Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
A simple and powerful reminder of what war costs
If you have a moment and some tissues nearby, check this out.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
List of US forces used abroad 1798-1993
This is an interesting list useful for putting some things into perspective. Some points I took away from it are these:
1) American armed intervention abroad is nothing new. This list shows about 234 instances between 1798 and 1993, or on average more than one per year.
2) There's been little real controversy over the president using military forces abroad, even in some fairly significant ways, without specific Congressional authorization. Indeed, only five of the 234 instances were declared wars.
3) That said, the vast majority of the instances were very limited in scope, casualties and duration.
4) The typical distance from the US had tended to increase as the country became more powerful, but even in the early 1800s there were interventions in the Arab world and even in the 1990s there were interventions in the Caribbean and Latin America, so there's no hard-and-fast rule on where the next intervention might be.
1) American armed intervention abroad is nothing new. This list shows about 234 instances between 1798 and 1993, or on average more than one per year.
2) There's been little real controversy over the president using military forces abroad, even in some fairly significant ways, without specific Congressional authorization. Indeed, only five of the 234 instances were declared wars.
3) That said, the vast majority of the instances were very limited in scope, casualties and duration.
4) The typical distance from the US had tended to increase as the country became more powerful, but even in the early 1800s there were interventions in the Arab world and even in the 1990s there were interventions in the Caribbean and Latin America, so there's no hard-and-fast rule on where the next intervention might be.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Absolutely no question THIS was criminal
This report has the details : http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/
But the bottom line is that apparently Cheney's office suggested waterboarding a captured Iraqi intel officer about supposed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It didn't happen, because the interrogators refused, fining the request "reprehensible." That part is good. Somebody drew the line.
But the key point here is that the request was completely improper. Regardless of any and all arguments about torture, terrorists and yada yada proffered by apologists, one fact that is beyond dispute is that the Geneva Conventions did apply to the war in Iraq. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The Iraq was was pure state-to-state conflict between signatories of the Geneva Conventions. If they didn't apply in this case then they simply don't apply anytime. The Iraqi in question was an official of the Iraqi government, acting in his official capacity. If the Geneva Conventions didn't apply yo him, they apply to no one. The fact that the Vice President's office made the request shows a complete contempt for the law. What possible excuse was there?
But the bottom line is that apparently Cheney's office suggested waterboarding a captured Iraqi intel officer about supposed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It didn't happen, because the interrogators refused, fining the request "reprehensible." That part is good. Somebody drew the line.
But the key point here is that the request was completely improper. Regardless of any and all arguments about torture, terrorists and yada yada proffered by apologists, one fact that is beyond dispute is that the Geneva Conventions did apply to the war in Iraq. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The Iraq was was pure state-to-state conflict between signatories of the Geneva Conventions. If they didn't apply in this case then they simply don't apply anytime. The Iraqi in question was an official of the Iraqi government, acting in his official capacity. If the Geneva Conventions didn't apply yo him, they apply to no one. The fact that the Vice President's office made the request shows a complete contempt for the law. What possible excuse was there?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Why people don't trust the Left on Defense
Look, there's no denying that there's a lot of room for criticizing American foreign policy, especially its military interventions over the years. I think it's even reasonable to say that the majority of them have been ill-conceived. But it;s not accurate to say that ALL of them are and if there's a post World War II war that is justified it's the war in Afghanistan. People opposing THAT war frankly sound daft to most people. Like the Congresswoman who voted against entering World War II (the sole vote -- she also voted against WWI, but wasn't alone that time), facing such people you have to say under what conditions would you support fighting? Waiting until the Nazis/Japanese/Taliban/Al-Qaeda are attacking your neighborhood a little too late, no?
Nice discussion here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/17/194929/728/995/698695
Barack Obama said from Day One he wasn't against all wars, just dumb ones. In that sentiment he probably captured the common sensical approach of most Americans. When you are attacked there's really no other reasonable response. The only people who don't fight back are those too weak to do so, and there's not a very happy record for weak people in our human history. Weak political units can only survive if protected by some powerful entity (power being an extremely relative term in this context -- but relative power is the only relevant context for military conflicts).
Let's be very, very, clear on this. While Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq (the dumb war) was important to his winning the presidency, his support for waging justified war in Afghanistan was vital for winning the presidency. The voters would never have voted for a pacifist for commander in chief.
Nice discussion here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/17/194929/728/995/698695
Barack Obama said from Day One he wasn't against all wars, just dumb ones. In that sentiment he probably captured the common sensical approach of most Americans. When you are attacked there's really no other reasonable response. The only people who don't fight back are those too weak to do so, and there's not a very happy record for weak people in our human history. Weak political units can only survive if protected by some powerful entity (power being an extremely relative term in this context -- but relative power is the only relevant context for military conflicts).
Let's be very, very, clear on this. While Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq (the dumb war) was important to his winning the presidency, his support for waging justified war in Afghanistan was vital for winning the presidency. The voters would never have voted for a pacifist for commander in chief.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Iraq elections
While turnout was not as high as hoped, it was very peaceful, so overall I think we can be pleased with how the weekend's elections in Iraq went.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100131274
I think there's less than an even chance that the habit will stick, but whether or not it will stick is in the hands of the Iraqis, themselves now, as it should be.
Now it's time for us to redeploy, remove the irritant of a foreign occupation and redeploy troops to the more important fight in Afghanistan, and start rebuilding the Army.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100131274
I think there's less than an even chance that the habit will stick, but whether or not it will stick is in the hands of the Iraqis, themselves now, as it should be.
Now it's time for us to redeploy, remove the irritant of a foreign occupation and redeploy troops to the more important fight in Afghanistan, and start rebuilding the Army.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The buck begins to stop with Bush
Andrew Sullaivn takes Glenn reynolds (Instapundit) to task (emphasis mine):
When that commander-in-chief has personally authorized such techniques himself, he assumes total legal and moral responsibility for those war crimes. So even if Reynolds' own skewed view of the report is accepted, his conclusion still doesn't follow. Bush is responsible, morally and legally and operationally, for war crimes under his command - war crimes for which Bush refuses to take any responsibility.
But, of course, his view is skewed, as partisan propaganda often is. As the Taguba and Fay and Jones reports found, the importation of the Gitmo techniques to Iraq was directly ordered from the very top. General Geoffrey Miller was directly sent by Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" it, i.e. to transport the Communist torture techniques honed at Gitmo to a theater of war that even Rumsfeld believed was subject to Geneva. Miller was ordered to take the gloves off and round up thousands of innocents for mass abuse and torture because the Iraq insurgency had taken Bush and Cheney by surprise and they responded in the only way they knew or trusted: by violence, force and torture (which we now know were the pillars of their war strategy from the first). Does Reynolds believe that the mass round-ups of Iraqis into Abu Ghraib jail were not authorized by the commander-in-chief? Does he believe that the order to get intelligence on the insurgency was invented by a few bad apples on the night shift? Does he really think that the exact same SERE techniques authorized by Bush were replicated in exquisite detail by barely literate grunts like Graner and England by some sort of telepathy or "climate"?
Well: this is what you have to believe if you are to keep defending this administration
When that commander-in-chief has personally authorized such techniques himself, he assumes total legal and moral responsibility for those war crimes. So even if Reynolds' own skewed view of the report is accepted, his conclusion still doesn't follow. Bush is responsible, morally and legally and operationally, for war crimes under his command - war crimes for which Bush refuses to take any responsibility.
But, of course, his view is skewed, as partisan propaganda often is. As the Taguba and Fay and Jones reports found, the importation of the Gitmo techniques to Iraq was directly ordered from the very top. General Geoffrey Miller was directly sent by Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" it, i.e. to transport the Communist torture techniques honed at Gitmo to a theater of war that even Rumsfeld believed was subject to Geneva. Miller was ordered to take the gloves off and round up thousands of innocents for mass abuse and torture because the Iraq insurgency had taken Bush and Cheney by surprise and they responded in the only way they knew or trusted: by violence, force and torture (which we now know were the pillars of their war strategy from the first). Does Reynolds believe that the mass round-ups of Iraqis into Abu Ghraib jail were not authorized by the commander-in-chief? Does he believe that the order to get intelligence on the insurgency was invented by a few bad apples on the night shift? Does he really think that the exact same SERE techniques authorized by Bush were replicated in exquisite detail by barely literate grunts like Graner and England by some sort of telepathy or "climate"?
Well: this is what you have to believe if you are to keep defending this administration
Monday, September 8, 2008
Trade-offs
Force protection is somewhat of a mantra in U.S. military policy, and as the beneficiary of that policy, I feel I need to tread carefully in being too critical of it.
But the fact remains that airstrikes and other uses of heavy firepower carry enormous risks for bystanders in the area.
The controversy over a recent airstirke that reportedly killed some 90 people in Afghanistan, including as many as 60 children, shows no sign of abating. New video evidemnce has emerged that suggests that the U.S. reports of no mor ethan seven dead civilians is incomplete.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_re_as/afghan_civilian_deaths_7;_ylt=AsaBxWsJhZJDGzjCLEuUbZb9xg8F
I'm not sure why the military is having such a hard time pinning down the truth here. The U.N. and Afghan authorities seem to have information, one wonders if it's simply not accepted by the military as valid.
The bottom line, however, is that firepower is of limited use in counterinsurgency and is no substitute for numbers on the ground and presence. This has been, all along, the fatal flaw of the Rumsfeld strategy for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many reasons why Gen. Petraeus has seen some success in Iraq, but foremost among them seems to have been changing the deployment of U.S. troops from centalized bases to forawrd positions among the population. This carried risks, of course, and initially casualkty rates did climb, but eventually they fell and now Iraq is safer for U.S. forces than ever.
A similar thing nees to happen in Afghanisatn, where, really, the overall situation should be more favorable. A cost of the Iraq venture has been in preventing the U.S. from having reserves avaikable to influence the Afghanistan fight.
Petreaus is moving up to Central Command and one expects he will apply his talents to redressing that deficiency.
But the fact remains that airstrikes and other uses of heavy firepower carry enormous risks for bystanders in the area.
The controversy over a recent airstirke that reportedly killed some 90 people in Afghanistan, including as many as 60 children, shows no sign of abating. New video evidemnce has emerged that suggests that the U.S. reports of no mor ethan seven dead civilians is incomplete.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_on_re_as/afghan_civilian_deaths_7;_ylt=AsaBxWsJhZJDGzjCLEuUbZb9xg8F
I'm not sure why the military is having such a hard time pinning down the truth here. The U.N. and Afghan authorities seem to have information, one wonders if it's simply not accepted by the military as valid.
The bottom line, however, is that firepower is of limited use in counterinsurgency and is no substitute for numbers on the ground and presence. This has been, all along, the fatal flaw of the Rumsfeld strategy for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many reasons why Gen. Petraeus has seen some success in Iraq, but foremost among them seems to have been changing the deployment of U.S. troops from centalized bases to forawrd positions among the population. This carried risks, of course, and initially casualkty rates did climb, but eventually they fell and now Iraq is safer for U.S. forces than ever.
A similar thing nees to happen in Afghanisatn, where, really, the overall situation should be more favorable. A cost of the Iraq venture has been in preventing the U.S. from having reserves avaikable to influence the Afghanistan fight.
Petreaus is moving up to Central Command and one expects he will apply his talents to redressing that deficiency.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The General
Here's an interesting New Yorker piece on one of the few top leaders involved in the Iraq affair who appears destined to have his reputation enhanced, instead of trashed.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll
Monday, August 11, 2008
Georgia
I can't begin to comment on the deep-seated grand political intrigues of the Caucasus, so anyone wanting more on that front is welcome to read folks such as this: http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/georgia_on_my_mind.html
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is more consequences of our misadventure in Iraq. If we had kept our eye on the ball and finished off the Taliban in Afghanistan with sufficient force instead of frittering it away with an ill-advised and poorly-conducted war in Iraq we (the U.S.) would have both the military force to have options and the credibility that success would have brought so that military options wouldn't be required.
Instead we have over-extended, over-committed and worn down the military so that we have no realistic military options at all. AND, instead of appearing strong and no one to trifle with the limits of U.S. power have been exposed for all to see in their naked glory because of the way we allowed ourselves to get mired in two long wars without apparent victory or end. (Bushite comments about how things are better in Iraq now display their cluelessness -- the damage has already been done. "Winning" now, whatever that means, doesn't rebuild the reputation that we had for decisive effectiveness we enjoyed before Iraq. It's too late for that.)
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is more consequences of our misadventure in Iraq. If we had kept our eye on the ball and finished off the Taliban in Afghanistan with sufficient force instead of frittering it away with an ill-advised and poorly-conducted war in Iraq we (the U.S.) would have both the military force to have options and the credibility that success would have brought so that military options wouldn't be required.
Instead we have over-extended, over-committed and worn down the military so that we have no realistic military options at all. AND, instead of appearing strong and no one to trifle with the limits of U.S. power have been exposed for all to see in their naked glory because of the way we allowed ourselves to get mired in two long wars without apparent victory or end. (Bushite comments about how things are better in Iraq now display their cluelessness -- the damage has already been done. "Winning" now, whatever that means, doesn't rebuild the reputation that we had for decisive effectiveness we enjoyed before Iraq. It's too late for that.)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The McMaster Promotion board
Kaplan has a good article in slate about something that's real important, but usually flies well under the radar of the Media and the public. He notes how the latest Army general officer promotion board may represent a very important seismic shift in the Army's leadership: http://www.slate.com/id/2196647/
The guy at the top always matters, for good or ill. In the case of the ill, for example, we can't really expect a major across-the-board improvement in the U.S. strategic situation so long as Bush is president.
