On Obama, Syria, and trust in the US
Caroline Glick’s article on Obama and Syria seems to sum up the situation quite nicely—although “nicely” is hardly the proper word, because it makes for very sobering reading indeed:
It is important to note that despite the moral depravity of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, none of America’s vital interests is impacted by their use within Syria. Obama’s pledge last year to view the use of chemical weapons as a tripwire that would automatically cause the US to intervene militarily in the war in Syria was made without relation to any specific US interest.
But once Obama made his pledge, other US interests became inextricably linked to US retaliation for such a strike. The interests now on the line are America’s deterrent power and strategic credibility. If Obama responds in a credible way to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, those interests will be advanced. If he does not, US deterrent power will become a laughing stock and US credibility will be destroyed.
Unfortunately, the US doesn’t have many options for responding to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. If it targets the regime in a serious way, Assad could fall, and al-Qaida would then win the war. Conversely, if the US strike is sufficient to cause strategic harm to the regime’s survivability, Iran could order the Syrians or Hezbollah or Hamas, or all of them, to attack Israel. Such an attack would raise the prospect of regional war significantly.
Please read the whole thing.
The only part with which I’d disagree—and it’s not all that huge a disagreement, really—is that I think that US deterrent power has already become a laughing stock and US credibility been destroyed. The Obama administration has certainly accentuated and underlined and solidified this impression around the world, but it actually had already begun to occur in the final years of the Bush administration.
Obama’s 2008 election was a symptom of this change rather than an initial cause. It had already become clear, as the aftermath of the Iraq war and the American presence in that country wore on, and the MSM and many politicians in both the US and Britain and western Europe (including Senator Barack Obama) relentlessly pressed the liberal/left line against that war (featuring exaggerations and outright lies in addition to valid criticism in order to get the desired narrative across), that public opinion in the Western world had turned against the efforts in Iraq, and against further intervention and engagement of a similar nature.
Obama’s present waffling, red-line braggadocio, lack of focus on US interests and goals, and abandonment of allies is just icing on a cake that has been a long time in the mixing and baking. I suppose that doesn’t mean things couldn’t change at some future point, especially after Obama is out of office (after all, look at what happened in England during the buildup to World War II—first appeasement, and then Churchill’s resolve energizing the will of the people). But it doesn’t look likely, and even if it occurred it would take a long time to rebuild the trust that has been destroyed.
That does not mean that Obama is absolved of responsibility. On the contrary; he’s been working at this goal of disappointing allies, decreasing the influence and credibility of the US, and appeasing terrorists and Iran for a long time now, long before he became president. And he’s been helped by most of the Democrats in Congress and the majority of journalists.
[ADDENDUM: Also please read Richard Fernandez’s analysis of Parliament’s “no” vote.]
Neo,
We’re on the same page.
This is why I emphasize that it continues to be important to rehabilitate Bush’s legacy and counter the false narrative on the Iraq mission. Doing so remains relevant and urgently necessary.
The hole has already been dug deep, and we simply cannot set ourselves right until the Democrats openly admit the mea culpa that ‘Bush was right and Obama is wrong’, and that will never ever happen even if they thought it.
Instead, the media – likely in concert with the Democrats – have started to broadcast the simple talking point that Bush’s Iraq policy, rather than the fecklessness and fundamentally flawed foreign policy of those now holding office, are to blame for the weak and faltering response to the Syria situation. It’s infuriating that they would double-down on the false narrative that has harmed our national interest from day one, but not surprising since the cornerstone of their current political advantage is the false narrative on the Iraq mission.
It’s also infuriating that the Right, especially the Republicans, will again meekly shrink away from this opportunity to rehabilitate Bush’s legacy and correct the false narrative on the Iraq mission.
If the national popular standard is not recalibrated to Bush was right and Obama is wrong – most of all about Iraq – sooner rather than later, the slide down the slippery slope may well be irreversible.
Obama has only the weakest interest in Foreign policy (other than pretending to be Muslim). Like most European welfare states, he views military resources and foreign issues are viewed as bleeding domestic programs. When combined with his absolutely appalling managerial skills disaster is certain.
What this also shows is that Obama’s larger political instincts are poor. While he can pound at class warfare with MSM support at home, his skills fail him completely on the international stage. Normally you can compensate with a good Secretary of State, etc. but his crew makes it worse not better.
For anyone willing to try to push back against the Democrats’ false narrative on the Iraq mission that continues to be both their active principle and default excuse, but uncertain where to begin, these posts will help you get started.
Companion pieces for a surgical discussion:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/regime-change-in-iraq-from-clinton-to.html
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-of-definition-in-iraq.html
For a broader discussion on the ‘Why We Fight’ for Iraq:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-year-anniversary-of-start-of.html
Bush was all but mute during his eight years. He steadfastly refused to defend his policies, thus giving the traitorous left unfettered opportunity to demonize and undermine his administration and its policies. Since retiring he again remains mute using the “history will decide” rationale.
So it’s hardly surprising that the left continues and expands their demonization of Bush.
Until Republicans/conservatives adopt the same techniques they will lose. We are fighting against people who don’t have any ordinary morals or values. Only the acquisition of power matters.
Eric and DirtyjobsGuy –
Unfortunately, there is some reason to connect the two situations, with the WMDs being the central issue to both. But the similarities end there too – the US arguably having some national interest after 9-11; in Syria intervening in a civil war that has minimal implications for US policy.
I for one don’t care much about what the rest of the world thinks about USA’s deterrent power. If the US is attacked, or there is a vital national interest at stake, we have enormous military power that can be brought to bear. We don’t need to prove it every time some 3rd world clown wants to test it. The first and second Iraq wars ought to have driven that point home, and if not, then what would? At some point, as a nation, we know we can kick ass. There’s no need to prove it every time somebody pushes our buttons. The fact that Obama is an embarrassment who got himself into this is interesting. If as Neo implies, it is deliberate on his part, it may convey to the rest of the world we are weak; but I personally believe the rest of the world knows we are not, and that this is Obama. It’s not a secret to the rest of the world we’re not on board with this.
In any case, one thing occurred to me that would be interesting, and might backfire for Obama completely regarding the never ending assault on the Bush legacy — if we do get involved, and a few stockpiles of WMDs with “Made in Iraq” labels turn up, GWB would be vindicated, the media eating crow. And maybe that is what Obama doesn’t want anybody to find, and why he’s willing to go this alone.
southpaw,
You can’t separate Obama’s incompetence from our nation’s incompetence on the international stage. He is the head of our household, and he’s dragging us all down with him.
The popular acceptance of the notion that it was a US responsibility to prove Iraqi WMD, which is so pervasive you implied it in your comment, is a foundational premise of the false narrative.
The burden of proof in Iraq was entirely on Iraq, not on the US and the UN. Nor was UNMOVIC’s purpose in Iraq to investigate or detect WMD. It was in Iraq to test Iraqi compliance. Iraq’s guilt on WMD was both established and presumed in the 1991 ceasefire, the UNSC resolutions, and the enforcement of them throughout the Bush Senior and Clinton administrations.
If Bush had simply stated, ‘I have no idea of the state of Iraq’s WMD’ (which is essentially what Clinton said in 1998 when he bombed Iraq), that would have been sufficient cause for military action due to the presumption of guilt held by Iraq.
The notion that Bush’s enforcement on Iraq was an independent and separate engagement from the decade-plus American course on Iraq that Bush inherited is another foundational premise of the false narrative.
IMO, the world would be safer if the thought, the merest thought, of contradicting the US acted like a large glass of Mexican tap water, only faster.
Not “nice” to get to that point. Those who’ve taken Obama’s measure won’t be easily convinced by his successor’s words, especially if the guy is a democrat and particularly especially if it’s Hillary.
As Kipling said of Queen Victoria, “Kings must come down and emperors frown when the widow at Windsor says stop.”
And, “poor beggars, we’re sent to say stop”
Add: The tie-in on WMD between Iraq and Syria is that Bush properly enforced on Iraq’s violations on WMD. By following through on Iraq’s violations, Bush intended to restore teeth to the UN on WMD.
The Iraq mission should have been a compelling message and effective deterrent to the world regarding WMD.
But the popular and political denunciations and repudiations of Bush’s proper enforcement on Iraq’s violations on WMD (and non-WMD violations) instead resulted in the opposite effect – it knocked out more teeth from the UN on WMD as well as our own ability to counter WMD.
Bush was right. Moving away from Bush’s policies has only taken us in the wrong direction.
Harold,
Agreed. In key ways, Bush proved to be a very effective President. In other key ways, he was irresponsible.
Bush should have been as dogged as FDR in the public political campaign, not for his own sake but the nation’s. Instead, Bush seemed to be of a mind to put his down and get the job done.
For a long-time public figure, Bush just never seemed comfortable communicating through the media. I attended a speech he gave to veterans in NYC and he comes off a lot better in person.
* Instead, Bush seemed to be of a mind to put his HEAD down and get the job done.
I have no argument with Eric’s thesis that Bush was right on Iraq. The primary basis for accepting the thesis is that Saddam Hussein had a history of warfare and international mischief that complemented his brutal domestic regime. There was a direct line between his invasion of Kuwait and Bush’s actions . He had a perfect record of flaunting UN resolutions. The WMD issue simply became the catalyst that low information people could focus on.
I do disagree with Harold that Bush was mute. I suppose that he means that Bush did not trot before the (hostile) cameras and defend himself against every scurrilous attack. But, he did send the erudite Colin Powell, and a host of others, to the national and international stage to explain his intended actions. He did persuade Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among many others, to accord him approval for his actions–before they dishonestly reversed themselves. He did obtain UN cover for his actions. He apparently did not appreciate just how short attention spans actually are.
With regard to restoring the Bush legacy. I think that Genie left the bottle and will not likely be returned. That aside, this situation in Syria is not the occasion to try to recover. It simply does not apply. The Bush legacy was two-fold. First, that the United States had the legal and moral right to preempt emerging threats against the us or our national interests. Second, was was the pledge to support freedom and democracy in all parts of the world. But, I never heard him say, nor interpreted his doctrine to mean that we would shoot cruise missiles at every Despot. Neither condition pertains. There is no discernible threat to the U.S; and, if there was ever an unambiguous opportunity to bolster the cause of freedom and democracy, it sank into the morass.
As rightfully noted; our interest in this situation flows directly from the Idiot-in-Chief letting his mouth run away with him when he started talking about red lines with no regard for the consequences. To recover from this we need for the following to occur: First, the I-in-C should go before the world and confess that his red line reference was simple campaign rhetoric–and anyone who is not comatose knows that he is always in campaign mode– and no one should take it, or him, seriously. Second, a bi-partisan group of the Congressional elites should very publicly remind the world that in the United States, the President does not have dictatorial powers; so, only a fool would give any credence to a President who makes ridiculous statements that the United States will clearly not stand behind. They should then emphasize that whenever the U.S. national interest are threatened the full majesty of the United States Congress will buttress the Presidential resolve; and the U.S. will wreak havoc on whoever threatens us. (I do love sarcasm and fantasy. I loves fantastic sarcasm the most.)
You are being short sighted. US weakness can result in things getting out of hand quickly. We don’t want to have to get into a major war because we projected weakness.
Eric wrote:
“The burden of proof in Iraq was entirely on Iraq, not on the US and the UN.”
Note that Saddam could have prevented the war if he wished. He could simply comply with the UN mandates. He didn’t because he was calibrated to the Clinton doctrine of US weakness. The Iraq War in large measure was the result of Clinton foreign policy, including the empysis on cruise missles and 60,000 foot bombing, and the quick run from Somolia after the Blackhawk Down incident.
As Rumsfeld said, weakness is provocative.
With respect to Bush’s mutness, note he went on TV to explain his support of TARP. While I think TARP was one of his great mistakes, I respect the fact that he explained why he did it.
Obama is essentially mute in many ways. Didn’t ask Congress about going to war in Libya, didn’t explain to the American people his various vile policies, etc. He gets away with this due to MSM support.
Isn’t Nancy Pelosi trying to whip up support for military action in Syria? Boy, the hypocrisy is rich.
Oldflyer: “With regard to restoring the Bush legacy. I think that Genie left the bottle and will not likely be returned.”
You could be right, although my background as an activist says the status quo is not as strongly rooted as it looks. The general will of We the People is a never-ending competition where the first ones now will later be last for the times they are a-changin.
The ongoing harm of neglecting to rehabilitate Bush’s legacy is that the Democrats have pegged their track record – like pegging currency – to their infinitely elastic mythic false narrative of Bush and specifically the Iraq mission.
No matter how poorly Obama does as President, the Democrats’ default defense to the public is that *anything* Obama does is automatically a better alternative than Bush and the Iraq mission, which the Democrats employ as a boogeyman, with validating complicity from the IR realist and libertarian Right.
Due to the effective pegging strategy, it’s insufficient to argue that Obama is bad, because the pegging strategy will always position the alternative to Obama (Bush and by extension the GOP) as worse. The Democrats don’t care about their own poor performance in power as long as they maintain their relative political advantage. The pegging strategy needs to be severed by dispelling the Democrats’ boogeyman by establishing that Bush was right and Obama, via direct comparison, is wrong.
I have kept asking myself what Assad had to gain from using chemical weapons. The government of Syria is actually winning so why run the risk of bringing the US and its ally (France is only one left) into the fight. The action just makes no sense at all from a military or political view point.
You then have to ask yourself who stands to gain? Israel only looses. Other Arab neighbors have more than enough of their own problems. Iran is the only winner no matter the outcome. If the US attacks with only a “shot across the bow” then Iran knows it has nothing to fear from any threatened US attack. If we use any force great enough to do real damage then Iran learns where the red line is and just how far they can push. If we don’t attack then Iran has a green light to proceed with all its nuclear plans and the destruction of Israel with the USA as a secondary target. Iran also has the weapons, expertise and willingness to use them as demonstrated in the Iraq/Iran war.
Because of the “Red Line” comment from our President we are now in a no win situation and I fear there is not any kind of exit that will not make Iran stronger and the USA weaker in the region.
Steve,
Can a consistent MO be hypocritical?
Clinton officials who were hawkish on Iraq between 1992-2000 later led the anti-Bush chorus on Iraq despite that Bush enforced on Iraq with Clinton’s laws, policy, and precedent on Iraq.
A similar phenomenon occurred with LBJ officials who quickly became vociferous critics of Nixon on Vietnam, despite that Nixon and Kissinger were navigating the course on Vietnam established by those same LBJ officials.
“The British parliamentary vote marked a stunning defeat for Cameron’s government.”
Obama has tried to mollify the antiwar left by promising the Syria strike “would have no objective.”
And It’s about time for the British to have come to their senses. If only the Congress and the American people were as fed up with our bushwhacking moralists.
This – intervention in what does not concern or harm us – had become first a pattern, then a disposition, and now a compulsion. And how is all of it not the political equivalent of AWS — Anthony Weiner Syndrome? The member differs; the turgidity’s the same; and the results equally pathetic.
