Well, part of the issue here is purely a matter of political perception. Yes, you are right that in terms of the billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people (both military and civilian) needed to do this reconstruction/nation building, the admin can use the UN presence there, as well as the recent "wins" in the UN, as a means of deflecting charges about unilateralism.
They forced the UN's, congress's, liberals's, the media's, and to some extent the general population's hand by placing American troops in harm's way and then daring anyone to be "unamerican" enough to a) challenge their presence there or b) deny them funding. The boys are there, and, the Rovian logic goes, it would simply be unamerican not to support them.
We need to keep in mind here that the neo-con logic driving this thing is in many ways pretty simple: you get 200,000-500,000 troops in the middle of the Middle East, and you can force everyone to behave. Traditionally, as is the case with China and NK, the logic has been that the expansion of the free market would force other countries to play nice.
We shall see how this plays out. It certainly seems as if the administration has been surprised by the resistance they've gotten of late. They also didn't seem to consider the fact that their actions in Iraq might draw terrorists *to* the country. They also didn't seem to have thought much about what they'd do after SH was deposed.
Cheers
Scott
For the cynically minded, Bush is in a good political position. For those old enough to remember, Nixon announced the Paris peace accords around the spring/summer of the election year. In essence, the ?peace agreement? and the ?success? of Vietnamization was timed perfectly for his reelection ? of course, Vietnam fell two years later.
If Bush, and Rove, really want to improve their chances he should hold Iraqi elections and withdraw several months prior to the U.S. election and bask in ?mission accomplished?. Then a tottering government will survive a year or two and collapse in civil war?
However, the neocons (and many liberals) would be quite distressed. Both neocons and liberals love nation building, and the whole point of the war from the neocon perspective was not just WMD fears, but to create an Islamic democracy that could spark reform in other regional states.
It?s clear, however, that the democrats can?t offer a coherent alternative?and that is why they are fuming.
Both neocons and liberals love nation building, and the whole point of the war from the neocon perspective was not just WMD fears, but to create an Islamic democracy that could spark reform in other regional states.
It?s clear, however, that the democrats can?t offer a coherent alternative?and that is why they are fuming.
As for the first point...I know that that's the standard line from the PNAC and the neocon standard bearers like Wolfowitz, but for some reason I just don't buy it. This domino theory of democratizing the ME seems more like something you can pitch the public to make it all seem more acceptable. I don't know. I think, in the end, that it's really more about issues related to my first point: stick a few hundred thousand troops in the region, install a friendly government, and then watch as everyone behaves and noone complains. Then, THEN, you might get the kind of effect you're looking for through the broader expansion of global markets. That is, if we install a friendly gov't in Iraq (for the second time!) and it all works out well in the end, maybe the Syrians will behave themselves. Maybe the Iranians will warm up to us and want more McDonald's.
But damn, that's a lot of maybes.
As for the second, I think the idea that the Dems can't offer an alternative fails to acknowledge that the admin has put them in an impossible position, which I described in my earlier post. It's not that they can't come up with something because they're democrats; they can't come up with something because the Rove game plan here has been very clearly designed to position the opposition in such a way that the only way they can oppose the admin is to do something horrible like refuse to fund "the men and women fighting for freedom" or some such. That's the way the binary rhetoric of this admin works.
Now, what's really interesting in all of this is where the military comes in to play in the next election. They are completely, utterly, SCREWED, and every single person I've talked to recently (I live near an AFB) has said that they had started all of this as Bush-loving republicans. Now, after being sent all over the place, being told they were coming home and then told they weren't, after being stuck in Iraq for far longer than they anticipated, after spending time in Iraq doing things they weren't trained or outfitted for, they're pretty pissed off. Not to mention the whole combat pay thing. They don't want to vote democrat, but they don't want to support Bush, either. It's a horrible political situation, I think.
The latest Bush hi-jinx (blaming the military for that banner) doesn't help. It seems that he's losing the support of certain sectors of one of his strongest bases.
I don't know. There are a lot of things converging here that could spell disaster: the war(s), the internal war with the CIA, the intelligence snafus, the senate's intelligence report, Kay's report, the "jobless recovery" (too soon to tell, I think, what the recent economic growth spike means), all those lost retirement funds that are on his watch, the leaks....
We'll have to see what sticks and what doesn't. Me, I think Carville was right: people vote with their pocketbooks. And a lot of people aren't too happy with the way theirs looks at the moment.
At any rate, withdrawing too early will be disastrous. Totally disastrous. Members of the best-armed and best-trained military in the world are being picked off every day; what chance does the regular population have? The infrastructure is in a shambles. The country is ripe for a dictator. And then there's that other maybe: what if we pull out and "things fall apart" more quickly than the neocons in the admin anticipated? What happens is SH comes back?
Tack that on to not being able to find OBL, and that's the ballgame, I think. There aren't enough aircraft carries in the world to get his numbers back up.
As for the first point...I know that that's the standard line from the PNAC and the neocon standard bearers like Wolfowitz, but for some reason I just don't buy it. This domino theory of democratizing the ME seems more like something you can pitch the public to make it all seem more acceptable. I don't know. I think, in the end, that it's really more about issues related to my first point: stick a few hundred thousand troops in the region, install a friendly government, and then watch as everyone behaves and noone complains. Then, THEN, you might get the kind of effect you're looking for through the broader expansion of global markets...
As for the second, I think the idea that the Dems can't offer an alternative fails to acknowledge that the admin has put them in an impossible position, which I described in my earlier post. It's not that they can't come up with something because they're democrats; they can't come up with something because the Rove game plan here has been very clearly designed to position the opposition in such a way that the only way they can oppose the admin is to do something horrible like refuse to fund "the men and women fighting for freedom" or some such. That's the way the binary rhetoric of this admin works.
...They (the military) don't want to vote democrat, but they don't want to support Bush, either. It's a horrible political situation, I think.
The latest Bush hi-jinx (blaming the military for that banner) doesn't help. It seems that he's losing the support of certain sectors of one of his strongest bases.
I don't know. There are a lot of things converging here that could spell disaster: the war(s), the internal war with the CIA, the intelligence snafus, the senate's intelligence report, Kay's report, the "jobless recovery" (too soon to tell, I think, what the recent economic growth spike means), all those lost retirement funds that are on his watch, the leaks....
At any rate, withdrawing too early will be disastrous. Totally disastrous. Members of the best-armed and best-trained military in the world are being picked off every day; what chance does the regular population have? The infrastructure is in a shambles. The country is ripe for a dictator. And then there's that other maybe: what if we pull out and "things fall apart" more quickly than the neocons in the admin anticipated? What happens is SH comes back?
Tack that on to not being able to find OBL, and that's the ballgame, I think. There aren't enough aircraft carries in the world to get his numbers back up.
Cheers
Scott
If one is to accept either the neo-con inspired think tank report of several years ago, or the derivative National Security Strategy, then it is a bit disingenuous to select that portion one wish's to ascribe to their intentions, and leave out other parts. A good many experts and specialists contributed to these reports and, knowing neo-conservatism and its ideological base, I presume that they mean (or think they mean) what they say.
I should also remind you that moderate liberals (or neo-liberals), such as New Republic, joined with the neo-cons in expressing the same goals. The book, ?The War Over Iraq? was co-written by Lawrence Kaplan (Senior Editor of New Republic) and William Kristol (editor of the neo-con Weekly Standard) and summarizes the case for the Iraq war ? with the unequivocal assumption that national security can only be assured with democratization of our enemies (hence the subtitle, "America?s Mission").
Also, the Democrats dilemma has nothing to do with the reputed shrewdness of Karl Rove (a favorite left bogyman) but the underlying reality ? to withdraw from Iraq prematurely will invite disaster for the Iraqi people. Like it or not, the future of Iraq is tied to American support and democratization and no sane democrat will risk a public perception of ?selling out? (as, for example, it is said of Truman?s policy regarding China).
The democrats would be far better served if they stopped carping about the causes of the war ? as did American isolationists after the beginning of WWII - and join in making democracy possible for Iraq. If they don?t they may get what they ?say? they don?t wish for, that is, premature withdrawal.
Politicos love to talk about insider politics and lose perspective as too what matters to the American voter. "Controversies" over AC signs, CIA and admin infighting, etc. will not have a material effect on the outcome - as you say, the economy and the situation in Iraq near the election will dictate that.
My last comment is that democrats have to be careful. With all their outrage, to the unengaged observer it is percieved as at least petty, often immature, and to some disloyal to a President during war. What plays well with the democratic actitivists merely reenforces the perception of more "San Francisco" democrats on the move...
If one is to accept either the neo-con inspired think tank report of several years ago, or the derivative National Security Strategy, then it is a bit disingenuous to select that portion one wish's to ascribe to their intentions, and leave out other parts. A good many experts and specialists contributed to these reports and, knowing neo-conservatism and its ideological base, I presume that they mean (or think they mean) what they say.
I know, I know. And as I said, I don't really have any justification for my distrust of the stated agenda/plan. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason, and I've never really been able to put my finger on it.
Quote:
I should also remind you that moderate liberals (or neo-liberals), such as New Republic, joined with the neo-cons in expressing the same goals. The book, ?The War Over Iraq? was co-written by Lawrence Kaplan (Senior Editor of New Republic) and William Kristol (editor of the neo-con Weekly Standard) and summarizes the case for the Iraq war ? with the unequivocal assumption that national security can only be assured with democratization of our enemies (hence the subtitle, "America?s Mission").
Yes. One of the things I nearly put in my previous post is that this is the sort of thing that lots and lots of people would liked to have done well before now but feared the political consequences would be too great. Bush took the chance, using 9/11 as a port of entry, and now we're seeing what happens.
Quote:
Also, the Democrats dilemma has nothing to do with the reputed shrewdness of Karl Rove (a favorite left bogyman) but the underlying reality ? to withdraw from Iraq prematurely will invite disaster for the Iraqi people.
I disagree. And don't get me wrong, I'm a big flaming lefty, but I think Rove is a genius--perhaps the finest political strategist we've seen in decades. I should also have noted that I was using Rove as a kind of synecdoche for the collective strategical brain of the admin. There are certainly others who determine strategy and message, but Rove is, by all accounts, the key player.
At any rate, the crux of my point lies in the the move you make here: "the underlying reality ? to withdraw from Iraq...." Yes. It is the underlying reality. And yes, withdrawal would be devastating. But my point was that this is where the chess game comes in, and this is where the admin is winning in terms of strategy: they very clearly figured that *once we're there* everything that would normally have to be lined up *before* we would have gone in (bipartisan congressional and international support) will fall into place because of "the underlying reality" of the situation.
It's brilliant. I mean, look, France and Germany and Russia can put up a fight before the thing gets going, and then after we're in, they can moan and say "You made your bed," but the admin KNEW they would eventually come around because they wouldn't want to be left out of the reconstruction.
Quote:
Like it or not, the future of Iraq is tied to American support and democratization and no sane democrat will risk a public perception of ?selling out? (as, for example, it is said of Truman?s policy regarding China).
Right. And my point is that the future of Iraq is tied to American support NOW in ways that it wasn't last year.
Quote:
The democrats would be far better served if they stopped carping about the causes of the war ? as did American isolationists after the beginning of WWII - and join in making democracy possible for Iraq. If they don?t they may get what they ?say? they don?t wish for, that is, premature withdrawal.
I think you're right, simply because, as I've said before, there's no way for them to turn it without looking either anti-American, anti-Iraqi-Freedom, pro-terrorist, or otherwise weak.
Quote:
Politicos love to talk about insider politics and lose perspective as too what matters to the American voter. "Controversies" over AC signs, CIA and admin infighting, etc. will not have a material effect on the outcome - as you say, the economy and the situation in Iraq near the election will dictate that.
Yup. Although you have to admit that there's a kind of cumulative effect of infighting that can make an admin seem weak. The Dems have been struggling to find anything, *anything* that will stick to Bush, and it's just not happening. There are of course many reasons for this, but we shall see what happens with all of this now that the press seems to have gotten off its collective ass and started asking hard and meaningful questions.
Quote:
My last comment is that democrats have to be careful. With all their outrage, to the unengaged observer it is percieved as at least petty, often immature, and to some disloyal to a President during war. What plays well with the democratic actitivists merely reenforces the perception of more "San Francisco" democrats on the move...
Yes. A friend and I were talking about this issue several months ago. The question was "How are the democrats going to respond?" We were mainly talking about whether they will pull more to the center/right (Clintonian neo-lib kind of stuff) or whether they'd move to the left to try to cut off any opportunity for another Nader-like coup.
I like that phrase "unengaged observer." I think you're dead on with that.
This is an interesting exchange. However, although I previously expressed some qualified agreement with the underlying direction of the thoughts here, I find myself less and less in agreement as the posts continue.
I do no accept the ?brilliance? of the Administration?s strategy, even in trying to assess it in a non-partisan manner. I think that the Administration is now in some considerable difficulty in Iraq and are beginning to realize it, despite their ideological blinders. I do not think that they expected to have American soldier dying every day this far into the ?post-war? scenario.
Further, I think that there will be negative political consequences if this continues. In the aftermath of 9/11, I think that the American public was, and still is, willing to accept considerable military sacrifice ? but I am not sure that they are necessarily willing to accept this sacrifice in the continued occupation of Iraq, an occupation whose relationship with 9/11 is very much open to question.
And I do think that the poor situation in Iraq will continue. There is no sign of a decrease in hostilities by those opposed to the U.S. within Iraq. Further, the support of major allies that the Administration has now achieved is, for the most part, in name only. None of this support will be, or is even intended to be, of direct assistance to the situation on the ground. It is, and will continue to be, American soldiers who die every day.
Finally, I do think that there is an opportunity for the Democrats to capitalize on this situation. While I may think that the United States should now stay for humanitarian reasons, I think that, as the costs (human and dollars) continue to mount, fewer and few Americans will agree that the U.S. should have to shoulder this burden. A carefully-pitched Democratic anti-war platform could gain many votes. And, of course, even liberals who may agree with the need to stay are unlikely to vote for Bush in any case, for many other reasons.
I do no accept the ?brilliance? of the Administration?s strategy, even in trying to assess it in a non-partisan manner. I think that the Administration is now in some considerable difficulty in Iraq and are beginning to realize it, despite their ideological blinders. I do not think that they expected to have American soldier dying every day this far into the ?post-war? scenario.
Please understand that I'm not talking about the brilliance of their military strategy, which I think we all will admit was initially a failure (the rolling deployments? the seeming lack of any endgame strategy? Even the suspicion now that the guerilla war we're in now was SH's plan--which, BTW, I think I predicted somewhere a while back). I'm talking about the political strategy of it all. The war, its timing, and the way it's being sold to the public have all worked to place the democrats in the field right now in a decidedly untenable political situation.
Quote:
Further, I think that there will be negative political consequences if this continues. In the aftermath of 9/11, I think that the American public was, and still is, willing to accept considerable military sacrifice ? but I am not sure that they are necessarily willing to accept this sacrifice in the continued occupation of Iraq, an occupation whose relationship with 9/11 is very much open to question.
I think you're right, in the end, and one of the points of this thread is whether or not the admin will pull out early to avoid such fallout. The problem, as I been beating around the bush and not saying, is that Iraq can *either* be an albatross or a goldmine politically for the admin. At the moment, it looks like an albatross. But it's too soon to tell.
As soon as more of the Dem. candidates turn their rhetoric away from "war bad; Bush bad" to something like "Bush clearly cares more about the Iraqi people and their condition than he does of his own people" or "If Bush had fought as hard for domestic policies that would benefit millions of Americans as he did for this war in Iraq, Americans would be safer and wealthier," the more of an albatross it'll become.
But we'll see.
Quote:
And I do think that the poor situation in Iraq will continue. There is no sign of a decrease in hostilities by those opposed to the U.S. within Iraq. Further, the support of major allies that the Administration has now achieved is, for the most part, in name only. None of this support will be, or is even intended to be, of direct assistance to the situation on the ground. It is, and will continue to be, American soldiers who die every day.
Yup.
Quote:
Finally, I do think that there is an opportunity for the Democrats to capitalize on this situation. While I may think that the United States should now stay for humanitarian reasons, I think that, as the costs (human and dollars) continue to mount, fewer and few Americans will agree that the U.S. should have to shoulder this burden. A carefully-pitched Democratic anti-war platform could gain many votes. And, of course, even liberals who may agree with the need to stay are unlikely to vote for Bush in any case, for many other reasons.
See my remarks above. I think there's a way for them to be anti-war without being anti-war and seeming petty or unamerican while doing it. The sooner they start couching this war in terms of priorities and decisions the admin has (made), the better off they'll fare, since the exchange would probably go something like this:
Dem. charge: "The Admin made the decision to go to war against iraq and find funding for the reconstruction over other choices that would've helped the American people."
Admin response: "We went to war to protect the world. I am not going to leave the fate of the world in the hands of a madman."
Dem response: "How was he a threat?"
Admin response: "WMD!"
Dem response: "What WMD? Your own reports say that there weren't any."
Admin response: "We got bad intelligence."
Intelligence community: "The admin leaned on us hard to come up with pro-war data."
Admin response: "Nuh uh!"
And then we're off to the races, so long as the Dem candidates can KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS. If they let it spin off into what it is now, which is a minor story about political infighting between the admin and the CIA, which in turn is a MAJOR distraction from whatever the dems are trying to say, this could seriously weaken Bush in the re-election. Especially if they yoke the military angle to it. And more especially if they can link the economy to it (assuming that this will still be an issue in '04, which i believe it will be).
Please understand that I'm not talking about the brilliance of their military strategy, which I think we all will admit was initially a failure (the rolling deployments? ... I'm talking about the political strategy of it all. The war, its timing, and the way it's being sold to the public have all worked to place the democrats in the field right now in a decidedly untenable political situation.
I think you're right, in the end, and one of the points of this thread is whether or not the admin will pull out early to avoid such fallout... But it's too soon to tell.
As soon as more of the Dem. candidates turn their rhetoric away from "war bad; Bush bad" to something like "Bush clearly cares more about the Iraqi people and their condition than he does of his own people" or "If Bush had fought as hard for domestic policies that would benefit millions of Americans as he did for this war in Iraq, Americans would be safer and wealthier," the more of an albatross it'll become.
Scott
I think a lot of excellent points have been made by the more recent posters - aren?t we bright. Still, I am not convinced on several points.
Karl Rove (et. Al.) is that left-liberal bogeyman that many portray as an exceptional campaign manager who created, in Bush, a silk purse out of a sow?s ear. Perhaps, but I just don?t see it. I read an Internet article recently by a commentator who ?thought? that Rove was exceptional, until he actually examined his work. His conclusion? That Rove was a workaholic, disciplined, and tireless, but rather ordinary in his campaign techniques and strategy. I get the feeling that Rove is serving as a convenient and reassuring rationale for Bush?s unseeming success, a way of avoiding the more troubling issues of democratic politics.
I?ve also thought that Rove is not so brilliant as the Democratic managers are so flaky, spending most of their time in conflict with one another and currying favor with party power brokers.
But I am open to anyone explaining to me why he is considered a genius (I swear, his reputation on the left is far greater than within his own party). Till then, I will hold Lee Atwater as the best strategist of the last half-century, he combined hard work with an uncanny knowledge of the jugular (he was also far more sophisticated)?
