Farsighted academics

[Fuchs]

Just in case someone searches for proven, farsighted academics (a.k.a. Cassandras):

They were quite spot-on in my opinion (http://www.bear-left.com/archive/2002/0926oped.html), about 80% right (just too 'right' and not enough 'left' in point 4).

Maybe next time they get more attention (or maybe the society advances and learns to listen to such voices and to identify them without trial & error).


***I mobilize all my self-discipline to not add an acid comment from an European's point of view.***

[Schmedlap]

Depends on your definition of "far-sighted". I think the reasons for rejecting that advice were for considerations farther over the horizon than the issues listed.

[Ken White]

Just in case someone searches for proven, farsighted academics...They were quite spot-on in my opinion, about 80% right (just too 'right' and not enough 'left' in point 4).I'm sure they were pretty well spot on in their opinion as well but we all have opinions and many will differ with them and with you.

I do for one. Not least because they missed the entire -- not the stated -- reason for the attack. They say that military force should only be used when it advances US national interest. I agree. They say that attacking Iraq does not meet that test. Given the reasons they cite, I again agree. Given the actual reason -- to send a message to the Middle East that we would no longer accept their probes and minor attacks as we had since 1979 with no effective response; they're simply wrong. Our interests were advanced.

They also say that the first Bush administration did not attack Iraq proper in 1991 to avoid destabilizing the Middle East. True (A bad decision on their part -- it would have been easier then); they apparently do not understand that the attack in 2003 was intended to destabilize the Middle East. Just enough. Without interrupting the world's oil supply -- we really want China and India to have all the oil they need. All that seems to have worked out rather well thus far.

So their judgment was badly flawed and I'd further suggest it is even today entirely too early to determine the final validity of their position or mine... ;)
Maybe next time they get more attention (or maybe the society advances and learns to listen to such voices and to identify them without trial & error).Probably not. Many Academics sometimes miss practical and real world things...
I mobilize all my self-discipline to not add an acid comment from an European's point of view.Don't restrain yourself, we're aware of your attitude and still respect your judgment on other things. We have long understood that Europe would approve of little we do. Even as they have asked us to help sort out their internal problems over the years. What Europe too frequently forgets is that if our forebears had wanted to be Europeans and do things as they do, we wouldn't be here...

[selil]

I'm a far-sighted academic. Thankfully I bought glasses to fix that.

[Fuchs]

Jedburgh doesn't like you to see an actual scan from imageshack, so we can only look at a text version until someone finds a scan on a page that pleases Mr. Jedburgh.

http://www.bear-left.com/archive/2002/0926oped.html

[Schmedlap]

Kudos to Mr. Jedburgh. This version doesn't strain my eyes so much. Unfortunately, the "far-sighted" academics still don't appear to be very far-sighted. They appear to have near-term concerns. And most of them are not counterpoints to our reasons for wiping the slate in Iraq. Their near-term concerns largely appear to have played out. But, so what?

I could make similar near-term claims about someone undergoing open heart surgery:
- your heart is in rough shape, but there is no proof that you'll die from it anytime soon
- even if you get the operation, there is no guarantee that your condition will markedly improve
- you didn't get the operation 10 years ago for the reasons cited above
- you're going to lose a lot of blood
- you'll get a nasty scar
- the doctor's bill will be outrageous
- you may need a long time to recover
- there will be discomfort after the operation

Does that make me a prescient fortune-teller? Are those reasons to not get the surgery - especially if you're rich and otherwise in decent shape?

I did not get my views published in 2002 because I was not a learned academic scholar. I was just a 2LT who watched Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on live TV. My thoughts at the time: "holy crap... that's it? THAT'S IT? That's all that we've got? The public is not going to support this war if it lasts more than a month. The administration needs to play it straight with the people and explain that this is a long-term endeavor for long-term strategic reasons concerning the entire region - not just a preventive strike on a possible WMD threat. The public is not going to buy this once the bodies start arriving in Dover."

I think that was more far-sighted, because it goes directly to whether we will achieve our long-term goals. The short-term concerns expressed by the pointy-headed scholars basically boil down to "war is unpredictable and costly." Very interesting. Did they get a federal grant to figure that out?

[Fuchs]

Their reasoning was MUCH better than that of the government (WHICH GOT RE-ELECTED after their blunder). They disagreed on several government claims that proved to be outright wrong.
Being smarter and having better conclusions than the government is a good trait for experts.

The majority of Europeans was smarter than the Bush team, but since the U.S.Americans don't listen to Europeans they could at least choose their experts wisely.

And contrary your side blow about funding, they spent their own money to warn the public at a time when the media failed in its mission.
That's what's known as civil courage in Germany - to stem your weight against bad actions (including against the government) even when you have reason to worry about your well-being (in this case in the profession) if you do so.
They showed character when the vast majority of think tank talking heads swam with the current into the wrong direction.

THAT is why they proved their value and deserve to be listened to next time they advise the public.

Who wants to bet against me when I assert that Michael O'Hanlon* still gets more time on TV than 80% of the people (if not all) who signed the NYT ad in 2002 together?

[Schmedlap]

I'm not sure if you're...
a) restating the same belief that you arrived here with
b) responding to either me or Ken and, in the process, completely ignoring or misinterpreting* everything that we wrote
c) both

But if it makes you feel good...

* - the funding note was a dig at the obviousness of what they wrote, not a suggestion that they didn't pay for the ad - again, it seems that you're ignoring what was written, since I do not dispute the accuracy of their predictions; I dispute the relevance.

[RTK]

That's what's known as civil courage in Germany - to stem your weight against bad actions (including against the government) even when you have reason to worry about your well-being (in this case in the profession) if you do so.

God know's I love acidity. I'm on Nexium because of it. :D

I'm not sniping, just making a point.

First, I understand your contemptuous tone towards the US and have since you started posting here but I've said nothing. I respect your right to express your opinion. I admit we entered Iraq under pretenses that proved false later. I've spent two years in that country as a result. The chest beating of how smart the "majority of Europeans" were over the "Bush Team" does very little to further your position.

Be careful on the "civil courage" bit, particularly in speaking against the government, unless we're willing to place the historical instances and events of other countries, including Germany, on record in hindsight as a comparison. I don't think that does much to further the discussion either.

[Ken White]

Their reasoning was MUCH better than that of the government (WHICH GOT RE-ELECTED after their blunder). They disagreed on several government claims that proved to be outright wrong.
Being smarter and having better conclusions than the government is a good trait for experts.Really? Let's take a look. They said:

* Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
* Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
* The first Bush administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
* The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options—chemical and biological weapons, urban combat—that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
* Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
* Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe.

Their first point is not relevant. I realize some in the Administration claimed there was or might be a connection but as AQ was only an ancillary concern in the decision to attack, the point is moot.

The second point is also irrelevant. No one with any sense believe that Saddam could damage the US with nuclear weapons. I realize some politicians said that, the news media repeated it and that some believed it -- but, as I said, no one with any sense believed it.

The third point I addressed above.

Their fourth point is obviously erroneous as, I'm sure you recall, no such weapons were found in Iraq (so much for their great knowledge and prescience...). I know some politicians also believed that -- as did a number of Intel agencies (and not just US agencies as I'm sure you're aware) and many in the public as well as the academy. No matter, that had little to do with the 'why' and as for their concerns on the topic; (a) cost of war and (b) they were wrong.

