A Discussion at Belmont Club
GMAT:The fact is, four years after 9/11, it is still more dangerous, even in Iraq, let alone the rest of the arab world, to be pro-American than to be anti-american.
Me: It strikes me that the level of pro- and anti-Americanism is not a good metric by which to judge our war strategy. We are not waging war to be liked, a common misperception.
Infinitely more important is whether Iraqis feel it more in their interest to be pro-Government or pro-Insurgent. In that regard, we are winning decisively.
GMAT: I'm more concerned about the inversions of those actually leading (if you can call it that) the so-called Global War on Terror.
Whatever you want to call it, it is a necessary war that we are winning. While Bush could do better at explaining the war to the public, I find it intellectually unattractive to say we are not being led. Everything that has happened in the last four years is unprecedented--historically shocking, in fact. While it may be a travesty to have to partially disrobe to ensure your safety on board a flying missile, I must note that while you have been taking off your shoes we have conquered the unconquerable Afghanistan, eliminated over 600 Al'Qaeda leadership (80%), stabilized an ungovernable Balisan (Philippines, the other half of Enduring Freedom), are training armies in the Horn of Africa to defeat the terrorists, dismantled Baathist Iraq, arrested Saddam Hussein and killed his sons, held the first ever free elections in the Arab world, dismantled the nuclear blackmarket run out of Pakistan, shut down Libya's WMD program, held firm in Ukraine, demanded and got Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, boxed in Iran, marginalized Assad, oversaw the Iraqi Constitution, opened schools for girls in Afghanistan, and did all this with only 2,000 combat deaths worldwide.
Don't confuse leadership with oratory. Our generals and our President are doing a fine job on the war, even if they stumble fighting the war on the war. For better or worse we seem to be putting all our faith in propaganda by deed. In an age of language inversion and adverse press, why not?
So, I'm sorry about your shoes, but let's keep some perspective here. We are winning, and winning decisively.
GMAT: Winning decisively? Your list was most impressive. After two tours in Vietnam, I could have produced an equally impressive list of our accomplishments.
However, it's a poor substitute for clearly expressed war aims, the accomplishment of which are measurable, define victory, and mark the end of extraordinary executive war powers.
Angelo Codevilla on Victory: "Common sense does not mistake the difference between victory and defeat: the losers weep and cower, while the winners strut and rejoice. The losers have to change their ways, the winners feel more secure than ever in theirs."
Me: I don't deny that the public front is important, but the stakes are much higher now than in Vietnam, and in many ways speak for themselves. I think it was Wretchard who commented on an earlier thread that the reason we don't hear of a real push to withdraw is that nobody wants to be responsible for the inevitable chaos that would follow. Having an Al'Qaeda victory hanging around ones neck is not a good way to get elected.
But I wonder if we are not imposing our will more than you think. If we have changed the way we do business since 9/11, it is in the other direction: we are now more assertive internationally than ever before. Historians may write about the irony of our situation, because in the last four years our global power and credibility have actually increased, immensely in fact, even while our image has taken a beating. We have truly become a global colossus, gaining footprints in Central Asia and the Middle East while at the same time cementing our role as the arbiter of world affairs. We see this role in almost all situations, from Palestine/Israel to EU/Iran. Progress on all these fronts is impossible without a US stamp of approval, and, much more importantly, so is conflict.
China, with the North Korea situation, has a play to check that influence if they succeed in solving the nuke problem when we couldn't, but the damage is already done to their West. The war in the Balkans and Afghanistan, the deal with India, our bases in the 'Stans and our influence in Mongolia are new additions to our power structure, unprecedented global gains in so short a time.
Your concerns over Bush's inability to clearly expressing war aims are well taken, but I wonder if expressing our true intentions--global pacification--is better left unsaid, or at least better left implied. We may be talking softly, but our stick has become legendary.
Me: It strikes me that the level of pro- and anti-Americanism is not a good metric by which to judge our war strategy. We are not waging war to be liked, a common misperception.
Infinitely more important is whether Iraqis feel it more in their interest to be pro-Government or pro-Insurgent. In that regard, we are winning decisively.
GMAT: I'm more concerned about the inversions of those actually leading (if you can call it that) the so-called Global War on Terror.
Whatever you want to call it, it is a necessary war that we are winning. While Bush could do better at explaining the war to the public, I find it intellectually unattractive to say we are not being led. Everything that has happened in the last four years is unprecedented--historically shocking, in fact. While it may be a travesty to have to partially disrobe to ensure your safety on board a flying missile, I must note that while you have been taking off your shoes we have conquered the unconquerable Afghanistan, eliminated over 600 Al'Qaeda leadership (80%), stabilized an ungovernable Balisan (Philippines, the other half of Enduring Freedom), are training armies in the Horn of Africa to defeat the terrorists, dismantled Baathist Iraq, arrested Saddam Hussein and killed his sons, held the first ever free elections in the Arab world, dismantled the nuclear blackmarket run out of Pakistan, shut down Libya's WMD program, held firm in Ukraine, demanded and got Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, boxed in Iran, marginalized Assad, oversaw the Iraqi Constitution, opened schools for girls in Afghanistan, and did all this with only 2,000 combat deaths worldwide.
Don't confuse leadership with oratory. Our generals and our President are doing a fine job on the war, even if they stumble fighting the war on the war. For better or worse we seem to be putting all our faith in propaganda by deed. In an age of language inversion and adverse press, why not?
So, I'm sorry about your shoes, but let's keep some perspective here. We are winning, and winning decisively.
GMAT: Winning decisively? Your list was most impressive. After two tours in Vietnam, I could have produced an equally impressive list of our accomplishments.
However, it's a poor substitute for clearly expressed war aims, the accomplishment of which are measurable, define victory, and mark the end of extraordinary executive war powers.
Angelo Codevilla on Victory: "Common sense does not mistake the difference between victory and defeat: the losers weep and cower, while the winners strut and rejoice. The losers have to change their ways, the winners feel more secure than ever in theirs."
Me: I don't deny that the public front is important, but the stakes are much higher now than in Vietnam, and in many ways speak for themselves. I think it was Wretchard who commented on an earlier thread that the reason we don't hear of a real push to withdraw is that nobody wants to be responsible for the inevitable chaos that would follow. Having an Al'Qaeda victory hanging around ones neck is not a good way to get elected.
But I wonder if we are not imposing our will more than you think. If we have changed the way we do business since 9/11, it is in the other direction: we are now more assertive internationally than ever before. Historians may write about the irony of our situation, because in the last four years our global power and credibility have actually increased, immensely in fact, even while our image has taken a beating. We have truly become a global colossus, gaining footprints in Central Asia and the Middle East while at the same time cementing our role as the arbiter of world affairs. We see this role in almost all situations, from Palestine/Israel to EU/Iran. Progress on all these fronts is impossible without a US stamp of approval, and, much more importantly, so is conflict.
China, with the North Korea situation, has a play to check that influence if they succeed in solving the nuke problem when we couldn't, but the damage is already done to their West. The war in the Balkans and Afghanistan, the deal with India, our bases in the 'Stans and our influence in Mongolia are new additions to our power structure, unprecedented global gains in so short a time.
Your concerns over Bush's inability to clearly expressing war aims are well taken, but I wonder if expressing our true intentions--global pacification--is better left unsaid, or at least better left implied. We may be talking softly, but our stick has become legendary.
posted by John Aristides at 11:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home