Even I don’t have the stomach to get through a Chunky Bobo column anymore, but Steve M. does. Here’s Douthat on why Bush II’s wars were awesome and Clinton/Bush I/Obama’s suck:
This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.
…there are major problems with this approach to war…. Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence….
The thing is this: whatever one thinks of Bosnia and Iraq I, they weren’t, by most measures, as disastrous as Iraq II. I find it mind-boggling that anyone would pretend otherwise.
Also too, I sometimes think there’s a fine line between being a bold Churchillian unilateralist and being diplomatically incompetent.
OzoneR
Every take a moment to swallow this
http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-blog/2011/mar/21/obama-and-libya-wheres-leadership/
pull quote
Barack Obama, Socialist thug and corporate whore, weak liberal and war criminal. Maybe he is the messiah.
BGinCHI
Fucking twits like Douthat, who’ve never even been in a fist fight, think war is a movie.
I guess when you’re the fat kid nobody likes on the playground, and you imagine yourself at the head of a column of fighting men, you’ll always be seduced by your imagination.
Kryptik
What disturbs me is the idea that they may really be trying to turn W. into the next Ronald Reagan, complete with deification and total warped misrepresentations of his actual policies, accomplishments, and personal graces.
No, on second thought, that doesn’t disturb me, so much as the thought that they may very well succeed in that. Complete with ‘George W. Bush International Airport’ somewhere.
Villago Delenda Est
My loathing of chickenhawk shitstains like Douchehat knows absolutely no fucking bounds.
At all.
It’s all so easy to talk about “interventions” from your fucking apartment on Park Avenue. Or your office in the Empire State Building.
artem1s
in other words, NOT a meandering disaster with poorly defined goals?
NPR used the ‘committee war’ terminology this morning. They must see this as an opportunity to appease the tea party and keep their funding.
danimal
Using Douthat’s description, I’m pretty sure WWII qualifies as a liberal intervention, FWIW.
Moonbatting Average
And he writes this right after the EIGHTH ANNIVERSARY of our Grand Iraq Adventure. What a colossal fucknozzle.
Keith G
That’s the thing about W’s cowboy persona. Down here in the Lone Star State many of us knew he was all hat and no cattle. A charming rogue who easily won friends and supporters, he often came up short in real results.
Chunky certainly is a fuckhead.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik
(popping my name back, since fast typing makes it hard to remember your committed name changes)
@Villago Delenda Est:
Not to mention the laughable assertion that war by committee creates ‘tactical incompetence’ and necessarily means a ‘glacial pace’. Fucker has to have been asleep for the last 10 years, or doing that annoying little ‘projection’ thing conservatives are so wont to do these days.
priscianus jr
kindness
Douthat is a moran. His day is incomplete if he isn’t able to lecture DFHs or Democratic office holders. He reminds me more of a grumpy old man screaming at the kids to get off his lawn more than anything else. That and his whole world view that Catholicism is the only truth. I just don’t get it how folks like him can be so willfully ignorant and blind.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
OT – But I have a new favorite song (Cee-Lo Green’s “Fuck You”).
It isn’t safe for work, but it strikes a theme that every man can identify with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU
KG
@danimal: I was thinking the same thing.
I have to admit, there are days that my thinking goes like this:
fuck it, let’s bring all our troops home, turn Alaska into a giant oil rig for 20 years, disband half the military and pour those funds into the Department of Energy to develop alternative sources in the next 20 years.
dr. bloor
Yeah, nothing says “quick and competent” like the marathon goatfuck Shrub started in Iraq.
What a moran.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik
@KG:
Too bad in the shitty real world, the most likely result would be “fuck it, let’s bring all our troops home, turn Alaska into a giant oil rig for 20 years, disband the Department of energy, pour those funds into the Department of Defense to develop alternative wars in the next 20 years.”
FlipYrWhig
Apart from the ranking system, it’s actually not a terrible point. I think that this _is_ the closest thing we get to “liberal war.” That’s basically what the debate is: can there _be_ such a thing as a “liberal war,” waged to protect the weak from the powerful; or is “liberal war” just a ruse, a pretext for the usual American geostrategic bullying?
