Thomas wrote:[That doesn't refute my point about the negative correlation between hawkishness and military competence though. When you look at Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, was their stature as military leaders considered more impressive by the officer community than were Powell's and Clark's? Or, to check the correlation from the other side, what if you look at those generals who were respected as military leaders? (I am too unfamiliar with the American military to know who they would be.) In their pre-war public statements about more dovish or more hawkish than Wolfowitz's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's? I'm not trying to set you up, I'm genuinely curious about this.
I agree, I didn't evern fully address your point, much less refute it. I'm not so sure the question here is one of strictly military competence, as opposed to national strategy, an understanding of history & how things might turn out. Certainly both Cheney and Rumsfeld have ample experience and proficiency at high levels of the govrernment. Both were White House Aides during the Nixon/Ford Administration and both were successful Secretaries of Defense before the present Administration came to power. By any standard Rumsfield is currently doing well at DoD - he runs the place (no small achievement) and has instituted a long overdue rebaselining of Dfense organization, weapons programs, training, and doctrine. There was some uniformed opposition - as there always is - but the reforms were both needed and well-conceived.
Wolfowitz served as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia in the early '80s, starting out soon after the Suharto government wiped out the remnants of the Indonesian Communist Party and the relics of the Sukarno years as well. I spent a few days at sea with him and the service chiefs of the Indonesian military (a most interesting group, led by General Bennie Moerdani - an unforgettable figure who reputedly led the coup that brought Suharto to power. Wolfowitz was an engaging presence and sometimes cpompanion, very thoughtful, reflective and analytic. The Indonesian experience clearly engaged him deeply. I believe he went back to the University of Chicago after that.
All of these guys are very serious, thoughtful and competent people. Perhaps the question is - are they also wise? I believe they are.
As far as military strategy goes, I believe the ovewrthrow of Saddam was executed extremely well and with admirable economy of force. What we are dealing with now is the suppression of a well-established insurgency. The gold standard for such things is the successful British suppression of the insurgency in Malaysia during the 1950's. They took ten years. I believe we will do better. Unfortunately when one is the presumed "sole superpower" one gets a lot of attention and criticism from mostly irresponsible and self-serving sources. That, plus the very combative political environment in this country makes for a lot of trouble that, for example, the British didn't have during the 1950s. Despite all this the world remains a troubled place, and protecting it from disaffected internal proletariats and external barbarians (to udse Toynbee's phrase) remains a necessary but difficult chore. (Even Marcus Aurelius spend a major part of his time seeing to this.)
