Re: Anne Applebaum's "Bad Choices"

I applaud Anne for trying to look at this seriously and ask the question "what happens if we do X?" I was over in the Politics section making a similar point. I know most Slate readers hate Bush, but I think Bush has the merit of at least caring about the outcome. As you point out, none of the candidates and especially the Democrats are framing the discussion remotely in any way that actually cares what the outcome is. They can't seriously believe that just pulling out and letting thousands of Iraqis be killed is in the interest of the United States. There is no reasonable way to make that argument.

He cares about not being branded a 'loser'. He cares about how history is going to view him. He cares about dragging the war out until 2009 -- so someone else can take the blame, and do the hard work of cleaning up after yet another one of his many failures, public and private.

That's what Bush really cares about -- not democracy in the mideast, and certainly not all the pain, suffering, death and destruction his petty little ego trip has unleashed on the world.

They can't seriously believe that just pulling out and letting thousands of Iraqis be killed is in the interest of the United States. There is no reasonable way to make that argument.

Sure there is. It's simple, obvious, and a quite reasonable interpretation of the situation on the ground. If it is the case that no matter how long the troops stay -- no matter how long we throw our blood and treasure into the pit -- the results when we pull out will be the same, then it makes no sense to stay. Don't throw good money (not to mention lives) after bad. Cut your losses. Don't chase sunk costs. Etc.

I'm not sure I personally buy this argument, but insisting that it deserves no credence is sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, "La la la la la I can't hear you!" Granted, that's what the Preznit does, but it's not a way to persuade people that you're really looking at all the options, or even all the facts.

Well, it's simple and its obvious, but it can't be called reasonable, which is the point of the article. So we pull out, chaos ensues and Iran -- still ruled by its religious imams and their interpretation of sharia law -- sweeps in and takes over, and we have yet another middle-eastern nation inimical to the U.S.

Sorry, but that's a negative out come. It will lead to costs that are worse than "chasing the sunk costs." I'm concerned that the U.S. no longer has the political or intestinal fortitude to fight a war to its conclusion. If this were World War II, we'd have thrown in the towel after the debacle at the Kasserine Pass, refused to chase the "sunk costs" and let England tackle Germany sans our assistance. You will undoubtedly argue that Iraq didn't attack the U.S., but then, neither did Germany before we declared war on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the overall course of the war, but the solution is clearly to adopt the "Powell doctrine" and put in enough troops that they can handle the situation. Rumsfeld was trying to transform and streamline the military, trying to get a lot without using a lot of force. In the military there's an expression that goes back to Napoleonic times -- "History is written by the army with the biggest battalions." We've been trying to control Iraq via half measures, instead of committing enough troops and treasure to get the job done.

that has been absent from the debate for much of the past 4 years . . .

"alternative outcomes"

saddam had killed (by official UN tally, from mass graves) some 400,000 of his subjects between gulf war 1 and our invasion. not withstanding the fact that he apparently had 500 WMD scientists on his payroll but few actual weapons, at some point the world has to ask itself whether it can allow such carnage to continue unabated.

there appears to be an unfortunate trend among americans to condone atrocities against people who are somewhat unlike us. thus, the killing fields of cambodia, the hutu/tutsi massacres in africa, the ongoing bloodshed in the middle east from all sides.

we did step in during the balkans, to deliver the muslim majority from evil. but those where "white" muslims, and their oppressors were stand ins for nazis.

our fatigue in iraq partly derives from a clear notion of who "the enemy" is. we'd like to demonize the sunnis, who were aligned with saddam and aided and abetted his worst atrocities. but if we thow ourselves wholeheartedly with the formerly oppressed shi'ite majority we're simply supporting present and future atrocities. the only good guys appear to be the kurds, and they aren't strong enough to run the country.

i read a book once (about 10 years ago), and can no longer remember the title. it made a compelling case that peace is achieved only by having a clear battlefield victor, and that ceasefires and peace agreements merely reflect the reality of what took place on the battlefield.

thus, we have prolonged conflicts (including the aforementioned atrocities) where the west alternately arms one side, then the other, in attempt to acheive a balance of power. all we are doing is prolonging the hostilities and misery, however.

the best use of our troops in iraq is to prevent the infiltration of any additional men or materials from iran, syria, jordan, etc. when these guys run out of ammo and explosives, they'll appear at the negotiating table quickly enough.

trapdoor:

You will undoubtedly argue that Iraq didn't attack the U.S., but then, neither did Germany before we declared war on it.

