As U.S. and Iraqi forces push through Fallujah in the second day of a major offensive to retake the town from insurgents, there is legitimate and deep concern over the conduct of the war, and certainly the "winning the peace" phase that has been more deadly than the original invasion to effect regime change. The situation is very fluid, uncertain and fraught with danger from within and without. Reasonable people can look at the situation and see no positive end in sight.
I do not share their pessimism, though I know we must do a much better job of giving the Iraqis a real sense that they truly do control their own destiny with our support, which must remain steadfast. With all of the - largely justified - negativity in the air regarding the future of Iraq and the wisdom of the invasion in light of the apparent absence of WMD in Iraq, I think it crucial we take a step back for some historical perspective.
First, Walter Russell Mead, a prize-winning scholar of American foreign policy and senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, answers questions about Iraq and Bush in light of his reelection:
- At this point, are you able to speculate a bit on Bush's place in history? He is obviously a strong campaigner.
I think a lot is going to depend on the situation in Iraq. Bush essentially has no excuses now: he has a mandate, he has both houses of Congress, and he is in full control of the foreign policy machinery. The war in Iraq is one that he chose, that he planned, that he has led. Bush is going to look pretty good if even two years from now Iraq is more or less pacified, and there is a government that is at least, in some ways, better than Saddam Hussein, and you have an island of stability in the middle of the Middle East. In retrospect he will look like a visionary, and people will forget all the ups and downs. When people now think of the Mexican War, they think about it as this quick, glorious dash. But in fact [President James] Polk had terrible problems during the Mexican War [1846-1848].
You mean politically, at home?
Yes. Politically, at home, there were questions like, "Will those Mexicans ever negotiate?" "Are we stuck in this quagmire?" And this was a war that ended with the United States getting a whole lot of territory. Likewise, if you think about the Filipino insurrection after the Spanish-American War, I think we lost significantly more troops in suppressing that insurrection than we did in the Iraq war. [American casualties in the Filipino guerrilla war are estimated at 4,000 killed and 3,000 wounded].
And more from Mead's September critique of the Bush administration's foreign policy:
- Iraq, I guess I would divide between effort and achievement. I'd give an A for effort. I would also say that the administration made the right decision that Saddam Hussein was the next address to visit, but I think the administration obviously did not do a very good job of building international support before the war, and [it] clearly underestimated the risks and difficulties that would follow afterward.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - RJ
Invading and occupying Iran would be lunacy.
But bombing their military and nuclear sites might be inevitable.
2 - Eric Olsen
Or "letting" Israel do it might be better still, however, I think this time we have to truly d our best to marshall world, in particular European, pressure to "help" Iran see that the current path is not in their best long-term interest
3 - andy marsh
the one good thing to see in this push through fallujah was the addition of several thousand iraqi troops along side our folks...that's a step in the right direction for sure!
As far as the land we gained in the mexican war...if the movie I watched the other night is just a little historically acurate, then Santa Anna gave up Texas to save his own head...
4 - Eric Olsen
I agree Andy, I hope it means we are getting smarter about the politics of the situation, which at this point is just as important as the military
5 - Hal Pawluk
Except, andy, for the Iraqi troops who were no shows and runaways.
That a few remained will probably help harden the opposition to the occupation, as will the conversion to rubble of more areas of Fallujah, not to mention the deaths of even more civilians.
But hey, it was a great idea to invade Iraq - just oh so super foreign policy - and there will always be collateral damage, right?
6 - Hal Pawluk
One other thing: the Council on Foreign Relations has connections to Dick Cheney, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and some neoconservatives.
Just a bias warning.
7 - Eric Olsen
thanks hal, important point, but everyone has connections to something and vice versa
8 - Hal Pawluk
Not everyone connects to Max Boot, though.
9 - Eric Olsen
it should also be stated that these were Mead's own opinions stated in interview format: he was not representing COFR
10 - Hal Pawluk
Of course.
Just as Max Boot, who is listed on the staff of the Council, often states his own opinions rather than those of any particular organziatin with which he is associated.
They're neocons, Eric, and Mead's "own" opinions obviously have a neocon bias on foreign policy.
Hell, you can tell that just from reading them.
11 - Eric Olsen
perhaps, but the term "neocon" doesn't have nearly the freight nor much of the pejorative meaning for me that it does for you
12 - Hal Pawluk
Sure, but thou and I aren't the only ones reading this material.
13 - Jon Sobel
"to make it absolutely clear to any and all observers in the Islamic world that we may no longer be perceived as "weak," and at a minimum, that crucial mission has been accomplished."
That may be true in a short-term, realpolitik sense - cf. Mead's points about Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, and also witness Libya's voluntary de-nuking. But the longer it takes to pacify Iraq, the more this reputation of strength will be squandered. And besides, the moderate Middle Eastern heads of state aren't the enemy. That Musharraf is still standing is a good sign... but I'd be interested to see some real evidence that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are in fact clamping down on terrorist cells in their midst in a meaningful way. I hope we don't have to wait to find out who is nurturing the new generation of Al Qaeda until we find the charred passports of the perpetrators of the next 9/11.
14 - Eric Olsen
updated with Pollack editorial on Iran
15 - jadester
surely part of the problem with iran is paranoia?
think about it:
all the big military powers that you either don't like or at least are highly suspicious of, have substantial nuclear armaments. You've already seen two countries in a similar position get invaded, with threats to others. What would be the best deterrant against you getting invaded?
just get your own nuclear armament.
I dunno how much the US and UK are working towards reducing the numbers of nukes they have ready to use, but perhaps they should be more public about it (however little they are doing) just to show countries like Iran that they *are* doing it.
16 - JR
I dunno how much the US and UK are working towards reducing the numbers of nukes they have ready to use, but perhaps they should be more public about it (however little they are doing) just to show countries like Iran that they *are* doing it.
Actually I think the U.S. is increasing their nuclear stockpile.
17 - Eric Olsen
as Pollack says the key at this point is convincing - via the use of carrots and sticks - Iran (and whoever) that it is not worth their while nor in their best interests to defy the international community and develop nuclear weapons - not easy, but necessary
18 - Jeremy Chrysler
RE: Preemptive attack on Iran...I think that Israel would attempt to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities more quickly than would we, but that would still put us in the regrettable position of 'allowing' them to do so.
Given the decentralized, civicly entrenched and subterranean nature of most of Iran's facilities, an airstrike such as on Osirak in '81 would likely be completely untenable.
Indeed, it might take a nuke to stop a nuke, and that's not a scenario that I want anything to do with (although the alternative *might* be worse).
Bunker busting nuclear bombs, which theoretically 'burrow' before detonation so as to wreak more underground havoc and limit fallout, have been discussed as an answer to this solution, but the risk of fallout is way too high at this point to be conceived of as anything but a pipe dream.
The development of these weapons begs the question: is it worth it to use nuclear weapons even if casualties would likely be equivalent to those generated by traditional explosives, or does the mere use of nuclear force constitute an inherent danger to societal stability irrespective of the casualty count?
19 - Eric Olsen
I would say it's a psycho-social barrier that goes far beyond relative body count
20 - urthshu
jadester-
You'd think that, but the situation is slightly more complex than just 'missile envy'.
Back around 1986, when Iran began seriously investigating nuclear weaponry, they vowed that they'd *test* any devices on Israel, not their own soil.
To Israel, its an act of war for them to even develop the technology.
General comment: Its interesting to me that Europe as a whole could not be brought on board when faced with a global insurgency, but are involved when faced with proliferation- yet they don't see the connection betwixt the two.