What passes for a foreign policy, by what we have accomplished since Vietnam, and by the hot fantasies of Pax Americana and democracy exporters, is an abject failure. Stop wasting American lives and stop reinforcing our well-deserved reputation as being politically, and more recently, historically obtuse, and morally vacuous. It’s one thing to have no inkling of the meaning of ‘just war’ its another to have a foreign policy of just war.
Don,
Correct.
The enforcement procedure on Iraq was clarified during the Clinton administration. The intelligence offered by the Bush administration on Iraqi WMD was not necessary to justify military action, because simply not knowing the state of Iraq WMD was a violation by Iraq. Nor could our intelligence trigger military action as a matter of procedure.
Only Iraq’s violations – not limited to WMD – could trigger the enforcement.
Saddam’s Iraq was never out of a state of violation of the 1991 ceasefire and UNSC resolutions, again not limited to WMD. In 2002-03, though politically impractical to do, Bush would have been on solid legal ground to authorize military action against Iraq without a new Congressional AUMF and/or UN resolution or even re-entry of inspectors. By the close of the Clinton administration, there was already a thick stack of operative US laws and UN resolutions on Iraq, and established track record of Iraq’s violations.
In fact, in 1998, Clinton already set the precedent of not applying for an additional authorization from Congress and/or the UN to take military action because the Office of the President was already authorized by both bodies to take military action, eg, bombing and no-fly zones, to enforce on Iraq.
Of course, the American President under American law does not require UN authorization to conduct any military action.
Regarding rational calculation of brinkmanship with the US, I refer you to this 16JAN09 Washington Post article, A Farewell Warning On Iraq, by David Ignatius:
Bush’s commitment of the US in Iraq would have, on its own, reset international political calculations about challenging American authority and revalued our deterrent effect. But Obama has thrown away the political currency, and then some, that was very hard-earned by our peace operators in Iraq and paid for in tax dollars by all of us.
George Pal,
Pax Americana is fine as a foreign policy basis. The question is whether it’s rationally pursued, and that’s where our problem has been.
Bush, at least in response to 9/11, rationally matched means to ends for an American liberal leadership posture. Obama has ostensibly retained the same liberal leadership posture as Bush, but has not rationally means to ends, and therefore set us up for failure.
For me, this whole Syria thing is fairly simple; me being simple-minded. If the US topples Assad, then Al Quada wins. I , frankly, don’t want to help those people.
It seems in Syria we have two factions of the enemies of the US fighting each other; why get in the way?
I understand the humanitarian side of the equation… it really is a travesty. But it also shows what kind of people we are dealing with.
To really have a true effect, we would have to take out Assad, Hezbollah, AQ, and Iran at the same time. Not going to happen.
physicsguy: “It seems in Syria we have two factions of the enemies of the US fighting each other; why get in the way?”
Because inevitably, tomorrow does come. And while Syria is not as important as Iraq, it still has a regional effect, such as spillover into Iraq, which means it has a world-wide effect.
Description is not prescription, of course.
What can we do about Syria now that’s effective? I don’t know.
What Obama *should have done* about Syria was to reconfigure our strategic presence in Iraq into a regional posture, a la our Japan and Germany occupations under Eisenhower, as Iraq continued on course to stabilize. And Obama should have maintained and adapted Bush’s Freedom Agenda.
Wow, this is a great thread about what really happened. Thanks especially to Eric.
My only addition are from the foreign POV.
First, Bush was delegitimized when he was elected. The foreign press portrayed him as an illegitimate, dumb right-wing Southerner. Try as he might to win public opinion abroad, his word would never have been trusted by the masses.
Second, The situation with Saddam was not static. In addition to allowing terrorists space in Iraq, he was also telling the world that Iraqis were starving because of our sanctions. Meanwhile he was using oil for food money to bribe Russians, French, and UN kleptocrats to ensure that the US would not be supported in continued sanctions or other actions.
Third, I am convinced that any success in Saddam’s attempts to undercut America’s measures there, whether loosening sanctions or a pull back from no-fly zones, would have been used by him to emphasize his strong-man role in the Muslim world. Young muslims no longer convinced that OBL might win might have turned to him as the man who could humiliate and fight the US. Undoubtedly he would have thrown some money to any troublemakers he could find.
Bush did use 9/11 and the increased awareness of terrorism to get some support against Saddam. Before 9/11, the peaceniks would have had the upper hand in condemning US war mongers. Most Euros only saw the hungry children suffering under the terrible US-imposed sanctions. The first WTC bombing and the Cole were off the radar.
1. I’m sticking with the “Spectre Strategy” discussed here a few weeks ago [Named after that famous opening scene of From Russia With Love involving the evil genius’s observations about three Siamese fighting fish in one aquarium] Let God sort ’em out.
2. Re Bush’s legacy, did anyone else see Brian Killmeade’s interview of President Bush this morning? God he’s a good man! And Lord knows I miss him more and more with each passing year of our suffering under this administration.
3. I now wonder: Has there ever been a worse president (and administration) in all of US History? Maybe Andrew Johnson, but I don’t know enough about him to compare and contrast. Jimmy card is definitely off the hook!
So Eric, if the US through the proposed action, helps topple Assad, and now AQ takes over, guess who now has control of those chemical weapons? Care to guess where they might be tempted to use them?
I just don’t see any good reason to jump into this mess that benefits the US. See Col. Peter’s take on it… I agree with him for once:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2013/08/30/col-ralph-peters-blasts-kerrys-syria-speech-his-melodrama–hypocricy-is-revolting-n1687864
expat,
9/11 was indeed a seismic shift that changed our calculation on Iraq. I touch on the 9/11 issue regarding Iraq in the links I posted upthread.
Excerpt from the ‘broader discussion’ post:
The link between 9/11 and Iraq is not a major part of my take on the issue because the Iraq problem, including Saddam’s guilt on terrorism, and procedures to resolve the problem were mature by the close of the Clinton administration, before 9/11. President Bush’s implementation of the preemptive doctrine in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was an extension of President Clinton’s preemptive doctrine in response to the escalating Islamic terrorist campaign that culminated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration did not claim Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. However, the 9/11 attacks did significantly boost the urgency and political will to resolve the Iraq problem expeditiously. President Clinton explained the link between 9/11 and Iraq:
I do agree that Bush was right, and he had intelligence agencies from several allies backing up the assertion Hussein had WMDs. At one time he did; he used them to kill a million Iranians, Kirds, etc. Where I differ with most here, is burden of proof. That lies with the accuser. There is no way Hussein could have convinced anyone he didn’t have them. He did. He was smart enough to hide them before the shit hit the fan.
It would be difficult or impossible for any country to prove they didn’t have something to the rest of the world.
We couldn’t prove to the rest of the world we were no longer spying on them, no matter how many inspectors we allowed in.
This is a civil war – no US interests other than for the US to say they mean what they say, or so the argument goes.
But I dont see how showing we mean what we say is the reason to launch missles, when everyone agrees it was something we should not have said. This strike is boiling down to vanity by extension, but that’s maybe not a good way to say it. If this is about us not looking weak, because Obama has made a fool out of himself, it would be an act of vanity, pride, call it what you will.
Most certainly people will be killed, and without a moral principle as its basis- i.e. there is a side who are good and we want to save them, or some moral underpinning, then it would be justifiable. Without a moral argument, it’s the wrong thing to do, even if we all look bad. Next time we vote for a different guy, we don’t let him throw bombs at countries because he did another stupid thing.
Eric,
Pax Americana, rationally pursued, must be greatly limited, the limit being breached when it is not our peace that’s at stake.
