And some people know the difference between humanitarian intervention and war...
The US didn't interfere, they invaded. Interfering would have been setting up an international coalition to save Kurd children in '91. Humanitarian intervention means doing your best to do less harm than good. The strategies and tactics of the current conflict do not fulfil this imperative. Rationalization after the facts does not change the facts. (And how many times has that rationalization changed? I've lost count. My favorite is the one which posits that it is better to attract and fight foreign terrorists in Iraq than in America. This protects Iraqi children from death and mutilation how, exactly?)
Hiding behind false dichotomies and caricaturing opponents to the 2003 US invasion as uncaring of human rights abuse in Iraq is beneath a reasonable argumentator.
Interfering would have been setting up an international coalition to save Kurd children in '91. Humanitarian intervention means doing your best to do less harm than good
I think we tried to do that in two ways - setting up no fly zones with the US and British Pilots protecting the northern and southern flight zones and letting Saddam have the Oil-For-Food program, which was to help keep Iraqi children from starving. Too little too late, but we tried. and I honestly think that had our hand not been stilled by the arab league, we would have dealt with him appropriately back in '91, and we wouldn't have had to do a repeat trip.
when you find one of these, let me know... objectivity is a continuum partly based on how much knowledge you have, and sitting in chairs thousands of miles away surely interferes with that. Is the glass half empty or half full? The world is not an absolute place, but an aweful lot of people seem to need it to be so. When you say do less harm than good, do you mean for this moment only? What of the children of the children yet unborn? Do you wish to leave them to their ultimate fate?
Certainly there is a difference in points of view on how to accomplish the best good in any given situation. Every conflict is a pure waste of humanity, and the sadness of seeing even one life stilled is pervasive. Yet? What will anyone do? Is it better to stand aside and do nothing, or shall we try? Certainly it is easy to constantly question everyone's motives. Plenty of people cooperated with Saddam for their own financial gain, even while he was certainly using the sword to get the Kurds in line. The US backs the regime in Pakistan, even though he came to power via a coup. The Germans used to call immigrants "Guest Workers" even if they lived there 10 years, making citizenship difficult.
I don't believe you will find a country without some problem, in vision, in application, in attitude. I think in the long run saying 'everything this administration or government does is the worst possible thing' denies the reality of a terribly complex world. It is definitely a razor's edge between accepting that reality, and descending into moral relativism. Making no decision on that IS a decision.
What is the bottom line? We have done what we have done in Iraq, and I doubt in 100 years that there will be agreement on if it was justified. Some things simply are not so cut and dried. But we can not just leave. That would probably be the worst course of action, right now... IMHO anyway...
I did not say objective. I used the word reasonable. They are not synonymous.
sitting in chairs thousands of miles away surely interferes with that.
The point being...?
Is the glass half empty or half full?
With regard to what?
The world is not an absolute place, but an aweful lot of people seem to need it to be so. When you say do less harm than good, do you mean for this moment only? What of the children of the children yet unborn? Do you wish to leave them to their ultimate fate?
Please leave condescension at the door; it is unproductive. You are using false dichotomies as justification. Opposition to a particular course of action does not mean opposition to all actions. And my opposition to this particular course stems from long term as well as short term conclusions; I am very aware of the geopolitical realities of the region.
Is it better to stand aside and do nothing, or shall we try?
See above: false dichotomies. There's more than one option between an invasion ignorant of the realities of nation-building, and criminal inaction.
I think in the long run saying 'everything this administration or government does is the worst possible thing' denies the reality of a terribly complex world.
Please do not lecture me on the complexity of the world. I am not an ideology-driven administration averse to accepting expert guidance on problems they truly grasp little about.
But we can not just leave.
And certainly you shouldn't. The harm is done. It is too late to leave. It'll take everyone available to fix the damage of a course of action that did not properly anticipate its own aftermath.
Please do not lecture me on the complexity of the world. I am not an ideology-driven administration averse to accepting expert guidance on problems they truly grasp little about.
and I am? What expert guidance? Back to the objectivity. Name 2 experts and they will disagree. Everyone has a bias of some sort. That simply has to be worked with. I don't see false dichotomies, I am suggesting only that action needs to be taken. I have nowhere suggested that the action that has been taken is the only or best even. ...
