The Emerging "Neocon" Alibi on Iraq

[wm]

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...

Ken,
Wishful thinking on your part I believe. (And hope is not a plan )

America going to war (and not just sending in a few troops a la Grenada or Panama as an exercise of testosterone release) is, IMHO, the national equivalent of a domestic "crime of passion." We knee jerk and send the troops off somewhere because we react very much as a husband would should he come home and found the missus in bed with another man--no rational thought involved, purely a visceral reaction.

The low level troop commitments have less emotional motivation, but it is still present to some degree(as the "testosterone release" phrasing in my description above indicates).

If you want strong, "take charge"national leadership, I suspect you have to accept the propensity for irrational responses to major provocations as well.

[Ken White]

Ken,
Wishful thinking on your part I believe. (And hope is not a plan )

America going to war (and not just sending in a few troops a la Grenada or Panama as an exercise of testosterone release) is, IMHO, the national equivalent of a domestic "crime of passion." We knee jerk and send the troops off somewhere because we react very much as a husband would should he come home and found the missus in bed with another man--no rational thought involved, purely a visceral reaction.

The low level troop commitments have less emotional motivation, but it is still present to some degree(as the "testosterone release" phrasing in my description above indicates).

If you want strong, "take charge"national leadership, I suspect you have to accept the propensity for irrational responses to major provocations as well.

...I said this:

""The broader point, though, is that our political process and domestic politics have been the driver in our inability to do the analysis and make rational strategic decisions and I do not see that changing in the near term, desirable as it may be. In that sense, the assessments leading to this war differ little from that (or the lack of that...) of most of our previous wars -- and much as I agree with you on what should be done, I'm not particularly optimistic that it will be.""

My point in the last few posts on this thread was to (1) Agree with Steve that what he posits is what should be done. (2) Remind everyone that it has never really happened and is unlikely to. Much as we could all agree it should.

We just get to cobble stuff together and try to make it work out -- it's the American way...