What is our interest in Syria or the region? How would an escalation of our presence in Iraq to a regional one have benefited this country? There is no peace to be had in the region. The factions within the countries and the competing geopolitical and sectarian regional interests throughout should be left to their own devices. If the result is carnage and suffering so be it. It is hubris to think we have role to play; it is even greater hubris to believe our presence can make a difference. Our role has played out, the fantasists are regularly proved fantasists. ‘They’ are surprised over the failure of the ‘Arab Spring’. ‘They’ are surprised over the failure of Iraq to become ‘Iraq’. ‘They’ are surprised by the surrender in Afghanistan to the Taliban. ‘They’ are surprised Islam will not acculturate. ‘They’ are surprised Islam cannot be made benevolent, humane, merciful, good-natured, – only yet more barbaric and brutal. ‘They’ will be surprised tomorrow by what they thought sure today. ‘They’ will be surprised that things are never as they wish them to be, only as they are. SURPRISE!
physicsguy,
First, I agree with COL Peters regarding Secretary Kerry.
Flashback:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2006/11/senator-kerry-insults-american-soldier.html
Second, I agree with you about the proposed action, as vague as it is. Like I said, I don’t know what we can do – at this point – with Syria that’s effective. Our better alternatives were sabotaged years ago by Obama when he decided to change course from Bush rather than follow the Eisenhower precedent of adapting the course Ike inherited from FDR/Truman.
But at the same time, the notion that the rippling effects of what happens in Syria is contained within a box is shortsighted.
If we reject the terrorists in power and we reject Assad in power, you know, that only leaves us with one effective course of action. Except we won’t have the legitimizing benefit of a 12-year lead-in nor the organizing benefit from a 5-year-old liberation act.
GEN Petraeus is a college professor with CUNY now, but generals can be called out of retirement. However, given the extreme unlikelihood of OIF-Syria is an option … yeah, I don’t know.
Not acting is not the right option, but by Obama’s process of eliminating better options, impotent paralysis may well be our best available option with Syria.
On more than one occasion Obama has said that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Does anybody believe him?
IMO, our intervention in Iraq (and Afghanistan) has devolved into a long term threat to our interests because we did not dictate what form of government the Iraqis must set up to replace the tyranny of Saddam and we did not continue the occupation to make sure the remedy was solidified. Now Iraq is set to become an ally of Iran. Libya is set to become a jihad state, Egypt is on the knife edge, and the messiah, in a vain attempt to appear noble, is inching towards turning Syria into yet another jihad state. Jordan will fall if Syria falls into the hands of Al Qaida. Its dominoes all the way down. We’re always in for a penny but never for a pound.
Last comment – There is a way out for Obama. He can eat his pride, take back the statement and be ridiculed.
But it’s a small concession words can be taken back with more of the right ones. Missles and bombs can’t.
George Pal,
You’re not a liberal.
However, the US has been the hegemon of a liberal world order since WW2. When I served in Korea (obviously decades after the war), I had to accept the justification that if the north Koreans attacked, I would die as an American soldier not defending my homeland but rather the US-led liberal world order.
When FDR sent many many American soldiers to die in Asia, Africa, and Europe, a lot of Americans protested, believing then exactly as you do now.
The question is, 70+ years on, is the world small enough today so that defending or advancing the US in the competitive global arena require us also to defend and advance the US-led world order with an eye on our competition?
In reaction to 9/11, Bush acted definitively as a liberal upholding FDR’s tradition. If today, it’s time to change course from our liberal hegemonic orientation, that’s a decision we ought to make openly as a nation.
Although I am a liberal, I can accept an American course change in the competitive global arena as long as we do it rationally.
In all the postings it seems overlooked: we DID find Binary nerve agent artillery shells in Iraq. These were obviously but a fraction of a mass produced run.
Most strangely, they were 155mm shells, outwardly IDENTICAL to common high explosive rounds. That set them apart from the otherwise universal practice of making chemical warfare rounds extremely dissimilar.
Most armies (the West) only issued chemical shells to elite artillery troops — with all of the trimmings. (decontamination gear, medics, detection gear, etc.)
Whereas Saddam consciously blended his munitions. In this way he could fire off Sarin (binary) even while French artillery officers were on the scene, providing advice and training. The French hate chemical weapons like no others. Note how Paris is STILL on board with spanking Damascus.
For obvious security reasons, the DoD faded these discoveries when they made the news. We were still trying to police up all of Saddams evil ordnance even as the fanatics were setting IEDs all over al Anbar. The LAST thing the Pentagon wanted was for the Islamists to begin an inventory sweep through their pile of ACME ordnance for binary shells.
Binary shells are much, much safer than the old ordnance. A leaker is virtually harmless. (Leakers explain the extreme support given to chemical battalions.) It’s impossible for the binary components to be mixed in mother’s kitchen with success. The instant air hits them, they’re ruined.
The total amount of binary shells recovered from Iraqi deserts must remain classified. Base upon war time usage, this shell must have been produced by the thousand. The production of even the first round required immense technical effort and expensive, specific use equipment. Short, batch runs are out of the question.
[For those curious, it’s possible to spot the binary rounds via acoustics. Low power, high frequency sound can be applied to the shells. The pulse echo betrays the additional complexity of the binary construction. Such hand-held ‘guns’ are now in wide use to spot fake gold bullion. Pure metal produces a deep clear signal, embedded tungsten kicks back a complex return.]
By their construction, binary rounds can’t do their thing until fired from a full sized 155mm cannon. It’s the kind of thing that would be noticed in the neighborhood.
Saddam never made any serious attempt to prove that he’d destroyed his naughty weapons factories.
We now know that ALL of the blueprints for rebuilding his war machine were held back from destruction — in the libraries of his most loyal engineers. (If they went missing, then the entire family would be liquidated, of course.)
These were eventually turned over to the Americans. They remain classified, of course. The very act of producing them as evidence would be contrary to the national security interest.
This logic is largely why Bush stayed so strangely quiet.
Still, I fault him for being TOO quiet. THE essential task of the Presidency is policy advocacy. The only member of his administration to properly advocate for good policy was Cheney.
Bush also made a categorical error in trusting Grover Norquist, widely regarded as being a Conservative. However, Norquist married a Muslim, IIRC. (She’s on jihad no bit less than Huma Weiner.) And so it was that Norquist empaneled a confab of imams for Bush within weeks of 9-11. The upshot was that Bush declared Islam a religion of peace. (!)
America has never quite recovered from that disinformation.
Once that frame was established, everything else has followed.
Bush lost the Golden Hour right there. Consequently, the Iraq project was on a slowed roll. All of the presumption was inverted. Now the onus was on the injured power: America.
(!)
Best case scenario: The Communist advisor is dismissed.
Obama: What happened?
Jarrett: You fucked up.
Obama: No, you fucked up.
Jarrett: No, you fucked up.
Obama: Says you.
Jarrett: No, says you. Double stamp. Can’t overide a double stamp.
Obama: Get the fuck out.
You know you gotta love it.
I was devasted when Romney lost. I thought he would have made a great President. His forecasts have proved accurate and his deficits as a candidate would have at least allowed for a chance at unity. What a horrible loss it was.
But it didn’t happen.
Now the consolation prize: Obama’s demise.
You gotta love it.
(By the way, great info splurt, I mean blert. I do believe the info but some sources would be nice.)
“To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.”
― Albert Einstein
“You can’t believe everything people tell you – not even if those people are your own brain.”
― Jefferson Smith
BTW, it’s increasingly obvious that Assad has been using Fuel Air Explosive, aka thermobaric, weapons for quite some time.
This would be a news flash for the MSM, who is oblivious to it.
Thermobaric weapons most commonly use ethylene oxide as fuel. It is astoundingly inflammable. It also forms a fine aerosol if properly impelled — explosively.
For the controversy at hand: it’s also fantastically TOXIC, particularly as a mist/ aerosol.
There are videos uploaded to the Web showing ‘civilians’ (nee Iranian IRGC al Quds boys) firing just such ordnance. They are identified — self-identified — as belonging to the 155th Brigade of the 4th (tank) Division. That’s the very one named by the intercepts.
The platforms (trucks) and ordnance all evidence Iranian manufacture. So, it’s only reasonable to assume that the controversy turns on the rockets fired by these ‘volunteers.’
The particular ordnance uses humble (Soviet) mechanical count-down timers, circa the 1960s, now built by Iran. If the troops screw up, the ethylene oxide will not be detonated when the rockets plow into the ground and break up. Instead, it will merely poison everybody nearby, generating the exact same symptoms reported in the media.
Unlike Sarin, ethylene oxide fades very quickly, particularly in the August desert. This entirely explains why the Muslims there were able perform Islamic burial rites while in an unprotected state. This later detail is obvious from the videos uploaded to the Web and from media broadcast agitprop. Sarin is just too toxic for any mortician to survive the process. Period, stop.
Consequently, Assad NEVER used Sarin. Instead we have a repetition of the Tonkin fiasco and the battleship Maine. War resolutions founded on a misapprehension. (!)
This also explains why Assad was absolutely indignant over the accusations.
There were some frantic phone calls, intercepts. But they all turned on what was going wrong. Being a newish weapon system, the Syrians were not at all aware that misfires result in ethylene oxide toxin all over the landscape.
It’s so toxic that it was conflated with chemical warfare. It’s not. It’s the fuel in thermobaric bombs. Bombs which, BTW, America used to clear out Tora Bora when AQ holed up there. Such bombs are absolutely ideal for destroying anything bunkered in. The blast wave goes in and down like a power stroke in a piston engine. The cave walls replicate the dynamics of a metallic cylinder wall.
The power gained by using air is tremendous. And ethylene oxide is cheap to make, really cheap. It’s a byproduct of natural gas. (Ethylene gas is stripped off, then oxidized over a silver catalyst: you’re done.) It’s in massive use as a chemical intermediate just about everywhere. It’s pretty popular in hospitals as a universal disinfectant, too.
It’s too toxic for home use, though, way too toxic.
Same bombs the Alliles used to destroy Hitler’s underground munitions factories.
I smell a rat. Obama, like Clinton in Kosovo, is trying to justify helping the jihad.
This one’s for the incredible Parker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpNqB4dnT4
Relevance: Talent, not “justice” suceeeds!
If the President is really serious about stopping the WMD’s he ought to begin a bombing campaign in Teheran and slowly work his way westward.
Eric,
You have, as as your service in Korea attests, the only example of a successful use of America’s Pax Americana (Grenada is an obvious exception for obvious reasons) – S Korea exists and prospers. There are no others. If the cost of it was an American military presence of over a half century then obviously the cost is insupportable globally. You have noticed we’re worse than broke – we’re in debt.
I’m a bit perplexed as to what you mean by US-led world order. Surely you mean presence, as I can detect no order. If chaos were free you couldn’t get more than presently exits at great cost. And how does our global competetiveness depend on a presence in, of all places, the Mid-East? I’ll grant that since Iraq I, we have made great strides techno-militarily, but then Iraq I, II, and Afghanistan have provided great testing grounds.
Finally, you seem sanguine as to our, (collective, national) ability to act rationally. I should like an example, either in the domestic or global arena over the last quarter century. I can’t think of one. And liberal claims to achievements and rationality must be supported by data.
Since Korea its been wasted blood and treasure with the exception of Reagan bringing down the wall and enabling the collapse of the USSR. Half-assed measures have resulted in the bleeding out of a once great nation. As GP states, we are bankrupt with 200+ trillion in unfunded liabilities and the debt clock turns round and round.
sharpie,
Your eyes were on the guy in the white pantsuit playing a white guitar. You must be a racist. 😉
“If the President is really serious about stopping the WMD’s he ought to begin a bombing campaign in Teheran and slowly work his way westward.”
Mecca, Medina, and Qom. Anything less will accomplish absolutely nothing. If we are defined as the great satan, act like the great satan. Otherwise its merely useless posturing. Bush 1 and 2 and the neocons did not understand how to wield real power. Bush 1 flinched and backed away from running down Saddam. Bush 2, the compassionate conservative, achieved victory and then gave into PC defeat. If you’re not willing to go for the throat, run away and hide.
Great discussion. Kudos to Eric for reconstructing the scenario leading up to the Iraq invasion. It had to happen if the U.S was going to be taken seriously that we would hold responsible all those who supported and sheltered terrorists.
What Obama and the democrats represent is the direct opposite of the idea that the Islamic jihadis are at war with us. They believe that they can somehow make them into our friends and allies. Just display a non-aggressive attitude and occasionally stick it to our allies (Israel for one) and the jihadis will go back to their peace-loving ways of stoning adulteresses and cutting off thieves’ hands. They also don’t recognize that words have meanings because the MSM never points out inconsistency, hypocrisy, or damn lies.
I like parker’s neat summary of where we are:
“IMO, our intervention in Iraq (and Afghanistan) has devolved into a long term threat to our interests because we did not dictate what form of government the Iraqis must set up to replace the tyranny of Saddam and we did not continue the occupation to make sure the remedy was solidified. Now Iraq is set to become an ally of Iran. Libya is set to become a jihad state, Egypt is on the knife edge, and the messiah, in a vain attempt to appear noble, is inching towards turning Syria into yet another jihad state. Jordan will fall if Syria falls into the hands of Al Qaida. Its dominoes all the way down.” This state of affairs can be laid at the doorstep of all those “Quislings” who worked so diligently to undercut Bush in carrying out the policy that could have made a difference in the Muslim world. Well, that’s down the drain.
I watched Kerry’s talk this morning. Whew, talk about hypocrisy! This is the man who has made his career on being anti-war all the time. Now he’s a hawk advocating for military action against Assad. Knock me over with a feather.
I watched the video that blert refers to. Hard to tell who those irregulars were, but maybe the Syrian army purposely didn’t wear uniforms for disinformation purposes. No expert on chemical weapons am I, but what happened in Syria is quite different than what happened to the Kurds in northern Iraq when Saddam gassed them. So, this could be as blert describes. Unfortunately, we’ll probably never know. At least not from the Obama administration.
What would make a statement would be massive raids to go in and destroy all the weapons factories and stockpiles. But that would probably create a humanitarian disaster in itself. All the options are bad and it is quite clear that Obama shot from the lip with his red line. Wretchard at Belmont Club may be right when he avers that this is the beginning of the end of his administration.
George Pal,
The US as hegemon is not a US-owned empire. It’s about structure, facilitation, and community rule sets. The arena or market or community (however you want to label it) can take on different forms. We don’t own it, but as hegemon, we have been the dominant, though not only, influence on the form within our sphere of influence.
Thomas Barnett explained it better than I can:
http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2010/9/18/blast-from-my-past-mr-president-heres-how-to-make-sense-of-o.html
In the last quarter century – basically, since the Cold War?
Bush rationally matched means to ends as a liberal leader in response to 9/11. Otherwise, yeah, slim pickings.
My memory dims on the tail end of Bush Senior’s foreign affairs, except Bush Senior did a horribly bad job of the immediate post-war in Iraq, which set the stage for all our subsequent trouble with Iraq. Whereas Bush handed Obama a winning hand in Iraq that Obama fumbled away, Bush Senior handed Clinton a losing hand in Iraq.
After the Cold War, the world looked to the US for leadership. They gave us a chance. Clinton’s foreign policy was better on paper than in execution. His main fault was that real-world US engagement in foreign affairs on his watch was too carefully limited to be effective in a window when vigorous American leadership might have made the difference that Fukuyama envisioned.
