I agree. I think it will happen under Bush. I know it is the big internal policy battle right now.
I think it would be every bit as likely to happen under Kerry. Either way, success depends on the quality of the intel. The military can do whatever it’s told to do, but they can do nothing if they are sent to the wrong place. It’s a tricky situation, because the Iranians know our options and have had abundant time and opportunity to prepare for them. We have to expect that they have established redundant facilities, or at least deep-cover storage areas where materials and equipment to continue the program can be hidden well away from where the main action is. We have to expect that they will leak fake intel to direct us to the wrong places.
The hard part, for whoever is in office next, will be the decisions on when to trust the intel agencies and when not to trust them, and which of them to trust. Too little trust is fatal, as is too much. It doesn’t help that we have at least two competing factions within the intel community. The CIA and the Pentagon’s intel people are not entirely on the same page, and there’s a whole lot of anger and suspicion over the Iraq problems. Not an ideal situation, and our intel on Iraq is less than superb. We can’t afford to trust any old dissident who shows up claiming to know where all the goodies are.
The stakes are pretty high. If we go in and blow something up and it turns out to be the wrong thing, the PR implications are pretty horrendous.
The admin miscalculated the after battle situation. Live and learn.
It was a little more than miscalculation. The writing was on the wall, in letters of fire, and they chose to ignore it. That’s not miscalculation, it’s willful blindness, which is a very dangerous thing. It’s also not entirely clear that they’ve learned.
We tend to 20/20 these things too much. You were right about the aftermath, and are understandably bitter that they didn't see it.
Good of you to say that. Will you believe me now, when I tell you that the aftermath problems are just beginning, and that much bigger problems are just over the horizon, with little or no prospect for avoiding them?
When I read what really went on during WWII, it makes Iraq look great. These type of things are always messy.
The biggest problem we face today is that so many people have convinced themselves that the WOT is analogous to WW2, and that we are fighting a conventional war against nations, rather than an unconventional war against an ideology. We can’t win the war if we’re fighting the wrong war. We want to fight against nations and armies, because that’s what we’re good at. Our enemies know that, and they will not do us the favor of playing to our strength. The more of their territory that we occupy, the happier they will be. They know that political will and staying power are our weaknesses, and a war of attrition on their turf is something they have practice with and are entirely comfortable with.
I don't think we will make as many of the same mistakes in the future. The Military is really getting good in the "lessons learned" department.
The military isn’t the problem. They’re doing fine. The problem is with the people who give the military their orders. |