. Opposition to a particular course of action does not mean opposition to all actions. True enough, however opposition, seems constant. I seldom see suggestions on what would be better instead. In your opinion, what if anything should have been done with Saddam's Iraq before the outbreak of the war, and why? What action, in your opinion would have been best? Not in negatives, not "I wouldn't have done that..." Tell me what you would do...
I can name six or maybe seven of the top experts on terrorism worldwide, from Europe, the US and Israel, and they'll all agree that overwhelming military aggression is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.
Leveling pseudo arguments of "objectivity" against the reliance on expertise is barely masked anti-intellectualism. The point is not that all the experts must agree, or that you have to consult them all, but that you have to hear them *before* you make a decision, you have to secure intelligence and facts *before* you act, rather than rely on ideology and collect the facts afterwards.
I don't see false dichotomies
What of the children of the children yet unborn? Do you wish to leave them to their ultimate fate?
Asking these particular questions shows an assumption that my opposition to the American intervention means opposition to all interventions. You spoke of glass half full or half empty. That's a false dichotomy. There's a world of possibilities in between those two. Something the team that brought us The Axis of Good and Evil seems to have a tough time grasping. (Who is their Defense secretary? George Lucas?) But of course, discussions of the principle of prudence in realist politics do not do well on Fox News.
I am suggesting only that action needs to be taken.
In this particular case, or are you forwarding an ethical and political framework? Action should always be taken? If so, what is your criteria? Why Iraq? Why not Sudan or North Korea or any other of a dozen terrible places?
True enough, however opposition, seems constant. I seldom see suggestions on what would be better instead.
That would be because once the deed is done, it's a bit late for the other guys to offer alternatives.
In your opinion, what if anything should have been done with Saddam's Iraq before the outbreak of the war, and why?
You've hit the nail on the head. Why? To solve a problem, you first have to determine what it is, so that you can circumscribe it, analyze it, break it down, select the proper methods to solve it, and estimate your chances of success.
Let me review all the reasons we've been given WHY Iraq was invaded, WHEN it was, in the MANNER it was: Iraq has WMDs which make it an imminent threat to the security of the US; Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and supports the terrorists; the Iraqi people must be liberated from oppression; opening a theater in Iraq will attract all the regional terrorists and we can all fight them in one place so we don't have to do it on our own soil; Iraq must be made into a democracy; democracy in Iraq will spread liberalization to the rest of the region; strategic oil reserves cannot be left in the hands of a madman.
I could forget something. It's been hard to keep up.
I do not have the time nor the inclination to pull apart each justification and review intelligence vs. tactics. (I'm told by people who know more than I do that the US never had enough troops on the ground to achieve most of this, but I'm not qualified to discuss this in depth.) Suffice it to say that each of these objectives requires a dedicated approach, and some of them are mutually exclusive. To think that you can address them all at once... either someone's lying about their true intentions to look good on TV, or their hubris has left them addled.
I can name six or maybe seven of the top experts on terrorism worldwide, from Europe, the US and Israel, and they'll all agree that overwhelming military aggression is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.
either I didn't make my point clear, or you don't want to see it.
You can stand up 100 experts that will say what you wish to hear, and so can I. If that is the case what validity does an expert have?
Leveling pseudo arguments of "objectivity" against the reliance on expertise is barely masked anti-intellectualism.
Really. I thought you were the one who thought condescension was counter productive. Experts are no less politically biased than anyone else, and what they choose to see, and chose to ignore is also biased. That being said, if you or I went to an expert, and said "I need help" They would probably do their best to give us some objective expertise, but it would still be filtered. It has to be, they are not automatons. The problem begins when we talk about governments. Worldwide, most governments are made up of advisors, experts and the like who are known or have similar goals to the government in power. Right? They are experts, but they share the same point of view or approach. If you are a political leader, are you going to put forward a position of your government, and then undercut yourself immediately, by having an advisor that disagrees with you on TV? Will an advisor that disagrees with your overall approach last in the government? I have yet to see a government that isn't in a state of flux, where people get burned out, change, have personal conflicts and the like.
All governments do this
What I hear you saying is that the "experts" will have to be ones whose opinion YOU accept. In addition it seems you are saying that terrorism is a monolith of identical people with identical goals. The military is helpful in eliminating State Sponsored terror, because the 'State' becomes aware of the possible cost of it. There are separate arguments certainly about the efficiency of using force like that, the cost, and so forth. However, there is a whole argument to be made about how the regional governments view this intervention. Each has their own opinion, no doubt, but the certainty that "those damn Americans might do something stupid" may well give some pause. Maybe a pause long enough to decide that consolidating their own power is preferable. By appearances this is what Kadafi has done in Libya.
Yes, certainly, religious sponsored terror is inflamed by such action, but it's a different animal, anyway. It may be that taking any action will inflame that.
---True enough, however opposition, seems constant. I seldom see suggestions on what would be better instead.---
That would be because once the deed is done, it's a bit late for the other guys to offer alternatives.
If you never offer alternatives, then you never prove yourself right. If something happens in 10 years, you can point back and say "see I was right that time, and my plan was better, so you should believe me now..." People then believe you because you have a track record. If you offer no alternative, then people may agree with you, but they won't let you lead, because you had no plan. You have nothing different to offer. You cannot lead by the negative.
To solve a problem, you first have to determine what it is, so that you can circumscribe it, analyze it, break it down, select the proper methods to solve it, and estimate your chances of success.
If you believe this never happened, I am quite surprised. Ask yourself a few questions. Is the problem you assume they are talking about, really what the problem is? Are you privy to the information that indicates what is regarded as a problem, what's long range, what's short? I certainly never assume that what they say in a press conference, has a lot to do with what they regard as a real problem.
[I'm told by people who know more than I do] that the US never had enough troops on the ground to achieve most of this I surely agree with this, far too much optimism in their base assessment.
Unless you're watching House, you're unlikely to ever see a patient suffering from cancer, TB, diabetes, meningitis and a broken back all at once. And if you do, you're not going to fix them in one surgery. You'll kill them and the ethics committee will throw you out on your ass, and if you get what's coming to you you'll be sued for negligent homicide. (Actually, the metaphor doesn't hold up. A patient is informed of the risks and asked to give consent; can't say as much for an occupied nation.)
Invading Iraq to liberate the Iraqi AND fighting the war on terror in Iraq? Incompatible objectives. You're asking them to trade Saddam for al-Zarqawi. It's like dumping your nuclear waste on someone else's doorstep.
What would I have done with Iraq? I can only speak for objectives and strategy, as I am not a tactician, but for one I would have settled for a single achievable objective and I wouldn't have done it alone. Most of all I would have treated the issue of human rights in Iraq completely independently of the war on terror, since one has nothing to do with the other.
(I wouldn't have been conducting the war on terror in the first place, as it is a complete idiocy in terms of counterterrorism. Terrorists do not take down civilizations. Terrorists only threaten democracies in as much as the hysteria of democracies allows them to. Once you've acknowledged terrorists as anything but criminals, once they're enemy combatants or political insurgents and you've changed your justice system to fit them rather than the other way around, you've lost half the battle. You don't cure schizophrenia by feeding into the patient's delusions. You've built your own enemy. The revolving axis of terrorism is legitimacy. When you go to WAR against them, you comfort them; terrorists have nothing but the social constructions of their opponents to define themselves; take that out, and they have nothing. No spin, no propaganda, no group cohesion, no support. They die of attrition. It's like that game with two teams pulling on a rope. If one team lets go, the other one falls on its ass. No, it's not easy to resist the urge to make things simple and blow something up when your citizens are murdered. But we've established the world's complicated.)
Back to Iraq. I want to get rid of Saddam and give Iraqis a chance at self-determination, and I aim for maximum returns. Meaning? I don't go about it in a way that tramples international law, undermines international institutions, and promotes the type of bipartite and strategic alliances that took us straight into two world wars. I don't set international relations back fifty years for short term gain. No, I aim for several birds with one stone. I take this opportunity to reinforce multipartite cooperation and add legitimacy to the rule of law (that thing that makes us civilized). I've got the foremost experts in nation-building at my side with ready-plans for post intervention, and NGOs, agencies that have been doing this stuff for half a century and know the people on the ground and the humanitarian situation. And because I'm the world's most powerful nation, and because I have the political will to do so, and because I'm not lobbying for a dumb, dumb war on terror that'll destabilize a region and make the world more unsafe rather than less, chances are I'll get my international coalition and my NATO troops together. And if I pull it off? I've put the fear of righteous nations working together into other Saddam-like regimes, rather than burned out my political capital and my legitimacy.
Sounds like it could take time (although, if you were ready to wait until 2003 to invade, time wasn't an issue in the first place). Sounds like a lot of work. Sounds like I have to stop undermining international institutions in an attempt to stroke my own supremacy -- which has always been kind of like refusing to get your car serviced for ten years, then yelling at it when it breaks down.
What was that Harry Potter byline? There comes a time when you have to choose between what is right, and what is easy.
I wish the world was like in the movies, and when I saw injustice I just had to make some speeches and send some people to fix it in the name of liberty and happiness rather than go through difficult negotiations; I would only ever be judged by my intentions and feel good about myself, and I'd never have to worry about knock-on effects and causal chains and the consequences of my actions past the credits. The END. Do you know how often I have to read reports like the one Teri linked to? How often I rage? But that's not the real world. In the real world we've learned from examples like Yugoslavia that failed nation building can have horrific consequences, we've learned that prudence is the articulating principle of sound foreign policy (because you're dealing with the lives of millions AND the law of unintended consequences), and if the Iraq invasion of 2003 were to lead to a similar outcome or some other disaster, I'd hope people would learn something from it, but apparently some actions are above judgment.
Except, not in my world.
I know something of the relationship of brain chemistry to political conviction, which results in the frequent ineffectuality of such discussions on either side, so that's the last I'll say on this. Thanks.
I know something of the relationship of brain chemistry to political conviction, which results in the frequent ineffectuality of such discussions on either side, so that's the last I'll say on this. Thanks.
mmm, well I was going to take each chunk of your reply on their own, till I saw this. You have made up your mind, and nothing I can do will sway that. Fair enough. Perhaps I will go back and answer the questions in turn later tonite, since you though it was worth enough to write them, I think it's worth enough to reply...
no, i don't believe it is. and i'm not saying that mistakes weren't made because they were, and they always will be. there is no perfect action, no matter what the circumstances.
i make a last point, perhaps only to myself, that my supporting the war is not politically based. that is, i'm not for the war because the guy in charge is a Republican. and i do this because from statements above, i get the feeling that someone thinks i'm blindly following party lines or party politics or something. i'm not terribly interested actually.
i'm for the war because i believe it was the right thing to do. i supported Clinton's military actions as well. and apropos of nothing perhaps, i voted for the guy, too. i don't vote, nor support or not support, along party lines. they are largely meaningless to me. i vote, and support, what i personally believe.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 04:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 08:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 09:51 am (UTC)i love Michael Totten's reporting. he's so committed to the *entire* story, of everyone's side, everyone's perspective.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 01:08 pm (UTC)The US didn't interfere, they invaded. Interfering would have been setting up an international coalition to save Kurd children in '91. Humanitarian intervention means doing your best to do less harm than good. The strategies and tactics of the current conflict do not fulfil this imperative. Rationalization after the facts does not change the facts. (And how many times has that rationalization changed? I've lost count. My favorite is the one which posits that it is better to attract and fight foreign terrorists in Iraq than in America. This protects Iraqi children from death and mutilation how, exactly?)
Hiding behind false dichotomies and caricaturing opponents to the 2003 US invasion as uncaring of human rights abuse in Iraq is beneath a reasonable argumentator.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 06:32 pm (UTC)I think we tried to do that in two ways - setting up no fly zones with the US and British Pilots protecting the northern and southern flight zones and letting Saddam have the Oil-For-Food program, which was to help keep Iraqi children from starving. Too little too late, but we tried. and I honestly think that had our hand not been stilled by the arab league, we would have dealt with him appropriately back in '91, and we wouldn't have had to do a repeat trip.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 07:30 pm (UTC)when you find one of these, let me know... objectivity is a continuum partly based on how much knowledge you have, and sitting in chairs thousands of miles away surely interferes with that. Is the glass half empty or half full? The world is not an absolute place, but an aweful lot of people seem to need it to be so. When you say do less harm than good, do you mean for this moment only? What of the children of the children yet unborn? Do you wish to leave them to their ultimate fate?
