No Cause for Hypercaution

At first blush, this article sounds brilliant, altruistic and even patriotic. On reflection, it does not address the abandonment of the US constitution, the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the embracement of torture, the advent of neo-colonialism, domestic spying on ordinary citizens, preemptive and arbitrary use of military force, the subsidy of religion, the creation of a police state, the undermining of the middle class, the unbridled prostitution of the nation's resources to oil, defense and other industrial resources ---in all, an eroded concept of democracy which can include all these departures from the American way. Is this the kind of "democracy" we're introducing to Iraq? God help us! This essay is myopic; I'll give it a "D."
Student, get back to work!

At first blush, this article sounds brilliant, altruistic and even patriotic. On reflection, it does not address the abandonment of the US constitution, the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the embracement of torture, the advent of neo-colonialism, domestic spying on ordinary citizens, preemptive and arbitrary use of military force, the subsidy of religion, the creation of a police state, the undermining of the middle class, the unbridled prostitution of the nation's resources to oil, defense and other industrial resources ---in all, an eroded concept of democracy which can include all these departures from the American way. Is this the kind of "democracy" we're introducing to Iraq? God help us! This essay is myopic; I'll give it a "D."
Student, get back to work!

Crossbow 42, you hit the crucial point right on. The center of gravity in this war is the moderate Islamic community. If we win them over, the hardcore militants will be marginalized and exposed instead of admired and aided, making them more vulnerable to counter-terrisom operations by the CIA and copperative foreign intel agencies. A rough historical analogy might be found in our own experience with radical student groups of the 1960's. As long as there was widespread resentment in college campuses during the Vietnam War, the radical student groups enjoyed a broad base of sympathy and passive support from the overall student population. This allowed them to operate and recruit fairly effectively. Once the Vietnam War was ended, this widescale support was replaced with apathy and scorn, if not hostility. Instead of being admired, tolerated, and sheltered, the radical groups found themselves being ignored, shunned, and rejected. Without a sympathetic community to hide among, the radicals were quickley and effetively neutralized by FBI and local law enforcement.

The end of the draft for the Vietnam War removed the primary grievance held by the large-scale college student population, thus marginalizing radical student groups. Similarly, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and ending our support for corrupt and incompetent Arab dictatorships (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia) might win over Arab moderates and marginalize the radicals.

It would be hopeless and futile to attempt to convince truly commited militant islamists to soften their hatred of the West. It would be equally futile and hopeless to deter the GOP from their militaristic approach to the issue of radical Islam. The invasion of Iran probably would have started years ago if Iraq did not prove to be so difficult. War with Iran appears to be a matter if when, not if. My attitude is let the GOP fight whatever wars they want. Ain't no skin off my butt. All I ask the GOP is don't make me fight your wars. Fight them youself.

Our Iraq strategy is uncannily similar to our Vietnam strategy. One key similarity is the "we can't afford to lose" mentality. I see no signs that we will ever achieve any of our goals, and the costs to us are enormous economically, militarily, and in terms of our global relationships. The author seems to espouse an "ignorance is bliss" approach: careful, we don't want to learn too much from this debacle.

"In fact, radical Islamist networks have never lacked for historical provocations." Yes, but it's not about _them_, it's about the moderate Muslims who _might_ support terrorism, or support democracy. The more provocations we provide, the more moderate Muslims will support our enemies through donations and inaction.

The biggest threat is not "hypercaution" but conducting foreign policy without knowing what you are doing - a trademark of this administration. Contrast this with Dwight Eisenhower's administration. First, he evaluated the threat by educating himself and then lettiing the public educate itself. As he did when he evaluated the Nazi and the Japanese at General Marshall's behest, Ike carefully examined the Soviet threat. Then, he launched the National Defense Education Act. Through this act, numerous universities began regional reserch of teh Soviets and their allies. This successful legislaton educated a whole generation of academics, military officers, diplomats and journalists as to how to best address the Soviet Union and its expansionist goals.

The lesson is that we have an administration that neither educates itself or the public. Contrast with Dwight Eisenhower and his considered judgement of the Soviet threat. He educated himself as he had done when he evaluated the German and Japanese at General Marshall's behest. After evaluating the Soviet threat, he launched the National Defense Education Act and educated the diplomats, military officers, academics, and journalists. Michael Gerson and his lack of introspection is appalling but expected.

spontanous

is it necessary t to attact lrap

I do believe that the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition forces, but spear-headed by the U.S was predicated upon the removal of Sadaam Hussein rather than on any other intelligence or security factors. And since this lack of security threat on the U.S was apparent and obvious to most American and Germany and Russia, including the U.N, the obvious plan to drive Sadaam out of power was not worth one American life lost in this President Bush's blunder.

Mr Gerson if you were a preacher in an old fashioned Religious revival I think you'd have to duck right about now. How do you spell pencil necked geek. G-E-R-S-O-N...

In response to marcusmonroe's response to me:
In every speech that Bush and Cheney gave before and after the invasion of Iraq, they conflated the danger of Saddam Hussein with the airliners which smashed into New York City and the Pentagon. Not just once or twice, but over and over, they manipulated our shock and horror at Al-Qaida' bloodlust, to justify the unrelated, and already-decided, invasion of Iraq. They disregarded so much of the CIA's own intelligence which cast doubt on Hussein's capabilities, and which cast doubt on many of our "sources" who turned out to be frauds. The truth, the facts needed to decide whether Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped militarily and immediately, were ignored if they disagreed with this administration's plans. Again, honest examination of the facts available would have led the U.S. Senate to challenge Mr. Bush's plans far more strenuously. We went to war mainly because we were lied to. I repeat my main tenet: Policy must be based on honesty. My question for marcusmonroe, who said I'm "drowning in myopia" is this: How does insisting that our leaders be honest make me "another old hippy still declaring that 'nothing is worth dying for'"???

I am not a mindless, kneejerk peacenik. We live in a dangerous world, and military action is sometimes necessary. (Afghanistan is a case where immediate and complete annihilation of the Taliban power structure was clearly in our best interests and the world's, and clearly justified. I supported the destruction of the Taliban and the capture or killing of Al-Qaeda's leaders and leutenants. I still do. It still hasn't happened.) Again, military action must be based on an honest assessment of risks of invasion versus the risks of not invading; on an honest assessment of the evidence of the threat; on an honest assessment of possible outcomes, a year, two years, five years later. None of this was done, and we, Iraq and the world, are seeing the
.
Honesty, marcusmonroe. Honesty is the first requirement I want in a president and commander-in-chief--no necessarily an "open-door, no-secrets, I cannot tell a lie" variety of honesty, but certainly a willingness to face uncomfortable facts. I didn't find " some fault--pick a fault, any fault--with George Bush." Dishonesty in my opinion is a pretty big deal. Bush and Cheney are not the only dishonest men in government, maybe not even the most dishonest. But the consequences of their dishonesty has been so grave and so far-reaching as to be unforgivable. As for being "godly," sorry, marcusmonroe, but that's a word I cannot apply to George Bush. Dishonesty is evil. Dishonesty which leads to death and destruction is particularly evil.

The neo-cons again try to remove moral guilt from their arrogant use of power in the middle east. They advocate something that approaches a permanent state of war. All Gerson proves is they're also in a permanent state of denial.

"I intuitively sided with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's combative confidence against Secretary of State Colin Powell's caution and diplomacy. But it is now clear to me..."
You mean after tens of thousands of lives have been lost, hundreds of thousands of limbs lost AND A 2.4 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT WHEN IT'S OVER, and now, suddenly, a seepage of gray matter? Drop dead!

I am stunned by presumably intelligent people now admitting that this was a fiasco. THIS IS NOT NEWS. the fact that some gray matter has seeped into your twisted mind IS NEWS!!! but think about it! It took thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of limbs, and when it's over, 2.4 TRILLION DOLLARS. It is TOO LATE to apologize for your stupidity!!!

So not finding weapons of mass destruction and sacrificing the lives of countless Americans, Iraqis, and others is a proper excuse for war? Bring back the draft so middle-class America will fight only when there is a really, really good reason to do so, i.e. when they'd be willing to send their own family there. I'd like to ask Michael Gerson how many of his own family fought in Iraq.

Lesson #1: Don't surround yourself with like-minded ideologues and only listen to them. If you do, you're not qualified for the job and time is your enemy.

Lesson #2: If you're going to say everything with certitude and not waver, then you'd better be right. Doubling down on small mistakes will turn them into bigger mistakes.

Lesson #3: Beware of unquestioned assumptions, such as "welcomed as liberators." This bit of ideological hubris is the wellspring from which many of the worst mistakes flowed (also see lesson #1). If it were true, then the other parts of the "plan" would fall into place (oil money paying for reconstruction, reconstruction money not having to be spent on security, etc.) But of course it wasn't, and many people knew it wasn't but didn't speak up forcefully enough to oppose Bush.

Lesson #4: Beware first reactions to traumatic events, like 9/11. The U.S. has been down that road before, with the Japanese internments (Pearl Harbor) and the Communist witch-hunts (USSR getting the bomb), to name just two. That Americans would want to lash out at someone unrelated after 9/11 is understandable; that a president would deliberately exploit the tragedy to get into an unrelated war he was spoiling for all along is unforgiveable.

Lesson #5: Congress should not take itself out of the loop. Maybe Gerson thinks it "sends a message to our enemies of uncertainty or weakness" or some garbage like that if Congress refuses to give future presidents the kind of authorization they did in fall 2002, but that's exactly the right lesson to learn. We have checks and balances precisely to try to prevent the kinds of breakdowns we had in 2002. The system didn't work then and the media didn't do its job as a watchdog, either, but it IS starting to make corrections now.

Mr. Gerson makes a "straw man" argument. He states that, "Some claim the American project in Iraq was doomed from the beginning, because Iraqis and Arabs more broadly are culturally incapable of sustaining democracy." Who is this "Some". He's choosing the most ignorant position and claiming that this is the definitive one that he needs to refute. The real point is that the U.S. can't impose democracy on a country that is not a unified nation, and which has zero experience with democracy or the mutual respect for rights that democracy requires.