A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 25, 2006A Mistake Worth Trying to Fix?Much has been made by Bush critics of various misteps by the admin in approaches to the war on terror in general as well as the war in Iraq specifically. No need for another lap on these particular arguments and the attendant merits of hindsight. Hindsight at the very least helps us to avoid making the same mistakes over and over, at least ideally, right? So consider this story on Muqtada al-Sadr: The place was empty when U.S. soldiers burst in, raiding a house in Baghdad's violent Washash neighborhood in the hopes of finding killers involved in sectarian murders. By the look of things, no one had been there for some time, even though neighbors in the area reported seeing people dragged inside in recent weeks. But apparently someone involved in the area's sectarian violence had been there recently: left behind was a leather-bound day planner that gave a disturbing picture of the systematic nature of Baghdad's bloodshed. Not the first time we've heard of this guy, right? Cast our memories back and we recall when he was a much smaller fry, and we tried to involve him in the political process, yadda, yadda, yadda, right? OK, hindsight shows us that didn't work. A plausible approach was crafted back then, an arguably defensible choice was made from a limited menu of flawed options, and the result was a fricken' disaster. So now that we've got some evidence that MAS is an enemy of the Iraqi people as a whole, let's catch him and fry him as a tri-partisan effort between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. THAT'S how to use hindsight, to do better the next time, not to keep the political scoreboard fueled. Of course, if we can't get a council of Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds to agree that MAS has to be detained and tried as an enemy of the state, there's not much reason to think that Iraqis understand and want a civil democracy, a nation of laws that tries to protect all the people. Even from the whims of unscrupulous strongmen, even if the strongman is skilled in hiding behind his Koran. Sooner or later, Iraq needs a leader or group of leaders with the trust and credibility to convince the people that such cowardly folk as MAS only disgrace the Koran when they try to hide behind it. Comments
let's catch him and fry him as a tri-partisan effort between Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds.... Of course, if we can't get a council of Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds to agree that MAS has to be detained and tried as an enemy of the state, there's not much reason to think that Iraqis understand and want a civil democracy, a nation of laws that tries to protect all the people.Is there a third view between these. Is it only democracy + justice as we know it? Is democracy + justice a learned process? Posted by: c3 at October 25, 2006 03:38 PM IMO, undoubtedly there are elements of learning, trying, and growing to appreciate the virtues (of democracy and justice) over time. My thoughts in this instance are connected to the idea of the success of our current effort to democratize Iraq before we substantively withdraw. I don't have any problem entertaining the possibility that it could take some long time (say, several generations) for an Iraqi democracy to come to look and behave substantially like ours. What concerns me is that Iraq IMO deserves a genuine democratic opportunity, not just a democratic moment that was strangled in the crib by the unenlightened and the opportunistic. [Notice that a clever contrarian could adopt the entirely of what I say above and turn it on its head with a few clever substitutions of say "islamic theocracy" for "democracy and justice" and so on. But as I've become comfortable saying, I'm a true believer in democracy, the worst form of government. Except for all others.] Posted by: bk at October 25, 2006 03:48 PMI thought it was a mistake not to squash Sadr like a cockroach a coupla years back when the opportunity presented. Instead we listened to Sistani. Posted by: Tully at October 25, 2006 03:50 PMTully, Let me get this right; don't get Sadr and to hell with a US timetable? Perhaps the Iraqis don't get the American political climate. You hit it on the head with your Constitutional allocation of oil money for Iraqi households. Then the Sunnis might accept a three state federalism. Time to rehabilitate Saddam? Posted by: Maxtrue at October 25, 2006 05:16 PMHey sign me up, Brian! The problem is that we turned over sovereignty already and there clearly is NOT the political will among the elected Iraqi leadership to do what you've called for. So now what? Stay the course? Oh yeah... that's no longer the favored catch phrase even though all that's changed is the label. Posted by: Kevin at October 25, 2006 05:19 PMHey sign me up, Brian! The problem is that we turned over sovereignty already and there clearly is NOT the political will among the elected Iraqi leadership to do what you've called for. So now what? Stay the course? Oh yeah... that's no longer the favored catch phrase even though all that's changed is the label. Posted by: Kevin at