But, to the extent that lower-ranking officials have quality they can make improvements within their sphere. There may be no clearer example of this than the Department of Defense. The shortcomings of Rumfeld are made starkly evident by the dramatic improvements under Gates, who may be one of the most important and effective SecDefs ever.
Gates has brought back to the Pentagon something that has been sorely lacking otherwise in the Bush administration -- accountability. Gates has been willing to fire failures. And now we are also seeing that he's interested in rewarding successes.
Unhappy with the kinds of decisions being made by the all-important Army one-star general promotion boards he brought back Gen. Petraeus from the war zone to oversea a promotion board. This alone can't help but send a powerful message how important Gates considered this board.
One of the biggest scandals of the last few years was the failure of two successive promotion boards to promote COL H.R. McMaster. There's hardly a more famous -- and justly so -- O-6 in the Army and it's failure to give him a star was nothing short of scandalous. Anyone who has been following McMaster's career has little doubt that he is one of the most outstanding officers of his generation -- bearing comparison with luminaries such as George C. Marshall and Creighton Abrams.
So Gates filled the board with the kind of outstanding successful combat officers the Army needs. Officers who had managed to rise to the top despite the system, but who could now reform that system to promote like-minded juniors in sufficient numbers to make a difference, as Kaplan points out.
I sure as hell hope the Navy names an aircraft carrier after this guy someday.
The guy at the top always matters, for good or ill. In the case of the ill, for example, we can't really expect a major across-the-board improvement in the U.S. strategic situation so long as Bush is president.
But, to the extent that lower-ranking officials have quality they can make improvements within their sphere. There may be no clearer example of this than the Department of Defense. The shortcomings of Rumfeld are made starkly evident by the dramatic improvements under Gates, who may be one of the most important and effective SecDefs ever.
Gates has brought back to the Pentagon something that has been sorely lacking otherwise in the Bush administration -- accountability. Gates has been willing to fire failures. And now we are also seeing that he's interested in rewarding successes.
Unhappy with the kinds of decisions being made by the all-important Army one-star general promotion boards he brought back Gen. Petraeus from the war zone to oversea a promotion board. This alone can't help but send a powerful message how important Gates considered this board.
One of the biggest scandals of the last few years was the failure of two successive promotion boards to promote COL H.R. McMaster. There's hardly a more famous -- and justly so -- O-6 in the Army and it's failure to give him a star was nothing short of scandalous. Anyone who has been following McMaster's career has little doubt that he is one of the most outstanding officers of his generation -- bearing comparison with luminaries such as George C. Marshall and Creighton Abrams.
So Gates filled the board with the kind of outstanding successful combat officers the Army needs. Officers who had managed to rise to the top despite the system, but who could now reform that system to promote like-minded juniors in sufficient numbers to make a difference, as Kaplan points out.
I sure as hell hope the Navy names an aircraft carrier after this guy someday.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
And he won't even be counted a casualty
The story of another casualty of the war.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lisold0706,0,814136,print.story
These sorts of tragedy are unavoidable in war, so wars ought to be avoided.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lisold0706,0,814136,print.story
These sorts of tragedy are unavoidable in war, so wars ought to be avoided.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Barack and Iraq
There are some preliminary signs of progress in Iraq, which prompts the question of what Obama should do if things are going relatively well there when he takes office. (There's less of a question for a McCain presidency, because he has essentially committed us to staying there.)
On the one hand, Obama clearly will have a mandate to pull the U.S. out sooner rather than later. Presumably anyone who thinks we should stay will vote for McCain.
On the other hand, every indication is that Barack Obama is a man who deals with the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. And as much as he might be tempted to pull out anyway, I suspect he'll evaluate conditions on the ground and calibrate any pullout to match the situation.
Is does not necessarily follow, by the way, that we should stay if things are going well. Or leave if they are going well. The key thing is to determine why things are going well. IF they are only going well because of high U.S. troop levels then pulling out quickly is obviously a poor choice. But if the improvement is largely because of Iraqi choices, then leaving without unnecessary delay will help.
The one thing I don't think Obama is interested in is creating a permanent U.S. presence a la Germany or Japan after World War II or Korea. It's likely that any Iraqi government strong enough to govern will ask us to leave. A long-term presence in an Arab country seems to cause more trouble than it is worth. Sticking around in Saudi Arabia has caused no end to our troubles, for example. Better an off-shore naval presence or small special forces bases in small, friendly states like Kuwait.
On the one hand, Obama clearly will have a mandate to pull the U.S. out sooner rather than later. Presumably anyone who thinks we should stay will vote for McCain.
On the other hand, every indication is that Barack Obama is a man who deals with the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. And as much as he might be tempted to pull out anyway, I suspect he'll evaluate conditions on the ground and calibrate any pullout to match the situation.
Is does not necessarily follow, by the way, that we should stay if things are going well. Or leave if they are going well. The key thing is to determine why things are going well. IF they are only going well because of high U.S. troop levels then pulling out quickly is obviously a poor choice. But if the improvement is largely because of Iraqi choices, then leaving without unnecessary delay will help.
The one thing I don't think Obama is interested in is creating a permanent U.S. presence a la Germany or Japan after World War II or Korea. It's likely that any Iraqi government strong enough to govern will ask us to leave. A long-term presence in an Arab country seems to cause more trouble than it is worth. Sticking around in Saudi Arabia has caused no end to our troubles, for example. Better an off-shore naval presence or small special forces bases in small, friendly states like Kuwait.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Memorial Day
I had, perhaps, the easiest tour of war duty ever served. I'm proud I went and took my chances, but I've few illusions about the nature of war and I'm thankful I was lucky.
But every day I think about the people who are still serving. I've known quite a few who have gone. I know some who are there right now or are soon to be there. And I've attended a funeral.
My prayers go with all of them.
Sometimes you find out about someone who you never even meet but still manages to make a connection.
One such soldier is remembered here: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/memorial-day.html
Today's Memorial Day ceremony in Norwich featured a World War II veteran. Interestingly the gentleman was alone. It wasn't so long ago that members of the Greatest Generation thoroughly dominated the scene at Memorial Day. Now they're outnumbered by Korean War and Vietnam War veterans. And perhaps soon by veterans of Iraq.
But every day I think about the people who are still serving. I've known quite a few who have gone. I know some who are there right now or are soon to be there. And I've attended a funeral.
My prayers go with all of them.
Sometimes you find out about someone who you never even meet but still manages to make a connection.
One such soldier is remembered here: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/memorial-day.html
Today's Memorial Day ceremony in Norwich featured a World War II veteran. Interestingly the gentleman was alone. It wasn't so long ago that members of the Greatest Generation thoroughly dominated the scene at Memorial Day. Now they're outnumbered by Korean War and Vietnam War veterans. And perhaps soon by veterans of Iraq.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Rescuing the GOP
I was fairly satisfied with being a registered Republican for over 30 years. While I didn't agree with the party on every issue, I agreed with Democrats on far less. Being an independent didn't much appeal to me, because it seemed rather wishy washy, to tell the truth.
Besides, I got to indulge in my contrariness by being a Republican in Dem-dominated Massachusetts.
Now I live in Connecticut, where there's actually still a functioning GOP, so simply being contrary isn't a good enough stance. Picking a party is more significant when there's an actual consequence.
Bushism drove me out of the GOP this year. Very little about what I dislike about Bush seems authentically conservative to me, and I'm baffled why so many so-called conservatives are in his camp. Expansive government, unchecked spending, unwise foreign policy, corruption and valuing expediency over principle are not just bad when Democrats do them.
And I'll admit that I'm severely disillusioned by the whole Iraq affair. It may or may not have been a good idea, but I don't think there's any doubt at all that it was very badly executed. Indeed, it was so badly executed as to be criminal. There finally seems to be a general in charge who's been able to execute tactics and operations that may salvage something less than debacle from our war, although there's still no clear strategic vision guiding things. Still, Peraeus' and Gates' success is damning of Bush's leadership as commander in chief because nothing is being done now that couldn't have been done years ago. The success may come too late. Bush's inability to hold people accountable for failure fatally compromised his war leadership. The president's main job as CinC is to find generals who win and keep firing the losing ones until he does.
Even all this, however, would not have been enough to drive me away. I'm more inclined to hope that McCain's approach to Iraq might possibly work something out than Obama's.
But I can't be in a party that supports torture.
And until the day that the Grand Old Party remembers that it was born out of the honorable and noble cause of human dignity and freedom that is wholly incompatible with the unholy, dishonorable and dehumanizing practice of torture and inhumane treatment, I'll be out.
The Democrats' flaws have improved not a whit. But they are the opposition party we have, and so they'll have to do. Right now their main good quality is that they're not Republicans. We'll need a little spell of them in power to clean out the rot. In the meantime maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.