You were going good there for a bit, but here's a fact-check for you: Germany foolishly declared war on the US following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; only then did the US declare war on Germany.

Wars have a different feeling for Americans when they are someone else's idea.

You are correct, and I knew that to be the case, but the fact remains that except for submarine warfare, Germany hadn't attacked us (the point is not central to my POV on this, in any case).

".....it made a compelling case that peace is achieved only by having a clear battlefield victor, and that ceasefires and peace agreements merely reflect the reality of what took place on the battlefield.""

Sounds like it was written by an american. A nation that has fought two wars of opportunism, jumping in at a no risk time, and has got it's ass whipped in several small wars since. And to make matters worse, a writer who has not read Ghandi. India won a war of independence with minimal bloodshed, not through arms and war, but peaceful ways seeking justice.

America can not win a decisive victory in war, contrary to american egomania, and conviction. It's geographic location has granted it immense immunity to war conflict, allowing it to pick and chose when and who to engage. So any future major war will have to be fought overseas, which, as Iraq demnonstrates, can not be done with a major power coalition due to logistical limitations. And large scale carpet bombing to suppress armed opponents is no longer technologically feasable, and will only gain the enemy more friends and supporters as the international press would prevent a large scale psych ops and liars convention as happend in wars before. The only course for the USA to win in the future is through peaceful means, setting an example for justice to the world, understanding, acting from informed consent, and in a timely and intelligent manner. Unfortunately, those terms are oxymorons today in connection with todays political/cultural climate in the USA.

I read an interesting novella one time in which the Nazis won WWII, and took posession of India as part of taking control of all the British Empire's possessions.

In so doing, they ran up against Ghandi at the peak of his powers, just as the British did in real life. The major difference, however, lay at the end of the story. In real life, the British surrendered the subcontinent to Ghandi's peaceful revolution. In the fictional piece, the Nazis killed Ghandi and all his followers. A peace-based revolution requires the acquiesence of your opponents. The British cared about the world outcry that would have resulted from a massacres -- Nazis wouldn't have cared a bit. The key word in passive resistance is "passive" and if your opponents are willing to deal with other's opinions, passive resistance leaves you passively dead while your opponents enjoy their victory.

I assume the "opportunistic" victories to which you refer are World Wars I and II. One can make a compelling case that the U.S. would have been better off sitting out World War I entirely, as Woodrow Wilson wanted us to do. We were "too proud to fight" when he was conducting his presidential campaign, and were only lured in by the decription of the Zimmermann Telegram, which offered Mexico large hunks of the U.S. if it would preemptively attack the U.S. to keep it out of the European conflict (this episode of history is nearly forgotten, except by students of WWI, today). If they "yanks" hadn't gone "over there" there would have been little loss to the U.S., except the loss of France to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and a weakened British Empire, and from our perspective today it's hard to see how either of those would have harmed the United States much.

In any case, that outcome would have prevented World War II from happening as it happened. German aggression in the 1930s was the result of the punishments Germany received at the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the first conflict.

But it didn't happen that way, and there was a World War II, and many prominent Americans opposed our entry into that conflict, too. Charles Lindberg was famous for his opposition to American involvement, and even FDR had to slip assistance to England under the table via programs such as "lend-lease." We didn't enter the war until we were attacked. My point is, in both instances its hard to see where America, as a nation, was acting "opportunistic."

"The only course for the USA to win in the future is through peaceful means, setting an example for justice to the world, understanding, acting from informed consent, and in a timely and intelligent manner. Unfortunately, those terms are oxymorons today in connection with todays political/cultural climate in the USA."

Informed consent from who? Who has the power to grant that consent, and who has the information? The simple fact is that most western countries believed Hussein had the WMDs, and it required no cooking of the books to foster that belief, even if it was wrong. The terms aren't oxymorons, the terms are simply not relevant. It's impossible to have "informed consent" from the Iraqis, Iranis, etcetera who get most of their news from Al Jazeera, itself a "large scale psych ops and liars convention."