Villago Delenda Est
Speaking of Churchill, he’s got all this great PR, but it’s all belied by the actual facts of the matter:
Dumbshit who was all gung ho for fighting an endless war against the Boers;
Dumbshit who committed the Brits to the utterly indecisive mess that was Gallipoli;
Dumbshit who insisted on trying to keep Crete and in the process wiped out the cream of the British army in the Med;
Dumbshit who insisted that the US and the Brits attack the “soft underbelly” of the Axis in Italy, a campaign that was so decisive that northern Italy had to be liberated by Italians.
Churchill’s rep is all great PR.
trollhattan
@ Comrade DougJ
Here’s how the Chunkster can decide which is awesomer: Iraq gives us “Hurt Locker” while Bosnia gives us “Behind Enemy Lines.”
Discuss.
Villago Delenda Est
@FlipYrWhig:
Liberal war: WWII. Pat Buchanan is still pissed that we fought against the Nazis.
numbskull
@KG: Too late. We don’t have the brain power and the manufacturing base to do this any more.
BGinCHI
@trollhattan: But, “Blackhawk Down,” “Three Kings.”
Let’s call “Syriana” a tie.
Bill H.
But let’s not pretend they were not fucking disasters, either. Bosnia contributed heavily to the Russia/Georgia war, and Iraq I led to years and years of a “no fly zone” enforcement (Oh, God, does that ring any bells), which led to having to depose an evil dictator (oh God, more bells).
Admittedly the “we deposed the evil dictator” was originally “omigod there will be a mushroom cloud.”
But saying that “Bosnia and Iraq I weren’t as disastrous as Iraq II” is like saying that Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s are not as bad as Pancreatic Cancer, so it’s okay to have Bubonic Plague.
Stefan
Also too, I sometimes think there’s a fine line between being a bold Churchillian unilateralist and being diplomatically incompetent.
And man, Churchill wasn’t a unilateralist: he tried to get allies wherever he could find them. He was absolutely desperate to sign up anyone he could to his cause, even going so far as to ally himself to Stalin’s Russia, and seeking deals with Vichy France and Franco’s Spain.
Sly
Because you’re not arguing from first principles and discarding any evidence that suggests those first principles might be… you know… stupid. That is, however, the recurring formula of every Douthat column.
So, of course, he targets multilateral interventionism’s faults by ignoring the demagoguery disguised as pragmatic hand-wringing that was a hallmark of the 90s and the effect that such semi-naked grandstanding by Republicans had on building a diplomatic consensus for the Balkans and Somalia. And let’s not forget the calls of “No Blood for Monica! Wag the dog!” as Clinton sent cruise missiles into Sudan to kill Bin Laden.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Bill H.:
WTF, how did Bosnia contribute (heavily, at that?) to the Georgia-Russian War? If it wasn’t for our intervention in the Balkans, there probably wouldn’t be any Muslims left in teh former Yugoslavia.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
@Bill H.:
That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve seen on the internet in months, and that includes my reads of McArdle articles.
Maude
@Villago Delenda Est:
Thank you. Churchill should never been Defence Minister in WWII. He was a nightmare.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik
@Bill H.:
Sorry, I call bullshit. The problem with the second Iraq war was it was hardly one of necessity, and predicated on the idea that ‘OMG SADDAM’S GONNA DIRTY BOMB THE US INTO GLASS!’ Which we all know now was total bupkis, and the humanitarian crises and justifications would have been applied to so many other dictators just as deserving of deposing. And the biggest thing: we never figured out what to do after Saddam was deposed, making the region more unstable than when we dropped in like the Cavalry. I mean, you even admit that the justification was more on ‘OMG MUSHROOM CLOUD’ more than ‘OMG Saddam’s a horrible dictator!’. We didn’t have to depose him, and a full on war, while it ended with his execution, was probably the most inept thing we could have done to undermine him and serve our interests in the region.
As it is, we’re paying tangible consequences for this disaster than the Gulf War or Bosnia, in ways that affect EVERYONE, not just the US or the region.
@Amanda in the South Bay:
@Yevgraf (fka Michael):
And I see there was more bullshit buried there too. Thanks for calling this out, I kept silent due to my admitted ignorance about the Bosnia actions, but it looks like this point from Bill is bunk too.
The Moar You Know
Several years back, I was starting to turn left into a rather large intersection. There were two left turn lanes. The light changed and we all went.
Right then a guy blew the red, and almost hit me and the guy right beside me.
A normal person would at least mouth “I’m sorry”, or back up, or look apologetic. What did this guy do?
HE FLIPPED OFF EVERYONE WHO WAS IN THE INTERSECTION WITH BOTH HANDS, turning around slowly to make sure we all got the message, and then proceeded to drive around us and finish going through.
I will now term this the “Douthat Approach To Driving”. He seems fond of it when applied to military action.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Why does anybody even imply that Douchehat is talking from a logical frame of reference. He’s simply one note amongst many in the mighty Wurlitzer of the right.
Of course he’s gonna criticize Obama. Fuck, if the President had gone in there with F-18s a firing three weeks ago, the right would find fault with it.
BGinCHI
What percentage of America, including the pundit class who went to colleges where they wear ties at dinner, wants leaders to lead us no matter what the consequences or who gets killed?
Determination and certainty instead of strategy and planning?
OzoneR
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
everyone would have, and the media essentially admitted it this weekend.
Scott P.
No, he was a genius, although one with many flaws. Gallipoli aside, he was an excellent First Lord in WWI. He brought Fisher back from retirement, saw that Jellicoe was given command of the Grand Fleet from the start and supported him to the hilt, and oversaw great progress in anti-submarine warfare.
His leadership in WWII was also excellent, and exactly what Britain needed at the time.
Thank goodness he wasn’t, then.
Villago Delenda Est
@BGinCHI:
Planning is for luzers. Von Rumsfailed canned military professionals who wanted to plan for the inevitable occupation of Iraq.
Comrade DougJ
@Yevgraf (fka Michael):
The Bosnia-Georgia war wasn’t much of a war anyway.
I don’t claim Bosnia went perfectly, but I think, in the final analysis, the mission saved a lot of lives and enhanced US international prestige. I know not everyone agrees. I am probably biased by having Croatian friends.
BGinCHI
@Villago Delenda Est: I’m surprised Rumsfeld didn’t just advocate using the military to bomb American schools to just cut out the middle man.
Villago Delenda Est
@Scott P.:
Yeah, but you’ll no more hear of Churchill’s flaws (and they were quite serious) than you’ll hear of the deserting coward’s flaws (which were, and are, overwhelming.)
Hitler was thought of as some sort of military genius, too, when things were going his way. Not so much after Stalingrad.
john b
@Yevgraf (fka Michael):
welcome to last summer
gnomedad
@priscianus jr:
W, in his flight suit, declaring “Mission Accomplished”.
/
TamarianRepublicanVillago Delenda Est
Ok, I will say this for Churchill (and for Hitler): both put their own skin into the game when they were of prime military age.
Compare and contrast with the likes of the deserting coward, Dark Lord Cheney, and asswipes like Douchehat.
RalfW
Apparently, now, even war is to be opposed by Republicans if Obama is for it. Their hatred of all things Barack is greater than their massive love for bombs, killing muslims, and being arm-chair generals. Wow.
Ronc99
Douhat like Sully, believes in religious dogma to support their so called conservatism. Both are RWer knuckledraggers who should be shunned, not repeated!
Paul in KY
@FlipYrWhig: WW II was very liberal. We (along with our allies) liberally kicked Nazi & Imperial Japanese ass. It was all done correctly, as well. Declaration of war, etc. etc.
Comrade DougJ
@Yevgraf (fka Michael):
I posted that last fall and some people thought it was sexist. You can’t win.
Bill H.
@Amanda in the South Bay:
@Yevgraf (fka Michael):
Before you call people stupid, read the news, study history, maybe even think. Russia claimed that if we could intervene militarily to support the split up of the Yugoslav republic into componebt states, then they could intervene militarily to support the split of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. The lead up to the war involved a lot, and I do mean a lot of Russian accusations about our role in Bosnia and the dissolution of states.
Our involvement was highly controversial at the time, and there are those who claim that it actually increased the slaughter. I’m not supporting that claim, but there is no doubt that it contributed to Russia’s claim to legitimacy in supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
RalfW
Maybe Obama’s Saturday weekly message he should talk about his support for apple pie made with genuine Washington state apples, Kansas wheat pie crust, and topped with Vermont dairy ice cream, preferably enjoyed in a protestant church basement.
I look forward to chunky bobo calling for an end to that most wholesome and American of traditions.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I imagine that, were they still alive, Eisenhower and Marshall would be amused by this. How the fuck does this idiot think WW2 in Europe was fought?
Bill H.
@The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik:
See my reply to them regarding the Georgia war. As to Iraq, so there was no “no fly zone” enforcement following Iraq I?
And you yourself say the “omigod WMD” was “bupkis” and yet claim that it was a valid reason for attacking Iraq. And yet you say that I’m stupid.
We continue the “It’s okay if Obama does it” love fest.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Bill H.:
So, basically you are butt hurt that Russia isn’t going back to its 18th-19th century imperialism in an attempt to counterbalance America?
Here’s some history: Russia annexed Georgia in 1800, they are going to want to meddle there regardless of what happened in the Balkans.
And the Muslims of the former Yugoslavia exist today despite cretins like you.
ETA: And we’re supposed to feel sorry that Russians got their fee fees hurt cause their fellow Orthodox Slavs weren’t allowed go genocide the Bosniaks? Why should Russia (apart from centuries of its own imperialist ambitions in that part of the world) have a say in the Balkans? How far is Sarajevo from the Russian Federation?
Seebach
Yeah, it’s taken forever to get into this Libya thing. As I understand it, we’re still negotiating.
Citizen_X
@RalfW: Maybe, but if Operation Odyssey Porn or whatever it’s called + their ODS makes them turn all anti-military-industrial-complex (“Great Republican Eisenhower was right! Cut Pentagon spending 60% now!”), I’m going to join the Republican Party.
Temporarily.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@gnomedad: Figures the side that tries to claim Christianity for its own is full of idolatry.
Tom65
Does anyone want to remind Chunky Bobo that Iraq I actually was a coalition effort?
Barb (formerly Gex)
@RalfW: Don’t worry, though, the right people know the score. Look at the market! It’s a great thing that the right get their war, their war spending, and get to look like their opposed all in one.
Superluminar
@DougJ, @Yevgraf
The thing is, the genius of that song is that he subtly undermines himself lyrically, so the sexist criticism is unfair IMHO.
Marmot
@RalfW: Actually, that’s always been the case. Sly @23 calls it “the demagoguery disguised as pragmatic hand-wringing that was a hallmark of the 90s” Republican critique of U.S. intervention in Somalia and Bosnia.
They were also pissed that Clinton didn’t get more violent with Iraq whenever Iraq turned on an anti-aircraft missile system’s radar. Then they went all-in for war, of course.
It’s all kinda like their history with the deficit. They pegged it on Dems and Clinton in particular, then when the deficit disappeared, Bush II and the Repubs decided the surplus was too large, and that tax cuts should come next. Now as a result, the deficit is bad again under Dems and Obama, so Repubs blame Dems and Obama.
Create a problem, then blame it on your opponents. I still can’t believe it works.
MikeBoyScout
Clearly the graphical design and exhibition logistic decisions for our Libya “Mission Accomplished” banner shall occur at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence.
Belated Happy 8th Anniversary for those of you celebrating Operation Iraqi Liberation!!!!
