better if John Kerry had gotten his hands on them.
[Aside to PD Shaw: you might try reading the Court’s decision.]
I am astounded at the the people who look but do not see. Just what do you consider a war? Must the enemy say, “Hey, America, this is your enemy. In case you don’t know it,we are at war. What’s that you say? What country? Ha! Ha! Ha! You are such fools! Our country is the world. Once we destroy you, the world will be ours!” Well guess what, they have been saying that and waging this war that many of you choose to ignore for over twenty years.
As for the President’s role in this, personally, I think he has done a pretty darned good job considering his hands have been tied since day one. Every single cabinet appointment, judicial appointment, and other key nominations have all been dragged out as long as possible or are still pending or refused a vote two years into the term. That is not only self serving buy a threat to our National Security.
Iraq, who cares if WMD’s existed or not? Pullout a map for heaven’ sake. Take a good look at it incase you don’t know your geography. Where is Iraq with regards to the Middle East, Central Asia, Asia, and Europe? Besides being a genocidal tyrant, Saddam aided and abetted the terrorists. He was right in the thick of it all. As much as Iran and Al-Qaeda couldn’t stand him, they weren’t stupid either. Strategically, Iraq puts a path right in the middle of the Islamic “empire” building efforts.
Saddam was a brutal and murderous dicator. He tried to kill our President. He easily could have sent any WMDs out of Iraq before we attacked and removed him. Had Bernie Saunders not cut our military to the bone we might have been able to deploy sooner. Had the CIA not been forced to go “politically” corrrect during the Clinton administration the intelligence agency with agents like Robvert Baer might have successfully gotten the intel needed to stop Bin Laden sooner.
So what? Does any of this all matter now. Does it make the war go away? Does it make the Islamic jihadists want to stop killing us? Since before WW I the developed nations have made half-a$$ed efforts to solve the Mddle Eastern problems and the slow advent of Communism. By failing to follow through and appeasement, there has been a constant up shoot of wars. Isn’t it time to do this thing right for a change? Would it make you people who refuse to see that this is a real war feel better if the other side put a bunch of identifying medals on their turbins?
All the intellectualizing b.s. in the world won’t solve this problem. If you guys really want a battle to fight with your intellect and words because you obviously don’t have the family jewells to fight for your freedom, go verbalize it out with the Progressive Caucus and the PDA members who are slowly taking over the Democratic party. Before you throw it back at me that I am one of those Republicanm so and so’s, let me tell you I have been a Democrat all my life until now. If I wanted to live under Communism I would go to Russia.
While I am on this topic, if you guys spent half as much time checking out who organizes the anti war effort and who really foots the bill as you do tearing at every effort expended to safe guard our country you would know we have as much of a threat to our way of life and our Constitution right here at home as we do abroad. Not only that, the fools here at home have allied their cause with the terrorists.
I used to be so naieve and supported these destroyers of our freedom. Then I started finding informaion about them and who and what their real goals are by accident. I read and research “everything”now! I owe no one blind obedience.
One last thing. How many high level military types and inteligence people have “exposed” the flaws in the current administration all the way to the bank? Bob Clarke msade how much money exposing in a book what he should have been exposing before Congress for years. What took him so long? That writer of the Watergate affair, did he also reveal that Kennedy was behind the entire witch hunt? Did he expose that Kennedy had his personal friend appointed as that Attorney handling the investigation? Did he expose that the staff were also Kennedy suppporters and former associates and former staffers.
No! Did he espose Hillary Clinton’s role in this effort and her illegal activities to help bury Nixon? Did he expose the Progressive Caucue affiliation with the DSA or their affiliation with the Workers Party, a known Communist organization? NO! Another reporter did, and it got white washed to a back page. The DSA and Profgessive Caucus put up new websites hiding their affiliation. Did Woodward also expose the meeting the Caucus members and DSA had in Chicago as a supposed Democratic Committee event where they planned to have a candidate in this next election? NO!
