95 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
It’s hard to say “what’s the worst”, but I’d like to nominate our involvement in Chile between 1969-1973 as truly pathetic. We tried to rig an election, got caught, and a communist got elected president to spite us. Then, just when everything is falling apart around them, we decide, “No, we won’t wait for Chile to boot him themselves in 3 years, we’ll partner up with the Chilean military to overthrow him”. Then we were shocked(!) to find out that Pinochet would start killing off the dissidents. If I were the Supreme Being, I’d sentence Kissinger to a life of eternal torture. |
I do find it richly ironic that Jimmy Carter is in a position to label anything a policy blunder. |
Great post! I completely and utterly agree with your answer of the War of 1812. In fact, I wrote this before I even scrolled down to read the rest of your post:
Here are my brief comments about it on another thread. On that day, I was thinking that Carter’s blunders are worse than the War of 1812. Maybe tomorrow I will again. (Other brief comments on American foreign policy blunders can be found here.) A close second was J. Earl Carter’s own efforts to delegitimize the Shaw of Iran in favor of the partisans of the Ayatollah, resulting in the first Islamist government in the history of modern foreign policy. This wasn’t just an unforeseen consequence of an otherwise sound policy, it was part and parcel of J. Earl Carter’s foundational belief that the US should try to buddy up with its opponents, because they were on the right side of history. |
ask Colin Powell how he feels about it. |
and, Oh Yeah…. the Iranian situation (as I recall, anyway) hasn’t co$t the U.S. a few trillions, or over 4,000 lives (so far). |
Well, not counting Iraq, Vietnam is a rather gigantic blunder, seeing as how the entire premise of the war was based on the fact that the Americans totally misunderstood that the only people that the Vietnamese hated worse than us was the Chinese. You see, for you young’uns out there, we gave as the reason to be in Vietnam that the Vietnamese regime under Ho Chi Minh (our North Vietnamese enemy) would align with the Communist world (read China), unless, uh, we, uh, killed lots of them and, uh, you know, won, some undefined sort of winning thing. Not so much. We wasted about 58,000 American men, including, almost, my father; somewhere around a million Vietnamese, and as an added bonus, destabilized Laos and Cambodia, setting up the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, leading to another, roughly 1.5 million Cambodians dead. Go USA. Number two (or maybe number one in a slightly different counting system) would be the CIA taking out the democratically elected Prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, in 1953, and installing the Shah Reza Pahlavi, ensuring that the Middle East saw us as the Bad Guys. The Vietnam debacle, and our inability to learn from it plus our earlier Meddling in Iran’s affairs both led directly to today’s debacle–which shall not be named. The war of 1812? Are you kidding? It was like a divorced couple squabbling; no one cared but the combatants. |
It seems like your question is assuming that the virtue or lack of virtue of any foreign policy is largely determined by how it helps us as a nation in a very realpolitik way and not based upon the morality of virtue of the act itself. From this standpoint, I would proffer our genocide/policy towards native Americans as a particularly heinous and vile policy. The war against the Philippines fought purely for greed ending millions of phillipinos lives would be another one. The war against Mexico, the various unprovoked imperialistic invasions of nations throughout central America, Caribbean, etc. In more modern times we have of course the Vietnam war, the bombing of Cambodia. I guess this whole 1812 war pales in comparison to the slaughter of millions who stood in the way of our manifest destiny. |
I want to nominate The Bay of Pigs. |
all these incidents (and the ‘rationale’ that justified them) indict greediness and the ‘we’re “better” than you are’ mentalities; I believe it is a close cousin to the crusades, (any ‘nationalism’)military expansionism)etc. The same motives that Hitler had, etc. etc. Just a change in times & places. |
The American government was quite treacherous in its dealings with the American Indians, over and over and over and over again. Since this happened during the time that the United States was expanding its holdings into ‘new’ territories, it might arguably be considered a foreign policy issue. |
There’s the question of whether American troops/planes should have bombed Auschwitz – a place where more than a million Jewish people were killed during WWII. |
I totally agree with the idea that people calling the Iraq war a failure are making a prediction, not an assessment. They’re calling the game in the 7th inning, and they have been calling it over and over again since the second inning. What’s worse, they are making a normative statement of what they would actually like to see happen so they can feel vindicated. Guy Noir (9), |
The Iraq war is a failure. Nouri-Al Maliki, current prime minister of Iraq, is the head of the Dawa party–an early backer, of among other things, the Iranian revolution. Remember that? In return, they receive support from Iran. They also bombed the The American and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983. Al-Maliki lived in exile in Iran and was just over there to broker a peace deal with Moquta Al-Sadr, who is and has always been an Iraqi nationalist. He and his father, for example, never went into exile in Iran. So, we’re backing the pro-Irani terrorist (see previous American embassy bombings) regime in Iraq right now against the pro-Iraqi faction, while at the same time calling out Iran as the next great Satan. Got that? We’re backing the same side we’re fighting. How can this be seen as anything but a gigantic disaster of monumental proportions? For confirmation, just look at what pretty much across the board every single retired general has said. People who actually understand the conditions on the ground are, frankly, horrified. |
djinn,
Al-Sadr Jr. is in Iran right now and has been for some time. The most that can be said of him is that he is an Iraqi “nationalist” who does the bidding of his Iranian sponsors. |
“For confirmation, just look at what pretty much across the board every single retired general has said. People who actually understand the conditions on the ground are, frankly, horrified.” djinn #13, that’s been said before. I haven’t seen anything to support it- in terms of the eventual outcome. And are you saying retired generals are on the ground? Your comments are the usual positioning rather than a reasoned response. To move away from the current Iraq war, as this post intends, I would 100% agree with the war of 1812. Joshua Madsen #7- Tell me about the unprovoked imperialistic invasions on Southern & Central America, the Caribbean, and such. I’m interested in reconsidering my vote. Not that I’m unfamiliar with US interventions in the areas, but you make a strong assertion without compelling arguments. And isn’t manifest destiny the doctrine that drove the U.S. through our western frontiers to the Pacific Ocean. Are you thinking the Truman Doctrine? DKL posted awhile back (in February) about William F. Buckley. In the comments of that post was inserted a debate between Noam Chomsky and Mr. Buckley. Being debated was the idea of U.S. foreign intervention. Chomsky argued against all forms and Buckley seemed to think that was silly. I think all of the “blunders” exposed here show some of the errors of approaches to intervention- whether none at all, too little, or too much. Personally, I think for a great world power, intervention is a duty, though not with as much force as we often see. |
Dan Ellsworth, I think that people can call our adventure in Iraq a failure right now because the reason we were given for going there in the first place didn’t exist. So even if it turns out as well as it possibly can from this point on it is a failure. |
(This isn’t an Iraq thread. Can you take the endless Iraq debate elsewhere?) |
# 16 ARJ, The point is not whether some particular mission for Iraq failed, the point is whether or not at some given juncture, we could look back and say, “it started off well, went to pot, but turned into something positive or went even more to pot.” To say the current Iraq campaign is a “Blunder” per se is to represent a myopic, closed minded approach, or a self-interested positioning or even partisanship. We really can’t talk much about the result, because there is no definite conclusion. It’s like saying your steak is good when it’s been on the grill for 30 seconds- just wait until it’s overcooked- then you’ll look the fool. |
All that can be said is that Al Sadr disappeared for awhile. Seeing as Al Sadr’s father stayed in Iraq and was killed it seems unlikely, at the least, that Al Sadr really took off for Iran. At any rate, this all seems to be face-saving for the US, as the Prime Minister is undoubtedly pro-Irani. Plus, the surge? Are you kidding? Al Sadr stood the Mahdi army down in August. As they weren’t fighting (so much) casualties decreased. But wait! The Mahdi army is back and, for all intents and purposes, just won the battle of Basra. This is a long winded way of saying the fate of Iraq is out of our hands; what is happening is beyond our control. What exactly are we doing over there right now, other than being targets? The eventual outcome (per nasamomdele) has happened — two Militant Islamic groups (both Shia!) pitted against each other, neither one of which likes us much. Here’s a partial list of people with much more foreign policy experience than you or I who have all come forward publicly in opposition to the war. –copied from Wikipedia On June 16, 2004 twenty seven former senior U.S. diplomats and military commanders called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change issued a statement against the war. The group included: –End Wikipedia copy |
