Choice 1:
If you've had your fill of bad news from Iraq, Sullivan links to two reasons to be be optimistic: U.S. Forces Move Into Stronghold Of Cleric and G.I.'s Report Killing 36 Insurgents Around Kufa Mosque That Held Arms (kinda like a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical, isn't it? Gee Golly, that is Good News!)
Honestly, I think it's gonna be a horse race to the June 30 finish line with CalmInTheStreets barely a nose ahead of BubblingTurmoil (if we're lucky), but regardless, I predict after that violence in Iraq will continue until another ruthless dictator rises to instill enough fear to control things. The constitution doing as much to ensure domestic tranquility there as it has in Afghanistan. Hope I'm wrong, but don't see any reason to suspect I am at this point.
Choice 2:
Retired General Anthony Zinni appeared on 60 Minutes last night flogging his soon-to-be-released book "Battle Ready" (co-written by Tom Clancy, no less). His interview provided a hint of what to expect in the book:
"There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.
Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq.
In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."
“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”
And more:
Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested.”
Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.”
Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.
“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”
I have said it before, and I will say it again; I have never seen such after-the-fact complaining and parsing. ( Was I correct in using the semi-colon there? I never know.)
Like any large project, the occupation in Iraq has been difficult and has showcased some bad decisions. Was it supposed to go swimmingly?
I had thought that it was to be a "long, hard slog". Is it not so?
Posted by: Nathan S. | May 24, 2004 at 09:06 PM
I had thought that it was to be a "long, hard slog". Is it not so?
I can't speak for Edward, but my problem with the "long, hard slog" is that the Bush Administration did wonders with the pretty, shiny rhetoric of sacrifice, but AFAICT came up absolutely empty when it came to tangible sacrifices that would need to be made. It could just be that I missed the speech, however, so I'd like to ask those better-informed on this matter than I:
Has Bush ever publicly called for a specific, material sacrifice on the part of the American people in the pursuit of the War on Terror or the War on Iraq?
I'm not talking about vague notions of "staying the course" or over-generalized handwaves to "a long hard slog" (nor even to talk of "blood and treasure" which has to be the most insipidly melodramatic phrase I've yet heard); I'm looking for specific, nuts-and-bolts types of things, especially those which affect all Americans and not just those which impact a particular demographic or interest group. Examples would include raising taxes, cutting all-encompassing programs (e.g. Medicare, SocSec), limiting gasoline usage, and the like.
[Note that I'm looking for a public declaration of these policies, not his usual underhanded method of talking up the importance of a program while quietly slashing its budget.]
My suspicion, incidentally, is that the only sacrifices he's explicitly asked for are cutting programs that he had already (i.e. pre-9/11) wanted to cut. In particular, I'm guessing that he's asked very little in the way of tangible sacrifices from his (non-military) base, which would tend to cast some doubt on the seriousness of his neo-millenial rhetoric.
Posted by: Anarch | May 24, 2004 at 09:32 PM
As I understand it, Anarch, the point of cutting taxes was to grow the economy faster than otherwise and, subsequently, to enrich government and individuals so as to pay for such things as war in the Middle East, hip replacements, and Furbies.
So, I would say, one cannot fault President Bush, in spirit, for not demanding sacrifice in other areas as he thought that his actions would ultimately do more good. One could fault him in effect, I suppose, if his expectations do not come to pass.
I say this in the expectation that one faults him for incompetence, and not malice. Against the latter, I can hardly argue. It is more a construct of one's mind than reality.
And, I must say that criticizing President Bush for insufficently funding government programs is like criticizing me for drinking too little. Both are hardly accurate.
Posted by: Nathan S. | May 24, 2004 at 10:00 PM
As I understand it, Anarch, the point of cutting taxes was to grow the economy faster than otherwise and, subsequently, to enrich government and individuals so as to pay for such things as war in the Middle East, hip replacements, and Furbies.
I'm aware of the theory, though I would say (contra your following remarks) that, in the specific instance of tax cuts, one can fault him if his desired policy remains constant regardless of external circumstances.
