Got all that?
Eric has a reply to my reply up on Liberals Against Terrorism that I want to respond to briefly here because the internet issues raised in the last post.
On the points that were raised:
- I'm glad he liked my Boromir analogy.
- I didn't mean to suggest that he or the contributors over at Liberals Against Terrorism had called for Bush's impeachment, which why I tried to frame it in terms of desire than anything else. "Colleagues" in that context meant fellow liberals rather than anyone at any particular blog or website.
- The amount of cronyism and the like that goes on in French and Italian political circles (and I expect that this holds for a lot of other European states as well, but these are the only two that I can speak of having first-hand knowledge of) is certainly on par with anything that goes on the administration, certainly is much further entrenched into the political systems. My point was not to suggest that this is ideal but rather to make the case that these governments are able to plan and execute appropriate policies in spite of these actions, which is one of the reasons that I feel that one needs to continue making policy suggestions.
- The mistakes that Eric chronicles with respect to Iraq are much the same as those made by Cordesman that I've noted here on several occasions. Unlike Eric, I don't consider this as directly stemming from what he sees as the White House dynamics (some of these failings occurred at far lower levels than those of the cabinet, for example). Furthermore, one of the things that is also rather clear from reading Cordesman is that it was the initial failings of the post-war occupation that ensured that many of the rosier predictions didn't come to pass - here again, I view these events as having occurred well below the cabinet level.
- If Eric wants me to say that I do not think that things are ideal within the administration's decision-making process, then he need look no further than -> here <- . As I thought my earlier criticism of Rumsfeld and the general manner in which the administration has conducted itself to date would make clear, I don't think that the decision-making process, wherever it is and however it is being conducted, is achieving what it needs to be.
I will try to type up a coherent reply to his other posts sometime tomorrow.
Just for the record, I am not as concerned about the cronyism as for the dearth of a robust debate and a healthy clash of opinions. The recounting of the White House dynamic by Paul O'Neill and DiIulio (confirmed by Dick Clarke), is what troubles me. It is not that Bush is surrounded by friends and insiders, it is that ideas are not tested and vetted as robustly as they should. Preconceived notions are given too much deference.
As for Cordesman's impressive analysis, I agree with what you are saying to some extent. Larry Diamond is also worth checking out on this. Still, cabinet level decisions by the Pentagon, especially in relegating State to the sidelines, play an important part in the big picture.
In addition, I think that there are compelling arguments that the outcome was never going to be as rosy as predicted, no matter the execution. I'm thinking of Phebe Marr's book review in Foreign Affairs which I posted on:
http://tianews.blogspot.com/2005/07/situation-no-win.html
But I also would recommend an article by David Hendrickson and Robert Tucker which appeared in the most recent edition of Survival, entitled:
"Revisions in Need of Revising: What Went Wrong in the Iraq War"
I don't know if you can track it down online, but Hendrickson sent me a pdf I can forward you if you like. It's a bit long which might not fit into your school, fever, tech-meltdown schedule, but it makes a compelling case that most major setbacks were inevitable - a product of the situation and not the implementation.
My guess is, the truth lies somewhere in between, that the situation could be better (for sure) but that certain of the realities (ethnic/sectarian/hostility to the US) were not going to disappear even if the occupation were flawless. And, as many would point out, no occupation is ever flawless so that is almost a tautology.