[y66]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine...?pagewanted=all

Some excerpts:

The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president. But it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion. Many of us believed, as an Iraqi exile friend told me the night the war started, that it was the only chance the members of his generation would have to live in freedom in their own country. How distant a dream that now seems.

Having left an academic post at Harvard in 2005 and returned home to Canada to enter political life, I keep revisiting the Iraq debacle, trying to understand exactly how the judgments I now have to make in the political arena need to improve on the ones I used to offer from the sidelines. I’ve learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes.

…

The attribute that underpins good judgment in politicians is a sense of reality. "What is called wisdom in statesmen," [Isaiah] Berlin wrote, referring to figures like Roosevelt and Churchill, "is understanding rather than knowledge — some kind of acquaintance with relevant facts of such a kind that it enables those who have it to tell what fits with what; what can be done in given circumstances and what cannot, what means will work in what situations and how far, without necessarily being able to explain how they know this or even what they know." Politicians cannot afford to cocoon themselves in the inner world of their own imaginings. They must not confuse the world as it is with the world as they wish it to be. They must see Iraq — or anywhere else — as it is.

...

We might test judgment by asking, on the issue of Iraq, who best anticipated how events turned out. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong.

The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq's fissured sectarian history. What they didn't do was take wishes for reality. They didn't suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn't suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn't suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn't believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes.

I made some of these mistakes and then a few of my own. The lesson I draw for the future is to be less influenced by the passions of people I admire — Iraqi exiles, for example — and to be less swayed by my emotions. I went to northern Iraq in 1992. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds. From that moment forward, I believed he had to go. My convictions had all the authority of personal experience, but for that very reason, I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror? I should have known that emotions in politics, as in life, tend to be self-justifying and in matters of ultimate political judgment, nothing, not even your own feelings, should be held immune from the burden of justification through cross-examination and argument.

Good judgment in politics, it turns out, depends on being a critical judge of yourself. It was not merely that the president did not take the care to understand Iraq. He also did not take the care to understand himself. The sense of reality that might have saved him from catastrophe would have taken the form of some warning bell sounding inside, alerting him that he did not know what he was doing. But then, it is doubtful that warning bells had ever sounded in him before. He had led a charmed life, and in charmed lives warning bells do not sound.

People with good judgment listen to warning bells within. Prudent leaders force themselves to listen equally to advocates and opponents of the course of action they are thinking of pursuing. They do not suppose that their own good intentions will guarantee good results. They do not suppose they know all they need to know. If power corrupts, it corrupts this sixth sense of personal limitation on which prudence relies.

...

Michael Ignatieff, a former professor at Harvard and contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, is a member of Canada's Parliament and deputy leader of the Liberal Party.

[helene_t]

I must admit that I had not expected post-war Iraq to be quite as bad as it turned out.

After the previous war I did not understand why the US/UK/France/Egypt/Syria/Saudi alliance did not take over the whole country now that they were so close, and the consequences of letting Sadam stay in charge was a decade of trade restrictions on Iraq, leading to a humanitarian disaster in Iraq. There was some speculation about the U.S. being afraid of creating a power vacuum, or maybe disagreement between the allied governments about what to put in place of Sadam.

I'm still more angry about the trade embargo, which I consider outright cruel, than about the latest war which was ill-judged and promoted using fabricated "evidence" but might still, at least partly, have been initiated out of a genuine desire to create a better Iraq or at least stopping the slow decay of the country.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Aug 8 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

I must admit that I had not expected post-war Iraq to be quite as bad as it turned out.

Really? I expected it to be much worse. I expected Basra to declare itself part of Iran, for the Turks to invade Kurdistan to wipe out the PPK, and the Saudis to heavily arm Al Qaeda and friends. Only #3 is happening so far, though there is a very good chance of #1 and #2 happening, and soon.

I also expected an annual casualty count of over 5000 Allied troops. So far, that hasn't happened.

The one thing I didn't expect was just how self-destructive the Iraqis would be, blowing up their own power grid, hospitals, etc. so that the Iraqi populace would blame the Americans for not protecting them or something.

[Al_U_Card]

There is only one hope. Self-determination of indigenous peoples.

The U.S. disregarded all advice and information about how to best handle the situation in the rush to install and enrich their friends and supporters as well as lining the pockets of the mil-ind complex.

It is abundantly clear that the power-grab that is Fundamental Christianity versus Islam as manifested by the U.S. government and its cronies, is in direct violation of the U.S. constitution and is so like pre-war Nazi Germany as to be frightening.

They are willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to maintain their power and control in the "new world order". It remains to be seen what will fall next in their onslaught on civil liberties but rest assured that fall it will until the people of the U.S are totally subjugated. See you in hell.

[jtfanclub]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 8 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

There is only one hope. Self-determination of indiginous peoples.

Makes it easy for us Americans! All the indiginous people are dead (except in Alaska and Hawaii), and in fact were dead long before the Europeans ever got here. The Indians aren't native here either.

