« When you lose Peggy Noonan.... | Main | The naughty "Coalition of the Willing" »

January 21, 2005

Learn, dammit...please!

Callimachus takes issue with my post earlier today that the US military is overburdened already and is unable to take on another big fight:

But I do have to wonder how this stretched-to-the-breaking-point U.S. military managed to be in Sumatra firstest with the mostest in a matter of days after the tsunami, on top of everything else, while the U.N. was still trying to find a pair of matching socks and the FAX number for a five-star hotel in Singapore.

Ahhh...the right wing spin machine at it's finest. The UN was on the ground and delivering aid to tsunami victims immediately. And while they were doing that...Bush was on his umpteenth vacation in Crawford. But how dare we criticize Bush when the UN is a much more tempting (if not factual) target? And while it might be part of an interesting fantasy life to say that because we can send some military to help out with tsunami survivors so therefore we can start up military action with Iran, it's not especially realistic.

But I digress.

Callimachus however, continues:

And I wonder how it's possible that a United States with a far smaller base population than today could have fielded armed forces that conquered the fascist empires of the 1940s, or stared down the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Let me help you wipe away the wonder. During World War II, the United States instituted a draft and fought in concert with the Allies in defeating the Nazis. The citizens of the US also sacrificed heavily, rationing fuel and various other resources. Further, I can't think of a World War II historian who believes that we could have won WWII without the significant manpower and contributions of the Russians. The burden of resources was distributed throughout the Allies. What we're doing in Iraq right now is essentially the antithesis of that.

Then there's the "stare down" of the Soviet Union. Our armed forces didn't stare down a thing during the 1980s. The Soviets were brought down by a number of things, most noteably a ridiculous foray into Afghanistan, a pre-1980s crumbling infrastructure and an inability to spend money on their military at the pace of the US. There was no fighting involved and no military standoff. It's a silly strawman argument.

The rest of the piece is a long, slow, desperate spiral of denial:

But when you add it up, yes in fact Saddam was a genocidal tyrant. Yes, in fact, he did try to get yellowcake from Niger. Yes, in fact he did covet a WMD arsenal. Yes, the sanctions and inspections were keeping him from it, but that system was well on the way to breaking down, largely because he had discovered a way to subvert it.

But when you add it up with actual reality, the score isn't quite what Callimachus would like it to be:

Saddam was a bad guy. But Congress didn't give Bush authority to invade Iraq because he was a tyrant. The world is overflowing with tyrants and some of them we even support. We sure didn't mind the tyrant Saddam when he was our good buddy during the Reagan and early Bush 41 era.
And while Bush vigorously defended the Niger/yellowcake incident, the documents they used to verify it were forgeries. We also didn't invade based on "coveting". We invaded because Bush and his people told us that Hussein was an imminent, immediate threat to the shores of the United States.

Ironically, Callimachus agrees with me that our intelligence was bad and hopes Iran and North Korea are watching:

But actually, that fact, in this context, doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I hope they're paying attention to our public disclosures about our intelligence in response to the Iraq war.

For one, real democracies have transparent institutions, and while I'm sure the mullahs are giggling like schoolgirls over the Congressional hearings, they may notice that their restless population has upped its respect for America a notch and longs for such transparency in Teheran.

No doubt that many in Tehran wish for a more transparent and accountable government. But they won't be looking at ours as a model. We brought the Bush Administration kicking and screaming to the table of the 9/11 Commission and other hearings on intelligence failures on Iraq. And who in the leadership was held accountable to the failings? Tenant..he of the Medal of Freedom? Rumsfeld? Rice? Wolfowitz? Perle?

For another, the leaders of Iran also now know this U.S. administration is willing to act, rather than wait for the perfect intelligence that never comes, or comes too late to be any good.

The leaders of Iran know that this US administration is careless and reckless. They also know that our military is stretched and overextended. They know that our troops have been ill equipped and understaffed. And while it's fun to opine about the good ol days of World War II, what's going on now is nothing like that.

And then of course, the requisite personal insult:

She conflates a tough negotiating position, and a tough frame of mind, with being a thoughtless physical bully. As a parent, I have to be tough and firm in my positions. That doesn't ever require me to raise a hand and do the slightest physical violence. People who can't differentiate the two probably shouldn't be parents. They certainly shouldn't dabble in world affairs.

There's no conflating here whatsoever. "Thoughtless" is exactly the appropriate word for many of Bush's foreign policy decisions to date. "Bully" is even more on the money. These other nations aren't our metaphorical children to be handled with a spanking or a time out. People who believe that these nations must be dealt with like so many naughty children to be shown the error of their ways might want to reconsider being done with mirrors.

Finally...the rhetorical question of "what is Carla's proposal"?

I propose that we first determine carefully and thoughtfully if a problem truely does exist. Yes..I know that isn't as sexy and fun as the Dirty Harry metaphors so easily quipped off of the fingers. But it's the first and best beginning step.

And instead of bombing and invading, we let the IAEA actually do their job, like they were doing in Iraq. And yes, they were getting unfettered access to every site they wanted to see. Had they been allowed to finish, the bloodshed we've seen over the last two years could have been avoided.

When I made the statement, "Learn, Dammit!", I mean we must learn from the mistakes of Iraq. But first there has to be recognition of those mistakes and the problems that have stemmed from them. A willingness to be intellectually honest doesn't hurt, either.

Posted by Carla at January 21, 2005 08:54 PM