"Consider The Stunning Magnitude Of The Failure"
That's Iraq they're talking about, of course. A few words from those bleeding-heart centrists at The Brookings Institution:
Consider the stunning magnitude of the failure. Iraq has been the top priority for the world's only superpower for the past three years, and a central one for many regional and international powers. The United States, intent on keeping Iraq together, has spent more resources in that country than any state ever has spent on another in the history of the world....Once the institutions of sovereignty are destroyed in any state, especially one with a heterogeneous society, the odds are against any effort to build a stable alternative in the same generation. In the absence of effective central authority, all it takes is a small, determined minority to prevent unity.
...The tragedy of civil war lies not only in what it means for Iraq's people but also in what the consequences would be for international security. The danger of drawing other states in, the spillover potential involving neighboring countries, the erosion of the balance of power in the region in favor of Iran and the creation of a hospitable environment for international terrorism. In the end, it is mostly these international consequences that propel international interventions that justify intrusion into the sovereignty of states.
But despite the prevalence of troubled and troubling governments, states remain the most effective entities for enforcing security. Confronting them is sometimes necessary, but dismantling them is altogether different. In the security arena, both locally and across borders, states remain the best enforcers of order. Many states need to be improved or enhanced; others challenged, sometimes fought. But dismantling states remains one of the greatest dangers in our international system.
As we consider options toward other states not to U.S. liking, such as Iran, the removal of some governments may seem desirable from many vantage points, but not any cost.
The next user of weapons of mass destruction is more likely to be a terror group, such as al-Qaida, than any state. In its history, the United States has deterred the most ruthless and powerful states, including the Soviet Union. Groups such as al-Qaida are constrained only by the limits of their capability. Where there is absence of central authority, they expand. Al-Qaida didn't exist in Iraq before the war but now thrives there despite the presence of the most powerful military in the world.
> Iraq has been the top priority
Only on paper. NOBODY thinks we're giving it the attention it deserves. If this effort represents the United States at our most focused, western civ is deservedly doomed.
> spent more resources in that
> country than any state ever
> has spent on another in the
> history of the world.
Perhaps in some kaleidoscopic financial view. But it's a silly thing to say when we've spent decades rebuilding continents (hemispheres, almost), and still have 120K troops in Europe.
> ...Once the institutions of
> sovereignty are destroyed
> in any state
They used to say the American South would be economically pooched without slave labor. Isn't it great that they put an end to it anyway? As a bonus, it turns out not to have been true.
> odds are against any effort
> to build a stable alternative
Stability in the Middle East used to mean mass graves over there and cheap oil everywhere. Then it came to mean mass graves here and expensive oil no matter what, and people didn't like it so much.
> The danger of drawing other
> states in
Surrounding states aren't worried about being drawn into war, are they? They're worried about being drawn into DEMOCRACY. I love that.
> international consequences
> that propel international
> interventions that justify
> intrusion into the
> sovereignty of states.
Spoken as if level-headed. Yet the number of people who oppose this war but would support any other is, in the circles I consult, vanishingly small.
> states remain the most
> effective entities for
> enforcing security.
In that region they enforce other things too, like Sharia. Security for whom?
> states remain the best
> enforcers of order.
But wait! Moments later:
> The next user of weapons
> of mass destruction is more
> likely to be a terror group
So the point is.... ?
> Groups such as al-Qaida are
> constrained only by the
> limits of their capability.
Governments are a big part of that. There's almost never been a bombing at a Gelson's in LA, or at the LA Police Academy on recruiting day. How come?
> Al-Qaida didn't exist in Iraq
> before the war but now thrives
> there
We're coming up on the fifth anniversary without another attack in the States. Call it flypaper if you want, but this is a fight worth having.
Crid at April 10, 2006 11:26 AM
Crid, you do deserve a medal for tenacity.
SO where do you see this whole Iran situation going? War or diplomacy? I think even a lot of us "liberals" don't want to see Iran and their whack-job leaders with access to anything nuclear. Most unfortunate, though, is the lack of any confidence in our own leadership, at any level. (Political, diplomatic, or even military, as headed by Rumsfield.)
Israel, I think, will be the wild card here. They certainly won't wait for Iran to actually develop a weapon, regardless of how the US may feel about war/diplomacy. An Israeli attack will certainly draw support from the other Arab states for Iran, and even those zippy litle two seat cars in Europe won't be able to find gasoline... we'll just have to wait in line for $5.00 gas.
eric at April 10, 2006 2:32 PM
> Most unfortunate, though, is
> the lack of any confidence
> in our own leadership
Yes, yes, yes, that's always the "most" important thing, Bush is a cowboy. Look, I've said a thousand times that he's a deeply mediocre president, but that doesn't mean he's the author of everything that's wrong with our planet. Iran was going to be a problem no matter what. In a Star Trek parallel universe with Saddam still in power, maybe the nuclear crisis jelled sooner, maybe a little later... Who knows.
We all prefer effective diplomacy to war, but the important words there are prefer and effective. Cosh had a great post about this last year:
http://tinyurl.com/ox27r
You're more optimistic about Iran than I am in the medium term... I think they're going to be a nucular (heh) power and there's not much we can do about it. A month or so ago Israel explicitly said they weren't going to take out Iran’s nuke sites with air strikes as they did for Iraq a quarter-century ago. Maybe they meant it, just as Bush MAY have meant it today when he said Hersh's weekend NYT reports were "wild speculation." Woundn't wanna wager in either case.
In the long term, Iran's youth is said to be tumescent with love for western freedom (evidence supplied at your request). Iran’s not an Arab country, but with exploding global markets, everyone’s going to pay $5/gallon no matter what.
Did you have marching immigrants in CDA today?
Crid at April 10, 2006 5:59 PM
Calling something "wild speculation" is just weasel words that politicians use to avoid actually lying. Wild speculation can be true, even though it's wild and speculative. Bush didn't actually say Hersh's weekend NYT report was false, did he?
Norman at April 11, 2006 4:25 AM
Golly, are you saying Bush INTENTIONALLY had this material leaked? That in order to manipulate the perceptions of the Iranians --and maybe the American voters too-- he intentionally created uncertainty about the possible American response to Iranian nukery?
Crid at April 11, 2006 7:42 AM
Our marching immigrants are Canadians.
Some asshat did put up a large cardboard and spray paint sign up in my neighborhood that said "Just say no to immigrants". I actually had to stand on the roof of my beloved Chevy Tahoe to remove it.
I don't see Iran getting the bomb Crid. The President of Iran is too radical for US or anyone over there to be comfortable with that. Time will tell...
eric at April 11, 2006 7:59 AM
Golly, are you saying Bush INTENTIONALLY had this material leaked?
Good lord no, I don't generally reckon that politicians are that powerful. We can only sustain such massive deceptions in time of war - deceptions such as The Man That Never Was. I think GB is just weaseling his way out of an embarrassment. Surely no CIC is going to rule out any particular weapon before there's even any conflict? But to come right out and say so is not politically acceptable. Guess what - he didn't say so, but managed to make it sound like he did. 1 point to GB.
Norman at April 11, 2006 9:09 AM
Leave a comment