The US, The UN and Iraq

Ah yes --Pfizer and the big "V"

If the big "V" is what's turning Blatham blue, I'd say without any medical credentials to lower the dose.

Naw, his blue blood just took over his epidermis. c.i.

I was afraid that paragraph would be misunderstood. I should have been more careful in how the point was made. Perceptions has frequently asserted that no American casualties ought be taken in any conflict (perhaps I'm overstating his position there, though that's the impression I've had), especially within the Korean Theater. The explicit position seems to have been that smart weapons, advanced technology and superior air power means that wars can now be waged without incurring friendly casualties. Implicit to Perception's remarks is that if any American operation results in American casualties, then Command is either incompetent, or desires a casualty count to prove how glorious war can be. Perception is not alone in holding those opinions that, I believe, are so patently wrong.

My intention was not to hurt Perceptions feelings, and I do apologize for that, but to provoke anyone holding those opinions to step for a time into the shoes of a commander who put soldiers into Harm's Way. General Grant was called a butcher, but was arguably the best commander. Perception, and others who think of Grant as incompetent should spend a night with Grant, his bottle and the ghosts of Cold Harbor. Lee was not an incompetent, though he could seldom bring himself to discipline subordinates whose failures hurt his cause and it was Lee who sent troops to be slaughtered on Malvern Hill. Do you think that Lee didn't love his men, or was incompetent, or that he gloried in the loss of thousands? Be inside Ike's mind deciding whether the Normandy landings should go off on schedule. It is entirely too easy to condemn and second guess commanders. Military command requires men to kill those they love most. Most men can not do it, and the cost demanded of those who do shoulder that great responsibility is steep. Command is not easy, and those who can not should not.

Perception, can you order your dearest friend to die? If you can, then you have my greatest admiration and sympathy. If you can not, there is no shame in it. As I alluded to before, few military commanders are saints.

I'm disappointed that you seem to think that I somehow glorify war, and dying on the battlefield. I would think that my statements here, and elsewhere, would make it clear that I hate the effects of war more than almost anything.

I may be absent for a bit. Tomorrow is our last day with the grandchildren, and a son who probably will be involved in the evolving Korean crisis. We should be back at Corazon late on the 31st.

blatham,

I read the links you posted with interest. Together they encapsulate most of the anti U.S. viewpoint and rhetoric that has often dominated our dialogues with our former and present friends and allies, and, as well, the murmuring among the internationalist class of politicians and pontificators. The Anatol Lieven piece in particular expresses fully the view of those who view the U.S. as the new evil empire of the world, one animated by a dangerous and transcendent coalition of neo conservatives, Christians and Zionists, led by the evil genius of Dick Cheney, Dick Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, et. al.

Lieven doesn't hesitate to center his argument on ad hominem attacks and the rather outrageous presumption that he, perhaps alone, fully understands the deep thinking and inner motivations of both the principal actors in this movement and the broad classes of people who support them. That said, he presents a fairly complete and self-consistent body of thought & analysis, based as it is on the aforementioned unverified and unassailable propositions. (What would Carl Popper say!?).

If that is your view, I cannot argue with it - it is by definition beyond argument , one either accepts it or does not. I do not.

I can, however offer you an alternative view, one that recognizes the inevitable opposing views of the sole remaining (for the moment, historically speaking) dominant power and those of the nations that now find themselves less able to exert power through tilting this way and that in a struggle between two opposing giants. Of course other nations would have us be harnessed to their wishes (or to the least common denominator of what they, collectively, could agree to). And of course we would seek to preserve our own volition, and suddenly understanding that the last standing big guy on the block is no one's friend, despite all that has gone before, would resist the subtle attempts to cut us down to size. This is hardly an original or even unprecedented dilemma.

Please consider the possibility that a Kyoto treaty that (1) Imposed no restrictions whatever on the nations whose greenhouse gas emissions are growing at the highest rates in the world, and which in 20 years will eclipse those of North America ; (2) Imposed restrictions on western European nations which they had virtually already met through the unrelated abandonment of brown coal and shift to newly abundant natural gas, combined with a remarkably fortuitous choice of reference year just before this occurred; (3) Imposed truly severe restrictions on only one nation, the United States, ignoring our requests for a more comprehensive analysis of net contributions to atmospheric carbon; and (4) is based on uncertain science and truly flawed analysis of the relative risks involved; - would be soundly and decisively rejected by the sole victim of this intrusive "treaty" and that this rejection would be widely criticized by those who would be empowered by its acceptance.

I could make a compelling argument about the illusion and unwisdom inherent in the ICC and the bad behavior of some of its chief European advocates, but this post is already too long. Same goes for the treaties on inspection of biological facilities and the rest.

My point is that it isn't necessary to construct dark conspiracy theories to explain the growing rift between the U.S. and our European (and Canadian) "friends". A basic examination of the new situation in which we all find ourselves and a critical examination of the truly awful policy ideas that have lately emerged from the "international community" will do quite well indeed.

I do find the rather unqualified support of Israel on the part of the present U.S. administration a bit unsettling. However it differs from what proceeded it only in the candor with which it is articulated. Consider carefully the "deal" that Presidents Clinton and Barak offered Arafat in 1999. It was an utterly cynical call for the surrender of everything he has fought for over the years, dressed up in palpably false statements about 90% of the land and the like. I do hope that the Administration proves true to its expressed goal of two sovereign nations living side by side and that it will deal with this issue as it untangles the gordian knot of the Middle East. I don't know if this will occur, but I do know well enough not to trust in the benevolence and wisdom of the European powers that criticize us so vociferously.

I don't think Grant was a great commander, or even a particularly good one, until he reached Lt. General, and command of all Federal forces. It was at that point that his tenacity and his drive paid off for Lincoln's army. He was exactly the man Lincoln wanted--Lincoln had made a mantra of wanting to find a man who "understood the numbers." In his memoirs, it is possible to see that Grant fudged the facts a great deal, but it is also possible to see that he was willing to accept the casualties in order to end the war. And his soldiers appreciated it. Jackson's men would storm any position he ordered them to assault, because all common soldiers understand the equation of success--heavy casualties in the short term, if they lead to success, are warranted, because of the far greater casualties which are avoided in the long term. That is why a casual butcher with no regard for his troops' welfare such as Napoleon would still be loved by his men--he was successful, and all soldiers with any combat experience understand that success is the best armor they can wear. I wrote at AFUZZ once that i considered Lee one of the greatest campaigners that the USMA ever produced--and i then stated that his staff work was poor to non-existant, he would not enforce discipline on his higher-ranking subordinates, and that he was profligate of the lives of his men. Asherman has alluded to Malvern Hill. I would go further. Lee's objective was to catch Fitzjohn Porter's corps when it was separated from the rest of the Federal Army by the Chickahominy river. His plan would have had Powell Hill fixing Porter in place with his attack at Mechanicsvile, while Jackson, forming on the flank of Branch's brigade, swept down Beaver Dam Creek and smashed Porter to flinders. But Lee had sent faulty orders to Jackson. Jackson was not ordered to attack. Jackson was ordered to advance to Spring Green Church, making contact with Branch, and then advance from the headwaters of Beaver Dam Creek. Jackson did as he was ordered. The problem was that Lee's staff work was so faulty, that he was unaware that Spring Green Church is more than two miles from the headwaters of Beaver Dam Creek, and it appears that then, and for ever after, he was unaware that he had given Jackson no orders to attack. The last six days of the seven days were a useless slaughter--Gaine's Mills, Glendale, Savage Station, Malvern Hill--these were all useless slaughter, in that they caused more casualties than the Army of Northern Virginia could well afford, and they only marginally hurried along McClellan, who had paniced before the first gun had been fired. Yet Lee was idolized. This is more due to the apparent than the real success. It was also in large measure due to the skills of Jackson, who was able to execute Lee's grandiose schemes in the manner necessary for success. When Lee rode toward the skirmish line in the Wilderness in 1864, his legend was already so great that the soldier's reaction was frenzied. He was probably attempting suicide by combat, as Wolfe did at Quebec in 1759. The NCO's of the Texas Brigade through which he attempted to ride rushed to take the reins and pull him back, while the rank and file rushed forward with a fervor which had previously been lacking as the ANVa battered itself against Meade's Army.

