Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it: on the castration of the U.S. Senate

The mission in Iraq is spiraling into failure. American voters have sent a clear message:Bring our troops home, but don't lose. That's a tall order both for resurgent Democrats, some of whom are calling for a quick withdrawal, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is presumably crafting new options.

Snip..

Timetables a bad idea

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Snip...

Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

Remarks at the 20th Anniversary of the Vietnam Wall

Seven letters — that's all it takes to make the word Vietnam.

But we know it is much more than a word. More than the name of a country. Vietnam. It is a period in time — it is a one word encapsulation of history — a one-word summary of a war gone wrong, of families divided, generations divided, a nation divided. It carries in its seven letters all the confusion, bitterness, love, sacrifice and nobility of America's longest war. It is a one-word all-encompassing answer to questions: What happened to him? Where was he injured? When did he change?

Say the word Vietnam to a veteran and you can smell the wood burning fires, hear the AK-47's and B-52's, see pajama clad Viet Cong skirting a tree line and the helicopters darting across the sky — you can feel all the emotions of young men and women who in the end were fighting as much for their love of each other as for the love of country that brought them there in the first place.

Today we come here to remember and to memorialize forever all that was Vietnam. In doing so we do not just read the names and remember those who gave their lives. We remember and celebrate what they were and remain part of — a great nation committed to peace, individual liberty, freedom for all — a nation which outlined in the writing of a constitution fundamental rights which belong to every one of its citizens and which we remember today are worth dying for. Today — because of those engraved forever on these black panels — we celebrate rights and aspirations that are bigger than any individual and which each of us as individuals are willing to defend with life itself.

We celebrate the nobility of young Americans willing to go thousands of miles from home to fight for the notion that in the final measurement someone else's freedom was connected to our own.

It doesn't matter that politics got in the way. It doesn't matter that leaders remained wedded to their own confusion. Nothing — not politics, not time, not outcome — nothing will ever diminish one iota the contributions of these brothers and sisters, nothing can ever lessen the courage with which they waged war. Nothing reduces the magnitude of their sacrifice, nothing can take away the quality of their gift to their nation.

<...> The Vietnam soldiers, airmen and sailors fought with as much conviction, as much commitment, as much courage and as much selfless sacrifice as soldiers in any war. And we did so with love of country and love of fellow soldiers as great as any despite our nation's political divisions at home and the difficult circumstances we were required to confront. This memorial will forever remind the generations to come of that special spirit — the special bond of soldier to country and soldier to soldier.

And we remember today also with pride at the outcome — that for our generation of veterans the war did not end when we came home. For us the fight continued — the recognition honoring our deeds came when veterans pushed for it — Agent Orange, outreach centers, extension of the GI Bill — increased funding for Veterans Affairs , these all happened because veterans remembered their brothers and sisters and never stopped fighting to keep faith with the promise to veterans.

We also remember those soldiers captured by the enemy who did not return and those we've yet to account for. One of the things we are most proud of is that we initiated the most extensive, exhaustive accounting for the missing or captured in all the history of human warfare. No nation has ever gone to such lengths to remember and to account their missing. Today — because of the veterans of Vietnam — when we send our young men and women into harm's way, never again will we allow anyone to be left behind never will it take so long to find and bring every one home.

The truth is that every advance we've made on behalf of our veterans has been the result of the commitment of veterans and to each other and their vows never to give up the fight. This Wall itself grew out of that spirit.

That spirit bonded men and women together — making us more than we were when we left for Vietnam, and didn't diminish once we had returned. Each panel, each name, tells the story of that journey.

<...> That is why we come here today. To keep faith. To celebrate the 58,226 brave men and women who didn't return from Vietnam, who knew the Lord's words that "There is no greater love than sacrificing yourself for a friend." And so, it is in that spirit that we remember all who fought with our brothers and sisters — for our families — for our nation. God bless them all and may God bless the United States of America.

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival. And what it produces, it sells."

Roger L. Simon posts an op-ed Wesley Clark wrote on April 10th of last year, and claims that it proves that Clark supported the war. Had I read the op-ed quickly without knowing anything about Clark, I might very well have concluded that he was expressing qualified support for the war. However even a passably careful reading of the thing reveals that it fails to provide significant evidence that Clark supported the war. Everything Clark writes is consistent with opposition to the war--though perhaps combined with recognition that the world is better without Saddam and a desire to to portray the whole enterprise in a good light. All of these things are, of course, consistent with thinking that the self-defense case for war was a crock and that the decision to go to war was a sub-optimal one.

