Oh fer Chrissakes! Can we get any more amateurish?

[Elok]

Well, yes, but I was painting in broad strokes. I meant that Bush is the sort of man who jumps from "this is a bad man" to "crush, kill, destroy" without going through the usual steps of risk assessment, logistics, long-term policy considerations, etc.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, yes, but I was painting in broad strokes. I meant that Bush is the sort of man who jumps from "this is a bad man" to "crush, kill, destroy" without going through the usual steps of risk assessment, logistics, long-term policy considerations, etc.

Oh yeah. I generally agree with that. I'm just saying that he was at the "This is a bad man" stage before be got into office probably. It doesn't help that some of his advisors thought that democracy would fix all the world's problems, where democracy was defined as holding elections.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, yes, but I was painting in broad strokes. I meant that Bush is the sort of man who jumps from "this is a bad man" to "crush, kill, destroy" without going through the usual steps of risk assessment, logistics, long-term policy considerations, etc.

Bush was only the figurehead in this case.

The war was planned out of the DOD and Cheney's cabal. They decided to finally carry out their dream, to show that American military power could be used to crush the "bad guys" and spread their version of American values. They wanted to show that the US could make use of its position as the sole superpower to spread its influence using old fashioned hard power and not this soft power crap, and thus have more control, and do it faster and better.

It was also this group that thought, perhaps most disasterously of all, that somthing so ridiculously ambitious (and just plain ridiculous) could also be done for cheap.

A combination of oversized ambitions and penny pinching have given us the failure we have today.

[East Street Trader]

It looks to me as though there might be broad consensus in the US over these statements:

1. It is OK to invade other countries;

2. There is a right way to do it which will keep disruption to a tolerable minimum;

3. It wasn't done right in the case of Iraq.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
It looks to me as though there might be broad consensus in the US over these statements:

1. It is OK to invade other countries;

2. There is a right way to do it which will keep disruption to a tolerable minimum;

3. It wasn't done right in the case of Iraq.

Broadly, yes, but I think you can be even more specific. I think that if we look at how people felt in 2003 (overwhelming support for the war) and how they feel now (very little support, no small measure of anger, lots of confusion about what to do now), we can reconcile those by suggesting that the consensus is:

1) It is OK to invade other countries when they pose a clear and present danger to U.S. national interests.

2) There is a right way to do it -- called the Powell Doctrine -- which involves going in with overwhelming force as a way of assuring a quick, decisive victory.

3) We were lied to about #1, and failed to implement #2.

4) If #1 were actually true, we would be more forgiving of the failure to follow #2; if #2 had worked, we wouldn't have cared so much about being lied to regarding #1. It's the combo that's a real killer.

[Patroklos]

called the Powell Doctrine

That is not called the Powell Doctrine. Did you just make that up?

The rest of that post, spot on

Though I would note the minimalist approach to military action in recent US military strategy is not a product of Cheney/Rumsfeld.

[Dauphin]

if #2 had worked, we wouldn't have cared so much about being lied to regarding #1.

I know it's the way of things, but such apathy still shocks me.

Government: We just invaded a country in your name, but don't worry, we got 'em good, so you don't need to worry about them bothering us again with those deadly nuclear, chemical and biolo....oh, turns out that just had a few sharp pointy sticks. Oh well. They won't bother us with those either.

Us: GREAT!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That is not called the Powell Doctrine. Did you just make that up?

Well, its a central piece of the Weinberger Doctrine, which the Powell Doctrine is based off of.

[East Street Trader]

Traditionally the response of those who think they may be invaded is to seek alliances with others hoping to deter the aggressor.

[Patroklos]

Well, its a central piece of the Weinberger Doctrine, which the Powell Doctrine is based off of.

As Rufus is describing it, "PowelL Doctirne" is actually nothing more than basic Prussian mass theory, be there the first with the most. Clauswitz, Motke, and about a dozen others are being forgotten.

Gore invented the internet

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Look, I'm no expert on military history, but I am an avid reader of all kinds of journalism -- and journalistically, I've read this referred to as the "Powell Doctrine" over and over. Perhaps it's a misnomer, but it's not my misnomer. As the substance of what I've said hasn't been questioned, perhaps we can all go find some other nits to pick.

[Patroklos]

Hey, I said I agreed with you.

And your use of the term is a symptom, not source, of this retarded labeling.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I have no problem with that. Too damned many people have their own "doctrines" as it is.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
It looks to me as though there might be broad consensus in the US over these statements:

1. It is OK to invade other countries;

2. There is a right way to do it which will keep disruption to a tolerable minimum;

3. It wasn't done right in the case of Iraq.

Agreed, except that 1. does require that there be a threat to the US, which is why the WMDs thing had to be spun the way it was. Without that, the US public wouldn't have been pro-war. There would probably have been a large minority who would've supported "finishing the job" as it were, but not the 2/3 or so that were pro-war in 2003.

-Arrian

[East Street Trader]

Arrian

Is it your view, then, that had toppling Saddam Hussein and/or the notion of (somehow or other) turning Iraq into a democracy been the reasons advanced for the invasion it would have had little support?