#1 post that started it:
Bush at the Press Conference [John Podhoretz]
One pretty strong moment (I'm paraphrasing):Ann Compton: Is this Vietnam?Posted at 10:44 AM
Bush: No.
Compton: Why not?
Bush: Because there's a freely elected government. 12 million people went to the polls.
#2
Strong Moment? [John Derbyshire]Ann Compton: Is this Vietnam?—
Bush: No.
Compton: Why not?
Bush: Because there's a freely elected government. 12 million people went to the polls.
JPod: Sorry, but if that's a strong moment, my wee hamster Hilbert could power the house central a/c system by working his little wheel. Whatever position you take on Iraq, it ought to make you weep that GWB comes out with stuff as feeble as that, stuff for which there is such an obvious response. Like, say, that there was an election in South Vietnam on Sep. 3, 1967, with 4.8m people voting, an 83 percent turnout.
If indeed Iraq is not Vietnam, our President, with all his advisers and speechwriters, ought to be able to come up with a better argument than THAT.
Posted at 12:17 PM
#3
Bush and Vietnam [John Podhoretz]
E-mailers are protesting my citation of Bush's remark on the difference between Vietnam and Iraq being the free elections in the latter. South Vietnam, they say, had a freely elected government too. You really can't compare the two. The freely elected Diem was deposed, and the freely elected Thieu ended up being the military's candidate and getting reelected with a dubiously high percentage — something like 90 percent — of the vote. Granted, I'm talking about a period of about 8 years' time in Vietnam, while Iraq's elections only began 18 months ago. But still, the democratization of Vietnam was not a central issue in that war as it is in this war.
Posted at 12:21 PM
#4
Oh, Derb [John Podhoretz]
Keep your hamster out of this.
Posted at 12:23 PM
#5
Iraq and Vietnam [Cliff May]
Much as I hope to see a free and democratic Iraq, I don’t think democratization is the key distinction – or the key issue.
We lost in Vietnam because we didn’t have the will and the skills to prevail. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people and millions of Cambodian victims of the Khmer Rouge paid the stiffest price.
Americans went home and got on with their lives. But notice was taken of America’s failure.
That led to the seizure of our embassy in Tehran in 1979. When we responded fecklessly to that act of war, the Ayatollahs let loose Hezbollah to slaughter U.S. Marines, diplomats and intelligence agents in Beirut. We retreated again.
And we were tested again – in Mogadishu in 1993. We did not pass that test either.
So Osama bin Laden was inspired to train thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan. We knew what he was doing. We did nothing serious in response. Before long, they came after us – in Kenya and Tanzania, off the coast of Yemen and then in New York and Washington.
Eliminating Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s commander in Iraq, was a great victory. But it’s important to continue to pursue the enemy – not stop fighting prematurely as we did in both 1991 and 2003.
If we fail to prevail against al-Qaeda and the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, why would we not falter also in Afghanistan? And why wouldn’t the same strategy and tactics lead to victory for the Islamo-fascists in Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere?
We either develop the will – and the military and intelligence skills — to defeat the enemy we now face on the battlefield in Iraq, or we retreat not just from Iraq but from anyplace our enemies don’t want us.
We either overcome our enemies or we resign ourselves to cowering behind concrete barriers for the remainder of this century.
Posted at 1:13 PM
#6
Iraq, Vietnam [John Derbyshire]
Well, this is pretty well-trodden territory. Of course there are all sorts of really important differences — notably the absence of a "North Iraq" tied to, and supplied by, two big communist empires. In some respects the two wars are OPPOSITES. E.g. our great enemy in Vietnam was pan-Vietnamese patriotism, which the communists appealed to very successfully. The problem in Iraq isn't too much Iraqi patriotism, it's too little!
The two situations have this in common though: they both suffer from serious mission creep, and a corresponding democratic deficit.
—-Mission creep: No American thought, in 1963 (say), that 12 years of major campaigning against a stubborn enemy, with half a million troops engaged at one point, and an end total 55,000 US deaths, was in our future. No American thought that. (I don't think so, anyway. If a reader can come up with one I'll acknowledge it.)
—-Democratic deficit: Americans could therefore rightly feel, in 1973, that their leaders had got them into a situation they never wished to be in, had never been asked whether they would wish to be in, and therefore were under no moral obligation, as citizens of a democratic polity, to go on supporting the continuation of.