Their fifth point is valid

Their final point is true but immaterial. Iraq was known by the policy makers to not be a threat (regardless of what was said publicly); in fact it was chosen because it wasn't much of a threat -- but mostly because of its geographic centrality in the Middle East, it's pariah status and the fact that an attack there would not disrupt ME oil supplies to China and India. The object was to follow the attack in Afghanistan (Message: Do not attack the US on its own soil) with an attack somewhere in the ME (Message: Stop screwing with US interests world wide and we will no longer accept your probes and fail to respond more forcefully than said probe). A lot of Europeans didn't understand that logic, so did not a lot of Americans who are Europhiles or something. Most in the ME understood it -- didn't like it but they understood it. You may have noticed little noise from Asia over that attack -- that's because most Asians understood it. Thus it looks like the Europeans were the ones lacking in understanding...

So, the Academics you linked got one right out of six. That's not very good thinking in my estimation.
The majority of Europeans was smarter than the Bush team, but since the U.S.Americans don't listen to Europeans they could at least choose their experts wisely.Presidents aren't supposed to be experts, they're supposed to make decisions based on the advice of experts. Bush got advice, made a decision and then some of the experts in uniform didn't do their job very well because they had not trained for it due to the failings of other experts in uniform over a 20 year period.

The majority of Europeans were not 'smarter' -- they were going to object to anything Bush did after his comments about Kyoto and the ICC -- plus, they were looking at a potential multibillion Euro trade with the ME being disrupted and their own Muslim communities getting restive added to a fear of oil supply disruption (that didn't happen. Come to think of it, none of those fears materialized...). They very quickly forgot "We are all Americans." National interest will do that... ;)
They showed character when the vast majority of think tank talking heads swam with the current into the wrong direction.If you think so. My opinion is that they showed appalling ignorance and stuck their noses into a milieu they did not really understand. Lot of that going around...
THAT is why they proved their value and deserve to be listened to next time they advise the public.If you believe five wrong calls out of six made are of value, we'll have to disagree on that. No one listened to them before and should a similar situation arise, due to their abject failure in the predictions to which you linked, no one is likely to pay any attention to them ever.
Who wants to bet against me when I assert that Michael O'Hanlon* still gets more time on TV than 80% of the people (if not all) who signed the NYT ad in 2002 together?Not me, idiots abound in government and without. I personally plan to pay no attention to either a crowd of academics or to any Think Tank talking heads --which are effectively the same thing -- I can make my own decisions based on paying attention to what goes on in the world instead of following the crowd in lock step. I recommend that approach.

[jmm99]

The "international security affairs" experts accepted the "Pottery Barn Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule)".


Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.

The Bush administration, and its Democratic opposition, also bought the Pottery Barn Fallacy (see little Wiki article for quotes and sources).

Ain't no such rule - at Pottery Barn or in I Law. However, that has been US national policy - seemingly accepted by most proponents and opponents of the Iraq intervention.

One cannot really test whether the alternative (invade and leave - i.e., kick over the anthills and let the ants find their own new ground) would have been better. Whether you call it "alternate history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history)" or "counterfactual history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history)", assessing what might have been the "better" policy - as opposed to what was done - is very tricky.

Unfortunately, Iraq was not as definitive as cardiac interventions. Been there twice in the last two decades (both were negative 90+% without intervention, positive 90+% with intervention). Both were quick ins and outs - the alternative of being on "life support" for a long time was not attractive. That's an easy decision.

The same problem applies to counterfactual discussion of Vietnam.

PS: Notice as I was writing that Ken has posted on the other points; but he notes that the fifth point (quoted above) is "valid". To me (IMO), it was not a valid point then (2003) or now. But, I concede that I am among only a small minority who supported the invasion, but not the occupation.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

You are making a strange argument here. We should listen to the 33 "experts" who signed that ad? What makes you believe those experts will be of one mind regarding future policy decisions? What do we do when they disagree?

Also, there is a difference between "listening" to experts and following their policy recommendations. Should they be listened to? Probably, if their arguments have merit. But we live in a democratic society and not a completely technocratic one, so blindly following some group of academics on policy matters is not wise, particularly if that group's track record is based being right once (and even that is undermined by Ken's post above). Never mind that those 33 being "right" on Iraq is predicated on the assumption that their preferred course of action is demonstrably superior to the one actually taken. People naturally assume that when a decision is made and something bad happens that the missed alternatives are superior. That is not the case. We don't know what would have happened if we didn't - things might turn out better in the long run, but they could just as easily have turned out worse. It's easy to come up with reasonable scenarios either way.

Finally, there has been much academic work on "experts" and it turns out they are not very good at predicting. Some have even claimed that the more renowned an expert is, the worse their predictions become (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1). There are many works on the subject besides Tetlock's, you should check them out.

[Ken White]

Yes sir, Yes Sir...


The "international security affairs" experts accepted the "Pottery Barn Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule)"...The Bush administration, and its Democratic opposition, also bought the Pottery Barn Fallacy (see little Wiki article for quotes and sources).Unfortunately. But I'm with you, I supported the attack as something that needed doing -- I did not think we would be dumb enough to stick around (that shows haw naive I am...) -- and groaned when in early May of 03 it became obvious that someone or something had changed the plan. Not for the better, said I... :rolleyes:
PS: Notice as I was writing that Ken has posted on the other points; but he notes that the fifth point (quoted above) is "valid". To me (IMO), it was not a valid point then (2003) or now. But, I concede that I am among only a small minority who supported the invasion, but not the occupation.I'm still with you and I could've cited your rationale herein but as we did for some strange reason decide to stay over my and your objection to doing so (FYI, we have some allies here and there who agree it was a bad decision... Followed by more bad decisions... :eek:), I elected to be charitable or something.

Anyway, I decided in making the comment above that since we had stayed, I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt and credit for getting that one right.

After all, if I had not done so, I'd have had to point out to Fuchs that they got all six wrong... :D

[Fuchs]

Ken, you look at the ad from the wrong angle.

It was no study or intel paper.
It was meant to counteract the pro-war propaganda of that time.
As such it did address issues that were discussed in the public, using a consensus approach among the many people who signed it and refrained from engaging matters that were already too ingrained in the public opinion (CB).

This 'meant for public discussion, no treatise' thing also covers the pottery barn thing. There was no space (and readers likely not patient enough) to discuss such things in detail, they mentioned how it would most likely be viewed and happen - and were right in that.

It's all about context, as usual.



The majority of Europeans were not 'smarter'

Ken, I believe you underestimate an extremely powerful factor here; the societal commemoration of war, its wastefulness/destructiveness and the lessons drawn from it and incorporated into the societies.

It would be surprising if the average European was smarter in terms of IQ than the U.S.Americans and intra-European differences in education disqualify the education criterion for smartness as well.
I'm quite convinced that the European nations (some more than others) were and are smarter as societies than the U.S. in matters of war & peace due to much richer (worse) experiences. The result were different majorities and different institutional reactions.

Besides that, almost all European countries had and have a popular majority against the Iraq War - usually for very different reasons than U.S.Americans like to cite to excuse themselves imho (this includes your ICC/Kyoto hint - I was in Germany in 2002/03 and never heard any such arguments as the U.S.Americans seem to believe to have been decisive - at all. Never. I've never seen/read an U.S.American who had a grasp of why Germans opposed the war.).

Being right about something on such a scale (and there's no doubt that the Iraq War went terrible and has hurt the USA much more than benefited) is a strong argument for smarter opinion-finding in itself.



By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes.
It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.

I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.


It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially).
The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars.

The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.

[jmm99]

But I'm with you, I supported the attack as something that needed doing -- I did not think we would be dumb enough to stick around (that shows haw naive I am...) -- and groaned when in early May of 03 it became obvious that someone or something had changed the plan.

This discussion for me and my pool partner (the ret. E7) started about then and continued into the fall. By Dec 2003, I was saying "mission accomplished"; he felt that there was more wisdom in the National Command Authority than I did at that point.

What we (E7 and I) did agree about was this: we have to deal with the situation we have, not the situation we'd like to have. As you have oft said, we all in this and in the same boat - even if we don't like the course it takes.

[Ron Humphrey]

Being right about something on such a scale (and there's no doubt that the Iraq War went terrible and has hurt the USA much more than benefited) is a strong argument for smarter opinion-finding in itself.


Are you absolutely sure about this, already?

If so why.




By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes.
It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.

I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.


It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially).
The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars.

The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.

While this is true in some contexts, surely you must understand how American's tend to weigh recommendations on warfare from those who quite often our under-cautious, overly brash selves have had to help dig out of some of the very same situations they warn against.

Not to mention we specialize in not even listening to ourselves if we don't like what we're hearing. :D

So it's nothing personal just sometimes unfortunately costly:(


Besides like others have pointed out, it's not that academic's shouldn't be listened to, it's just that as with anyone else anything they considered must be weighed against that which they for whatever reason choose not to consider.

[Fuchs]

While this is true in some contexts, surely you must understand how American's tend to weigh recommendations on warfare from those who quite often our under-cautious, overly brash selves have had to help dig out of some of the very same situations they warn against.

I don't understand.

[jmm99]

Fuchs,

I came into this world near the start of WWII for us (Aug 1942), which means I was conceived about the time of Pearl. That was my dad's war. By the time I was 2+, I came off with what I wanted to do - and that was to kill Germans. No surprise there, since that's what my dad was tasked to do - even though he had no love for Mr. Roosevelt's war. What was more ironic was that we lived in the same house as a German-American family, whose hero was Dwight D. Eisenhower - also tasked with killing Germans.

Since WWII, Germany and Europe have been spared from the experiences of large wars. The US hasn't - and we are well aware of our 100k+ butcher's bill for Korea and Vietnam. Those were part of the Cold War which I am happy ended as it did under Mr. Reagan.

After that the US had two choices: Decompression or the New World Order. My choice was decompression (sit back for a decade or so, and see what happens). The national policy became the New World Order in one form or another. That is the situation we have had to deal with - and I expect will continue to have to deal with.

My suggestion (which works in the hot button area of religion) is to witness your beliefs and opinions about what should be. Please do not tell me what my religion is (cuz you really can't know that) - also let's leave pejoratives out of it - applies to everyone, not just you.

PS: I got over my killing Germans thing after my dad got back and told me what war was really about.

[Entropy]

By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes.
It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.


Considering the full effects of the Iraq invasion won't be known for some time, I'd say it premature to label it as a mistake. And I say this as someone who didn't believe the invasion was a necessary step at that time, although given Saddam's history of miscaluation and penchant for attacking neighbors, I thought that a reckoning with his regime was probably inevitable. And if Saddam unexpectedly died, then the US probably would have intervened anyway. CENTCOM drew up plans for just such a contingency in the 1990's.

Furthermore, it seems to me that many of those who've been consistently calling the invasion a national mistake make two errors:

1. They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward. The real national mistake was the failure to adequately plan for and prepare for the consequences of the invasion. If I decide to drive to grandma's house for Christmas, do I call that decision a mistake when I fail to fill up the tank and run out of gas? No.

2. They have little sense of history and make assumptions that the recent past will inevitably play out into the future. We saw a lot of this when things were at their worst in 2006 and "experts" were declaring the occupation a complete loss with no possibility of a good outcome. Those experts are silent now that a better outcome appears possible (though far from assured).

In short, it's going to take a long time to gauge whether or not OIF was worth the many sacrifices made by Americans, Iraqi's and others in the end. Anyone who claims to definitively know one way or another is probably selling an agenda.

[Fuchs]

@jmm99:

Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.


@Entropy:

"They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).
The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

[Ken White]

the one looking at the entire thing from the wrong angle...
Ken, you look at the ad from the wrong angle.It was no study or intel paper. It was meant to counteract the pro-war propaganda of that time.As such it did address issues that were discussed in the public, using a consensus approach among the many people who signed it and refrained from engaging matters that were already too ingrained in the public opinion (CB).I understood that -- and did also when I read it at the time. I and many others disagreed with their conclusion. There was as much anti war propaganda -- and that's what it was -- at the time as there was pro war propaganda. There was a balance and the nation was about 50:50 on whether it was a good idea or not. IMO, the majority who thought it not a good idea hung believed the same things the deluded academics did and you seem to. That's sad, because the WMD / AQ linkage stuff was never of any importance at all -- and the Administration later acknowledged (quietly) that they made a bad choice in using that for justification.
This 'meant for public discussion, no treatise' thing also covers the pottery barn thing. There was no space (and readers likely not patient enough) to discuss such things in detail, they mentioned how it would most likely be viewed and happen - and were right in that. It's all about context, as usual.No, they were not right, as I've shown and all I've said above is pretty easily tracked. We can disagree on the Pottery Barn bit. If you hit me and I hit you back, I do not acquire a responsibility to raise your children...
Ken, I believe you underestimate an extremely powerful factor here; the societal commemoration of war, its wastefulness/destructiveness and the lessons drawn from it and incorporated into the societies.Not at all. Having experienced that destruction and wastefulness for many total months in several nations and been apart of the suffering, I'm very much aware of that factor -- probably a good deal more so than those who've merely read and thought about it. There is no human endeavor that is stupid as war and there is no such thing as a good war -- they're all bad and terribly regrettable.

However, some are necessary and Iraq -- or something like it -- was necessary. I wouldn't have done it the way Bush did but he did do something that was necessary. Four of his predecessors from both major political parties over a period of 22 years had let probes and forays from the Middle East occur and they failed to properly respond, so the probes continued and each was a little more daring than the last -- that's classic Middle eastern warfare -- until they came here; again -- the first try was in 1993. That needed to be stopped. Iraq was selected as the stopper.
It would be surprising if the average European was smarter in terms of IQ than the U.S.Americans and intra-European differences in education disqualify the education criterion for smartness as well. I'm quite convinced that the European nations (some more than others) were and are smarter as societies than the U.S. in matters of war & peace due to much richer (worse) experiences. The result were different majorities and different institutional reactions.I completely agree. Smarter may or may not be correct but I grant a very different outlook toward conflict and war -- and that should be acceptsble. I would note that I and most Americans realize that and accept it and believe that is your right and it is not our place to complain about it. There are some Americans who are disposed for various reasons to make an issue of it but they are a small minority. It does surprise us that many in Europe do not seem disposed to accept that difference without a lot of harsh criticism.
Besides that, almost all European countries had and have a popular majority against the Iraq War - usually for very different reasons than U.S.Americans like to cite to excuse themselves imho (this includes your ICC/Kyoto hint - I was in Germany in 2002/03 and never heard any such arguments as the U.S.Americans seem to believe to have been decisive - at all. Never. I've never seen/read an U.S.American who had a grasp of why Germans opposed the war.).I'm prepared to learn. I do recall European fulminating about both those things and I do recall concern over the Muslims resident in Europe and their potential reaction. I don't think there's any question about French, German and Russian commercial concerns (which may not have bothered the average citizen but did worry the governments)
Being right about something on such a scale (and there's no doubt that the Iraq War went terrible and has hurt the USA much more than benefited) is a strong argument for smarter opinion-finding in itself.I submit that 'right' is in the eye of the beholder -- I do not think you, Europe, were or are right at all and a good many here agree with me. I believe it is far too early -- by a couple of decades -- to say whether the Iraq war was a net plus or minus to the US. I do believe at this point it is a plus even in view of the cost and casualties but it's too soon to say for certain. I also believe at this point that Europe has benefited from the action -- again, too early to know. I'm curious to know why you seem to think we have been hurt so badly?
By the way; I started this thread to hint subtly at the importance of learning from national mistakes. It's important whether there's something driving hawkish pundits into the media or whether voices of caution get heard as loudly.Heh. Americans aren't into voices of caution. As I said earlier, if we wanted to have a European approach to life, our grandparents wouldn't have left there in there first place -- as you noted above, we are different -- and that should be acceptable.
I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.Partly them, partly Army untrained and unready, partly some other little things. None of any great significance.
It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially). The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.You held it back? Who knew... :D

Nope, we got your "we told you so" -- most of just think you're wrong, that's all.
That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars. The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.You cannot have missed the fact many here -- including me -- are saying small wars may not be as prevalent as some like to think and that we must prepare for full spectrum conflict and that by definition means an emphasis on high intensity conflict.