A long list of people who could appear foolish or insightful when all is said and done. |
arj, I think that you’re confusing the goal (replacing Saddam Hussein with a less-oppressive, less-hostile republic) with the assessment of the threshold condition that triggered the execution of actions to attain the goal. Furthermore, there were several reasons to get rid of Hussein, and the administration focussed on weapons of mass destruction because that seemed the easiest to sell. As long as there existed a justifiable reason to invade (e.g., the escalation of Iraq’s repeated violations of the terms of the US-Iraqi cease-fire agreed upon in 1991), then supporters of the war can support the war with a clean conscience no matter what the administration offers as its own justification. And whatever else can be said about the weapons of mass destruction, it seemed pretty obvious to everybody at the time that they existed — it was nothing less than the conventional wisdom both inside and outside of the American and international intelligence communities. For example, the official editorial position of The New York Times was that invading Iraq would risk too many American lives because of the likelihood of Hussein using his weapons of mass destruction. All the clamor coming out of Congress about “being misled” is also disingenuous. Congress met in closed session for days to review every bit of intelligence material that the White House had reviewed. This wasn’t some cherry picked set of data points. It was everything for and against that the administration had at its disposal in making its own assessment. |
ARJ (16), If the only reason we went to Iraq was to find WMDs, then yes, it was a failure, a substantial foreign policy blunder. If another reason was to implement the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq as defined in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (passed unanimously in the Senate and signed by Pres. Clinton), the effort was a successful implementation of national security policy, and we are now in a phase where we are providing postwar security assistance, with very mixed results. I think that’s the more accurate assessment. djinn, As far as I can tell, only a fraction of those criticisms deal with the effort after our current change in strategy. I don’t think anyone would argue that our pre-Petraeus strategy was bad, but the interesting thing is, most of those retired generals would have implemented a very similar strategy, only with larger numbers of troops. Hard to say from here how that would have turned out. |
Jeff, The reason the War of 1812 isn’t considered the worst foreign policy blunder ever is because its long-lasting effects are quite minimal compared to the effects of other blunders. The worst American foreign policy blunder to this point is still 1. Vietnam. —Utterly horrible foreign policy. The fear that drove American foreign policy from the 50s to the 80s caused so many Americans to think irrationally about the world around them. And our actions in Vietnam were the worst, and the most counterproductive. Vietnam had a detrimental effect on our nation, causing a great divide that had never been there before, a divide that still ripples through, and will probably ripple through for generations more to come. Certainly it doesn’t help to have another Vietnam in Iraq to reopen these old wounds. We did not need to go into Vietnam. But our blindness to the cultures and politics of Southeast Asia made us ignorant of the best path to take, and we took the dumbest path. This is, unfortunately, the same problem we face in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. We are blind to the cultures and politics of the Middle East and take the dumbest path. We are a blunt mindless grunt when it comes to our foreign policy towards Southeast Asia in the 1960s and the Middle East today. 2. Iraq —Utterly horrible foreign policy. The ultimate irony of Iraq is that the CIA placed the Ba’ath Party into power. The reason Saddam came to power is thanks to the utterly awful CIA. Good work boys. Way to think about it clearly. 3. Iran —Again, horrible. The Iranians nationalized their oil production in the early 50s and the British cried to the Americans like little spoiled brats. See, the British were hoarding all the profits from Iranian oil and the Iranians said, “enough is enough.” The British were not happy and tried to invade, but were held back by the Americans. So Sir Winston Churchill (who profited from that oil) cried to Eisenhower to remove Mossadeq, the democratically elected leader of Iran, from power and reinstall the royal shah. They did so, in Operation Ajax. The shah came back to power, backed by the Americans. That led to a lot of repression, which led to the people turning to the only ones who had the power and influence to remove the shah, the religious fundamentalists led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Yeah, that turned out well for us in the long run, didn’t it? Those were horrible foreign policies. Those were self-defeating in the long run. But Vietnam takes the cake because of how drastically it damaged our country. |
By the way, I would argue that the CIA’s support of the Afghanistan mujahideen against the Russians in the early 80s was a spectacular blunder. If we had let that situation play out without any of our interference, Russia would likely be bearing a much greater share of terrorist ire today. |
Dan E., #12,
That’s because they see that our players are not matching up correctly with their players and the outcome is not in doubt. We will come out the losers because we did not do this properly from the start. That’s what war supporters will never understand, to their dying breath. DKL, #21,
Huh, seems that Colin Powell was out of the loop:
Try another method at deceiving Americans, DKL. |
Dan E., #24, Name any CIA intervention and you can lay it under the “blunder” category. |
Dan (26), Name any CIA intervention and you can lay it under the “blunder†category. I was looking to go to work for them a while back, until I read Bob Baer’s book See No Evil. I have zero confidence in that organization since then. (25), |
Dan E., #27 I too was looking to work for them a while back (heck I think they still have my resume on file somewhere). But frankly, if I were president, I would fully cut off their funding, fire all the analysts and leaders, and leave the carcass to the throes of history. As for the sanctions, they were working indeed. We like to think they weren’t because Saddam was still in power and still controlled the country. But the sanctions degraded his army’s capability and preparedness. They really did work. The Iraq army that we faced in 2003 was but a shell of its strength in 1991, and that’s not saying much, as Iraq was never a major, or even a mid-level power. Our constant focus on Saddam, a two-bit dictator, was always a befuddlement for me. He was our finger in the dike to control an emerging Shi’ite strength out of Iran. By taking out that finger, we opened the floodgates, and now Shi’ites control two countries full of oil. Does that make any strategic, long-term sense? And then we say we were there to install a democracy? Well, what kind of democracy would you get with a majority Shi’ite religious population? Did Rumsfeld ever consider this? Of course not. The man was dumb. He cared only about preconceived notions, not about long-term strategies. It never made sense to go into Iraq. |
Oh and I’m reading Tim Weiner’s “A Legacy of Ashes” right now. It’s a great book if you want to feel regret for ever even considering thinking about working for the utterly horrible CIA. |
Dan: Try another method at deceiving Americans, DKL. I’m glad to see that you’ve seen Fahrenheit 911. The reason Powell had to affirm the effectiveness of the sanctions during a news conference was because their efficacy was in doubt — his affirmation is one of defensive justification, not one of triumph. What fatally undermines the conclusion you draw from that quote is that Powell himself found the subsequent evidence compelling enough to reverse his position. Even so, as Dan Ellsworth has pointed out, Colin Powell was out on a limb regarding his assessment of Iraq’s capabilities. If you’re going to try to take payback swipes at me to assuage your argumentative frustration, then you’ll have to do better than reciting tired propaganda regarding a basically irrelevant quote. Plus, it doesn’t address any of the other arguments I’ve advanced in my comment. So it’s basically a pot-shot that ignores the bulk of the discussion to draw a wildly underdetermined conclusion. Seriously, is this the best you can do? And regarding the CIA and blunders, Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes is the book to read. |
I posted that last line about Legacy of Ashes before I saw your last comment, Dan. |
Plus, (piling on, admittedly) the “consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction” was entirely ginned up by the Bush administration echo cabinet. I remember hearing Cheney on “Face the Nation” quoting Judith Miller from the New York Times, herself quoting “Curveball,” [some anonymous Iraqi source who conveniently proved the Admins deepest desires] as proof that the WMD really really truly existed. This is no proof at all. There never was any proof. All of you who fell for the Administration’s tricks are, I’m sure, sweet trusting people; but remember their duplicity in this case, when the start making accusations against Iran. |
And now for a little light reading, courtesy of Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie. Oh, come back, proud Canadians And the White House burned, burned, burned, Now some hillbillies from Kentucky, And the White House burned, burned, burned, In 1812, we were just sittin’ around, Oh… we… fired our guns, but the Yankees kept-a coming, So, if you go to Washington, its buildings clean and nice, And the White House burned, burned, burned, (*Disclaimer* I’m American. I just live in the 51st State. ;) ) |