This may all seem not to the point here, but i feel it is. The first point is that which Asherman is making. All commanders, who are not simply mediocre or incompetent, have been willing to sacrifice their men in the short run, in the attempt to attain the long-term success which will eventually assure their survival. This is as it should be, because wars cannot be won without many men, and in our age, women, going into harm's way. Die they will, and many may well be maimed. If their deaths and maimings are not to be in vain, then the sacrifice must result in success. And there, as the Bard said, is the rub. In the case of Lee, he has been virtually canonized, despite serious shortcomings which call into question his fitness to have exercised the command which was entrusted to him. For all of that, he was, in the military ethos of the South in that day, the man best suited to the job. Grant was not the man best suited to his task, i would say that Geo. Thomas was that man. But Grant was willing, and Thomas had already demurred once, and thereby disqualified himself for the position. Given that nobody more skillful was on offer, Grant was the best man available for the job. And, despite paying a butcher's bill which i consider to have been unnecessarily high, he succeeded--which won for him the affection from the Federal veterans which Confederate veterans accorded Lee.

So this becomes germaine by positing two questions. How will we be able to assess whether or not the price paid was too high? How will we know if we have attained the success which will justify the cost? Many who have written here in support of this war to come have posited that the Iraqis will be a walk-over. They may well be, although i am contemptuous of the assurance shown by the administration cheerleaders. I sincerely hope this will be the case. I personally feel that this war is completely unnecessary, and consider any casualties to be unacceptable on that basis. If i believed that this administration has the sense and the talent to achieve a lasting success from this war, i would believe casualties to be warranted. I have no such confidence in this crew. If we are so fortunate as to overrun the Iraqis without being obliged to fight a bloody and protracted street battle; if we are able to pacify that country with no more prospect for partisan action against us than has taken place in Afghanistan; and, finally, if in so doing, we remove a creditable threat, and do not engender a century of hatred and suicide attacks from the rest of the muslim world--then i would be willing to say it will have been worth it.

I remain unconvinced.

George

I think you dismiss the Lieven piece far too easily and sweepingly. but I tip my hat to you for wading in. The other link, to the NY Review article, makes a number of similar points and is by an American writer.

It is quite incorrect to characterize such analyses as something like knee-jerk dogmatic portrayals of America as "the new evil empire". It is now a matter of public record that plans for US hegemony exist and were composed by the folks noted in those pieces, heavily represented in this administration. To every other country in the world, that is not insignificant.

"Cutting the US down to size" is also a mischaracterization, as any criticism can be fit under that handy label, thus ignored. The US is as imperfect as Rome, Carthage, Brussels, the French and the British empires. Taking on the mantle of Big Guy carries with it a particular need to be unflinchingly honest about what is wrong with the Big Guy, because the consequences of wrongheaded policies and ideas will be pervasive and profound. All empires, and there is every reason to include the US here, ascend to that status riding upon a mix of appropriate self-regard and false mythologies. It isn't merely that the US is big which draws criticisms, it is that the US, like any state, messes up, being quite imperfect.

Likewise, the suggestion that the US has no friends (if I read you right here) is an exaggeration of incredible proportion. And it points to a defensiveness and resistance to criticism which is not merely blinding, but dangerous.

