« RIP Jim West | Main | The United States of America v. Osama bin Laden »
July 22, 2006
We Refuse To Learn
(Posted by John.)
My copy of The One Percent Doctrine finally came in from the library, and I've just barely cracked it. But it's reminded me of one of the most annoying things about the Bush administration - something that for me goes beyond annoyance and is actually offensive: Their steadfast refusal to learn anything new, ever.
After the "end" of the Afghan campaign (see the news lately?) the Bush administration
immediately began planning their war on Iraq - indeed, this began informally before the war in Afghanistan had even really begun.
The mental process was for the administration collectively was simple. They'd all come to Washington convinced that states - including rivals like China, but especially rogue states - were the challenge that America needed to face. Then comes 9/11. Undaunted, Cheney decides that the real problem with Al Qaeda wasn't the fact that they killed 3,000 Americans, but that they were sheltered by the Taliban doing it.
The problem then was not the terrorists, but the rogue states who sheltered them. This had the advantage of making the problem much easier, from the Defense Department's point of view: First, it took the game away from the CIA and their covert operatives, and second it put national governments and militaries in the cross-hairs, right where Cheney and Rumsfeld always believed they should be. Magically (after a brief detour in Afghanistan) it turns out the 9/11 showed that what America should do was exactly what they came in to office doing, anyway. Presto - magic!
Missile defense: Lather, rinse, repeat.
The Korean peninsula continues to be snarled because Bush refuses to learn anything that the Clinton Administration did right.
And now in Lebanon, the Bush Administration insists that - all evidence and reason to the contrary - that Iran and Syria both have Nasrallah's cell phone on speed dial, and that Nasrallah takes his marching orders from them.
This isn't a new idea for American statesmen - indeed, that's the problem with it - and it's almost always been wrong. America's relations with China and Vietnam were poisoned early by the Truman and Eisenhower Administration's refusal to see either Beijing or Hanoi as anything but a cat's paw for Moscow. In neither case was this at all accurate, but the American delusion persisted, despite regular hostilities between all three Communist countries.
It's pathetic to watch the Bush administration contort itself and try and fit Lebanon in to the box it must, if it's going to make any sense to them. Somehow, Israel is allowed to bomb critical civilian targets all over Lebanon, but Bush wags his finger sternly at the idea of Israel destabilizing the Lebanese government.
I'll save the obvious comment that sustained bombing campaigns are by definition destabilizing, because there's a long-term game to think about. Maybe it hasn't occurred to the Bush administration, but because of this mess the next Lebanese elections will be won by Hezbollah, if they occur at all. How's that for destabilizing the government?
Chris Albritton gets the last word:
Why, oh, why do people with access to really big bombs continue to think they can change people’s loyalties by dropping those big bombs on their homes and families?...
Before this damn war, Hizbullah was losing support. It wasn’t draining, but it was ebbing. The political process was stuttering along, but it was moving. Many people here hated Hizbullah… Many people also loved it. The society was split but there was a consensus the problem had to be settled judiciously and politically because no one wanted another civil war.
When the first Israeli bombs fell, some Shi’ites even blamed Hizbullah. I met a guy in the southern suburbs last Saturday, just four days after things started. He’s a Shi’ite from Nabatiyeh in the south and hated Hizbullah. He thought they’d screwed up big-time. These days, when I talk to him, he says he hopes Hizbullah rips the Israelis apart. Another friend of mine, one of those upper-crust Christians, told me last night that as much as he hates Hizbullah, he hates the Israelis even more now.
July 22, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
I've given up listening to the Bush/Israeli lies (oops, I mean SPIN) regarding their intentions. Instead, I use an "any fool could see" approach. Under this analysis, I believe that Israel's use of the same tactics that helped Hamas win the elections in the West Bank and Gaza were deliberately intended to hand Lebanon over to Hizbullah's control. You see, otherwise peace might break out - and Israel might have to retreat to its pre-67 borders. This is what got Yitzhak Rabin assassinated by an Israeli fanatic.
Replacing a moderate, secular regime in Lebanon with a hard-line regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel may seem a foolish goal - but the Israelis don't fear their neighbors' military might, and the politicians need enemies to continue their Bush/Rove-style "government by boogieman" style of pandering to the electorate. It creates a feedback cycle, too, where being seen as "weak on terrorism" is as fatal to an Israeli politician as a picture shaking Martin Luther King's hand would have been to a Southern politician in, say, 1962.
