No, don't think so -- I believe you are
the one looking at the entire thing from the wrong angle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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).
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Interesting points of view...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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?
Quote:
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
Appreciate your posts, could use a clarification...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
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
Someone is, that's for sure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I believe you take too much for granted.
That, I mean...
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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...
Quote:
No more auxiliary troops for small or big wars.
You're kidding, right?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?.
Some points for discussion
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,
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 .....
Words you should take to heart...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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...