[Al_U_Card]

Including all segments of a population in the decision process is what democracy is all about......à la principles of U.S founding fathers. (Even if they had no thoughts for the native and enslaved peoples...or even women...know what I mean?) You have to OPEN your mind to the possibilities for them to have a chance of evolving into something useful.

[Al_U_Card]

Indigenous = PEOPLE who were born and live in a place. Not ex-pats or transients or conquerors.....

[jtfanclub]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 8 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

Indiginous = PEOPLE who were born and live in a place. Not ex-pats or transients or conquerors.....

Ah, sorry...indiginous around here is a trigger word that connotes the 'original people to live on the land', however many hundreds (or thousands) of years ago that was.

The Founding Fathers had a much clearer definition of indiginous- if you were born in a country, you are indiginous to the country, even if your parents were there on vacation, or even illegally.

[Al_U_Card]

Because your destiny put you there for a purpose. I like the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam......and then the 8 years of war with Iran (using US weapons) and now it is Iran's turn? When will you put a stop to Bush's insanity? The history books (if they do not get re-written) will cast a long dark shadow on this time. Our grandchildren will ask us how we allowed such a terrible thing to come to pass so that they had to endure and resist its outcomes and influence.

[mike777]

I was against going into Iraq and agree the war for most of the first 5 years was managed poorly. That is reason enough to vote against Bush or the Reps who deserve full blame.
As I have mentioned before I did not think the reasons going for war were immoral just unproven or not a good enough reason. There may have been good reasons but they just were not put forward.
I understand most disagreed and the voted for the war, fair enough.

With all of that said I just wonder if many posters would prefer the Usa lose the war or at the very least not win it. If you want us to win it would be nice to preface your critical remarks with that. If you think this whole war on terror is way overblown for evil fascists politicians to take power, or more power than what they have, fair enough, just say that.

[helene_t]

what are you refering to, jtf? Some undiscovered branch of Homo Erectus reaching the Americas 100,000 yers ago? Or extra-terristrials?

Mike: Personally I want everybody to win the peace. Until now everybody is losing the war,

[Al_U_Card]

You are in Iraq because of 9-11. Mr. Silverstein's agreement to get a huge insurance windfall to be paid for by the sheople. (And no need to clean up the asbestos insulation that was a billion $ problem that just became a lot of valiant people getting sick....) Oh and the SEC records go with the 3rd building brought down by controlled demolition. At least there were no deaths there.

Watch this.

http://video.google....190071483512003

[pbleighton]

Quote

Mike: Personally I want everybody to win the peace. Until now everybody is losing the war

Yes.

I'm not sure why Mike and those who think like him need to assign *winner* and *loser* status to entities in the conflict, when it's quite clear that there will be no winners, just groups who have varying degrees of loss.

Peter

[Impact]

Well let's see:-

A. In the 1980s US provided aid Iraq/Saddam to counter the Iran influence (Iran being seen as inimical to US views and the doctrine of "maintaining the balance of power" holding sway). Some may have wrapped it in ideology but it was neither more nor less cynical than say Britain's changing sides on a regular basis for 250 years to balance the power on the continent of Europe...the expression is Realpolitic - which has nothing to do with morality.

B. In 1991 Saddam was not toppled because the prevalent doctrine was that so to do would upset the balance of power in the Middle East by making Iran the dominant power (against the status quo - and not coincidentally against US interests). See concluding comment in A above.

C. As at 1991 it was fairly well documented that Saddam held WMDs (chemical weapons). No one has ever refuted or denied their existence at that time.

D. It is reasonable commonsense that such chemical weapons do not vanish without some papertrail - after all you don't just bury them in a backyard. Nonetheless despite enormous amounts of money neither papertrail for their disposal nor WMDs have been sighted.

E. Per se, disposing of Saddam was doing the world a favour. It is not clear what changed (other than the demise of the Soviet Union as a power in the interim to modify the realpolitic of the balanace of power. Perhaps that was enough as the concept of "regime change" for the area as opposed to mere maintenance of the status quo might have seemed attractive: to change the whole culture and nature of the Middle East. Of course going to that next step and working out a coherent policy was much harder...

F. USA won the military war against Saddam - not surprisingly and despite the naysayers, but as a minority I said when they were going in : but then what?

G. Iraq as a state was an artificial construct no less than Yugoslavia and composed again of ethnic groups who hated each other with a passion and might have coined the term "vengeance". Further it was not as if the "Iraquis" even had the relatively civilizing influence of being on the edge of Europe.

H. Further there was no democratic or assimilated history and tradition: this is not something which is inculcated from the top down. Additionally much of the educated middle class had fled Iraq for political reasons...

I. The only 2 modern examples of nations conquered and then rehabilitated, of which I am aware, to the West are Japan and Germany both of which had relatively homogeneous populations and history/tradition as a unified country, but both of which were occupied by foreign troops for decades and were the recipients of enormous economic aid. This was going to be much harder- and obviously so with the recent record of Yugoslavia (a geographic creation ruled by a strong man which fell apart after his death when the leash was loosened - and they didn't even have oil to fight about over territory) available for all to see!