I can?t agree on the assessments of the Bush strategy, political or otherwise, in Iraq, either. The military strategy was the most brilliant and successful portion of the intervention, well deserving of the Kudos in the aftermath.
However, the post-war reconstruction has been a poorly organized mess. Important sites were not protected against looting; the administration had two conflicting plans for Iraq ? one from State and the other from the Pentagon. The military overseer was replaced by Bremer due to the initial failures, but he in turn made many crucial mistakes (e.g. disbanding the Iraqi army), and it's now fairly obvious the administration had little appreciation of the difficulties in providing power, let alone reconstruction.
The flawed assumption was that Iraq had an underlying secular, traditional, social structure that only required leadership change; i.e. that police, fire, etc. services would continue unaffected after Saddam?s fall. No one realized that Iraq?s subordination to Saddam had stripped them of society wide leadership and institutional cultures -it created a system of action only by ?order? with extreme caution (and fear).
Let me conclude by highlighting a couple of the Bush strategic shortcomings by suggesting alternate strategies that might have been pursued upon the conclusion of the war: immediately turning over the reconstruction to the French, Germans, and the U.N., at a time they were eager to be back in the ball-game; or declaring a tactical victory and withdrawing immediately, thus not defining the war?s success in terms of reconstruction and democracy, but merely as the removal of Saddam and the threat of WMD development.
As it stands, the Administration does have storm clouds looming. Similar to the situation in the Vietnam War wherein Cambodia and Laos served as bases of operation, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. provide an important base of insurgent support and terrorists beyond Iraq?s borders. In addition, the guerrilla war depends on the civilian population as cover, striking when and where they chose.
If the democrats want to make hay out of this, they must not fall into an ?anti-war? platform because, at this point, it would become an anti-democracy and anti-reconstruction platform. Their best bet is to take a page out of Nixon?s 68 campaign - he did not berate LBJ's war rationale, but made the issue as one of vision and management. The demos need to come up with their own ?Vietnamization? program that (real or not) would claim to provide both success and a withdrawal.
I think a lot of excellent points have been made by the more recent posters - aren?t we bright. Still, I am not convinced on several points.
Yes, this has been stimulating. Mostly, I think, because we're not hurling invectives at one another. We disagree on certain fundamental points, and we're discussing them. I don't understand why that's so difficult for so many people. Anyway...
Quote:
Karl Rove (et. Al.) is that left-liberal bogeyman that many portray as an exceptional campaign manager who created, in Bush, a silk purse out of a sow?s ear. Perhaps, but I just don?t see it. I read an Internet article recently by a commentator who ?thought? that Rove was exceptional, until he actually examined his work. His conclusion? That Rove was a workaholic, disciplined, and tireless, but rather ordinary in his campaign techniques and strategy. I get the feeling that Rove is serving as a convenient and reassuring rationale for Bush?s unseeming success, a way of avoiding the more troubling issues of democratic politics.
Well, to be honest, we won't really know the depth of Rove's involvement in the admin's policies and politics until the show is over and the tell alls come out. There was a very good piece on Rove in Esquire a while back.
I'm just moving off of the following premises: 1) Rove was the strategist behind Bush's campaign, 2) Rove has historically been a favorite son of the Republican leadership, 3) Rove is still involved in teh White House's day to day activities.
My admiration for Rove is NOT because I have any delusion that Bush is a moron or a poor politician. You don't succeed in Texas politics like he did by sheer luck. But Bush (who is an unprecedented fundraiser) absolutely destroyed his competition in the campaign (especially McCain, and especially in SC), and it wasn't just because he had more money. Rove's decisions to turn Bush's percived weaknesses (unintelligent, average guy-ness, etc) to his advantage, got loads of votes. Additionally, Bush's mantra during the campaign--that he's a Washington outsider--was a brilliant stroke when placed in relief against those weaknesses. I mean, the claim is patently absurd. He's the grandson of a senator, the son of a man who was VPOTUS, former CIA director, and US liaison to China (or some such). He was the governor of the largest state in the union. He was a key player in his father's re-election campaign. He's also extravagantly wealthy, and has always been so.
But when you place that claim of outsider-ness against his normal guy-ness, you've got a winner with soccer moms and centrist dems who were feeling Clinton fatigue. It doesn't help that Gore ran an absolutely pitiful campaign.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rove had a hand in the Admin's tendency early on to simply say "I'm not going to talk about that" when tough-ish questions came down. Unlike the Clinton Admin, which idiotically responded to every single stupid thing that came across the desk, the Bush admin has been very, very adept at using the 24-hour news cycle to its advantage. If they won't answer questions, the press MUST move on to something else. And so they do.
But anyway. All of this is supposition. As I said, we just plain don't know. Unless congress manages to haul Rove in for questioning, that is.
I do seem to remember reading somewhere something about Rove's strategy regarding California: let it burn. The point was that the admin should not intervene in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER in California regarding anything (energy crisis, blackouts, recall). Gray is a political enemy who's self-destructing. By not intervening, his destruction continued and now CA is in play on the electoral map.
Quote:
I?ve also thought that Rove is not so brilliant as the Democratic managers are so flaky, spending most of their time in conflict with one another and currying favor with party power brokers.
But I am open to anyone explaining to me why he is considered a genius (I swear, his reputation on the left is far greater than within his own party). Till then, I will hold Lee Atwater as the best strategist of the last half-century, he combined hard work with an uncanny knowledge of the jugular (he was also far more sophisticated)?
Take a look at that story from Esquire I linked to up above. It's a fascinating read. There was another essay associated with it in that same issue, but I can't remember the title.
Quote:
I can?t agree on the assessments of the Bush strategy, political or otherwise, in Iraq, either. The military strategy was the most brilliant and successful portion of the intervention, well deserving of the Kudos in the aftermath.
My perception of the military strategy was that Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz had wanted to go in with an incredibly lean fighting force. The problem was that supply lines stretched too thin and snadstorms debilitated vehicles, and resistance was a little stronger outside of Baghdad than they had anticipated, and so more and more people were called up to fill the gaps until the force there swelled. Then Rumsfeld got on the air and said that this had been the plan all along. It read to me like the entry was botched pretty badly and that Rumsfeld was covering his ass.
Quote:
However, the post-war reconstruction has been a poorly organized mess. Important sites were not protected against looting; the administration had two conflicting plans for Iraq ? one from State and the other from the Pentagon. The military overseer was replaced by Bremer due to the initial failures, but he in turn made many crucial mistakes (e.g. disbanding the Iraqi army), and it's now fairly obvious the administration had little appreciation of the difficulties in providing power, let alone reconstruction.
The flawed assumption was that Iraq had an underlying secular, traditional, social structure that only required leadership change; i.e. that police, fire, etc. services would continue unaffected after Saddam?s fall. No one realized that Iraq?s subordination to Saddam had stripped them of society wide leadership and institutional cultures -it created a system of action only by ?order? with extreme caution (and fear).
Yes.
Quote:
Let me conclude by highlighting a couple of the Bush strategic shortcomings by suggesting alternate strategies that might have been pursued upon the conclusion of the war: immediately turning over the reconstruction to the French, Germans, and the U.N., at a time they were eager to be back in the ball-game; or declaring a tactical victory and withdrawing immediately, thus not defining the war?s success in terms of reconstruction and democracy, but merely as the removal of Saddam and the threat of WMD development.
I don't know. Because of my own political leanings, that sounds great to me. But I don't think that would've played well with the 700 Club crowd. Many, many conservatives in this country would have seen that as a handing over of control to a one-world government or some such. Others would've seen it as a recapitulation of Bush I's Gulf War.
Quote:
As it stands, the Administration does have storm clouds looming. Similar to the situation in the Vietnam War wherein Cambodia and Laos served as bases of operation, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. provide an important base of insurgent support and terrorists beyond Iraq?s borders. In addition, the guerrilla war depends on the civilian population as cover, striking when and where they chose.
If the democrats want to make hay out of this, they must not fall into an ?anti-war? platform because, at this point, it would become an anti-democracy and anti-reconstruction platform. Their best bet is to take a page out of Nixon?s 68 campaign - he did not berate LBJ's war rationale, but made the issue as one of vision and management. The demos need to come up with their own ?Vietnamization? program that (real or not) would claim to provide both success and a withdrawal.
That's an interesting thought. I wonder, though, if that would play poorly in the current climate. I mean, if you have Bush campaigning on reconstructing Iraq and Dems campaigning on how they could do a better job, what's the compelling reason for individuals not to vote for Bush? It's not like he can't change strategies. Similarly, the key to his response to a charge like that would no doubt be something like "Look, you screamed about the economy and I said wait and I was right. Give me time." and the ballgame's over.
Yes, this has been stimulating. Mostly, I think, because we're not hurling invectives at one another. We disagree on certain fundamental points, and we're discussing them. I don't understand why that's so difficult for so many people. Anyway...
Well, to be honest, we won't really know the depth of Rove's involvement in the admin's policies and politics until the show is over and the tell alls come out. . . Take a look at that story from Esquire I linked to up above. It's a fascinating read. There was another essay associated with it in that same issue, but I can't remember the title.
My perception of the military strategy was that Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz had wanted to go in with an incredibly lean fighting force. The problem was that supply lines stretched too thin and snadstorms debilitated vehicles, and resistance was a little stronger outside of Baghdad than they had anticipated, and so more and more people were called up to fill the gaps until the force there swelled. Then Rumsfeld got on the air and said that this had been the plan all along. It read to me like the entry was botched pretty badly and that Rumsfeld was covering his ass...
That's an interesting thought. I wonder, though, if that would play poorly in the current climate. I mean, if you have Bush campaigning on reconstructing Iraq and Dems campaigning on how they could do a better job, what's the compelling reason for individuals not to vote for Bush? It's not like he can't change strategies. .. Give me time." and the ballgame's over.
Cheers
Scott
I skimmed the article on Rove - I think I need to read it carefully and think about it's points...it seems really informative, thanks for the tip.
As far as the war is concerned, you are correct in saying that Rumsfeld and company pressed for an extremely lean force, something like 75,000. The Pentagon balked, and requested more like 450,000. Rummy wanted the war over in days, the Pentagon came up with an elaborate plan requiring weeks of pre-bombardment and a 40 day long advance on a broad-front to Baghdad.
What Rumsfeld was pressing for was a revolution in American military culture, but he wrongly credited the opportunity for this ?new? transformation to the availability of new technologies. It was not so much new technology, as the our belated adoption of an older military tactic, one already proven by the Germans in WWII and by the Israeli Army, i.e.; the blitzkrieg.
American military doctrine and culture ? from WWII through Gulf War I, has been influenced by the country?s overwhelming material advantage and aversion to casualties. Beginning in WWII, the Germans were struck by American tactics, calling it ?fighting like a rich man?, i.e.; the free expenditure of material and firepower on broad fronts rather than using stealth, maneuver and envelopment. Then, and now, the American army has been defined by its employment of extensive preparatory attack with air and artillery, followed by careful ?maneuver to fire? tactics, long-range engagement by firepower, long and extensive logistics supply lines, and well planned advances. In fact, the ?broad-front?, logistics heavy, strategy was employed by Eisenhower (for as much for political as for military reasons) in the allied advance to Berlin.
The invasion of Iraq was a significant break with previous American doctrine. By using the classic blitzkrieg, the broad front and usual flank protection was ignored. In maneuver, the allied forces quickly encircled and bypassed resistance, and moved on. Rather than pounding the Iraqi forces to dust in weeks of preparatory bombardment, the bombardment and advance coincided so as to ?shock and awe? the enemy forces into confusion and impotence. By our use of speed and deep penetration, the Iraqi forces were confused and unable to react. There is nothing materially different in the U.S. approach in the Iraq war, than what the Germans (e.g. Rommel) used in France and Russia, and the Israeli army in its battles.
The result was the fastest and farthest advance of an armored offense in the history of warfare, and the extremely rapid collapse of the Iraqi army (heck, at least Poland and Warsaw held out six weeks against the German invasion). It was almost flawless.
The problem is that Americans are spoiled by its past military success. For example, the Germans (Rommel) faced a serious and potentially catastrophic flank counter attack by the British and French army in the Battle for France (1940) that they barely managed to defeat and, the Germans were highly compromised by inadequate supplies and gasoline. But there was little doubt as to the brilliance of the German plan of 1940, and its final success.
The American army, on the other hand, faces some rationing of MRI meals in some units, and annoying but never serious counter attacks by irregulars, and the carpers (like Clark) are ready to cry ?disaster? and poor planning.
In summary, the blitzkrieg has several military and political advantages: 1) It shortens a war, helping defuse war criticism by allies and domestic opponents; 2) it lessens the casualties of the enemy; 3) it helps mitigate the impression that Americans are bullies and wantonly destructive in war, never risking there own lives while wasting the enemy from afar (e.g. Kosovo) for months on end.
It isn?t as ?tidy? or safe to fight that way, but it makes a lot more sense.
I'm also going to give a little more thought to "Iraqi-zation" of the war...
You also can't underestimate the significance of the snadstorms. Snadstorms are serious, serious business, I tell you.
Grr. I've been typing most of my responses on a PC laptop while my powerbook's in the shop. I've gotten too used to the built in spell check.
--
Seriously, though, you consider what we did in Iraq a Blitzkrieg? Or is it, as I think you suggest, the adoption and modification of certain elements of the technique (i.e. the speed but not the size).
You've given me a lot to think about today (damn you! I have work to do tonight! ). I'd not thought about the military strategy in an historical dimension.
I'll try to post some thoughts later (when I can grade no longer), as I want to keep this discussion going.
You also can't underestimate the significance of the snadstorms. Snadstorms are serious, serious business, I tell you.
Grr. I've been typing most of my responses on a PC laptop while my powerbook's in the shop. I've gotten too used to the built in spell check.
--
Seriously, though, you consider what we did in Iraq a Blitzkrieg? Or is it, as I think you suggest, the adoption and modification of certain elements of the technique (i.e. the speed but not the size).
You've given me a lot to think about today (damn you! I have work to do tonight! ). I'd not thought about the military strategy in an historical dimension.
I'll try to post some thoughts later (when I can grade no longer), as I want to keep this discussion going.
Cheers
Scott
Fair enough. However, I've cracked open a bottle of Sauvigon Blanc (a steal) and may not be especially articulate later - if I don't go out to a tavern for Halloween.
Fair enough. However, I've cracked open a bottle of Sauvigon Blanc (a steal) and may not be especially articulate later - if I don't go out to a tavern for Halloween.
My day is over - what do you teach ?
Max
Well, well. I've cracked open a fifth of bourbon! We can be inarticulate together! (BTW, I'm not really grading...just responding to student essays via email)
Well, well. I've cracked open a fifth of bourbon! We can be inarticulate together! (BTW, I'm not really grading...just responding to student essays via email)
I teach English at the university level.
Cheers
Scott
To continue the discussion, I thought it might be interesting to list the similarities, and differences, between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Iraq.
In light of this list, and the follow-up questions, what do you see as the likely scenarios?
Things that are the same:
A domestic insurgency
Internally provided ordinance and support
Use of Terrorism
Open borders, outside support for recruits.
U.S. network anti-war media
Need for pacification programs of hostile areas
Need for domestic government to repress insurgency
U.N. largely irrelevant to outcome
Things that are different:
No outside army units (NVA) from neighboring countries
No outside major weaponry and ordinance (yet)
No outside logistics and training bases to funnel troops (yet)
No rural cover (jungle, tunnels, mountains)
The vast majority not supporting this Sunni based insurrection
Most areas are not hostile to allied presence
Most operations confined to terrorism (not sustained combat).
U.S. cable TV (e.g. FOX) and Internet pro-war media outlets.
Fatalities 20 per month (Vietnam: 1000 per month).
Outstanding questions:
Do Americans have the same resolve as in Vietnam to sustain increased causalities and up to seven or eight years of combat?
Will neighboring countries allow themselves to be active bases of operations for terrorists and insurgents (e.g. as Lebanon is for Israel)?
Will neighboring countries supply trained regulars or irregulars, or major ordinance?
Can an Iraqi government be created that is stable, democratic, and militarily effective in blunting terrorist operations?
At what point should the United States withdraw, regardless of the consequences?
To continue the discussion, I thought it might be interesting to list the similarities, and differences, between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Iraq.
My gut instinct is to reject this analogy, just as it was to reject comparisons between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Those are good thoughts you've got there, though. I'm going to have to put a response on the back-burner for the moment.
Quote:
Outstanding questions:
Do Americans have the same resolve as in Vietnam to sustain increased causalities and up to seven or eight years of combat?
No. Not at all. We have no stomach for American casualties anymore. This will be the first real test of the post-Vietnam threshold. I'm figuring that it will be 1,000.
Quote:
Will neighboring countries allow themselves to be active bases of operations for terrorists and insurgents (e.g. as Lebanon is for Israel)?
I don't know. As I remarked earlier, I suspect that a huge part of the invasion of Iraq was simply to place hundreds of thousands of troops in the middle of the region so that everyone (i.e. Syria and Iran) would play nice. Damascus is the key here, I think. We'll have to see how well they behave, especially after Israel invaded and bombed them a few weeks ago. Side note: Does anyone else think it's terribly ironic that when Sharon uses the Bush doctrine on terrorism (i.e. protect your borders; go in and get them) it results in a lot of Bush sounding like he's Chirac?
Quote:
Will neighboring countries supply trained regulars or irregulars, or major ordinance?
I'm assuming you mean to the Iraqi resistance? Aren't they already doing so?
Quote:
Can an Iraqi government be created that is stable, democratic, and militarily effective in blunting terrorist operations?
Three different questions here:
Stable? Yes. They had one, but it was a dictatorship. Stable can mean all kinds of things.
Democratic? Perhaps. But remember, on paper, that's what they had before we went in. I don't necessarily think that a democratic government at the moment is in their best interests. The political fallout could be devastating if they choose to elect someone we don't like, or who doesn't like us.
Militarily effective against terrorism? No. Never. I really don't believe that terrorism is anything other than unconventional militarist tactics. In other words, if the terrorists had Apache helicopters, they'd use them. But they don't. And so they use suicide bombers. I've always thought labeling something "terrorism" really served more of a rhetorical function. It invalidates it. It rendered it dishonorable. It devalues the often very real political differences that are at the heart of it. But the core of my response ot the idea of something being "militarily effective against terrorism" is simply this: if history has shown us anything, it is that shooting at the terrorists doesn't make them go away. Very often, it makes more of them.
Quote:
At what point should the United States withdraw, regardless of the consequences?
That is the magic question. The answer is, I think, unknowable, but I think the heart of the debate will be over whether or not our continued occupation of Iraq actually serves to make the US less safe. In other words, it'll be when there is some breakdown in the logic of "better to fight the terrorists there than on American soil."
"A new, provocative documentary produced and directed by award winning filmmaker Robert Greenwald and sponsored by MoveOn.org and The Center for American Progress will reveal the distortion of intelligence by the Bush Administration which lead to the first pre-emptive war in the history of the United States.
The film has extensive and never before seen interviews with over 20 experts including former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former head of the CIA, Stansfield Turner, CIA operative Robert Baer, weapons inspector David Albright, the former U.S. DiplomatÊtoÊGreece, John Brady Kiesling, who resigned over the war, former anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers and more insiders at the CIA, the Pentagon, the foreign service and several weapons inspection teams. The information is hard hitting and uncensored."
Comments
The comparision of knowledge between him and the current occupant of the whitehouse is shamefully lopsided.
sigh. Can't wait for the debates!
Originally posted by Anders
Damn. I thought you meant withdraq himself.
i thought the same thing...
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, part of the issue here is purely a matter of political perception. Yes, you are right that in terms of the billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people (both military and civilian) needed to do this reconstruction/nation building, the admin can use the UN presence there, as well as the recent "wins" in the UN, as a means of deflecting charges about unilateralism.
They forced the UN's, congress's, liberals's, the media's, and to some extent the general population's hand by placing American troops in harm's way and then daring anyone to be "unamerican" enough to a) challenge their presence there or b) deny them funding. The boys are there, and, the Rovian logic goes, it would simply be unamerican not to support them.
We need to keep in mind here that the neo-con logic driving this thing is in many ways pretty simple: you get 200,000-500,000 troops in the middle of the Middle East, and you can force everyone to behave. Traditionally, as is the case with China and NK, the logic has been that the expansion of the free market would force other countries to play nice.
We shall see how this plays out. It certainly seems as if the administration has been surprised by the resistance they've gotten of late. They also didn't seem to consider the fact that their actions in Iraq might draw terrorists *to* the country. They also didn't seem to have thought much about what they'd do after SH was deposed.
Cheers
Scott
For the cynically minded, Bush is in a good political position. For those old enough to remember, Nixon announced the Paris peace accords around the spring/summer of the election year. In essence, the ?peace agreement? and the ?success? of Vietnamization was timed perfectly for his reelection ? of course, Vietnam fell two years later.
If Bush, and Rove, really want to improve their chances he should hold Iraqi elections and withdraw several months prior to the U.S. election and bask in ?mission accomplished?. Then a tottering government will survive a year or two and collapse in civil war?
However, the neocons (and many liberals) would be quite distressed. Both neocons and liberals love nation building, and the whole point of the war from the neocon perspective was not just WMD fears, but to create an Islamic democracy that could spark reform in other regional states.
It?s clear, however, that the democrats can?t offer a coherent alternative?and that is why they are fuming.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Both neocons and liberals love nation building, and the whole point of the war from the neocon perspective was not just WMD fears, but to create an Islamic democracy that could spark reform in other regional states.
It?s clear, however, that the democrats can?t offer a coherent alternative?and that is why they are fuming.
As for the first point...I know that that's the standard line from the PNAC and the neocon standard bearers like Wolfowitz, but for some reason I just don't buy it. This domino theory of democratizing the ME seems more like something you can pitch the public to make it all seem more acceptable. I don't know. I think, in the end, that it's really more about issues related to my first point: stick a few hundred thousand troops in the region, install a friendly government, and then watch as everyone behaves and noone complains. Then, THEN, you might get the kind of effect you're looking for through the broader expansion of global markets. That is, if we install a friendly gov't in Iraq (for the second time!) and it all works out well in the end, maybe the Syrians will behave themselves. Maybe the Iranians will warm up to us and want more McDonald's.
But damn, that's a lot of maybes.
As for the second, I think the idea that the Dems can't offer an alternative fails to acknowledge that the admin has put them in an impossible position, which I described in my earlier post. It's not that they can't come up with something because they're democrats; they can't come up with something because the Rove game plan here has been very clearly designed to position the opposition in such a way that the only way they can oppose the admin is to do something horrible like refuse to fund "the men and women fighting for freedom" or some such. That's the way the binary rhetoric of this admin works.
Now, what's really interesting in all of this is where the military comes in to play in the next election. They are completely, utterly, SCREWED, and every single person I've talked to recently (I live near an AFB) has said that they had started all of this as Bush-loving republicans. Now, after being sent all over the place, being told they were coming home and then told they weren't, after being stuck in Iraq for far longer than they anticipated, after spending time in Iraq doing things they weren't trained or outfitted for, they're pretty pissed off. Not to mention the whole combat pay thing. They don't want to vote democrat, but they don't want to support Bush, either. It's a horrible political situation, I think.
The latest Bush hi-jinx (blaming the military for that banner) doesn't help. It seems that he's losing the support of certain sectors of one of his strongest bases.
I don't know. There are a lot of things converging here that could spell disaster: the war(s), the internal war with the CIA, the intelligence snafus, the senate's intelligence report, Kay's report, the "jobless recovery" (too soon to tell, I think, what the recent economic growth spike means), all those lost retirement funds that are on his watch, the leaks....
We'll have to see what sticks and what doesn't. Me, I think Carville was right: people vote with their pocketbooks. And a lot of people aren't too happy with the way theirs looks at the moment.
At any rate, withdrawing too early will be disastrous. Totally disastrous. Members of the best-armed and best-trained military in the world are being picked off every day; what chance does the regular population have? The infrastructure is in a shambles. The country is ripe for a dictator. And then there's that other maybe: what if we pull out and "things fall apart" more quickly than the neocons in the admin anticipated? What happens is SH comes back?
Tack that on to not being able to find OBL, and that's the ballgame, I think. There aren't enough aircraft carries in the world to get his numbers back up.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
As for the first point...
Cheers
Scott
Very well said points midwinter. I really enjoy reading well articulated posts from articulate members.
Fellows
Originally posted by midwinter
As for the first point...I know that that's the standard line from the PNAC and the neocon standard bearers like Wolfowitz, but for some reason I just don't buy it. This domino theory of democratizing the ME seems more like something you can pitch the public to make it all seem more acceptable. I don't know. I think, in the end, that it's really more about issues related to my first point: stick a few hundred thousand troops in the region, install a friendly government, and then watch as everyone behaves and noone complains. Then, THEN, you might get the kind of effect you're looking for through the broader expansion of global markets...
As for the second, I think the idea that the Dems can't offer an alternative fails to acknowledge that the admin has put them in an impossible position, which I described in my earlier post. It's not that they can't come up with something because they're democrats; they can't come up with something because the Rove game plan here has been very clearly designed to position the opposition in such a way that the only way they can oppose the admin is to do something horrible like refuse to fund "the men and women fighting for freedom" or some such. That's the way the binary rhetoric of this admin works.
...They (the military) don't want to vote democrat, but they don't want to support Bush, either. It's a horrible political situation, I think.
The latest Bush hi-jinx (blaming the military for that banner) doesn't help. It seems that he's losing the support of certain sectors of one of his strongest bases.
I don't know. There are a lot of things converging here that could spell disaster: the war(s), the internal war with the CIA, the intelligence snafus, the senate's intelligence report, Kay's report, the "jobless recovery" (too soon to tell, I think, what the recent economic growth spike means), all those lost retirement funds that are on his watch, the leaks....
At any rate, withdrawing too early will be disastrous. Totally disastrous. Members of the best-armed and best-trained military in the world are being picked off every day; what chance does the regular population have? The infrastructure is in a shambles. The country is ripe for a dictator. And then there's that other maybe: what if we pull out and "things fall apart" more quickly than the neocons in the admin anticipated? What happens is SH comes back?
Tack that on to not being able to find OBL, and that's the ballgame, I think. There aren't enough aircraft carries in the world to get his numbers back up.
Cheers
Scott
If one is to accept either the neo-con inspired think tank report of several years ago, or the derivative National Security Strategy, then it is a bit disingenuous to select that portion one wish's to ascribe to their intentions, and leave out other parts. A good many experts and specialists contributed to these reports and, knowing neo-conservatism and its ideological base, I presume that they mean (or think they mean) what they say.
I should also remind you that moderate liberals (or neo-liberals), such as New Republic, joined with the neo-cons in expressing the same goals. The book, ?The War Over Iraq? was co-written by Lawrence Kaplan (Senior Editor of New Republic) and William Kristol (editor of the neo-con Weekly Standard) and summarizes the case for the Iraq war ? with the unequivocal assumption that national security can only be assured with democratization of our enemies (hence the subtitle, "America?s Mission").
Also, the Democrats dilemma has nothing to do with the reputed shrewdness of Karl Rove (a favorite left bogyman) but the underlying reality ? to withdraw from Iraq prematurely will invite disaster for the Iraqi people. Like it or not, the future of Iraq is tied to American support and democratization and no sane democrat will risk a public perception of ?selling out? (as, for example, it is said of Truman?s policy regarding China).
The democrats would be far better served if they stopped carping about the causes of the war ? as did American isolationists after the beginning of WWII - and join in making democracy possible for Iraq. If they don?t they may get what they ?say? they don?t wish for, that is, premature withdrawal.
Politicos love to talk about insider politics and lose perspective as too what matters to the American voter. "Controversies" over AC signs, CIA and admin infighting, etc. will not have a material effect on the outcome - as you say, the economy and the situation in Iraq near the election will dictate that.
My last comment is that democrats have to be careful. With all their outrage, to the unengaged observer it is percieved as at least petty, often immature, and to some disloyal to a President during war. What plays well with the democratic actitivists merely reenforces the perception of more "San Francisco" democrats on the move...
Originally posted by MaxParrish
If one is to accept either the neo-con inspired think tank report of several years ago, or the derivative National Security Strategy, then it is a bit disingenuous to select that portion one wish's to ascribe to their intentions, and leave out other parts. A good many experts and specialists contributed to these reports and, knowing neo-conservatism and its ideological base, I presume that they mean (or think they mean) what they say.
I know, I know. And as I said, I don't really have any justification for my distrust of the stated agenda/plan. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason, and I've never really been able to put my finger on it.
I should also remind you that moderate liberals (or neo-liberals), such as New Republic, joined with the neo-cons in expressing the same goals. The book, ?The War Over Iraq? was co-written by Lawrence Kaplan (Senior Editor of New Republic) and William Kristol (editor of the neo-con Weekly Standard) and summarizes the case for the Iraq war ? with the unequivocal assumption that national security can only be assured with democratization of our enemies (hence the subtitle, "America?s Mission").
