The New Republic

Of course, on the "toughness" issue, it would be interesting to see what people REALLY think, rather than project school-yard "touchness" standards that we see in two-bit Hollywood flicks onto the minds of our adversaries.  I am not an expert on the "Arab/Islamic" mind, and have not done any surveys, but I'd venture to guess that the average radical Islamist does not look at Iraq and say, "man, those guys are tough, and we should just lay down our guns".  If they have even a basic understanding of history, strategy, the military, local geography, long-term interests and the like, they would think, "the US botched it; they have failed to establish long-term order; they are spending billions with no strategic end-game in sight" etc.

And that's only the tip of this analytical iceberg.  What the good authors fail to mention is that America's invasion of Iraq and its failure to actually give order to the country has considerably strengthened America's adversaries in the region.  To wit, Iran.

- icarusr

June 25, 2008 at 11:52am

People use "strong" in different ways, which causes confusion.  In the USSR -- especially under Stalin -- "strong" meant "being prepared to kill vast numbers of people without compunction to get your way."  Hardly a model we want to emulate.

- ironyroad

June 25, 2008 at 12:01pm

I doubt that Blankley is telling the truth about that "then-recently former senior Red army general" who just happened to tell Tony a tid-bit pointing so conveniently to the moral that Newt and Tony are trying to sell us now. If you look at what the Soviet Union did following Vietnam, which was to make a deliberate effort to match the U.S. as a world power--funding all sorts of revolutionaries in Africa and Latin America,where the U.S.S.R had no strategic stake at all, building a "blue-water" navy that ultimately accomplished nothing--you would say that the Soviets felt that the U.S. had shot its bolt. Luckily for us, the Soviet economy was entirely incapable of supporting such an aggressive strategy, and the socialist motherland collapsed of its own weight and incompetence.

- AMVHuck

June 25, 2008 at 12:04pm

Lets see here . . .

1. Totally wearing out all our military hardware makes us stronger???  Guess we'll have to go back to horse calvary - that'd be good with the price of fuel and all.

2. Killing off, maiming or wearing out our career soldiers makes us stronger??? The ones who've survived are leaving services by droves since all they've got to look forward to is tour after tour over there.

3. Having no civilian skin in this game makes us stronger???  There's no draft, no rationing, no nothing going on here - including less and less media coverage.  No wonder soldiers feel forgotten, and there's nothing but cowboy rhetoric about staying there.

Gee, I feel so tough and protected when Georgie talks about starting another war with Iran!  Next he'll be saying we need to drop bombs there because God told him to (probably while in the bathroom on his throne).

- WaltB

June 25, 2008 at 12:18pm

i disagree with your contention that "public opinion and civilian leaders have probably turned against military action for the foreseeable future."

give me a pirated copy of powerpoint and photoshop, a few of the stupider quotes coming out of iran to repeat ad nauseum, and 100 hours of airtime on all of NPR's lame call-in shows and I will sell the American people yet ANOTHER ill-fated exit-less Middle East intervention.

- chrisnatale

June 25, 2008 at 12:30pm

The Soviet analogy is indeed ridiculous. If their judgment of us had been better, we might all be speaking Russian now.

- ackyri

June 25, 2008 at 12:45pm

Blankley's retarded and it's scary that the Right think in these sweeping generalisations.

Don't they get it?

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is a terrorist cell, it is not a nation.

"Fighting them over there, instead of here" is Orwellian propaganda.

Frightening.

- The Ignorant Populist

June 25, 2008 at 12:59pm

Gee, Walt, we can build newer, better equipment.  These days that's pretty good news for the economy.  In fact, retention rates are about normal, with certain grade-concentrated exceptions.  In any case, we've got plenty of soldiers to fight these 2 wars. Like you, I lament that there is little or no homefront involvement outside of the military community itself, but that is the military structure (all-volunteer) that we chose in 1973 after a disatrous period with a draft.  As you know.

BTW, for all his faults, W has NOT talked about starting a war with Iran.  What he has done,with the unanimous support of the UN Security Council, is to call on Iran to stop enriching uranium as a precursor to developing a nuclear weapon.

But then, you know that, too.

- butchie b

June 25, 2008 at 1:26pm

What a moron.  When he wrote for "George" magazine (JFK Jr's venture) years ago, he seemed to be in on the joke a little.  He seemed to grasp that he and his bretheren were...not really justifiable by logical means.

- Wandreycer1

June 25, 2008 at 1:49pm

Well, butchie, I'd consider saying "all options are on the table" as at least hinting at military strikes on Iran, and I'm sure DOD has drawn up plans for military action.

Of course, they have those for North Korea, China, and even probably for New Zealand (drawn up, no doubt, by a bored Pacific Rim Analyst when he was on an unimportant conference call).

- bigfish

June 25, 2008 at 1:55pm

Blankley is basically correct. in all three of his assertions:

--if the end result of all this alleged "terrorist recruitment" is dead terrorists, what's wrong with that?  Winning the war ALWAYS increases enemy recruitment. Nazi recruitment went way up after Stalingrad.

--one of the principal reasons for Al Qaeda's current decline is the growing realization among Islamists that the ultimate result of the Great Victory on 9/11 may be the replacement of an implacable US enemy dictatorship in Iraq with a reasonably democratic, reasonably pro-western state.

--a principal rationale of OBL, according to him, was that the US would fold after a relatively few casualties. Although in reality the casualties we have sustained in Iraq in over five years of fighting represent about five hours of fighting in some of our historic battles, the fact that we are prepared to stick it out collapses a basic AQ strategy.

- Robert Powell

June 25, 2008 at 2:22pm

We look weak to the point of being a paper tiger.  We attacked the weakest of the "axis of evil" not because they were the greatest threat--they were demonstrably much less of a threat than either Iran or North Korea--but precisely because they were the weakest of the axis.  Then we failed to execute on any level, demonstrating the limitations of our military and the lack of will of our leaders and people.  Our military lacks the capability to fight in either Iran or North Korea until after we withdraw from Iraq and the military has a chance to rebuild.  Even after an attack on our largest city and our capital, and under the most militaristic administration imaginable, we were unwilling as a nation to make any sacrifice to strengthen our military.  Bush was not even willing to sacrifice tax cuts for his cronies to finance an increased defense budget.  (In my opinion, he should have asked for substantial national sacrifice for energy efficiency and independence, but there was no chance that an administration brought to us by big oil would do this.)  After the debacle in Iraq, I doubt we will be able to develop a mass movement in favor of a stronger military.  This is not Bismarck's Germany in the most jingoistic of times.  I doubt that Iran and North Korea fear our military bluster at this point.  If they are willing to work with us, it is only because it is in their interests to do so.  Of course, this would counsel diplomacy rather than an invasion that would demonstrate our limitations rather than our strength.

- scdrawe

June 25, 2008 at 2:28pm

Butchie - I know you know that most of what you said above is bogus, so it puzzles me why you'd do so.

1) The defense industry represents a very small part of the US economy, so claiming that having to replace all of the equipment is "good for the economy" just makes no sense.  It does represent wonderful corporate welfare though.  And a massive lost opportunity cost which isn't so easy to shrug off these days.

And let not start talking about the future treatment costs for  today's troops.  That's unlikely to do the economy much good.

2) To claim that retention rates are normal while there is an active "Stop Loss" program in place, and then count forced re-enlistments  in those rates is a deliberate distortion of the data.  Also, I believe that recent West Point graduates are leaving active duty at the highest rate in 30 years.  Which grade levels were these exceptions you were talking about?

3) As for the semantics of whether Bush has said he'll attack Iran - sophistry aside, I'd say that statements such as "I will not let Iran develop nuclear weapons" are a fair signal of the intent.  Unless of course you also believed in 2003 that he was only going to use congressional approval of the use of force as another bargaining chip as well.  Personally I'm inclined to "fool me twice..."

- Nari224

June 25, 2008 at 3:01pm

Geez, Nari, lighten up.  Of course the defense industry is a small part of the economy.  However, WaltB's point was how horrible it was for the military that some equipment is getting broken in Iraq.  I don't believe that to be the case.  We do have the capacity and skill to replace it.

I don't know how large the stop-loss program is, and neither do you.  I have read reports that the retention rate has stayed fairly high, given that we have 2 wars going on.  The grade I was referring to specifically were O-3 and E-6/7.  Bad news to be sure, but not fatal.

I wasn't engaging in sophistry.  Hereabouts the President gets accused of everything save being on the grassy knoll in Dallas.  Of course "all options are on the table."  What should he say?  Besides, somebody else called Iran with a nuke a "grave threat to world peace."  Is that an implied threat? If so, thank Sen. Obama.