J. Forget the ideology - and even the importance of the region (hotspot of tension/oil etc), if the goal was to establish a credible western-oriented state as a counterbalance to Iran (note how I avoid using "democracy" or religious terms), the prospect of such occurring was going to take a minimum of a generation (ie 25+years) for the whole of which the US would have to be present in huge force: greater than that in Germany and Japan combined (occupying) and at great economic cost for the inculcation of a different life and a counterbalance to tribal hatreds....and then only a chance.

K. At the time I said that I did not think that the USA had the intestinal fortitude for the longhaul task (regardless of whether the task was worthy of the cost: human and economic). That almost lone voice of prescience is proving prophetic unfortunately.

I have difficulty comprehending that my simple analysis was not apparent to the bureaucrats who plan just about everything: Defence/State whatever and that for all the "leaks" on just about every subject under the sun I have yet to see any suggestion that any of those departments or anyone in them put a position paper of this sort together....and that is really scary!

You can't unscramble the egg, so aside from taking your bat and ball and going home, perhaps it is time to re-examine the outcome truly sought and consider whether the expenditure (again human as well as economic) should be squandered or whether the next 2 decades of support and cost should be pursued......


Oh yes I realise that electronic groupies don't believe in spelling but the English word is "indigenous" from the Latin indigenus.....

regards

[mike777]

Fair enough you do not want the Usa to win(whatever that means) the war...just lose it to some degree. Or insert some other word if you prefer...but not gosh..win a war....



That says it all I think on the divide in the world. Do not win just "insert word" the war.

Yes my ilk are simple folks.....we say we hope we win the war...not twist and turn and use(insert) any word other than win the war.

As I said some of these posts give the impression that the hope or goal of the usa winning is not there. It seems they support some other goal...losing or somewhat losing or winning the peace, etc. Peace love and understanding.

[Winstonm]

The U.S. "won" the war. There is no national Iraqi military opposition, and Saddam Hussein has been removed.

The U.S. achieved its purpose in Kuwait and then withdrew - what is different about Iraq that makes withdrawl after the victory impossible?

[Impact]

Winstonm, on Aug 8 2007, 09:52 PM, said:

The U.S. "won" the war. There is no national Iraqi military opposition, and Saddam Hussein has been removed.

The U.S. achieved its purpose in Kuwait and then withdrew - what is different about Iraq that makes withdrawl after the victory impossible?

Winston,

THe real issue is what they went in there to achieve - and whether they are willing to walk away leaving:-

a) economic mess;

Iran as the strongman state in the area;

c) humanitarian mess with the break-up of the State and

d) internecine tribal warfare.

I am not expressing a personal view on staying or going but reviewing the historical reasons both for action and inaction previously it is more than slightly obscure to me precisely what they meant to accomplish - and hence whether they feel they should leave.

If it really is an exercise in state-building and changing the face of the middle east (while maintaining a counterbalance to Iran) that will take at least another 20 years.

If the real object was to destroy the Iraq army and Saddam, they could have left after they captured Saddam.

If they still have a "balance of power" mentality, they can't leave yet (Iran is relatively too strong) - but I certainly don't have information for a timetable.

If it was about oil, problem remains unsolved.

If it was about peaceful democracy - another 25 years will seem short....

If it was about national self-determination: the various tribal/religious/racial groups are no closer (or not much) to an accommodation than after the fall of Baghdad.

No answers - just questions because the whole purpose and conduct has never been set out in a logical fashion, so we all have to guess...

regards

[helene_t]

mike777, on Aug 9 2007, 04:01 AM, said:

Fair enough you do not want the Usa to win(whatever that means) the war...just lose it to some degree. Or insert some other word if you prefer...but not gosh..win a war....

That says it all I think on the divide in the world.

It does not say it all. On the contrary, it says nothing.

If "to win the war" means to turn the whole Middle East into a nuclear desert then I think Peter would be against.

If "to win the war" means to turn Iraq into a functioning, peaceful democracy and then leave, I think Peter would be for.

Btw, Peter just said that it was impossible to win the war. That has nothing to do with "wanting" or "not wanting".

[Al_U_Card]

I wonder if the WMD were not found because it would have revealed that their origin was within the U.S. and/or its operatives?

History is rife with aggressors laying occupied areas to waste for multiferious reasons. The only common denominator is that innocent, indigenous people die in large numbers.

btw, Impact, thanks for the spellcheck...

[pbleighton]

Quote

As I said some of these posts give the impression that the hope or goal of the usa winning is not there. It seems they support some other goal...losing or somewhat losing or winning the peace, etc.

This is your fantasy, Mike.

The rest of us are more reality-based. This obviously offends you.

Tell me how we can *win* another country's civil war, please.

Quote

Btw, Peter just said that it was impossible to win the war. That has nothing to do with "wanting" or "not wanting".

Peter