In some ways I was a typical American boy of the mid to late 20th Century. I absorbed the lessons: America defeated the Nazis and saved the world. We reconstructed Europe and turned Japan into an economic marvel. I watched the movies, I played the World War Two board games and read all about our military campaigns. I knew veterans of Anzio, of the Bulge, of the Pacific. America could do anything it set its mind to. Vietnam was an aberration. We didn’t have a good reason to be there and we didn’t commit all our resources. We were supposed to have learned from that. Well…some of that history was pure hooey.
But, that wasn’t the real problem. The real problem was that America can’t do anything it sets its mind to. America keeps setting its mind on doing the wrong things. And we didn’t really learn our lessons from Vietnam. The most important lesson we failed to learn: never commit the troops to a project unless you have a near unanimity within the populace that it is a necessary course. And when you commit, commit totally, using all the assets the nation can bring to bear.
The State Department has just issed a draft plan for future invasions of future countries. It aspires to show America an improved blueprint for managing its imperial plans.
The draft plan reads like a refutation of almost everything the United States has done in Iraq. It also reads like another chapter in the prolonged and bitter debate between the State Department and Pentagon that began during the months before the invasion of Iraq more than three years ago.
Per usual, the State Department remains the most realistic and pragmatic branch of our foreign policy establishment. That just makes it all the more depressing that they just don’t get it.
Here is some of the State Department’s wisdom.
after any future conflicts, the United States should not immediately begin a major rebuilding program.
Instead, it says, the first priorities should be to establish a secure, stable environment and begin political reconciliation. Otherwise, officials said, Washington and any local government that is formed are likely to suffer major political repercussions by making promises that cannot be kept…
Under the new plan, the United States would first establish public security and order, and then encourage small-scale economic activity while promoting political reconciliation. “If that is not done, then the society will unravel at some point,” Mr. Pascual said.
After that, banks, political parties and other institutions would be established, followed by news media, private aid organizations and civilian advocacy groups. Physical reconstruction would begin “only when it seems to fit into the other priorities,” said Mr. Pascual, who is now a vice president of the Brookings Institution. “But the ability to build large-scale infrastructure before you have established order and stability is nil because it will be blown up.”
Of course, a real draft plan would read somewhat differently. It would call for a total mobilization of the country, including a draft, full financing, and the creation of an international coalition blessed with a U.N. (or at least NATO) resolution providing legal justification.
If Iraq was a war that America really needed to fight, we would not need convincing from a group of spin doctors cherry-picking intelligence and ratcheting up a false sense of fear. We would eagerly buy war bonds, and we would volunteer in droves, or even embrace a draft. And we could not be defeated.
The Iraq project is a failure because the nation never agreed it needed to be undertaken, because the administration asked the volunteer military to shoulder the whole burden of the warfighting, and our children to pay the full cost. We were told to go shopping and to be afraid and to support the troops.
A real plan for conquering and reconstructing a foreign country would start with telling us never to attempt it, ever, anywhere, for any reason, unless we are willing to put everything we’ve got into it.
We could have turned Afghanistan into a modern day West Germany. Instead we left it barren and turned Iraq into a hellhole.
whatever the plan, i think the world has a very serious issue with US :
It s a country that permanently need an enemy to fight !!!
it is quite scary to see how US official start to talk (and act) about China as a future enemy. WTF :-(. is there any other alternative than considering China as enemy and thus creating it ?.
To see how americans are totally brainwashed, is as scary.
It s a country that permanently need an enemy to fight !!!
This is the bitter truth: The business world has its own reasons, and Joe Sixpack is not happy unless the US is beating up on somebody. It is a mental defect.
Progressives protest the lies the Bush Government told to sell Iraq. And well we should. But that is beside the point. The point is that the public did not care whether they were lies or not: The important thing was to be fighting somebody–fighting anybody.
Can you doubt it? When the plan to invade Iraq was announced, did anyone question or assess goals and strategy, costs and benefits? Simple military capabilities? Except for a few peaceniks–Of course not! The important thing was to be fighting! What it would be about was very, very secondary.
WTF :-(. is there any other alternative than considering China as enemy and thus creating it ?
No: If enemies do not exist, they must be created. But in fact there are ways: They always can be.
At some point the world will have to do something about us. That is what fourth-generation warfare is designed for.
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Crime
America tries to solve problems by declaring war.
It doesn’t work.
And BooMan, I can’t believe you wrote this:
So when the US population agrees that we have no choice for its national defense but to go to war with (pick one) Iran Syria North Korea Bolivia Venezuela Fillintheblank, then because they agree, it will be the right thing to do?????
And let us recall that according to historians only one-third of the British colonists supported the War for Independence declared in 1776.
The attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was an international crime. The perpetrators should have been pursued as criminals, and tried as criminals. Period.
How about a War on War? Unbelievable . . .
you’d prefer that we engage in wars of choice, that we engage in wars that are not considered necessary or just by a significant portion of the population?
As for the war of independence, we are not a colony anymore. It’s hard for me to envision a war that would need to be fought that half the country would openly question or even oppose.
If you can’t convince almost everyone, you should take it as proof that war is not the correct course.
There will always be some people that will oppose any war. Many opposed our entry into World War Two.
But, I think my prescription is correct. For example, I oppose our intervention in the Sudan. I would not oppose it if the intervention was broad, involved a big coalition, had the blessing of the UN (or at least NATO), had funding, and an honest case was made to the American people that the vast majority if the American people accepted.
But without those pieces in place, we should not commit troops to the Sudan…or to anyplace else.
When we provide affordable health care and higher education to all our citizens, then I will consider supporting unilateral military missions.
I guess I wasn’t clear.
I don’t think wars solve anything, and I don’t care what portion of the population supports one: if there are any alternatives available, the alternatives are better. (I include the War for Independence, by the way. What was the alternative? Canada.)
If a military intervention is needed to prevent or end genocide and other massive human rights violations, it should be carried out by the United Nations. If no consensus can be reached in the UN, then the remaining tools should be used: economic pressure, political pressure, world opinion.
For starters, the arms dealers–much more dangerous and damaging than the drug dealers–need to be put out of business. (See how much shit in the basement that stirs up!)
Early this morning I read this:
Reading that this morning and then remembering what Barbara Tuchman asked in the preface to her book “The March of Folly”
I am afraid that it will be said, as it was just before March 2003 on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, “the train has left the station.” Has this ‘March of Folly” of attacking Iran already gained more momentum than can be stopped by any world leader or all of them put together?
More recent research and document sources available to Tuchman have shown that WW1 was perhaps not the mistake that Tuchman deduced with the resources open to her. Several scholars have concluded that Germany wanted to start the war in 1914, felt compelled to start the war, because its international position was slipping fast. Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination simply offered a convenient casus belli to push a reluctant ally into starting the war. Government didn’t fail in assessing its best course. Starting war was considered the best course.
We are challenged in trying to prevent the same course when Dubya and the posse try to salvage their administration by starting war with Iran or Syria. We know that they’ll never take on North Korea because they haven’t got the courage to fight with someone who can strike back. They’ve never had courage and they try to cover up their lack with bluster. How do we derail the Teheran Express that probably tries to roll out of the station in September?
Government didn’t fail in assessing its best course. Starting war was [wrongly] considered the best course
And in retrospect, who would agree that WWI was the best course for Germany?
—
How do we derail the Teheran Express that probably tries to roll out of the station in September?
I’m thinking, Congress, US Senate, all the thinking people in the USA and the rest of the world, and it can’t be derailed? I don’t want to believe it…
America keeps setting its mind on doing the wrong things.
No matter what the sujbect/social problem is, it is almost always described in military terms, as an earlier post mentioned, ex. War on Poverty. Also, I remember reading (somewhere) that funding for just about any type of project, even a social program, has a better chance of success if it (the program) can somehow be justified as beneficial to the military. You could have identified part of the problem.
we didn’t really learn our lessons from Vietnam.
I would add the Vietnam era to that statement, as the Great Society programs were not given a chance to benefit all of society. Maybe one generation benefitted, but that generation has turned its back on others who could also benefit and contribute to society.
unless we are willing to put everything we’ve got into it.
We are not even willing to put everything we’ve got into this country. It is being sold out for higher profits and short term gain at the expense of future generations. But, demanding sacrifices from those in this county for the benefit of what appears to some to be an abstract concept is nothing but bullshit.
And it can’t continue.
I don’t know what the answers to foreign policy/national security issues are. I just hate what is going on in this country today. I mean, I grew up in Detroit, and just driving over to Canada for was just one of the things that people did. It is no big deal.
Now you need a passport to go to Canada? That still shocks the hell out of me. For crying out loud, it’s just Canada!
I guess that what I am saying is that true security begins here, in this country, as opposed to interference in foreign coutries. And this country is not secure–the economy, health care systems are falling apart, as are our constitutional rights. That is what is missing in the equation. Security in this county, as opposed to rule by fear. And, how can the people of this country prioritize in the manner that you have suggested, when they have absolutely no say or belief in the leadership and its actions.
For some reason, I think that all of the implications of wtf is really going on in this country today have start to hit me…
Strange how the brain sometimes kicks into gear as you are winding down…Funny that sometimes seems to wake you up a bit more.
It’s getting back into your own country and evil Canadians getting into the US that Homeland Security is worried about. The Canadian government has been trying without success to get the US to backtrack on that one.
I understand there will be special passes for frequent travel business people but for Canada/US commerce in general, it will be a nightmare. There was one terrorist who tried to get across via Victoria and was stopped by an alert border guard in Port Angeles. Since then Canada has reformed its immigration laws but to now avail as far as the paranoids in Washington DC are concerned.
passports won’t be required till 12/07 for land travel between Canada/US (12/06 for air/sea travel).
The spouse and I are heading for Alaska in June of this year, with a stop in BC, so we’re safe enough with our birth certificates…but I think we’ll look into passports just in case; these days one never knows if/when we’ll have to make a quick exit…
I still have trouble believing that one re: passports. (There was an article in one of the papers that implied that passports were now necessary to go from Detroit to Windsor!)
Anyway, when I was a kid, my grandparents owned a summer place (small cottage) in Canada on Lake Erie. For years, I spent summers in Canada w/my family–would come back to MI for a few days, but would head back to Canada. Loved it.
My Dad would commute to work–sometimes he would stay over in Detroit (less of a commute), other times he would make the drive to Canada. All of the customs agents knew him, as he crossed the border every other day, sometimes every day to go to work. After a while, it was more of a “Hey, how are you?” than anything. Actually, at the time, the big concern was whether or not a person was bringing citrus fruits across the border.
Anyway, one day, one of the customs agents, out of the blue, asked him, “Got any oranges in your lunch?” (This was after a couple weeks of “Hey, how are you’s?”) Dad, who was running a bit late for work, snapped, “What the hell kind of bullshit is this?” Then he grabbed his lunch, shoved it in the customs agent’s face and said, “You want to see?”
Customs agent said said no and waved him off. Dad drove off, cussing under his breath. When he stopped at a light, he looked in the lunch Mom had packed. There was a big, fat orange sitting on top!!!
I will agree with you the folks at 23rd and C are definitely the most professional of the bunch w/r/t foreign policy.
I still agree with MLK Jr. however, completely opposed to the notion that America is some kind of divinely appointed policeman of the entire world.
When I think of America, I think of a story of hunting a wooly mammoth by luring it into a boggy area, weakening it and finally killing it by an uncountable number of small blows.
Even if America had friendlier, less imperialistic policies, on a macro-sociological scale, a single “super power” is a threat to every other country and needs to be removed. A single superpower is dangerous because it upsets the balance that an inter-connected world needs to survive.
The United Nations may be a flawed model but in the next 100 years I predict there will be some form of world government. Just as many of our nations today were once formed of autonomous city-states, the growth in population and trade means that stability and equal participation benefit more people when they have a more representative say in how their affairs are governed.
In other words, it’s nice to think of China as “over there” but what happens in Washington and Paris has almost as much effect on a Chinese resident as what happens in Beijing. And so long as Beijing and Paris think they can influence Washington, then it’s a cooperative system. It just takes one rogue to become to threat to all of the others.
Actually, now that I think of it, appointing John Bolton to the UN makes sense now. It’s the last desperate attempt for the wooly mammoth to break free of the puny hunters who are encircling it.
Pax
The problem is that US policies always begin with a flawed premise: That (affluent, mainstream demographic) Americans are an exceptional master race, owners of the heavens and the earth, and the seas, and all that lie within and without.
It does not matter how sincerely this is believed by how many Americans.
It does not even matter how well-intentioned the believers of it are.
Because of the extremely wide gap between the belief and reality, it is simply not a sound basis for any policy, domestic or foreign.
No matter how fervent the belief, how profound the faith, even if the believers are unable to conceive of any other possibility, it is not going to catch on outside the US.
Domestically, to use the example you did, while the principle of “affordable health care” may resonate with American families who would unquestionably benefit from a reduction in their health insurance premiums from say, $6000 a year to $5000, or even $4000, that is so far from the reality of people who do not have even $100, or $10 to give to the insurance companies that bringing about such a reduction will have little chance of saving the US from the consequences of such a huge chasm between rich and poor.
Something like 44 or 45% of American households earn less than $35,000 a year, according to Washington’s own census figures.
And the other day, the Vice President of the US, whose role in government is somewhat more “robust” than that traditionally supposed to be enjoyed by Vice Presidents, scolded that Americans are not saving enough money, and the President of the US has articulated the policy that the government will be encouraging health savings accounts as the best solution for Americans struggling with the skyrocketing cost of medical treatment.
During the 2004 “election campaign,” I heard one of the Democratic candidates actually use the language “helping the poor make good choices with their personal wealth.”
“the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests” indeed.
The US is an absurd caricature of Ms. Tuchman’s observation. While many nations are guilty of this, the US is indeed “Number One” when it comes to exaggerating that premise beyond the point of caricature.
While the rest of the world moves forward, the US has moved increasingly inward, and backward.
A few years ago, I remember reading an interview with Ki Jung Il (paper magazine, no link) He was asked if he was not worried about losing so many people to some of his policies.
No, he replied, he had studied the question, and determined that he could defend his nation with only 30% of its current population.
It is impossible not to wonder what number Washington decided on when they considered the same question with regards to the US.
There is nothing any foreign entity could do to the US that can compare to what it is doing to itself.
Not even Emanuel bin Goldstein and a thousand #2 masterminds and manicurists could plot a more certain destruction for “Somalia with money,” “Great Satan,” than it is doing its ownself.
yes, it s getting absurd : US is the only developed country that has seen the poverty increased the last 10 years (OECD). In the same time the 0.1% richer never captured so much wealth since 1880.
Rich bless America, the others can bless Wallmark and the chineses.
read Walmart, of course
Booman, I also can’t believe you wrote this:
When someone like you–someone who compared with most Americans is unbelievably well-informed and thoughtful–can say something like that, I am truly staggered.
Does this deserve elaboration?
The criticism is that there is nothing more American than your willful ignorance of the peoples you would invade. Is it clear this does not bode well for success?
” A real plan for conquering and reconstructing a country etc.”.For someone who usually writes very thoughtful essays,I found this single sentence a very good example of the infection that has affected us all,that we are an anointed people who can do anything we want even against the will of the people who are at the receiving end of our beneficence.The idea of conquering a nation against the will of those people, was called Aggression by the Nuremberg Tribunal, where Justice Jackson, an American from simpler times, declared it a crime against humanity.In Vietnam, it took enormous mental gymnastics to make our own people think of that hapless country a threat to our existence and the same thing is happening once again in Iraq. Despite our claims that we are a conquering nation that is different (Exceptionalism strikes!),the peoples of those nations, not indoctrinated into the intricacies of our superiority,racial, military, economic, have no use for domination by a foreign power.
So long as we continue to indulge in fantasies of our own uniqueness, no amount of unanimity within our own society will produce a different result.In order to produce a different result, we must give up our illusions and develop the self knowledge that we are one among many, neither better nor worse than any other people.
It is as hearteening to read most of these comments as it is disheartening to live in an empire whose culture and economy are based of violence and expansionist aggression.
We have become a rogue nation and the gretest danger for global security. We need to be boycotted and embargoed internationally until this changes and we, as sane citizens need to take action. A good start would be for as many of us as possible to surround the Whitehouse through this spring and summer demanding the resignation of the terrorists who have hijacked our country and justice for thier crimes.
Vietnam was an aberration. We didn’t have a good reason to be there and we didn’t commit all our resources. We were supposed to have learned from that.
I think some people learned those lessons. I think Carter, and Bush the first, and Clinton, and maybe even Reagan learned those lessons.
Who didn’t learn those lessons: a bunch of guys who were too cowardly to fight in Vietnam but still thought the war was great. They were busy with “other priorities” or boils on their butts or bum knees and were never confronted with the reality of Vietnam. Now they’re in charge, and look at what’s happened.
One of the most disturbing things about Iraq is the number of people who still support this stupid undeclared war but are too chickenshit to go fight it. Those people, I fear, will turn around in 40 years and get us involved in another mess.
Governments making decisions against the interests of the nation is probably meant to mean against the interests of the majority of citizens. But, of course, the majority of citizens don’t have the same political clout as a small group who always profit from wars; bankers and armaments manufacturers. Tuchman’s comment seems to suggest that governments continually make irrational decisions regading wars but they are in fact very deliberate and rational from the point of view of those who control government and profit from those decisions.
America’s economy since WW11 has been based on armaments and so it must foment wars to feed it. And as these same people are also in the resource business and resources are the easiest way to start wars, it’s win-win all the way.
I think these same bankers and gunrunners would love your solution, Booman. I hope you will rethink it and the hubris which lies behind it.
Exactly. If the oil industry, the banking industry, and the arms industry had opposed this war, it never would have happened. Democracy, shamocracy.
Bravo, Booman.
Even if we discount Jeannette Rankin’s famous words; “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.”, the US has not been on the “winning side” of a war since 1945. Since then our avarice and lust for power has become so institutionalized
that it has made it virtually impossible for us to implement any militarized foreign policy that has a legitimate foundation for advancing the best interests of the nation, let alone the broader world at large.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki epitomized the monstrous nature of the course our government has chosen to follow, and it’s a tragedy and a disgracethat we as a nation have learned absolutely nothing since that time that has changed our posture toward the rest of the world for the better. (Sure the Marshall Plan was a positive thing, but it in no way expiated the atrocity of the nuclear attacks on Japan, and, regardless, We still attack other countries without true provocation whenever we want, even if we have to fabricate false triggers for doing so.)
Military aggression is always a failed policy, and it has been failing us in the US for 60 years. Our military’s worst enemy is the government who deploys them on these violent “fools’ errands”. And those same successive governments of ours, from Truman through the current imbecile Bush are the single greatest cause of the destruction of the American Empire.
The heart of the problem is in the first sentence…. why should we even NEED a plan for future invasions of future countries in the first place.
The “problems” that arose with the invasion of Iraq will not be solved with a better plan. We can’t just “do it more efficiently next time” and “avoid the mistakes.”
The real mistake was invading another sovereign nation in the first place. And that’s a mistake no plan for future invasions will ever correct.
the week before the 2003 SOTUS, Bob Novak spilled the beans:
LINK
After so many years, perhaps most of us individually learned the lessons from Vietnam. But you’re absolutely right, the country has ignored the more important ones: Have Contingency Plans; Have the Approval of Nearly All the People; Don’t Lie; Prepare for the Cultures and Climate; Leave Fast; and Don’t Spend the Milk Money.
As reported in the Washington Post March 12, 2006, (“The NSC’s Sesame Street Generation”) the National Security staff reporting to Stephen Hadley, rendering advice on such matters as strategies for Iraq & Afghanistan, is young (born 1961 – 1981). They don’t carry what one referred to as the “baggage” of Vietnam. Like their White House elders, none “appears to have been touched personally by Vietnam.”
Shame, shame on the President for such senseless, ignorant, condescending, faux leadership. He doesn’t seem to fathom the horrific consequences that will always be his legacy.
300,000 in Vietnam. How many in Bush’s War?