However, that's not your point. Your point is you think Iraq was a terrible mistake and the US is stupid. It appears that you believe since you think that is true it must be true. I hate to tell you this, but that is only your opinion. Many in Europe may agree with you. A few here in the US agree with you -- but it's all opinion; not fact, opinion. Others have a differing opinion. Only time will tell which opinion is correct.

[Ken White]

@jmm99:Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.That'll fit in with the large percentage of people here who say we should have left NATO in 1990. I suspect we'll all survive if that occurs.
@Entropy:"They conflate the decision and rationale for the invasion with the poor execution afterward."

That's a key quote that shows that you don't use the European point of view.

It's not about whether the war is clean or dirty, successful or failure.
The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.Of course he doesn't use the European point of view. That's like me saying you do not use the American point of view... :D

As for a crime by European standards; Okay. Uh, you do realize we aren't European? International law? I'll leave the legality debate to my attorney but I will ask you this; since a law is "The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system as international law." who or what is the political authority that enforces this international law?

With respect to "not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose..." I'd ask if those are fact or opinions? :wry:

I'm also very, very curious as to what you believe to have been the purpose of the invasion of Iraq?

[Surferbeetle]

Ken, I believe you underestimate an extremely powerful factor here; the societal commemoration of war, its wastefulness/destructiveness and the lessons drawn from it and incorporated into the societies.

Fuchs,

Do have have any links or general feeling as to how this factor is spread across the generations?


I'm quite convinced that the European nations (some more than others) were and are smarter as societies than the U.S. in matters of war & peace due to much richer (worse) experiences. The result were different majorities and different institutional reactions.

Klug, schlau, oder weise? Smart, clever, or wise? As a native speaker I suggest considering using the word wise here...



I don't have the impression that the USA has already learned from its mistake. It looks as if it is being treated as an aberration, a Neocon-only failure.

It's basically a "We told you so" thing (that's what I held back initially).
The problem is that even after being told about it and experiencing the consequences, it seems as if the USA would be all too interested in doing the same mistakes again - if only the military could promise to do a better job and deliver a clean result next time.

That's what 'irritates' me about the efforts to improve COIN capabilities in the future and about the expectation that future wars will be small wars.

The USA is extremely resilient - against some lessons.

In what part of the world do you see us as repeating this mistake?



However, some are necessary and Iraq -- or something like it -- was necessary. I wouldn't have done it the way Bush did but he did do something that was necessary. Four of his predecessors from both major political parties over a period of 22 years had let probes and forays from the Middle East occur and they failed to properly respond, so the probes continued and each was a little more daring than the last -- that's classic Middle eastern warfare -- until they came here; again -- the first try was in 1993. That needed to be stopped. Iraq was selected as the stopper.

Ken,

I have been thinking about your thesis, and you are the first person that I heard to advance this, for about a year now. It's logical, it seems to be plausible, and it makes more sense to me as time passes. It's seems to be part of the equation that I missed.

Riding the plane in before just before I linked up with my unit (OIF1) I felt that WMD and Oil/Energy were the primary reasons for the war. Hindsight shows that WMD was not part of the equation.

A significant part of my experiences dealt with living through what it means to not have Energy and trying to figure out ways to procure/generate/deliver it on the civil affairs side of things. Electricity for industry and essentials & amenities (generated by oil, diesel, or nat. gas in Iraq), fuel for vehicles, and fuel for cooking make the difference between third world and second/first world living. Theory and textbooks do not full convey the importance of Energy and I believe it to be a key part of the equation. IMHO it is worth fighting over.

Best,

Steve

[jmm99]

Fuchs,


Tolerance is fine, but don't be surprised if very different attitudes lead to a separation. The USA could break NATO with its style - and would be pretty alone afterward. It's open for debate whether the British would stick to the USA in such a case.

My little sermonette wasn't aimed at tolerance, but more for an officer and gentleman standard of discourse - application of the Pauline theme: "When I was a child, I spake like a child ... , but now I put away childish things...." We all (including JMM) sometimes forget that wisdom.

Now, for NATO substance. Since I am well aware of Article 5 and its escape and evasion loophole (several JMM posts on that), a "separation" would not surprise me. Our national policy is to support NATO - that may be because of US self-interest, or because of inertia, or both. I suggest the following:

1. If a European nation is that conclusively adverse to US attitude, style (or whatever), then I believe it has a duty to separate its link to us - assuming that nation has any sense of honor. That doesn't mean that it becomes our enemy.

2. Assuming NATO were dissolved tomorrow, the US would be fine. That might constrain US globalism in some military matters - perhaps, that would be a good thing.

3. Assuming #2, I suspect the Atlantic tier European nations - and quite possibly some in Africa and South America - would forge relationships with the US (whether bi- or multi-lateral). We have a common interest in that lake.

Next discussion point.


The Iraq invasion was pretty much a crime by European standards (and international law, but that's another story).

The act itself was not justified, not legal, an extremely poor tool for the purpose and overall it wasn't more reasonable than a random action.

I really don't want to beat this one into the ground. I am comfortable with the US legal position on Iraq - not a war crime (I think I have at least one post on that also).

I am well aware of German public opinion (and legal opinions) on Iraq and other I Law matters (several posts on that also). What people here (at SWC) should understand is that there are substantial differences between how the US and the European Code nations (most of the world's nations, in fact) view I Law.

Those differences arise from the basic theory of I Law - it arises from nations. In the US, our over-riding organic law (the Constitution) arises from the People (starting from its Preamble on). That, BTW, is why our system of government is 180 degrees out of phase with pure Sharia Law (which comes directly from God via a literal application of the Koran).

In US constitutional law, international law does not become part of US law until it is incorporated. Treaties and executive agreements are obvious examples of incorporation. However, even they may be over-ridden by subsequent Congressional statute. That might create an I Law flap (with the offended nation having a choice of remedies); but for our (US) purposes, the treaty is a dead letter.

I think (based on reading a number of German cases - and two Israeli cases on targeted killing and detention) that Code nations place I Law on a higher plane - that is, that it is incorporated (by reference) into the basic organic law. Thus, I Law becomes mandatory as a matter of domestic constitutional law. Any and all verified corrections on my comparative law views will be accepted.

On the other hand, the basic US position on I Law is that it is applied as a matter of comity (reciprocity is another term for the same thing). That may change tomorrow, but I doubt it.

You might want to take a look at the Operational Law Handbook - 2007 (6mb) is here (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/law2007.pdf); 2008 version (32mb) is here (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2008.pdf). Since only a few pages were added for 2008, the difference must be .pdf versions.

[Fuchs]

I believe you take too much for granted.

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

You don't seem to have an idea how poor the USA would be off without the European allies. No, this is not a text about European power; it's a text about how too much seems to be taken for granted.

A permanent alienation and display of different values and disrespect can break the alliance, and I don't think that U.S.Americans understand the possible consequences and how much they could lose.

Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.
No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.
No more overt intelligence-gathering in Europe.
No more overseas bases in European-controlled territories (including Diego Garcia).
Difficult diplomatic situation for the USA in most Latin American, almost all African, all European, many South Asian countries - closed doors on many issues.
No more economies of scale for U.S. arms production by selling to European countries.
No more military technology exchanges.
Immediate loss of most naval infrastructure for the observation of the Russian northern fleet's SSBNs.
No more intelligence exchange with European countries.
Loss of World Bank president's seat.
Many economic policy consequences (trade wars, copyrights).
Even such simple things like flying a C-17 to Israel would be pretty much impossible without European consent.

We could pretty much end up containing each other in 2020.
Another war of aggression like Iraq would probably suffice.
Keep in mind that a thing like the long-time survival of NATO is a historical anomaly.

This seems unrealistic today, but patience isn't endless, and the change in attitude caused by the Bush administration was already unthinkable a mere ten years ago.
The dislike for the costs associated with confronting each other is probably a stronger bond today than the sympathy for each other and actual benefits are. I read more often about measures to repair/strengthen the alliance than about (efforts to exploit) advantages. It's like about 100:0.
The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years.

U.S. Americans sometimes discuss the alliance and the UN as something almost burdensome - apparently oblivious to the benefits they get from these organizations.
Equally, they seem to think that international law only applies to others just because nobody invades or bombs them (well, with military bombs) in response to violations (so far).



You can't keep an alliance forever if you do to others what you want and tell your partners to accept that you're exceptional.



@jmm:

Johnny breaks into a house and beats up inhabitants.
The judge allows Johnny to defend himself.
Johnny tells him that his own moral compass is higher ranked than the law.
Nobody else cares, Johnny is a criminal.
Now Johnny is the greatest bully in the village and nobody really incarcerates him - but nobody likes him, other think he's a criminal and his family will soon kick him as a black sheep if he keeps committing crimes.

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

Our chancellor might have been arrested if Germany had planned to participate in the war of aggression against Iraq.
A failure of the justice to stop the government in that case could possibly have outlawed the government for all Germans - including legal assassination (article 20 GG).

[Surferbeetle]

I am well aware of German public opinion (and legal opinions) on Iraq and other I Law matters (several posts on that also). What people here (at SWC) should understand is that there are substantial differences between how the US and the European Code nations (most of the world's nations, in fact) view I Law.


JMM,

The legal pool is usually deeper than I am willing to dog paddle around in, however your post rings bells about topics raised in a business law class that I enjoyed. France, as I recall is a Civil Law country with laws being code based rather than Judge based as is here in the US?

My questions are:

1) Is Germany, and is the EU Civil Law based?

2) Is US Environmental Law, an exception or hybrid to the Judge based system?

Thanks/Best,

Steve

[Schmedlap]

By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.

Maybe this is just my feeble American brain failing to grasp this, but that sentence above sounds self-contradictory. Germans do not pass international laws. But they accept them as above their own - how does that make the Germans sovereign over anything?

[RTK]

The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years.

Are you saying Europe deserves no blame in their deteriorated security in the past 10 years?

If the answer to the above is "no," what are the internal issues that have brought about a deteriorating security posture?

If the answer is "yes" then what is causing European nations to continue the delicate relationship with the United States as things stand?

[jmm99]

You don't seem to have an idea how poor...

in the future, leave out ad hominems. The sentence is perfectly made by saying: "The USA would be much poorer off without the European allies."

Now, for substance. I agree that the EU, as a monolith, could do all you say:


Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.
....
Even such simple things like flying a C-17 to Israel would be pretty much impossible without European consent.

In short, a monolithic EU could adopt a policy of containment - a Cold War is what it used to be called.

I don't believe that will happen in the absence of extreme US provocation which directly affects the domestic interests of the EU; and I do not believe the US will do that (or would have, if Sen. McCain were elected).

You believe differently and have stated your reasoning.

Assuming that I am wrong, and the EU disowns and blackballs "Johnny", then "Johnny" will adapt and improvise. Perhaps, he will have to pull in his belt and suffer some privations - and discard some delusions of grandeur. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I am aware that Germany is a strong proponent of extended universal criminal jurisdiction - as are some other countries. For the benefit of others here, universal criminal jurisdiction began with high seas piracy. The extended version holds that, if Johnny commits a crime under international law (e.g., in Zaire), Johnny can be prosecuted in a country that has adopted the extended jurisdiction (e.g., Germany).

No question that Germany has a national right to adopt such a law - just as the US has a national right to refuse to recognize a judgment entered under that law. That collision would be decided according to the usual remedies for nations that feel offended.

This discussion could go on to no useful purpose. I believe I know where you stand; by now, you should know where I stand.

Actually, I have a very non-intrusive concept for US foreign policy; but I will not give a mm on what I believe are our Constitutional rights - which are not subordinate to I Law. That is not negotiable with you or anyone else.

[Ken White]

I believe you take too much for granted.That, I mean...
This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.In reverse order, like many from other nations (and too many from this one), you have a false sense of what a President can do. This nation operates essentially on autopilot; Presidents will jerk it a little to the left or a little to the right but they never -- never -- get it as far their way as they'd like. This one won't either. None of 'em do nearly as much as people think.

He's the 13th US President I've watched; Iraq was my fourth good sized war and I got to play in two of them, I recall the Depression and this is my sixth recession. I have also been told by numerous residents of other nations -- and a few Americans -- since 1947 that we are all evil, we do dumb stuff, we are selfish, loud, gauche and many other things. So I hope you'll forgive me if I just say I read your list, I've heard it all before, some several times -- and we're still here and people are still telling us the same thing. Just a few examples:
Two different European nations could veto everything the U.S. wants to pass in the UNSC.That's been happening since 1946. nothing new there...
No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.You're kidding, right?
Difficult diplomatic situation for the USA in most Latin American almost all African, all European, many South Asian countries - closed doors on many issues.That's been basically true with random exceptions for most of my life. Anti-Americanism may be new to you, it isn't to me.
The dislike for the costs associated with confronting each other is probably a stronger bond today than the sympathy for each other and actual benefits are.That has always been true, anyone who tells you otherwise isn't paying attention. We contributed to Germany's defeat twice; we forced the British and French out of the Colonial business during WW II and then made them leave Suez in 1956. There is no love for us in Europe and there hasn't been in my lifetime.
U.S. Americans sometimes discuss the alliance and the UN as something almost burdensome - apparently oblivious to the benefits they get from these organizations.Some are oblivious -- just as some Europeans appear to be.
Equally, they seem to think that international law only applies to others just because nobody invades or bombs them (well, with military bombs) in response to violations (so far).You frequently give the impression you do not read what others write here in response to your posts. J.M.M. explained quite well the different American and European perspectives on international law and you appear to have not read it or have dismissed it. Your prerogative but it does sort of stifle discussion.
By the way; the German sovereign is the German people, yet we accept international law as standing above our laws.We do not so accept the precepts of international law.

BTW, you didn't answer my query: Who or what body enforces international law?.

[jmm99]

France, as I recall is a Civil Law country with laws being code based rather than Judge based as is here in the US?

My questions are:

1) Is Germany, and is the EU Civil Law based?

2) Is US Environmental Law, an exception or hybrid to the Judge based system?

Yup, all Euro countries (except UK and Ireland, which are Common Law) are Civil Law (title of my comparative law text in law school), which is code-based. As to the rest of the world, whether Civil- or Common-based usually depends on former colonial status. Those nations not colonized had a choice (e.g., China and Japan, which chose code).

Neither system is inherently better than the other; and Civil Law jurisdictions are not a monolith as to I Law - and its place in the pecking order of constitutional precedence. SovCom and ChiCom law (back when I studied them in the mid-60s) were if anything stronger on the concept of their national sovereignty than the US.

OK, you're on target with Civil Law. A bit incomplete on Common Law.