Unfortunately, I think Israel has "jumped the shark" on this one. No longer can they say "Holocaust" and impress people, just like nobody outside the US takes Bush's constant "9/11" babbling seriously. They've both lost their "political capital" by spending it foolishly rather than investing it in something that would pay dividends.
Posted by: RepubAnon | Jul 22, 2006 11:27:22 PM
Refusasl to learn is an American problem. Who knew- 30 years after Vietnam- we would be fighting another unwinnable war?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 23, 2006 12:55:54 AM
I strongly recommend the recent article in Harper's on the history of the "Stabbed in the Back" theory of the American right wing; it's very pertinent to the right wing's consistent refusal to learn anything that contradicts their precious assumptions.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | Jul 23, 2006 1:54:11 AM
Terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Al-Queda are used by Arab governments to shelter them from repraisal. They can claim "It's not us so don't attack us." Syria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia funnel money, weapons and other resources to these organizations all the while telling the world that they are not the culprits.
In the American system of justice, those who aid and abet criminals are held to be guilty themselves. Why should we approach these nations that help the terrorists any other way? We started with a great plan in Afghanistan but did not follow through with other nations that harbor terrorists. Iran is one of the main players and it's time to go to the United Nations with evidence of their complicity, and tell them point blank that this will stop or we will stop you.
Who knew- 30 years after Vietnam- we would be fighting another unwinnable war?
Oh, it was, indeed, winnable. The war was lost here at home and not because we didn't have the means. I don't think that will happen with this war. All of the anti-war rhetoric will vaproize as soon as a massive WMD attack occurs on our soil. When a suitcase nuke detonates in Manhatten, the people will be united and have the political will to do this.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 23, 2006 8:58:34 AM
"No longer can they say "Holocaust" and impress people"
When, pray tell does Israel say "Holocaust" to impress people?
Posted by: Dustin | Jul 23, 2006 9:57:33 AM
Oh, it was, indeed, winnable. The war was lost here at home and not because we didn't have the means. I don't think that will happen with this war. All of the anti-war rhetoric will vaproize as soon as a massive WMD attack occurs on our soil. When a suitcase nuke detonates in Manhatten, the people will be united and have the political will to do this.
The difference between you and almost everyone here, Fred, is that the rest of us don't look forward to that.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jul 23, 2006 11:03:04 AM
Its official- fred is kind of creepy
Posted by: akaison | Jul 23, 2006 11:04:31 AM
the rest of us don't look forward to that.
Well, neither do I. However, unlike you, I haven't got my head in the sand. The terrorists have told is it is their goal and the state department and just about every terrorism expert worldwide has told us that it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when' some kind of terrible WMD attack on US soil happens again.
Not discussing this probability will not alter the odds of it happening. Singing "Kumbaya" while holding hands and chanting "Give peace a chance" will not cut any mustard with Al-Queda, either. They will still want you and all of your family dead.
Name calling of those who don't share your pollyanna attitude will not alter anything. If you think there is no real possibility of another WMD attack on US soil, then make your case. Othewise, I would suggest that you consider this real issue and make plans.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 23, 2006 11:50:50 AM
If our government really believes in the suitcase nukes problem its really, really, too bad they haven't done more to secure both our nuclear power/chemical plants here at home, and lose nuclear stuff around the world--specifically in the former soviet union. Since they havne't done that--in fact, since they have refused to do that--we can either figure that they don't believe what fred asserts they believe (what? fred isn't in the confidence of our great leaders?) or that they are simply incompetent to carry out the task that fred (and the rest of us) expect from them--ie protecting the american people.
I choose b) they are in incompetent. And you know what, fred? the "will" to bomb someone else to death clearly exists where it matters. I mean, if cheney and bush wanted to vapporize (to borrow your charming term with reference to anti war sentiment) our "enemies" of course they could do so. They haven't needed the consent of hte people here at home for any of the other stuff they've done--the bombing of Iraq, the laying off of hands on Israel, etc... They've done quite well without having public sentiment on their side. So why would this be any different? Why can't they simply do whatever they want? At some point you've got to say that they *don't really want* to do "it" or "whatever it takes."
