Not making the same mistakes in Iraq. Except we are.
One of the more curious elements of the "new" Iraq strategy is that in many regards, it's really an effort to try to go back to 2003 and start the whole process over. (Michael Hirsch reported as much in Newsweek, and as did Gen. Keane's comments that we're going to sideline the Iraqis and not focus on their preparation and training.)
There's one little problem. The idea of "starting over" only works if you fix the things that went wrong the first time.
Yet here we are again. Reconstruction posts are unfilled or filled by unqualified personnel.
Our soldiers can fight day and night, they can be heroes, but if the civilians let them down, they will lose. They will die in a hopeless mission.
The military leadership has made mistakes in Iraq, but those mistakes pale in comparison to the failures of "the civilians." Rebuilding/reconstruction, cronyism in the CPA, political reconciliation, disbanding the army, the sectarian nature of the government, building a security force(2003, 2004.)
These are not mistakes of the military, but they are alot of the reason that soldiers are still dying.
(Condi Rice was in Baghdad last weekend "urging" Iraqi leaders to meet "benchmarks." What did she accomplish?)
There's one little problem. The idea of "starting over" only works if you fix the things that went wrong the first time.
Yet here we are again. Reconstruction posts are unfilled or filled by unqualified personnel.
Our soldiers can fight day and night, they can be heroes, but if the civilians let them down, they will lose. They will die in a hopeless mission.
The military leadership has made mistakes in Iraq, but those mistakes pale in comparison to the failures of "the civilians." Rebuilding/reconstruction, cronyism in the CPA, political reconciliation, disbanding the army, the sectarian nature of the government, building a security force(2003, 2004.)
These are not mistakes of the military, but they are alot of the reason that soldiers are still dying.
(Condi Rice was in Baghdad last weekend "urging" Iraqi leaders to meet "benchmarks." What did she accomplish?)
posted by mikevotes at
8:24 AM
4 Comments:
For some reason the biblical story of Pharaoh sending the Hebrews out to make bricks without straw, comes to mind.
Pharaoh Bush is sending our servicemen out to Iraq to build a monument to his greatness: a peaceful, unified, western-leaning, liberal democracy. But without the straw that is the people of Iraq, this is impossible. And the people of Iraq don't seem too keen to be mashed together and molded in the mud of US nation-creationism.
By
-epm, at 9:38 AM
That's a pretty good analogy.
Because Iraq was to be a part of his "Lincoln-esque" legacy. It was intended to be a symbolic monument to the neocon ideology.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:52 AM
Iraq will never, never, never be the Technocolor vision the neocons spouted -- an Arabic America, like the US with minarets instead of steeples.
I think the facts of history will require Bush to be remembered closer to a Grant than a Lincoln... or perhaps a blending of McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover with a pinch of Herbert Hoover and a dash of Napoleon.
By
-epm, at 10:25 AM
I've been amused over the years to watch the Bush administration try to reach back for historical analogies of presidents who were not popular in office but are more popular now.
Truman, Lincoln, and lately Washington.
I find myself wanting to shout at my TV.
There were unpopular presidents who stayed unpopular. You know?
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home