On Kyoto, fair enough, it's a tough tough question how to go about organizing something so complex. But on the other hand, this administrations own science council released a report several months ago which concluded that global warming is real, that will have severe consequences, and that human activity is the likely cause. The President's following day response was...Americans are good at coping. Much of Europe (and Canada) views America's behavior as regards the environment to be motivated by self interest (and special interest) and thus a danger to the whole planet. And on this view, I am fully in agreement. Our addiction to cheap oil and our intransigence in pushing for consumption reductions and alternative sources of energy is inexcusable in as world citizens, and pretty evidently a function of powerful economic interests.

It isn't that I, in paranoid delusion, posit black and non existant conspiracies underlying some of these matters. No moreso than the folks who pointed to Enron, energy markets, and the California brown outs. Things can go wrong, and they can be big things.

As to not trusting in the benevolence of European powers...good...but don't expect the converse. Things have changed. The US is the big guy. Thus more than ever it is urgently required that the US itself comes to grips with it's own failings.

I feel georgeob1's appraisal of The Kyoto Treaty is concise, to-the-point, and unassailably accurate. I also glumly realize far fewer people rigorously examine issues than merely take positions of pesronal convenience. Complex, controversial issues, such as Global Ecologic Responsibility or War invariably push "hotbuttons" in the minds of some folks, precluding for them any further analysis of the matter. "Feelgood Positions" are more comfortable, hence more popular, than are positions stemming from informed, reasoned contemplation. Any treaty ostensibly and nominally protective of environment will find proponents only too happy to accept same at face value, giving no consideration whatsoever to the details and implications of the plan.

War is in such regard a similar issue. A contingent of population may be expected to oppose the endeavor, dismissing out of hand, if recognizing at all, any mitigating circumstances as may exist. War by its nature is an uncomfortable proposition. It is not comfortable to be at once uncomfortable with war and to be compelled by conscience to accept the necessity of war in a particular situation. Those who want to view the current US stance vis-a-vis Irag as hegemonistic, directed by a cabal of power-mad ultra-conservative cynics, and primarily acquisitive of oil not only fail to understand the issues but are themselves symptomatic of the problem.

One need look no further than the current Gobal Economic Situation to realize how interdependent the Nations of this planet have become. Saddam's Iraq is a certain destabilizing influence affecting a key sector of The World Economic Community, and poses clear, demonstrated, and avowed threat to the security of several of her neighbors. Appeasement and Isolation do nothing to resolve the issue, but rather serve to increase the danger and worsen eventual inevitable consequences. Add to the emotional baggage attendant upon war the reason-nullifying influence of religion and the matter becomes exponentially more volatile.

Saddam must go, and certainly is doomed to do so very soon, one way or another. Though some cry otherwise, The US has not self interest, but Global Responsibility in the matter. There is a pragmatism involved in that a stable World Economy is beneficial to the US, but that is incidental. That The US alone will benefit is a ludicrous assumption. The US has managed a very poor job of P R for herself by tradition, it seems. There is in the present situation great potential to address and dispell the distrust and enmity The US has, by ommission and commission, earned herself. I expect there will be less success in this than might be wished, but I do not anticipate total failure. The US, upon successful conclusion of regime change in Irag, may very well demonstrate a sincerity of ethic not widely attributed at the present moment. If so, our European detractors may find themselves deprived of a popular current entertaiment. If not, they, and the rest of the planet, are at risk of being deprived of their economies. It does boil down to "Just Money" after all, but that is the uncomfortable truth.



timber

baltham, I read the Fitzgerald piece as well. It is but a more colloquial and prosaic subset of the first one. I don't dismiss either of them at all. However I believe I have fairly characterized the complete unverifiability (and therefore unscientific character) of Lieven's argument. There is a word in literature for the act of positing a knowledge of that which is unknowable - wish I could recall it now.

