[Rhodes22-list] Re: Rhodes22-list Digest, Vol 564, Issue 1

Tue Oct 26 07:36:40 EDT 2004

Forgive me for leaning on the Wall Street Journal once
again, but they answered your point so well it would
be difficult to improve on.  From today's edition:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK  

War and 'Competence'
October 26, 2004; Page A24

A week before Election Day, John Kerry and his allies
have once again changed their line of attack on Iraq.
The issue isn't any longer whether we should have
fought the war at all ("wrong war, wrong place, wrong
time"), it is that the Senator would fight it with
more "competence."

The peg for this line is yesterday's story that a
stockpile of explosives was stolen from under the
Coalition's nose in Iraq. This is certainly bad news
and looks like a blunder. But what is it precisely
that the Kerry campaign is asserting? That if it were
running the war, mistakes would never be made? That
amid the fog of war, and facing a determined enemy,
nothing bad ever happens?

Implicit in this accusation is the assumption that the
Bush Administration has faced a series of easy
decisions in Iraq, and somehow blown them all. Come to
think of it, this has been a staple of the criticism
from all of those sunshine hawks, such as Mr. Kerry,
who supported the war before it began but have since
had second thoughts. Toppling Saddam Hussein seemed
like a good idea at the time, but the Bush
Administration messed it up by not heeding their sound
counsel.

Yet who ever said war is easy? On the eve of the war,
in 2003, we wrote that "the law of unintended
consequences has not been repealed, no war ever goes
precisely as planned" and that "toppling Saddam is a
long-term undertaking." We had no doubt that the
American people had the staying power to win, but our
main concern was "whether Americans can generate the
political consensus to sustain involvement in Iraq."
Alas, that worry has been borne out by Monday-morning
four-stars on both the left and right.

Certainly the Bush Administration has made mistakes,
as these columns have noted along the way. The CIA
failed to anticipate the Baathist strategy of yielding
the war conventionally in order to wage it later
unconventionally. Stopping the Marine advance in
Fallujah last April sent a message of hesitation that
is only now being corrected. Muqtada al-Sadr's career
ought to have been ended when he was an upstart; today
he's an untouchable. The political handover should
have happened much sooner than it did, and we should
have trained more Iraqis to fight by our side before
the war. And so on.

Yet to acknowledge these blunders in hindsight doesn't
mean anyone else would have done better. From the
decision to disband the Iraqi army, through the
complex negotiations over the Iraqi Constitution, to
the calibration of force employed in Najaf, the
Administration has faced one hard call after another.
We know now of the consequences of those calls, good
and bad, but how certain are we that the alternatives
would have turned out better?

Also welcome would be a bit of historical perspective.
Prior to September 11, Americans had grown accustomed
to swift and certain victories in places like Panama,
Kuwait and Kosovo. The brilliant campaign in
Afghanistan also posed some difficult choices --
topple the Taliban, join with the often unsavory
Northern Alliance? -- that were fiercely argued at the
time. But because they turned out well, Mr. Kerry is
able to say in hindsight that that is the kind of war
he likes.

The truth is that war is nearly always a
trial-and-error business in which bad decisions and
failure tend to precede good ones -- and victory.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln hired, then
cashiered, Generals Scott, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker
and Meade before settling on Grant. That took about
two years, during which the catastrophes of Bull Run
(Union casualties: 2,896), Fredricksburg (13,353) and
Chancellorsville (18,400) intervened. How's that for
poor Presidential personnel choices leading to
unnecessary loss of life?

Or consider the Allied campaign in Europe during World
War II. This too contained its share of squandered
opportunities (the failure to seal the Falaise Gap,
through which the bulk of the German Army escaped
France in August 1944), fiascoes (Operation Market
Garden of "A Bridge Too Far" fame) and costly
diversions (the invasion of Italy). By these
historical benchmarks, the Bush Administration has
done reasonably well in Iraq.