Yes. One of the things I nearly put in my previous post is that this is the sort of thing that lots and lots of people would liked to have done well before now but feared the political consequences would be too great. Bush took the chance, using 9/11 as a port of entry, and now we're seeing what happens.
Also, the Democrats dilemma has nothing to do with the reputed shrewdness of Karl Rove (a favorite left bogyman) but the underlying reality ? to withdraw from Iraq prematurely will invite disaster for the Iraqi people.
I disagree. And don't get me wrong, I'm a big flaming lefty, but I think Rove is a genius--perhaps the finest political strategist we've seen in decades. I should also have noted that I was using Rove as a kind of synecdoche for the collective strategical brain of the admin. There are certainly others who determine strategy and message, but Rove is, by all accounts, the key player.
At any rate, the crux of my point lies in the the move you make here: "the underlying reality ? to withdraw from Iraq...." Yes. It is the underlying reality. And yes, withdrawal would be devastating. But my point was that this is where the chess game comes in, and this is where the admin is winning in terms of strategy: they very clearly figured that *once we're there* everything that would normally have to be lined up *before* we would have gone in (bipartisan congressional and international support) will fall into place because of "the underlying reality" of the situation.
It's brilliant. I mean, look, France and Germany and Russia can put up a fight before the thing gets going, and then after we're in, they can moan and say "You made your bed," but the admin KNEW they would eventually come around because they wouldn't want to be left out of the reconstruction.
Like it or not, the future of Iraq is tied to American support and democratization and no sane democrat will risk a public perception of ?selling out? (as, for example, it is said of Truman?s policy regarding China).
Right. And my point is that the future of Iraq is tied to American support NOW in ways that it wasn't last year.
The democrats would be far better served if they stopped carping about the causes of the war ? as did American isolationists after the beginning of WWII - and join in making democracy possible for Iraq. If they don?t they may get what they ?say? they don?t wish for, that is, premature withdrawal.
I think you're right, simply because, as I've said before, there's no way for them to turn it without looking either anti-American, anti-Iraqi-Freedom, pro-terrorist, or otherwise weak.
Politicos love to talk about insider politics and lose perspective as too what matters to the American voter. "Controversies" over AC signs, CIA and admin infighting, etc. will not have a material effect on the outcome - as you say, the economy and the situation in Iraq near the election will dictate that.
Yup. Although you have to admit that there's a kind of cumulative effect of infighting that can make an admin seem weak. The Dems have been struggling to find anything, *anything* that will stick to Bush, and it's just not happening. There are of course many reasons for this, but we shall see what happens with all of this now that the press seems to have gotten off its collective ass and started asking hard and meaningful questions.
My last comment is that democrats have to be careful. With all their outrage, to the unengaged observer it is percieved as at least petty, often immature, and to some disloyal to a President during war. What plays well with the democratic actitivists merely reenforces the perception of more "San Francisco" democrats on the move...
Yes. A friend and I were talking about this issue several months ago. The question was "How are the democrats going to respond?" We were mainly talking about whether they will pull more to the center/right (Clintonian neo-lib kind of stuff) or whether they'd move to the left to try to cut off any opportunity for another Nader-like coup.
I like that phrase "unengaged observer." I think you're dead on with that.
Cheers
Scott
I do no accept the ?brilliance? of the Administration?s strategy, even in trying to assess it in a non-partisan manner. I think that the Administration is now in some considerable difficulty in Iraq and are beginning to realize it, despite their ideological blinders. I do not think that they expected to have American soldier dying every day this far into the ?post-war? scenario.
Further, I think that there will be negative political consequences if this continues. In the aftermath of 9/11, I think that the American public was, and still is, willing to accept considerable military sacrifice ? but I am not sure that they are necessarily willing to accept this sacrifice in the continued occupation of Iraq, an occupation whose relationship with 9/11 is very much open to question.
And I do think that the poor situation in Iraq will continue. There is no sign of a decrease in hostilities by those opposed to the U.S. within Iraq. Further, the support of major allies that the Administration has now achieved is, for the most part, in name only. None of this support will be, or is even intended to be, of direct assistance to the situation on the ground. It is, and will continue to be, American soldiers who die every day.
Finally, I do think that there is an opportunity for the Democrats to capitalize on this situation. While I may think that the United States should now stay for humanitarian reasons, I think that, as the costs (human and dollars) continue to mount, fewer and few Americans will agree that the U.S. should have to shoulder this burden. A carefully-pitched Democratic anti-war platform could gain many votes. And, of course, even liberals who may agree with the need to stay are unlikely to vote for Bush in any case, for many other reasons.
Originally posted by Chinney
I do no accept the ?brilliance? of the Administration?s strategy, even in trying to assess it in a non-partisan manner. I think that the Administration is now in some considerable difficulty in Iraq and are beginning to realize it, despite their ideological blinders. I do not think that they expected to have American soldier dying every day this far into the ?post-war? scenario.
Please understand that I'm not talking about the brilliance of their military strategy, which I think we all will admit was initially a failure (the rolling deployments? the seeming lack of any endgame strategy? Even the suspicion now that the guerilla war we're in now was SH's plan--which, BTW, I think I predicted somewhere a while back). I'm talking about the political strategy of it all. The war, its timing, and the way it's being sold to the public have all worked to place the democrats in the field right now in a decidedly untenable political situation.
Further, I think that there will be negative political consequences if this continues. In the aftermath of 9/11, I think that the American public was, and still is, willing to accept considerable military sacrifice ? but I am not sure that they are necessarily willing to accept this sacrifice in the continued occupation of Iraq, an occupation whose relationship with 9/11 is very much open to question.
I think you're right, in the end, and one of the points of this thread is whether or not the admin will pull out early to avoid such fallout. The problem, as I been beating around the bush and not saying, is that Iraq can *either* be an albatross or a goldmine politically for the admin. At the moment, it looks like an albatross. But it's too soon to tell.
As soon as more of the Dem. candidates turn their rhetoric away from "war bad; Bush bad" to something like "Bush clearly cares more about the Iraqi people and their condition than he does of his own people" or "If Bush had fought as hard for domestic policies that would benefit millions of Americans as he did for this war in Iraq, Americans would be safer and wealthier," the more of an albatross it'll become.
But we'll see.
And I do think that the poor situation in Iraq will continue. There is no sign of a decrease in hostilities by those opposed to the U.S. within Iraq. Further, the support of major allies that the Administration has now achieved is, for the most part, in name only. None of this support will be, or is even intended to be, of direct assistance to the situation on the ground. It is, and will continue to be, American soldiers who die every day.
Yup.
Finally, I do think that there is an opportunity for the Democrats to capitalize on this situation. While I may think that the United States should now stay for humanitarian reasons, I think that, as the costs (human and dollars) continue to mount, fewer and few Americans will agree that the U.S. should have to shoulder this burden. A carefully-pitched Democratic anti-war platform could gain many votes. And, of course, even liberals who may agree with the need to stay are unlikely to vote for Bush in any case, for many other reasons.
See my remarks above. I think there's a way for them to be anti-war without being anti-war and seeming petty or unamerican while doing it. The sooner they start couching this war in terms of priorities and decisions the admin has (made), the better off they'll fare, since the exchange would probably go something like this:
Dem. charge: "The Admin made the decision to go to war against iraq and find funding for the reconstruction over other choices that would've helped the American people."
Admin response: "We went to war to protect the world. I am not going to leave the fate of the world in the hands of a madman."
Dem response: "How was he a threat?"
Admin response: "WMD!"
Dem response: "What WMD? Your own reports say that there weren't any."
Admin response: "We got bad intelligence."
Intelligence community: "The admin leaned on us hard to come up with pro-war data."
Admin response: "Nuh uh!"
And then we're off to the races, so long as the Dem candidates can KEEP HAMMERING ON THIS. If they let it spin off into what it is now, which is a minor story about political infighting between the admin and the CIA, which in turn is a MAJOR distraction from whatever the dems are trying to say, this could seriously weaken Bush in the re-election. Especially if they yoke the military angle to it. And more especially if they can link the economy to it (assuming that this will still be an issue in '04, which i believe it will be).
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Very well said points midwinter. I really enjoy reading well articulated posts from articulate members.
Fellows
Thanks, F! You should jump in!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Please understand that I'm not talking about the brilliance of their military strategy, which I think we all will admit was initially a failure (the rolling deployments? ... I'm talking about the political strategy of it all. The war, its timing, and the way it's being sold to the public have all worked to place the democrats in the field right now in a decidedly untenable political situation.
I think you're right, in the end, and one of the points of this thread is whether or not the admin will pull out early to avoid such fallout... But it's too soon to tell.
As soon as more of the Dem. candidates turn their rhetoric away from "war bad; Bush bad" to something like "Bush clearly cares more about the Iraqi people and their condition than he does of his own people" or "If Bush had fought as hard for domestic policies that would benefit millions of Americans as he did for this war in Iraq, Americans would be safer and wealthier," the more of an albatross it'll become.
Scott
I think a lot of excellent points have been made by the more recent posters - aren?t we bright.
Karl Rove (et. Al.) is that left-liberal bogeyman that many portray as an exceptional campaign manager who created, in Bush, a silk purse out of a sow?s ear. Perhaps, but I just don?t see it. I read an Internet article recently by a commentator who ?thought? that Rove was exceptional, until he actually examined his work. His conclusion? That Rove was a workaholic, disciplined, and tireless, but rather ordinary in his campaign techniques and strategy. I get the feeling that Rove is serving as a convenient and reassuring rationale for Bush?s unseeming success, a way of avoiding the more troubling issues of democratic politics.
I?ve also thought that Rove is not so brilliant as the Democratic managers are so flaky, spending most of their time in conflict with one another and currying favor with party power brokers.