—-Mission creep: No American thought, in 2003, that 3+ years of major campaigning in Iraq, with 130,000+ troops continutously engaged, and a running total of 2,500 deaths after that 3+ years, was in our future. No American thought that. I am not speaking of the War on Terror—Rick Brookhiser was already telling me at about that time that he expected the WoT to go on for the rest of his lifetime. I'm talking about engagement in Iraq.
—-Democratic deficit: Americans can therefore rightly feel, in 2003, that our leaders have got us into a situation we never wished to be in, were never asked whether we would wish to be in, and therefore are under no moral obligation, as citizens of a democratic polity, to go on supporting the continuation of.
Posted at 2:00 PM
#7
The Iraq War [John Podhoretz]
Say what you like, Derb, and rant your anti-Bush rants however long and passionately you wish to, but your accusation is specious. There has been no mission creep in Iraq. The mission is what it was before hostilities began — disarming Saddam, removing him from power, and replacing a terrorist regime with a democratic state that will offer a new set of possibilities for the stunted politics of the Middle East. The problem is that making the mission work has been far harder and more painful than many people anticipated. Now, I understand this is a little complicated, and doesn't resolve into a nice mathematical formula, so your hamster may need to take a few minutes to explain it all to you.
Posted at 2:49 PM
#8
Re: Iraq, Vietnam [Cliff May]
Derb, I’m puzzled by the notion asserted by you and others that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the so-called War on Terror. We just eliminated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was the commander of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Surely, al-Qaeda is an important enemy in the War on Terror.
If we’re serious about the War on Terror we will fight al-Qaeda wherever we find it. We find it in Iraq. By the same logic, if we retreat from the Iraqi battlefield, we’re retreating from the fight against al-Qaeda, that is from the War on Terror.
If you want to argue that we had no business screwing around with those Baathists in 2003 and that we should leave them alone now – well, I’d probably disagree with you on that, too, but you’d be standing on firmer ground.
Posted at 3:20 PM
#9
The Forever War [John Derbyshire]
Cliff:
You posted: "Derb, I'm puzzled by the notion asserted by you and others that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the so-called War on Terror. We just eliminated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was the commander of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Surely, al-Qaeda is an important enemy in the War on Terror."
Indeed, and good riddance to AMaZ. But this is a bit like those apologists for the manned space program pointing to the spin-off effects: "If not for the Apollo program, we wouldn't have teflon!"
If you want teflon, do some lab research on non-stick materials. You don't need to spend a gazillion dollars lofting huge man-carrying spaceships into orbit.
Similarly, if you (I mean, the president) had put me at the head of US counter-terrorist operations in, say February 2003 and said: "There's this guy Zarqawi, and he needs killing. Get on it," I bet I could have got the job done for, oh, around 0.001 percent of the cost of the Iraq war. (My first thought would just have been to contract the job out on a fixed-fee basis to Mossad, who seem pretty good at this sort of thing... but I might have come up with something else.)
If you want to kill terrorists, figure out a way to do it. If you want to go launching trillion-dollar nation-building projects, and your electorate is cool with it, go do that. The connection between the two things remains unproven, though.
There are terrorists all over, Cliff: Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Hamburg, Manchester, Chicago, Bali. You know that better than anyone. I'm in favor of killing them all, by any methods we can devise, and as long as it takes. Totally in favor. No doubt. I just don't see why a Forever War in Iraq helps. In fact, I believe it's an unnecessary distraction.
Posted at 5:00 PM
#10
The History of "Mission Creep" [John Podhoretz]
Mark Conversino, an associate professor at the Air War College, writes a brilliant e-mail (expressing a view that is, of course, his own and not that of the government or the military):What has occurred in the Iraq war has occurred in countless wars—the enemy gets a vote and events do not transpire according to some neat plan. Stubborn resistance and the need for greater exertions are not the same as mission creep. Our mission in Iraq has never changed; the nature of the enemy and therefore of the war on the ground has—that is not mission creep. President Lincoln requested 75,000 90-day volunteers to subdue the rebellion of Southern states in one or two Napoleonic battles. What we got was a grinding four year struggle to restore the Union and end slavery that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. That was not mission creep, even with the added goal of full emancipation since both restoration of the Union and freeing the slaves required the same outcome—a Northern victory. One could also say that, to paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire, no one on December 8, 1941, expected to bring the Axis powers to unconditional surrender (an "end state" announced more than a year after Pearl Harbor) only to embark on that other "long war," the Cold War, following VE and VJ day. Was it therefore purely "mission creep" to remain in Europe and Asia as occupiers simply because we didn't envision that in the days following Pearl Harbor? Did we expend all that blood and treasure merely to see Soviet dominance established over half of Europe? Did the American people sign on to the Berlin Airlift or to halting the North Koreans in 1945? Was the formation of NATO and other Cold War-era alliances (entangling alliances, one might say) a form of mission creep that Americans need not support? I could go on, but you get my point. Moreover, if we alter the "mission" in order to defend our principles, freedoms and way of life because the nature of the enemy has changed, does that reduce the legitimacy of that mission? The evolution of the Cold War fits the definition of mission creep far better than the war in Iraq does but that didn't mean the Cold War was not worth fighting.Me: What he said.