So, I would say, one cannot fault President Bush, in spirit, for not demanding sacrifice in other areas as he thought that his actions would ultimately do more good.
In a limited sense, you are correct. [My larger dispute is noted above.] I'm curious, though: while you've given Bush's rationale for the tax cuts -- and one which, I believe, defends him from criticism if you accept the premise -- you haven't actually put forth any concrete sacrifices asked by Bush of the American people. Which was sort of the point of my post: if he seems to think that no specific sacrifices are a good idea, why does he persist in using the language of sacrifice?
Added in proof: There's one key exception, of course, namely the military. What interests me is whether Bush is asking specific sacrifices of the citizenry as a whole.
I say this in the expectation that one faults him for incompetence, and not malice. Against the latter, I can hardly argue. It is more a construct of one's mind than reality.
Please don't use the pronoun "one" when you mean "you". I'm currently the only other participant in this discussion, you're addressing me, and you're explicitly responding to points I made. It's quite confusing to read an abstracted argument only to realize that it's not abtract and that you are the specific referent.
[Yes, I'm aware of the Briticism. Since you've yet to employ it elsewhere, though, I'm going to assume this was an aberration.]
And, I must say that criticizing President Bush for insufficently funding government programs is like criticizing me for drinking too little. Both are hardly accurate.
You may not be a teetotaller, but Bush has indeed insufficiently funded, or attempted to insufficiently fund, a number of government programs:
From recent times...
From earlier times...
The fact is that he's conspicuously increased funding to some programs (e.g. Medicare) and conspicuously claimed to increase funding while cutting, or attempting to cut, others (e.g. COPS, health programs).
The above is, however, relevant to my original question only in its phrasing: does anyone know of any sacrifices that Bush has publicly asked of the American people as a whole?
Posted by: Anarch | May 24, 2004 at 11:02 PM
Anarch,
I will have to answer your comment in parts.
Point the first! As I understand it, the Yankee economy is growing fairly well. You will have to consult another if you wish to argue economics. (IANAE)
Point the second! I believe that he talks in sacrifice of lives, not dollars. Although, I am not absolutely sure as to what you are referring to. And, of course, the citizenry supplies the military.
I am afraid that, being a lowly engineer, ( and, despite my love for Her Majesty) I am not aquainted with "Briticisms". You will have to inform me as to what you are talking about. I will only say that, at times, I am addressing Mr. Underscore, as well as yourself.
And, I will answer your final question with this. He has asked for their lives. What else can they give?
Posted by: Nathan S. | May 25, 2004 at 12:17 AM
Point the second! I believe that he talks in sacrifice of lives, not dollars. Although, I am not absolutely sure as to what you are referring to. And, of course, the citizenry supplies the military.
He's asking the military to sacrifice their lives. He has not asked any comparable sacrifice of the general citizenry. Though military is derived from the general citizenry, the two are fundamentally distinct.
I am afraid that, being a lowly engineer, ( and, despite my love for Her Majesty) I am not aquainted with "Briticisms". You will have to inform me as to what you are talking about. I will only say that, at times, I am addressing Mr. Underscore, as well as yourself.
A "Briticism" is an idiom particular to British English, the equivalent of an Americanism. Rather than delve into this further, let's just say there was a misunderstanding and move on :)
And, I will answer your final question with this. He has asked for their lives. What else can they give?
"Their" lives, yes: the lives of those in the military. He hasn't asked for my life. He hasn't asked for your life. More generally, he hasn't asked for the life of anyone not in uniform. He hasn't, as far as I know, even asked any material sacrifice -- economic, physical, whatever -- on the part of the general citizenry; but that doesn't appear to stop him from using the language of sacrifice in his speeches. So (last time): what specific, tangible sacrifices has Bush asked of the general citizenry to support this "long, hard slog"?
I'll forbear any further response until other people join our little party, since I don't want to suck up ObWi's bandwidth without cause :)
Posted by: Anarch | May 25, 2004 at 01:23 AM