dagblog - Comments for "Ten Years After Iraq: Top-Down Leadership"

As it has not been mentioned

moat — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:54:10 +0000

In reply to Ten Years After Iraq: Top-Down Leadership

As it has not been mentioned yet, let us remember that the administration of the Iraq war was a clusterfuck.

The infighting between the Departments and Agencies responsible for their part in the operations not only pettifogged the halls of power in the U.S. but played out on the battlefield, consuming many lives.

The element of managerial incoherence, without regard to the other politics involved but without dismissing their importance, will piss me off until I die.

It was less top-down and more bottoms-up.

I see the U.S.

acanuck — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:41:02 +0000

In reply to "the American military

I see the U.S. military-industrial complex as the world's biggest, greediest vertically integrated mega-corporation -- with the actual armed forces as the subsidiary that tests every overpriced toy it rolls out to destruction, then orders newer models (with big colored buttons that light up) after the old stuff gets blown up.

I never tire of reminding people that when Eisenhower made his speech warning against the military-industrial complex, one original draft read "military-industrial-congressional complex." Aides talked him into fudging the text.

"the American military

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:27:39 +0000

In reply to Solid post, doc. I suppose

"the American military armaments industry is a hungry beast, and it needs meat and tons of cash"

Fixed that for you.

Thanks, historiann. Sorry if

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:43:44 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the link & for

Thanks, historiann. Sorry if you had trouble posting your comment.

The article you cite is

NCD — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:55:53 +0000

In reply to 'The people supported me all

The article you cite is talking about voters and politics, Ferenccz is talking about dispensing justice for war crimes.

Solid post, doc. I suppose

acanuck — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:09:38 +0000

In reply to Ten Years After Iraq: Top-Down Leadership

Solid post, doc. I suppose the anniversary is a good time to revisit the marketing of the Iraq War, but it hurts my head and churns my gut when I think how little has been learned. That string of wars hasn't yet ended, and the same bunch of warmongering losers are sallivating about the next one.

A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz, over at In the News, makes a good companion piece to your post. The long comment (on the actual Bacevich letter) by a guy named Johnston is thought-provoking.

It's interesting to dissect why and how the U.S. went to war in 2003, but the bigger question is why war is the default option for U.S. foreign policy. The question answers itself. You're a handyman who has collected a workshop full of top-of-the-line, expensive power tools. Every now and then, the wife will wonder aloud why you still haven't put up those bathroom shelves. So off you go. Having a ridiculously massive military is itself an incentive to use it. Again and again.

For some reason, the obscure, near-forgotten 1983 invasion of tiny Grenada (pop: 19,000) comes to mind. A coup had just installed a leftist government. The government it deposed was a leftist government that had also taken power by a coup. But never mind.

Ronald Reagan cited three rationales for invading: Grenada's close ties to the Soviet Union and Cuba, its construction of an airport that could accommodate big Russian military planes, and the danger to Americans studying on the island. All totally bogus: the overthrown (and murdered) prime minister had also been friendly with Cuba and the Soviets; the new airport was designed to take tourist jumbo jets the existing field could not; and the students were in no danger until the U.S. troops landed (and not even then).

In passing, the longer airstrip was being designed and built, not by Commie troops, but by Canadians. (A fine distinction, I admit.) Coincidentally, the Grenada invasion came just days after the Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up, as intervention followed failed intervention.

The list, long and dispiriting, goes on: Haiti, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen. In some cases, there are no U.S. boots on the ground, just drones in the air or funding and arms for insurgents. And in some, rationalizations can be found for why the policy is justified and necessary. But the bottom line is that the American military is a hungry beast, and it needs meat.

Thanks for the link & for

Historiann — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:27:52 +0000

In reply to Ten Years After Iraq: Top-Down Leadership

Thanks for the link & for your excellent analysis. I completely agree that we are under the sway of demonstrably poor but charismatic leadership everywhere in the U.S., even in our universities. The Underpants Gnome theory of national security/moneymaking/university leadership is so much more fun to believe in than policies that would actually work but are far more complicated and require much more work and time.

Speaking of which, evidently

Verified Atheist — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:10:30 +0000

In reply to Not an apologist, mon ami,

Speaking of which, evidently Napoleon did not suffer from a Napoleon complex. At 5'7", he was slightly taller than average for his time.

Exactly, they were complicit

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:51:26 +0000

In reply to I had no intention of

Exactly, they were complicit and if they didn't know what was about to happen they were also incredibly naive. Nice blog Doc, nice blog.

Sadly, if there had been a

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:34:34 +0000

In reply to But the Resolution said he

Sadly, if there had been a requirement to go back to Congress to do any attacks, Hussein would have likely relied on that extra cycle to slow down compliance. I do think having a crazy cowboy raring to go made Hussein compliant. Unfortunately, we didn't rein the cowboy in. But again, blame the Republicans who controlled that process in Congress - they weren't exactly asking Democrats' opinion at the time, too busy accusing them of treason and being soft on terror.