January 13, 2007Department of Cascading BlundersThe FT editorializes (more wisely than any American paper appears capable): Mr Bush’s body language in the speech bespoke a chastened man. Yet, caught in a wilfully spun web of delusion and denial, he seems still unable to comprehend the depths of the debacle he has caused in Iraq. How did the world's leading nation, 300 million strong, end up with a national security team this myopically mediocre, one that risks compounding blunder upon blunder? And what now can be done, with the ISG's attempted intervention having (mostly) failed? Posted by Gregory at January 13, 2007 03:11 PMComments
How did we end up here? Stupid people voted for sizzle instead of steak. We've gotten the exact government we asked for. Posted by: CharleyCarp at January 13, 2007 04:01 PM | Permalink to this commentHearings, hearings, more hearings, and possibly impeachment. For a long time I've pooh poohed those who called for impeachment as unserious, and that the process would be politically untenable. But now I believe it may be necessary. Posted by: RWB at January 13, 2007 04:05 PM | Permalink to this commentWe had to get that guy...Saddam ...you know the one who got us on 911!!!!! Posted by: centrist at January 13, 2007 04:17 PM | Permalink to this commentHow did the world's leading nation, 300 million strong, end up with a national security team this myopically mediocre, one that risks compounding blunder upon blunder? I really don't get any joy out of rubbing your nose in it over and over, so instead of the obvious retort, how about I offer you a deal? In return for my promising not rubbing your nose in it over and over, you promise never to say, nor to listen to, nor agree with, people who do say, "Democrats have no credibility on national security/military issues," and/or "No matter how bad Republican Candidate X is, Democratic Candidate Y would be even worse." Deal? Posted by: CaseyL at January 13, 2007 05:17 PM | Permalink to this commentcaseyl-yes to the first prong (won't ever automatically dismiss Dem's cred on national security matters writ large again), but can't sign on to the second in full (as that's more case by case, meaning i'd have to judge each time on the specific merits). at least as of today, however, and i'm obviously surprised to write this: i'm currently leaning hillary over mccain in '08. all this said, despite the mega-clustereff in Iraq, i think if kerry had precipitously pulled out we might (at least arguably) be even worse off than the terrible straits we're in today, as frustrating as i know it is for you (and other readers) to hear this from me. anyway, a muddled response likely not satisfactory to you, i know, but that's where i'm at. and, for avoidance of doubt, do note i'd certainly never ever casually make the argument that "No matter how bad Republican Candidate X is, Democratic Candidate Y would be even worse". such an argument would have to be, at very least, specific and detailed. deal, or? Posted by: greg djerejian at January 13, 2007 05:38 PM | Permalink to this commentI'm not sure how a "precipitous" pull-out (which I don't actually remember Kerry advocating) could have been worse than what is, unless you mean the number of people fleeing Iraq would be double what they are now, many of them clamoring to get into the US. However, that's a might-have-been/never-was, with no hard data to argue either way. For the rest: yes, we have a deal :) Posted by: CaseyL at January 13, 2007 05:58 PM | Permalink to this commentThe reason you guys are left with these types of people is because of tribalism: a.k.a. Group Think. There is no margin in telling Truth to Power - thus only the untruthful get promoted. Posted by: pen Name at January 13, 2007 08:03 PM | Permalink to this commentIt was a fine editorial, but pitiful that only the FT is stating the obvious. With a discernable sense of desperation I may add. Indeed if one takes into account Luce's and Stephen's comments/opinion pieces, I'd say the FT is positively banging on pots. Posted by: The Lounsbury at January 13, 2007 08:55 PM | Permalink to this commentGreg, Iraq has been overblown as a war to settle everything. When it is only one of the first battles in the war that will not end anytime in the near future. The same with the Afghan. It is just one of the opening battles. Now, if you think winning any kind of long term war, can be won by just up and quitting the first battles, just think about that for awhile. The U.S. was ill prepared for these battles as they have developed. We will do much better in the coming years. It won't be easy, or fast or pretty, but we will make fewer mistakes. That's the way wars always go. The ones that learn the most and use that knowledge against their enemy usually win. Usually... Papa Ray Papa Ray I think that there is persuasive evidence that the Bush administration actually did up and quit the first battle .... in Afghanistan ...... to concentrate on Iraq. Posted by: dan at January 14, 2007 03:48 PM | Permalink to this commentNot to forget the corporate class and their (mostly) wholly owned mass media, who only want one of their own in power. They hated Clinton, a moderate who compromised willingly, because . . . I guess because he wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary. And they got Bush and Cheney, who should have been wholly owned subsidiaries, but turned out to be dangerous fanatics. Will they learn? Posted by: Invigilator at January 15, 2007 12:16 AM | Permalink to this commentPapa Ray - I understand your perspective on the ultimately larger scope of the war. But I'm not sure that it will play out that way. The American Public is not interested in a larger war on terrorism. At least not in the literal sense. They will not support our invading another country. So, though you see more battles to be fought, I don't think that will actually happen. Nor should it, in my view. The cost would be much higher than the benefit. But regardless, Americans are not willing to make the sacrifices that would be required (i.e., higher taxes, a possible draft, etc.). And I don't think the current administration has the credibility to scare them into it again. Posted by: kilfarsnar at January 19, 2007 08:32 PM | Permalink to this commentConsider First Manassas in our own civil war. The yankees lost hands down. They worked hard to build up their forces after that. The confederates won and a lot of them felt like they'd won the war. The victory disorganised them maybe more than a defeat would have. If Pap Ray is right about this being one of the first battles, we might be better off to lose it than if we could somehow win. Posted by: J Thomas at January 20, 2007 06:46 PM | Permalink to this comment |
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006
|
|||