Farsighted academics
Just in case someone searches for proven, farsighted academics (a.k.a. Cassandras):
They were quite spot-on in my opinion, 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.***
Last edited by Jedburgh; 01-24-2009 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Added link.
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.
Heh. We can disagree on most of that
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.Originally Posted by Fuchs
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...Probably not. Many Academics sometimes miss practical and real world things...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).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...I mobilize all my self-discipline to not add an acid comment from an European's point of view.
I'm a far-sighted academic. Thankfully I bought glasses to fix that.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
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
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?
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?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks