IN THE NEWS
This exchange on CNN--not exactly an interview, since Wolf Blitzer doesn't ask any pointed questions--among Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and other previous supporters of the 2003 invasion of Iraq is truly an historic treasure. I urge you to preserve the video for posterity, since you'll need it two years, five years, ten years from now, as the United States adjusts its policies towards counterterrorism and the Middle East.
Why will you need it? Because the way the United States charged into Iraq still matters. There will be a lot of self-serving rhetoric among people like Frum and Adelman, not to mention Rice, Hadley, and McCain, about how we should not be mired in the past. We need to deal with the problems that face us now, we need to pull together in this tough situation, blah blah blah.
Horsfeathers. We still need to be dissecting the Iraq invasion the way medical interns dissect cadavers until they learn how the human body really works. In this case, the people who influence US foreign policy--politicians, journalists, researchers, and yes, voters--need to understand what procedures make good foreign policy decisions, and which ones can lead swiftly into disaster. Otherwise, we'll stumble again.
After the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy Administration took a long, hard look at the way it stumbled into that fiasco. The lessons were obvious. For example, you should never, never squelch debate within your own Administration, because people insecure in their power and authority want everyone to "get on the team." You should never, never depend on the best-case scenario happening for your strategy to be a success. And so on.
One might make the argument that, if the Bay of Pigs debacle had not occurred, the Kennedy Administration would not have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as it did. You might also conclude that future occupants of the Oval Office should benefit from the positive and negative examples of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs. If 1961 and 1962 seem too far in the past, we can, should, and must learn from the events of 2003. Until the Bush Administration, Congress, and everyone else who made the Iraq tragedy happen tell us how they're not going to commit the same mistakes again, we're not done dissecting the mistakes of 2003.
For the press, one of those failures must be filling the airwaves and pages with statements from people who clearly do not know anything about Iraq, terrrorism, and nuclear weapons programs. In the United States, celebrity shouldn't be forever. Just because Perle, Frum, Adelman, and others once had something to say about Iraq--no matter how uninformed and off-base their opinions proved to be--doesn't mean they should be invited back on CNN. (Plus, flaccid forums like Blitzer's show invite unchallenged personal and historical revisionism.)
It's important to remember how, in the critical months of 2002 and 2003, the press, the executive branch, and Congress treated people who criticized the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In many cases, these critics were not only right about Iraq, but they were right about how the US government should have handled Iraq. Those are the people worthy of the nation's attention. Listening to Frum, Adelman, Rubin, Perle, Kristol, and others who supported the invasion and occupation is like having to sit through Mel Gibson try to explain away his public embarassments. At some point, you wonder, Why is this person given air time at all?
Keep this video for posterity. Watch it again when the important adjustments to how we make foreign policy don't seem to be happening. Get mad all over again. Demand more from the government, press, and think tanks than you got in 2003.
I think about this all the time too. Have you seen Commentary magazine lately? They have some guy who was all rah rah invasion of Iraq and is now rah rah on the invade Iran tip. My God. What fools.
Posted by: Tim Fong | 11/21/2006 at 13:33
And demand more from your presidential campaign-debate organizers, election administrators, and Supreme Court Justices than you got in 2000.
Posted by: MSS | 11/23/2006 at 13:04
Well, this is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on.
Posted by: Nike SB Dunk | 11/09/2010 at 17:40
In the third, nike jordan shoes I think that Wesley Clarkâs recent analysis of how America defeated the Soviet Union is on the mark,and that we will have to continue to push the contradictions on the various parties that are still entranced by the Marxist fallacies.air jordans retro 5 This requires engagement with Russia and the former Warsaw pact nations to keep Russia on track and to try to minimize backsliding in parts of the old SU. michael jordan retro shoes We need to work China off against North Korea, and we will at some point need to deal with Castro and his few remaining Western friends.
Posted by: newest air jordans | 11/24/2010 at 01:24
We still need to be nike running shoes dissecting the Iraq invasion the way medical interns dissect cadavers until they learn how the human body really works. In this case, the people who influence US foreign policy--politicians, journalists, researchers, and yes, voters--need to understand what procedures make good foreign policy decisions, and which ones can lead swiftly into disaster mens nike basketball shoes.
Posted by: basketball shoes shop | 12/09/2010 at 21:30