DKL, #30, Oh I got plenty more for you, but as this post is about foreign policy blunders as a whole and not Iraq exclusively, I’d rather not go off on this tangent. If you wish to debate it, please start another thread specifically about Iraq. Let’s see how many comments you get there. :) |
#32, Ugh. “Meet the Press”? or Wikipedia? Proud Daughter of Eve, Classic. |
Reading about the war of 1812 is starting to make me bitter towards Britain. Fortunately, as Jimmy Kimmel pointed out on American Idol the other night, Mary Poppins has gone a long way toward restoring good will between us and the motherland. Mary Poppins and the Beckhams, I would add. |
I think “foreign policy crimes” is a better phrase for these actions than “foreign policy blunders”. There have been many good nominees here, but one that hasn’t been mentioned (unless I’ve missed it) is the support of Suharto thru the upwards of one million souls he killed. From supplying names of communist sympathizers in 1965 (all 5000 of whom were apparently executed) to his massacre of 500,000 to one million largely landless and defenseless peasants, to his genocidal occupation of East Timor, right up to the end; the US government supported, armed, financed, trained soldiers etc., supporting to the hilt every one of Suharto’s crimes. |
Allowing private companies to go in and rape a foreign nation of its natural resources seem to be a pretty big blunder. War for profit is never a good thing. |
Jared: that said, I am concerned about missed choices as well. I didn’t have near enuf facts to make a decision or ever recommendation re all the violence in Africa, but my gut told me we should have stepped in. |
Regarding Vietnam - I’ve always felt that our reaction to that war continues to be one of embarrassment. As a country, we still don’t know how to react to that. We talk a good fight about Vietnam vets (as payback for our treatment of them initially) and we like to criticize the dodgers, but … most everyone who would have had the opportunity would have tried to avoid it too. Even our “memorial” to those who died in Vietnam is more of a protest than an memorial. It’s designed to shock you with the enormity of the loss more than it is intended to celebrate the sacrifice of those who died. For my money, the best war memorial in DC is the Korean War Memorial. Vietnam is just creepy (maybe because we went at night). |
Is there a memorial to 1812? The war fought where most of the battles the Americans won came technically after the war was over? The war fought against Generals who had been sent to Canada because they were so incompetent that Britain didn’t want them screwing up the war in Europe? The war fought while Britain was conveniently busy with Napoleon? |
Proud DoE (#33): All right, so make that two totally awesome songs from the War of 1812! Regarding the CIA, as others have said, it’s really hard to find something the CIA has actually done a good job with. So maybe we can lump “Bay of Pigs,” and so on in a category called “Creation and continuance of the CIA.” Their incompetence is one reason why I am skeptical of claims that we played a decisive role in Mossadageh’s overthrow in Iran, or in undermining the Allende regime and propping up Pinochet. I just have a hard time believing they really have the chops to pull any of that off, even if they may have wanted to. It’s djinn #19′s Wikipedia citation that I would like to spend the most time thinking about, however. As djinn points out, the list of those opposing the invasion beforehand is bipartisan. I think 9/11 fractured the bipartisan foreign policy consensus on the Middle East that had been operative through successive Republican and Democratic administrations since Nixon. It is usually called the “Realist” foreign policy, but this is too kind, since it is often not very realistic and at other times not shrewd or self-interested enough. I think it is better to think of it as a simultaneously pro-Saudi and pro-Israel policy, rather than ‘realist’. Most of our middle eastern foreign policy beginning with Nixon has been about trying to keep those countries in our camp. Since those two countries have radically different goals, keeping both happy has not always been easy to do, and it helps explain some of the otherwise inexplicable aspects of our middle east policy. Though the bipartisan consensus was fractured on 9/11, it didn’t really become exposed until the run-up to the Iraq war. I think it’s fair to say that most of the establishment foreign policy community (from both parties) opposed the invasion. But it is also true that the case for invasion was still a centrist argument, rather than an extremist one. The pro-invasion camp was also bipartisan, in other words. (Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, both from the center-left in their respective countries, supported the war, and as had been pointed out, it was largely an extension of Clinton’s own policy.) This new fracture ran across and through traditional party lines, and actually exposed two DIFFERENT fault lines. The first fault ran along the realist/”neocon” line (though I really hate that term neocon; it obscures more than it illuminates), where the latter argued that our policy was immoral and propped up bad people and bad governments. This argument has obvious appeal among liberals (such as the New Republic and the Washington Post editorial board, both of whom supported the Iraq invasion) as well as the “neocons” on the right. I think anyone who is objective can very easily imagine Bill Clinton or even the pre-angry, pre-messiah version of Al Gore, making exactly the same decisions Bush did about Iraq. Clinton, for his part, basically said so. The other fracture was over just how serious the threat of terrorism really is. 9/11 forced us to confront the question, but didn’t answer it persuasively (for everyone, at least). Most of the anger from the far left over the Patriot Act, Iraq War, Guantanamo, various interrogation techniques, and so on, is because they really don’t believe terrorism presents an existential threat. To them, 9/11 was a fluke, Saddam wasn’t ever a threat to us, Al Qaeda’s threat was largely manufactured and/or an illusion. If there is no serious threat, then those who keep harping on it must have some hidden motive; some other secret agenda other than the one they overtly espouse. On the other side are those who believed that 9/11 was finally a wake-up call to a problem that had been allowed to grow too long, and it was only a matter of time, if drastic measures weren’t taken, before some major city(ies) were nuked (or biologically/chemically attacked) by terrorists. 9/11 was only the beginning, in other words, and far worse awaits unless we take on the threats preemptively. This is how famous “realists” like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Kissinger, came to support the Iraq intervention, even though they cannot be considered neocons by any stretch. These divides are so deep it’s easy for either side to not just disagree with the other one, but actively vilify it and accuse it of bad faith, because we have a massive collision of fundamentally different world views, with no real way to settle the arguments empirically. At least not before it’s “too late” (each side thinks differently about what that means). It all comes down to how much morality you want in your foreign policy, or how big of a risk you think terrorism presents. There is also an interesting temporal element to this as well. Slate just did a series with prominent people who supported the Iraq invasion initially, most of whom now admit they were wrong, called “Why Did We Get It Wrong?” There are also other people who who didn’t support the invasion, but who now believe it’s vital we stay now that we’re there (e.g., Michael O’Hanlon). I do not think it will be long before we have a U.S. Senator explain that he voted for the war before he voted against the war before voted for it. The cracks of the fault line keeps running with each twist and turn of events, both here and in Iraq. And this continually cracking fault is my nomination for the Bush II presidency’s worst foreign policy blunder. Being so early, I have to call it a prediction. But my prediction is his biggest blunder will not be the Iraq war. It will prove to be Bush’s failure to forge a bipartisan consensus for a new foreign policy. After 9/11 it was obvious we needed a new one, and he gave us one, but it wasn’t bipartisan. And even many within his own administration don’t seem fully on board with it. There are plenty of good reasons (call them “realist” if you like) for having a consistent foreign policy that spans multiple parties and electoral terms. For instance, could we have won the Cold War if we had switched our policies on Communism 180 degrees every four years? It is not just out of decorum and gentility that we say “politics stops at the water’s edge.” It is a good thing that both our allies and our enemies think our initiatives will last longer than the current administration. And if they are not aware of divisions on certain vital questions they cannot try to exploit them, which is definitely happening in Iraq. But Bush’s new foreign policy has very little Democratic support, and it seems to grow less by the day. Perhaps his decision to invade Iraq caused the fracture (though I think it predated that), and perhaps the overly partisan nature of Washington is more to blame than Bush himself, but either way, I think this is the failure of his that will haunt us for a long time to come. |
The suspense… |
Jeff, #42,
But we did. Ample evidence. Beyond doubt. Declassified. The CIA had its hands all over both. Let me read you from Tim Wiener’s book “A Legacy of Ashes,” a book that recounts from the CIA’s own files. Page 83:
Indeed it did. |
Jeff,
Not at all. Most of the anger from the far left over the Patriot Act, Iraq War, Guantanamo, various interrogation techniques—known as torture—and so on is because they were ILLEGAL! and morally reprehensible. It had nothing to do at all with the actual threat terrorism had upon us. It was all a matter of who we were, not who our enemy were.
