{"id":21044,"date":"2015-06-19T11:04:50","date_gmt":"2015-06-19T15:04:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/?p=21044"},"modified":"2015-06-19T11:05:40","modified_gmt":"2015-06-19T15:05:40","slug":"andrew-bacevich-washington-in-wonderland-down-the-iraq-rabbit-hole-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/2015\/06\/19\/andrew-bacevich-washington-in-wonderland-down-the-iraq-rabbit-hole-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Andrew Bacevich: Washington in Wonderland, Down the Iraq Rabbit Hole (Again)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Naked Capitalism<\/em> has the article Andrew Bacevich: Washington in Wonderland, Down the Iraq Rabbit Hole (Again)<\/a>. <\/p>\n

You really have to read the article to see how the putting together of seemingly logical and small steps can lead to an illogical non-strategy. However, I know many of you can’t take the time to read the article, so I’ll give you some pieces that probably will mislead you from the gist of the article.<\/p>\n

But first, I’ll give you my conclusion. If you can’t figure out what to do to fix a problem, and everything you can think to do will make the problem worse, then the only logical action is to do nothing. When people urge you to “don’t just stand there, do something”<\/a> keep reminding them that anything you can think to do rather than just standing there will only make matters worse. Why do people insist that we make matters worse? What is the logic to that?<\/p>\n

In describing one small step in the chain of illogic that he was describing, Bacevich said the following:<\/p>\n

\nAT-4s blowing up those Humvees \u2014 with fingers crossed that the anti-tank weapons don\u2019t also fall into the hands of ISIS militants \u2014 illustrates in microcosm the larger madness of Washington\u2019s policies concealed by the superficial logic of each immediate situation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In discussing a conversation that was on a PBS News Hour<\/a>, Bacevich made the following points:<\/p>\n

\nSo what the former secretary of defense, think tank CEO, and retired general chose not to say in fretting about ISIS is as revealing as what they did say. Here are some of the things they chose to overlook:<\/p>\n

* ISIS would not exist were it not for the folly of the United States in invading \u2014 and breaking \u2014 Iraq in the first place; we created the vacuum that ISIS is now attempting to fill.<\/p>\n

* U.S. military efforts to pacify occupied Iraq from 2003 to 2011 succeeded only in creating a decent interval for the United States to withdraw without having to admit to outright defeat; in no sense did \u201cour\u201d Iraq War end in anything remotely approximating victory, despite the already forgotten loss of thousands of American lives and the expenditure of trillions of dollars.<\/p>\n

* For more than a decade and at very considerable expense, the United States has been attempting to create an Iraqi government that governs and an Iraqi army that fights; the results of those efforts speak for themselves: they have failed abysmally.<\/p>\n

Now, these are facts. Acknowledging them might suggest a further conclusion: that anyone proposing ways for Washington to put things right in Iraq ought to display a certain sense of humility. The implications of those facts \u2014 behind which lies a policy failure of epic proportions \u2014 might even provide the basis for an interesting discussion on national television. But that would assume a willingness to engage in serious self-reflection. This, the culture of Washington does not encourage, especially on matters related to basic national security policy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Just to boost my ratings, I’ll embed the panel discussion below. Bacevich, in his article, admits that his contribution to this discussion was too weak and ineffective, and failed to make the points he made in the article.<\/p>\n

\n