Some may say that the Democrats are worse because they support abortion.
That gives some choice -- between the abortionists and the torturers, eh? Well, at the moment the torturers are doing more damage to America. Accepting torture means accepting the very same moral relativity that accepts abortion, really. The morally consistent position is to reject both.
Accepting torture has brought lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution into the very highest reaches of our government. We found out this week that specific torture techniques were discussed within the very walls of the White House among the highest officials of the government. U.S. cabinet officers! Shame.
Well, I'm out.
Only a party the repudiates Bush will be worthy of the legacy left by Reagan, Eisenhower, TR and Lincoln.
I'll vote for Democrats as long as I must, and for some select Republicans who seem to get it. But there will be an "I" next to my name in the voting lists from now on.
Besides, I got to indulge in my contrariness by being a Republican in Dem-dominated Massachusetts.
Now I live in Connecticut, where there's actually still a functioning GOP, so simply being contrary isn't a good enough stance. Picking a party is more significant when there's an actual consequence.
Bushism drove me out of the GOP this year. Very little about what I dislike about Bush seems authentically conservative to me, and I'm baffled why so many so-called conservatives are in his camp. Expansive government, unchecked spending, unwise foreign policy, corruption and valuing expediency over principle are not just bad when Democrats do them.
And I'll admit that I'm severely disillusioned by the whole Iraq affair. It may or may not have been a good idea, but I don't think there's any doubt at all that it was very badly executed. Indeed, it was so badly executed as to be criminal. There finally seems to be a general in charge who's been able to execute tactics and operations that may salvage something less than debacle from our war, although there's still no clear strategic vision guiding things. Still, Peraeus' and Gates' success is damning of Bush's leadership as commander in chief because nothing is being done now that couldn't have been done years ago. The success may come too late. Bush's inability to hold people accountable for failure fatally compromised his war leadership. The president's main job as CinC is to find generals who win and keep firing the losing ones until he does.
Even all this, however, would not have been enough to drive me away. I'm more inclined to hope that McCain's approach to Iraq might possibly work something out than Obama's.
But I can't be in a party that supports torture.
And until the day that the Grand Old Party remembers that it was born out of the honorable and noble cause of human dignity and freedom that is wholly incompatible with the unholy, dishonorable and dehumanizing practice of torture and inhumane treatment, I'll be out.
The Democrats' flaws have improved not a whit. But they are the opposition party we have, and so they'll have to do. Right now their main good quality is that they're not Republicans. We'll need a little spell of them in power to clean out the rot. In the meantime maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.
Some may say that the Democrats are worse because they support abortion.
That gives some choice -- between the abortionists and the torturers, eh? Well, at the moment the torturers are doing more damage to America. Accepting torture means accepting the very same moral relativity that accepts abortion, really. The morally consistent position is to reject both.
Accepting torture has brought lawlessness and disregard for the Constitution into the very highest reaches of our government. We found out this week that specific torture techniques were discussed within the very walls of the White House among the highest officials of the government. U.S. cabinet officers! Shame.
Well, I'm out.
Only a party the repudiates Bush will be worthy of the legacy left by Reagan, Eisenhower, TR and Lincoln.
I'll vote for Democrats as long as I must, and for some select Republicans who seem to get it. But there will be an "I" next to my name in the voting lists from now on.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Iraq: Should we leave or stay?
Here's what the Gallup poll shows:
Note: The withdrawal question asked if we should leave regardless of the situation in Iraq. in other words, whether or not things were getting better or worse. An unconditional withdrawal.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Backwards at Brooking
From an AP story about how Afghanistan could use a couple more brigades:
Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution warned that adding forces to Afghanistan could hurt efforts in Iraq. “We shouldn’t shortchange the Iraq mission to find the brigades for Afghanistan,” O’Hanlon said.
No, how about not shortchanging the mission IN AFGHANISTAN!
That's where the blokes who attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans came from. Oh, and by the way, the bastards who did it are still AT LARGE.
Get a clue, Mr. O'Hanlon.
Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution warned that adding forces to Afghanistan could hurt efforts in Iraq. “We shouldn’t shortchange the Iraq mission to find the brigades for Afghanistan,” O’Hanlon said.
No, how about not shortchanging the mission IN AFGHANISTAN!
That's where the blokes who attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans came from. Oh, and by the way, the bastards who did it are still AT LARGE.
Get a clue, Mr. O'Hanlon.
Army reducing tours
The Army will reportedly begin cutting tours of duty in Iraq back down to 12 months.