The most important passage for those who would portray the essay as strong (or even conclusive) evidence that Clark was for the war are as follows:
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation ? the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

Needless to say we have to resist the urge to strain for a non-pro-war message here. Intellectual integrity is in short enough supply these days. Our question is not can we force a non-pro-war reading on this essay? but rather is there a sensible non-pro-war reading of it?

Well, I was against the war (torn, but just barely more against it than for it by H-hour), but I could have written this op-ed (er, were I smarter...and if I knew more...and if I were a better writer...and...oh, you get the picture...). I was happy to see the tyrant deposed, the statue come down, etc. And who could NOT think of liberations past? The only part of this passage I probably would not have written is this part:
"Liberation--the powerful balm that...erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."
(Note: these are not drudgelipses--they indicate that I have elided words rather than pages.)
This proposition is almost certainly true--liberation (like success in general) erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions--but I wouldn't have written that because it could easily be interpreted to mean that the war was a smart idea, or that this success should embolden us to undertake more actions of this kind in the future. But that's not what the sentence means. On the face of it, it's not a claim about what our reactions ought to be, but, rather, a claim about what kind of reactions we tend to have to such events--it, for example, makes us forget our doubts, it doesn't make them unreasonable (so it doesn't make forgetting them reasonable). If we are being urged to do anything here, it is to resist indulging too much in these reactions, to sober up a bit and contemplate the task ahead. In fact, the following seems to me to be a perfectly sensible gloss on what Clark wrote:
The scenes from Baghdad inspire us. They make us think of the fall of the Wall and the defeat of Milosovic. It's good to see those statues of that SOB smacked with shoes. Liberation is at hand. In general, liberation makes sacrifice worthwhile, makes you forget whatever doubts you had about the undertaking, and emboldens you to try other hard and risky endeavors. But, um, let's not get too excited yet--there's there's more work and more thinking to do.
I want to make it clear--on a first read, that's not how I interpreted it (I didn't know how to interpret it)--but we usually don't interpret things correctly on a first read if they are even moderately subtle or complex. And my guess is that what Clark is trying to do here is rather subtle and difficult--he's trying to counsel caution at a time when celebration seems to be in order, and he's trying to do it without sounding like a nattering naybob of negativism.

The rest of the op-ed is consistent with this interpretation. It praises the soldiers who carried out the battle plan, points out the good things about the planning and execution of the war, and notes the rough spots too. It's a sober and balanced assessment of the war, in my opinion. Clark notes problems without carping and dispenses praise when appropriate and without fawning. But there is nothing in it that shows or even strongly suggests that Clark thought that the war was a good idea. (Though there are some passages that can kinda sorta be read that way with a little effort.)
At the end of the essay, Clark does write:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Again, this might rather naturally be taken to indicate approval of the war, but it probably shouldn't be. Resolve in the face of doubt, if it is a virtue at all, is a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error. (I myself am not sure that it is a virtue at all, but that's probably just one difference between a pointy-headed geek such as myself and a four-star general...) Again, Clark is apparently simply giving credit where credit is due. But saying "you stuck to that project with admirable resolve" obviously does not mean the same thing as "boy, you sure were smart to undertake that project."
And note that Clark continues:
"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."
So even (approximately) the resolve Clark has just praised he now characterizes as "almost irrational." So if these two components taken together constitute a compliment, it is (re: Blair at least) a highly attenuated one at best. Hardly unalloyed approval.
And I think that the end of the essay provides reasonably strong confirmation of my reading:
"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.
Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven?t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

3.
Well, you probably know the kinds of things I'm going to whine about at this point. But I haven't slept in quite some time (note the crappy writing...sorry!), so I'll keep the whines short. Go back and read David Brooks's comments on The Great Unhinging (or better, of course, my own comments on those comments!). What we have here is probably a case of Mr. Simon seeing what he wanted to see and/or what he expected to see, plus perhaps the effects of political polarization and the pervasive influence of the gotcha atmosphere. And maybe something else I've been meaning to note as well: everything happens so fast in the blogosphere...speed is of the essence...nobody thinks very much about what they write. It's getting to be like academic philosophy--people get famous by saying outrageous things that they haven't really thought through very carefully, and then lots of other people waste their time going through the initial poorly-thought-out position explaining why it's wrong. Note that I don't mean to insult Mr. Simon here, he's just doing what what's done around these parts. But we should all do less of it. Of course I may be the one who's wrong here, but you can be the judge of that.