Michael O’Hanlon is one devious bastard, but one thing he never was was an actual critic of the war before the war started. Please, stop listening to this man’s lies. Here is an op-ed he wrote in February 2003 outlining his case for the war.
Let me tell you why Bush has so little support among Democrats and moderates. Because it was he and his supporters who politicized the war, who used the war as an election wedge. |
Michael O’Hanlon is one devious bastard Dan, take a deep breath. Any ideaology, cause, or candidate that produces that kind of bitterness and hatred just isn’t worth it. |
Mark, You have to understand, Michael O’Hanlon is a devious son of a gun, attempting to undermine the anti-war movement by proclaiming to be one of them and undercutting their legitimacy by claiming to be for the continuation of the war. He’s a bad guy. |
I love the passion for the War of 1812–it warms this social studies teachers’ heart. My nomination for worst foreign policy blunder: electing GW Bush (x2!) and his approving appointments for his entire cabinet(s). We are going to be recovering from this for a long time! And millions of you are to blame–I have never voted for the man. |
I never voted for the man. I was one of the 8% who disapproved of him after 9/11. I saw through the propaganda. I knew he was going to abuse the massive amount of power we gave him after 9/11. |
I lovwe the smell of hatred in the morning. |
Blame Bush. He started it. :) |
Dan, that’s just the thing. We don’t know what Mr. O’Hanlon’s motivations are. Therefore, the more charitable approach is to just assume that he changed his mind, or is honestly conflicted. We have to get past the point where anybody who disagrees with us is either stupid or evil. Usually, they’re just people who happen to see things differently. |
Mark, I’ve listened to and read Michael O’Hanlon since 2002. He has consistently been a war supporter and he has gotten the press to portray him as a liberal war skeptic. He is a liar. He is not who he says he is. He has never changed his mind. He has ceaselessly supported the actions of the President. |
The canard that the “anti-war left” didn’t back the Iraq war because we don’t see a terrorist threat could not be more wrong. This is (yet another) big lie spouted endlessly by the, uh, Bush people–The “anti-war left” absolutely and totally didn’t want us to invade Iraq because it had absolutely nothing to do with the war on terrorism. That was being fought two countries over–remember Afghanistan? If the AWL didn’t actually care about terrorism, you would expect opposition to this war. Not happening. In fact, the “surge” just actually took troops from Afghanistan (actual war on terror) to put them in Iraq (nothing to do with terror). It infuriates me that in this dangerous world, where we have real enemies, our armed forces are basically pinned down half a world away. And let’s not even talk about the absurdly long supply lines, the absurdly short coastline; have none of these people studied, uh, Napoleon? Not only that, but it was STUPID. Not only weren’t there any “weapons of mass destruction” but it was painfully clear at the time that there were none. Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, on the ground, looking for the mythical weapons, weren’t finding any. The “anti-war left” understood that Saddam was as close to a secularist as existed in the Middle East–the Wahabis (fundamentalist Sunni–Osama Bin Laden’s religion) hated the Baathists. This was all clear at the time. Taking out Iraq was the worst possible action in the war on terror. We should just have hired Osama a PR firm. Would have been cheaper. |
I put “anti-war left” in quotes because there is nothing inherently left or right about opposing the Iraqi war; opposition has come from both sides of the political spectrum. |
ESO, I think that you’re antipathy for GW Bush and his election lacks perspective. It will seem quaint and a bit silly in just a few years. Compare this to the over-the-top reaction that Republicans had to Bill Clinton and his “denigration of the office of presidency.” According to the Republican rhetoric of the 90s, we should still be struggling to dig our way out of the damage done to our republic by Clinton’s presidential prurience. djinn, the antiwar left was willing to call Afghanistan a quagmire after only 6 weeks. If there is opposition on both sides of the spectrum, there is also support (Lieberman, for example, is no conservative). There is an anti-war left, it’s part of the same “blame America first” tradition that Jeanne Kirkpatrick identified in the 1980s. And your assertion, “Taking out Iraq was the worst possible action in the war on terror” is palpably absurd. It’s possible that Bush could have pursued a course of action that had all the same consequences, but that didn’t prompt Qaddaffi to abandon his pursuit weapons of mass destruction and stop supporting terrorism. That course would have been worse than the current course. Thus, taking out Iraq was not the worst possible action in the war on terror. |
The Mexican American War (which gave Utah to the USA) can be summed up in three phrases |
djinn (54), Scott Ritter was not finding WMDs, but he did believe they were there and he ultimately found evidence of WMD programs. Turns out they were lame and inconsequential WMD programs, but they were there. |
Quadaffi first proposed getting sanctions lifted for his dismantling of his WMDs in 1999. It wasn’t until 2003 that we took him up on it. I fail to see what this has to do with the Iraqi war. I have a friend whose step-dad is a diplomat in the Middle East. He says that Osama is the most popular name for new boy babies in large swaths of the Arab world right now. He also brought back a bag of chip snack food things plastered with Osama’s face–He’s a rock star. My point holds. |
Dan (#44). The story of the CIA’s involvement in Iran is fascinating, but notice I said I’m skeptical the CIA’s actions were decisive? There is, as you say, no question the CIA was heavily involved. I enjoyed reading the sections you posted from Legacy of Ashes. But why were they able to do this in Iran, but not Cuba, where our CIA was even more involved? I think you might be falling into the same intellectual trap that those who approved the mission did, which is that everything begins and ends in Washington. All credit, and all blame, for everything good and bad in the world, reposes in Washington, DC. Both their position, and yours, fails to account for the unique conditions on the ground. Just like today, where what is actually, you know, good for Iraq and the larger Middle East, is curiously absent from most of the political debate on the question. (Again, I am referring to the commentary we see on the news and in the papers, not your specific comments here.) It’s all about whether this or that helps or hurts Bush or his political opponents in DC. The whole thing is just not very grown-up. I sometimes feel we’re all back in the 8th Grade and it’s all about who’s popular and who’s not. Obama and Hillary’s platform, which promises that everyone will like us again, would be perfect if they were running for Student Body President of Springdale Junior High. Vote for Summer! If I sound disappointed it’s because I know they both could do better. Hillary in particular should have enough political experience by now to know that trying to make everyone like you is a fool’s errand. Mossadageh was a very erratic and eccentric leader who stoked the flames of Islamic fanaticism; he contributed to or created a lot of the problems that ended up causing him to lose power. I doubt Kermit Roosevelt could have made so much headway, even with all the money he threw around, if Mossadageh had gotten out of his bedroom more often, worn more than his pajamas, and actually kept his word for more than 15 minutes. And for people who claim that it was all about oil, (not you; we seem to be agreed this was about the Soviets) let me point out to them that the Shah approved the same foreign oil concession rules that Mossadageh was advocating before he was deposed, so if it was a ploy to keep the Iranians pumping cheap oil for us, it didn’t work. |
Dan E., #58,
And pray, tell us, what you say about war supporters’ stances? Shall I point to you the innumerable times someone has said “we’ve turned a corner,” or “we’re winning,” or “last throes?” Whose voices should be trusted when it comes to Iraq? The generals on the ground? Certainly not. Their view is limited to the theatre they operate in. The politicians in Washington? Certainly not. Their views are limited to political squandering. CIA analysts? Hah! The problem with Iraq, as with the previous quagmire (and yes, Iraq is a quagmire, Dan E.—unless that is you can clearly articulate here and now the path out of Iraq, which if you can do, you should take General Petraeus’ place, as he was unable—or was it unwilling—to do in testimony to Congress) in Vietnam is that there are too many lies about it. It stinks. It is ugly. There is no one you can honestly trust in regards to Iraq. The best option is still to leave the country. It is not worth another American lost. |
Jeff, #60, First off, if it were not for the CIA, Zamudi would not have been able to overthrow Mossadeq. He did not have the cash, nor the will. It was purely a CIA driven plot.
If you read the book, you’ll find that the CIA tried and tried to get into Cuba, but they failed at every turn. The reason is that the CIA could never get agents into Cuba. The Cubans the CIA enlisted were too leaky. They talked too much, and covers were blown. Robert Kennedy even tried to get the Mafia involved in assassinating Castro. The horror is that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably on orders from Castro to assassinate JFK. When you get involved in assassination plots, you’ve gotta be careful about payback. It does tend to be a female dog.
But it isn’t. What’s good for Iraq is for the United States to get out of Iraq. Ask most Iraqis. After all, we believe in democracy, right? Poll after poll has shown that Iraqis want us out of their country.
Dude, it was all about the oil. It wasn’t about the Soviets at all. That was the cover story. I didn’t write down the entire section on the CIA’s Operation Ajax (because my hands would have been too tired, and it would have been too long), but the reason why the CIA overthrew Mossadeq was because Sir Winston Churchill asked Eisenhower to do it! See, Sir Winston Churchill made his fortune on Iranian oil. That’s what brought him fame and fortune. Now the Iranians under Mossadeq nationalized the oil because the British were hoarding all the profits. Seems fair to me, frankly, to give Iranians, who were the workers at the oil facilities, their fair share. Churchill stomped like a spoiled brat to the Americans to do something about it. And they did. The cover story was that it was to head off Soviet influence. Frankly, the Soviet influence in Iran was minimal, and certainly not bad enough to warrant the complete overthrow of a democratically elected government! |
djinn: Quadaffi first proposed getting sanctions lifted for his dismantling of his WMDs in 1999… That’s entirely beside the point. It’s still possible that we could have pursued a course of action wherein he would have refuse to dismantle his WMD programs, and that possible course of action would have been worse. Thus, your statement, “Taking out Iraq was the worst possible action in the war on terror” is false. djinn: I have a friend whose step-dad is a diplomat in the Middle East. He says… This reminds me of what Simone told her teacher about Ferris Bueller: “My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.” Simone proved to be right about one thing: It was pretty serious. |
DKL, Actually it is the point. You are saying that the war in Iraq convinced Quadaffi to dismantle his program, when in fact it wasn’t at all. Point for djinn. |
This is true, but there are is also a lot of evidence that this would not necessarily be what is best for Iraq. |
Dan E., #65, Al-Qaeda wants us to be in Iraq. Those are Bin Laden’s own words. John McCain relishes in them. He repeats the words of the world’s worst criminal and advocates the same position. Why would Al-Qaeda want us in Iraq? Because with our presence there, they can sow discord and keep us bogged down. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded the country. Their presence in Iraq upon us leaving will dwindle. Al-Qaeda’s greatest strength comes from attacking Americans or American occupied lands. With no Americans in Iraq, Al-Qaeda loses its main source of strength. It will wither. The Sunnis of Iraq have no need of Al-Qaeda. The Shi’ites certainly don’t touch that hot iron. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda wants us to remain in Iraq because they know that with our focus constantly where they are not in the greatest numbers, they will continue to thrive where they really are hiding: Pakistan. That’s the reason why Al-Qaeda wants us to stay in Iraq. So we don’t go to Pakistan, where they are. Iraq could still turn out to be a worst blunder than Vietnam. It depends on how much this distraction allows Al-Qaeda in Pakistan to regroup and hit us again with more powerful attacks. If so, then Iraq will have become the single most horrible foreign policy the United States ever had. The story you share there is a piece of propaganda designed to tug at Americans’ hearts. It is not an accurate depiction of the situation, I’m sorry to say. |
djinn, Osama is the face of AQ, which is currently being forcefully evicted from many areas of Iraq by Iraqis themselves. Is your source a diplomat in the Middle East in general or some single country that is fundamentalist Islam, anti-israel/anti-U.S.? Which view are you exactly representing of the Arab world? Generalization makes for a shoddy point. I have come to the conclusion that the anti-war movement in its extremism is the most self-interested and paradoxical group in the country. Anti-war folk spend a lot of time wearing a big moral, legal hat- eagerly condemning any aspect of the U.S. involvement in Iraq- but are unable to find any accountability for what damage has been done by past decisions in Iraq. The attacks on Bush, Rumsfield, intentions, etc. are a bit of a straw man for that argument when there are U.S. and Iraqi soldiers fighting side by side to eradicate AQ and establish a higher quality of life Iraqis have ever experienced- a highly moral struggle. Regardless of past transgressions, not showing support for the rebuilding and liberating of the Iraqi people is immoral and wholly self-interested. Regardless, I think BruceC #57 has a good point. The Mex/American war was a pretty nasty part of manifest destiny. |
Dan #66, You are way off. I have read 1000 stories just like that from military personnel, liberal celebrities who have visited the area, embedded reporters- you name it. That IS the situation on the ground. You had better bring some evidence of something being missed by everyone else in the world, because you’re the one looking drunk with the more prevalent and louder anti-war propaganda. AQ has been terrorizing the populace- cutting of children’s heads, murdering, plundering- do you want some evidence? |
nasamomdele, #67,
Are you kidding? You mean like having the CIA install the Ba’ath Party in the early 60s? Anyone held accountable for that action? You mean like providing Saddam with all sorts of weaponry and intel on the Iranians during their little war in the 1980s? Anyone being held accountable for those damages? Are you kidding me? #68, I’m not saying Al-Qaeda has not been terrorizing the populace. What I am saying is that their influence is minimal. Their ability to exert force and influence in Iraq is directly proportional to the occupation by the United States. When the United States leaves, Al-Qaeda will have no mission in Iraq. They will be driven out by the Sunnis. That’s reality. |
Dan: Actually it is the point. You are saying that the war in Iraq convinced Quadaffi to dismantle his program, when in fact it wasn’t at all. Wrong again, Dan. I can even grant for argument’s sake that Quadaffi was willing to unilaterally dismantle his wmd programs regardless of US actions. It’s enough for my point that Bush’s course of action didn’t convince Qaddaffi not to dismantle them. Yet another example of how thin your thin grasp is on how logic and argumentation actually work. |
DKL,
That’s the silliest argument you’ve made yet dude. It relies on no evidence but your own word, and frankly, your word has not been very accurate when it comes to foreign policy. why don’t you show actual evidence that Qaddaffi said “oh dear, Iraq is upended. I might be next. Oh well, I best get rid of my weapons program.” |
Dan, the only evidence I need to justify my assertion is simply that Qaddaffi did dismantle his WMD program. It follows from this that Bush’s course of action in Iraq didn’t dissuade Qaddaffi from dismantling his WMD program. Given that it’s possible that Bush could have pursued a course in Iraq that might have caused Qaddaffi to re-commit to terrorism, Bush’s course has not been the worst possible course of action to fight terrorism. Thus, djinn’s statement is false. Logic doesn’t get much more straightforward than this. If you don’t get this argument, then you really do need to hunker down and study some logic. This is a losing argument for you and djinn, Dan. The basic problem with djinn’s statement is that it’s truth hinges on our ability to imagine a possible course of action that is worse. Since I like you, I’ll try to help you come along a bit in your intellectual development: A more intellectually mature reaction would be to (a) distance yourself from the statement based on the easy demonstrability of its falseness, and (b) restate your position in less extreme terms. “Well sure, it’s hyperbole. But it does give valid expression to how bad things are, and in my opinion that’s pretty bad — so bad that there aren’t many ways that it could be worse.” This last restatement still doesn’t make your bickering over Qaddaffi any more relevant, but it does give you the leeway you need to avoid having your statement disproved by simple hypotheticals. My guess is that the preceding restatement is probably closer to how you really feel anyway. It should be closer to how you really feel, even if it’s not, because djinn’s current statement that things are “as bad as they possibly could be” is more indicative of fanaticism than ratiocination. |
