None of me thinks he might be right.
Lazy journalism at its best.
Part of me agrees with you.
Halprin would have better served us, I think, if he had preceded his criticism of the Republicans with his indictment of the left, instead of the other way around. That is because the part of me which agrees with his critique of the administration s conduct of the war also believes that the administration has been constrained by realities shaped in part by democrats who have limited the administration s options at every turn.
It is all very well to say we should have spent enough of defence to have both light and heavy, boots and smart bombs, but the author should not forget that we have nearly a fifty fifty country, a fifty fifty Senate and a putative nominee of the Democrat party who is going to get that nomination in part because he voted against funding the military in time of actual war!
This criticism of Helprin also applies to his critique of the administration s delay in commencing the war in Iraq. He says:
The year-and-a-half delay between action in Afghanistan and Iraq mobilized the Arabs and the international left, weakened the connection with September 11, and prompted allies who would have been with us to fall away. The delay was especially unconscionable because it was due not merely to normal difficulties but to the aforementioned military insufficiencies and to indecision masquerading as circumspection.
Here again the author ignores the realities of world, this time international as well as domestic, which the left has created. To suggest that Bush could have commenced this war without first submitting to the adagio dance at the citadel of corruption, the UN, is to ignore a basic reality of modern politics.
In addition to criticising this administration when the blame really lies with the left, the author makes some just plain silly complaints about the republican s conduct of the war:
Before the war's inception, and even after September 11, the Bush administration, having promised to correct its predecessor's depredations of the military, failed to do so. The president failed to go to Congress on September 12 to ask for a declaration of war, failed to ask Congress when he did go before it for the tools with which to fight, and has failed consistently to ask the American people for sacrifice. And yet their sons, mainly, are sacrificed in Iraq day by day.
We have dealt with the obstacles presented by Democrats to increasing defence spending. The complaint of a failure to ask for a declaration of war is just plain silly in the modern era. The complaint of a failure to ask the people for sacrifice is equally silly. What does he want, rationing, aluminium drives and victory gardens? The purpose if terrorism is to change policy by disrupting the enemy. Bush is quite right not to do that for the enemy. I understand that we have lost fewer than 600 lives to hostile fire in conquering and occupying a nation of 25 million. I understand the murder rate in Chicago is worse than it is in all of Iraq. While tragic, these losses to a nation of 280 million are statistically trivial and somebody ought to say it out loud. They are so trivial that they put the lie to Mr. Helprin s claim that our force in Iraq is undermanned and therefore vulnerable.
Now it is time to move on to a criticism, which is worthy of our concern, that the administration in proclaiming its goal of democracy has gone a bridge too far:
From the beginning, the scale of the war was based on the fundamental strategic misconception that the primary objective was Iraq rather than the imagination of the Arab World, which, if sufficiently stunned, would tip itself back into the heretofore easily induced fatalism that makes it hesitate to war against the West.
I have previously posted the observation that the administration has treated Iraq as a different model from Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the warlords were co opted and set against each other. Our writ was not extended beyond Kabul for a long time. We did not proclaim that we were building an Athenian democracy in Afghanistan but rather some sort of a nation, which would not sponsor or harbor terrorists. We are obviously willing to cut deals with unsavoury characters so long as those deals advanced our overall objectives in the general war against terrorists. It is worth noting that the model in Afghanistan has been conducted successfully, that is, the enemy has been routed, and it has been done on the cheap. We have not lost enough Americans to excite Ted Koppel.
All this was in keeping with Bush s doctrine. In Iraq we have gone another bridge. We want to build a democracy, which will serve as a model to the Arab and Muslim world. The author says this is a rationalization hastily contrived in the wake of the surprise at not finding WMDs. I rather think this has been a motivation of the neo cons for some time but I do not make the allegation that this was done as an extension of Israeli defence policy. Not yet. At any rate the author says that in attempting this larger goal in Iraq we have only shown the Arab world that they can cope with us, and, I would add, just as they are coping with the Israelis.
In this observation, the author raises issues about the dominant strategy in the war against terrorism, which are legitimate.
The problem is that they are framed by photos of fraternity hi jinks in prison, or worse, and by photos of decapitation of Americans. What happened to the international war against terrorism? To those who answer, it is being fought in Iraq, I ask what is the PERCEPTION in this election year of where and how the war is being fought? Unquestionably, the administration is losing the contest for perception, and so it is in grave peril of losing the election and that means the ultimate loss of the war on terrorism.
>>nothing but politics keeps them from correcting their deficiencies
How would the last three years been different is the Democratic party was not far-left whack-o and instead along the lines of Lieberman and Miller?
If the country could unite and think as one?
For the Dems - any Bush stumble, is worthy of the NY Times front page. A united country would consider the stumble as one, show resolve and batten down the hatches.
ALL of our problems today are because of the TECHNIQUE the left uses to gain power. The constant carping and group-think.
Thanks for posting this article. IMHO, the pubbies have half a clue, but the none of the requisite media support. The rats have a surfeit of major media support, but are clueless or treasonous.
And what better evidence than this very thread? Helprin is right now as he was right then: War in the Absence of Strategic Clarity
Not sure if I agree with everything he says here, partly because I think it possible that GW could establish a friendly democracy in Iraq.
But otherwise I think Helprin is on the money, particularly with reference to his remarks that we don't have enough people over there (or anywhere, these days).
And this paragraph makes sense:
From the beginning, the scale of the war was based on the fundamental strategic misconception that the primary objective was Iraq rather than the imagination of the Arab World, which, if sufficiently stunned, would tip itself back into the heretofore easily induced fatalism that makes it hesitate to war against the West. After the true shock and awe of a campaign of massive surplus, as in the Gulf War, no regime would have risked its survival by failing to go after the terrorists within its purview. But a campaign of bare sufficiency, that had trouble punching through even ragtag irregulars, taught the Arabs that we could be effectively opposed.
'Course Helprin is being very critical of GW, so naturally he is taking some heat on FR, even though he gives the Dems even more hell.