Little Red Blog

In response to the comments of a reader, Tim, to a previous post:

Tim suggests that we’ve failed in Iraq and that it is worse than Viet Nam. In summary, he contends that we have shown China that the U.S. can spend $billions fighting "a rag tag bunch of insurgents," that our military has "efficiency" issues related to deployment, and that we’ve failed to learn from our experience in Viet Nam and aren’t learning in Iraq either. As you will see, he also contends that the Iraqi election may have made matters worse, that it should have been - "US: Stay or Go" rather than the selection of essentially a representative constitutional convention. He states that the he suspects the standard of living in Iraq to drop, comparing it to the lifestyle adjustment some made after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And finally, he equates our policy with Soviet style propaganda only replacing "workers paradise" with "freedom, democracy and capitalism." A final quote: "It is not enough to say that the United States has not reached the level of depravity found under Stalin, when we are using the same kind of logic.

[The full texts of Tim’s comments are included for ease of referral (shown as a single entry where, due to haloscan limitations, it was separated into multiple entries, also edited to correct spelling errors, etc.). - ed.](See the comments from Tim.)
---
[Original comment from Tim]

You're right. Iraq is no Vietnam. Vietnam did not have a huge influence over the market for energy. So the potential impact of our failed strategy on the ground in Iraq are worse.

Bush has actually done the enemies of the United States a great favor--he's shown that the United States can spend billions of dollars a week fighting a rag tag bunch of insurgents. Smooth. Imagine how much the US would spend going to war against, say, China.
---
Marvin, [this was erroneously addressed to another reader, James, which Tim later points out]

I was making a narrow point about why a failed strategy in Iraq has more serious consequences than Vietnam. I was not making any points about the comparative threats of what you characterize as islamofascists.

I should have been clearer in my post. My point about the cost of war in Iraq is not a value judgment as to the cost, but as to the efficiency of our operation. No matter what type of warfare, the United States still has major efficiency problems moving material, deploying troops, managing troops and actually fighting. The US has effectively signaled to China that in a full on great power war, we would doubtlessly spend even more than we are currently spending. Whether we could afford that without breaking the US economy is an open question. Regardless of whether the US wants to do something, the fact remains that being unable to pay for it limits our options.

Secondly, this conflict is worse than Vietnam because it shows that the US hasn't learned the lessons of Vietnam. Chris Hitchens has a wonderful article on slate about the differences between Vietnam and Iraq, and he is right that the conditions on the ground differ, but misses the point. The point is that the US response in Vietnam was ineffective and refused to learn lessons from the actual fighting, even though it was suffering major reversals. The same appears to be true today, especially with respect to the efficiency issue. Not to mention the armor issues, and most worrisome, the personnel problems. Among those well-documented problems are care for returning veterans, and staffing/unit/morale problems. Abu Graib is a well-documented example of the latter variety of problems.

To use a Boydian analysis, the US system has short-circuited the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop by refusing to orient (no pun intended) itself to the actual situation at hand. That has not changed since Vietnam, and arguably is worse, since we have had almost 30 years to evaluate our mistakes and yet our system seems incapable of learning. This should disturb everyone, because it means that were the United States to face a direct, peer competitor it is not clear that our system could respond effectively. By my standards, exposing our serious weaknesses to America's opponents, and alienating America's allies is a failed strategy.

As to your comment about freedom, I will address that in my response to James, which follows.

James, [this time properly responding to reader James]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment, even in the face of two deadlines. I'll take this point-by-point, and wrap up at the end with some thoughts.
Democracy: I agree with you that having elections in Iraq, even in the form, which we had them, is an improvement over Saddam. Still, elections do not a democracy make. The USSR for many years had elections, and it was certainly no democracy. I think actually, that by increasing the chaos in Iraq we've weakened or destroyed existing civil society. Furthermore, the election also misses the point--why didn't the US have a simple election, one that asked a simple question: US, stay or go? If democracy is about self-determination, it is important for people to make their own decisions. What more fundamental decision can there be than whether foreign troops will occupy one's country?

Freedom: Freedom to vote? What about freedom from fear of having electricity applied to one's genitals? Freedom from fear of being rounded up in the dark of night and sent to prison? Or freedom to chose whether an occupying army stays or goes? Again, I return to my point above.

Capitalism: Iraqi people now have the freedom to live under the Washington Consensus type policies imposed by the United States. All over the developing world people have spoken out strongly in favor of debt relief (complete debt forgiveness), against privatization of public utilities and in favor of what even Pat Buchanan calls managed trade. There is a whole book here, but what we've done is increased the volatility and danger in people's lives for sure. In exchange, we've handed them perhaps a chance to make it big, but in the near term we've given them violence, and gasoline shortages. I suspect that average Iraqis will experience what happened in the USSR, where average standards of living plummeted after 1991. To be fair, some people will get Ferraris. I want to be very clear that I despise marx-leninism; however, that does not preclude me from criticizing the generally proffered alternative. We don't live in a binary world.

Marvin indicated that he thought that freedom is priceless. You have implied that the U.S. has not failed because it brought the "makings of Democracy, Freedom, and Capitalism," as if that somehow excuses the cost of America's effort. This I find most bothersome, because it justifies inhumane actions in the service of an abstract ideal. What I find most distasteful about marx-leninism is that it provided the rationale for any level of violence deemed in service to the abstract idea of a communist utopia. In your writing, and in the logic of the Bush administration, I hear the same type of justification, but used with the words "freedom, democracy and capitalism" replacing the old "worker's paradise." It is not enough to say that the United States has not reached the level of depravity found under Stalin, when we are using the same kind of logic. If the history of the twentieth century should have taught us anything, it is that regimes that employ that kind of logic are capable of any depth of inhumanity.
----

There are many who would just write Tim off as a ignorant leftist kook, and frankly, I’m not sure I’d disagree, especially after having read some of his other writings via his blog and website. It appears that Tim is a student as UC Berkeley. Heh...

In both the comments that Tim has left, he’s mentioned our failed policy in Iraq. I have not been able to discern from either, what failed policy he is referring to. Is it that we are in Iraq at all? Most likely. Moving beyond that, if possible, the next comment he makes is in relation to our spending against a "rag tag bunch of insurgents." Here it is clear that Tim is incapable of recognizing the nature of our effort, or of the enemy. There are many aspects of the terrorist efforts that are reflective of "rag tag," yet this in no way accurately reflects the funding or methods availed to the terrorist nor does it reflect the size or complexity of the effort to secure a nation of Iraq’s size against an enemy that does not engage in combat but instead uses terrorism as its primary means of making war.

It is hard to imagine at this point that Tim’s comment that "No matter what type of warfare, the United States still has major efficiency problems moving material, deploying troops, managing troops and actually fighting" is actually believed. Is there any nation, or has there ever been a nation, which could more effectively, which is more significant than efficiently, mobilize, deploy and attack than the U.S. No. Not even close.

Signaling China that we are inefficient and that war would be costly is appropriately as strained an argument as the previous one. In, as Tim suggest, a “full on great power war” with China the methods, nature and final disposition of the war would be on a vastly different scale than any war, perhaps excluding Iran, against a Middle Eastern nation. Of course the cost would be significant, but the U.S., much more so than China, would be in a position to spend the money, under current or reasonably similar economic conditions, and both the strategic and tactical objectives and means would as well be vastly different. Even those among the respected analysts who are advocating a more rapid modification of current capabilities toward a netcentric warfare methodology recognize that combat with the PLA would likely include both light and heavy force engagement. To suggest that the current security role, or the initial military engagement in Iraq, is indicative of anything we’d face against China is plainly wrong.

The primary lesson of Viet Nam was not tactical, it was political, and that lesson has been well learned. There are, of course, tactical issues and improvements gleaned from every major military engagement, but to suppose, without any evidence that Iraq has been a military failure or that Viet Nam was likewise, is, again, wrong. If the only Viet Nam combatant you are referring to is the non-regular forces, and by some bizarre extension you are suggesting that combat with China may find a similar force, then again you would be missing the point and showing abject ignorance.

Finally, Tim mentions alienating our allies as a component of our failure. No ally of the U.S. was alienated by our taking action in Iraq. We were alienated by their unwillingness to follow through on their support for the resolutions of the U.N. which they each agreed to. Think of France, Germany, Russia and Syria (not an ally) voting for the final resolution, and then failing to deliver when the time comes.

I’ll leave James to comment on the ridiculous remarks Tim made about Democracy, Freedom and Capitalism. Except this… for someone who "despises" Communism, Tim, your comments don’t reflect it. Nor does your admitting that what you like least about it is the use of force to obtain its objective. The most deplorable aspect of communism is its refutation of the moral value of liberty in all or any of its forms.

Therein, perhaps, is the great source of Tim’s discontent. And I should note to Tim, the comments are always appreciated. Even when absolutely wrong.