Certainly there is a difference in points of view on how to accomplish the best good in any given situation. Every conflict is a pure waste of humanity, and the sadness of seeing even one life stilled is pervasive. Yet? What will anyone do? Is it better to stand aside and do nothing, or shall we try? Certainly it is easy to constantly question everyone's motives. Plenty of people cooperated with Saddam for their own financial gain, even while he was certainly using the sword to get the Kurds in line. The US backs the regime in Pakistan, even though he came to power via a coup. The Germans used to call immigrants "Guest Workers" even if they lived there 10 years, making citizenship difficult.
I don't believe you will find a country without some problem, in vision, in application, in attitude. I think in the long run saying 'everything this administration or government does is the worst possible thing' denies the reality of a terribly complex world. It is definitely a razor's edge between accepting that reality, and descending into moral relativism. Making no decision on that IS a decision.
What is the bottom line? We have done what we have done in Iraq, and I doubt in 100 years that there will be agreement on if it was justified. Some things simply are not so cut and dried. But we can not just leave. That would probably be the worst course of action, right now... IMHO anyway...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 07:53 pm (UTC)I did not say objective. I used the word reasonable. They are not synonymous.
sitting in chairs thousands of miles away surely interferes with that.
The point being...?
Is the glass half empty or half full?
With regard to what?
The world is not an absolute place, but an aweful lot of people seem to need it to be so. When you say do less harm than good, do you mean for this moment only? What of the children of the children yet unborn? Do you wish to leave them to their ultimate fate?
Please leave condescension at the door; it is unproductive. You are using false dichotomies as justification. Opposition to a particular course of action does not mean opposition to all actions. And my opposition to this particular course stems from long term as well as short term conclusions; I am very aware of the geopolitical realities of the region.
Is it better to stand aside and do nothing, or shall we try?
See above: false dichotomies. There's more than one option between an invasion ignorant of the realities of nation-building, and criminal inaction.
I think in the long run saying 'everything this administration or government does is the worst possible thing' denies the reality of a terribly complex world.
Please do not lecture me on the complexity of the world. I am not an ideology-driven administration averse to accepting expert guidance on problems they truly grasp little about.
But we can not just leave.
And certainly you shouldn't. The harm is done. It is too late to leave. It'll take everyone available to fix the damage of a course of action that did not properly anticipate its own aftermath.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 09:07 pm (UTC)and I am? What expert guidance? Back to the objectivity. Name 2 experts and they will disagree. Everyone has a bias of some sort. That simply has to be worked with. I don't see false dichotomies, I am suggesting only that action needs to be taken. I have nowhere suggested that the action that has been taken is the only or best even. ...
. Opposition to a particular course of action does not mean opposition to all actions. True enough, however opposition, seems constant. I seldom see suggestions on what would be better instead. In your opinion, what if anything should have been done with Saddam's Iraq before the outbreak of the war, and why? What action, in your opinion would have been best? Not in negatives, not "I wouldn't have done that..." Tell me what you would do...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 01:42 pm (UTC)I can name six or maybe seven of the top experts on terrorism worldwide, from Europe, the US and Israel, and they'll all agree that overwhelming military aggression is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.
Leveling pseudo arguments of "objectivity" against the reliance on expertise is barely masked anti-intellectualism. The point is not that all the experts must agree, or that you have to consult them all, but that you have to hear them *before* you make a decision, you have to secure intelligence and facts *before* you act, rather than rely on ideology and collect the facts afterwards.
I don't see false dichotomies
What of the children of the children yet unborn? Do you wish to leave them to their ultimate fate?
Asking these particular questions shows an assumption that my opposition to the American intervention means opposition to all interventions. You spoke of glass half full or half empty. That's a false dichotomy. There's a world of possibilities in between those two. Something the team that brought us The Axis of Good and Evil seems to have a tough time grasping. (Who is their Defense secretary? George Lucas?) But of course, discussions of the principle of prudence in realist politics do not do well on Fox News.
I am suggesting only that action needs to be taken.
In this particular case, or are you forwarding an ethical and political framework? Action should always be taken? If so, what is your criteria? Why Iraq? Why not Sudan or North Korea or any other of a dozen terrible places?
