[mr. natural]

From Michael Ignatieff's essay: Mirage in The Desert

Iraqis may not have full sovereignty yet, but America needs to understand that Iraqis, not Americans, are already sovereign over events there. America would be a better nation-builder if it acknowledged this, but its history does not encourage humility. During the D-Day celebrations, the old newsreel footage of dusty G.I.'s riding into Rome and Paris in 1944 burnished America's incorrigible mythology of its own omnipotence. In Iraq, even the locals succumbed to it, expecting that the world's most powerful country must be able to get water, electricity and security running in no time. It was a rude surprise to discover how chaotic, incompetent and downright violent the godlike liberators turned out to be. America had the Bradleys and the Abrams, but it knew next to nothing about Iraq, and soon ignorance -- of the language, tribal alliances and family and clan networks -- left U.S. soldiers ambushed and outwitted in the deadly alleyways of Falluja and Najaf.

Ordinary American ignorance was compounded by the administration's arrogance. Gen. George C. Marshall began planning the postwar occupation of Germany two years before D-Day. This administration was fumbling for a plan two months before the invasion. Who can read Bob Woodward's ''Plan of Attack'' and not find his jaw dropping at the fact that from the very beginning, in late 2001, none of the civilian leadership, not Rice, not Powell, not Tenet, not the president, asked where the plan for the occupation phase was? Who can't feel that U.S. captains, majors and lieutenants were betrayed by the Beltway wars between State and Defense? Who can't feel rage that victorious armies stood by and watched for a month while Iraq was looted bare?

Someone like me who supported the war on human rights grounds has nowhere to hide: we didn't suppose the administration was particularly nice, but we did assume it would be competent. There isn't much excuse for its incompetence, but equally, there isn't much excuse for our naivete either.

This wonderful essay articulates a whole host of things I have been feeling and trying to speak of late. This country would be a better place if we heeded the lessons spoken of herein. I highly recommend it.

The question is whether these reaffirmations [of america's *exceptionalism*] still inspire Americans to be better than they actually are, or whether the nation's rhetoric has degenerated into a ritual concealment of what the country has actually become.

Now that's a really good question!

[Spliffdaddy]

yay. yet another dolt that thinks criticizing is akin to doing something.

So what would the solution be?

I don't see any ideas at all here.

[mr. natural]

^

I rest my case that Mr. Ignatieff has nailed us.

[Essex63110]

Aside it was not an legal war this was one of the things germany and france asked for... We wanted to know what would happen if Iraq was defeated, but we got no answers. Too bad americans were busy swearing at us instead of thinking twice, this costs american and iraqi lives.

[DBursey]

From Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War:

U.S. Military Deaths: Between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces were killed, including 836 U.S. military. Of the total, 693 were killed after President Bush declared the end of combat operations on May 1, 2003. Over 5,134 U.S. troops have been wounded since the war began, including 4,593 since May 1, 2003.

Terrorist Recruitment and Action: According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, al Qaeda's membership is now at 18,000, with 1,000 active in Iraq. A former CIA analyst and State Department official has documented 390 deaths and 1,892 injuries due to terrorist attacks in 2003. In addition, there were 98 suicide attacks around the world in 2003, more than any year in contemporary history.

Low U.S. Credibility: Polls reveal that the war has damaged the U.S. government's standing and credibility in the world. Surveys in eight European and Arab countries demonstrated broad public agreement that the war has hurt, rather than helped, the war on terrorism. At home, 54 percent of Americans polled by the Annenberg Election Survey felt that the "the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over."

Loss of First Responders: National Guard troops make up almost one-third of the U.S. Army troops now in Iraq. Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities because many are "first responders," including police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. For example, 44 percent of the country's police forces have lost officers to Iraq. In some states, the absence of so many Guard troops has raised concerns about the ability to handle natural disasters.

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved of $126.1 billion for Iraq and an additional $25 billion is heading towards Congressional approval, for a total of $151.1 billion through this year. Congressional leaders have promised an additional supplemental appropriation after the election.

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: Economist Doug Henwood has estimated that the war bill will add up to an average of at least $3,415 for every U.S. household. Another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy initially, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation.

One hopes the U.S. has the fortitude to extract itself from this terrible mess

[ink]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yay. yet another dolt that thinks criticizing is akin to doing something.

So what would the solution be?

I don't see any ideas at all here.

How about investing the $1/2 trillion we've spent so far on Iraq into alternative energy production?

Whoops.. Too late, we're already there.

[zigzag]

A pretty perceptive essay, even if it might sound a bit too isolationist in response to all the blunders the US has made. Like the author, I've supported the invasion in principle but have objected to the dishonesty and utter incompetence that has accompanied it (I remember asking before the invasion: What's the post-war plan? No one, including the administration, seemed to know). I don't think this means we should stop exercising power in benevolent ways, only that we should do it more honestly and competently.

I thought this was a particularly insightful observation:

"In Iraq, America is not the maker of history but its plaything. In the region at large, America is not the hegemon but the hesitant shaper of forces it barely understands."

I think there's a lot of truth in this. From here, the Middle East seems inscrutable. The US (and Britain, which to a large degree started the whole mess) helps install dictators, supports one dictator against another, removes dictators (sometimes the same dictator it once supported), throws money and weaponry around, and engages in the occasional brute force action, but overall has a very limited ability to control things.

"Go home, Jake. It's Chinatown."

[mr. natural]

zigzag, I didn't get the "isolationist" feeling that you speak of. I think he wishes, as do I, that we act with a lot less arrogance and a lot more humility. I'd also strongly suggest we need to recognize that just because we acted self-lessly in the past doesn't still make us selfless or even special anymore -- in short we are spoiled brats by our self-centered behaviors and responses to the world today. I think we'd all agree that in mindfully exercising our power with the above mentioned qualities, we do so too with more honesty, and likely competence, all of which would make for more well rounded benevolence of deed.