By the time Bush took office, the influence of the ‘Washington Consensus’ was largely faded out. The resistance to American leadership that Bush encountered after 9/11 was not new. It was brewing under Clinton.
Iraq is a prime example of Clinton’s strength and failure. Clinton set up solid laws, policy, precedent to solve the Iraq problem. But he didn’t actually move to solve it while the Iraq problem worsened. Instead, Clinton kicked the can down the road for another President to do the dirty work.
Of course, Bush was kicking the can on Iraq, too, until 9/11 changed everything.
I don’t discount the possibility that it’s no longer in our interest nor perhaps even feasible to be a hegemon.
Add: As for Obama, Clinton at least was savvy enough to fake being a paper tiger. Obama could hardly do worse if he was purposely trying to set up the US to fail as a liberal leader.
JJ,
Thanks.
The Iraq problem was fully mature before 9/11. As Clinton explained, 9/11 just added a dimension to it.
One of my enduring memories from my 1st unit is listening to a group of NCOs talk about Iraq during some downtime during a field training exercise. They were all Gulf War combat veterans and they had stories.
But what struck me was their consensus that going back to Iraq was a matter of when and how, not if. They understood all the reasons we (they) had gone to Iraq in the 1st place had not been solved. The post-war disarmament of Iraq, which was meant to be wrapped up within a year, had fallen apart.
The Iraq problem was not some hidden secret. We all need to take heed that a false narrative was able to supplant the truth despite that the truth of the matter was out in the open.
I firmly believe that to discuss Syria, Libya, and current foreign policy in general, the prerequisite is a corrective discussion on Iraq.
Iraq is the heart of the matter. Most of all for Democrats, but not only them, the false narrative on Iraq has become a fundamental guiding principle for their view of American world affairs beyond just a historical (false) fact.
â˜omrade Né˜bama the bestest at everything…
Parker,
Yeah, that white pantsuit was a little scary. I was frightened.
Speaking of pantsuits see the following. I was thinking of what a definition it was and is for the black man, well any man, escaping the feminist dominated marriage rap.
And the alternative: sailing away, alone, high in the sky?
Not much of an alternative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpNqB4dnT4
Anybody who had tried or been a manager sees Obama’s problem. It’s inexperience. Exercise of authority and power is not a friends making exercise. No. Obama’s inexperience with any type of real management has resulted in his education. It happens to almost all managers, supervisors, whatever. Even if Obama had been a McDonalds supervisor he would have more insight into the uselessness of his plaintive overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood.
“The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet.” Well, no, but not for the reason Obama thinks. The Prophet is proving irrelevant and useless. Americans don’t care to slander the Prophet. Why should we? But I guess “slander” means not to hold the same reverence and “Silence, I kill you” response to any unbelief. Could there be any more anti-First Amendment attitude? No. Same with the ‘You must take my picture” gays and “I need $15/hour for my skilless job” zombies.
And it’s all, slowly but surely, coming apart for them.
sharpie,
lots of scary white pantsuits and I know exactly how we got here: http://tinyurl.com/my3erne
If you have to ask you will not understand the answer. Il est vain de spéculer sur la couleur du ciel sur un endroit différent dans un univers inconnaissable.
“The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet.”
Anyone who seeks to defend, rather than denigrate, Western Civilization would never utter such slander to the ideals of liberal, western civilization. Personally, I will slander the prophet as long as I breathe the atmosphere and piss water. Fold the prohpet 5 ways and stick his pedophilia where the camels rear end knows no sunlight.
Eric, you sound like T.P.M. Barnett (The Pentagon’s New Map) in many ways. You’re a strategic thinker like him.
I remember reading Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s book, “Making War to Keep Peace,” in 2007. She did a thorough treatment of Bush’s causus belli. From a review of the book: “In fact she goes to great length to build a legal brief based on the U.N. Charter, resolutions, and the U.S. Constitution to prove that President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq was absolutely legitimate. She concludes: “Thus, whatever other debates may persists about the war, the contention that it was ‘illegal’ is itself illegitimate.”
I always admired Jeanne Kirkpatrick as a rational and tough-minded thinker/writer. Your arguments for going into Iraq follow the same pattern as hers.
I agree that the U.S., much as we detest the responsibility, cannot disengage itself from being the leader (hegemon) of the Western World. What we do have to do is define what that means. It doesn’t mean we are the world’s policemen, although some seem to think that is what we should be. Back in the bad old days when we were trying to contain communism behind the “Iron Curtain” we got involved in two wars (Korea and Vietnam) as well a lot of local scraps (Greece, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Afghanistan {Charlie Wilson’s War} and several others). It was a difficult holding action while, unbeknownst to us, the USSR and China were falling apart economically. Sometimes we can’t see the long term benefits of any one engagement. Right now, the hoped for benefits of Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be going down the drain. What isn’t obvious is that, long term, the Muslim world must reform or fail. Once their oil runs out, they will all be like Egypt – dependent on the good will of others to feed themselves. It seems to me our best strategy is to hold the line against Islamic jihadis, stay firm against the rogue states (which doesn’t mean I favor a pin prick bombing of Syria), and develop our energy resources and economy. In the long run we have all the cards, if we will just play them. Obama obviously doesn’t want to play them, but hopefully, he is a bump in the road to that longer term outlook.
Byrne reminds of Shelley:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
“In the long run we have all the cards, if we will just play them. Obama obviously doesn’t want to play them”–JJFJJ
Postmodernism has a dilemma. It only exist as a moral force against power. When it becomes power, it does not know WHAT TO DO.
“In the long run we have all the cards, if we will just play them.”
This would be true if 1.) we possessed the will, and 2.) we were not busy bees collecting the pollen of bankruptcy. We are stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again, addicted to the free stuff of the welfare state, and pumping $90 billion each month into the TBTF. The debt clock turns round and round.
“When it becomes power, it does not know WHAT TO DO.”
All you have to do, impossible I know, is ask Ms. VJ what is happening behind the throne. She knows all the questions and the answers. The messiah is a reflection, VJ is the mirror, and the MB hold the mirror and blow the smoke.
From Thomas P.M. Barnett in June, 2004:
“The rest of the world, which had never been considered by the Pentagon to be a direct threat, much less the gravest threat we face, is made up of the countries that remain disconnected, either because of abject poverty or political or cultural repression: the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia. This I call the Gap. The primary goal of the foreign policy of the United States should be, in my view, to shrink the Gap.”
I, respectfully disagree. How does one shrink the gap? Economic aid? Transforming culture?
I think Romney hit it correctly when he stated Russia was the main problem we should focus on. We should focus on curtailing Russia’s mishief.
“How does one shrink the gap? Economic aid? Transforming culture?”
Economic aid?
We are trillions in debt and soon there will be no more road to kick the can. Economic aid is a pipe dream into a blocked tunnel.
Transforming culture?
How can we tranform the culture of others when our own culture is mired in nihilism and narcissism?
Its all a dead end street. We shall reap what we have sown.
Good night all. In the morning I have to water garden beds and then gp to the farmer’s markekt to buy what I do not produce.
Sharpie, Barnett’s shrink the gap idea was ostensibly part of the reason for going into Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, it appeared that opening the Muslim world to freedom and free markets was all that needed to be done. Certainly Iraq, with its oil wealth and secular institutions, seemed a good candidate for a place to start. Well, as Eric has pointed out, it might have worked had we had the will to stick it out. Now, we’ll never know until or unless they manage to reform themselves. Barnett’s theory has not been disproven except for the Muslim world. Other Third World countries are improving their lots, but it takes time and never goes in a straight line. After our first efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to realize that, like the Cold War, the war on Islamist jihadis is probably going to last fifty+ years before there will be any resolution. I’m more optimistic than you and parker, because I think we still have the capability to succeed. Rose colored glasses? Maybe so.
Well, JJFJJ, I do consider this. If Obama had supported the IRAN SPRING, all the democracy building may have turned upward instead of where it is today. There are some actions, like Bush’s AIDS program in Africa, which pay great dividends.
You mentioned Jeanne Kirkpatrick. She, of course, wrote the paper which brought her to Reagan’s attention, the paper which asserts a realpolitik of chosing between the alternatives that will present, not the alternatives we want to present.
Rose colored glasses are appropriate for family. For Mom who always believes her children will do the right thing. That’s why we all love Mom.
International relations? Not so much. As Catherine Glick and others point out, unless we’re threatened, it’s none of our business.
The argument is made that the very use of chemical weapons makes it our business because it is such a balance changer. If once allowed, it will be used again, and that future use must be resisted by punishing ANY present use.
Okay. But the world isn’t behind that argument, and there is doubt (see blert) that Syria is guilty.
I’m generally extremely skeptical of conspiracy theories, so I’m reluctant to offer one. That said, what about this :
1. We go to war.
2. The war gets bigger.
3. The President uses the war to justify ignoring or suspending parts of the Constitution (Hey, Lincoln did it).
4. One of those parts is the section which limits a President to two terms. Maybe he even suspends the entire Electoral process,
5. Barack Obama becomes President for Life.
As I say, I don’t generally believe Conspiracy theories. But there are some Progressives who do, so who knows ?
parker,
You make two good points regarding our debt and our culture in response to sharpie’s reaction to Barnett’s essay.
The popular assumptions in 2004 about our economy, and the West’s economy in general, that are part of Barnett’s premise weren’t then what they are today.
The question is valid whether we can afford a liberal hegemonic foreign policy of the kind Barnett proposed. We – the collective West, not just the US – could afford it in 2004 and, remember, there was a point where the world wanted in on Iraq, before the terrorists stepped up their propaganda-purposed mass murder campaign on the ground.
While I prefer a liberal foreign policy, I most want a thoughtfully, consistently, and rationally applied foreign policy, whatever form we choose.
I don’t want any more instances of American soldiers pouring their minds, hearts, and their lives into missions where they pledge their honor to a people like they did in Iraq, where our soldiers succeed in achieving the seemingly impossible, only for an incompetent dishonorable President to waste what they earned. Our soldiers invested their souls to save Iraq and Obama didn’t care. That can’t happen again.
I agree the issue of culture also makes a significant difference, one that is understated.
The roots of Islamist antipathy against the West is a cultural clash – Qutb reacting to the loose morality of 1950s America as an exchange student, right? Well, given Islamists believed 1950s Western culture was decadently ill, imagine what they think of our present-day culture.
Using Emile Durkheim’s terms, Islam is highly integrated and regulated. Muslim life is about unambiguous norms and features pre-modern mechanical solidarity. Our culture seems anomic and alienated in comparison while Marxist influences have frayed the bonds of our modern organic solidarity. I can empathize with the basic desire to keep Western social pathology out of their stable social order. Muslims aren’t the only group to feel that way about modern Western cultural trends.
However, a group can also be over-integrated and over-regulated, resulting in a different kind of social pathology that makes them incompatible with modernity. Durkheim advocated for a golden mean; he didn’t know what that meant exactly, either.
JJ,
Not having read AMB Kirkpatrick’s book and only going off your quote of a review, I think she gives Bush too much credit only because Bush’s presidential case against Iraq was really inherited, put in place by Clinton. Bush just repackaged the same product.
In his repackaging, as you know, I am critical of Bush that he deviated from Clinton’s public (political) argument, therefore misaligning it from the operative legal procedure and policy on Iraq. Clinton’s public argument had been carefully consistent with the legal procedure and policy. I guess that’s the difference between Yale Law and Harvard MBA; the MBA is a doer, but the JD is savvier with the public record. When Clinton endorsed Bush and OIF – before pretending he didn’t – Clinton relied on his own presidential public argument against Saddam, not Bush’s.
It doesn’t surprise me that a Navy man would have a global view of the world. It’s us soldiers who tend to be myopic about the patch of dirt underneath our feet. We become quite intimate with dirt actually.
I agree with you that to win the Long War or any global competition, whatever direct engagement we project over there, we *must* have our own house in order.
sharpie: “If Obama had supported the IRAN SPRING, all the democracy building may have turned upward instead of where it is today.”
This is the kind of thing I have more in mind when I say that Obama should have adapted (and adopted) the course he inherited from Bush, just as Eisenhower adapted the course he inherited from FDR/Truman.
[aside] In the late 40s, early 50s, it was not at all a given which direction American foreign policy would take nor even that we would seriously compete globally with the Communists. America-First isolationism is part of our political DNA, too. When the Korean War started, the US military that won WW2 only 5 years prior didn’t even exist anymore. [aside]
The easy jump is to ask, what would Bush do with the Syria situation as it is today? But as you imply, Bush would have done things very differently than Obama upstream in order to prevent compounding downstream effects like the Syria situation as it is today.
Perhaps the degeneration of the Arab Spring in Syria was unavoidable no matter what we could have done even had Obama adapted Bush’s course, but we don’t know that because Obama sure as heck did little to try to prevent the situation getting out of hand.
“But once Obama made his pledge, other US interests became inextricably linked to US retaliation for such a strike. The interests now on the line are America’s deterrent power and strategic credibility”
I disagree. One of two things is true:
1. Obama does not count. He is not a ‘real’ American and he is not a ‘real’ President. He’s a charlatan faker who hates this country. When he is gone normal America can be restored. He is some bad crazy King in the long history of England. He did horrible damage, but they recovered because the people and nation were “England”. If there is still an “America”, Obama becomes only a terrible historical mistake pressed upon us by Liberals who also hate this country – his sole virtues being the tome of his skin and his remarkable skill at liberal bullying.
2. Obama is closer to Caesar or Napoleon – truly transformational as Colin Powell idiotically lauded him for. If he is an American Caesar or Napoleon then America is over anyway and who cares about our credibility. Our credibility is “America”. If that no longer exists, then who cares about it?
To Japan and some of our other US allies, I would say this.
Figure out a way to mobilize your own regional defensive alliances with people who actually have skin in the game. Alliances are made out of mutual interest, not necessarily trust or compatibility. No matter how much the US is trusted or liked, no matter how powerful the US continues to be, civil war will mean almost everyone in the world is left to their own devices.
Prepare now, so you won’t regret it later. The age of independence is here, for a world that has neither usurped American power nor gotten rid of America. It is here because America itself will abandon foreign commitments as the fires burn at home.
Relying on American power won’t do anything to increase human progress. Just look at Israel’s 50 year history. It’s not worth the risks of US betrayal or US changing Presidents like someone changes Starbucks flavors.
In a sense, this will benefit Americans, as we won’t have to pay for foreign commitments beyond what is necessary. It benefits Europeans and East Asians, since they will have to develop a spirit and pride of self sufficiency, which is always something more American than American military power and bases. The more they spend on defense, the less they can spend on social welfare, which will improve the character of their people.
America will then be able to focus all of its attention on our domestic enemies, to clean them up the way Fallujah was cleaned up in Iraq.
The British got the south of Iraq and made deals with the death squads. So long as death squads left the British alone, they were given permission to prey upon independent journalists and Shia Iraqis. This rot went on for several years before 2006 of Iraq. The British used up Churchill when they needed unit in war, but kicked him out and replaced him with a socialist after their desire for safety was satisfied. Such is the nature of a democracy. Betrayal is its chief virtue.
Trust can only be between individuals. Trust between nations don’t exist.
In the past, people have used this concept because countries were monarchies: run by royal families for generations that had their own inherent values and contacts.
I’m not sure anyone should be trusting in the US when Americans replace Presidents about as often as the Obamas replace their vacation photo galleries.
Ymarsakar:
Despite the replacement of one president with another, there used to be tremendous continuity of American policy on certain basic principles.
That continuity has been broken by Obama.
Ymarsakar…
The British employed 0bama logic: they led from behind.
To get along the went along.
To the extent possible, the British politicians (calling the shots) insisted that their soldiers not get drawn into tribal policy disputes. All of the ‘activist’ officers were rotated home, rather promptly.
Active (British Army) policing was prohibited.
The inmates took over the asylum.
You’ve inverted history: it was the few Sunnis that had to run for cover. That went quick. Next, it was time for the Shia factions to have a go. It was the local boys versus the Iranian backed crews. Since they were buying — in major quantity — the diverted/ stolen oil, the Iranian crews were sitting on a pile of cash — and weapons.
They didn’t get turfed out until Maliki’s campaign — after the British were gone. Only after that did it become flamingly obvious just how badly London had been directing matters.
For London, the ONLY thing that mattered was zero casualties. The mission be damned.
But, if that was the case, why even pretend? Departure was long overdue.
Until Maliki showed them fools, the British politicians felt that THEY were running the smarter operation — not at all like Bush.
======
Alliances CAN’T be made without trust. Such fakes were last seen with Hitler and Napoleon. They were self-frauds. Every time the pressure was on, their allies would bail out, no exceptions.
Alliances work when you don’t depend upon them: NATO.
It’s strictly a one-way flow.
blert: “Until Maliki showed them fools, the British politicians felt that THEY were running the smarter operation – not at all like Bush.”
Did the Brit politicians who made those decisions ever issue a mea culpa, or did they just congratulate themselves on a job well done, and freeze their thinking at “running the smarter operation – not at all like Bush”.
Despite the replacement of one president with another, there used to be tremendous continuity of American policy on certain basic principles.
Republicans following Democrat policies due to loyalty to America, perhaps. But the other way around, like LIncoln’s VP? Doubt it.
Did the Brit politicians who made those decisions ever issue a mea culpa
It was Tony Blair running the show. While he supported Bush light policies for Iraq, he had his own Obama domestic totalitarian plan. But he sounded great to American plebes looking for the aristocratic king to tell them what to do though.
So whatever criticisms Blair ended up with, that got trickled down into Bush’s second term or just ended up on Bush’s table. I’m pretty sure Tony made the same deal Johnson did in Vietnam. In return for the support of his allies, he would “moderate” casualties. If that made the war pointless… well, Obama wasn’t the first one to make war pointless waste of blood and money.
Hello all!
Thank you all for contributing to an excellent discussion. I printed out Neo’s and C. Glick’s essays and these comment so I could read them with care.
Having read them with care I’d like to offer several observations:
George and Parker:
I wonder whether your assessment of Pax American is fair. Pres Truman’s investment in the defense of Korea and subsequent six decades of US military commitment to Korea in my view has purchased far more for the USA than limited success in South Korea. It purchased time for Japan and Taiwan to maintain independence and to become prosperous and democratic. The Philippines are free and democratic and far more prosperous than we should expect to have been the case if we had demonstrated our commitment to Asia by maintaining our military commitment to South Korea. Even our poorly managed military investment in Vietnam brought time for the post-colonial, post WWII governments, in Indonesia, Malaysia and and Thailand to gain legitimacy and stability. Remember, South Vietnam would have been free, democratic and prosperous today if the Democratic controlled Congress had not over-road Pres. Ford’s veto and defunded our military aid commitment to South Vietnam in January 1975.
Moreover the modest cost of maintaining a 28,500 man US garrison in South Korea is far out weighed by the enormous economic benefits to the USA, to East Asia and to the world that have accrued because of America’s commitment to Korea. In a sense the operative economic term is: “leverage”.
What is economically unsustainable is not PAX American but the New Deal-Great Society European style welfare state whose transfer payment commitments comprise 2012 ‘s $222 trillion fiscal gap.
Mike O’Malley,
Yep. George Pal is judging based on direct transactional benefits. There are those, but the US hegemonic role has been more about the community effect. More like NBA or MLB or NFL commissioner, if he was also a franchise owner, looking out for the good of the league and the game rather than strictly personal profit.
At the same time, we *are* a franchise owner competing in the league, and they’re right that we need to look out for our own interests, too. If we don’t have our own house in order, we can’t serve as an effective league commissioner, either.
Mike:
I disagree. Pres Obama is neither a Caesar or a Napoleon, both of whom were superb military commanders and in the end both men were divinized as war-gods. Pres. Obama is an incompetent blunderer who makes Emperor Napoleon III look Bismarckian by comparison.
Perhaps Pres Obama instead is comparable to Byzantine emperor Phocas who was was deposed and executed by Heraclius. If not for Heraclius, Phocas would have been similarly truly transformational.
Eric:
I find myself in broad agreement with your arguments. I worry however that rehabilitating Bush’s legacy and countering the false narrative on the Iraq mission will fail because the appeal of the false narrative is irrational and is not susceptible to evidence and reasoned argument. I worry that Pres. Bush’s greatest failing is that, unlike FDR, Pres. Bush did not use all propaganda tools at hand to vilify and demonize his opponents but instead sought to avoid regression to a binary holy-war by underplaying the role of violence and jihad in normative Islam. Without a propaganda focus for hatred comparable to the Nazis during WWII, I suspect that Pres. Bush himself became vulnerable to being scapegoated and demonized because he was a marginal insider and because Europe’s and America’s progressive elite found Pres. Bush’s evident Christian faith scandalous.
On no few occasion when making similar arguments as you have here and I have found that competent evidence is not admitted nor entertained. Not rarely have I experienced an intense angry absolute rejection of any evidential effort to rehabilitate Pres. Bush’s role in 9/11, the War in Iraq and for that matter in the economic crisis of 2008. I don’t imagine I am alone in this regard.
Several historical examples of enduring unjust demonization come to mind. President Grant was a competent President whose reputation remains unrehabiliated. Martin Luther’s successful demonization of several Popes, decent men and perhaps one a true saint, endures to this day. The contemporary scapegoating of Popes Pius XII and Benedict XVI also comes to mind.
Mike O’Malley,
You’re not alone – I’ve had the same experience.
Challenging the false narrative is akin to challenging a foundational belief of a social-political worldview that for many people has risen to religion. Admitting Bush was right on Iraq by direct implication says the notions and entities opposed to Bush are wrong, and that’s a mind overhaul they’re not prepared to accept. Their circuit breaker flips before the idea can blow their minds.
What I do is emphasize the demonstrable continuity from Clinton to Bush on Iraq, including Clinton’s initial endorsement of Bush and OIF. I don’t know whether that aspect has changed any minds by itself, but it does give pause since a basic premise of the false narrative is that Bush’s action on Iraq was a new and unique episode.
Still, I believe it’s worth beating the drum. Persistence and repetition make a difference. As activists know, a flowering success today often grows from seeds planted and nurtured for years with much frustration in between. Change takes time … and pressure (Shawshank Redemption).
Any situation in which Obama is vulnerable to criticism for his foreign policy provides an opportunity to conduct a compare/contrast between Obama and Bush that can be used to set the record right on the Iraq mission and rehabilitate Bush’s legacy.
Thanks for the encouragement Eric. I like your approach and I’ll give it a workout.