Cris
The bumbling monocled twits of Old Europe were cowering as they mumbled about appeasement, so John Wayne stepped in, pushed them aside, and throttled Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito all at the same time with his right hand while grabbing Stalin’s balls with his left.
Correct me if I’m wrong
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Tom65: That fact is only salient when a Republican prez is trying to sell a war to the people. Bobo is a master in marketing.
gnomedad
@Barb (formerly Gex):
Just in case you’re not a Trekkie:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Darmok
mark f
Churchill was lucky enough to have his life and rule coincide with Hitler’s. Otherwise he would’ve been the John McCain of mid-20th C. Britain.
Georgia Pig
Hmm, the template is pretty flexible.
jwest
First Obama orders the torture of Bradley Manning, then he sends his “kill team” to murder civilians in Afghanistan and to take pictures while they do it.
As Commander in Chief, he sure is showing Cheney and Bush how it should have been done.
Roger Moore
@Villago Delenda Est:
Why? I thought that Jonah Goldberg had conclusively proven that the Nazis were liberals, so fighting against them must have been a good thing.
cleek
@gnomedad:
nicely done.
cleek
@jwest:
got a link?
Sly
@Bill H.:
A “claim to legitimacy” that wasn’t supported by anyone other than Russia or South Ossetia. At which point using Bosnia as a precedent falls apart, because the intervention in Bosnia was crafted as such to prevent precedents for unilateralism.
In other words, just because they made the claim doesn’t mean the claim is legitimate. For all we know Russia would have evoked Afghanistan ca. 1980 as a precedent for “assisting” S. Ossetia had Bosnia not been available to be twisted to justify their actions.
Roger Moore
@Bill H.:
It was actually the intervention in Kosovo that pissed the Russians off, though, not the one in Bosnia. Right idea, wrong intervention.
jwest
Cleek,
No link needed. As we were taught during the Bush years, every action of every soldier anywhere in the world is directly traceable to and the responsibility of the President.
cleek
@jwest:
ah, i see. you’re a troll.
well, enjoy the pie!
4tehlulz
@jwest: ITT GOP trolls
Culture of Truth
Incredible. It’s like the only unifying concept of modern conservatives to be incompetent, ignorant and wrong.
joe from Lowell
In case it isn’t clear, the subtext of Douthat’s complaint is that our determination to fight this war as part of a genuine alliance, with UN and NATO blessings, will prevent us from putting ground troops into the country. Our allies – the NATO countries like Canada who opposed the Iraq War, as well as the Arab League – are never going to allow that to happen. We’ve already seen pushback from the Arab countries warning of “‘mission creep.”
Douthat’s right on the facts here. Fighting a coalition war really does limit our freedom of operation. What he doesn’t realize is that that’s a good thing.
Comrade DougJ
@Superluminar:
I agree with you.
joe from Lowell
@jwest:
Actually, we have extensive evidence – documents, orders, transcripts of meetings, admissions from the principles themselves – that the Bush administration ordered the torture.
So, once again, do you have even the slightest evidence that Obama ordered Manning’s “torture?” Because, as we learned during the Bush years, that sort of thing leaves a trail of evidence.
Stefan
they tend to be fought by committee
Umm, all wars are fought by committe. And, more on point, Bush’s own Iraq War and Afghanistan War were fought by committee — you only have to read one of thousands of contemporaneous news and magazine articles, books, studies, etc. to read of the contrasting agendas, goals and plans of the multiple committees within the defense, intelligence and diplomatic communities charged with overseeing various aspects of the wars.
Yurpean
@Bill H.: By Bosnia, do you mean Kosovo, because it doesn’t do much for your plausibility when you get your Balkan bits mixed up.
Neo
So does this make Obama … “
” ??
You know the world is upside down when a US president is led into war by a “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey”
Tonal Crow
Whatever the merits and drawbacks of this war, it violates Art.I s.8 cl.11. Enough of the imperial Presidency bullshit already.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
Kucinich and Nader are breathlessly calling for impeachment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2692272/posts
I’m pleased to announce that one of my kids saw Ralph Nader signing books in the Baltimore airport last week, and there were two whole fans there talking to him.