October 25, 2006 05:19 PM"I thought it was a mistake not to squash Sadr like a cockroach a coupla years back when the opportunity presented. Instead we listened to Sistani." (emphasis added) I'd agree about what we should have done, particularly when Sadr was first implicated in the al Khoei assassination. But I was not aware of Sistani's wishes being the reason for leaving him alone. Posted by: Scott Smith at October 25, 2006 05:29 PMSome who are serving agree with comments here, but this is happening. Not a good trend and is clearly a form of influencing the political outcome. Posted by: Maxtrue at October 26, 2006 12:21 AMMax, Later adopters of a technology always benefit from the leapfrog effect, but the window closes. If our enemies buy great new cheap technology, that just means we'll need to buy greater newer technology or come on line with the next generation of the newest level-jumping advances. Posted by: bk at October 26, 2006 10:44 AMWelcome to post-Tito Yugoslavia. Posted by: Marcus at October 26, 2006 05:04 PMBK, If we want to continue to live with liberty, we have to contain the spread of wmd and terrorist networks. We must make our “partners” pay a penalty for assisting rouge nations or States within States. Imagine the cost of a missile defense system that could intercept clandestine sub-launched missiles off the US coast, or intercept a private jet heading into a stadium. It is not possible and retaliation is not the answer. The Democrats hardly support the weapon spiral you mention. They hardly supported the effort to build a North Korean missile defense system. To overcome advanced radar, the US developed the 117 stealth fighter at a significant cost. Serbia and Saddam shot some down. The 117 will be retired soon. An Israeli ship got hit by a Chinese cruise missile and their tanks suffered from Russian anti-tank missiles. Advanced drones and Intel did little to spot Hisb"Allah's material and bunkers. Countermeasures to rockets? Where are your advanced counter measures? Perhaps, you forget that countermeasures like cluster bombs and phosphorus bombs like napalm are not accepted by the international community. What fix do you have to protect the industrial coastline of New Jersey near Newark? When Jihadist’s goal is not to defeat our conventional forces, what faith do Americans wish to place in "next generation" advances to protect urban areas, ports and natural resources? And what certainty is there in “advances” when our "partners" share their technological advances with the enemy? Have an answer for cavitation torpedoes or plague ridden imports? And we help stabilize Yugoslavia when it got out of hand. In Lebanon and Iraq, the world is willing to commit little resources. What might spawn from Iraq could very well make post-Tito Yugoslavia look like Disney Land. See the last chapter in Fiasco by Ricks. The problem is the nature of the cheaper technology. An open society cannot protect itself from massive imports (that might contain wmd), radio controlled subs and planes or a host of small, powerful means of mass casualties, which can be delivered anonymously. If we want to continue to live with liberty, we have to contain the spread of wmd and terrorist networks That's not how I see it. Such concerns may have short term merit. But ultimately it's not a military problem and so it doesn't have a military solution. If we really want anything resembling an "open" society, we have to control terrorists and their networks by making their everyday supporters no longer want to attack and kill us because they think we are infidels who have crippled their society. We have to foster conditions were Muslims see more hope and opportunity in a just and stable government that feeds, clothes, and shelters its people and provides hope for concrete long-term sustained personal and familial thriving, on this Earth in this lifetime. I'm not saying we don't need to worry about weapons or that we shouldn't use penalties over the short-term in some instances. But I am saying that if we don't win hearts and mind and foster stability and opportunity, it won't matter about military toys or the relationships between allies. This war is about selling democracy. It's a sales and marketing war. If our target market won't buy, the war will continue. Posted by: bk at October 27, 2006 09:53 AMBK, You have regimes in North Korea and Iran that will circulate weapons of mass casualty for money and influence. You have countries such as Russia and China balking at sanctions against these two former nations in order to deliver the weapons and technology they need to become dangerous. You have a UN unwilling to stop extremism sweep across Africa creating genocide and arms spirals. Japan will rearm. German might easily move hard right in the wake of any significant attack against it. This is not America's fault. World leaders are as full of crap as any of ours. There is a growing hard-core population (mostly Muslim) dedicated to screwing the West and causing maximum damage to America. It is rascist to think them less competent to carry out this DECLARED THREAT. You also know the reactionary effect these attacks will have on Liberal Democracy. Your faith in technology to keep our edge and in global opinion to thwart terrorists anytime soon is refuted by a host of facts. Shall I list them? A new military report declares it will be almost impossible to find the signature of most wmd or wmc delivered in a terrorist attack. Of course, I think you missed the point of my post concerning the nature of altruistic cooperation. The more expansive and comprehensive the cooperation must be, the greater altruistic punishment and enforcement must be. This is simple science. At the very moment we declare global cooperation is necessary to curb terrorism, most nations ignore enforcement. This attitude defies the science of evolution and human anthropology. Tens of thousands of fanatics along with huge sums of oil money are moving to stick it to America and the West. You seem willing to let them past the point of irreversible consequence. Do you advocate the “Don Corleone” strategy? Nuke Iran should any attack kill enough Americans here? By the time public opinion wakes up or we rescue Muslims from their own subjugation and poverty, it may be too late. There were colonialists who didn't want to fight England. There were Americans advocating giving Hitler a free pass. There were some who thought Stalin controlling Iran was better than the Shah. We are not responsible to make Muslim lives better. Presently Sunnis and Shiites hate each other only slightly less than us. Russia and China see it in their interest to fuel resistance to Constitutional Democracy, which they clearly have a hard time swallowing despite their public relations. One can have hope BK, but I don't want an administration that makes hope the core of its NSS. OBL declares his attacks on Saudi Oil fields are coming. Belarus will likely funnel weapons to Iran. Hizb"Allah is rearming, North Korea has enough plutonium to make nine nukes to sell, China's judicial system uses torture routinely. Muslims slaughter Sudanese blacks. While I laud your idealism (which I share), history shows we must take a more prudent stance or a single wmd will end the American Dream you are imagining now as a possibility. We will move Right, bring back the draft and kill many in retaliation. If doctors used such an approach, our life expectancies would be far shorter. The clash of civilizations is far more than a marketing war. Here's something about pulling out of Iraq. what now? Posted by: Maxtrue at October 29, 2006 03:09 PMMax, I think you need a break, and I think you need to read "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife", and spend a litle time contemplating the importance of having the wisdom of knowing the difference between the things you can and cannot change. Our allies are going to do as they wish, and so our approaches are going to be dictated by how much our allies are willing to help, and by the limits of both our own resources and the American people's willingness to keep committing them to Iraq. That's just the way it is right now. I am unconvinced that either cheerleading or doomsday scaremongering is having any effect on Americans or Allies views. You really dig into and research this stuff, and manage (if you'll forgive my phrasing here) to regularly scare the utter crap out of yourself. For the sake of your sanity, you might want to consider occasionally defaulting back to having a little bit of faith that we'll endure one way or the other, even if we fail to democratize Iraq, and even if the nuclear club welcomes a few new members. Just so you can get a decent night's sleep, my amigo. I was simply being glib by calling it a marketing war, so attempt to remain cool. But don't mistake my point...either hearts and minds will be won over to the efficacy of democracy, or our efforts in Iraq will be for naught over the near term. We can't beat terrorism simply by identifying each terrorist and hunting him down. We can't cure the patient by killing it. We are not responsible to make Muslim lives better. I don't think "responsible" in the way you are talking about it has anything to do with it. In an ideal world, we could leave the problems to muslims to sort out. So yeah, ideally it shouldn't be America's responsibility. But in the real world, do we really have the luxury of delling on that? The only relevant question foreign-policywise is whether we are better off securitywise by taking this responsibility or by leaving it in the hands of everyone else. President Bush chose to TAKE responsibility because he felt it was necessary for our national security.( a decision that I have always characterized as a huge gamble, one I'd not have taken) Now that our nation has taken this responsibility, it is indeed ours, and if we go on to disavow it, there'll be a pretty high price to pay. How high, only time will tell. I hope we don't have to find out. |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Some Smart Surging
Democratic Disgrace Obama: Tastes Great or Less Filling Should United States Attorneys be Professionalized? Don't you dare change your mind! Erin Go Open Thread NCAA tournament thread Blog that Brouhaha to death, AMIIGAF! Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG) The Right Immigration Questions
|
