Countering Lind-dinistas - if the mission is impossible, don't blame me

[Fuchs]

Can you restate all that into a rational counterarguement?

It wasn't so much a counterargument as some pushing against a pro-institution bias. The problems with your conclusions begin with your narrative.

[TheCurmudgeon]

It wasn't so much a counterargument as some pushing against a pro-institution bias. The problems with your conclusions begin with your narrative.

If what you are seeing is institutional bias then you are missing the point of the argument. No one could have accomplished that mission. Period. With that said, why are you now attacking the military for failing to do the impossible (OK, improbable)?

I could understand an argument to re-look the civil-military relationship. Perhaps give the military the power to say "No", or give them the ability to go directly to the public with the failings of the administration. But I don't really like either of those, In the end we are a tool of the administrations policy.

[Fuchs]

Humans are still hardcoded for social interaction in clans.
If someone attacks your clan - that's an attack on you.
Someone criticizes your institution - that's (perceived as) a critique of yourself.
The typical reaction is that the clan members rally and fight back.

Critique can be useful even if it's inaccurate, though. It is necessary to tolerate and embrace critique in order to overcome the partisanship and to improve (the own clan).



Here's what you did:

(1) Someone criticised your clan with the allegation of failure.

(2) You respond that your clan is free of guilt because some other clan failed allegedly.



Here's what would be useful:

(1) Someone criticised your clan with the allegation of failure.

(2) You respond by exploiting this reminder about clan imperfection to push for clan improvements, to foster beginner's interest in clan improvement and to create/maintain an environment in which both is standard.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Humans are still hardcoded for social interaction in clans.
If someone attacks your clan - that's an attack on you.
Someone criticizes your institution - that's (perceived as) a critique of yourself.
The typical reaction is that the clan members rally and fight back.

Critique can be useful even if it's inaccurate, though. It is necessary to tolerate and embrace critique in order to overcome the partisanship and to improve (the own clan).



Here's what you did:

(1) Someone criticised your clan with the allegation of failure.

(2) You respond that your clan is free of guilt because some other clan failed allegedly.



Here's what would be useful:

(1) Someone criticised your clan with the allegation of failure.

(2) You respond by exploiting this reminder about clan imperfection to push for clan improvements, to foster beginner's interest in clan improvement and to create/maintain an environment in which both is standard.

Your assumptions are twofold. First, that I believe the criticism is valid. It is not. Second, that I am defending a specific institution. I am not.

[Fuchs]

The first assumption is not necessary, nor did I want to imply it.

The second "assumption" is not an "assumption", but an observation - a description of a fact. You are defending the U.S.Army/U.S.Military against Lind's (and similar) critiques.

I am getting tired of the Lind’s (...) as a failure of Army Leadership. My response is that the military could not create such a political entity because it is impossible to do.
(...)
The three arguments support the final point that the failure was never on the part of the military.

Now if that's not the axe you have to grind, what is it? Aversion against Lind? That would be an even lesser reason for a counter-critique.


My impression is that your counter-critique is a gut-level reaction, even though you attempted to make it look logic-driven with your three points.



Here's a technique for how to avoid such an impression and still provide a rebuttal:
(1) Proclaim that Lind cannot prove that the mission was ever possible and how this undermines his case,
then
(2) point out ineffectiveness of last three decades of Lind critique as evidenced by his repetition of old points,
then
(3) point at better opportunities for critique, and need for improvement that (in your opinion) deserves more attention and justifies greater effort and urgency.

(3) would signal a honest interest in improvement and it would signal that the reaction is not simply partisan defensive.

[TheCurmudgeon]

It was a gut level reaction, but not in defense of the Army, or really an attack on Lind. It was a gut level reaction to the continuing fallacy that you can create democracies. That if we had just understood or implemented COIN better or had followed the dictates of 4GW. Its all bunk. The problem was the mission was not feasible.

I would not care if Lind was attacking State or the UN, he is still wrong to place blame on an organization for failing to do what is, for all intents and purposes, an impossibility. As the fictional character Dr. Manhattan points out in my favorite quote, you can't change human nature.

BTW, as long as that fallacy exists, the same one that was behind the idea of modernization in Vietnam, we will get involved in this stupidity again.

Fuchs, I get the feeling that you disagree with my base proposition, that it was a practical impossibility to create a functioning stable democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Dayuhan]

Here's what you did:

(1) Someone criticised your clan with the allegation of failure.

(2) You respond that your clan is free of guilt because some other clan failed allegedly.

I have nothing to do with the any of the clans in question, and in my view the failure was primarily at the policy level, in selecting utterly unrealistic objectives and pursuing them with tools poorly suited for the purpose.

I do suspect that the military, at the senior leadership, could and should have explained these things to the policymakers much more aggressively. Since I'm not privy to the discussions at that level, I don't really know what was said and what the reaction was. At the operational level, of course, the officers and men involved would have had little input or choice.

Part of this whole discussion, of course, is the nature of "mission creep"... at the early stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the military leadership may not have recognized the extent to which the military would have the nation building task dumped on the military. Again, though, an honest analysis would require detailed knowledge of the discussions that took place at that time.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Dayuhan, while the historical story of how the military ended up with the mission to create democracies might be interesting, I am not sure it is germane to the issue at hand. The fact is that creating a stable, democratic Iraq was part of our mission.

Our mission:

A Stable and Democratic Iraq: Now that coalition military forces have ousted Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States will work side-by-side with the Iraqi people to build a free, democratic, and stable Iraq that does not threaten its people or its neighbors. Our goals are for Iraqis to take full control of their country as soon as possible and to maintain its territorial integrity. We will assist the Iraqi people in their efforts to adopt a new constitution, hold elections, and build a legitimate government based on the consent of the governed and respect for the human rights of all Iraqis. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but not one day longer.

http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/2004/23503.htm

We fell into it after it did not happen on its own.