English common law was largely judge-made, but there were always statutes - which had to be applied by judges. When the colonies were formed, all of the English common law and statutes were not accepted - only those that were applicable to the conditions of the New World - as determined by its People. That streak of cussed individual independence began with the Mayflower Compact - the folks at Jamestown may also have had something to do with that, as well (had to put in a little plug there).

In any event, by Independence Day, colonial law was a mix of pure common law (judge-made) and statutes (judge-applied). As time went on, the statutory component increased - something like 400k Federal statutes now (IIRC). So, in appearence, our largely statute-based law seems not that much different from code-based law. In a sense, code-based law is more judge-made because codes tend more to generalized legal statements, which then have to be interpreted by the judges - so, there is more room for "judicial legislation".

For sake of completeness, there is also Sharia law in pure or mixed form. USMA has added a Sharia Law course to its law department. I have no idea how many people take it - or any of the other law courses beyond the basic military law offering.

Hope this helps.

PS: Schmedlap - I too caught the apparent logical disconnect between German sovereignty and the supremacy of I Law. I don't want to speculate, but I suspect that the German concept of sovereignty may be different from ours (US). Fuchs may provide a German-based answer.

[Fuchs]

Maybe this is just my feeble American brain failing to grasp this, but that sentence above sounds self-contradictory. Germans do not pass international laws. But they accept them as above their own - how does that make the Germans sovereign over anything?

A specific law passed by parliament breaks (is higher ranked than) a general law passed by the same parliament, no matter whether earlier or later.

International law is being accepted by such acts like joining the U.N. (which makes the UN charter binding international law) and signing treaties. These are acts in which the sovereign accepts the international law as binding by ratifying it in the parliament.

This allows the international law to break national law while the system works perfectly logical - it's afaik being treated as the more applicable law in such cases.
Our parliament could pass a law that there's no copyright any more, but it would be ineffectual unless we leave the relevant international treaty on copyrights.
We could also issue a law that's in violation of the UN charter, but it would be irrelevant (if our president signs it at all, not sure about that).

By the way; I wrote above our law, and our constitution is afaik not called "law" - I'm not sure about whether international law is bellow, even or higher than the constitution (Grundgesetz). I believe it's in between law and constitution because acceptance of UN charter and such does not require the same large majority in parliament as does a change of the constitution (2/3).

I don't recall that the U.S. constitution explicitly allows wars of aggression, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the USA to obey the signed & ratified UN charter and not commit wars of aggression imho. Just imagine how worthless signature and ratification of treaties and charters are/were if every nation could de-value their commitment (without leaving the treaty) by passing a simple law!


Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars". :cool:

[Ken White]

...I don't recall that the U.S. constitution explicitly allows wars of aggression, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the USA to obey the signed & ratified UN charter and not commit wars of aggression imho.are never humble and, like America as a nation, I disagree with your opinion...
Just imagine how worthless signature and ratification of treaties and charters are/were if every nation could de-value their commitment (without leaving the treaty) by passing a simple law!You may wish to give that some thought. My impression is that all nations do that. They will act in their interest regardless of 'commitments.' See German industrial sales to nations on which the UN has placed trading stipulations...

You misunderstood J.M.M., no law was passed, the point is that in our view, no international law can trump the US Constitution which was signed and ratified long ago and precedes all so-called International Law.
Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars". :cool:Hitler was a sovereign? I thought he was 'elected.' What International Law did Wilhelm II violate? My reading of it says he was opposed and got trapped into a war he did not want by his Ministers (the 'experts') and Franz Joseph. He was also IIRC directed westward instead of eastward by his military 'expert' Helmuth the Younger...

[Fuchs]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone. ;)



I think it would be reasonable to say that International Law doesn't overrule national constitutions in said nations, but most if not all nations consider international law as superior when said nation acts outside of its territory. It really doesn't matter if one nation thinks otherwise; it's just in error then. Or would you consider it as justified and legal that Iraq invaded Kuwait because it had a different interpretation of what Kuwait is (19th province)? No, they were simply wrong.
The USA is big - and even more important: distant - enough to not have suffered much conventional consequences (like bombing/invasion), just lower level consequences (diplomacy, terrorism) due to its behaviour. It's quite naive in my opinion to assume that this would last forever, especially as there's a lot to lose even without war.

We (and I don't just mean Ken and me) disagree on a lot in this thread (and I am certainly not representative for German public opinion anyway), it was even pointless to engage in details (that's why I didn't attempt to discuss the many small disagreements).

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.
Other nations believed they were exceptional and need not submit themselves to rules and could ignore other's reactions - these nations failed because no nation is big enough to sustain such an attitude for long. Said nations are smarter now, they have learned about the consequences of such behavior. They have also learned that they can have a great living with very different, less conflict-prone behavior.

[RTK]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone. ;)

My questions were serious. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

[Fuchs]

My questions were serious. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.


Are you saying Europe deserves no blame in their deteriorated security in the past 10 years?

I wrote
"The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years."
There's no logical connection between both. Your question was irrelevant to what you quoted and I had no interest in following such off-topic thought.



If the answer is "yes" then what is causing European nations to continue the delicate relationship with the United States as things stand?

That was already discussed elsewhere in the thread, just scroll up.


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine. ;)

[RTK]

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.



I wrote
"The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years."
There's no logical connection between both. Your question was irrelevant to what you quoted and I had no interest in following such off-topic thought.




That was already discussed elsewhere in the thread, just scroll up.


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

I've asked with respect. You haven't reciprocated the courtesy.

My question stands: instead of casting stones from a glass house, I'm asking you what Europe could have done differently as well over the past ten years to improve their own security situation, outside of blaming the United States for their problems?

[jmm99]

Fuchs' post re: Grundgesetz ("fundamental or basic law" per my Langenscheidt's), etc., presents the German side of I Law and Con Law issues, where the two systems (German and US) have very different answers to the same questions.

Basically we have:

1. Pecking order of Basic Organic Law, International Law and Legislative Acts in the nation's system of governance.

2. Incorporation and Abrogation of International Law in that system.

3. Determination and Interpretation of International Law in that system.

Those are the general points that should be understood by each side before engaging on specific issues. And engage we will, because the answers are going to be different - although, in most cases, the results will be the same or at least similar.

I took this as German joke,


Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

although it does represent the post-WWII German position to view its WWI and WWII history in terms of the laws of war that were developed after WWII. If that evaluatioin is incorrect, please feel free to correct.

For the time being, I'd just as soon leave this sequence on the shelf for the moment:

Hague A > WWI > Paris Pact & Hague B > WWII > War Crimes Trials > UN Charter > GCs > Gulf I > Gulf II (legal and factual basis).

Unless each step in this process is understood, intelligent discourse about the OP is not possible.

Just some thoughts on ground rules - a Grundgesetz, so to speak.

-----------------
And, as I look to posts made while I write this - comments such as this are not helpful:


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

My purpose here is not to make international friendships (although if that happens, fine); but to witness to respective concepts of war; and, to the extent possible, destroy misconceptions of each other's positions.

So, let's keep this on an officers' level of discourse (recognizing that SNCOs by their inherent nature and talents will outdiscourse any officer).

I also had questions similar to RJK (a builder of bridges turned horse wrangler) about your comment that:


The alliance [JMM: NATO] has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years

1. How (facts) has NATO degraded Europe's security situation since 1999 ?

2. What has Europe (or individual Euro states) done to address the degradation ?

3. What should Europe (or individual Euro states) do to address the degradation ?

Left out "glass houses" because you can say that of us; and we of you - yah da, yah da .....

[Fuchs]

Well, Europe faces only two possible threat directions (as long as it chooses to stay allied with North American countries): East - CIS and South - Arabs.

Black Africa, South Asia, Latin America and East Asia are pretty much irrelevant for European security. Distant powers might annoy us or even sue military assets to block us from certain areas, but they are no threat to us.

