The link: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060508ta_talk_packer
Gosh wants me to comment on this article...
I think my initial reaction to it is to note that LBJ had a panel of “Wise Men” who he went to for advice on Vietnam. These Wise Men “had always told him that he should stand firm.” Then, eventually, they lost faith and started telling him to get out. To me, it sounds like they gave bad advice, and then when we were fully enmeshed in the Vietnam war, they gave even more bad advice. Based on the outcome, I'd say we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam, but since we did, we should have made sure we won. These “Wise Men” managed to get both wrong. Somehow, Packer intends this to be a recommendation for Wise Men, but it makes me wonder what exactly the value of them is.
I don't really get it, honestly. Democrats are strange around Vietnam. They bring it up constantly, like it's some sort of point of pride for them. Somehow, they've managed to spin Vietnam into “Nixon's War” even though it was really JFK and LBJ's war. My Dad thinks they're just being responsible and cautioning the nation about repeating the same mistakes, but I don't know. They seem to really think Vietnam is a winner for them, that even mentioning it casts them in a favorable light. Packer seems to be doing more of this in the intro to his article... He's demonstrating the value of listening to suggestions by mentioning people whose suggestions turned out to be uniformly wrong.
As far as the rest of the article goes, it's not terribly offensive to me, but it is based in a lot of negative and typically liberal assumptions. The war is a disaster, it's Rumsfeld's fault, Bush never listens, here's an anecdote to prove it... It's a bit tired. As I've already said, I think that the situation is upsetting, but also progressing. I think a lot of supporters of the war, myself included, had an overly optimistic view of the Iraqi people's desire to not live in a world of violence, but I haven't given up hope that the right people will find the voice needed to bring Iraq out of their current infighting. Since this depends on strong leadership from within the Iraqi population, I really don't think there's a ton we can do to help them, besides fight fires and patch up the wounded.
This quote I did find a little ridiculous:
Last week, in California, he described his policymaking process in unmistakably clear terms. “I base a lot of my foreign-policy decisions on some things that I think are true,” he said. “One, I believe there’s an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.” It seems that unless God himself gains entry to the West Wing and informs the President that the Iraqis’ desire to be free is not the issue, a grandiose theology will continue to doom America and Iraq to a bloody stalemate.
It never ceases to amaze me when people get all upset that the President, figurehead of the state, is making vague, figurehead-ish statements. He may be saying that when he's behind the podium, but do we really think he's in meetings, asking his Generals if they've seen the Almighty lately, and if they did, was he gifting Iraqis with a love of freedom at the time? You probably do, I guess. But I don't. I think he's got smart people running things for him, and I think they've got more plans in motion than just sitting back and praying.
As far as Kerry is concerned, I take nothing the man says seriously. He has absolutely no opinions of his own, everything he says is some sort of focus group survey, parsed down and regurgitated as if it was his own. Punishing the Iraqis for not forming a government when on our deadline is petulant and ridiculous.
Biden's suggestion is better, but also very easy. As Hussain has pointed out, he's basically just trying to repeat Bosnia in Iraq. Bosnia is the only major success the UN (i.e. the US) has ever had in global peacemaking. As a result, it's the first thing that comes to mind when they see anybody shooting anybody else. The formation of autonomous regions worked relatively well in Bosnia. I'm not sure it'd work as well in Iraq, with the populations as mixed as they are. It's not a terrible idea, but it is a bit of an odd time to suggest it, and it's unclear who Biden is suggesting it to. If he's suggesting it to Iraq (and he's not), that's fine, but he's suggesting we make them do it. Is it really appropriate for the US to come in, again, and say “ok, you guys need to give up with what you're doing, and try something else.”
In the end, articles like this don't really prove to me that Bush had the wrong plans in place for the war. That's what they think they're proving, but they're not. What I see here, is that Bush failed to win support for the war, and make America believe in it. I don't think we need more troops. I don't think Rumsfeld is a fuckup. I think the major problem here is that the nation isn't behind the war, the nation hasn't been made to understand the importance of American strength around the world, and the nation hasn't been made to feel good about helping other nations out from under dictators. They think it's a sham, and that's a shame.
First and foremost, the blame for this failure has to be laid at the feet of GWB. However, I think the task may have been insurmountable, given the degree of petty partisanship in Washington right now, and the media's desire to play up that partisan divide, to stoke the flames, and to generally make the nation is negative and untrusting as possible. Honestly, I think that all this blame that GWB is absorbing is the nation scapegoating him for their own weakness of character and resolve. We're a bunch of squabbling infants, and while Bush certainly didn't do much to stop us, we shouldn't excuse ourselves from blame.