Article about incompetence of cosmic proportions
 

I enjoyed this tale of cosmic incompetence, in a twisted sort of way; it also ripped my heart out. The funny part (very darkly funny) was reporters reading dictionary and Defense Dept. definitions of "guerilla warfare" and "insurgency" to Rumsfeld as he steadfastly denied that that was what was happening--insisted on calling it terrorism literally to the bitter end. Did you know they never intended to fight a guerilla war? "That would be a war like Vietnam." The military establishment was so hell bent on not fighting another Vietnam that counterinsurgency tactics hadn't been taught at West Point for decades. Bush/Rumsfeld were so certain they wouldn't have to fight such a war that they didn't use the word "guerilla" or "insurgency" even once in preparing for the war. The insurgency came as a complete surprise and no one had any idea what to do with it. That's just a small part of our leaders' enormous, really criminal incompetence. We have Inspector Cluseau for president.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../061120fa_fact

That's a completely off-base accusation.

Inspector Cleausau was at least marginally entertaining.

So depressing to read of the total incompetence of our own leaders. We are now faced with an impossible decision: remain in Iraq, or withdraw. Both have tremendous downsides, neither appears to have tremendous upsides.

I still cannot get past the fact that our leaders (who are highly intelligent people for the most part) could not see something as obvious as the fact that removing a dictator in Iraq would cause complete chaos and upheavel.

I also am concerned, however, with the public questioning of the civilian authorities by military leaders. There is a time and a place for questioning; in public as a military leader is not that time or place.

Hindsight is 20/20. It is always easy to see a result as invitable once it has occurred. I don't actually think they didn't know what the result would be, I think they miscalculated the order of magnitude of that result and correspondingly their ability to deal with it.

I also agree that military leaders should not question their superiors in a public setting. If they want to retire and do it, fine.

Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I thought this would happen, and I am not nearly as smart as the people making important decisions in this country. How could you look at history and conclude anything other than this would be the result?

I was just reading that issue last night.

The New Yorker has had some great articles on the war over the last two years.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060410fa_fact2

This one is my favorite article from the New Yorker on the topic. It's rather long, though.

It is a rare piece that outlines both successes and failures. It is, however, 6 months out of date by now.

I don't know hoya. People were also sure that what is happening in Iraq would happen in Afghanistan or that we would never be able to even bring it under control even temporarily based no one ever having done it before. We sort of gloss over how easy that was because it is now a historical fact, some of our efforts to let that slip backwards notwithstanding.

People were sure that a democracy would never make it in imperial Japan. That had never been done before until it was. Everything every one knew about Soviet Russia became obsolete the day the wall fell. Prior to that everything that history taught us concinved most that the USSR would become more dangerous the worse its economy became. It was just the opposite of that.

Histories lessons are often unclear and often not lessons you can apply to the future at all. A lot of smart people think that has we acted differently during the early phases of the invasion that we might not be in the situation we are in. The world is far, far to complex for any result to be obvious before hand. I think there were lots of other possible outcomes.

First of all, Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same country. They have completely different problems to work through. In Iraq, you have 3 large groups all dedicated to the destruction of the others. They have been kept in check by a brutal dictator. Once that dictator was removed, chaos ensued. This, to me, was easily predictable and fairly obvious.

The area formerly known as the USSR IS more dangerous now than it was when it was in existence (though I recognize this isn't what you meant). In fact, that may be our single greatest threat today- a nation with nuclear power that has little control over its weaponry and a strong history of corruption.

Japan's success was not predicted by many, but it came to pass only with an enormous expenditure of time and money and a sensational plan. We have not had any great plan to put Iraq back together, and, even if we did, I am not sure it would have worked. Japan, like Afghanistan, is a very different country than Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East).

To top it all off, I am still wondering why we went into Iraq to begin with (setting aside the many bad decisions we have made once we went in).

The USSR was led to despots who cracked down on anything resembling freedom. Now Russia is.....err......the same.

Democracy in name only. History tells us that civilizations collapse, that progress can end, that liberty is an aberration from the rule.

We are living in a golden age. We would be fools to think that this trajectory will remain forever, with little effort. Because it is destiny for people to embrace freedom and democracy. Yeah right.

We have given the Iraqis there chance to freedom and democracy. They have chosen to squander it. And now there is nothing we can do.