Direction East:

The USA has used aggressive diplomatic strategies, intelligence services and the BMD issue to split Europe (BMD issue) and to alienate Russia contrary to the political intent of several (especially the larger ones) European powers.
I consider the unnecessarily contrary positions in Eastern Europe as degradation of European security simply because of the stress and the very low levels at which problems are already counted as relevant today.
The USA has a similar policy in Eastern Europe as in the Far East; it heats up conflicts in the hope of winning its power games while the really involved allied powers of the region are more intent to co-operate.


Direction South:

European countries have no significant political problems with Arab countries or populations, and besides tiny episodes like Lebanon 82 and Lampedusa (now a quarter century past) there was no relevant irritation between the Arab world and Europe since a very long time.
The U.S. involvement in the Mid East and subsequent annoying of large swaths of the Arab World created the blowback of AQ. The alliance link between Europe and the USA meant that Europe became a foe and target of violent elements, with subsequent loss of life and troubles.

The unfair brokering in the 90's and subsequent negotiations about the Palestinian/Israeli problem made the USA look like the big brother of Israel, the arch-enemy of NATO's European southern flank.
Fair brokering would have earned respect and prestige, unfair brokering meant that the ally of Europeans took the side of the arch enemy of the neighbors of Europe.
Europe with its mix of Germany (pro-Israel) and France (pro-Arabs since 1967) could have handled the issue without alienating the Arab world like this.

Problems like the Danish caricature pseudo-scandal grew on the fertile ground of the already existing tensions and perceptions of ill-will.

-----

Home-grown reasons for international tensions (whatever that would be) are irrelevant to the question whether the alliance increased or decreased European security.

[Ken White]

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.Yes, indeed. Maybe not leading to national disasters but the first part bears some thinking.

For everyone...

[jmm99]

you have presented your position as to Q1 - adequately (IMO) - which does not mean I agree with you.

Now, how about Q2 & Q3:

2. What has Europe (or individual Euro states) done to address the degradation ?

3. What should Europe (or individual Euro states) do to address the degradation ?

[jmm99]

The present Grundgesetz is here (http://www.bundestag.de/interakt/infomat/fremdsprachiges_material/downloads/ggEn_download.pdf). Its Wiki article is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany), and describes its background:


The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) is the constitution[1] of Germany. It was formally approved on May 8, 1949 and, with the signature of the Allies, came into effect on May 23, 1949 as the de facto constitution of West Germany.

The German word Grundgesetz may be translated as either Basic Law or Fundamental Law. The term Verfassung (constitution) was not used, as the drafters regarded the Grundgesetz as a provisional document, to be replaced by the constitution of a future united Germany. This was not possible in the context of the Cold War and the communist orientation of the Soviet occupation zone, which later in 1949 proclaimed itself the German Democratic Republic, dividing Germany into two states.

Forty years later, in 1990, Germany finally reunified when the GDR peacefully joined the West German Federal Republic of Germany. After reunification, the Basic Law remained in force, having proved itself as a stable foundation for the thriving democracy in West Germany that had emerged from the ruins of World War II. Some changes were made to the law in 1990, mostly pertaining to reunification, such as to the preamble. Additional major amendments to and modifications of the Basic Law were made in 1994, 2002 and 2006.

and adds:


The idea for the creation of the Basic Law came originally from the three western occupying powers. In view of the Nazi usurpation of Germany's prewar Weimar Constitution, they made their approval of the creation of a new German state conditional on:

a complete rejection of the ideology that the German people are a master race (German: Herrenrasse) — superior to others, born to be leaders, and entitled to commit genocide, or barbaric treatment of those not belonging to it;

an unequivocal commitment to the inviolability and inalienability of human rights.

Unfortunately, Wiki cites no source for the interplay between the 3 Allied Powers and the soon to be revived German state.

Shades of "The Third Man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Man) - yes, I know that was Vienna, but the post-WWII - pre-Cold War interval was a complicated interlude - and "Young Frankenstein" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Frankenstein) - coming back to haunt us.

[Surferbeetle]

Shades of "The Third Man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Man) - yes, I know that was Vienna, but the post-WWII - pre-Cold War interval was a complicated interlude - and "Young Frankenstein" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Frankenstein) - coming back to haunt us.

Young Frankenstein...a true classic!

While wandering around the internet I stumbled across The National Interest (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Default.aspx) website (I make no claims about this website one way or the other - but find that some of the articles on Germany and Russia, in particular, intelligently provide some background and points/counterpoints to consider on our topic)

Ich Bin Ein Berliner? (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20664)
by Donald K. Bandler and A. Wess Mitchel


Even if the new administration makes progress on all of these fronts, it is unlikely to be able to restore U.S.-German cooperation to its previous levels anytime soon. For the first time in more than a generation, seismic geopolitical shifts—a restive Russia, a stalling EU and an over-stretched America—have begun to change, perhaps fundamentally, the way America’s German ally looks at itself and its role on the wider transatlantic stage. Eventually, President Obama should be prepared to confront these challenges head-on and engage Berlin in a comprehensive discussion about the fundamentals of the relationship. For now, it will be enough to get the two talking and acting constructively again

Unfortunately I can no longer provide a working link to the articles on Russia at this website which I was able to read yesterday; Dimitri K. Simes as well as Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Focus.aspx?Focus=RegionEE) had articles available. Suffice to say they intelligently challenge my view of Russia.

[Schmedlap]

The latest issue also has a good article by "evil neocon" Richard Perle, discussing the debate surrounding why we went into Iraq. I'm pretty sure it's available to non-subscribers.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20486


So if it was not a neocon master plan, how did we end up invading Iraq? What were the considerations that led Bush to bring down Saddam Hussein’s regime by force? What was the role of neoconservatives in his decision to go to war in Iraq? Many people believe they know the answer to these questions because so much has been written, with seeming authority, by so many commentators. Could 50 million blogs be wrong?

[Gringo Malandro]

I believe you take too much for granted.

This "being different" taken to extremes and the well-demonstrated lack of respect for others and international law could lead to an isolated USA in less than a generation. Seriously, a McCain term could have accomplished that.

You don't seem to have an idea how poor the USA would be off without the European allies. No, this is not a text about European power; it's a text about how too much seems to be taken for granted.


I'm willing to accept that Europeans have a more cynical view of war due to differing experiences. But those experiences didn't seem give them any clarity after WWI, which was at least as devastating as WWII. I find it odd that Europe "got smart" about war precisely at the time they lost the capability to wage it on any significant scale. (It didn't, however, prevent France from sending Bob Denard all over Africa) I sense a bit of geopolitical "penis envy" in the European political class, which is reflected in the common culture.

And will it be possible, politically, for European countries to maintain large standing armies with capabilities similar to what the US has in the region? It seems to me that we are subsidizing your defense. The characterization of Russian conflicts as manufactured by US badgering ignores hundreds of years of Russian history, though I agree that said badgering was not in anybody's best interest. Russia will continue to behave as Russia always has, regardless of what particular flavor of government by which they identify themselves.

Finally, on the issue of respect for European prerogatives, I think multilateralism is important. But there is a certain sting to the bitter and rancorous European criticism, when there are still plenty of Americans that were dragged into TWO incredibly destructive and pointless European conflicts that aren't even in the ground yet. And funny that most of our recent "wars of aggression" take place in dysfunctional former European colonies.

I suspect that when Europe becomes a more reliable and proactive partner in international security, the US will defer to them more often. I hope this happens.

[jmm99]

got this right (IMO):


(article linked by Schmedlap)
The seminal error was, in my view, the failure to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis immediately after Saddam’s regime collapsed. History does not allow instant replays so we will never know whether that policy could have averted the disastrous insurgency—carried out by Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadists—sustained by terror, the incitement of confessional and ethnic divisions, and outside assistance. Had Iraq been enabled to stand up an interim government pending free elections to be held in, say, eighteen months, we might well have escaped the invidious role of an occupier. In blundering from liberation to occupation, we opened the way to nearly five years of suffering that only now, with the progress of the “surge,” is finally subsiding.

Perle, however, follows this up with the argument that Iraqi governance ought to have been turned over to the "DoD Iraqi Exile Group" - Ahmad Chalabi and others. There are many negative takes on Chalabi (including the agency's burn notice of many years standing).

One is found in Operation Hotel California, which is here (http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Hotel-California-Clandestine-Inside/dp/1599213664) - read the sans serif typeface portion by Sam Faddis & chose to ignore or read the rest by his co-author. Faddis tells quite a bit about the runup to Gulf II (OIF I) - AQ WMD production in Kurdistan, WMD intelligence from Iraq, incompetent Iraqi exiles, etc.

Sam Faddis has a blog - local home town type - which is here (http://www.hometownannapolis.com/blogs/blog/10/Sam%20Faddis%20-%20Is%20It%20Safe%20.html). This guy seems credible (also a fav comment by at least one ex-agency person who disagreed with him about Panetta).

PS: Sbee - I like Steve Cohen's stuff on Russia - which is a bit strange given my own politics. In any event, he is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen) and here (http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/stephen_f_cohen) - and quite a few other places.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

You are a moving target in this thread, and have completely derailed it from the original post you made about listening to 33 academics who signed a letter before OIF. When confronted with counterarguments, you've ignored most and simply switched to something else. We're on Nato now, which is the several iterations down the line. If you can't be bothered to answer criticism made against your assertions, then what is the point?

[RTK]

Entropy - Don't hold your breathe. You'll probably get a response like this one.


That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.

Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

[jmm99]

if you ever shot running boar (target shooting), you'd appreciate the situation.

Seriously, I and RTK asked the most-current questions about NATO - and Fuchs responded to them.

Also seriously, the German view of Iraq is important (see article by Sbee) and it has launched the most serious legal attack on the validity of the Iraq invasion. I don't buy the German position from a legal standpoint, but that part is certainly on topic.

I'd cut him a little (wee little bitsy) slack - until his next post.

PS: RTK posted while I was writing - Yup, I'll have to admit he has a talent for attacking the ad hominem capillaries - hit a couple of mine already, but they don't bleed much.

[bourbon]

Perle, however, follows this up with the argument that Iraqi governance ought to have been turned over to the "DoD Iraqi Exile Group" - Ahmad Chalabi and others. There are many negative takes on Chalabi (including the agency's burn notice of many years standing).
Ahmad Chalabi is at best an Iranian agent of influence, and his organization was reportedly penetrated on every level by the Iranian's. (Jeff Stein reported on Chalabi's recent activities (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2008/10/ahmed-chalabi-the-erstwhile-ir.html) in October.)

After all that has since come out about Chalabi and company, Richard Perle still says this is the guy/group we should have handed the country over to. Richard Perle has no shame.

[Ken White]

to who. Or why. I'm not a fan and never have been, he was not particularly effective as the ASecDef for International Security Policy in the Reagan Admin.

However, I do agree with him that staying to 'occupy' Iraq was not a good idea and I agree that the guy who messed it up -- Bremer -- was not one of Perle's in-crowd. As for Chalibi, more to him than that. He's a chameleon, no question but the CIA had and has their own agenda...

[jmm99]

After reading over (several times) the Faddis portion of the book, it is not at all clear what the CIA HQs' overall agenda for Iraq was - except as it related to his in-country team.

Beyond the Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction report, which is here (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm), and associated WMD stuff, including the Niger stuff,

1. How much agency involvement was there in the run-up to OIF1 ?

2. Did it have an overall agenda in that situation ?

[Ken White]

the overall -- as opposed to some teams, cells or branches -- object of Langley was to avoid commitment of the Armed Forces for several reasons, mostly to avoid the turmoil and resultant disruption of some of their long term plans and then current operations in the area.

They also, I believe, wanted badly to to discredit the Administration. I believe that was due to great internal upset over getting blamed for dropping the ball in the summer and fall of 2001 -- a legitimate gripe on their part, I think, because they did their thing in the lead up fairly well but because the whole community was bureaucratically hogtied, they got blamed for some stuff not their fault. Add pressure to change findings and they had a complaint or two. They're easily the best and dirtiest bureaucratic games player in Washington...

Did I ever tell you how much damage Jimmy Carter did... :wry:

[jmm99]

Did I ever tell you how much damage Jimmy Carter did...

but right now my picture of the Carter administration (beyond a big fire in the desert) is a blur. Wait, I see an attack by a wabid wabbit. You didn't! How could you ! :eek:

I'm going to attach a couple of zip files of .html files I downloaded in Mar-Apr 2003. Supposedly, the "intel" in them came from the GRU - although a lot of it seems more like Baghdad Bob. At about the time he faded from our TV screens, the website closed down and went 404 (explanation in last .html).

These are really funny - we were getting our clocks cleaned - like I said, Baghdad Bob. You all may find them enjoyable.

Earliest file is attached first (starts at bottom - single file)

The other file should unzip to 16 files. Packed by WinRAR 3.62 - if any unzip problems, let me know.

Best save these to a directory (folder) and then unzip there.

[Ratzel]

The majority of Europeans was smarter than the Bush team, but since the U.S.Americans don't listen to Europeans they could at least choose their experts wisely.

Don't mistake European weakness and decadence for wisdom. For 500 years the Europeans were intervening across the globe and then became "smarter" after they tore each other to shreds in WWII. The fact is, the Europeans would still be playing power politics if they could, but now that they can't, they claim enlightenment.

Now Europe is so sad it can't even stop foreign extremists from burning the place down. Old ladies get started on fire in France and if anyone complains, they get charged for "inciting intolerance." In fifty years, when the Koln Cathedral is transformed into a Mosque and European women walk with their faces covered I'm sure you'll be back here explaining how much smarter you all are?

So maybe we should choose our experts more wisely? But under no circumstances should these experts be people from your dying Continent; especially Germany, and place where its soldiers aren't even allowed to fight in Afghanistan. Just as a clock is right twice a day, its not surprising Europeans pointed out the challenges of Iraq. But again, while I can't claim to be an "expert" in anything, I am confident in telling you this:

DON'T CONFUSE YOUR DECDENCE AND WEAKNESS FOR WISDOM.

[Rex Brynen]

So maybe we should choose our experts more wisely? But under no circumstances should these experts be people from your dying Continent; especially Germany, and place where its soldiers aren't even allowed to fight in Afghanistan. Just as a clock is right twice a day, its not surprising Europeans pointed out the challenges of Iraq. But again, while I can't claim to be an "expert" in anything, I am confident in telling you this:

DON'T CONFUSE YOUR DECDENCE AND WEAKNESS FOR WISDOM.

Thank you contributing to the quality of the discussion in such a productive and enlightening way. Personally, I always come away from "US versus Europe" arguments (or vice-versa) feeling intellectually uplifted. :wry:

[Schmedlap]

Just as a clock is right twice a day, its not surprising Europeans pointed out the challenges of Iraq.

That kind of brings the thread back on topic. Indeed, it is not surprising that the Europeans or anyone else pointed out some challenges in Iraq. But the important question remains: so what? So they pointed out short-term challenges for a long-term endeavor. And?

[William F. Owen]

Personally, I think this thread has degenerated to a degree where a cease fire might, unusually, be useful.

[Steve Blair]

Concur. If we don't see a return to useful discourse this one might just end up locked.

[Ken White]

made as many as anyone on it or nearly so and I don't really recall any useful discourse. :D

[Steve Blair]

In that case....