the one looking at the entire thing from the wrong angle...
Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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...

Nope, we got your "we told you so" -- most of just think you're wrong, that's all.
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.