Coming back to address this:
Then quite simply, the US should stop talking and posturing as if it is the 'leader of the free world'. The world is merely calling your bluff, saying if you are the world leader you profess to be... then do something... and quite often (sadly) you can't or if you do you screw it up.Originally Posted by Ken White
Not a good enough excuse. The US system is dysfunctional and that's the end of it.One can say that if we 'did it right' that would not be a problem. The fact is that we can rarely if ever 'do it right' due to our governmental systems and processes. They were designed for US internal use and work well for that; they were designed to AVOID foreign entanglements and they also work well for that. Trouble is encountered when those design parameters are ignored...
We have covered this before at the the political/military interface and at the lower command levels within the military where it appears to have reached the status of a national characteristic where people (I don't want to use the word leader here) are unable to delegate (the execution) without interference and micromanagement. There IMHO lies the problem.
Bob's World takes us into the world of the think-tanks and talk-shops. Its all hypothetical and nothing is real. I mentioned to him before that he is thinking at a level above the realities on the ground (which I think he took as a compliment).Even Bob's World too often ignores that harsh reality by insisting that we can do things elsewhere, we just need to do it his way -- that's wrong, too -- the US is too big to ever do much in any one person's way and the system is purposely designed to preclude long term efforts of any type.
My point is essentially that if the (US and the Brits) have proved to be unable to beat the IED threat (or at least significantly mitigate against it) then the message sent to the world is that the US is good only for a 'Thunder Run' into Baghdad or massive bombing like in the early days in Afghanistan.
(The rest of NATO deal with the IED problem by not leaving camp very often - which is quite pathetic)
Which leads us to the Colin Powell statement 'if you break it you own it' (or something like that). Nonsense. So if Gadaffi and/or Assad go (or are visited by some precision guided HE) and Libya/Syria revert to feuding tribes whose problem is that? All it would take is two cruise missiles (the third one you would never need to use). Cheap at the price.
We have agreed on this before.We can do sharp quick raids for immediate policy concerns. We have never successfully been able to engage in long term efforts in or with other nations -- and I say that as one who has spent a good many years assisting in the implementation of US efforts in a number of other nations on four continents. The best of intentions elsewhere will always get trumped and changed by US domestic political concerns and that lack of ability to provide continuity mean we should endeavor to not interfere elsewhere unless the effort will be quick. Difficulty and costs are not issues, speed and success are -- or should be.
Bookmarks