David Brooks, who has been an enthusiastic advocate of the mission to democratize Iraq, is striking a somewhat different tone in this column. He suggests that our leaders have no coherent strategy for bringing about the outcome they desire in Iraq. Brooks then offers such a strategy--a strategy posed by a military expert, a strategy that is already getting a lot of attention from the people who have the power to make these things happen. Perhaps this strategy is the solution to our Iraq problem, Brooks suggests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28brooks.html
The bad news is that this strategy requires a lot more troops and potentially a lot more time, which is a polite way of saying, a lot more American blood to be shed. Brooks doesn't say so, but that might mean a draft.
He also doesn't say that this strategy sounds a lot like what we tried to do in Vietnam, after we figured out that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were not just going to run away or surrender once we showed up, and it was going to be very difficult to kill them all. We concentrated on creating "strategic hamlets" where the lucky residents would get all the benefits of the American way of life--schools, sanitation, clean water, and so forth. This would win over their hearts and minds, making them pro-American for life. Then we would move on to the next hamlet, until gradually everyone would be on our side.
There are still people today who argue that we could have prevailed in Vietnam if we had given this sort strategy a few more years, a few thousand more human lives, a few billion more dollars. That's the deadly seduction of this kind of strategy: Be brave, be patient, be patriotic, and we will achieve a glorious victory for freedom. We cannot abandon these people to tyranny. We cannot give up, because that will mean that the thousands who died will have died in vain. If you question this war and the wisdom of those who launched it, you are encouraging the evil forces we are fighting against, and demoralizing the valiant young men and women who are putting their lives on the line so that you can sit at home and use your right to free speech so irresponsibly....
This is the kind of reasoning that shuts down the policy debate, at least for awhile. This is the kind of reasoning that enabled us to build that big black marble wall in Washington, D.C., one flag-draped coffin at a time.
Let's admit it: We don't know if this line of reasoning is valid. Maybe we COULD have turned Vietnam into a model democracy if we had been steadfast enough. Maybe we can do the same in Iraq if we are willing to pay the cost.
But here's a scary thought: What if there is no strategy available to us that will bring about the outcome we desire? What if Iraq (and the world in general) is more devilishly complicated than we figured on? What if the Iraqis (or some significant fraction of them) stubbornly resist responding to the incentives we offer them? What if they have some goals, some visions (incomprehensible to us) that they place above the things we value most: peace, prosperity, democracy? What if they are willing to die for their own incomprehensible belief system?
In other words, what if we just can't get to where we want to be from where we are?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28brooks.html
The bad news is that this strategy requires a lot more troops and potentially a lot more time, which is a polite way of saying, a lot more American blood to be shed. Brooks doesn't say so, but that might mean a draft.
He also doesn't say that this strategy sounds a lot like what we tried to do in Vietnam, after we figured out that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were not just going to run away or surrender once we showed up, and it was going to be very difficult to kill them all. We concentrated on creating "strategic hamlets" where the lucky residents would get all the benefits of the American way of life--schools, sanitation, clean water, and so forth. This would win over their hearts and minds, making them pro-American for life. Then we would move on to the next hamlet, until gradually everyone would be on our side.
There are still people today who argue that we could have prevailed in Vietnam if we had given this sort strategy a few more years, a few thousand more human lives, a few billion more dollars. That's the deadly seduction of this kind of strategy: Be brave, be patient, be patriotic, and we will achieve a glorious victory for freedom. We cannot abandon these people to tyranny. We cannot give up, because that will mean that the thousands who died will have died in vain. If you question this war and the wisdom of those who launched it, you are encouraging the evil forces we are fighting against, and demoralizing the valiant young men and women who are putting their lives on the line so that you can sit at home and use your right to free speech so irresponsibly....
This is the kind of reasoning that shuts down the policy debate, at least for awhile. This is the kind of reasoning that enabled us to build that big black marble wall in Washington, D.C., one flag-draped coffin at a time.
Let's admit it: We don't know if this line of reasoning is valid. Maybe we COULD have turned Vietnam into a model democracy if we had been steadfast enough. Maybe we can do the same in Iraq if we are willing to pay the cost.
But here's a scary thought: What if there is no strategy available to us that will bring about the outcome we desire? What if Iraq (and the world in general) is more devilishly complicated than we figured on? What if the Iraqis (or some significant fraction of them) stubbornly resist responding to the incentives we offer them? What if they have some goals, some visions (incomprehensible to us) that they place above the things we value most: peace, prosperity, democracy? What if they are willing to die for their own incomprehensible belief system?
In other words, what if we just can't get to where we want to be from where we are?
posted by whitebeard | 11:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home