Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Miss Modular Miss Modular is offline
Little Monster
Miss Modular's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Haus of Gaga
Miss Modular is probably a spambot
Old Mar 7th, 2006, 11:10 PM        Andrew Sullivan: What I Got Wrong About the War
I was looking for an article on Macaulay Culkin when I stumbled across this editorial from Andrew Sullivan. I've actually started to like him a bit lately, even though I disagree with many of his opinions. This editorial explains his changing feelings on the war.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...169898,00.html

Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006
What I Got Wrong About the War
As conservatives pour out their regrets, I have a few of my own to confess
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Was I wrong to support the war in Iraq? Several conservatives and neoconservatives have begun to renounce the decision to topple Saddam Hussein three years ago. William F. Buckley Jr., as close to a conservative icon as America has, recently wrote that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." George F. Will has been a moderate skeptic throughout. Neoconservative scholar Francis Fukuyama has just produced a book renouncing his previous support. The specter of Iraq teetering closer to civil war and disintegration has forced a reckoning.

In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced. And our fear forced errors into a deeply fallible system. When doubts were raised, they were far too swiftly dismissed. The result was the WMD intelligence debacle, something that did far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than many have yet absorbed.

Fukuyama's sharpest insight here is how the miraculously peaceful end of the cold war lulled many of us into overconfidence about the inevitability of democratic change, and its ease. We got cocky. We should have known better. The second error was narcissism. America's power blinded many of us to the resentments that hegemony always provokes. Those resentments are often as deep among our global friends as among our enemies--and make alliances as hard as they are important. That is not to say we should never act unilaterally. Sometimes the right thing to do will spawn backlash, and we should do it anyway. But that makes it all the more imperative that when we do go out on a limb, we get things right. In those instances, we need to make our margin of error as small as humanly possible. Too many in the Bush Administration, alas, did the opposite. They sent far too few troops, were reckless in postinvasion planning and turned a deaf ear to constructive criticism, even from within their own ranks. Their abdication of the moral high ground, by allowing the abuse and torture of military detainees, is repellent. Their incompetence and misjudgments might be forgiven. Their arrogance and obstinacy remain inexcusable.

The final error was not taking culture seriously enough. There is a large discrepancy between neoconservatism's skepticism of government's ability to change culture at home and its naiveté when it comes to complex, tribal, sectarian cultures abroad.

We have learned a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis and several thousand killed and injured American soldiers than for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response to that is not more spin but a real sense of shame and sorrow that so many have died because of errors made by their superiors, and by writers like me. All this is true, and it needs to be faced. But it is also true that we are where we are. And true that there was no easy alternative three years ago. You'd like Saddam still in power, with our sanctions starving millions while U.N. funds lined the pockets of crooks and criminals? At some point the wreckage that is and was Iraq would have had to be dealt with. If we hadn't invaded, at some point in the death spiral of Saddam's disintegrating Iraq, others would. It is also true that it is far too soon to know the ultimate outcome of our gamble.

What we do know is that for all our mistakes, free elections have been held in a largely Arab Muslim country. We know that the Kurds in the north enjoy freedoms and a nascent civil society that is a huge improvement on the past. We know that the culture of the marsh Arabs in the south is beginning to revive. We know that we have given Iraqis a chance to decide their own destiny through politics rather than murder and that civil war is still avoidable. We know that the enemies of democracy in Iraq will not stop there if they succeed. And we know that no perfect war has ever been fought, and no victory ever won, without the risk of defeat. Despair, in other words, is too easy now. And it too is a form of irresponsibility.

Regrets? Yes. But the certainty of some today that we have failed is as dubious as the callow triumphalism of yesterday. War is always, in the end, a matter of flexibility and will. And sometimes the darkest days are inevitable--even necessary--before the sky ultimately clears.
__________________
Live From New York, It's Saturday Night!!!: http://notready4primetime.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 7th, 2006, 11:51 PM        Re: Andrew Sullivan: What I Got Wrong About the War
Quote:
What we do know is that for all our mistakes, free elections have been held in a largely Arab Muslim country. We know that the Kurds in the north enjoy freedoms and a nascent civil society that is a huge improvement on the past. We know that the culture of the marsh Arabs in the south is beginning to revive. We know that we have given Iraqis a chance to decide their own destiny through politics rather than murder and that civil war is still avoidable. We know that the enemies of democracy in Iraq will not stop there if they succeed. And we know that no perfect war has ever been fought, and no victory ever won, without the risk of defeat. Despair, in other words, is too easy now. And it too is a form of irresponsibility.
Sullivan has pretty much summarized my perspective on the war in this paragraph.

I think the Left's desire to turn this into "Bush's quagmire" only exacerbates that level of irresponsibility, and to withdraw from Iraq now would certainly bite us in the ass down the road.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 8th, 2006, 10:12 AM       
I repsectfully disagree. I think our continued presence in Iraq in gasoline on the fire, and that we will inevtiably taint any party or parties there we support.

Our continued presence there also reduces significantly our bargaining powers in every other global arena.

Staying without an immediatte focus on massive reforms of how we are handling the war (An end to sanctioned totrture and the transperancy to make it credible, and public refusal to suppport parties enaged in torture would be a good start. The resignation of Donald Rumsfeld could lend reform credability, and basically negates it as long as he stays) seems counterproductive.

I also think politicians committed to staying need to concider what the cost and benefits are and argue them.

In addition, while I applaud (seriously, not sarcastically) Mr. Sullivan for observing the situation and learning from it, a candid amdission of massive failure leading to a terrible bloody mess is not a convincing argument to allow the people who made it to stay in power. I think anyone bold enough to realize how bad a fuck up this is should ethically follow it by asking theri leaders to step down. Anythin else is lke if Custer had survived the Little Big Horn and we made him Commander in Chief.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Mar 8th, 2006, 01:13 PM       
I think withdrawing now could potentially be a horrible mistake.

"Staying without an immediatte focus on massive reforms of how we are handling the war"

And I agree with that.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #5  
davinxtk davinxtk is offline
GO AWAY DONT POST HERE
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Up.
davinxtk is probably a spambot
Old Mar 8th, 2006, 03:17 PM        Re: Andrew Sullivan: What I Got Wrong About the War
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I think the Left's desire to turn this into "Bush's quagmire" only exacerbates that level of irresponsibility, and to withdraw from Iraq now would certainly bite us in the ass down the road.

Ouch, Kev. Have you really imbibed and digested their victim complex? Nobody wants to turn this into Bush's quagmire any more than they wanted that many Americans and Iraqis thrust into questionably motivated combat. This isn't some idiot running up on a pack of pigs and calling them ducks: this looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and literally hangs out in the general territory of endless duck wars.

I agree at this point that withdrawing our forces entirely would, at the very best, sacrifice everything we've already accomplished and at worst create possibly the most dangerous and volatile power vaccuum the Middle East has ever seen. I don't, however, think that commentary on the war is motivated by a desire for Bush to fail.

His failure is evident. Wanting it so would be pointless.
__________________
(1:02:34 AM): and i think i may have gone a little too far and let her know that i actually do hate her, on some level, just because she's female
(1:03:33 AM): and now she's being all kinds of sensitive about it
(1:03:53 AM): i hate women
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 8th, 2006, 09:23 PM        Re: Andrew Sullivan: What I Got Wrong About the War
Quote:
Originally Posted by davinxtk
Have you really imbibed and digested their victim complex? Nobody wants to turn this into Bush's quagmire any more than they wanted that many Americans and Iraqis thrust into questionably motivated combat.
I disagree, and I don't think you're being entirely honest.

Tell me, when you voted for John kerry, did you vote for him because of his strong record, his firm positions, and his obvious leadership qualities??? I'm going to assume that those things had mostly nothing to do with it. You were ABB, right?

Take the impending civil war that never happened. Folks on the Left, like our friend Max, as well as the media, were declaring it the straw that broke the camels back. If you believed the Left, then you'd have to believe that that poor camel has been mutilated.

I hear a lot of criticism over how were are supposedly making things worse there, that we need to get out, but I never hear much beyond that. No plans, no policy alternatives, no ideas for defeating terrorism....just get out. We NEED to get out. Bush lied, people died. This isn't proactive, it's defeatist. I don't even think it's all unwarranted. I've said repeatedly that I'd love to see a Democrat step up and propose how to handle this better. We haven't seen that yet, and if we do, they'll get ripped apart the way Joe Lieberman does. The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas. Now it's simply her majesty's loyal (well not so loyal) opposition, and I'm sort of tired of it. We are the GOP in the 1930's and 40's. Way to go!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 8th, 2006, 10:19 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by davinxtk
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I think the Left's desire to turn this into "Bush's quagmire" only exacerbates that level of irresponsibility, and to withdraw from Iraq now would certainly bite us in the ass down the road.

Ouch, Kev. Have you really imbibed and digested their victim complex? Nobody wants to turn this into Bush's quagmire any more than they wanted that many Americans and Iraqis thrust into questionably motivated combat. This isn't some idiot running up on a pack of pigs and calling them ducks: this looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and literally hangs out in the general territory of endless duck wars.

I agree at this point that withdrawing our forces entirely would, at the very best, sacrifice everything we've already accomplished and at worst create possibly the most dangerous and volatile power vaccuum the Middle East has ever seen. I don't, however, think that commentary on the war is motivated by a desire for Bush to fail.

His failure is evident. Wanting it so would be pointless.
Of course not all criticism of the war is intended to deceive people into believing it is a lost cause based in evil intention, but it's pretty silly to say that none of it is. To some degree it is a lost cause, as it's pretty obvious at this point that even the greatest of success in Iraq... results beyond any neo-con hawk's wet dreams... will not have the same effect on the radical Muslim world as the fall of the Iron Curtain had on global Communism. This is just not an end-game scenario in the WOT, and we all know that. It's also readily apparent that there are other motivations to fighting this war beyond bringing freedom to an oppressed people. Our foreign policy is based entirely in self-interest. If you want to call that evil, I suppose you can.

This war has been completely politicized at this point. That is an indisputable fact, and I'm not one to say that about many things. What does that mean, then? That which hurts the Republicans helps Democrats, and since the Republicans have bet the farm on war, the Democrats would benefit greatly from that war going badly.

As Kevin has intimated, though: There is another way. The GOP has taken an offensive position. Were the Dems to offer an alternative... a defensive position... they might have a chance. Have they done that? The answer is a definitive NO.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Mar 8th, 2006, 10:26 PM       
The War On Terror was completely politicized to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 02:04 AM       
we were still sending in UN inspectors when the predictions of civil wars, quagmires, and vietnam 2 started up. having a skewed perception of things doesn't make you a soothesayer. it's lazy to describe the liberation of iraq under those terms.

yeah, the administration fucked up, and continues to fuck up a whole bunch... but let's face it, there's more fun in bashing bush then truly caring for the well being and future of iraq. i don't think anyone truly gives a shit.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 02:35 AM       
That's about as stupid to say as nobody really hopes we fail in the war. Sure, many people give a shit whether or not we "win," for winning for many of us, regardless of the motivations behind the war, represents a greater good.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 08:25 AM       
I don't think the war is a failure. It's going the way as the neocons planned it. Why are they pushing for war in Iran if Iraq was a failure? Why does Bush keep reminding us that everything is going great and we will stay until victory? Is it incompetence? Maybe that is what they want us to think. I've decided a long time ago that these guys aren't stupid, instead they're truly brilliant, yet dangerous people. I've often wondered how far they're willing to go with the cover ups and the deceptions to continue the war beats, to incite civil war in Iraq to reduce civilization in the middle east and to take away more of americans' soveriegnity to meet neocons' vision of one world government while making an assload of cash.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #12  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 10:03 AM       
While I agree they desired an eternal war as a method of permanently increasing their power and the ability to hold on to it and pass it along dynastically, I think they intended the real, physical war to go far better than it has. I think they only wanted enough ongoing violence to sustain the rhetorical pretext of forever war.

They would have been far more pleaed with the predicted rapid victor in Iraq, a reasonably succseful puppet state and deployment into the next war zone.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 9th, 2006, 10:31 AM       
Thanks, Geggy!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.