You'll get no arguement from me on these points
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
I agree... but I have to point out, again, that our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not initiated in order to support a government, legitimate or otherwise, against insurgency. They were initiated to remove governments we found distasteful. Having succeeded in that, we then faced a situation where there was no government at all. That's a very difficult position to be in: a government installed by an occupying power is going to be perceived as illegitimate and not recognized as a government, but if the occupying power leaves without putting together some kind of government the probable result is a takeover by whatever armed force is left after the intervention. If armed force is distributed the likely outcome is civil war, with intervention by all manner of self-interested actors.
Compounding the problem is the tendency of the intervening power in these cases to pursue legitimacy in the eyes of its own constituents in its own country, rather than in the eyes of the occupied populaces. In order to justify intervention and make it appear legitimate the US government promised to pursue transitions to an electoral democracy along American lines, which may have been what the American populace wanted to hear but may not have been a very practical approach to the problem at hand. Of course the American people also wanted an intervention of limited duration, ideally with a fast withdrawal, and nobody seemed willing to tell them that these objectives were mutually exclusive.
If there's any lesson to be learned from all this it is that people who contemplate future regime change efforts need to put a lot more effort into realistic assessments of the challenges implicit in a post regime change environment. It's easy to say we made mistakes, and by any criteria we did, but I'm not convinced that any alternative course of action would have provided a quick magical transition to a functional government that was perceived as legitimate by all of the competing populaces in the picture. The task parameters were just not realistic from the start.
I believe that if there was a better understanding of the concept of Causation for insurgency in the U.S.; then we would have taken very different courses from what we instead embarked upon. I won't second guess the guys who made the decisions; but I think if they had been a bit more informed as to the nature of what they were attempting to manipulate through force of arms; they would have made better choices.
Fact is though, at that time you had Ph.D.'s ranting about Isalmism and the Caliphate; Intel guys looking hard for a state-based threat and pinning the WMD tail on our favorite Donkey Saddam; No one in DC second guessing the validity of our own post-cold war policy and how it might be contributing to the growing violence being directed back at the US; and EVERYONE wanting to exact a healthy dose of American-style revenge on someone; and to return our lives here at home back to normal.
That was then, this is now. The question is, what do we do now?
There are still plenty clinging to concepts and policies that have dug us an 8-year deep hole, be it out of loyalty, stubborness, or just what must be very rose colored lens perspectives. I think a clear order has been given to turn the ship around; I just don't know that we've picked a new heading yet.
Well, here, it's about 0828S. Or we can use 1428Z...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
The burning question is, what time is it now?
Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.
I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more. :wry:
As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...
I am an idealist in the real world
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.
I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more. :wry:
As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...
Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.
It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.
Was Wilson an idealist? certainly. Were his French and British counterparts realists? No, they were bitter, angry, visionless men and by trumping Wilson they forced terms on Germany that made WWII inevitable.
I'm comfortable with my knowledge and interpretations of history. I'm not a memorizer, so don't ask me to regurgitate dates, names, etc. I am more what I would call an "understander." I think about things and relate them to other things, challenge book solutions, and look for deeper meanings. Sure, I get it wrong at times, and I certainly probably sometimes see things that aren't really there. I'm comfortable with my track record.
I put these ideas out for others to consider in their own quests for understanding. Party lines and status quo answers are sold elsewhere. I'll be the first one to admit that America has stepped on a lot of toes over the years. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes just being a bit clumsy. I'm simply saying that we might want to step back a few inches and be a bit more tolerant of others a bit less intrusive in the governance and morality of the world.
You really are an idealist, Bob
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.
Good for you. I took that line years ago when I was heavily involved in politics; didn't work then and probably won't work now, but I can at least live with myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.
Sure, it's an axiomatic assumption if a democracy of any form is actually going to work as more than a mobocracy. Unfortunately, most of our (Western) democracies are dominated by political parties rather than any real grass roots type of democratic organizations, and one of the unfortunate truisms about political parties is that they are all focused on either maintaining or getting into power. In addition, there are some very strong institutions operating that do not want the populace to be informed except as that term is used by propagandists.
Is Bob's World Really Billy Jack?
Is BW really Billy Jack????
Scene from Billy Jack goes to Washington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqBynKxAiiI