So: you guys want to step up and talk about why you were wrong? I mean I don’t expect the real Samantha Power warmongering types to admit they were wrong. But can we get a little social pressure for our political class to own up to the fact that they were wrong, please? You guys want to weigh in, here? Zack Beauchamp? Spencer Ackerman? Juan Cole? Jon Chait? Garance Franke-Ruta? John Judis? Christopher Hitchens, I’m sorry to say, is no longer around to apologize. But how about you,Fareed Zakaria? John Heilemann? Andrew Sullivan, at least– and his readers– are getting frank about the damage done. But Shadi Hamid, how about you? Anne-Marie Slaughter, we already know, is beyond helping. The whole New Republic will never stop being wrong about war. And Jeffrey Goldberg has built a career on being wrong but acting really pompous about it. But you, Peter Beinart? You have another of those brooding apologies in you? Matt Steinglass, still feeling good?
...You guys. The people who want to make things better. The people who think there should be accountability in punditry. The ones who think professionals should take responsibility for their professional work. This is where it happens, or it doesn’t. Either the community that is the elite political media pressures people to examine their support for this failed intervention and in so doing perhaps gain insight for the future, or it doesn’t. But this is where it happens. This is where the rubber meets the road. So what are you guys gonna do?"
37 comments:
Why does the leftier left always seem to think that it is our military interventions that create the chaos that follows after the fall of a dictatorship?
Libya was in a civil war when NATO went in, and through air power pushed the rebels to "victory". What would the Left have preferred? That Qaddafi win & massacre his foes? That the Libyan insurgency go on & on, driving tens of thousands of refugees into Europe, or maybe, like the Syrian civil war, that we stand by while 200,000 people die?
I understand the libertarians: we are not the world's policemen. But, the Left's view is that Western involvement is always tainted by original sin, and what we touch we fuck up. Like all the little brown people live in peace & harmony until we make them start killing each other.
Bullshit. We gave the Libyans a chance, just like we did the Iraqis. The stupid camel jockeys fucked it up because they're noxious little bastards. But, in the case of Libya, it cost us almost nothing to give them that chance that maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't fuck up.
There are places we can't intervene because of geography (e.g. Central African Republic & Sudan). But please don't tell me how racist, sexist, & homophobic we all are, and then stand by and watch as hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians die because the American Left doesn't want its conscience sullied by some collateral damage.
Remember when the Libyan intervention was euphemistically called a "kinetic military action"?
think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone... Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end ~Ben Rhodes
I riffed on the term "kinetic" vs. "thermodynamic" as any normal chemist would in terms of pathways and goals: link
@YH: Wasn't Libya pretty much an Obama Administration effort?
@chicklit,
Wasn't Libya pretty much an Obama Administration effort?
No, actually, it was an Anglo-French operation masquerading as a NATO operation. The Americans, in this case, the Obama admin., were not the primary drivers behind the air support given to the rebels.
Matter of fact, it such an Anglo-French affair that the British came close to using up their supply of JDAM bombs, and had to be quickly re-supplied by the US>
Ah, Libyan light sweet crude. It's ready availability to France lessoned a dependence on Russia.
Bottom line is Dubya cleaned up his mess, the Lefties won't even admit there is one.
Why should someone paid to express an opinion about national policy be taken any more seriously than someone paid to express an opinion about baseball?
They're entertainers, after all.
The political pundits flatter their audience more, has been my observation.
Leftist political writer accountability?
Best joke of he morning, thus far.
Would that they hold themselves to the same standard of accountability to which they hold GWB.
"Leftist accountability" will come when Detroit becomes a safe, livable, city.
Shall we run all the clips of Obama and Hillary proclaiming how they have Al Qaeda "on the run".
Perhaps that would help inspire all these leftwing writers to come clean.
YoungHegelian said...
Why does the leftier left always seem to think that it is our military interventions that create the chaos that follows after the fall of a dictatorship?
This is a good question. The answer is that these military interventions do not have a good record of actually being helpful. Military force is a very blunt instrument that invariably has unintended consequences. It should probably only be used when our vital interests are at stake and those interests should be very narrowly defined. This was, until recently, also the position of Rand Paul, who appears to have fallen off the wagon now that public opinion among Republican voters is turning more hawkish.
YoungHegelian said...
it was an Anglo-French operation masquerading as a NATO operation. The Americans, in this case, the Obama admin., were not the primary drivers behind the air support given to the rebels.