This will help, but we're still way over extended.
Even during Vietnam and Korea the U.S. was sure to keep a strategic reserve, usually the 82d Airborne.
Right now we have none. Every single brigade is either in Iraq, recovering for Iraq or preparing for Iraq. We're supposed to have an airborne brigade, a heavy brigade and a third brigade at minimum available for contingencies. We don't.
Even more cause for concern is the degrading of training. Because they're serving as counterinsurgency infantry, our artillerymen are not training in firing their guns. I suspect other specialized troops are also not getting needed training. How many armored troops are serving as infantry and not getting to practice their tank tables?
This could have severe consequences should we get involved in a heavy contingency anytime soon.
We're skating on the edge.
This will help, but we're still way over extended.
Even during Vietnam and Korea the U.S. was sure to keep a strategic reserve, usually the 82d Airborne.
Right now we have none. Every single brigade is either in Iraq, recovering for Iraq or preparing for Iraq. We're supposed to have an airborne brigade, a heavy brigade and a third brigade at minimum available for contingencies. We don't.
Even more cause for concern is the degrading of training. Because they're serving as counterinsurgency infantry, our artillerymen are not training in firing their guns. I suspect other specialized troops are also not getting needed training. How many armored troops are serving as infantry and not getting to practice their tank tables?
This could have severe consequences should we get involved in a heavy contingency anytime soon.
We're skating on the edge.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Fifth anniversary of the war
Like most people, I saw the war start in CNN, even though I was on my way to the war zone. Or at least, I was trying to get a ride to the war zone, as I was in Colorado Springs at Ft. Carson.
I eventually managed to get to Iraq, after stops in Germany and Romania, although I didn't stay in Iraq very long -- just 35 days in country.
I will admit that I was very, very wrong about the war, which I supported at the time.
I was wrong because I assumed that Saddam did have some WMDs hidden away. It seemed like the most logical explanation for his odd behavior. What all of us failed to remember was that Saddam and logic were not good friends.
I was wrong because I assumed that, because Bush was betting his entire presidency on the outcome. he would everything possible to ensure that it would succeed. What I failed to recognize was ideology would be married to incompetence to create a perfect storm of ineffectiveness.
I was wrong because I assumed that the need to win he war would cause Bush to hold people accountable. In fact, the only people ever punished by Bush were people who were insufficiently loyal to the official line. Mere incompetence, corruption or partisan blindness were no problem, so long as you were loyal.
I was wrong to trust the government.
I eventually managed to get to Iraq, after stops in Germany and Romania, although I didn't stay in Iraq very long -- just 35 days in country.
I will admit that I was very, very wrong about the war, which I supported at the time.
I was wrong because I assumed that Saddam did have some WMDs hidden away. It seemed like the most logical explanation for his odd behavior. What all of us failed to remember was that Saddam and logic were not good friends.
I was wrong because I assumed that, because Bush was betting his entire presidency on the outcome. he would everything possible to ensure that it would succeed. What I failed to recognize was ideology would be married to incompetence to create a perfect storm of ineffectiveness.
I was wrong because I assumed that the need to win he war would cause Bush to hold people accountable. In fact, the only people ever punished by Bush were people who were insufficiently loyal to the official line. Mere incompetence, corruption or partisan blindness were no problem, so long as you were loyal.
I was wrong to trust the government.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Aiding the enemy and supporting the troops
A commenter on Intel Dump makes this valuable point in the context of the Obama 24-man Platoon anecdote:
there are a lot of people who believe the Rush Limbaugh line that any soldier who comes back critical of the war is a phony soldier. This has been an unfortunate pattern. When that guy asked the question about the Hillbilly armor, the right immediately used the fact that he had worked with a reporter about shaping the question as evidence that the soldier was a dupe of one of those biased members of the liberal press, rather than come right out and face the music on what was a very real shortfall.
Hell, I remember there being a story earlier in the year about the improvised measures. I can understand that in the real world of war, supply lines are not always 100%, and readiness in relaxed times falls short.
But what seems to be happening here is that one side in this debate has made it a habit to cover for and offer apologetics for these shortfalls. That, I think, has had very real consequences for the war. It's given political cover to some people to essentially let the problems fester, and not take the risks and make the sacrifices necessary (like saying no to big military contractors, or recruiting a bigger army from the start) in order to improve the situation. The apologist's actions have created a bad situation for the soldiers, where a deficient supply chain is excused away as normal, and where alarm about problems is hushed up. These help to make our soldiers more vulnerable and in a much more material way than any discouraging words ever could. In an effort to fight the negative image of the war and battle a supposedly biased media, the disconnect the war supporters are creating may ironically lead to further defeats of America's armed forces and foreign policy.
This is one of the more pernicious ideas floating through the right-side commentary of late, that criticizing the war's leadership is aiding the enemy and not supporting the troops. Now, in fact, in a democracy, nothing could be further from the truth.
Certain kinds of criticism can always be destructive, but this generally results from the nature of that particular criticism. The best recent example is the Move-on.org ad that basically called Gen. Petraeus a "betray-us." In plain English, name-calling. That's rarely constructive under any circumstances.
But pointing out flaws in strategy, logistics, planning, leadership, policy and the like is legitimate. In every prior American war there's always been healthy debate over these kinds of issues. Scandals over war profiteers, bad equipment being sent to the troops, inadequate leadership or poor strategy have been a staple of democratic warfighting since Thucydides. It's not disloyalty to want our side to benefit from the best possible leadership, equipment, doctrine and strategy. It's common sense.
One of the worst aspects of Bush's war leadership has been his absolute unwillingness to hold anyone accountable, ever, for failure. The only failure that brings swift retribution is a failure to toe the party line and actually express some doubts about an administration policy. But actual, operational failure is tolerated, excused and defended.
Is it a surprise that things have gone better since Gates took over from Rumsfeld? Couldn't some of that success come much earlier if Bush had demanded success and fired people to get it? How many generals did Lincoln go through before he found his Grant? Getting fired comes with the territory when you're a military officer. Often it's not fair. But war is not about being fair, it's about winning. And you win by having the right leadership. The experience of history is that you usually have to fire quite a few before you find the leaders with the right talent to fight the war you're in.
Being unwilling to do that is itself a profound failure of leadership.
there are a lot of people who believe the Rush Limbaugh line that any soldier who comes back critical of the war is a phony soldier. This has been an unfortunate pattern. When that guy asked the question about the Hillbilly armor, the right immediately used the fact that he had worked with a reporter about shaping the question as evidence that the soldier was a dupe of one of those biased members of the liberal press, rather than come right out and face the music on what was a very real shortfall.
Hell, I remember there being a story earlier in the year about the improvised measures. I can understand that in the real world of war, supply lines are not always 100%, and readiness in relaxed times falls short.
But what seems to be happening here is that one side in this debate has made it a habit to cover for and offer apologetics for these shortfalls. That, I think, has had very real consequences for the war. It's given political cover to some people to essentially let the problems fester, and not take the risks and make the sacrifices necessary (like saying no to big military contractors, or recruiting a bigger army from the start) in order to improve the situation. The apologist's actions have created a bad situation for the soldiers, where a deficient supply chain is excused away as normal, and where alarm about problems is hushed up. These help to make our soldiers more vulnerable and in a much more material way than any discouraging words ever could. In an effort to fight the negative image of the war and battle a supposedly biased media, the disconnect the war supporters are creating may ironically lead to further defeats of America's armed forces and foreign policy.
This is one of the more pernicious ideas floating through the right-side commentary of late, that criticizing the war's leadership is aiding the enemy and not supporting the troops. Now, in fact, in a democracy, nothing could be further from the truth.
Certain kinds of criticism can always be destructive, but this generally results from the nature of that particular criticism. The best recent example is the Move-on.org ad that basically called Gen. Petraeus a "betray-us." In plain English, name-calling. That's rarely constructive under any circumstances.
But pointing out flaws in strategy, logistics, planning, leadership, policy and the like is legitimate. In every prior American war there's always been healthy debate over these kinds of issues. Scandals over war profiteers, bad equipment being sent to the troops, inadequate leadership or poor strategy have been a staple of democratic warfighting since Thucydides. It's not disloyalty to want our side to benefit from the best possible leadership, equipment, doctrine and strategy. It's common sense.
One of the worst aspects of Bush's war leadership has been his absolute unwillingness to hold anyone accountable, ever, for failure. The only failure that brings swift retribution is a failure to toe the party line and actually express some doubts about an administration policy. But actual, operational failure is tolerated, excused and defended.
Is it a surprise that things have gone better since Gates took over from Rumsfeld? Couldn't some of that success come much earlier if Bush had demanded success and fired people to get it? How many generals did Lincoln go through before he found his Grant? Getting fired comes with the territory when you're a military officer. Often it's not fair. But war is not about being fair, it's about winning. And you win by having the right leadership. The experience of history is that you usually have to fire quite a few before you find the leaders with the right talent to fight the war you're in.
Being unwilling to do that is itself a profound failure of leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
