All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Sunday, May 09, 2004

The Price of Arrogance

Newsweek
Doomed, Doomed I Say!

...Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq—troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani—Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.

Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full responsibility.
Don't hold back Fareed - tell us what you really think. Another pro-war liberal bites the dust.

OK, all the points made here are valid. Now what do we do? Give up?

The only policy that is certain to fail is if we stop trying to succeed. We did it wrong. So now do it better.

Let me quote the great man himself:


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

Oral sex lessons cut rates of teenage pregnancy

Guardian
HEAD OF THE CLASS

Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.

Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of 'intimacy' such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse...

...Schoolchildren, particularly girls, who received such training developed a 'more mature' response to sex...

...Now the government will recommend the scheme, called A Pause, to schools throughout England and Wales following the success of the trial in 104 schools...
This was too good to pass up. Obiously a personal moral weakness on my part.

Some additional comments offered over at Tim Blair:
- I guess the Brits will stick anything in their mouths except a toothbrush....

- I guess you could say they are wanting to head off unwanted pregnancies by teaching girls how to use their head.

- "Alas, poor Yoric, I knew him Fellatio...er, HO-ratio. I meant Horatio Miss...it's that new human relations class. Honest."

- In the ongoing struggle to prevent teen pregnancy Britain hails this blow for freedom.

- Offered as an 'O' level, 69'll get you a distinction.

EU Constitution Surprise For Blair

EURSOC (European politics)

Another headache for Tony Blair: The latest draft of the European Constitution is a lot tougher than he expected. Some of Britain's "red lines" - issues of national importance without which he will not be able to agree to the treaty - look fragile, if not crossed already.

The revised draft, released by the Irish government just as Blair headed to Paris to attempt to squeeze more concessions from Jacques Chirac, transfers more power to the European Commission and away from member states.

Among the amendments are moves to greatly strengthen the powers of the proposed EU "foreign minister" - an unelected commissioner - enabling him or her to give orders to the foreign ministers of member countries, including (Britain's foreign secretary) Jack Straw, and to control the EU corps of diplomats.

The ability of Britain and other member states to veto the appointment of the president and vice-president of the European Central Bank also comes under renewed threat, as does the independence of the bank itself.

The powers of the European Parliament in rejecting the Commission's budget - itself a contentious issue - would be greatly increased and there are even possible threats to Britain's right to levy taxes independently.

More decisions across a range of areas should, according to the proposed amendments, be taken by qualified majority voting, effectively removing the ability of Britain and other countries to wield a veto
...

...The Prime Minister has warned that he can only sell the constitution to British voters if red lines protecting areas of taxation, foreign policy, defence, criminal law and social policy are secure. If he is unable to retain Britain's veto in these areas, he will not be able to sign the treaty, never mind try to sell it to an already sceptical British public...
Blair was already likely to lose the vote on the weaker version of the EU constitution. Now it looks like a near certainty that it will be rejected by the British public.

To Win the Peace, We Must 'Lose' the War

Washington Post
Find a Credible Iraqi Leader, and Hand Him Victory By John Brady Kiesling

The deadliest illusion about warfare is that the aim of war is military victory. The true aim of war is to accomplish the political, economic or security goals for which it was fought. In a war competently waged for rational ends, one could rationally expect that America's aims would best be achieved through dominance on the battlefield followed by the dignified establishment of a new and better order. But in a war like the one in Iraq, which is based on assumptions since proven false, we cannot win by being victorious...

...at a minimum American interests require that the new Iraqi state not harbor terrorists or pose a threat to its neighbors; that it renounce nuclear weapons, long-range missiles and nerve gas; and that it exercise an effective monopoly on violence within its own territory...

...If America declares victory and brings its troops home, it leaves behind a government whose orders will not be obeyed. Instead, a disparate group of chieftains will draw legitimacy from a well of violence that may never run dry...Iraq will become like Afghanistan, a perilous mosaic of rival tribal principalities, a permanent refuge and breeding ground for terror...

...As long as heavily armed American soldiers have the ultimate say, Iraqis will never develop the sense of unity and responsibility necessary to a viable state. And without that unity, America is trapped in Iraq by the specter of civil war...

...The struggle against foreign occupation can generate the legitimacy needed to hold Iraq together. A leader who drives the Americans out can claim the loyalty of enough of the Iraqi people to govern Iraq...

...America must abandon its dream of victory and accept the appearance of defeat...the United States must take a cold, analytical look at the forces arrayed against us in Iraq and decide which leader should be allowed the glorious destiny of redeeming his country from foreign occupation. Once the United States has fixed on a credible resistance leader, our goal should be to cede him tactical, positional victories while denying them to his competitors...

...When the time comes, we will pull out completely, and an Iraqi leader will enter Baghdad in triumph...

...the Kurds will not be impressed by any savior from outside Kurdistan, so Turkish threats and U.S. promises will be needed to keep the Kurds within a federal Iraqi state. And no U.S. Congress would willingly appropriate reconstruction money for a country that defeated us...

...we will end up with a reasonably popular despot...

...By acknowledging the obvious -- that we are not absolutely omnipotent -- we actually make ourselves safer. We encourage our partners to increase their share of the burden, and we wean the Middle East and other repressive regions away from the psychopathology of blaming the United States for their own stagnation...
Talk about wishful thinking! Other nations bailing us out in Iraq? Arab countries no longer blaming us for their problems? Talk about a fantasy life. This guy has it in spades.

This strategy, or variation on it, has become the conventional wisdom among journalists and some academics. It has also become fashionable among the mid level leadership in the Army who think the current operational tempo wll 'break' the Army.

In esseccence, select a friendly dictator, and then 'Declare victory and leave', or in this particular version, 'Declare defeat and leave'. I don't know, it sounds a bit Nixonian to me.

Good god this is cynical, cruel and dishonest! A lie isn't the truth, no matter how many times you tell it.

Of one thing I am certain, as long is Bush is President it will never happen. It is Bush's only redeeming quality.

UPDATE: J. mentioned this:
"Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him."
There has always been a majority of Army officers who didn't like Rumsfeld, didn't want to change the structure of the Army, and preferred the Army was never used unless to protect North America. (See my previous comments about an unwillingness to see the Army 'broken'.)

Until 9/11, the anger at Rumsfeld was so severe that there was significant talk among his enemies that they wanted him to resign. But after 9/11, those voices were silenced temporarily, but their opinions about 'transformation' have not changed. This opinion can be most clearly heard among the retired officers who are interviewed on TV.

Officers who were promoted under the principles of the old system are biased by their life experience to oppose fundamental change in that system. Army officers hating Rumsfeld isn't new. They have always hated him, and still hate him. Rumsfeld has always been the most hated Sec. Def. by the military bureaucracy.

The voices quoted in Ricks' Washington Post article are basically reactionary. Basically, they are a bunch of blowhards who don’t want their lives and careers disrupted. I don’t take them seriously. They were saying the same thing back in the summer of 2001. When these people begin to be willing to resign their comfortable jobs, and speak out publicly against the President’s policies, then I will begin to take them seriously, not until then.

Bush and especially Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are completely committed to modernizing the US military. Even if Kerry is elected, many of those changes will still go forward.

More importantly, any policy based on the supposition that Iraqis and Arabs are unsuited to democracy is fundamentally racist. In many ways it is the kind know-nothing political opinion one might expect from career military officers.

Choosing a friendly dictatorship over an unfriendly democracy is exactly the kind of political victory our enemies in the Middle East are hoping for. It is fundamentally a betrayal of our ideals, and will be used to discredit American foreign policy for generations to come.

In any case, it is too late now to make any other policy choice. Once the choice to invade Iraq was made, our policy course was set in stone. As I have said before, from that moment we were commiting ourselves to a 10+ year occupation of Iraq. We have incurred debts and responisbilties and we must pay them. To allow innocent Iraqis to die so that we will not have to make sacrifices will be seen by the world as what it is - pure cowardice. To hesitate now would be exceptionally childish.

Iraq must become a peaceful, free and independent country. Even if that means that the government is anti-American like most of the other Arabs countries (with the exception of small countries such as Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Morocco and Tunisia). The US no longer has the freedom to choose fascism over liberty.

Leaving behind an anti-American democracy in Iraq would be a clear victory for the US.

Cursed by Oil

New York Times
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

...The Arab world, alas, has been cursed with oil. For decades, too many Arab countries have opted to drill a sand dune for economic growth rather than drilling their own people — men and women — in order to tap their energy, creativity, intellect and entrepreneurship. Arab countries barely trade with one another, and unlike Korea and Japan, rarely invent or patent anything. But rather than looking inward, assessing their development deficits, absorbing the best in modern knowledge that their money can buy and then trying to beat the West at its own game, the Arab world in too many cases has cut itself off, blamed the enduring Palestine conflict or colonialism for delaying reform, or found dignity in Pyrrhic victories like Falluja.

To be sure, there are exceptions. Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Morocco and Tunisia are all engaged in real experiments with modernization, but the bigger states are really lost...

...The Bush team has made a mess in Iraq, but the pathologies of the Arab world have also contributed — and the sheer delight that some Arab media take in seeing Iraq go up in flames is evidence of that. It's time for the Arab world to grow up — to stop dancing on burning American jeeps and claiming that this is some victory for Islam...

...here's what else I know from visiting Iraq: There were a million acts of kindness, generosity and good will also extended by individual U.S. soldiers this past year — acts motivated purely by a desire to give Iraqis the best chance they've ever had at decent government and a better future. There are plenty of Iraqis and Arabs who know that...

..."They are using our mistakes to avoid their own necessity to change, reform and modernize," says the Mideast expert Stephen P. Cohen.

A senior Iraqi politician told me that he recently received a group of visiting Iranian journalists in his home. As they were leaving, he said, two young Iranian women in the group whispered to him: "Succeed for our sake." Those Iranian women knew that if Iraqis could actually produce a decent, democratizing government it would pressure their own regime to start changing — which is why the Iranian, Syrian and Saudi regimes are all rooting for us to fail.

But you know what? Despite everything, we still have a chance to produce a decent outcome in Iraq...
The most certain way to fail is to stop trying.

We need to continue our efforts to have free and fair elections in Iraq. Military victories are secondary. We must use the time we have left before the January 2005 elections to set the conditions for a successful election. If we fail it will be a minor setback for American security -- but it will be an absolute catastrophe for the Iraqi people. Tens of thousands of innocents will die if we fail. We have a debt of honor to pay. We must do whatever it takes to succeed.

...an end to war.


“Only the dead have seen an end to war.”

Plato