Abu Ghraib

[dherblay]

I am saddened and sickened by the news from Abu Ghraib (scroll down to "Appalling" if the permalink isn't working). I realize that between the news from Virginia, Sinclair Broadcasting Group's craven show of disrespect for our troops, and some singularly awful news from one of the brightest and funniest people on my friends list, this has been lost

Comments

[dlgood]

I've always been in an tough position, with my own political view. Because I've sympathized with the arguments to remove Saddam. But - I've been wary because I wanted to know how such an expedition fit into overall US security strategy.

And I'd never seen a compelling argument for what we would do to further our security in the aftermath of a war. And as it turns out, there hasn't been an adequate follow through.

So for me - I can get the "we aren't going tough enough" as an approach. This is a serious war, in terms of long term outcomes, and the administration is trying to do it on the cheap. In terms of both the physical sense, and in terms of political capital. And we're going to be left with a mess that will take years to clean up, because of that lack of strategy.

At this point, overwhelming force has some resonance. Of course, I think that if the Administration is serious, and this is as critical as they say it is - then they should raise taxes, reinstitute a draft, and do in Iraq what they did in post-war Germany and Japan.

But this administration would never do that, so I go back to asking what they're doing there in the first place. Because our long-term security strategy looks pretty hosed.

[dherblay]

You know far more about this subject than I do, but I was suspicious about this war ever since I read that Wolfowitz would be appointed. My misgivings about it before March, 2003, largely had to do with the administration; I would have been more supportive had President Gore or President McCain told me that it was vital to our security. (In fact, one could say that my opposition to this Iraq War became locked in around the time of the South Carolina primary.) While I do tend to be skeptical of hawkishness in general, I don't consider myself kneejerkly pacifistic. I certainly was generally supportive of deployment in Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example. And while the world is better off without Sadaam Hussein, I thought that containment was doing well and that Kim Jong Il was a much greater threat.

I have no clue what we do now that we're into this. I do wonder if there can be a difference between a show of overwhelming force and use of overwhelming force. Appearing to have things under control would be a great first step to getting things under control. On the other hand, large scale retaliatory offensives will probably lose us whatever goodwill we've managed to acquire. I don't know that we can even get large foreign participation at this point (and, even then, if one thinks Bush engenders resentment among the Islamic World, imagine how bad it will be if the BJP commits Indian troops, as Krugman suggested today). I think we do need troops better trained in Low-Intensity Conflict as much if not more than we need more troops (of course, my leftish-libertarianish instincts are repelled by the thought of a draft), but our Special Forces are just spread unimaginably thin.

I am so at sea with what to suggest that I sometimes fall back on a position of "Well, I never wanted to be in Iraq in the first place! Why should I do the hard work of figuring this out!" Up through late 2003 I thought it was enough to speak out against the administration possibly expanding the war into Syria or Iran. I think that our current circumstances have made such a full-scale expansion unlikely (though I wouldn't be surprised if we start bombing encampments on the Iran side of the Iraq border soon). Now, I just don't know. Not that my suggestions would come from any worthwhile base of knowledge or wisdom anyway (or anyplace more worthwhile than my armchair).

This may be why I don't have too much expectations for Kerry to offer a plan to ameliorate the situation right away. I can't see any good answers right now, and am unsurprised that he can't either.

But mostly I'm just saddened.

[dlgood]

While I do tend to be skeptical of hawkishness in general, I don't consider myself kneejerkly pacifistic.

Yeah. I'm a bit more hawkish, but I come from the Realist "Was is an instrument of national policy" school. Hawkishness, is inherently neither good nor bad, except how it's tied to a coherent national policy. Hawkishness, for hawkishness' sake, which is where the administration appears to be at, is disastrous.

I have no clue what we do now that we're into this.

Neither do I. On the one hand, we've staked a lot on completing this endeavor and it would be an embarassement to quit, and to fail, and would continue to have dire consequences for out long-term security. But, it's a sunk cost - you don't keep investing because you've already paid a lot - you measure the cost of future investment against what you expect it to be worth. And this might not be worth it.

For the most part, we've already blown our chance to get meaningful, international military support beyond what we have. There were a lot of countries on the fence to begin with because most people in the world didn't want the war - and the Admin decided not to use any honey to woo them. It's probably not going to work now.

The administration has made a mess of the war, and creating a failed state and breeding ground for new Anti-American hostility hasn't helped our security picture. And fighting a war while lowering taxes while you're at it, doesn't really help the fiscal situation of our government either.

I'm at a loss for policy options right now.