Good find, David.
Thanks for posting it. Especially notable is this paragraph from the article:She and others who espouse that R2P foolishness and the Rothkopf's of this world who support similar follies (performed by their President...) are every bit as responsible as are the equally deluded Neocons."A ‘neocon’ alibi gets the likes of Anne-Marie Slaughter off the hook too lightly. Having supported war in Iraq, and routinely supporting American military action from Rwanda to Libya to Syria, Slaughter would prefer us all to move on, and focus on the real issues of how to rebuild from the rubble created by the wars she endorses in the first place."
The truth IMO is that it was a good strategic effort flawed by poor execution and that even with the flaws and costs, it achieved many of its original aims even if this Stephen Walt writes is correct:If "our time" is defined as the the last 37 years, a generation, he may be proven correct but I'd be far more inclined to nominate Afghanistan (and something even worse might yet appear..."...who after voting for the worst military adventure in our time, went on to advise Americans that they should exercise ‘smart power.’"). Even if it is the 'worst,' is that military misadventure the fault of the military forces involved -- or of the politicians who sent and then kept them there when it was obvious that those forces were ill prepared and that the politically assumed and militarily totally unnecessary task was likely unachievable.
Time will tell. What we hopefully have learned is that such efforts are unduly expensive, unlikely to achieve success and a distraction. We should avoid them to the maximum possible extent. "Smart Power" to me is not wasting military force where it will likely do more harm than good. Iraq may escape such a judgement, barely if at all. Afghanistan is less likely to do so...
Bookmarks