A few facts. The U.S. did not seek empire as did Rome Carthage, the British, or the French. We found ourselves called to intervene in support of the least obnoxious European empires twice in the last century, and did so only after much internal conflict. The second such event left an exhausted Europe and a United States fated to lead in the opposition to the last remaining ghastly political product of European class warfare and revolution. The Soviet Empire finally collapsed of its own internal contradictions, and we were left standing. That the United States has more economic and military power than its remaining potential rivals is merely a fact, and likely a temporary one at that. (Had the western European nations - and Canada - lived up to their solemn committments to NATO, we would not be nearly so dominant militarily).

Could any nation be surprised at the situation in the world after the fall of the Soviet Empire? Could any nation doubt the natural inclination of all nations to avoid the growth of serious rivals. Having triumphed over a deadly rival and finding ourselves not immediately threatened by others puts us in the somewhat unfortunate position of a "Universal State" as Toynbee described it, doomed to either stay on top or fall - if you buy his theories. That does not constitute a hedgemony deliberately sought and exercised for only self-interest.

The United States is far from perfect, but viewed as an empire, its many imperfections are a good deal less than those of the empires you listed - Rome, Carthage, Britain and France. (you also included Brussels - a reference to the EU? Here perhaps our rival hedgemon is at hand! If you accept that then you must admit an entirely new dimension to the discussion.)

Implicit in your observations is the view that the position of the United States on the several issues that have become contentious in the present scene (Kyoto, the ICC, biological inspections, landmines, etc.) is necessarily wrong or merely self-serving. and that the positions of our numerous critics ("all honorable men") are necessarily correct and motivated by only altruistic intent. This, of course is manifestly false and absurd. It is also interesting that our many critics give no voice to the fact that an interesting array of other nations also reject the "politically correct" viewpoint of the modern day self-appointed inquisitors of right thought and policy. Among these other dissenters are Russia, China, India, and Pakistan - comprising in all about 45% of the population of the earth.

Could there possibly be some element of self interest among the Western European nations (and Canada) in their positions relative to Kyoto, the ICC, et. al. ? Is there any foundation for the proposition that the present viewpoint of the European powers is wiser and more benevolent than that of the U.S.? Think for a moment about Europe's inaction for two years while the slaughter of Bosnians continued in their midst. Consider the growing racism in the immigration policies of European nations, and Gascard d'Estangs' contemptuous dismissal of Turkey's application for membership in the EU. Consider also the rapidly falling populations of the European states and the implications of this fact on their future.

Think harder.

Blatham

You said:" The US is as imperfect as Rome, Carthage, The French under Napoleon, The British Empires." I believe I am correct in categorizing these "Empires" as motivated by the desire to conquer their neighbors thus enlarging their spere of influence as far as the lines of logistical support would allow.

To place the US in the same category as these empires is not only unjustifiable but ludicrus. I would ask you to provide substantive evidence for your accusation. I really think it was a careless slip on your part---please confirm or deny it.

Setanta
I hope you realize the necessity of protecting the oilfields from torching by Saddam therefore it will require something like an airborne assault during the first minutes of the war. As I said earlier we will not have the luxury of allowing airpower to soften verything up before we send in ground troops therefore the casualties could be high and very high if Saddam is successful in releasing chemical and bio weapons. Because we must save as much of the Iraqi infrastructure as possible for use during the occupation this will not be walkover. I hope your remarks were not thrown in my direction.

Gee, I dunno, perception, I gathered that blatham afforded neither the US nor any of the Empires he mentioned other than the imperfection unavoidable by the nature of all things human, imperfect as humans are. I could be wrong.



timber

Timber

As I said I would hope that Blatham's intent was not as I interpreted it(that the US was to lumped in with those highly imperialic empires with the same motives) but if you don't mind let's allow Blatham to speak to the issue. There are some highly sensitive issues being "flung" about here and I certainly don't want to be guilty of jumping to conclusions.

A sincere note of appreciation to georgeOB1 and timber for your careful examination of the issues and target remarks.

For those of us who hold those truths to be self-evident, but could never enunciate them as succinctly--Thank you.

Let me say off the top, that it is no small pleasure to debate with you fellows.

george...

First of all, though you've brought it up twice, verifiability is an inappropriate criterion here. Either you or I could make quite justifiable statements regarding Bill Gates or Microsoft which couldn't be 'verifiable' in the scientific sense. How verifiable is the attribution of 'evil' to Iran or 'benevolent' to the US or 'extremist' to Al Qaida?

You say 'the US did not seek empire as did (eg) the Brits'. I'm not quite sure how you can make that claim, nor how you figure it is a 'fact' (which I gather you contrast with the non-facts of Lieven's argument). The specific circumstances of the ascention to dominance of any modern state will vary. But it is surely not anything like a lottery draw. The US has been surely as aggressive in achieving growth and power through trade as was Britain. Or as aggressive in exerting control externally to protect its investments. Military resources have likewise been directed mainly in aid of the same ends, and certainly not towards humanitarian goals (the WWs to be differentiated here). That the USSR collapsed, leaving the US militarily unique in the world, seems irrelevant, and surely doesn't negate the push for economic dominance.

Re 'living up to solemn commitments to NATO'...commitments are always much more 'solemn' when the other fella changes his mind. I won't mention the ICBM treaty. But I will mention the Freedom of Information-culled Canadian government internal documents released here during the week before Christmas which showed trade negotiations between Canada and the US during the Reagan administration wherein both sides were trying to sell weapons to the other and the US wanted us to up our military spending and figured we ought to lose our social programs so we could afford new shiny war stuff. You can perhaps imagine how well that tidbit went over here.

That the US's imperfections are greatly less than the French or the Brits or the Dutch is really NOT evident to me at all (and likely a tough claim to verify). More poignant, I think, is that most French, Brits, or Dutch at those times would have likely thought their state to be uniquely innocent too.

But perhaps we ought to shortcut this...you misunderstand my protests. In your paragraph on Kyoto etc, you attribute to me a degree of absolutism about America's wrongness and anyone else's rightness that I haven't claimed and that I certainly don't hold. My position on the matter is really rather close to something Leonard Cohen said...that as frightening as it is to acknowledge it, America is probably the best chance the world has for freedom.

It is because I believe that to be so, that it becomes even more important to point to negatives where they may be (in my consideration) significant threats to the sort of freedom which Cohen and I (and likely you) demand. The US does not have some magical exemption from human failings. But one failing it can demonstrate, which is dangerous, is a hesitancy to listen to criticism and to be unreflective regarding its own myths.

Bravo! As nations go, the US is probably not the most introspective, blatham. Neither are any of the others, of course.

Chase that logic as long as you will. I'm off to say good night to pueo.

I'm not even going to pretend to be as smart or knowledgable as any of you guys, but blatham's comments regarding Britain not seeking to dominate other countries leads me to ask about their attempts to colonize everything that doesn't move.

What Britain did to the Irish should be a crime. They have a dirty, murderous history in that. They only recently got out of Israel (modern history, not last week), though I'm not sure about the minutia of why they were there.

Rhodesia? Someone feel free to tell me if my facts are incorrect. Britain has had their mits in plenty of places. The Middle East, as well.

The only thing we colonized was ourselves.

Our empire came after the world realized that colonization was no great advantage. It's no surprise that we don't colonize as it would be daft to do so.

Lash

I think you misread me on Britain. I didn't mean to imply if I did that Britain was an imperial innocent.

I think Craven has it right. But I often think that.

perception

I understand your objection. But I think that one of the 'nifty' aspects of how capitalism seems to have evolved is that older style techniques (military occupation and implanted civilian command of a foreign land in order to gain access to desired resources) are no longer necessary. It is either resources or strategic considerations which would bring one country to involve itself with another in a controlling manner. But control can be achieved by, for example, supporting a regime friendly to the controlling power with military help, intelligence, money, etc. or through exerting threats of various sorts, eg economic or others. What you end up with is effectively colonization via local agent.