On 06/08/2006, at 3:19 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Given the situation, I don't think there was a way to ratchet up
pressure
from what it was. The US was forward deployed and combat ready in
a way
that it wasn't ready to sustain for a year.
Because of the way they ramped up. There was a UN weapons inspection
program. Yes, Saddam was still playing games with the terms of the
last UNSC resolution, but the US wasn't going to wait for the report
from Hans Blix.
I think that the US could have
got a resolution at the UN that would allow for the imposition of
smart
sanctions, but I think that, as the bribing of the French UN
delegate shows,
that even smart sanctions would have workarounds.
I'm not talking about sanctions. I'm talking about a phased renewal.
It was obvious in the first 24 hours that Saddam had zero response,
the brave fighting talk of the legendary Iraqi Information Minister
aside. The plan showed zero flexibility. Pause, regroup, and get the
engineers into the southern towns reconnecting water and power asap.
Make it better. Then move on.
I do agree, thought, that Hussein could have waited a couple of
years, given
what we knew at the time. We could have focused our effort on
rebuilding
Afghanistan, pouring a good deal of money into that small country.
Also true, and something I was arguing strongly at the time.
The "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of
the
Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose.
There were. And, the ironic part of it was that those better plans
were
available to be used before the war. The State Department, using
their
expertise in development, had a well developed, realistic plan for
post war
Iraq. In addition, the present ambassador, who by all accounts is
very
skilled at his job, was ready to step in and start things moving.
Unfortunately, Bush decided to go for the Cheney/Rumsfeld "plan"
which was
nothing more than loosely sketched wishful thinking. Day care
managers who
had their resumes on the Heritage Foundation website ended up
running the
Iraq economy, while the youngest project manager in the history of
the JFK
school of government, who's experience was in international
development in
Russia, had his application tabled for months on end. He had the
application in, knowing full well that he might die as a result,
but feeling
that success in Iraq was critical for the next 20 years. He is, of
course,
our own Gautam.
This is where I fault the administration. To me, it has all the
elements of
a true tragedy. The quest, overturning a cruel dictator and bringing
democracy and prosperity to the Iraqi people, is heroic. The quest is
betrayed by the hubris of the key players: the Bush
administration. As a
result, they do untold damage to their own cause.
And the biggest missed opportunity of all - where's the pressure on
Mugabe, and the other African dictators? While the American military
can't take any more on right now, the diplomatic corps ought to be
sending strong messages to these tyrants - buck up or you're next.
Not this year, maybe not next year, but your card is marked. It would
be the single best bit of evidence that the Bush Administration is
after democracy, not revenge or power games or oil.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
