Heh. We can disagree on most of that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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... ;)
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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...
Henhouse is into the fox???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Quote:
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... ;)
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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...
Sidebar and backgrounder...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
Shades of
"The Third Man" - yes, I know that was Vienna, but the post-WWII - pre-Cold War interval was a complicated interlude - and
"Young Frankenstein" - coming back to haunt us.
Young Frankenstein...a true classic!
While wandering around the internet I stumbled across The National Interest 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?
by Donald K. Bandler and A. Wess Mitchel
Quote:
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 had articles available. Suffice to say they intelligently challenge my view of Russia.