I disagree with much of what’s in Bret Stephens’s column this morning but I agree with this:
Specifically: Mr. Obama believed that killing Osama bin Laden was a strategic victory. In fact, it was mainly a symbolic one (further undercut by his use of it as a political prop). He thought that ending the war in Iraq would help refocus U.S. efforts on Afghanistan. In fact, it showcased America’s lack of staying power and gave the Taliban additional motivation to hold out during the president’s halfhearted Afghan surge. He thought that substituting the Bush administration’s approach to detainees with an approach heavy on drones would earn America renewed goodwill on the Arab street. In fact, there was no goodwill to renew in the first place, and the U.S. is more unpopular in Pakistan and Egypt today than it was six years ago.
One of the weaknesses of our system of government is that nearly every administration comes into the White House as amateurs. Nowhere is that so obvious as in foreign policy.
Our weakness does have a compensating strength: ineffective grand strategies need not be permanent and an opportunity for change is always right around the corner.
If only our presidents would learn by their predecessors’ failures rather than insisting on recapitulating them!
I’m reading (listening, actually) to Rick Atkinson’s WW2 trilogy on my father-in-law’s recommendation and thinking that if we intend on having wars we should never let young men and women read history. The stupidity, the ego, the lack of planning. So many people die for the egos of generals and the recklessness of politicians.
The problem with decrying inexperience is that in the case of WW2 we’re talking Montgomery and Alexander and Patton, Churchill and FDR — all of them well-experienced in their fields. Eisenhower can best be excused since he was just a colonel jumped ahead of more experienced men. Part of Montgomery’s problem was that he was experienced – in fighting a very different war.
I’ve been pondering the importance of experience because I’m teaching my son to drive. In CA its 50 hours of him driving with me. He and I have often clashed on the importance of experience with the sides being as predictable as you’d expect for a 16 year old and 59 year-old respectively. He’s coming around a bit to accept that experience is essential to good driving. But at the same time I’m becoming more aware of all the, shall we say, idiosyncrasies, I’ve acquired. And I’m seeing the difference in reaction time and physical mobility that give him an edge in some ways.
There are thousands of Americans dead in foreign lands thanks to experienced old hands, and thousands of men just as dead in foreign lands thanks to inexperienced men. I’m almost starting to think maybe we just shouldn’t have wars.
One of the weaknesses of our system of government is that nearly every administration comes into the White House as amateurs. Nowhere is that so obvious as in foreign policy.
Being an ‘amateur’ at a job, demanding such a wide spectrum of knowledge and responsibility, seems understandable to me. However, a problem arises, when a new administration refuses to admit a lack of expertise in an area, and then hires or consults with people because of their political affiliation, loyalty, or ability to fund raise, rather than for any specialized experience or expertise related to given areas of domestic/foreign policy.
In the foreign policy arena, it becomes problematic, especially when such an administration sets aside the suggestions of it’s military brass/experts, and chooses the alternative path of ideological mandates and satisfying their base as a primary basis for governing.
Unlike Reynolds, I do think experience is a quality that merits consult and respect. It doesn’t mean you follow someone blindly, simply because of their vast experience in some matter. However, listening to experienced voices deepens knowledge, frequently revealing vital points which ultimately helps someone, or an administrtion, in rendering a template to follow when making policiy decisions.
Well, this is pure crap:
“He thought that ending the war in Iraq would help refocus U.S. efforts on Afghanistan. In fact, it showcased America’s lack of staying power and gave the Taliban additional motivation to hold out during the president’s halfhearted Afghan surge.”
Pure crap if by ‘lack of staying power’ he’s implying that staying in Iraq was really an option.
Jan:
I said:
You said:
As you can probably make out, if you remove the words “unlike Reynolds” you and I would be in agreement.
As you can probably make out, if you remove the words “unlike Reynolds†you and I would be in agreement.
You’ve made your point, Reynolds, by comparing excerpts from our posts. However, like an ornery brother, sometimes I just assume we disagree, when, in this one instance, we’re pretty close.
“I’m almost starting to think maybe we just shouldn’t have wars.”
But Michael, you have your wish. In this administration we have “kinetic military operations.”