But I am open to anyone explaining to me why he is considered a genius (I swear, his reputation on the left is far greater than within his own party). Till then, I will hold Lee Atwater as the best strategist of the last half-century, he combined hard work with an uncanny knowledge of the jugular (he was also far more sophisticated)?
I can?t agree on the assessments of the Bush strategy, political or otherwise, in Iraq, either. The military strategy was the most brilliant and successful portion of the intervention, well deserving of the Kudos in the aftermath.
However, the post-war reconstruction has been a poorly organized mess. Important sites were not protected against looting; the administration had two conflicting plans for Iraq ? one from State and the other from the Pentagon. The military overseer was replaced by Bremer due to the initial failures, but he in turn made many crucial mistakes (e.g. disbanding the Iraqi army), and it's now fairly obvious the administration had little appreciation of the difficulties in providing power, let alone reconstruction.
The flawed assumption was that Iraq had an underlying secular, traditional, social structure that only required leadership change; i.e. that police, fire, etc. services would continue unaffected after Saddam?s fall. No one realized that Iraq?s subordination to Saddam had stripped them of society wide leadership and institutional cultures -it created a system of action only by ?order? with extreme caution (and fear).
Let me conclude by highlighting a couple of the Bush strategic shortcomings by suggesting alternate strategies that might have been pursued upon the conclusion of the war: immediately turning over the reconstruction to the French, Germans, and the U.N., at a time they were eager to be back in the ball-game; or declaring a tactical victory and withdrawing immediately, thus not defining the war?s success in terms of reconstruction and democracy, but merely as the removal of Saddam and the threat of WMD development.
As it stands, the Administration does have storm clouds looming. Similar to the situation in the Vietnam War wherein Cambodia and Laos served as bases of operation, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. provide an important base of insurgent support and terrorists beyond Iraq?s borders. In addition, the guerrilla war depends on the civilian population as cover, striking when and where they chose.
If the democrats want to make hay out of this, they must not fall into an ?anti-war? platform because, at this point, it would become an anti-democracy and anti-reconstruction platform. Their best bet is to take a page out of Nixon?s 68 campaign - he did not berate LBJ's war rationale, but made the issue as one of vision and management. The demos need to come up with their own ?Vietnamization? program that (real or not) would claim to provide both success and a withdrawal.
Some light reading for you all ...
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...ts/s976015.htm
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I think a lot of excellent points have been made by the more recent posters - aren?t we bright.
Yes, this has been stimulating. Mostly, I think, because we're not hurling invectives at one another. We disagree on certain fundamental points, and we're discussing them. I don't understand why that's so difficult for so many people. Anyway...
Karl Rove (et. Al.) is that left-liberal bogeyman that many portray as an exceptional campaign manager who created, in Bush, a silk purse out of a sow?s ear. Perhaps, but I just don?t see it. I read an Internet article recently by a commentator who ?thought? that Rove was exceptional, until he actually examined his work. His conclusion? That Rove was a workaholic, disciplined, and tireless, but rather ordinary in his campaign techniques and strategy. I get the feeling that Rove is serving as a convenient and reassuring rationale for Bush?s unseeming success, a way of avoiding the more troubling issues of democratic politics.
Well, to be honest, we won't really know the depth of Rove's involvement in the admin's policies and politics until the show is over and the tell alls come out. There was a very good piece on Rove in Esquire a while back.
I'm just moving off of the following premises: 1) Rove was the strategist behind Bush's campaign, 2) Rove has historically been a favorite son of the Republican leadership, 3) Rove is still involved in teh White House's day to day activities.
My admiration for Rove is NOT because I have any delusion that Bush is a moron or a poor politician. You don't succeed in Texas politics like he did by sheer luck. But Bush (who is an unprecedented fundraiser) absolutely destroyed his competition in the campaign (especially McCain, and especially in SC), and it wasn't just because he had more money. Rove's decisions to turn Bush's percived weaknesses (unintelligent, average guy-ness, etc) to his advantage, got loads of votes. Additionally, Bush's mantra during the campaign--that he's a Washington outsider--was a brilliant stroke when placed in relief against those weaknesses. I mean, the claim is patently absurd. He's the grandson of a senator, the son of a man who was VPOTUS, former CIA director, and US liaison to China (or some such). He was the governor of the largest state in the union. He was a key player in his father's re-election campaign. He's also extravagantly wealthy, and has always been so.
But when you place that claim of outsider-ness against his normal guy-ness, you've got a winner with soccer moms and centrist dems who were feeling Clinton fatigue. It doesn't help that Gore ran an absolutely pitiful campaign.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rove had a hand in the Admin's tendency early on to simply say "I'm not going to talk about that" when tough-ish questions came down. Unlike the Clinton Admin, which idiotically responded to every single stupid thing that came across the desk, the Bush admin has been very, very adept at using the 24-hour news cycle to its advantage. If they won't answer questions, the press MUST move on to something else. And so they do.
But anyway. All of this is supposition. As I said, we just plain don't know. Unless congress manages to haul Rove in for questioning, that is.
I do seem to remember reading somewhere something about Rove's strategy regarding California: let it burn. The point was that the admin should not intervene in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER in California regarding anything (energy crisis, blackouts, recall). Gray is a political enemy who's self-destructing. By not intervening, his destruction continued and now CA is in play on the electoral map.
I?ve also thought that Rove is not so brilliant as the Democratic managers are so flaky, spending most of their time in conflict with one another and currying favor with party power brokers.
But I am open to anyone explaining to me why he is considered a genius (I swear, his reputation on the left is far greater than within his own party). Till then, I will hold Lee Atwater as the best strategist of the last half-century, he combined hard work with an uncanny knowledge of the jugular (he was also far more sophisticated)?
Take a look at that story from Esquire I linked to up above. It's a fascinating read. There was another essay associated with it in that same issue, but I can't remember the title.
I can?t agree on the assessments of the Bush strategy, political or otherwise, in Iraq, either. The military strategy was the most brilliant and successful portion of the intervention, well deserving of the Kudos in the aftermath.
My perception of the military strategy was that Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz had wanted to go in with an incredibly lean fighting force. The problem was that supply lines stretched too thin and snadstorms debilitated vehicles, and resistance was a little stronger outside of Baghdad than they had anticipated, and so more and more people were called up to fill the gaps until the force there swelled. Then Rumsfeld got on the air and said that this had been the plan all along. It read to me like the entry was botched pretty badly and that Rumsfeld was covering his ass.
However, the post-war reconstruction has been a poorly organized mess. Important sites were not protected against looting; the administration had two conflicting plans for Iraq ? one from State and the other from the Pentagon. The military overseer was replaced by Bremer due to the initial failures, but he in turn made many crucial mistakes (e.g. disbanding the Iraqi army), and it's now fairly obvious the administration had little appreciation of the difficulties in providing power, let alone reconstruction.
The flawed assumption was that Iraq had an underlying secular, traditional, social structure that only required leadership change; i.e. that police, fire, etc. services would continue unaffected after Saddam?s fall. No one realized that Iraq?s subordination to Saddam had stripped them of society wide leadership and institutional cultures -it created a system of action only by ?order? with extreme caution (and fear).
Yes.
Let me conclude by highlighting a couple of the Bush strategic shortcomings by suggesting alternate strategies that might have been pursued upon the conclusion of the war: immediately turning over the reconstruction to the French, Germans, and the U.N., at a time they were eager to be back in the ball-game; or declaring a tactical victory and withdrawing immediately, thus not defining the war?s success in terms of reconstruction and democracy, but merely as the removal of Saddam and the threat of WMD development.
I don't know. Because of my own political leanings, that sounds great to me. But I don't think that would've played well with the 700 Club crowd. Many, many conservatives in this country would have seen that as a handing over of control to a one-world government or some such. Others would've seen it as a recapitulation of Bush I's Gulf War.
As it stands, the Administration does have storm clouds looming. Similar to the situation in the Vietnam War wherein Cambodia and Laos served as bases of operation, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. provide an important base of insurgent support and terrorists beyond Iraq?s borders. In addition, the guerrilla war depends on the civilian population as cover, striking when and where they chose.
If the democrats want to make hay out of this, they must not fall into an ?anti-war? platform because, at this point, it would become an anti-democracy and anti-reconstruction platform. Their best bet is to take a page out of Nixon?s 68 campaign - he did not berate LBJ's war rationale, but made the issue as one of vision and management. The demos need to come up with their own ?Vietnamization? program that (real or not) would claim to provide both success and a withdrawal.
That's an interesting thought. I wonder, though, if that would play poorly in the current climate. I mean, if you have Bush campaigning on reconstructing Iraq and Dems campaigning on how they could do a better job, what's the compelling reason for individuals not to vote for Bush? It's not like he can't change strategies. Similarly, the key to his response to a charge like that would no doubt be something like "Look, you screamed about the economy and I said wait and I was right. Give me time." and the ballgame's over.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes, this has been stimulating. Mostly, I think, because we're not hurling invectives at one another. We disagree on certain fundamental points, and we're discussing them. I don't understand why that's so difficult for so many people. Anyway...
Well, to be honest, we won't really know the depth of Rove's involvement in the admin's policies and politics until the show is over and the tell alls come out. . . Take a look at that story from Esquire I linked to up above. It's a fascinating read. There was another essay associated with it in that same issue, but I can't remember the title.
My perception of the military strategy was that Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz had wanted to go in with an incredibly lean fighting force. The problem was that supply lines stretched too thin and snadstorms debilitated vehicles, and resistance was a little stronger outside of Baghdad than they had anticipated, and so more and more people were called up to fill the gaps until the force there swelled. Then Rumsfeld got on the air and said that this had been the plan all along. It read to me like the entry was botched pretty badly and that Rumsfeld was covering his ass...
