Some are arguing that currently the US is strategically over-extended.
One action being debated is whether the US invasion of Iraq and the
subsequent occupation was a good strategic move for the US or a bad
move?
My sense is that the Bush administration adopted the world view of US
Liberals and Democrats, who said that past US policy has been wrong
and has back-fired against the US, and chose strategy accordingly.
Was this world view correct? Was the adopted strategy correct?
Here is what I wrote nearly a year ago:
[2003 Feb 17]
... consider the Bush administration. It entered power with a
strong belief in the values of discipline and deterrence. The
members of the administration figured that if you discipline
wrong-doers by punishing them, for example, by executing them,
then others will avoid wrong-doing so as to avoid the punishment.
The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon
in Washington, DC, on September 11 presented the Bush
administration with what Ian Banks, in his novel `Excession',
calls an `out of context problem': the Bush administration had to
realize that it could not deter future attacks by punishing the
wrong-doers; it could not execute them because they were already
dead.
The Bush administration belief system failed. Hence, the Bush
administration had to adopt a new belief system.
Of course, the Bush administration [tried to] keep many of its old
beliefs by claiming that the hijackers were in a special category:
not ordinary wrong-doers, but `evil'. However, the members of the
administration still had to explain the cause of evil.
From the point of view of a day-to-day oriented administration, it
does no good (except in speeches) to say that evil is caused by a
`wrathful God'. God is not susceptible to political analysis.
Instead, what I think happened is that the senior members of the
Bush administration decided that their opponents, US Liberals and
Democrats, had been right all along.
* The Liberals and Democrats in the US say that the depth of
despair and hatred against the US in the Moslem world is high.
As a consequence, some people will fight the US and be willing
to die in the process. Those willing to fight will be a small
portion of the population, but large in absolute numbers.
Moreover, Liberals and Democrats they say that to improve
matters peacefully will take a generation or more of wise
foreign aid, including changes in Moslem school systems, and
tolerant statements by Moslem government and religious
leaders.
* Suppose the Liberals and Democrats are correct? The Bush
administration must be concerned both with the distant future
and with the immediate future.
Since the Liberals and Democrats say that peaceful
improvements will take time, the Bush administration will need
to figure out alternative actions that are quicker. If it
does not, it loses support from frightened donors and voters.
Hence, as a beginning, the covert and overt military actions
against any in the Moslem world who have or who might attack
the US or US interests.
Then I went on to say that the Bush Administration decided on a
response that fits this Liberal/Democratic/Leftist world view:
[2003 Feb 17]
4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence
in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab
dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against
enemies of US.
I think this is the primary motivation of the US government.
As side effects, a successful US invasion of Iraq will also:
* Enable the US to find and destroy chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons that might be used to threaten the US or US
allies or US interests -- in other words, satisfy argument
three.
* Reduce the power of Europe and the Russia by establishing a
Middle Eastern hegemony.
* Maintain oil supplies from Middle East until new central
Asian and west African supplies become available.
* Extend the economic dominance of the dollar over the euro
for a few more years, by ensuring that oil is priced in
dollars.
I am sure the Bush administration favors all these side
effects.
[Note that the Bush Administration did not use this argument to
persuade the American public to back the US invasion of Iraq, although
I thought then and still think "this is the primary motivation".
Consequently, when arguing whether the Bush Administration was honest,
employed good statecraft, or was politically correct in its methods,
this must be seen as an argument not made. This is a separate issue
from whether this argument provides an accurate description of the
world, and whether the US can, or could, or should engage in
intimidation in a manner that benefits the US over the next 30 - 50
years.]
Leaving aside the argument over the methods of gaining US political
backing, there are the historical questions:
* Was the action against Iraq a good decision for the US, given the
knowledge at the time?
* Was the world view that prompted this action correct?
And there are the contemporary questions:
* Will current US actions overcome the loss to the US engendered by
last summers' difficulties?
* Should the US change its strategy now, as it did at the beginning
of last November by its deal with Iran? If it should change, how
should it change?
* How much should the US spend to reach its goals in the world?
Should the US increase spending on development in Afganistan or
Iraq?
* Is the current spending, in Afganistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere,
the right amount, or should it be less or more? Does the amount
spent justify raising taxes, or going further and conducting a
mobilization?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
