Yeah... big deal... He has a right to his opinion, which I happen to disagree with..
Hell, we still hear, 60 years after the fact, that the US shouldn't have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... So criticism is not particularly unknown when it comes to US policies.
So let's analyze some of Mr. Record's comments and see if he has completely factored in many of the still unfolding potential scenarios which may render his opinion less than sound:
"The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda," Record wrote.
A new front? The front already existed, didn't it? After all, wasn't Saddam committing terrorism against Kurds and Shiites? To the tune of 300,000 dead?
And wasn't Saddam supporting Islamic terrorism by guaranteeing the paying of $25,000 to Palestinian suicide bombers, thus further encouraging the dehumanization of an entire generation of Arab youth and turning them into terror weapons?
And what were 150,000 US combat troops supposed to do in defending the homeland that hasn't already been done? March through the streets? Park their tanks in Times Square? Drop JDAMS on anyone attempting to cross the Rio Grande?
After all, those forces are trained for conventional war, not asymetric counter-insurgency within the homeland working in conjuunction with US law enforcement (which posse comitatus prohibits).
"The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda," Record wrote.
If, by Record's definition, Al-Qaeda is "undeterrable", exactly how will US forces stationed at home make a difference in defending the US against terrorist attack?
Doesn't it make sense, if undeterrable, that US forces being launched into a proactive strategy of reshaping the balance of power in the middle east would at least deflect Al-Qaeda's attention to THEIR OWN HOMELAND, and not ours?
Deterrence can be maintained at home when it involves convincing Al-Qaeda to concentrate their effort nearer their own base of operations...
Is it not a logical conclusion to believe that Al-Qaeda leaders would be under great pressure to defend the Middle East over attacking the US homeland, and thus, US forces stationed in the center of the Middle East, Iraq, could be a crucial tool in deflecting Al-Qaeda's attention from the US homeland? I think yes..
In doing so, he said, the administration "may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."
Which implies that such a status did not ALREADY EXIST, except on a much more subtle level. I opine that the battle is actually one of hearts and minds, political accountability, and economic opportunity. The military is merely the means of "gutting out the old system" and attempting to reload an updated socio-economic software.
And nowhere does Mr. Record discuss the cost of doing nothing to alter the previous power structure in the Mid-East, with its seemingly endless cycle of violence, racism, and corruption which were incredible obstacles to any positive socio-economic change in the region.
The demographic trends I've previously laid out on this and other threads are clear and powerful. Yet, they play no part in Mr. Record's analysis. Nowhere does he discuss how the previous power structure was going to deal with population where children and young adults represent the majority. Nowhere does he discuss the economic stagnation, the disparity of wealth within these societies, and the increasing numbers of disaffected youth with little hope for a properous future.
Doing nothing to change that trend, IMO, is the REAL invitation to "open-ended and gratuitous conflict" that would eventually claim far more lives than the current strategy has produced.
Furthermore, Mr. Record seems to completely ignore the potential benefits of injecting a substantial American presence into Iraq, which I believe is the "keystone" to the Mid-East.. Already we've seen Libya renounce WMDs. We've seen how Syria has become politically and economically isolated, and apparently how they and Israel have taken some tentative steps towards advancing the peace process (obviously the cost of being "rehabilitated" in the eyes of the US and Assad becoming eligible for economic assistance). And we're seeing how Iran has become slightly more conciliatory with regard to it's nuclear program...
Additionally, we're seeing Musharraf has finally taken an active military stance against Islamic militants in the northwest provice of Pakistan, as well as re-initiating peace efforts with India..
All of these things would not likely have come to pass had Bush not shown US resolve to alter the status quo in that part of the world.
The effort is obviously not complete, nor is there any guarantee of ultimate success.. But it's a hell of lot more than we've seen over the term of the previous administration.
And finally, here we see Mr. Record telling us that we can't rid the world of terrorism.. (which to a certain extent I might agree).
"I don't think that it is within America's power to rid the world of terrorism. ... The idea that you're going to be able to expunge this form of warfare from the world, I think, is really stretching it."
But no terrorist organization exists without the support of a nation state providing training, logistical support, and political/religious inspiration. Remove those supporting governmental entities and it's likely that large scale terrorist attacks will be severely curtailed, if not eliminated.. If only because no regime will be willing to risk being overthrown merely to launch a non-decisive attack upon the US and provoking a major retaliation.
So overall, I'd say that I would give Mr. Record a C- for his analytical effort and narrow scope of strategic vision.
Hawk |