There's a larger point here, though, one beyond the notion of mission creep. When things got rough and the sacrifices exceeded our pre-war expectations, we could have cut deals and declared "victory" in 1863, 1943 or 1963. Even though, again to paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire, during these earlier conflicts our leaders got us into situations we never wished to be in and were never asked whether we would wish to be in, we recognized our moral obligation, "as citizens of a democratic polity," was to fight and win, not cut and run.
Posted at 5:23 PM
#11
Re: The Forever War [Cliff May]
Derb, you remind me of the economist stranded in the dessert with only a sealed bottle of water. His solution? “Assume a bottle opener.”
Bush’s decision to go into Iraq obviously was not based on a desire to whack Zarqawi. It was, obviously, based on inadequate intelligence.
He asked CIA director George Tenet whether Saddam had a stockpile of WMDs. Tenet said it was a “slam dunk.” On that basis, Bush told his generals to topple the dictator.
Perhaps Bush would have made a different decision if Tenet had replied: “Nah, Saddam deep-sixed that stuff years ago, “ or “Our sources say he shipped the load of it to Syria” or even “Uh, well ... geez … search me, boss!”
We can’t go back and change any of that. The reality is that for the last few years the most lethal al-Qaeda force has been in Iraq, attempting to thwart U.S. goals and take over the country or at least establish a new base there.
I repeat: We have to fight al-Qaeda where we find al-Qaeda. General Zarqawi is toast. That’s great. Now we have to get his colonels, lieutenants and privates. We can’t outsource the job – at least not yet. We can’t run from al-Qaeda or retreat from any battlefield where al-Qaeda has assembled. That much should be clear.
Posted at 5:37 PM
#12 - Continuing June 15th:
1863, 1943, 1963 [John Derbyshire]
JPod: To Prof. Conversino I can only say what I say to anyone who draws analogies between this Iraq war and the Civil War, or WW2: Are you willing to do to Iraq what Sherman did to the South? Are you willing to fire-bomb their cities, or drop atom bombs on them? If not, why are you making these analogies?
This is an optional war, not a "crisis war."
The Prof.:When things got rough and the sacrifices exceeded our pre-war expectations, we could have cut deals and declared 'victory' in 1863, 1943 or 1963. Even though, again to paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire, during these earlier conflicts our leaders got us into situations we never wished to be in and were never asked whether we would wish to be in, we recognized our moral obligation, 'as citizens of a democratic polity,' was to fight and win, not cut and run.Me: What we recognized was, these were wars of survival. If the Iraq war is as critical to our survival as those earlier wars, then by God, let's do what we have to do to win it — scorched earth a la Civil War, fire bombing of civilian populations a la WW2, whatever. I'm all in favor of winning wars, and perfectly fine with CW or WW2 methods. If we had dared fight Vietnam the way we fought the CW and WW2, we would have won it.
America can win any war it wants to win. Trouble is, we don't want to win this one, not if it means we have to give up our sentimental fantasies about "building democracy" and getting people to appreciate how nice, how really nice and good we are.
Posted at 9:28 AM
#13
Mission Creep [John Derbyshire]
JPod: My only point was—I am sorry I did not make it clearer—that the U.S. public will tolerate mission creep if they believe they are in a "crisis war" — one where national survival is at stake — and if not, not. That, it seems to me (though only if it's true of course!) refutes the Prof.'s argument.
If we are fighting a crisis war in Iraq, let's fight it with crisis-war methods, as we always have done in the past.
If the Iraq war is not a crisis war (I believe it is not) then let's not be surprised or indignant if the U.S. public regards mission creep with disfavor. As, according to the polls, they increasingly do.
That's all.
Posted at 10:51 AM
#14
Come On, Derb [John Podhoretz]
Your point is that there was mission creep. There hasn't been. Period.
Posted at 11:01 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment