Results 1 to 20 of 87

Thread: The Emerging "Neocon" Alibi on Iraq

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thanks. I would agree with

    El Salvador, Grenada and Panama though I would mention that each of those had its own batch of surprises; they were small scale so the surprises were not major.

    Bosnia, possibly -- but if so, it would seem the calculus was flawed (based on length of mission). Kosovo would appear to be not an example on several levels...

    Note though my caveat in the original question; "...the commitment of troops in any thing more than token numbers? (emphasis added / kw).

    Far more important than that issue, I think, is my follow on question; how do we get that -- "the threat from X justifies the costs and risks of dealing with it using method Y." -- to happen routinely?

    I fully understand most of the parameters in strategic decision making -- and am more conversant than I wish to be with the domestic political dimension -- but there should be a way to force that issue on reluctant Administrations (not to mention Congress. Shudder... ) and hopefully to do so with knowledgeable and competent assessment of the costs and risks.

    I say hopefully because I also fully understand the great difficulty in such assessments and I would never expect perfection. War will never be fully predictable and the unexpected is the norm. I also say hopefully because of the equally great difficulty of getting knowledgeable and competent people involved in such assessments as opposed to getting the judgment from whoever happens to be in position at the time...

    I have watched us fail badly in such assessments too many time over the past 60 years or so and it would seem to me there has to be a better way. In the current situation, you guys came up with a pretty good assessment -- and it was essentially ignored. That, too has happened before -- numerous times.

    Goldwater-Nichols was not a panacea but it did slightly more good than harm; the errors in it should be fixed and some additions made to get a valid, comprehensive strategic process embedded -- one that will force sensible risk assessment, planning and force employment. Cap Weinberger tried but he relied on common sense to heed what he said. That wasn't enough, unfortunately.

    There oughta be a law...
    Last edited by Ken White; 03-19-2008 at 11:02 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •