Not a debate, but politically pointed enough I think it belongs here rather than the other forums. All the swirling miasma of disappointment and frustration I feel with our Iraq policy is crystallised in this insightful article.
Great article, and spot on.
I’ve worked for guys like George W. Bush before – no head for details, no grasp of the big picture, talking out of their asses, making major decisions on nothing but a prayer and gut instinct. Usually it takes 'em far less than five years to crash and burn. Of course, the typical upper-management dimwit doesn’t have the entire federal government covering for his sorry ass … .
Nice summary.
I remember actually being impressed with Bush and his decision to go into Afghanistan and chase down Bin Laden. I also remember being stunned beyond words by his plan to go into Iraq. And saddened beyond tears by the push to paint anyone who didn’t jump on that bandwagon as anti-american and soft on terrorism.
I truly believe that had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, we’d have been well on our way to co-opting the majority muslim mainstream into greater productive participation while marginalizing the wild-eyed maniacs.
Oh well.
Really? Wasn’t going after bin Laden and his protectors a massive no-brainer?
a “no-brainer”, when in the hands of bush still has the capacity to require a decision.
i was still impressed that they jumped into afghanistan as quickly as they did. that was a good thing. leaving afghanistan and letting it decay in our wake and moving off into iraq…well, that was a bad thing.
It was, but even before Iraq, the administration found a way to even skew up that no brainier:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_17.php#003767
….
Aaannd, I wonder if the issue to outsourcing security came to the front because this administration has a history to do what is cheap rather than what is correct, from the same Afghanistan article:
Well, I thought so. I wasn’t sure about Bush, though. After he did that, I had a burst of hope that he would do the right thing: listen to his dad about middle-east affairs.
That was about the last time I agreed with him on anything major having to do with US-ME relations, save for a few things he’s done with Israel.
The article’s comparison of of the U.S. shifting its forces from Afghanistan to Iraq and Germany’s WWII invasion of the Soviet Union is very interesting.
And scary.
You know, I read a lot of WWII history. I thought the same thing.
[sub]Of course at the time, when Bush announced Iraq as a threat, I thought of the Saddam Hussein character on South Park. ‘Hey, look over there!’[/sub]
Dang.
A move that was, in good part, motivated by the need of securing oil fields, and I´m talking about Germany here…
But in any case I don´t see it as such a good analogy, Germany was at war, Soviet Russia was an impending threat to the country and Hitler was a veritable lunatic (which still doesn´t absolve him of anything he did), at least two of those things don´t apply to the other side of the comparision. 
Well, it’s a well written article and definitely contains some thoughtful observations but, like many articles of this vibe, it leaves me a bit puzzled. Why continue beating a dead horse? Why can’t these insightful reporters suggest alternatives instead of just raising questions as to this administrations motives? Are they so afraid of congecture? I thought part of their responsibility was to create intelligent discourse.
So Rumsfeld et al, tacitly admit that WMD’s were a red herring. So they admit that they dropped the ball on capturing Bin Laden in Afghanistan. So they claim (speciously, IMHO) that Al Queda has handled the world media/pr machine better than this administration.
Why does it all seem like the administration is playing possum here?
It seems somehow obvious to me that it’s safer for them to admit incompetence on some level than to disclose the actual motive/rational for occupying Iraq. I don’t believe for a second that this administration experienced a collective bout of ADD with Afghanistan and Bin Laden. There was something of greater, deeper and far more important interest in Iraq and the greater Middle East.
I wish I could hear some intelligent (and supported) dialogue from that angle. Simply saying, “it’s a war for oil”, is not what I’m angling for. I think oil is a critical part of this but there are also motives that have far reaching economic impact between the US and both the EU and emergence of China/Asia.
I may be in the minority, but I think Gen. Franks made a wise decision. If he had committed US troops in a major way, we may have taken huge casualties. Actually, I think OBL has been kept off-gaurd and on the run, and that is a better outcome than capturing him. It would be a mistake to capture OBL and put him on trial-some idiot like ramsey clark would come out of the woodwork to defend him. far better that OBL be kept powerless and running. Of course, we should have been much more brutal in Afghanistan-if we had emulated “general” Dostum, anybody expressing any sympathy for OBL would have had their heads chopped off.
Except the premise for going into Afghanistan was to capture OBL. Seems a bit of rationalization to now claim that we’re better of now that he’s on the lam. If that were really the case, I bet the administration is thinking the very same thought with Saddam Hussein in custody. Wonder if they’re trying to come up with a plot to help him escape. Then Rumsfeld could stand up and claim that the US administration underestimated Hussein’s ability to cleverly file a soup spoon into a lock pick. Seems Hussein is currently thwarting that option by going on a hunger strike.
This makes no sense at all. “Huge casualties”? How many are you thinking? 5,000? 10,000? Given that to date we’ve only lost ~2,300 in Iraq, a larger and more populous country, I think it’s unlikely that casaulties from a proper occupation of Afghanistan would have topped 1,000.
Or we you just talking about the Tora Bora operation? I think if we’d lost 100 soldiers at Tora Bora but had captured or killed OBL in the process the American people would have been dancing in the streets.
If our primary goal was keeping our soldiers safe the correct course of action was not to invade Afghanistan at all! Once we decided to invade the only prudent course was to track down OBL, secure the country, and pour buckets of money into rebuilding it. At the time, that’s what Bush said we would do and I agreed with him. 1,000 dead American soldiers and $50 billion would be a fair price for OBL’s head and a stable Afghanistan.
And now we’re supposed to let OBL go free because we’re afraid someone might defend him at his trial!? Yes, he’s a little less dangerous on the run than if we ignored him completely. (Although just how “on the run” he is at the moment is debateable.) But he would be infinitely less dangerous locked up in Gitmo, or, better yet, dead.
Letting OBL get away with 9-11 makes us look weak. Weak and ineffectual. It encourages our enemies to strike against us and gives strength to their poisonous rhetoric.
No, it wouldn´t, if you can proove the guilt and abomination of his crimes (not too difficult I presume), on a fair trial you show respect for law and justice, the (perceived and actual) lack of which is one of the largest components of the fundamentalist muslim call for arms.
It also works on demistifying the man and showing the psychopathic bastard that lays beneath.
It would also mean that his captors get to control his interactions with the outside world. No more charismatic-mystic-leader shticks recorded in his mountain retreat and distributed to his fans on videotape.