But that would be pretty scary for you, Fred. Or not, I suppose, since by this time I figure you are nothign but what they call the "assigned government monitor" or "paid flack" so your actual interests and ideas don't enter into this. I apologize if you aren't doing this posting for money. In that case, you are merely a pathetically undermployed, paranoid, would be mass murderer and chickenhawk.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 23, 2006 12:34:23 PM
nothign but what they call the "assigned government monitor" or "paid flack"
The correct term is zampolit.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Jul 23, 2006 12:48:11 PM
All of the anti-war rhetoric will vaproize as soon as a massive WMD attack occurs on our soil.
All of the anti-war rhetoric vaporized on 9/11. We were united in purpose and Bush's popularity rating was sky high. There was bipartisan support for our attack on Afghanistan -- in fact, except for committed pacifists and committed isolationists, it was practically universal support.
Don't blame the left for the fact that the Administration took their eye off the ball after that.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jul 23, 2006 12:49:38 PM
"Name calling of those who don't share your pollyanna attitude will not alter anything. If you think there is no real possibility of another WMD attack on US soil, then make your case. Othewise, I would suggest that you consider this real issue and make plans."
The really "pollyanna" belief here is that the Bush administration is even marginally competent to defend this nation. They've proven incapable of managing anything other than the destruction of the govt institutions that we need to defend the people by cronyisn, corruption and distain for the very thing they're supposed to manage.
Posted by: Sonny | Jul 23, 2006 2:04:52 PM
If our government really believes in the suitcase nukes problem its really, really, too bad they haven't done more to secure both our nuclear power/chemical plants here at home...
The problem with the Bush Administration is their lack of security for these that you have mentioned and even more importantly, securing the borders. In that area, they have failed.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jul 23, 2006 2:36:03 PM
"the rest of us don't look forward to that."
Well, neither do I. However, unlike you, I haven't got my head in the sand. The terrorists have told is it is their goal and the state department and just about every terrorism expert worldwide has told us that it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when' some kind of terrible WMD attack on US soil happens again.
I suppose if I had wanted to be both fair and clear, I would have explicitly limited my "that" to the end of anti-war rhetoric. I offer no opinion on whether you look forward to a serious terrorist attack, but you obviously look forward to one of the major likely results of it. Unless you're really going to try to tell us you will be sad on the day when "all of the anti-war rhetoric will vaproize[sic]"?
As for the rest of it, there's too much to go into. But the thing that gets me the most is that I can't argue very well about your ideas on Vietnam. You think the Vietnam War "was, indeed, winnable. The war was lost here at home..." Um, huh? I'm only 23 and I've never read something really in depth on that war, so I don't have the facts at my fingertips. But even I know there's something wrong with that statement. Are you so loony that "it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it" sounds like sound strategy, Fred?
Then again, if you think the left was the side opposed to U.S. involvement in WWII, I shouldn't be surprised. :)
Posted by: Cyrus | Jul 23, 2006 4:09:44 PM
Are you serious? Do you really believe that the US Superpower could not have won the Vietnam war if we had the will to do so? Really? That is what you are saying. unbelievable!!
We had plenty of money, manpower and overwhewlming weapons including WMD. The only thing lacking was the will to use all of these to their fullest capacity.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jul 23, 2006 4:41:21 PM
You know fred is right- if we secure the borders- block all those mexicans from coming in- then we will be safe from the nuclear bomb in the suitcase scenario. I mean that's the only open border we have. There's not one to the north or anything. And we know that all muslims look like mexicans anyway. I mean who here doesn't think they all sort of look a like?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 23, 2006 5:56:28 PM
The poblem with 'winning the war in Vietnam' is not whether we could have beaten Vietnam itself. The US superpower taking on a third world asian country was never the entire problem.
The rest of the problem comes from the 'US superpower' confronting the will of the Russian Superpower and the Chinese note-quite superpower. To fully commit to the defeat of Vietnam meant the risk of defeating whatever additional forces both those nations may have added.
Vietnam was a failure insofar as the amount of land that was conquered by the US. Vietnam however was successful in one of its major goals which was to help stop the spread of soviet communism.
Even if we had a unified society that was willing to go 'all out' to defeat Vietnam I would hope the main result of that would have been a more freindly homecoming for the troops that were there. To take on China and Soviet Russia had the real possibility of moving right into WWIII. To support that kind of 'will' in the face of nuclear war, puts you on the loony side of the m.a.d. scenario.
Posted by: david b | Jul 23, 2006 6:07:54 PM
Are you serious? Do you really believe that the US Superpower could not have won the Vietnam war if we had the will to do so? Really? That is what you are saying. unbelievable!!
Here's the problem, the war was not lost by the military. The Vietcong and NVA were essential crippled after the Tết Offensives in 68 and 69. We lost before we started. It was not our war, but we made it ours. It was not a compelling American national interest to control Vietnam, therefore we lacked the real willingness to do the job right.
Same thing is true in Iraq. Unless we're willing to commit a lot more men to Iraq (and near as I can tell there are few who are), we will not prevail in the long term. We will leave and most likely a Shia dominated Iran friendly fundamentalist regime will take control. Billions spent countless and thousands killed to make a nice new ally for Iran. That's just swell.
Posted by: Sonny | Jul 23, 2006 6:17:44 PM
Are you serious? Do you really believe that the US Superpower could not have won the Vietnam war if we had the will to do so? Really? That is what you are saying. unbelievable!!
And that's all that you think matters? Not, for example, the goodwill of the people we were fighting for?
We could have killed everyone in Vietnam if we had wanted to. I would not have called that a win, but at this point I honestly don't know about you. Did the U.S. win the Battle at My Lai? In a military sense, there wasn't even a battle. But in the war of ideas, to borrow a more modern phrase, it was a serious defeat.
We had plenty of money, manpower and overwhewlming weapons including WMD. The only thing lacking was the will to use all of these to their fullest capacity.
Yes, I guess that is all that you think matters, isn't it. This is war by game of Risk: he who has the most nukes, wins. By this logic, India didn't win independence because of collective action and principled leadership that unified a nation, but because Ghandi had, I don't know, invisible bombs or something. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a nobody; the Black Panthers were the only leaders of the civil rights movement worth considering.
I'd have nothing but mockery for this worldview if it wasn't as common as it is. In the real world, Fred, there are some times where "overwhewlming weapons" are irrelevant or even counterproductive, and as soon as reactionaries manage to get that through their skulls, we'll all be much better off.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jul 23, 2006 6:36:09 PM
Do you really believe that the US Superpower could not have won the Vietnam war if we had the will to do so?
Define "won". But actually, I don't care.
I'm much more interested in how people define "winning" in (a) Iraq (b) The War On Terror/The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jul 24, 2006 12:26:47 AM
we lacked the real willingness to do the job right.
Same thing is true in Iraq. Unless we're willing to commit a lot more men to Iraq (and near as I can tell there are few who are), we will not prevail in the long term.
And that was exactly my point. I believe that Al-Queda, by their well stated goals and actions so far, will give us the resolve that we will require to win this war. If the VC had destroyed a major city here in the US, we would have had the resolve then as well.
And I must stop and laugh when aimai rails against the Bush administration for not protecting the infrastruture more, and when I agree and say the borders are also important, akaison tries to make some attack, but the AD/HD gets in the way.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 24, 2006 10:16:40 AM
actually i make my attack quite plainly and correctly- that this isn't about protecting America. If it were, then we would be doing all the necessary steps rather than the ones that placate the Republican base. We certainly, for example, wouldn't be sending 9/11 security money to who gives a shit small town USA at the expense of large REAL targets like NYC and LA just b/c they are 'blue'
Posted by: akaison | Jul 24, 2006 10:32:47 AM
we also, by the way, would be more worried about the real unsecure border- which is with Canada where most of the terrorist came trhough on 9/11 and that border according to the very super liberal orgs like 60 minutes remains porous and open- but I dont really hear der leadership of the Republican armies calling for securing that. Instead I hear about the need for more white babies to match the brown babies
Posted by: akaison | Jul 24, 2006 10:34:34 AM
Fred sounds like he is ready to go out himself and make his joyous catastrophic event happen if al qaeda doesn't hurry the hell up and do it soon.
Posted by: sprocket | Jul 24, 2006 12:48:37 PM
that's because modern conservatism depends on fear to stay in business. no fear, and what do they have left- the issues? no because they lose on those. so its fear- to explain almost everything they say and do.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 24, 2006 1:00:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