But it is very clear to me that the DC gang in charge just have no semblance of any of this (so it was refreshing to hear someone who supported the war realize how naive he was in his estimation of the folks who hatched this plan). Nor in fact does a large portion of the population. Until this changes I'm not particularly optimistic about how well we will repond to events beyond our control. Luck may tide us over, but that's not a recipe for success I think wise to count on.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
zigzag, I didn't get the "isolationist" feeling that you speak of. I think he wishes, as do I, that we act with a lot less arrogance and a lot more humility. I'd also strongly suggest we need to recognize that just because we acted self-lessly in the past doesn't still make us selfless or even special anymore -- in short we are spoiled brats by our self-centered behaviors and responses to the world today. I think we'd all agree that in mindfully exercising our power with the above mentioned qualities, we do so too with more honesty, and likely competence, all of which would make for more well rounded benevolence of deed.

Perhaps "isolationist" is too strong a word. It just struck me from an initial reading that he was advocating pulling our horns in more than I might like (I was going to use the term "Vietnam-redux" but decided against it). But I might have misread him. In any case, I agree with the goal of using our power, but in a smarter fashion. I've applauded Bush's resolve, I just don't think it's been applied as intelligently as it should have been.

But it is very clear to me that the DC gang in charge just have no semblance of any of this (so it was refreshing to hear someone who supported the war realize how naive he was in his estimation of the folks who hatched this plan). Nor in fact does a large portion of the population. Until this changes I'm not particularly optimistic about how well we will repond to events beyond our control. Luck may tide us over, but that's not a recipe for success I think wise to count on.

I could relate to his comments because when this all started, I also assumed that even though it was fairly obvious that the administration was gilding the WMD lily and intended to go to war no matter what, it must have (a) reasonably good intelligence, and (b) a sound plan. Unfortunately, it had neither, and as you suggest, luck can only get you so far. But I'm still hoping for the best - if things work out in Iraq, the blunders will mostly be forgotten and Bush will be regarded as a great leader. Of course, if things don't work out, history will regard him poorly. To his credit, he seems to have accepted this.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Nothing new to see here other than more America bashing...

I say in the future let everyone else fight their own damn wars. No more American lives to save the lives of foreigners.

[zigzag]

I thought this would make an interesting addition to the thread:

"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

One might think that this is Colin Powell speaking - he's already said essentially the same thing - but in fact it comes from William F. Buckley Jr. By the standards of a number of Bush loyalists here, the mere act of questioning the administration would make him a "Bush-basher," along with Powell, Zinni, etc.

I don't necessarily even agree with Buckley, I just think it's worth pointing out that it's possible for people of all stripes to think and speak independently.

[daimoni]

.

[mr. natural]

zigzag,
IMHO, using our power wisely and benevolently is absolutely what Mr. Ignatieff is for. And again, I think the point was only that we are not capable of doing that unless we regain some self-critical humility.

Acting like we (America and by extension all americans) are God's gift to the world, while throwing our weight around with a *you're with us or against us* mentality, isn't proving to be a winning formula of late; But instead of looking at the fault lines in the cracked mirror held up to our own collective mug, a lot of folks would rather hunker down in the ready made nationalistic bunkers of rally round the flag, and self-serving but ignorant projection of evil out there -- against everyone who dares question our heavenly mandate.

One thing this isn't, and Mr. Ignatieff's essay touched on all this, is introspective. This is what I find so galling about us of late.

It is one thing to fervently believe in our greatness and another thing entirely to act it. This is what concerns me so.

As I've mentioned before, we are supposedly engaged in a most important and dangerous war, but one by which the idea of collective sacrifice is not even considered. What else could be more telling of how immune we think we've become from the reality of our precarious plight. Our ignorance is only surpassed by our arrogance that we are in control -- with God as our co-pilot!

Posted by zigzag:
I've applauded Bush's resolve, I just don't think it's been applied as intelligently as it should have been.

It's one thing to *applaud* someone's *resolve,* but another thing entirely to do so while acknowledging their resolve is misapplied. I try and make this distinction with my son all the time! He's a stubborn sucker at times, which I hope will stand him in good stead, but he hasn't yet learned to discern when such "resolve" is appropriate and when it just plain idiotic. But seeing as he is only eight years old there is hope for him still. Howevetr, I worry about Bush. And I think it entirely sane to do so!

I don't necessarily even agree with Buckley, I just think it's worth pointing out that it's possible for people of all stripes to think and speak independently.

I agree. And to do so without being labeled as hate filled un-patriotic Saddam sympathizers!

But then again, one has to remind oneself, we're all retards here -- or at least, some more so than others!

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I thought this would make an interesting addition to the thread:

How is it interesting or even remotely intelligent?

Gosh, had I known what the Power Ball numbers were going to be I would have chosen better.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
It's one thing to *applaud* someone's *resolve,* but another thing entirely to do so while acknowledging their resolve is misapplied.

Yes, that's what I meant to say - I applaud it, but not without limits.

I try and make this distinction with my son all the time! He's a stubborn sucker at times . . .

Now where would he have gotten that from?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
How is it interesting or even remotely intelligent?

Gosh, had I known what the Power Ball numbers were going to be I would have chosen better.

Plenty of people were skeptical of the seriousness of the Saddam threat and opposed the war before it started, and were called traitors, idiots, or worse, so perhaps Buckley's observation redeems them to a degree. And maybe we can learn something from it. And it's interesting because it's, well, William F. Buckley, Jr., one of the most important conservative figures of the past half-century. However, I didn't expect you to be able to grasp any of this, so it's OK if you don't.

[Dr.HermanG.]

That's not really the point.