Sunday, October 23, 2005
A History Lesson
The cliche is that the military establishment -- any military, not necessarily ours -- prepares for the (unknown) next war by preparing after the fact for the last war. So with Vietnam still the relevant example for the point I'm trying to make, our Pentagon, at some point, should have not just prepared to fight an insurgency but also how to win the natives' hearts and minds -- to learn how to turn them to our point of view, so to speak.
well, let's jump ahead for a second; anyone think we show any sign of understanding ho to fight an insurgency, how to win over hearts and minds of hostiles -- I refer, of course, to Iraq.
And of course there are more mistakes: Expecting a military slamdunk so therefor rely on a grossly excessive number of reservists for one. (Well, the regular military is too tied up on the empire's huge network of overseas bases.)
And of course there was that troublesome disconnect, the lack of planning for the post-victory years, the years of conquest and colonialization. But why should there have been planning? The goal was always the control of oil and that required an operative fiction to support an invasion. Operative is the word of course; the lack of one repeatedly required the administration to keep coming up with new reasons, none of which held water.
So we'll be ending up with a long-term presence, mostly an Islamic republic, gladdening our allies no end, and some degree of an independent Kurdistan, gladdening at least Turkey no end -- not.
And the irony: W's pappy was certain to leave what one could call a tar baby of a nightmare to his successor, Slick Willy (like Ike left the Bay of Pigs to JFK). And here's W, doing all he can to be the opposite of his pappy -- but he's leaving the tar baby disaster for himself. At least vis a vis Iraq, doesn't matter who wins in 08; it's an insoluble problem (well, actually there is that single solution of cutting bait, but how is the big problem).
And to finish with a tangential digression: Query when enough the electorate stops and understands the reality -- all these problems came from an unchecked, radical rightwing party. Maybe a little balance might be in order....
well, let's jump ahead for a second; anyone think we show any sign of understanding ho to fight an insurgency, how to win over hearts and minds of hostiles -- I refer, of course, to Iraq.
And of course there are more mistakes: Expecting a military slamdunk so therefor rely on a grossly excessive number of reservists for one. (Well, the regular military is too tied up on the empire's huge network of overseas bases.)
And of course there was that troublesome disconnect, the lack of planning for the post-victory years, the years of conquest and colonialization. But why should there have been planning? The goal was always the control of oil and that required an operative fiction to support an invasion. Operative is the word of course; the lack of one repeatedly required the administration to keep coming up with new reasons, none of which held water.
So we'll be ending up with a long-term presence, mostly an Islamic republic, gladdening our allies no end, and some degree of an independent Kurdistan, gladdening at least Turkey no end -- not.
And the irony: W's pappy was certain to leave what one could call a tar baby of a nightmare to his successor, Slick Willy (like Ike left the Bay of Pigs to JFK). And here's W, doing all he can to be the opposite of his pappy -- but he's leaving the tar baby disaster for himself. At least vis a vis Iraq, doesn't matter who wins in 08; it's an insoluble problem (well, actually there is that single solution of cutting bait, but how is the big problem).
And to finish with a tangential digression: Query when enough the electorate stops and understands the reality -- all these problems came from an unchecked, radical rightwing party. Maybe a little balance might be in order....
Website Counters