True enough, however opposition, seems constant. I seldom see suggestions on what would be better instead.
That would be because once the deed is done, it's a bit late for the other guys to offer alternatives.
In your opinion, what if anything should have been done with Saddam's Iraq before the outbreak of the war, and why?
You've hit the nail on the head. Why? To solve a problem, you first have to determine what it is, so that you can circumscribe it, analyze it, break it down, select the proper methods to solve it, and estimate your chances of success.
Let me review all the reasons we've been given WHY Iraq was invaded, WHEN it was, in the MANNER it was: Iraq has WMDs which make it an imminent threat to the security of the US; Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and supports the terrorists; the Iraqi people must be liberated from oppression; opening a theater in Iraq will attract all the regional terrorists and we can all fight them in one place so we don't have to do it on our own soil; Iraq must be made into a democracy; democracy in Iraq will spread liberalization to the rest of the region; strategic oil reserves cannot be left in the hands of a madman.
I could forget something. It's been hard to keep up.
I do not have the time nor the inclination to pull apart each justification and review intelligence vs. tactics. (I'm told by people who know more than I do that the US never had enough troops on the ground to achieve most of this, but I'm not qualified to discuss this in depth.) Suffice it to say that each of these objectives requires a dedicated approach, and some of them are mutually exclusive. To think that you can address them all at once... either someone's lying about their true intentions to look good on TV, or their hubris has left them addled.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 10:20 pm (UTC)either I didn't make my point clear, or you don't want to see it.
You can stand up 100 experts that will say what you wish to hear, and so can I. If that is the case what validity does an expert have?
Leveling pseudo arguments of "objectivity" against the reliance on expertise is barely masked anti-intellectualism.
Really. I thought you were the one who thought condescension was counter productive. Experts are no less politically biased than anyone else, and what they choose to see, and chose to ignore is also biased. That being said, if you or I went to an expert, and said "I need help" They would probably do their best to give us some objective expertise, but it would still be filtered. It has to be, they are not automatons. The problem begins when we talk about governments. Worldwide, most governments are made up of advisors, experts and the like who are known or have similar goals to the government in power. Right? They are experts, but they share the same point of view or approach. If you are a political leader, are you going to put forward a position of your government, and then undercut yourself immediately, by having an advisor that disagrees with you on TV? Will an advisor that disagrees with your overall approach last in the government? I have yet to see a government that isn't in a state of flux, where people get burned out, change, have personal conflicts and the like.
All governments do this
What I hear you saying is that the "experts" will have to be ones whose opinion YOU accept. In addition it seems you are saying that terrorism is a monolith of identical people with identical goals. The military is helpful in eliminating State Sponsored terror, because the 'State' becomes aware of the possible cost of it. There are separate arguments certainly about the efficiency of using force like that, the cost, and so forth. However, there is a whole argument to be made about how the regional governments view this intervention. Each has their own opinion, no doubt, but the certainty that "those damn Americans might do something stupid" may well give some pause. Maybe a pause long enough to decide that consolidating their own power is preferable. By appearances this is what Kadafi has done in Libya.
Yes, certainly, religious sponsored terror is inflamed by such action, but it's a different animal, anyway. It may be that taking any action will inflame that.
---True enough, however opposition, seems constant. I seldom see suggestions on what would be better instead.---
That would be because once the deed is done, it's a bit late for the other guys to offer alternatives.
If you never offer alternatives, then you never prove yourself right. If something happens in 10 years, you can point back and say "see I was right that time, and my plan was better, so you should believe me now..." People then believe you because you have a track record. If you offer no alternative, then people may agree with you, but they won't let you lead, because you had no plan. You have nothing different to offer. You cannot lead by the negative.
To solve a problem, you first have to determine what it is, so that you can circumscribe it, analyze it, break it down, select the proper methods to solve it, and estimate your chances of success.
If you believe this never happened, I am quite surprised. Ask yourself a few questions. Is the problem you assume they are talking about, really what the problem is? Are you privy to the information that indicates what is regarded as a problem, what's long range, what's short? I certainly never assume that what they say in a press conference, has a lot to do with what they regard as a real problem.
[I'm told by people who know more than I do] that the US never had enough troops on the ground to achieve most of this I surely agree with this, far too much optimism in their base assessment.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 01:43 pm (UTC)Unless you're watching House, you're unlikely to ever see a patient suffering from cancer, TB, diabetes, meningitis and a broken back all at once. And if you do, you're not going to fix them in one surgery. You'll kill them and the ethics committee will throw you out on your ass, and if you get what's coming to you you'll be sued for negligent homicide. (Actually, the metaphor doesn't hold up. A patient is informed of the risks and asked to give consent; can't say as much for an occupied nation.)
Invading Iraq to liberate the Iraqi AND fighting the war on terror in Iraq? Incompatible objectives. You're asking them to trade Saddam for al-Zarqawi. It's like dumping your nuclear waste on someone else's doorstep.
What would I have done with Iraq? I can only speak for objectives and strategy, as I am not a tactician, but for one I would have settled for a single achievable objective and I wouldn't have done it alone. Most of all I would have treated the issue of human rights in Iraq completely independently of the war on terror, since one has nothing to do with the other.
(I wouldn't have been conducting the war on terror in the first place, as it is a complete idiocy in terms of counterterrorism. Terrorists do not take down civilizations. Terrorists only threaten democracies in as much as the hysteria of democracies allows them to. Once you've acknowledged terrorists as anything but criminals, once they're enemy combatants or political insurgents and you've changed your justice system to fit them rather than the other way around, you've lost half the battle. You don't cure schizophrenia by feeding into the patient's delusions. You've built your own enemy. The revolving axis of terrorism is legitimacy. When you go to WAR against them, you comfort them; terrorists have nothing but the social constructions of their opponents to define themselves; take that out, and they have nothing. No spin, no propaganda, no group cohesion, no support. They die of attrition. It's like that game with two teams pulling on a rope. If one team lets go, the other one falls on its ass. No, it's not easy to resist the urge to make things simple and blow something up when your citizens are murdered. But we've established the world's complicated.)
Back to Iraq. I want to get rid of Saddam and give Iraqis a chance at self-determination, and I aim for maximum returns. Meaning? I don't go about it in a way that tramples international law, undermines international institutions, and promotes the type of bipartite and strategic alliances that took us straight into two world wars. I don't set international relations back fifty years for short term gain. No, I aim for several birds with one stone. I take this opportunity to reinforce multipartite cooperation and add legitimacy to the rule of law (that thing that makes us civilized). I've got the foremost experts in nation-building at my side with ready-plans for post intervention, and NGOs, agencies that have been doing this stuff for half a century and know the people on the ground and the humanitarian situation. And because I'm the world's most powerful nation, and because I have the political will to do so, and because I'm not lobbying for a dumb, dumb war on terror that'll destabilize a region and make the world more unsafe rather than less, chances are I'll get my international coalition and my NATO troops together. And if I pull it off? I've put the fear of righteous nations working together into other Saddam-like regimes, rather than burned out my political capital and my legitimacy.
Sounds like it could take time (although, if you were ready to wait until 2003 to invade, time wasn't an issue in the first place). Sounds like a lot of work. Sounds like I have to stop undermining international institutions in an attempt to stroke my own supremacy -- which has always been kind of like refusing to get your car serviced for ten years, then yelling at it when it breaks down.
What was that Harry Potter byline? There comes a time when you have to choose between what is right, and what is easy.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 01:44 pm (UTC)Except, not in my world.
I know something of the relationship of brain chemistry to political conviction, which results in the frequent ineffectuality of such discussions on either side, so that's the last I'll say on this. Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 10:45 pm (UTC)mmm, well I was going to take each chunk of your reply on their own, till I saw this. You have made up your mind, and nothing I can do will sway that. Fair enough. Perhaps I will go back and answer the questions in turn later tonite, since you though it was worth enough to write them, I think it's worth enough to reply...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 07:48 pm (UTC)yes they did. and i'll never see that as an incorrect action.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 01:03 am (UTC)i'm for the war because i believe it was the right thing to do. i supported Clinton's military actions as well. and apropos of nothing perhaps, i voted for the guy, too. i don't vote, nor support or not support, along party lines. they are largely meaningless to me. i vote, and support, what i personally believe.