Barnettization II
Just about finished with Pentagon's New Map: Blueprint for the Future--I mistakenly read the second volume before the first. I'll go get the other one from the library tomorrow.
There are a couple of minor policy recommendations I take issue with, but overall I see the vision as, in its essentials, correct.
If we had honest political debate in this country each party would have to admit the following.
The Democrats: The UN does not work. It does not have the means to do much more than pass resolutions and, in essence, voluntarily ask dictators to stop being dictators. It also leaves elements, both within the institution and in the larger "West" (think France) using the situation to their own financial ends, usually through black market-like means.
When it came to Saddam, only a US military venture would have thrown him from power. Another round of nuclear inspections, UN resolutions, and crippling (to the populace but not al-Tikriti himself) sanctions would have done nothing to bring him down and ultimately bring the people out of poverty, disconnctedness, oppression, and despair.
We made a promise, whether rightly or wrongly, after the Holocaust that our country would never allow this type of thing again. But we did in Iraq, we did in Rwanda, we continue to in North Korea. What happens when these modern-day Hitlers don't invade Poland or aren't aligned with the Emperor bombing Pearl Harbor? What happens when there is no Soviet Union to war coldly with? What do we do with these failed realities? Is pre-emption ever a moral necessity? These are questions the Democrats have not sufficiently asked or answered. That is why they continue to be vulnerable to attack from the Republicans on weakness vis a vis defense/the war on terrorism.
The Republicans: The war effort and the coalition forces have been undermined by Americans back home. The war effort has been undermined by the following:
1. No post-war planning
2. Leaving the Defense Department and not the State Dept. in charge of winning the peace (see #1)
3. Originally having no political vision for the country beyond a short-term holding period ending in Ahmed Chalabi, an exile, becoming king (see 1,2).
4. Creating an ambiguous legal atmosphere that created the strong likelihood, if not inevitably, of Abu Ghraib, rendition, and other related torture-abuse issues.
5. De-Baathification, especially dissolving the military--largely Sunni--who make up large elements of the insurgency.
6. Not believing the British that an insurgency was bound to occur the longer we stay (recall the British were the last Western occupiers of Iraq)
7. Having no Sunni Strategy (see number 1-6)
8. Allowing Moqtada al-Sadr to threaten the Ayatollah ali-al Sistani leading to the more moderate Shi'ite religious factions having to side with the Iranian-backed SCIRI
9. Not having any sense of the religious-cultural-political-historical situation of Iraq (see numbers 1-8)
10. Not ever having the proper number of troops to deal with the post-Saddam era (again 1-9)
11. As per 10, not being able to control the border with Syria, leading to the influx of salafi jihadists inspired by al-Qadea's "theology"
12. By setting an unnecessary quick assault deadline, the administration left us with no substantial allies to help shoulder the cost/manpower issue.
13. As a result of 12, the administration had to base the case for going to war on Weapons of Mass Destruction and supposed al-Qaeda/Saddam links.
14. No WMDs ever found, intelligence found to be faulty--and probably cherrypicked by forces within the VP's office--nor any links from Saddam (a secular Stalinist who employed Arab tribal customs to his advantage) with al-Qaeda (a transnational Sunni Salafi terrorist network, seeking a violent return to the Medieval Sunni Islamic caliphate, at its height centered in Bagdhad).
15. The administration never asked for the participation of the civilian-industrial-economic powers domestically.
16. First president ever to cut taxes while at war.
17. Leading (without support) to the biggest budgetary and trade deficit in the history of our country.
18. Without proper troops levels (see #10) rioting ensued after the takedown of Saddam. American troops guarded Oil Fields and (to this DAY!!!) are stationed in Saddam's former palace while they lift no finger to stop looting of the Iraqi National Museum. How's that for a messgae sent to the people--are we liberators or imperialists?
19. While hyped currently as a positive for the prez, the administration spent the last two years doing zilch in terms of training Iraqi military. The military is untrained and the police forces have been inflitrated by Iranian-backed militas who are carrying out revenge killings and terror-campaigns on Sunni populace. (See James Fallows' recent article in the Atlantic).
20. Without sufficient funds and manpower, Army not properly equipped, losing morale, forced to re-deploy many times over, recruitment numbers not reaching necessary minimum levels, Reservists have been essentially turned into full time soldiers, etc.
If I've forgotten anything, others can fill in the details. Point being on 1-20, there is not one Democrat involved in any of that. That is all the civilian command of our military, the President and the Secretary of Defense being the two most important decision makers in the process. Obviously compared to all those basically criminal mistakes--at least negligence--Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean look like the political midgets they are. Sure some of their actions/inactions have undermined morale, let's say, but nothing on the scale of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield cabal. Period. End of sentence. That's not comparing apples and oranges, that's comparing 5 apples versus 10,000 Orchards. [FYI: Just to be fair, John Kerry currently has with Gen. Clark the most comprehensive plan for Iraq it is just that due to his own arrogance-stupidity, it won't get a hearing].
If both sides could peform a massive mea culpa and public penitential rite, we could perhaps get down to the issues raised in Barnett and Garrison. But sadly that doesn't sem to be the case anytime soon. Although, as of this writing, Iraqis voted, relatively safely, and there is word that the President will not veto McCain's Amendment on Torture. As I've said before, it is going to take a moderate Republican(s) to make any positive movement. That would be Sens. Graham, McCain, Hagel, and Warner. And perhaps the Hawkish-voting Dem Sens. Lieberman and Clinton.
Look's like the Barnett futuristic globalization piece vis a vis Christian theology will be next (for real this time--sorry didn't know I was going to get on a rant there, but now that's out of my system, I'll get to the other topic at hand).
