The other explanation is that the intelligent & educated people fully anticipated the ensuing fire and disorder from the invasion and were pleased by the vision.
The adamant ambition of the neocons is to disable the military and potential to threaten of numbered countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Nothing besides had substance. The talk of marching democracy was so much soft soap and the war’s architect’s are now and have always been indifferent to the progress or failure of stable societies in the target nations. The destruction is all.
In other words, Iraq’s not a failure by gifted people, but a flourish.
To me the real problem is that the administration didn’t think through the consequences of military victory.
To the extent that that the administration realized that the evidence justifying the invasion was weak, I am sure that believed the weakness was of little consequence because we would be doing a good thing by ridding the world of a dictator and bringing democracy to the Middle East. And on a military front, we quickly achieved our objective of throwing Sadam and the Baathist regime out of power.
Unfortunately, there was a distinct lack of post-military phase planning. A significant reason for that was that Rumsfeld wanted to keep the planning within the Defense Department, rather than committing his troops to the open-ended nation building that he probably believed that the State Department would want to do. However, in the build up to the war, post-military planning got minimal attention.
I expect that the Defense Department didn’t really think that post-military phase planning would be a big issue because the people would be so relieved at the end of dictatorship that it would be easy to set up a positive civil society (after cleaning up the rose petals they thew at our feet).
If the 60 Minutes report I saw last night was to be believed (and it is consistent with several other things I read), in Iraqi Kurdistan things went pretty much the way the Defense Department hoped. The hated Saddam was overthrown, and the existing tribal/anti-Saddam forces formed a reasonably effective governmental administration, leading to peace and prosperity.
As the otherwise intelligent people found out to their, rebuilding Iraqi inwtitutions elseqhere turned out not to be so easy in the rest of Iraq.
But of course this isn’t the least bit surprising, because the Kurds were for most practical purposes governing themselves even before the US attack. The social institutions maintaining order in the north weren’t destroyed, because they weren’t dependent on the Baathists. Everywhere else they were, and everywhere else there was seemingly an assumption that new social institutions would spring forth fully formed like Athena from Zeus’s forehead. Rummy et al failed to recognize that the first duty of government isn’t protecting the freedom of citizens, but rather maintaining the social order without which freedom is meaningless, and they utterly failed in performing that duty.
There are different degrees of error. You’ve got your garden variety screwups, and then you’ve got your major league clusterfucks, and then you’ve got your perfect-storm-of-stupid shitfly fiascoes. Iraq is of course in the third group.
There are, really, two separate errors here. One was the decision to invade a helpless country for no reason; the other was the failure to do so in a competent way, especially with regards to the occupation. As stupid as invading was, it IS possible that a competent post-invastion strategy could have prevented things from getting anywhere near this bad; this result was not inevitable, although it was at least possible. Either is bad, but combined, we’re talking E Fuckupus Maximus.
Well, yes and no. Suppose the occupation had been done competently? How long would it last in order to resolve the sectarian problems that arose immediately that there wasn’t repression to hold the Shia down?
I can’t imagine how we would have managed to keep the lid on while at the same time giving everyone freedom and a seat at the table. But then you have to keep in mind my nitwittery.
I have yet to see or read a scenario, other than vague handwaving, for a peaceful, democratic Iraq where everyone has an equal voice.
Um, I have run across at least part of that quote before. I guess it’s rooted in a sort of optimistic utopian right-wing idea that had been around for a while, at least in economic thinking: that the only real resource is human ingenuity. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Did it ever occur to any of you that Bush/Cheney may NOT, in fact, be working for the best interests of the US, but for their own interests? I don’t see what Bush or Cheney have personally lost in the aftermath of the invasion, and if people are to be believed, their corporate sponsors have certainly not lost.
The peak has only been passed relatively recently and the descent is still ongoing. The long term reprecussions from the Iraq debacle will probably do more harm to Bush, Cheney, and their political and corporate supporters than any possible good they’ll have gained from it.
It was a business decision. They are after oil and war contracts. They are doing very well. The Military-Industrial complex is booming. Profits soar and human death is part of an economic equation that is fogged by religious smokescreens.
As others have indicated, there’s little evidence that the war and its current results are in fact a mistake from the point of view of the neocon think-tanks that drove the policy in the first place.
I don’t have cites, but I’m sure I’ve read that many of the theorists who wrote briefs supporting the Administration’s policy believed that any war in the Middle East would “shake things up” and drive change. Since they also believe that change is generally good and that our system (democracy/ capitalism/ Western values) triumphs in the end, it follows that such realignment in the Middle East would (in the long term) be to our advantage.
The oversight in your premise is the assumption that these thinkers care about the costs involved…blood, treasure, reputation. A mixture of religious fanatics and lying opportunists, they are overwhelmingly conscienceless men (and women, presumably) who literally see the deaths of a few thousand Iowa reservists and God knows how many heathen Saracens as the simple cost of doing business.
In their eyes the war could be a complete ignominious failure NOW, but in ten or twenty years, the resulting chaos in the Middle East will pay off in terms of better strategic realignment overall. Your life (well, if you’re that Iowa reservist) is a price they are more than willing to pay for this gamble. And if it doesn’t work, so what? They haven’t lost anything.
Lives? Not theirs. International goodwill and reputation? Who cares what foreigners think; we have atomic bombs and God. Money? *Corporations they and their friends own are doing well off this war; think of it as income redistribution that favors them for a refreshing change. * Their President? If they have to, they’ll just say he wasn’t following their plan closely enough, next guy has to do better.
They’re all set. If there’s a problem with this war, it’s YOUR problem, buddy…not theirs.
Then think about the middle term. Say, the next ten years.
Every political movement, if allowed to go unrestricted, goes too far and achieves excess. And by doing so, causes a counter-movement that will roll back much of what the original movement achieved.
Gosh, I’m sorry, but there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that the war and its current results are in fact a mistake. There is more evidence that would fit into the first page of this thread. You need to get to a library or a bookstore, because not only is there a mountain of evidence, but it’s already published.
There is in fact a considerable amount of evidence that Bush and his minions did in fact believe that the U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the war/occupation plan was poorly conceived, amateurishly designed, and stupidly executed. There is plenty of evidence that the occupation authority was inept almost to the point of comedy. There is in fact plenty of evidence that many, if not ALL, of the developments in Iraq came as a complete surprise to the administration. There is oodles and scads of evidence that the goings-on in Iraq were due not to deliberate design, but the incompetence of the politicians and generals in charge.
Again, I must suggest that “Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks is an excellent starting point for understanding the blunders that led to all this.
And my quote did not mention the Administration being satisfied with the plan. Please re-read.
I Pitted the neocon think tanks that pushed the idea on the Administration. My post even predicts they’ll abandon the President if the stench of failure attaches to him too firmly.
In other words, I completely agree with your assessment that the President, Congress, the Sec Def, the occupation authority, et. al. made blunders and mistakes and were surprised. I agree it’s a mess for most of us.
But since my point was that the NeoCon think tanks that generated the idea in the first place do not care about the mess, and only wanted to break things loose in the Middle East, trusting to vaguely-defined theories that it would all work to our (their) advantage eventually, what you’re pointing out is kind of moot.
My point was that they (the NeoCon think tanks) are about the only ones who (for ideological reasons) still might consider it a success, since their plan envisions a much longer approach time period a rendering a verdict, and since the costs paid do not much affect them. Just the rest of us.
What they didn’t seem to consider is that the US does not have a monopoly on human ingenuity. The insurgents seem to be innovating at a faster pace than we are. The administration seems to deep down believe that no one but they are very smart.
The results of the surge - insurgents leaving Baghdad and blowing up things in other places, was predicted in advance, ignored as far as I can tell, and is now coming true.
That’s not really saying much. “Loose Change” is available on the Internet, but that doesn’t mean that Bush actually directed the 9-11 attacks.
But to the larger question, I’m not sure that the observation that “smart people led us into this disaster” really has any broader implications. There were smart people on both sides of the issue in 2003. Hell, I’d say Hans Blix and Mohammed el-Baradei are about as smart as they come, and they were pleading for more time for weapons inspections.
So in the end, although it was true that smart people led us into this mess, it is probably true that smart people lead us into pretty much every mess and every tremendous success you can name. (Except Harry Truman – I respect his presidency in many ways, but I think he was dumber than a bag of hammers, and just smart enough to realize it.) After all, it was pretty smart people who created Social Security and the Internet, and also genocide and crack cocaine. (Though wouldn’t it be funny if the same people created all four?)
In my own book, I don’t see much use in getting riled up about how Bush led the country to war. (Personally, I thought it was clear enough in 2000 that he would like to go to war again against Iraq.) My frustration stems from the two groups who really should have done better to stop the war before it began: the people in Congress who probably knew the war would be a disaster but didn’t have the courage to stand against the war and the hoardes of American people who didn’t bother to engage their brains enough to question the Administration’s hype for war.
