For the United States, the goal in its war against terrorism was
victory. That is to say, the goal was to enable Americans again to
feel safe.
If Americans do not feel safer in October 2041 than they did in
October 2001, the war was lost. Since 2041 is so far from the
present, the immediate question becomes whether you judge US strategy
as implemented as reaching towards victory or not.
Tonight, Monday, 2004 May 24, US President Bush is going to speak on
his policy.
The key questions will be whether you think his strategy as
implemented will lead to victory for the US?
Will US plans lead to Americans feeling safer a generation and two
from now?
As far as I can see, the United States government and its military had
a strategy for this war. The strategy involved different goals for
the short run and the long run:
* In the short run, the US planned to win by intimidating various
dictatorships so their secret police would hunt for US enemies.
This action made sense to those who thought that the US policy
of the previous half century had failed and that US secret
agencies were incompetent.
It was a repudiation of the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the
US military's special forces.
The short run meant the next decade or so. The goal was to
prevent any more attacks against the US or US interests. Note
that Al Qaeda has undertaken major attacks every two or three
years. I do not know whether it considers the attack in Spain
as its prime effort for this time period.
The Bush Administration says that the attack in Spain was a
victory for Al Qaeda since it caused the new Spanish government
to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Opponents of the Bush
Administration say that the new Spanish government intends to
continue its efforts, as indicated by its recent deal with
Morocco, and that the withdrawal is a poor indicator.
* In the long run, the US planned to win by persuading the
unconvinced. The latter task involves changing the economic and
political culture of the Moslem countries which harbor those who
oppose the United States.
This action makes sense to those who think that dictatorships
that fail women and prevent adaptation inspire some of their
people to seek honest government but with old solutions.
As a practical matter, such a desire means danger to Americans
since the United States government has sided with dictators
such as the rulers of Saudi Arabia.
The long run meant at least one and probably two or three
generations.
The short term strategy fits what Walter Russell Mead calls the `The
Jacksonian Tradition' in US politics. In so far as the Iraqi
enemy are seen as dishonorable, torture should be expected.
The long run strategy fits the other three traditions, which Mead
described as
... the commercial realism of the Hamiltonians, the crusading
moralism of Wilsonian transcendentalists, and the supple pacifism
of the principled but slippery Jeffersonians ...
http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html
The Bush Administration never said these long and short term
strategies were its methods. It made other claims.
The Bush Administration argued for the invasion of Afghanistan on the
grounds that its then government was not extraditing Osama bin Laden,
as both the Clinton and Bush administrations had requested, and was
providing training areas for people who would attack the US.
The Bush Administration argued for the invasion of Iraq on three
grounds:
1. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions.
The justification for supporting the UN is that international
laws and resolutions are a liberal, democratic, and contemporary
European ideal; they provide a mechanism for restraining the
actions of a super power.
2. To help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel dictatorship.
Salman Rushdie made this argument. He spoke before the US
government did. Since the Bush Administration picked up the
argument so late, many think it was simply another set of lies.
3. To find and destroy chemical, biological, nuclear, and
radiological weapons.
Without a doubt, this was the major public justification for the
invasion.
The Bush Administration convinced its political supporters and
some others that not only was the Iraqi government funding
development projects but that it possessed such weapons. Both
actions were in contradiction to mandatory UN resolutions.
Although many were persuaded by these arguments, I doubt that they
persuaded the US government as a whole, or its military. As I said
above, I think the reasoning had short and long term goals.
In any event, the Bush Administration did not command the US army to
investigate the 700 known and feared sites in Iraq in the six weeks
following the US capture of Baghdad in April 2003, even though a
cursory examination would have required fewer than 10% of the troops
in the region. Thus, it did not undertake actions that might have
enabled it to find and destroy chemical, biological, nuclear, and
radiological weapons.
Moreover, the Administration did not provide enough occupation troops
to ensure security for Iraqis in all parts of Iraq. This means it
could not promote law, which enables predictability, and is the basis
for everything else. (I wrote a Web page on order, law, justice, and
democracy:
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/order-law-justice-democracy.html
which are required in that sequence.)
This is one part of the implementation question.
The other part has to do with US political traditions.
The US government and its military followed the 1940s `containment
strategy' against the former Soviet Union for half a century. That
strategy was simple. Moreover, it was sufficiently general that it
appealed to all the American political traditions.
My claim for current US strategy is that it is two-fold. Its
different parts appeal to different American political traditions.
Consequently, it should be much more difficult for any United States
government to implement than the `containment strategy'.
Tonight, President Bush is going to speak to the public on his policy.
The President has several choices. One is to say that many in his
current Administration have failed in their efforts to move towards
victory. He could announce new people. He could fire the US
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and others. In Rumsfeld's
place, he could appoint Colin Powell, the current Secretary of State,
Another choice is to keep the current people in his government, but
bring more US troops to Iraq. The President could say that the
occupation is more difficult than he expected -- that the danger is
worse than he thought. At the same time, he could pull many US troops
out of major Iraqi cities, and thereby reduce US casualty rates.
I do not know what to expect. It will probably be something different.
Will the President lay out a strategic plan that not only looks like
it will succeed in the near future but also appeals to enough
Americans that the country can follow it for 40 or 60 years?
Or will the President lay out a strategic plan that many think is
wrong or that will fail?
For Americans, and for the rest of the world, key questions still
remain:
Do you think United States policy will lead to victory for the US?
Will United States strategy lead to Americans feeling safer a
generation and two from now?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
As I slowly update it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I rewrite a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