There are a couple of minor policy recommendations I take issue with, but overall I see the vision as, in its essentials, correct.
If we had honest political debate in this country each party would have to admit the following.
The Democrats: The UN does not work. It does not have the means to do much more than pass resolutions and, in essence, voluntarily ask dictators to stop being dictators. It also leaves elements, both within the institution and in the larger "West" (think France) using the situation to their own financial ends, usually through black market-like means.
When it came to Saddam, only a US military venture would have thrown him from power. Another round of nuclear inspections, UN resolutions, and crippling (to the populace but not al-Tikriti himself) sanctions would have done nothing to bring him down and ultimately bring the people out of poverty, disconnctedness, oppression, and despair.
We made a promise, whether rightly or wrongly, after the Holocaust that our country would never allow this type of thing again. But we did in Iraq, we did in Rwanda, we continue to in North Korea. What happens when these modern-day Hitlers don't invade Poland or aren't aligned with the Emperor bombing Pearl Harbor? What happens when there is no Soviet Union to war coldly with? What do we do with these failed realities? Is pre-emption ever a moral necessity? These are questions the Democrats have not sufficiently asked or answered. That is why they continue to be vulnerable to attack from the Republicans on weakness vis a vis defense/the war on terrorism.
The Republicans: The war effort and the coalition forces have been undermined by Americans back home. The war effort has been undermined by the following:
1. No post-war planning
2. Leaving the Defense Department and not the State Dept. in charge of winning the peace (see #1)
3. Originally having no political vision for the country beyond a short-term holding period ending in Ahmed Chalabi, an exile, becoming king (see 1,2).
4. Creating an ambiguous legal atmosphere that created the strong likelihood, if not inevitably, of Abu Ghraib, rendition, and other related torture-abuse issues.
5. De-Baathification, especially dissolving the military--largely Sunni--who make up large elements of the insurgency.
6. Not believing the British that an insurgency was bound to occur the longer we stay (recall the British were the last Western occupiers of Iraq)
7. Having no Sunni Strategy (see number 1-6)
8. Allowing Moqtada al-Sadr to threaten the Ayatollah ali-al Sistani leading to the more moderate Shi'ite religious factions having to side with the Iranian-backed SCIRI
9. Not having any sense of the religious-cultural-political-historical situation of Iraq (see numbers 1-8)
10. Not ever having the proper number of troops to deal with the post-Saddam era (again 1-9)
11. As per 10, not being able to control the border with Syria, leading to the influx of salafi jihadists inspired by al-Qadea's "theology"
12. By setting an unnecessary quick assault deadline, the administration left us with no substantial allies to help shoulder the cost/manpower issue.
13. As a result of 12, the administration had to base the case for going to war on Weapons of Mass Destruction and supposed al-Qaeda/Saddam links.
14. No WMDs ever found, intelligence found to be faulty--and probably cherrypicked by forces within the VP's office--nor any links from Saddam (a secular Stalinist who employed Arab tribal customs to his advantage) with al-Qaeda (a transnational Sunni Salafi terrorist network, seeking a violent return to the Medieval Sunni Islamic caliphate, at its height centered in Bagdhad).
15. The administration never asked for the participation of the civilian-industrial-economic powers domestically.
16. First president ever to cut taxes while at war.
17. Leading (without support) to the biggest budgetary and trade deficit in the history of our country.
18. Without proper troops levels (see #10) rioting ensued after the takedown of Saddam. American troops guarded Oil Fields and (to this DAY!!!) are stationed in Saddam's former palace while they lift no finger to stop looting of the Iraqi National Museum. How's that for a messgae sent to the people--are we liberators or imperialists?
19. While hyped currently as a positive for the prez, the administration spent the last two years doing zilch in terms of training Iraqi military. The military is untrained and the police forces have been inflitrated by Iranian-backed militas who are carrying out revenge killings and terror-campaigns on Sunni populace. (See James Fallows' recent article in the Atlantic).
20. Without sufficient funds and manpower, Army not properly equipped, losing morale, forced to re-deploy many times over, recruitment numbers not reaching necessary minimum levels, Reservists have been essentially turned into full time soldiers, etc.
If I've forgotten anything, others can fill in the details. Point being on 1-20, there is not one Democrat involved in any of that. That is all the civilian command of our military, the President and the Secretary of Defense being the two most important decision makers in the process. Obviously compared to all those basically criminal mistakes--at least negligence--Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean look like the political midgets they are. Sure some of their actions/inactions have undermined morale, let's say, but nothing on the scale of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield cabal. Period. End of sentence. That's not comparing apples and oranges, that's comparing 5 apples versus 10,000 Orchards. [FYI: Just to be fair, John Kerry currently has with Gen. Clark the most comprehensive plan for Iraq it is just that due to his own arrogance-stupidity, it won't get a hearing].
If both sides could peform a massive mea culpa and public penitential rite, we could perhaps get down to the issues raised in Barnett and Garrison. But sadly that doesn't sem to be the case anytime soon. Although, as of this writing, Iraqis voted, relatively safely, and there is word that the President will not veto McCain's Amendment on Torture. As I've said before, it is going to take a moderate Republican(s) to make any positive movement. That would be Sens. Graham, McCain, Hagel, and Warner. And perhaps the Hawkish-voting Dem Sens. Lieberman and Clinton.
Look's like the Barnett futuristic globalization piece vis a vis Christian theology will be next (for real this time--sorry didn't know I was going to get on a rant there, but now that's out of my system, I'll get to the other topic at hand).
posted by CJ Smith @ 12:47 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home