“What I am saying is that their influence is minimal.” Depends on your idea of influence. If a radical terrorist came to your house looking to exert some of his brand of influence, you might change your tune. You’ve got a longer way to backpedal. |
nasamomdele, I don’t have to backpedal anywhere. Al-Qaeda’s influence, though violent and loud, is more bells and whistles than thunder and lighting. We’ve been overstating their influence precisely because we need their influence to remain in Iraq or we lose our main justification for going into the country. You’re next Dear Leader keeps saying this. If we leave Iraq, McCain says, then Al-Qaeda will overrun the country. But this is far from the truth. Al-Qaeda barely has any influence among the Sunnis (who only represent 25% or so of the country). And you think Shi’ites are going to let a Sunni fundamentalist group overrun them? Please. |
DKL, Let’s make sure we’re both speaking at each other and not past each other. I don’t believe for one minute that Libya and Iraq are related, and do agree with you that Bush’s actions in Iraq didn’t dissuade Qaddaffi from not dismantling his program. That all said, as djinn said, Qaddaffi’s dismantling of his WMD program started in 1999 and was directly related to economic sanctions, not to Bush’s war on terror. I understand the point you are trying to make. You’re saying that if Iraq is the “worst possible mistake,” then one of the consequences would be for Libya to revert its course back towards terrorism. Well, surely for Iraq to truly have been the worst possible mistake, we could have had the Russians fire off their nuclear missiles at us. Surely that was a reversion that could be included in as an attribute of the “worst possible mistake.” Heck, the end of the world as we know it could have made it the “worst possible mistake.” But we’re not judging Iraq as the “worst possible mistake” on what could have been but on what is and could be! |
Dan, Poll after poll has shown that Iraqis want us out of their country. Here are the results of the last poll of Iraqi citizens, from just over a month ago: A large plurality, 49%, now believe the US was right to invade, up 15 points since last August and the highest such result since 2004. The number who believe attacks on American troops are acceptable dropped 15 points, but remains at 42%. While a large majority dislike having foreign troops in their country, only 38% want an immediate withdrawal of American forces — maybe less than what one might find in the US. As many as 80% want the US to remain engaged in Iraq for other purposes, such as fighting terrorists, especially al-Qaeda, military training, and keeping Iran and Turkey at bay. Since I am polite, I’ll refrain from calling you a liar or a duplicitous bastard. I will note, however, that by the standards you apply to others, you are. |
Mark, Where does that poll come from. Please share your source. |
Mark, This latest poll from Monday, April 21, 2008 seems to differ with your poll.
Huh, it seems to me that 70% of Iraqis favor the United States leaving soon, if not now. I appreciate your politeness in not calling me a bastard, but I would expect an apology for implying it nonetheless. |
oh my, I made a blunder. That poll was from 2006, not from 2008. My mistake. |
This is what I mean. This is an anti-war point of view that ignores atrocity in order to argue about power. It misses what really matters. Good thing nobody stood against the Nazis. Oh, wait… The rest of your argument is speculative. |
nasamomdele, We didn’t go to war against the Nazis because of their atrocities. Please, if you are going to make a point, then stay on sound reasoning. We went to war with the Nazis because they declared war on us. It is as simple as that. Now stop violating Goodwin’s Law and stick with the topic at hand. The point of atrocity vs power is a very flimsy argument for a war supporter to make. We didn’t go into Iraq because of atrocities. We went in because of WMDs and possible connections to terrorists. That was the argument. Saddam was actually fairly well behaved in 2002-2003. There was no immediacy for action. Now that we’re there of course, and we let Al-Qaeda in, we’ve gotta stay for the good of humanity. But Al-Qaeda will follow us out, my friend. So let’s go to Pakistan. Let’s let Al-Qaeda follow us there to their own home. Let’s take them out where they are hiding, NOT where they want us to be. |
Dan, The source of the poll is ABC News. See here. Dan, you have no problem calling other people liars, bastards, brainwashed or evil spewers of filth, even right here on this thread. In fact, that is very typical of your manner of discourse. Why in the world would you object when those terms are applied to you? Believe it or not, you are no smarter and no better than anybody else here. The possibility even exists that you are not as smart and not as good as some you have abused. So I don’t understand the grounds on which you appeal for an apology. |
Mark, When it comes to Iraq, I have yet to be wrong. And maybe that is getting to my head, but there it is. |
Dan, you have to read my comments as they have developed. I can sum up to save you work: 1) Your argument is based on morality and legality 2) The impetus for invading Iraq IS questionable on those grounds. Convincing? Yes. Proven? Not reasonably. 3) The current situation in Iraq stands alone. It is connected to the original intentions in may ways, but as Jeff Bennion has used the metaphor for the fault line, the situation has drastically changed- because of U.S. occupation as well as the border states’ current stability or lack thereof. This is the one idea you cannot grasp because you cannot get past the history of Bush and his cronies- your best arguments are along those lines. When you claim some semblance of knowledge of anything on the ground, you fall apart because it is 2008 now. 4) Being so different from the blunders of the primary occupation itself, the current situation and “surge”- a change in military policy and procedure on the ground as well as an influx of troops- have to be viewed for what they are and judged accordingly- joining forces with localized Iraqis as well as Iraqi army to eradicate AQ- who has been committing atrocities. Regardless of WHY the U.s got involved, that is enough reason to fight NOW. That may have been enough reason to whoop Saddam when he used biological WMDs on Kurds. 5) Again, there are atrocities there now. 6) To say that if the U.S. cut and run, the Iraqis would handle themselves just fine is unconvincing, AT BEST. I tend to envision the ripple effect cutting and running had on Southeast Asia. Either way, mine or yours, it is speculation and hardly convincing either way. Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of stable transition instead of a “have at it!” approach- see the blunder of the fall of communism above and take it from someone with experience on the ground of such drastic policy- it doesn’t make for a civil society- at least not until that generation of thugs goes legit or dies off. 7) Thus, I think the “greatest blunder” monicker being placed on Iraq part deux would more likely come from a cut and run than from some form of tapering, but consistent support. In 2006, that would have been a tough argument for me to make, I admit. Was that on topic? |
To compare Iraq Mk II with 1812- Likert Scale: 0-7 Arrogance- 7 to 3- It has to be said that GW is a lot more humble about Iraq nowadays than he was at the start. Atrocity- 5 Conspiracy- initially- 5, now- 2 Death- 3 Below average, but sadly impactful Diplomatic failure- 2 Disease- 0 Expense- 7 Humiliation- has gone from 7 to 3 Imperialism- from 7 to 4 Incompetence- from 7 to 1- now almost negligible Lost hearts-and-minds- from 7 to 2- there are many who don’t see anything good possible. They live in America. Poor intelligence- 6 Unjustifiable preemption- 5- Justified to the degree that it was based on poor intelligence. War- 7 to 5- There is an incredible difference in the insurgency war being fought and the manner Brits and Yanks duked it out back when. It’s often hard to call the situation a war. Waste- 4 |
When I made my call for a bi-partisan, post 9/11 foreign policy consensus, I wasn’t assuming people like Dan, or djinn, or Guy Noir, would want to join. You’re all too smart for that. You have seen into the soul of the man Bush and know it to be thoroughly evil, through and through. If he were to come out in favor of petting puppies, you would see through this immediately and oppose it with every fiber of your being, understanding it to be an illegal arrogation of the power of the Presidency to transgress upon the sacred personal space of canines, no doubt all part of a dark Karl Rovian conspiracy to make Halliburton more money. They’re going into dog food now, don’t you know? In the military, they say that “hope is not a strategy.” And I would add a corollary: In politics, hatred is not a policy. In fact, it’s even pretty bad politics. As DKL pointed out, it killed the Republicans during Clinton. Now, it is true that the Chomskyite far left, which believes that American power abroad can never be benign, and the Buchananite far right, which is happy to let the rest of the world burn, could unite along a policy of isolationism. But there are just not enough revanchist hippies and Know-Nothing Republicans to forge a working coalition. And furthermore, there are too many “wise men” (and this includes Albright and Rice; I mean no gender exclusion by my term) who will end up in powerful positions who will have a natural instinct that they know just how to manage a particular sticky situation overseas; I doubt they would be able to resist intervening. No, I am looking for a centrist bipartisan post 9/11 foreign policy that is also realistic about the human foibles of people in power. Rather than you guys, I was thinking about Democrats like Vice President Gore, who (as recounted in Richard Clarke’s book) as they were puzzling over the legalities of extraordinary rendition. According to Clarke, Gore came late to this meeting, listened for a while about the pro’s and con’s of rendition, and said, “The guy’s a terrorist? Nail his [butt].” Or I am thinking about Jane Harman, and other House Democrats, when they were briefed on the interrogation techniques, encouraged the CIA to “push hard”. With a bipartisan consensus, even if such things are determined to be illegal, laws can be changed, executive orders can be rescinded or rewritten. (I am NOT, please understand, making a comment about whether such things are a good idea, or if they are moral. We’ll go there some other time.) The NYT columnist Tom Friedman is the archetype of the guy I am thinking of when I say “realist” foreign policy comprised pro-Saudi and pro-Israeli foreign policy. He is both, and initially supported the Iraq invasion, I believe, and a good part of Bush’s program. No longer. Where did all these people go? I think the only explanation is that their fear, their perception of the seriousness of the threat, went down over time. People upset about Iraq, who scream that Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before 9/11, fail to grasp what Bush’s new foreign policy was about. It was never just about Al Qaeda or even terrorism; still less about WMD proliferation, though these were all aspects of a larger whole. Fundamentally, it was about what Bush believed to be the sources of (Islamic) terrorism; in his view this was our overly cynical, “realist” policy of propping up dictators in the name of “stability”. He said this might have flown during the cold war, when we had bigger (Russian) fish to fry, but now, rogue states, failed states, and Islamofascism were the big scary fish. My purpose here is not to defend that policy, but just to observe that this should have some natural appeal to some liberals. Enough liberals to forge a new bipartisan consensus. More than just Joe Lieberman. I’m not sure where the failure lies, exactly, but I have to wonder if it’s as simple as Bush had the misfortune to be a Republican. When George Kennan wrote his seminal article about “containment” of Communism, Truman was in office. He was also terribly unpopular, perhaps even more unpopular than Bush, but his policy of containment was largely followed until the fall of communism. The saying is, “Only Nixon could go to China,” maybe we have now learned that “only a Democrat could go to Iraq.” Do I sound indifferent to what form our bipartisan post-9/11 foreign policy should actually take? I guess I am, so long as it has a chance of being notionally effective. I mean, it could be that Patton had a point about us going to finish off Stalin at the end of WWII, and maybe Macarthur was right we needed to sock it to the Chinese in the Korean War. If they were right, then we could have spared the world from a hundred million deaths and the greatest crime ever perpetrated on the human race, which is the (attempted) implementation of communism. But I don’t know. In hindsight, containment eventually worked, and it had enough bipartisan support to sustain itself for two generations of politicians. I’m not sure the American people had the stomach to march to Moscow or into China, even if that could have destroyed communism. Sure, the left was less enthusiastic about this policy than the right, in general, but there was enough to keep it going. My advice for the Democrats (and believe it or not, I am one. Says it right here on my voter card! I don’t believe it sometimes; probably the only way I could pull such a thing off is because I live in Utah, but even here I’m starting to wonder; it seems to have been taken over by a bunch of expat Marin-county scolds) is you would be a lot smarter to get this whole Iraq thing off the table. Everybody knows domestic policy is where all the action is anyway; Presidents only turn to foreign affairs when their political capital at home is exhausted. I would bet anyone $100 (or I would bet, if I wasn’t a good Mormon boy) that both Petreaus and Crocker are Democrats. They talk and act a lot like Democrats to me. Or rather, were Democrats before they were treated so savagely by them on the Hill. What the Democrats should do is cut out all this shrill rhetoric and try to get Iraq off the front pages and let Crocker and Petraeus finish their jobs. Then, they should recruit one or both of those guys to run for office. By my lights, their platform of vigorous foreign policy abroad, their popularity for saving our bacon in Iraq (if they manage to pull it off, however may be necessary to define success either upwards or downwards) would allow Democrats a strong mandate to push through all the domestic programs they want. I mean, Republicans are naturally skeptical of government programs, but not Democrats. If people believe Petraeus can clean up the mess in Iraq, then who better to implement National Health Care, for instance? To bring this somewhat back on to topic, I think the domestic political consequences of the War of 1812 were actually quite mild. Manifest Destiny kept chugging along. |
nasamomdele, 1. Yes, because those are what we are fighting for. The standards which we espouse. Morality and legality. Or is that just silly propaganda? 2. Agreed. 3. The current situation in Iraq does NOT stand alone. Nothing stands alone. Everything is tied together. If you keep thinking it stands alone you will fail. This is why Americans can’t seem to grasp why the Iranians, for example, might have such a hatred of the United States. See, they don’t see it through the “just now” lens. They look back and say, “You know what, those Americans removed our democratically elected leader back in the fifties and installed the repressive shah.” Iraqis may not realize that it was the CIA that placed the Ba’ath Party in power, but they know from other experience (and from other parts of the Middle East) that the United States tends to muck up, sow chaos and then come in to claim they will clean up and rectify! The situation may have drastically changed, but it is wholly tied to our going in in the first place. It is solely the reason why Americans continue to be attacked. Because we’re there. Because we went in. It doesn’t matter if it is 2008. It doesn’t matter if it will be 2012. We are attacked because we went in. 4. Frankly, I see no reason to support the surge. a) The Bush administration could not get enough troops to actually accomplish the stated goals (you still need in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 combat troops to accomplish the stated goals—political suicide to endorse, of course). b) The point of the surge was “political reconciliation.” But if you look at all our actions, there was very little in the way of getting the various parties and factions to reconcile. In fact, we were doing opposite things, like arming the various tribes. What do you think those various tribes are going to do with those weapons? Do you think they’re going to hand them over to the national government when all is done? Puhlease! c) We were still killing Iraqis. Never a good sign for a successful counterinsurgency, and something even General Petraeus (who wrote the counterinsurgency manual himself) doesn’t seem to get—you cannot kill Iraqis and expect to win a counterinsurgency among Iraqis! 5. So? There are atrocities in the Sudan. Why are you not advocating we go in? 6. Ah, the domino effect. I’m sorry nasamomdele, but that is a discredited theory. 7. Not really. Leaving Vietnam was not as great a blunder as going in. Leaving Iraq will not be as great a blunder as going in.
Indeed it was. :) |
Death, 3? There’s most likely somewhere aroung 1.2 million Iraqis dead as a result of the invasion; rougly 4 million refugees; huh? I understand non-statisticians dispute those numbers; they’re wrong. Disease, 0? Lots of those deaths are from disease; it’s not easy to stay alive when your infrastructure has been bombed back to the, uh, iron age, anyone? Humiliation? We’ve lost, we’re hated; where, just back in 2001 we were loved. only possilbe score 8. Imperialism? What? Full scores! Why else would we invade a sovereign nation that hadn’t, you know, waged war on us. Contrast and compare with WWII. Incompetence? Huh? 1? Winning hearts and minds, these days, are we? 7. Still. Just ’cause Petraus is a supremely good employee (his job) doesn’t mean that we didn’t take troops from where they were actually needed to face our real enemies (hint the actual Al Quaeda) to bolster those darn other enemies (hint, there’s an election coming up, and McCain is all about Iraq). Cmon. We are screwing up. Get a clue. |
Jeff,
I think you do misread people like me (or let me just speak for myself). If Bush were to do the right things, then I would support him. As he keeps mucking up, I cannot in good conscience give him any support at all. It’s just that simple, Jeff.
It is a reprehensible policy and ineffectual. Liberals (even the anti-war left) aren’t against wars, Jeff. Their against, as Barack Obama said, ‘dumb’ wars. We never should have gone into Iraq. Staying in Iraq exacerbates our problem. The best solution is to start packing it up.
Actually both were utterly in the wrong and we can only be grateful for wiser men discarding such ridiculous proposals. Stalin was our ally in World War II. Why the hell would we turn our guns on him? He sacrificed millions of his Russians to destroy the Germans. If it were not for the Eastern Front, we would not have been able to take France from the Germans. And China? You want a land war in Asia? You’re not going to win if you go into China.
And again, you’re not seeing the bigger picture. If we would have gone into both Russia (1945) and China (1952), we would have massacred tens of millions of Russians and Chinese. What would we do when we would have gotten bogged down? You think Truman wouldn’t use the nuclear weapon again? What you advocate here is reprehensible. Absolutely reprehensible. As for Crocker and Petraeus, no, I don’t believe they are democrats or moderates or liberals. You honestly think that George W. Bush would allow someone even close to tinged by liberalism to be in charge of Iraq? Forgive my frustration throughout this whole post. I think I’m going to take a break from commenting here. After six years now, so many Americans still just don’t get it. |
Dan, 1. Apply morality to the lives of Iraqis. 3. See your #6 add to it the more current polling that the majority of Iraqis would like to see Americans stay in some capacity for one reason or another. You are arguing for whom? If the U.S. were not to try and secure the country in some way, you imply that there would be no vacuum, no opportunism by any other parties to sieze power, oil, you name it from the country? 4. More speculation based on speculation. Who is arming the tribes? Hint: look East. Hint: watch news. 5. Are you advocating we go in? All of the sudden your big moral foundation is crumbling with that big fat “So?” to start of the sentence. Admit that your arguments are based on self-interest and let’s move on. 6. See your #3- everything is connected- you say through time in one space, I say through time and all space. 7. You’ll have to explain yourself here, first in the context of Vietnam, and second, see your #3- how connected everything is- explain yourself in terms of the region. I think the blunder is 1) in the policy that put us in Vietnam, not the order, 2) the policy and procedure on the ground in Vietnam, and 3) the lasting effect. |
A final note, before I, too, go silent (i hear the cheers) The bipartisan consensus is to not behave incredibly stupidly. It’s not even Republican/Democrat. Do Not Invade The Wrong Country. Simple rule. |
Dan, “Stalin was our ally in World War II. Why the hell would we turn our guns on him? He sacrificed millions of his Russians to destroy the Germans. If it were not for the Eastern Front, we would not have been able to take France from the Germans.” One word: Gulag= more dead Russians than dead Jews. Stalin did sacrifice Russians, especially the ones who didn’t want to fight. And the ones who he didn’t like. And the ones that were smart. And the ones who weren’t Pavlovian dogs. Wiser men? Shame, shame. As for Korea- a country divided and perpetually pointing guns North and South is best, isn’t it? Again your moral compass confuses me. You don’t get it, sir. |
djinn, Fear not. Plenty of statisticians dispute those numbers, too. And in January, the National Journal finally got the authors of the Lancet study to admit that they had absolutely no control over the data gatherers and couldn’t vouch for the veracity of the raw data, so the million plus number of casualties is a fairy tale. Look it up if you want. And if you google Iraqi diaspora, you’ll see that your numbers re: refugees are similarly inflated. In March, 2003, Iraq had an estimated population of approx. 28 million. You claim 4 million have left the country, so we are down to 24 million. If we assume that 10 people are injured for every fatality, we have 12 million dead or injured, or half the population. Do you really believe that? |
Dan #89: You might have misunderstood me too; maybe I didn’t make it clear enough that I wasn’t necessarily advocating invading Russia or China in the late 40s. I don’t know if that would have been better. You bring up all kinds of good reasons why it might not have been a good idea. I think you could make Crocker or Petraeus into Democrats. I’m not sure about Petraeus, but it seems pretty obvious Crocker was against the invasion at the beginning. He helped William Burns write a memo for Colin Powell warning about all kinds of unpleasant aftereffects of the invasion during the run-up to the war. It would be a pretty easy pivot for a Democrat to say, we never should have gone, but let’s make the best of a bad situation. Call it the Pottery Barn policy. We broke it, we should fix it. I suspect, in fact, that is Crocker’s exact position. On the larger point, I can come up with dozens and dozens of things I think Bush did that are wrong, that I strongly disagree with. But I don’t hate the man. I try to understand what moves him, and my view of him so radically diverges from the way many of his other critics depict him, I really think he is the most misunderstood (misunderestimated?) politician since Truman, or maybe even Lincoln. They are blinded by the hatred and will never acknowledge any good he has done; they won’t even concede him good intentions, which I think he has in spades. “Never impute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.” |
OK, I’m answering–Most of the refugees are internal in Iraq, due to the fact that pretty much every border is closed. bad news. People have to be in pretty bas straits to leave in such conditions. Latest news on Iraqi casualties–the ORB study, reinforces Lancet. 1.03 Million excess deaths. http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88 I overestimated # of deaths, but then I didn’t ignore Fallujah. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “had absolutely no control over the data gatherers;” do you mean that the data gatherers consistely lied about everything they did? How does this differ than any other survey ever taken? The data gatherers had some autonomy; it’s the way the world works. Are you complaining that the data was aggregated such that particular households couldn’t be identified, for perfectly reasonable reasons? Any objection to the Orb study? |