Did he expose the fact that after the old Russia collapsed they also discussed at the meeting how to make Communism work by fixing the mistakes made by Russia and making things right by setting up their Utopia here in America? And lastly did he expose their plans to infiltrate NOW, the NAACP, the Labor Unions,, the NEA, the government employees organization and by systimatically changing terminology in their doctrine to words like “progressive” and such planned to succeed in their goal? NO!
WHY not? Wake up and smell the coffee! We are in trouble on the home front and the wiolf is at the door. While America sleeps someone is opening the door for the wolf!!!
As I understand the recent law, George Bush can pluck any resident alien out of any home in America, and sent him to an ex-KGB prison in Bulgaria. Lawfully.
If this is true, it would shock me. Do you have a cite? Because frankly the MSM has no *&%^# clue when it comes to the law, and politically-slanted (left or right) media is even worse with the exception of a tiny number of honest lawyers like Eugene Volokh. IAAL, so toss me a case or a statute so I can check it out.
I just knew you were going to come back with common article 3, the second-most misinterpreted bit of law since late 2001 (#1 is the Patriot Act section 215).
Two points: “each Party to the conflict shall be bound…” The italicized part? that would be your reciprocity right there. Let me know when The Taliban, Iraq’s butchers, or Al Queda generally agrees to be bound. Also, let me know when they recognize non-combatants as a distinct class.
Second, I think SCOTUS was huffing glue when they said that US v. Al Qeada is “not of an international character,” and I think the same of Iraq.
What you suggest is that if the US fights a non-signatory nation, (or a signatory that choses to disregard the treaty) we can torture their soldiers, but if we fight an international terrorist band whose entire purpose is torture and kill civilians, they have to be treated as POWs. I’m not sure how you justify that position, but I think it’s absurd.
_Aside to PD Shaw: you might try reading the Court’s decision._
Sigh. One more time.
The plurality decision in “Hamdan”:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html decided that the military tribunals violated “customary international law,” and that “[m]any of these are described in Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, adopted in 1977 (Protocol I). Although the United States declined to ratify Protocol I . . ..” “Justice Kennedy”:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZC1.html did not address whether the military tribunals violated customary international law:
bq. _There should be reluctance, furthermore, to reach unnecessarily the question whether, as the plurality seems to conclude, ante, at 70, Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions is binding law notwithstanding the earlier decision by our Government not to accede to the Protocol._
Now, is anyone surprised that Congress passed a law restricting the international legal authorities the court can use?
I’ll repost and fix:
_Aside to PD Shaw: you might try reading the Court’s decision._
Sigh. One more time.
The plurality decision in “Hamdan”:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html decided that the military tribunals violated “customary international law,” and that “[m]any of these are described in Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, adopted in 1977 (Protocol I). Although the United States declined to ratify Protocol I . . ..” “Justice Kennedy”:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZC1.html did not address whether the military tribunals violated customary international law:
There should be reluctance, furthermore, to reach unnecessarily the question whether, as the plurality seems to conclude, ante, at 70, Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions is binding law notwithstanding the earlier decision by our Government not to accede to the Protocol.
Now, is anyone surprised that Congress passed a law restricting the international legal authorities the court can use?
How many of you f*** right-wing SOBs have a single family member in Iraq right now in any capacity whatsoever?
It’s simple:
You invade a country, you go in with a complete plan to win.
You declare that this current struggle is a Clash of Civilizations, or “World War III,” then you don’t act like it’s a minor police action. And keep all your precious tax cuts intact. Keep the military small. Refuse to institute a draft.
Most of all, you lead by example. People of military age who support and believe in the war, should enlist. During WWII, media execs, movie stars, and big-time directors enlisted and fought. This time there was Pat Tillman. In WWII, Roosevelt’s children enlisted and fought. But you’ll find no Bushes in this fight.
If you don’t ACT like the War on Terrorism is important, you won’t convince many people for very long that it is.
Dragoneer,
Lots of us. Now go grow up.