- butchie b

June 25, 2008 at 3:55pm

I agree, butchie, that any responsible policymaker in the US should consider Iran a threat to world peace.  They arm and fund terrorists throughout the Muslim world, so that would pretty much mean that they are a grave threat to world peace.  However, when the president says "All options are on the table," I believe that's almost always an answer to the question whether or not he would be willing to order military action. Then he has the audacity to call out Obama on being willing to meet with enemies. It has always struck me as odd when people argue that bombing another country is fine, but meeting with them is beyond the pale. Why in the world should we be more willing to bomb our enemies than talk to them?

- bigfish

June 25, 2008 at 4:25pm

Robert- the problem with recruitment for al-Qaeda being up is that they don't all flock to Iraq.  Indeed, many recruits are being sent to Pakistan, Lebanon, Algeria, Yemen etc- and this doesn't count all the homegrown cells in those and many other countries.  Now, the creation of these cells isn't in and of itself a case agains the war, but the fact that we just aren't killing many of the recruits belies the "kill them in Iraq so they won't be a problem elsewhere" trope.   And many of them are leaving Iraq alive and going back to their home countries, trained and battle-hardened, to cause chaos and attempt to make failed states (in the case of Yemen they are damn close).  While this might not make us weaker per se, it does hurt our attempt to wip out radical Islamism.

- boneill

June 25, 2008 at 4:38pm

Butchie - fair enough on Bush's comments,  

However, what's with the "I don't know how large the stop loss program is, and neither do you"?  Doesn't just saying that trigger some alarm bells for you?  A very cursory search found the following

USA Today: From a 3 year low of 8,540 affected troops in May 07, the number of soldiers forced to remain  in the Army rose to 12,235 in March 08.  The Army has said that over 50,000 troops have been affected by a stop loss order.  In the 3rd infantry division, 1,500 of its 22,500 soldiers are serving under stop loss.

You've gotta admit, if retention rates were actually as rosy as fox is saying (which is the only outlet I can find that's pushing that story) it's unlikely we'd need a stop loss order.  It'd also be unlikely that the acceptance criteria for signing up would have dropped as far as it has and that we'd need to waive these much higher signup bonus' under peoples noses right?

- Nari224

June 25, 2008 at 7:28pm

Also Butchie - Sorry - forgot to mention that those now much larger sign-on bonuses tend to get yanked if you do not complete your full term of service an honorable discharge.   An egregious  instance of this being enforced is for kids who have received severe combat injuries and the military then comes after them to TAKE BACK whatever bonus' they have already being paid.  And then theres the numerous documented cases of the Military trying to deny these same kids benefits.

Not directly related to the topic under discussion I know, but the reality of the current situation really does make it hard to listen to rosy assessments.

- Nari224

June 25, 2008 at 7:35pm

Yeah, invading Iraq was a terrific idea, just fabulous. (that's sarcasm)

And yes, Petraeus' strategy is somewhat less retarded than the original strategy, which as near as I can tell was:

1. invade and topple

2. kick back and watch infrastructure get looted

3. fire EVERYONE (all soldiers, all technocrats)

4. lower taxes and tariffs; 'the market magic' will just APPEAR

5. and (to be fair), hold a coupla votes

6. put our troops in fobs, have them go out at night, ride around in circles, and try not to get blown up

It's amazing that the sunnis turned out not be so happy about being booted from power (and fired), that the shi'a might not be too happy with the sunni, that the shi'a would be divided into 'close to iran' and 'not close to iran' factions (as well as 'religious' and 'non religious' factions as well as 'tribe A' and 'tribe B' factions), that al queda might make a play into this power vacuum and that the sunni would try to organize against all this mayhem.

Petraeus does seem to grasp all this a bit better, and seems to be playing it in the classic realpolitick 'balance of power' way.

However, no one, not dead-end assholes like Powell nor really cool awesome dudes like butchie can really give me a no bullshit assessment as to whether it's still worth it.

- mmathog

June 25, 2008 at 9:12pm

RP writes:  "Winning the war ALWAYS increases enemy recruitment. Nazi recruitment went way up after Stalingrad."

I don't think the concept of "recruitment" (= voluntary enlistment) is a particularly relevant one for dealing with Nazi Germany's increasingly panicky broadening of the draft-ready population in the Reich and its vast press-ganging operations in Occupied Europe and the Eastern Front to create slave workforces for war industries.

In fact, it's an astonishing statement, in a way, as it compares a hugh economic and military power with a tiny group of committed terrorists who have a branch operation in Iraq but also move around the international arena in much more threatening ways than the Iraqi insurgency.  If a group of Al Queda operatives are discovered with an ongoing operation in, say, Brussels, I think it will be very difficult to use the 101st Airborne to neutralize them.

Iraq is not "the war," if we're talking about the real Al Queda.

- ironyroad

June 25, 2008 at 10:41pm

Just on the narrow point 3, I would guess that most Mideast leaders would view the Iraq invasion from the perspective of Saddam Hussein, whose regime was crushed rather handily.  

But I'd also guess Blankley is talking about China, not other tinpot Arab dictators.  The American willingness to engage and then stick it out in Iraq makes war in, say, the Taiwan Strait much less likely.  

Yall should remember that the US military has two functions.  The first is to win wars.  On that score, everyone who has said that the Iraq action has stretched us thin and worn us down are probably right, on balance.  In the long run we'll have learned a thing or two about counterinsurgency, but in the short run we're clearly less able to act in the global theater.  But the second function is to deter wars.  That function depends both on our ability to win wars (see above) but also on our willingness to fight, which as of 2001 was not in great evidence.  On that score, I'd argue the Iraq action has probably helped a great deal.  

- gwolfjr

June 26, 2008 at 1:00am

ironyroad--I think we generally agree on the superiority of "the law enforcement method" when it comes to the principal terrorist threat, and about the relative strength of Islamic terrorism compared to an enemy in the form of a nation state. In terms of Iraq, however, it's been important to confront the terrorism that's there. Currently "recruitment" seems to be running in the direction of the mentally handicapped with a scattering of women thrown in--not the kind of heroic martyrs image AQ likes to project.

mmathog--why the bitterness? Sure, we fucked up. But any realistic appraisal of "worth it" has to factor in a reasonable projection of what our situation would look like if Saddam was still in power, as he certainly would be minus the invasion.

- Robert Powell

June 26, 2008 at 4:33am

Why am I bitter? Because this was a wasteful piece of crap war, that's why.

If we didn't invade?

1.The dollar would be stronger

2. Inflation would be lower

3. Oil prices would probably be about the same (maybe a tad lower)

4. The fiscal deficit would be lower

5. The U.S. would have more global respect

6. Fighting terrorism would be easier

7. Saddam would be in power (but a relative non-threat)

8. WAY more Iraqis would be alive

9. The dead and wounded U.S. troops would be undead and unwounded

- mmathog

June 26, 2008 at 11:33am

Well, hog I believe that, on balance, it was worth it, and I also know that most hereabouts disagree.  I also believe that the issue won't be settled by history for quite some time.  In 1953 Korea wasn't worth it, but today we have a different view.

As to your list - 1,2, and 6 are speculative.  3, 4, and 7 are probably right.  8 and 9 are self-evident.  5 is really beside the point, and I never really know what it means.  Even Old Europe keeps electing pro-American politicians, and the US polls above 60% in Japan, India and Australia.  Whence a lack of respect, except from US/European intellectuals?

- butchie b

June 26, 2008 at 1:36pm

Correction - number 8 is also speculative.  saddam would have killed thousands, but probably different thousands.

- butchie b

June 26, 2008 at 1:38pm

Read this Reader's Digest article on what has been happening at Abu Ghraib.  This is America, I don't know why liberals are so quick to vilify our country.  We do things the right way and justly.

www.rd.com/.../article76144.html

- jwl2672

June 26, 2008 at 2:39pm

jwl - perhaps you missed some of the quotes in the article.  Like

"But the men, women, and teenagers "inside the wire" no longer languish without hope, not knowing why they have been detained or what they need to do to be released -- and they're no longer subjected to horrific and occasionally criminal abuses"

or

"The abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were a "moral failure"..."

Since these things were all being done in our name by our government are you actually unable to comprehend why people didn't agree with them and spoke out against them?  I assume we'd both agree that America is special and is capable of amazing things.  If this article was written in say 2004 I'd understand your position.  But it wasn't, so I really don't get what your point is.

- Nari224

June 26, 2008 at 4:48pm

"Whence a lack of respect, except from US/European intellectuals?"

butchie, I find this a very odd statement.  If there is active, broad-based support from Europeans out there, which is somehow not getting through due to the subversive influence of those pesky intellectuals (would they just stop and back away from those intellects!!), why the significant problem getting NATO countries to commit more troops -- and for combat deployment -- to Afghanistan?

I'd suggest the reason is that, even if many political leaders are sympathetic on an individual basis, they would get massacred by their own electorates if they went down that path, electorates that do not trust the Bush administration and who have no desire to pick up the pieces of America's various global adventures (which they see as having created many of the problems the U.S. claims to be fighting).

- ironyroad

June 26, 2008 at 6:26pm

ironyroad--perhaps you didn't notice that Germany and France elected leaders who made being strongly pro-American a major part of their campaign. Where I live in Eastern Europe, the US is wildly popular, to an extent that's surely more than we deserve. Butchie's right, as usual--this is an almost completely meaningless concept in terms of any actual impact.  The problem with getting more NATO troops committed was best summed up by then-SACEUR General Jones when he characterized continental European forces as "less than 10% usefully deployable."

mmathog--any war is a catastrophe, but we didn't just decide on the spur of the moment to invade Iraq on the basis of "Bush lies" no matter how comforting that myth may be to those who opposed getting rid of Saddam.  For a long time we supported every tin-horn fascist on earth who claimed to be "anti-communist". I thought it was a welcome change in 1991 when we actually opposed one. I'm not pleased with the way things have been going either, but I think a little perspective is in order. If Iraq continues to transition from an aggressive enemy police state in a crucial location, to a reasonably democratic, reasonably pro-Western ally, it will have been worth it. In any case, you certainly should by now be able to accept that everyone who supported the war isn't an "asshole", or a war-monger. There is a legitimate case that it was the right thing to do, and lots of your fellow Americans believe it.

- Robert Powell

June 27, 2008 at 3:50am

Thanks, bob.  Irony, EU defense forces are near worthless, as we see in Afghanistan.  There, the US, Canada (!) and the Brits do most if not all of the heavy lifting.  The Euros have chosen, over the past 2 decades, to "sleep under the warm blanket of US protection."  At least in the Cold War, some countries made an effort - if not militarily, then at least politically (e.g., the stationing of Pershings and cruise missiles).  But since the fall of the wall, defense is the poor, red-headed stepchild of EU budgets.  With all too predictible rsults.

- butchie b

June 27, 2008 at 11:49am

butchie, RP, I disagree with some of the above, agree with some, but I don't understand why you think you're responding to my point.  I merely asked why, if there is such pro-American opinion out there, as you assert, is it not translating into policy?  I suggest that the answer is that there is still a signficant rejection of, or at least unwillingness to join, foreign military adventures that are clearly marked "Bush" despite all the new transatlantic warmth.

I've experienced years of people demanding, both in the real world and reflected here in TNR, greater military commitment from NATO countries -- but if it's not practically possible, as per your SACEUR quote, why the tub-thumping?  It seems to me that there's a dangerous tendency in the U.S. to ignore everyone else's democratic dynamic except our own.  I also want to suggest (somewhat devil's advocate-style) that European defense needs are in fact being addressed by NATO and other countries at the appropriate level, even if that level doesn't comport with our strategic desires.  What is the current or potential military threat that NATO minus America could realistically face that it couldn't be expected to deal with?  Russia would seem to be the only real threat, and despite oil revenues its military is a mess as far as training and discipline go and their command-and-control is primitve.

Regarding Afghanistan, the situation is considerably more complex than you suggest, as it was U.S. missteps (esp. with regard to reliance on ethnic militias) right at the beginning that at least in part led to the situation we have today.  We promised the defeat of the Taliban for once and for all, and a stabilized country -- but we did it on the cheap and we have delivered neither, and there's a legitimate lack of enthusiasm on the part of Europeans to join the party on the Titanic.  I'm not saying that only we have performed badly, just that we made some fateful mistakes at the beginning when the U.S. had the reins.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2008 at 12:49pm

ironyroad--what, exactly, do you think a more "pro-American policy" would entail?  Sending more troops to Afghanistan has little or nothing to do with attitudes about the US, and practically everything to do with the actual military capabilities of our allies.

That, and the fact that they all know making Afghanistan EU-ready is a wildly unrealistic goal. Afghanistan is a chronically hostile, backward place that's been competing with Congo and Bangladesh for the bottom in most measures of development for decades. Foreigners have been trying to "stabilize" it since the time of Alexander the Great, usually with a signal lack of success. Since the Taliban are essentially the Pashtuns,  "defeating" them is not really an option. Restraining them from undue influence  is about the best we can hope for.

We invaded Afghanistan for one reason only--to deny Al Qaeda the nation-state platform it had become for them. Mission accomplished. I think we can and should do things to help Afghanistan progress in the future, but replicating the Soviet strategy by sending lots of troops that are now in Iraq there is clearly not the right approach. To the extent that Europe is at least as threatened by Islamic terrorism as the US, I don't see any practical reason that they shouldn't be expected to increase their defense budgets and rules of engagement in a way that allows them to do something besides kibbitz from the sidelines.

- Robert Powell

June 28, 2008 at 4:52am