<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Sunday, June 12, 2005

The perils and necessity of triumphalism 

By TigerHawk at 6/12/2005 09:10:00 PM
Greg Djerejian is worried that the Bush administration -- Rumsfeld and Cheney, at least -- are too damned positive in their public discussion of the prospects for successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. I agree, at least if the objective is credibility with a certain sophisticated segment of the public. The problem, though, is that it is not merely the administration's job to describe what is going on. It also must advocate for its position that the United States should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to defeat the insurgency. Is the best way to do that to admit that it may take as long as a decade to beat these bastards -- most counterinsurgencies take at least that long -- or is it more likely to sustain adequate support for the war by arguing the optimistic case? The answer to this question is not obvious, especially in light of history that suggests that the United States might have eventually succeeded in Vietnam had it been willing. Indeed, the lesson of that war is that contemporary perceptions of success and failure do not necessarily hold up over time. So the question remains, if it is necessary for a president to advocate for a policy in order to sustain the national commitment necessary to win, is the national interest really served if the administration abandons optimism for "realism"?

Permalink - - Main

2 Comments:

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Mon Jun 13, 07:51:00 AM:

Optimism trumps realism in public discussion of our military prospects. We don't know what discussion takes place in the "back room". I would presume it is full of uncertainty and criticism. We all know Rumsfeld and Cheney are quite tough on the military...as leaks from many current and former military leaders attest. They don't like being held to difficult standards by a demanding civilian leadership, and they get it in spades from these guys.

However, in a public forum, there is no place for uncertainty or a lack of confidence in our military capabilities -- nor should there be. There can be no question that we will defeat any adversary as long as the political will remains to sustain the effort. Imagine a football coach bemoaning his team's prospects before the championship game -- you can't do that because confidence and performance are integrally linked. If you publicly question your team's prospects, you hurt your team. Now if things drag on and the public begins to question our effectiveness...you change military leadership. Lincoln did it many times before he found Grant. Teams fire their coach. And I have no doubt that Rumsfeld and Cheney will not shy away from moving out Abizaid or Sanchez if they struggle.

Just win baby.  

By Blogger Chris, at Mon Jun 13, 08:39:00 PM:

Not only that, but when they only public voices outside the blogosphere that radiate confidence in our abilities to win are from the administration, what choice do they have? This is where the constant negativity and whining from the MSM hurts the most, forcing the administration to defend it's policies to the death. When all you get is criticism, and not very constructive at that, you become defensive and combative, which you then get criticized for, and so on and so on.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?