Throughout much of 2003, a sufficient fraction of
America's liberal elite concurred in the
Administration's view that the choice America faced in
Iraq was between Saddam Hussein's eventual
rehabilitation or his destruction, and that the first
option was intolerable. They further agreed that the
goal of a free and moderate Iraq was both attainable
and essential if America was to prevail in the overall
war on terror.

Not much more than a year later, this pro-war liberal
elite has broken with that earlier consensus, much as
the liberal elite that initially supported the Vietnam
War headed for the tall grass as the going got tough
after 1965. This time the excuse is competence -- as
if competence, in the absence of political will, can
win this or any other kind of war. In their support
for Mr. Kerry, they apparently see a modern-day
version Richard Nixon, circa 1968, a man who isn't
saddled by his predecessor's mistakes and who will
fight "a better war."

But in order to win a war, you have to have the vision
and determination to fight it despite setbacks and
political difficulties. Americans should be wary of
politicians who promise more "competent" leadership in
a war that those same politicians say they'd rather
not fight.

--- P&M Beals <beals at rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:

> Thank you. It's sad (the reminders of 911) to see
> the truth stated, but I
> think you have made a powerful, clear argument. 
> With your permission I am
> sending a copy of it to my relations some of whom
> lean toward Bush out in
> Az., Wa., Fl. and elsewhere- maybe it will do some
> good, and help a few
> people to wake up.
> 
> How does anyone feel confidence in George W Bush?  I
> don't get it!
> 
> Phyllis 
> Whisper 
> New Jersey
> 
> > From: Loumoore at aol.com
> > Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:28:46 EDT
> > To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Re: Rhodes22-list Digest,
> Vol 564, Issue 1
> > 
> > Ok I can't resist a few political comments,
> especially for my friends in
> > swing states who did not experience the blow of
> 9/11 directly.
> > 
> > President Bush declared today that Senator Kerry
> still has not grasped the
> > signifance of the war in Iraq as a campaign
> against terror.  Bush insists that
> > in fighting the war in Iraq we are actually
> fighting terrorists on the front
> > lines who have come to that country to wage war on
> our troups.  I am confused.
> > 
> > Is the president now suggesting that it is a
> positive development that Iraq
> > has become a breeding ground and magnet for
> terrorists?
> > 
> > I also read today that nearly 400 tons of
> extremely dangerous and powerful
> > explosives that should have been guarded have
> vanished.  It seems that in the
> > "new Iraq" terrorists go in and dangerous weapons
> go out through unmonitored
> > borders
> > 
> > Meanwhile recent reports indicate that Saudi
> Arabian citizens continue to
> > supply the insurgency in Iraq with funds.
> > 
> > Three weeks before I was married I saw the Towers
> burn and collaspe from near
> > my home town.  My best friend just made it out of
> the World Financial Center
> > before the South Tower came down.  My wife's best
> friend lost her cousin in
> > the North Tower.  The children of two close
> friends have served or are serving
> > in Iraq.  Almost everyone I know has been directly
> affected by 9/11.  If you
> > did not see the aftermath in NYC firsthand, you
> only grasped 1 percent of the
> > blow it had on the people living here.  I will
> never forget it.
> > 
> > Here is my point:
> > 
> > If Bush's leadership on terrorism and national
> security has inspired so much
> > confidence, why are New Yorkers and New Jerseyans,
> the two states hit hardest
> > by the terrorists, decisively rejecting his flawed
> leadership?
> > 
> > I guess if I lived in Norman, Oklahoma, I would
> feel confident about the
> > president's ability to lead and protect the nation
> from the enemy.  Fifteen
> > miles 
> > away from ground zero, I have absolutely zero
> confidence in Bush's ability to
> > protect my country and my family and bring justice
> to our enemies.
> > 
> > As a proud member of a navy family, I will vote
> with great enthusiasm for
> > John Kerry.
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> > 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail