Defiant, I guess
Mar 21, 2007 Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety
That’s how I am about the Iraq war. So much executed so poorly — perhaps. I’m not even convinced of that; all alternative scenarios posit perfect execution and all the other things 20-20 hindsight makes so magical. Some things, yes, are inexcusable, such as Abu Grab. But it’s absurd to postulate that because soldiers died and Arabs are killing each other, as they’re known to do when there are no Jews around, that the war was “lost” — how can you “lose” when the other side leaves the field and its commander in chief is hanged by the government you put in to power?
But not only that: In concept, I cannot bring myself around to believing it was a mistake. I’m not the only one. Though it is pretty lonely.
The only big mistake was and is the Administration’s poor handling of the marketing of the whole situation, exacerbated by the White House’s unfortunate cronyish style. That’s a huger error, because (as I have said before), you can’t put on a war in a democracy unless you’re prepared to sell it, and follow through with the sale. This government was not prepared for that, and if we didn’t learn that from Vietnam, shame on us. (UPDATE: Oy.)
Defiance, however — for that, GWB gets credit. He believes in this policy, and all the conventional wisdom and smirking second guessing in the world have not swayed him. It has cost his party plenty to do the right thing, and at the end of the day I don’t know just how much a good PR strategy would have helped. War is hell, after all. But the right thing, it was, and Bush gets credit here for his defiance of … just about everyone.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Suppose that this particular war is and always had been unwinnable, even if marketed properly and the post-invasion strategy handled competently. Would it still have been the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
> how can you “lose” when the other side leaves the field and its commander in chief is hanged by the government you put in to power?
This is what I’ve been wanting to know. If we’ve lost, then who exactly has won?
The AQ crazies? That’s not what they’re saying in the letters we intercept from them.
The Sunni insurgents? Then why are they fleeing the country in droves?
al-Sadr? He hasn’t shown his face since al-Maliki told him to go pack his things.
Who’s left? The Iranian agents we’ve declared open season on?
March 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Suppose that this particular war is and always had been unwinnable, even if marketed properly and the post-invasion strategy handled competently. Would it still have been the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences?
To some, yes. In fact, there was an irresponsible, yet sizeable-enough, bloc who would have supported the invasion as a punitive expedition – in which case ‘winning’ would have been a non-starter.
Luckily, saner sorts prevailed.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
You mean the concept of “turn Baghdad into a parking lot”?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Suppose that this particular war is and always had been unwinnable
Why should I? Why should I believe that there’s any such thing as an “Unwinnable” war? There is only the lack of effort when you are the most powerful nation to exist… Ever. Sadly, the lack of effort comes straight from the top – President Bush.
How many people have been educated on the real reasons we’re there? It’s left up to Rush, and Hannity, and bloggers, and conservative editorial writers to explain the war. That’s not our job. That’s the President’s job, and he has failed miserably at it.
It’s no wonder that support for the war is waning, and for that we have only W to blame.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 am
Why should I? Why should I believe that there’s any such thing as an “Unwinnable” war?
Well, because there are always unwinnable wars, given circumstances. In this particular case, the goal is fairly difficult to achieve. If you define winning as Iraq having a self-governing democratic society, then the chances of it being unwinnable are fairly high, if you take into consideration the restrictions that liberal democracies place on the actions of their military, and the large number of groups in the region that would benefit from US failure.
But the reason that I ask is that some of those who opposed the war did so because they felt it unwinnable, and that the end result would be a scenario with a destabilized Middle East, a severe weakening of US influence in the region, and an increase in the use of terrorism as a tactic of extremist groups. Given that some felt this would be the outcome, would it have been moral to support the war anyway, even with a bleak outcome? Or immoral?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 am
if you take into consideration the restrictions that liberal democracies place on the actions of their military
I called it a lack of effort. Same thing.
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 am
Gosh, Fitch, isn’t that an oversimplification? Do we say ,”At the end of World War II the Russians raped and pillaged their way across Eastern Germany. Germans prayed to be occupied by the American and British forces instead, who were known for their weak effort”?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
My point is that war is horrific, and if you go into it unwilling to do what it takes to win, then you shouldn’t go into it. On that mark I give double-plus-ungood credit. He’s unwilling to do what it takes to win, and thus starts from the premise that it’s unwinnable.
It’s human nature that if you are convinced that you can’t do something, you won’t. Period. It’s just not possible to achieve something when you are firmly convinced that is impossible.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
He’s unwilling to do what it takes to win, and thus starts from the premise that it’s unwinnable.
You’ve this assumption about me based on what?
I said that liberal democracies place restrictions on the actions of their militaries. Hussein’s defense of his crimes against the Kurds and the southern Shia was that in both cases he was doing what was militarily necessary to defeat an insurgency. His techniques worked. Presumably the US does not want to replicate those methods to do the same. If it did, where is the moral authority to depose Hussein?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Well, DPU, I’m not sure that your argument follows. It can be said that the Red Army was, in terms of atrocities committed against civilians, in the same range as Wehrmacht (not SS) units during World War II and, in some places, perhaps far worse. Yet while their behavior was despicable, even Stalin’s USSR still has a moral claim to victory over that of Nazi Germany. Indeed, U.S. troops committed some atrocities, too, as soldiers evidently almost always do in war, and arguably the whole US-British bombing campaign against non-military targets in Germany and Japan was of very questionable morality. So those actions must be judged, but this does not invalidate the moral quality of our victory.
I disagree with this idea that you invalidate your moral cause if you depart from the Marquis of Queensbury’s Rules, or even worse. War is, you know, heck.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
This argument is and always had been unwinnable! It was immoral for me to have gotten involved in it. Time to redeploy to Radioactive Liberty.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I disagree with this idea that you invalidate your moral cause if you depart from the Marquis of Queensbury’s Rules, or even worse. War is, you know, heck.
Indeed, but my point is that one of the many arguments for the overthrow of Hussein was that he butchered many of his own people in response to several insurgencies, and it was therefore a moral act to step in and remove him from power. If the argument is made that brutal action is required to put down the current insurgency similar to that used by Hussein, I think that particular argument is invalidated.
The argument can be made that that level of, uh, well, force is extreme and isn’t necessary, but I think one of the reasons that Hussein used assassination, collective punishment, torture and fear to maintain order and power in Iraq is that these tactics may be the only thing that would work (and I’ve heard all of these tactics expressed at one time or another by bloggers frustrated with the way the counter-insurgency is going, which is a bit creepy).
Besides, one of the features of democratic societies is that they have a say in foreign policy. Wars tend to lose much of their political backing when brutal military action is used, accompanied with the usual unintended civilian casualties and occasional atrocities.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Channeling Sir Winston Churchill
Ron Coleman, at the Likelihood of Success has a post about his view on the Iraqi Front in the current World War – Defiant, I guess. In the comments, one of the commenters, “double-plus-ungood,” asks:
Suppose that this particular war is and…
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
[...] Decadent western culture is rat obsessed, it’s true. But sometimes the rodent has to take one for the team. Now, in true Islamist fashion, but with an IP twist: How to avoid (mostly theoretical) trademark / copyright liability while still being …. defiant? [...]