That's an interesting thought. I wonder, though, if that would play poorly in the current climate. I mean, if you have Bush campaigning on reconstructing Iraq and Dems campaigning on how they could do a better job, what's the compelling reason for individuals not to vote for Bush? It's not like he can't change strategies. .. Give me time." and the ballgame's over.
Cheers
Scott
I skimmed the article on Rove - I think I need to read it carefully and think about it's points...it seems really informative, thanks for the tip.
As far as the war is concerned, you are correct in saying that Rumsfeld and company pressed for an extremely lean force, something like 75,000. The Pentagon balked, and requested more like 450,000. Rummy wanted the war over in days, the Pentagon came up with an elaborate plan requiring weeks of pre-bombardment and a 40 day long advance on a broad-front to Baghdad.
What Rumsfeld was pressing for was a revolution in American military culture, but he wrongly credited the opportunity for this ?new? transformation to the availability of new technologies. It was not so much new technology, as the our belated adoption of an older military tactic, one already proven by the Germans in WWII and by the Israeli Army, i.e.; the blitzkrieg.
American military doctrine and culture ? from WWII through Gulf War I, has been influenced by the country?s overwhelming material advantage and aversion to casualties. Beginning in WWII, the Germans were struck by American tactics, calling it ?fighting like a rich man?, i.e.; the free expenditure of material and firepower on broad fronts rather than using stealth, maneuver and envelopment. Then, and now, the American army has been defined by its employment of extensive preparatory attack with air and artillery, followed by careful ?maneuver to fire? tactics, long-range engagement by firepower, long and extensive logistics supply lines, and well planned advances. In fact, the ?broad-front?, logistics heavy, strategy was employed by Eisenhower (for as much for political as for military reasons) in the allied advance to Berlin.
The invasion of Iraq was a significant break with previous American doctrine. By using the classic blitzkrieg, the broad front and usual flank protection was ignored. In maneuver, the allied forces quickly encircled and bypassed resistance, and moved on. Rather than pounding the Iraqi forces to dust in weeks of preparatory bombardment, the bombardment and advance coincided so as to ?shock and awe? the enemy forces into confusion and impotence. By our use of speed and deep penetration, the Iraqi forces were confused and unable to react. There is nothing materially different in the U.S. approach in the Iraq war, than what the Germans (e.g. Rommel) used in France and Russia, and the Israeli army in its battles.
The result was the fastest and farthest advance of an armored offense in the history of warfare, and the extremely rapid collapse of the Iraqi army (heck, at least Poland and Warsaw held out six weeks against the German invasion). It was almost flawless.
The problem is that Americans are spoiled by its past military success. For example, the Germans (Rommel) faced a serious and potentially catastrophic flank counter attack by the British and French army in the Battle for France (1940) that they barely managed to defeat and, the Germans were highly compromised by inadequate supplies and gasoline. But there was little doubt as to the brilliance of the German plan of 1940, and its final success.
The American army, on the other hand, faces some rationing of MRI meals in some units, and annoying but never serious counter attacks by irregulars, and the carpers (like Clark) are ready to cry ?disaster? and poor planning.
In summary, the blitzkrieg has several military and political advantages: 1) It shortens a war, helping defuse war criticism by allies and domestic opponents; 2) it lessens the casualties of the enemy; 3) it helps mitigate the impression that Americans are bullies and wantonly destructive in war, never risking there own lives while wasting the enemy from afar (e.g. Kosovo) for months on end.
It isn?t as ?tidy? or safe to fight that way, but it makes a lot more sense.
I'm also going to give a little more thought to "Iraqi-zation" of the war...
Thanks
Max
Grr. I've been typing most of my responses on a PC laptop while my powerbook's in the shop. I've gotten too used to the built in spell check.
--
Seriously, though, you consider what we did in Iraq a Blitzkrieg? Or is it, as I think you suggest, the adoption and modification of certain elements of the technique (i.e. the speed but not the size).
You've given me a lot to think about today (damn you! I have work to do tonight!
I'll try to post some thoughts later (when I can grade no longer), as I want to keep this discussion going.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
You also can't underestimate the significance of the snadstorms. Snadstorms are serious, serious business, I tell you.
Grr. I've been typing most of my responses on a PC laptop while my powerbook's in the shop. I've gotten too used to the built in spell check.
--
Seriously, though, you consider what we did in Iraq a Blitzkrieg? Or is it, as I think you suggest, the adoption and modification of certain elements of the technique (i.e. the speed but not the size).
You've given me a lot to think about today (damn you! I have work to do tonight!
I'll try to post some thoughts later (when I can grade no longer), as I want to keep this discussion going.
Cheers
Scott
Fair enough. However, I've cracked open a bottle of Sauvigon Blanc (a steal) and may not be especially articulate later - if I don't go out to a tavern for Halloween.
My day is over - what do you teach ?
Max
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Fair enough. However, I've cracked open a bottle of Sauvigon Blanc (a steal) and may not be especially articulate later - if I don't go out to a tavern for Halloween.
My day is over - what do you teach ?
Max
Well, well. I've cracked open a fifth of bourbon! We can be inarticulate together! (BTW, I'm not really grading...just responding to student essays via email)
I teach English at the university level.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, well. I've cracked open a fifth of bourbon! We can be inarticulate together! (BTW, I'm not really grading...just responding to student essays via email)
I teach English at the university level.
Cheers
Scott
To continue the discussion, I thought it might be interesting to list the similarities, and differences, between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Iraq.
In light of this list, and the follow-up questions, what do you see as the likely scenarios?
Things that are the same:
A domestic insurgency
Internally provided ordinance and support
Use of Terrorism
Open borders, outside support for recruits.
U.S. network anti-war media
Need for pacification programs of hostile areas
Need for domestic government to repress insurgency
U.N. largely irrelevant to outcome
Things that are different:
No outside army units (NVA) from neighboring countries
No outside major weaponry and ordinance (yet)
No outside logistics and training bases to funnel troops (yet)
No rural cover (jungle, tunnels, mountains)
The vast majority not supporting this Sunni based insurrection
Most areas are not hostile to allied presence
Most operations confined to terrorism (not sustained combat).
U.S. cable TV (e.g. FOX) and Internet pro-war media outlets.
Fatalities 20 per month (Vietnam: 1000 per month).
Outstanding questions:
Do Americans have the same resolve as in Vietnam to sustain increased causalities and up to seven or eight years of combat?
Will neighboring countries allow themselves to be active bases of operations for terrorists and insurgents (e.g. as Lebanon is for Israel)?
Will neighboring countries supply trained regulars or irregulars, or major ordinance?
Can an Iraqi government be created that is stable, democratic, and militarily effective in blunting terrorist operations?
At what point should the United States withdraw, regardless of the consequences?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
To continue the discussion, I thought it might be interesting to list the similarities, and differences, between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Iraq.
My gut instinct is to reject this analogy, just as it was to reject comparisons between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Those are good thoughts you've got there, though. I'm going to have to put a response on the back-burner for the moment.
Outstanding questions:
Do Americans have the same resolve as in Vietnam to sustain increased causalities and up to seven or eight years of combat?
No. Not at all. We have no stomach for American casualties anymore. This will be the first real test of the post-Vietnam threshold. I'm figuring that it will be 1,000.
Will neighboring countries allow themselves to be active bases of operations for terrorists and insurgents (e.g. as Lebanon is for Israel)?
I don't know. As I remarked earlier, I suspect that a huge part of the invasion of Iraq was simply to place hundreds of thousands of troops in the middle of the region so that everyone (i.e. Syria and Iran) would play nice. Damascus is the key here, I think. We'll have to see how well they behave, especially after Israel invaded and bombed them a few weeks ago. Side note: Does anyone else think it's terribly ironic that when Sharon uses the Bush doctrine on terrorism (i.e. protect your borders; go in and get them) it results in a lot of Bush sounding like he's Chirac?
Will neighboring countries supply trained regulars or irregulars, or major ordinance?
I'm assuming you mean to the Iraqi resistance? Aren't they already doing so?
Can an Iraqi government be created that is stable, democratic, and militarily effective in blunting terrorist operations?
Three different questions here:
Stable? Yes. They had one, but it was a dictatorship. Stable can mean all kinds of things.
Democratic? Perhaps. But remember, on paper, that's what they had before we went in. I don't necessarily think that a democratic government at the moment is in their best interests. The political fallout could be devastating if they choose to elect someone we don't like, or who doesn't like us.
Militarily effective against terrorism? No. Never. I really don't believe that terrorism is anything other than unconventional militarist tactics. In other words, if the terrorists had Apache helicopters, they'd use them. But they don't. And so they use suicide bombers. I've always thought labeling something "terrorism" really served more of a rhetorical function. It invalidates it. It rendered it dishonorable. It devalues the often very real political differences that are at the heart of it. But the core of my response ot the idea of something being "militarily effective against terrorism" is simply this: if history has shown us anything, it is that shooting at the terrorists doesn't make them go away. Very often, it makes more of them.
At what point should the United States withdraw, regardless of the consequences?
That is the magic question. The answer is, I think, unknowable, but I think the heart of the debate will be over whether or not our continued occupation of Iraq actually serves to make the US less safe. In other words, it'll be when there is some breakdown in the logic of "better to fight the terrorists there than on American soil."
Cheers
Scott
"A new, provocative documentary produced and directed by award winning filmmaker Robert Greenwald and sponsored by MoveOn.org and The Center for American Progress will reveal the distortion of intelligence by the Bush Administration which lead to the first pre-emptive war in the history of the United States.
The film has extensive and never before seen interviews with over 20 experts including former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former head of the CIA, Stansfield Turner, CIA operative Robert Baer, weapons inspector David Albright, the former U.S. DiplomatÊtoÊGreece, John Brady Kiesling, who resigned over the war, former anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers and more insiders at the CIA, the Pentagon, the foreign service and several weapons inspection teams. The information is hard hitting and uncensored."