Matter of fact, it such an Anglo-French affair that the British came close to using up their supply of JDAM bombs, and had to be quickly re-supplied by the US.
This is another good point. After insisting on support for the Iraq war the US was in a weak position to deny the very minimal support we provided for this particular war.
When Joe Biden said "Iraq is one of Obama's Great Achievements" what did he mean?
Complicated military objectives are simplified political footballs by the left. Blame Bush - even though he gained the support of congress for everything he did prior.
Harry Reid(D) infamously stated "this war is lost" all while our good men and women were out there, fighting. No matter what you think of a war, YOU DO NOT SAY SUCH A THING.
Now even the "There was NO WMD" crying left are proven wrong, with stock piles found in the hands of the newly named ISIS. (Can't be Al Qaeda anymore, that proves the left failed) But we will never hear an apology for their self-serving manipulations.
My 2 cents worth. We should have left Libya alone, and told the Brits and French to do so. (As if we are not the real force behind NATO...please) We should have butted out in the Egyptian affair. Next, we should have butted out of the Syrian affair, the extent of our meddling is still unknown to the public, and not helped anyone against Assad. Fact is the "good guy" replacements ISIL are killing people faster now, for religious reasons no less, than Assad did for political ones. We should be oh so f'ing proud.
This administration just doesn't get it about war and how to do them. Fact is I'm not too crazy about the last one either in the 2nd term. Our politicians try to fight wars today like dilettantes play chess. We have ample history of how that does NOT work.
We dishonor those we've sent to fight these wars by that half smart method. Hell, our government to day cannot even send a administration representative to Major General Harold Greene's funeral & burial ceremony...never the less we send a couple officials to the funeral of that kid who was stealing cigars.
Finally, even with all of our history dealing with terrorism, much of it unsuccessful, in the far east, we still act like amateurs in the middle east...giving separate identity to multiple factions of the same elements of insurrection and telling our selves they are different people. Truth is we haven't got clue one how to know who is good or bad in the middle east. Yet, we criticize the one middle eastern country that is an actual democracy and isn't killing anyone who isn't exactly like themselves except when attacked. We are idiots now.
One one cent's worth. Just who did we think we were to try to help put a Muslim Theocracy in place in Egypt? We so learned we were wrong again. Hello, the essentially secular nature (I include pagans in secular IMO) of civilized Egypt pre-dates Islam by thousands of years....another purely political choice we made wallowing in our ignorance.
Never mind we still treat Russia like a sweet heart tryst...and should be proud now that Putin has declared he's keeping all the Ukraine occupied by the pro-Russian rebels, as autonomous states, of course, inside Ukraine....e.g., he gets to run them, even though they remain in the Ukraine.
Glad we're now more flexible after that last election, eh?
Click on the Andrew Sullivan link above and behold the 100% incorrect wrongness of one Andrew Sullivan.
Excellent post, Deborah. Thank you.
It was absolutely intentional on our Manchurian President's part to remove a non-threat to America, Qaddafi, and install Al Qaeda in Libya. Mission accomplished Marxo-Musloid!
April Apple said...
Click on the Andrew Sullivan link above and behold the 100% incorrect wrongness of one Andrew Sullivan.
Considering that everything he wrote since 2005 or so was trumped and influenced by his views on SSM, it makes perfect sense. Bush was scorned and Obama was lauded because...evolution!
It's perfect example of what happens when politics gets hijacked by SSI's (single social issues).
Young Hegelian said ....
...to give them that chance that maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't fuck up.
That's what puzzles me. Our knowledge of how the middle east works is scant, but we act as if we know something. WE know nothing, or very little at best...and we don't even bother to really study or know the immigrant Arab Muslims living here, or try to understand what motivates them. Our political arrogance in Washington DC is beyond even Hubris. BOTH left and right wonks are full of crap on the subject 90% of the time, trying to incite one course of action or another. Many flaming rightists assert my neighborhood is already under Sharia law. That is 101% bullcrap, but spin spins....and too many believe it and thus we have the inciting ignorance by the right wackos and the governing left ignorance of do-gooders who have no time in any trenches.
I live among 40,000 Muslims from Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine and a few other spots. The Lebanese have been hear for over 100 years now and are the most assimilated and least influenced by fear of fundamentalist other Mulsims. The rest of the mass are here as refugees more or less, but they DO fear the fundamentalists among them.
Those who have begun assimilation suddenly cease and revert to fundamentalist ways because they are afraid. I am watching the current wave of this nonsense happen as I write this remark. One reason they fear their wacko brethren is the stupid inference by the right that Sharia is already here...and the insipid assertions by the left that we must accept it if it arrives.
Neither is correct. Most of these people came here for the promise they dreamed of about living in the land of the free, home of the brave. We must find a way to relieve the fear...we must not allow a new form of twisted Muslim Jim Crow to evolve here.
They way I start off, every day, is by smiling and being open both in heart and mind, while not being naive either. I will set a better example, or die trying.
PS: Before anyone asks me why we stay here in our community, it is simple enough. I do not run, ever, if I possible can resist the impulse. I've lived here 30+ years now and my better half has lived here her entire life. The metro Detroit area was ruined at least 50% in part by the "runners" who just moved away, repeatedly, and took away any positive influence they might have had otherwise. If we ever move it will be because Judi's profession has the need to re-locate...me, I'm retired and the Army folks I worked with can talk to me anywhere. I was a guy who "went native" in two Asian countries and am still a guy who hears from old acquaintances, Yank, RoK, and Viet, along an old vets rat line. I do not regret trying to be a good example, even when I failed.
YH said:
"No, actually, it was an Anglo-French operation masquerading as a NATO operation. The Americans, in this case, the Obama admin., were not the primary drivers behind the air support given to the rebels.
Matter of fact, it such an Anglo-French affair that the British came close to using up their supply of JDAM bombs, and had to be quickly re-supplied by the US>"
That's a little misleading, YH. Our involvement was extensive, with hundreds of US airstrikes involving everything from B2's to AC-130's and A10's to Tomahawks and CIA operatives on the ground.
The administration made a successful effort to downplay the extent of our operations due to the questionable constitutionality of the military effort.
Aridog said:
"Just who did we think we were to try to help put a Muslim Theocracy in place in Egypt?"
Indeed. Possibly the most important thing to happen in the middle east in the last few years was the military coup which removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt.
The overall situation, as bad as it is, would be far, far worse if the Brotherhood had control of the most powerful military in the region outside of the Israelis.
The Obama administration was, of course, on the wrong side.
The Muslim Brotherhood is Obama's side. Not Americas.
They are two different things.
"The administration made a successful effort to downplay the extent of our operations due to the questionable constitutionality of the military effort."
And that effort continues.
(Needed bolding.)
Being no more or less than a pundit myself, I would offer that military intervention is either done to victory and followed up with occupation or it is always gonna be crap shoot. It's like taking one or two antibiotic to cure an infection and then stopping short. It may indeed help, but it really is just an act of faith with a little opportunity provided. If we want a guarantee, then we need to win big and stay. Where we have done that it work every time, where we have not is quite checkered at best.
That said, I'm still in favor of providing those opportunities from limited action if we can contain the danger for our troops, and the need is dire for the people we are trying to help. A side benefit is the added training, experience, testing and capacity it practices into our own defense forces.
As to pundits, I don't put much confidence in people with no real experience, who may have ulterior motives for their opinions like getting paid to return, and who are really doing little more than guessing like you or me. Regardless they do inform our opinions in the vacuum of better voices. I'd like to hear from people like Petraeus, if he could be open and honest.
Bagoh20 said ...
I'd like to hear from people like Petraeus, if he could be open and honest.
I seldom disagree with you, but I must on that line. Petraeus, (and McChrystal) the master(s) of the "Surges"...et al. Tell me what he (they) accomplished of any permanence? In either Iraq or Afghanistan? Both in the trash heap at the moment. The "surges" were like one night stands, short blast of fun, and forget about it, everything back to what it was before. They were both political generals. I'd far rather speak to and hear form multiple Lieutenant Colonels (Batallion Commanders) and Colonels (Brigade Commanders) than generals appointed by a CIC who has none of the experience you seek.
As for Petraeus' honesty? He had about a year with his lover away from his wife, but he didn't begin an affair until he was back stateside, as a civilian, with his wife? He kept his 4 star rank in retirement because of the political favor due him. Others get court martialed and reduced in grade.
PS: I do have some experience with the political generalships. My 2nd to last Commanding General was sacked for adulterous behavior (repeated) and reduced in rank for retirement. He was a hypocritical dick-head, never really qualified by experience for his command anyway, so I was hardly displeased...since I'd had to fire one of his tryst's husbands for the continued use of military communications during their divorce and after their divorce.
If you're going to choose someone to quote, it's hard to see where you'd go worse than with Freaky Freddie de Boer. He's a Hamas apologist all the way. And a real, ripe asshole. If the fact that his closest cyber cahoots are with Andy Sullivan doesn't tell you something I'm not sure what will.
These places are bound to be a mess whatever we do and that doesn't mean post hoc ergo proper hocs would have made alternative action better. A brief look at how much Europe was slaughtering each other from the Inquisition through WWI (or WWII) is all it takes to shove de Boer's untutored garbage back up his pimpled tuchus. He's the one making the liberal mistake of assuming peacefulness to be the default state of the world, and he does it in a region that knew no other form of government than violent Muzzie theocratic imperialism (i.e. Caliphate) for the last 14 centuries - give or take a few short decades.
Freddie de Boer isn't fit to clean Shadi Hamid's vomit. Just enough with these pansy white liberal bed-wetters trying to convince you of the supposed injustice of being around and lifting a finger in the middle of atrocious violent repression. He doesn't care what happens to them either, just about the fact that we did it. Much like Hamas, ISIS et al. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam. There's always a case for non-interventionism but if it's not made from the place of sticking to our own interests then it's just so much more retarded bullshit in a never-ending sea of endless bullshit.
King Freddy Bullshit. The guy probably doesn't even know 5 words of Arabic. He can kiss his mother's كس.
What YH said at 1:24 AM.
deBoer is an Original Western Sin leftist. And a total cunt. Are there not enough wackamadoos out there blaming the violence of a region knowing nothing but repressive religious imperialism for 14 centuries on us? This is insane. Where is the endpoint? I guess these quacks won't be happy until we become like 2014 Britain and blame all the world's messes on 19 years of "imperialist" takeover from the Ottomans' 500 year-long rule, and give them enough unchallenged promotional opportunities for spewing their violent, backward nonsense here to make Amjam Chawdhry's Londonstan look tamer than Disneyland.
I seriously wish upon deBoer a fate worse than Qadaffi's. Knife in the ass and all.
If touchy-feely Freddie's right I just need to know how far we take these Rules of Disengagement. Can we never impose a sanction? Never a reprimand at the U.N.? Never help a rebel at all? I mean, it's hard to see where a guy could go wrong predicting the Middle East going from bad to worse, but I just want to know what the basic rules are for avoiding Western blame for that. At some point, there should be a benchmark by which he could gauge our compliance for ensuring the purity of Dar al Islam's untouched avoidance of any impure intervention. No buying oil? (Oh wait). No diplomatic exchange or embassies? How about making sure our broadcasts can't be intercepted by them? No internet access to U.S. website? No Twitter? No hummus dishes to exchange on All Recipes.com? Just tell me where the fucking line is, Freddy, and make it consistent so that we don't have to keep going over it from conflict to conflict and humanitarian disaster to humanitarian disaster.
YH: Freddy just gets off on being the Shaggy of Foreign Policy: Wasn't him.
Ritmo delves for once into the realms of common sense and logic. I sense a disturbance in the narrative..
Freddy does a good job but he doesn't go far enough. I mean, it's important to blame America but let's not forget that there's another group that shouldn't be let off the hook: The Jews.
Also, the victims of the would-be massacre who benefited from the intervention. Have we done enough to make sure they get their fair proportion of blame also?
Aridog, I defer entirely to you on such subjects. I'm a child compared to your experience. My interest in the opinion of Petraeus is as one who has experience at the overall high level handling of these situations, where I think he would know the political as well operational limitations and challenges. I also see his service as a success at what he was able to do, which as I said means almost nothing unless we do what needs to be after that, including total submission of the enemy and occupation until it is clear the accomplishment is permanent. Of course, I also agree with you that it would be very useful to hear from lower level commanders closer to the people we are helping and those we are or would be fighting. The last people I need to hear from are journalism graduates with friends at the networks or people only on because they are selling books.
Bagoh20...I'd agree that there would be some good and interest served if Petraeus could be totally forthright. He has far more experience at the highest levels of the military than most Generals. I just don't think he could, or would, be all that forthright.
If I had a choice of Generals to talk to, I'd pick USMC General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs that Bush43 and Gates refused to reappoint in deference to a Navy Admiral to oversee two land wars.
Post a Comment