The restrictions on deploying American troops within the states are stronger than those on deploying American troops abroad?
Civil War land is in bad decline, I've heard.
The restrictions on deploying American troops within the states are stronger than those on deploying American troops abroad
Naw, that's not plausible. Four years of war left no real restrictions. Plus they killed our hero President. Pure lack of will.
The restrictions on deploying American troops within the states are stronger than those on deploying American troops abroad
Thou wilt not yield the vandal toll, Thou wilt not crook to his control, Better the fire upon thee roll, Better the blade, the shot, the bowl, Than crucifixion of the soul,I hear the distant thunder-hum,
The Old Line's bugle, fife, and drum,
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!
well, to the direct question, i think one answer is
"because we had the more recent successes in japan & europe".
but i'm also just not sure that anyone in 2002-2007 *did*
"ever think we'd have the political will to stick out the proper post-war reconstruction of Iraq".
no one ever asked me, certainly. they just told me that it would be a quick and glorious victory.
and then after the flowers, a miracle would occur: freed of onerous marginal tax-rates, governmental intrusion, and judicial review (which causes abortions, you know), the invisible hands of adam smith, ayn rand and alan greenspan would aid the natural self-assembly of a vigorous market economy.
it would just all, you know, come together. on its own. freedom wants to be free.
wha, you don't buy that? then you're a racist.
no, i don't think the question 'will the u.s. sit patiently by while we pour a billion plus dollars a week plus 20-30 american lives down the drain?' was ever even asked, much less answered in the affirmative.
and, yeah, the post-reconstruction american south is a scandal, but that's a different story too.
Obviously one element is the "we'll be greeted as liberators" meme, implying reconstruction would be enthusiastically cooperated with, more like Germany than like the South.
But my memories of that period aren't detailed. So looked and found one CNN interview that seems to encapsulate a lot of the key talking points.
CNN interview with Fawaz Gerges, 10/11/02:
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. And this particular sense, Iraq can really pay for... most of its political and social reconstruction. ... Iraq used to have a very impressive industrial base...Iraq has a highly educated class. In this particular sense, if you really create the institutions, the building blocks, if you revive civil society, if you revive the middle class, Iraq has a good chance of becoming a leading, I would argue, liberal state in the Middle East.
Based on that interview, Gerges was one of the Reasonable People who doubted the US's ability to "do the job right," but who supported war anyway. He went on to say he doubted the US has the right vision for a proper reconstruction, but that a multilateral force was the answer to that concern.
So the long form of the justifications, for consumption by the people who think, seems to have been:
1) Be greeted with flowers, get cooperation in anything we do
2) Revive middle class and industrial base
3) Use oil revenue to pay for reconstruction work
4) Profit!!!
Oh, and per kibblesnbits above:
2.5) Create laissez-faire paradise
So the Administration is right? If we leave, the terrorists win?
10--
you mean paul bremer?
8--
i like kibblesnbits. might have to use it.
but i'd just like to point out that my dog's better than your dog,
cause he eats kennel-ration.
like 6. said, because of germany and japan.
you still hear the iraq-germany/japan comparison today. you never hear the iraq-american south one.
Civil War land is in bad decline, I've heard.
If only they'd built more roller coasters.
you never hear the iraq-american south one
Can you even imagine? "And that, my friends, is why the South is a shit hole even today...."
Your mistake is in thinking that it's the post-war era in the South.
"And that, my friends, is why the South is a shit hole even today...."
To be fair, not all of it. And, obviously, you were never going to hear that comparison from the lineal descendants of the American Badr Brigade.
I think it's because we had delusions of our own competence, as per Kid Bitzer, b/c of Japan and Europe. . ..I was anti-war, but I certainly didn't think we'd fuck up *this* badly.
If you havne't already seen it, go see No End In Sight. It's mostly review of horrors blog denizens alreayd know, but coherent and restrained review that brings you to a nice and steady simmer. I made something of a mini unfogged meetup out of it, actually.
This post is an egregious example of carpetblogging.
18--
that's ridiculous. i have no delusions about my own competence.
you still hear the iraq-germany/japan comparison today. you never hear the iraq-american south one.
18: that's we as in the collective American average, not any of us in particular as individuals.. . .and I do think the collective American average does--or until very recently, did--have illusions about military and CIA competence. . . .it's in evidence with conspiracy theories, which imply all sorts of organization and deliberateness that's just not there. I remember after the Americans bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade everyone was sure it was on purpose--and I was quite sure it was a mistake. That's b/c I had a lot less faith in them than the conspiracy theorists.
I agree with Saheli. I tend to reach for the incomptence-over-malice explanations in general, but as much as I was protesting the war, I honestly did not think that it would be executed this poorly.
Some of that I chalk up to my own ignorance of military logistics. I think it was Gary Farber in commnents at Obsidian Wings who had a nice connect-the-dots explanation of how, practically, one would conduct a withdrawal from Iraq.
I'm digging on the Maryland, My Maryland reference in 5.