The day may come when your dreams come true, when we sit in a circle, join hands, and sing "Kum Bay Yah" -- until then I'd rather the explosions be generated by the U.S. armed forces against Islamo-terrorists than by Islamo-terrorists against soft targets elsewhere. When you show me how you can passively resist the force of Al Quaeda, I'll show the white flag.

...by GWB's internationally political actions. The man still has not learned his lessons as he's trying to bully Putin around, making an enemy out of a former collegue. The USA must fundamentally change its psychology and outlook on the world. It must admit, and respect, democracy. Unfortunately, as GWB and his Republican supporters demonstrate in our own country, they are NOT democratic thinkers, rather, dogmatic pygmies stuck in a mix of quasi-evangelical crap and John Wayne movies. The fact is, the US is not militarily strong enough to enforce its will. It hasn't been able to do that since WWII. The only thing it is capable of is carpet bombing, or precision bombing with civilian casualties. The military can not even take out one al-quaida position with infantry or special ops, or something short of bombing from 50,000 feet or miles away. Worse, GWB has succeeded in demonstrating this incompetence to the world. Now there isn't even any mystery left to leverage.

Forget military enforment of international policy. It's been broke since the early 50's. The only leadership the US can provide is real leadership, through superior infrastructure, legislation, informed and intelligent political decision making. It is also incapable of doing that. So, there's only one thing left, save lifes (ours), save money, and stick to our knitting at home. We are too backward for leadership of anything in the modern world.

Bringing up WWII wrt Iraq is essentially admission that you don't really have facts to back up the arguement and instead are running a PR Spin approach. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait had no similarities with the Sudetenland, Its use of poison gas int the Iran-Iraq War and on the Kurds was not like Dachao or Treblinka - and Military Police Duty in the middle of a civil war has no resemblence to any sort of military operation against a subduable enemy.

There is ZERO evidence that anything but a negative outcome is available in the futuer. Hardly the same could be said for WWII. ALL factually based outcomes are negative.

It is at best an act of faith and hope to believe that if the USA stayed there another 15 years, and then left, that you would have any less negative an outcome than if we left next year.

Yes in BOTH cases you end up with another islaamic nation inimical to the USA and in the sway of Iran. Remaining in Iraq doesn't change this. Why? Because the MAJORITY POPULATION is Shia and wants no accomodation with the Sunis, instead they want revenge. And Iran happens to also be Shiz.

What are you going to offer the Shia to motivate them to give up on their desires for revenge?

....technically, the US has never been able to fight a major power alone. real war, the american does not know. real war, the american public will not support. and technically, even though the US has produced immense power in WWII, still was and is not capable of deploying and supporting large scale armies with heavy losses like thousands a day with fluid fronts of massive armor and airpower, from the US. If the US had fought Germany alone, in Europe, it would have lost WWI and II in months. Of course Germany never at any time could have successfully fought a war on american soil either. If the US had fought the Soviet Union alone in 1939, in Europe, it would have lost as quickly as against the Germans, provided it fought alone. Logistically, the US does not have the lift to support a massive war with a large power. Today it must contract with international shipping companies to deploy supplies. A major power can destroys those supplies on the seas and definitely in the staging areas.

Come as you are, is what the military says the limits of any large scale war is. As we are, our equipment is in Iraq. And it's wearing out at a prodigious pace.

...i know of a firebreathing gi grunt who says that his unit knows where the enemy hides, where they come and go after dark, and his unit wants to go in and kill the mofos. but their officers wont do it, because of the potential casualties. in a real war, the enemy is eliminated, no ands ifs or butts, they're f*cking killed. in a real war, the military would be securing a perimeter around any insurgents fire fights, and swabbing the civilian backwash with testing kits for recent firing of a gun. then execute the positive testers on the spot. in a real war, the insurgents would run out of manpower very quickly using this tactic. in a real war, the civilian population would be too scared to support the insurgents, even passively with aquiesence. Clearly, the US can and will never use force in a successful way like this. So, it just sits there wringing it's hands and debating, like in korea, vietnam, etc.

Well, I agree that the war on terrorism should be waged in a much more "total" fashion if it is to be at all successful. There are sometimes command reasons for not taking out a given position (such as its a good source of electronic intelligence) that don't have anything to do with the casualties that would be experienced by taking it out. I don't think we'll actually go after the terrorists in this way, since for some reason everything the U.S. does is portrayed as evil, but a terrorist attack is just another news event -- the terrorists don't get criticized for killing innocents the way U.S. troops are criticized for "collateral damage" even though the terrorists kill innocents on purpose, whereas the policy of U.S. armed forces is to try to avoid the death of non-combatants (despite the lies told by Al Jazeera and other Arabic outlets regarding the actions of U.S. troops).

I will take exception with part of your last sentence, though. Korea has to be seen as a success, as all of the goals desired by the commander in chief of the era were met. Truman was trying to fight to a compromise, avoiding either land war in Asia, or the full onset of World War III. Whether he was right or wrong in this effort I hesitate to say, but the separation of North and South Korea wasn't the result of handwringing at home.

Well Bush and Cheney may have "Believed" that Hussein had WMDs, but that belief was in the face of pretty good evidence that the WMD claims were dubious. And any of the Congres Criters that bothered to actualy go to the "locked room" where the unabstracted intel reports were available concluded the same thing (something that HRC did not do and deserves the criticism she receives for her statements and her vote as a result).

So at best the invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of why having a POTUS that "Believes" is such a bad idea - however the mendacity and perfidity that surrounded the effort to propogandize the need for war strongly suggests that the "belief" was known to be unsupported by solid intel or corroborable claims.

To sugest that Hussein was somehow akin to Hitler is the height of self-agrandizing propoganda. Yes, he was a mean viscious thug. And how he treated his populace was despicable. But as his war with Iran showed, he was hardly all that powerful. And his invasion of Kuwait was pretty well justified (the US has invaded neighbors for far less offense).

A better comparison would be to Pieter Botha.

• He too fielded a large army that on occaision attacked its neighbors
• His nation also had been building Nuclear Weapons
• He too used brutal means by the army to suppress a local majority anti-democratically.

The difference is that in Iraq there was never a thought given to a "truth and reconcilliation commission". And instead of Mandella and Desmond Tutu, we have Chalabi and Bremer.

Sorry. the powder keg has been lit. And you can heap body upon body of American soldiers over it, but you aren't going to deaden the explosion in any meaningful way.

And the ONLY linkage Iraq has with Al Qaeda, is that what is happening to the US Military in Iraq is what Al Qaeda had HOPED would happen in Afghanistan - except that the invasion of Afghanistan set Al Qaeda back on its heels dramatically according to the intel. So the notion that pulling out if Iraq has anything to do with "waving a white flag to Al Qaeda" is at best ignorant.

And yeah, I too read the Hitler Wins and Slaughters Ghandi. The problem with that story was that it assumed that Ghandi and his followers were a small handful and that by quickly rounding them up and executing them, that their message got suppressed and the rest of the population fell in line.

There is some element of possibility there. Setting aside for a moment that neither AQ nor Hussein are anywhere near close to Hitler - as we have seen with the repeated religious conflicts, in the outcome of post USSR Russia, heck even with native Amerinds in the USA - that no amount of genocide or oppression can truly eliminate that sort of movement. And as the Zen parable goes

A brutal man came into the zen master's house. He threatend to beat the master if he didn't serve him. So the master bowed and brought out the best food and wine. This went on for many years and the brutal man grew large and fat. Then one day the brutal man had a heart attack and called for the zen master to help him and call a doctor. The Master did nothing. When the brutal man had died, the Master quietly cleaned up the house and went on living.

There is a vast gulf between acting like the Brutal Man and singing Kumbayah while waving a white flag. And it is a horrific perversion of our democracy to allow an administration to keep raising the dishonest boogeyman of Al Qaeda and the claim that Democrats are "cut and run" simply because they aren't willing to blindly follow a proven failure. THAT is more along the lines of the EXACT propoganda that Hitler used.