RalfW
I don’t think there is a record to show that Obama ordered Manning tortured. At this point I don’t think there is a record b/c I tend to believe that Obama never ordered such a thing.
But I do think Obama turning a blind eye to what is happening in the brig is illustrative of Obama’s willingness to let it happen.
Oh, well, then, I’m sure it’s fine in there.
cs
@Yurpean:
He definitely meant Kosovo or he should have.
And if he did mean Kosovo, then his statement is partially correct. When Kosovo broke away after the war of 1999, I remember some pundits thinking Kosovo was a dangerous precedent since its example would empower fragmentation in other countries.
So Russia did use the existence of Kosovo as providing cover for creating their own client states, such as South Ossetia. They probably would have ended up in a war with Georgia even if Kosovo hadn’t been freed, but the Kosovo example definitely helped them a bit with the war’s PR.
Chris
@Neo:
Far right assholes in both countries have pointed out that their president wasn’t really French/American, and should in reality be thought of as Hungarian/Kenyan. No doubt the current situation is central to their point.
PTirebiter
@Stefan: Thankfully, Adolf avoided the glacial pace and tactical incompetence of waging his war by committee. Say what you will, the fucker did not dither.
Calouste
@mark f:
Nah, Churchill was a Cabinet minister by the age that McCain was still a fighter pilot whose only claim to fame was that he survived multiple plane crashes. There’s a fairly serious gap in their achievements even if Churchill had never become PM.
srv
Doug, I’ll take the bait.
1) Iraq I did not end in 1991. How many people died as a result of the uprisings and sanctions? What did the war, NFZ and sanctions do to one of the ME’s strongest economies?
2) How many people fled Iraq after 1991? What impact did those having the means to get up and go have on the stability of Iraq post-Saddam?
I think if you total it all up, they were both catastrophes for the Iraqi people. Y’all only take credit for the second act.
PTirebiter
@Yevgraf (fka Michael): Kucinich says he isn’t calling for impeachment, just asserting congress’s role in waging war has been usurped. He has a point but…
IMHO Two nader fans still equals a world gone wrong.
Legalize
Right. Iraq II and Afghanistan, which have been going on for almost 20 years collectively, are the models of quick, tactically brilliant, dust-ups.
Fucking idiots.
Dave N.
@Villago Delenda Est:
And let’s not forget that Churchhill wanted to start WWIII, as WWII was still ongoing in the Pacific, by re-arming the Germans and invading the Soviet Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
Mike in NC
Give this business in Libya exactly ONE WEEK to play out.
If by then Gadaffi isn’t dead or is still merely holding on by his fingernails, the right wing noise machine will be calling it the latest version of “Obama’s Katrina”, complete with black UN helicopters, contempt for the troops, etc. Fox News will lead the charge, with denunciations from neocons like Kristol and Krauthammer, and the MSM will blindly follow them down the rabbit hole.
Hannity and Limbaugh will have specials devoted to the “quandry”. Then Rummy and Cheney will pop up on TV to lecture everyone on the “correct” way to go to war. It’s all so predictable.
joe from Lowell
@Legalize:
Indeed. But let’s dig into this a little deeper.
Douthat is right about some things. Fighting wars as part of alliance – a real one, in which all of the partners matter and get a say – imposes certain restraints, certain tactical restraints. The military command sometimes can’t respond as quickly to a changing situation, they need to get buy-in from a lot of different people. There are also a lot more agendas that need to be met, which can make things like targeting decisions slower. So far, so good, Russ.
But there are two levels of thought when it comes to a war, the tactical and the strategic. The reason we’ll end up being stuck in Iraq for 8-1/2 years, and Afghanistan for over decade, are because of strategic errors, not “tactical incompetence” or a “glacial pace” in the fighting.
And what’s more, it is the very dynamics which “war-by-committee” slows us down, and which cowboy, coalition-of-the-willing unilateralism bypasses, that can help us avoid those strategic errors.
Because we don’t know everything there is to know. Allies and partners know things, too. When they prevent us from doing something, or from doing something in a certain way, there is a good chance that there is a good reason why that action we avoided shouldn’t happen. Not always, but often.
Douthat doesn’t get this. He just accepts, as a definition, that when we are restrained from doing something we might do by our allies, that we are right, and they are wrong.
mark f
@85.Calouste:
Fair enough; I didn’t intend it to be a perfect analogy. I just meant he was constantly rhetoricizing every potential conflict as if all of humanity was at stake. I would’ve said Kristol or Steyn, but at least Churchill, like McCain, put his life on the line as a young man.
OzoneR
@PTirebiter:
Congress signed those powers away themselves.
Now if you want to tell me the Wars Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, or the UN Charter is, then I’m all ears, but Constitutionally, it’s probably fine if someone willingly gives up their power.
Joel
@jwest: Yeah, kind of like that time Obama launched the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Superluminar
@Calouste
I think that was actually a particularly apt analogy. Churchill was basically a professional contrarian, who got a lucky break with WWII. Consider this: crushed the General Strike, wanted to stay on the Gold Standard, responsible for Gallipoli clusterfuck, racist pro-imperial, supported facists Spanish civil war, supported Appeasment of Hitler until Munich agreement… He was rescued by some nifty rhetoric during the war, and to be fair, adopted forward-looking policies after that conflict.
JWL
I submit that “Churchillian unilateralist” is an inherently contradictory term.
And as you’ll go to your grave hearing “the United States could and should have won the war in Vietnam”, prepare yourself to live with: “GW Bush was right to war on Iraq”.
Damned at Random
But Iraq II was the awesomest war. Kick ass and wait for the pussy world to catch up. A real man’s war.
I should know. The ghost John Wayne told me so on my Ouija board.
Brachiator
I finally looked at the Douthat column. What a load. Particularly this:
I missed that part where Dubya’s war on Iraq, built on a foundation of lies and bullshit, delivered a clear victory.
It amazes me no end when conservative pundits act as though they are masters of science or military matters, or most anything, when they don’t even have the slightest clue as to what they are talking about, or even a rudimentary grasp of the facts.
Kathy in St. Louis
Well, if this weasel is correct, then we won in Iraq and have been home for about 8 years, right? No? Well, then I’d say that the results pretty much speak for themselves and that the writer looks like an ass for even stating otherwise.
joe from Lowell
@Superluminar: Used gas bombs in the Middle East to punish communities that withheld taxes.
Chris
@Brachiator:
Then you must have missed THE SURGE!!! Military genius of Hannibalian proportions, which delivered a resounding and total defeat to the terrorists and installed democracy in Iraq once and for all. But then we elected Obama, and everything went to shit!*
*Taken from a Texan history book circa 2020 AD.
Brachiator
@Chris:
In the corrective revisionist text, the Iraqis pulled out their Surge Protector and blunted the US effort. Not Obama’s fault at all.
I wonder sometimes, though, how future historians will look back on this period. If we have a future.
danimal
@Mike in NC:
Mnemosyne
@danimal:
I can’t wait for the half-literate “Black Hawk Down” posters to show up at tea party rallies.
jefft452
No, he was a genius, although one with many flaws. Gallipoli aside, he was an excellent First Lord in WWI. He brought Fisher back from retirement, saw that Jellicoe was given command of the Grand Fleet from the start and supported him to the hilt, and oversaw great progress in anti-submarine warfare”
And brought Turkey into the war in the first place by stealing the Rio de Jeniro from them, not to mention insisting that Battlecruisers be used in the battle line where they got slaughtered instead of as anti-commerce raiders as they were designed to be
Solomon Kleinsmith
Its a little creepy that someone quoted me in the first comment above, but then goes and takes my words into la la land.
I’m pretty clear in the post that I think Obama’s eventual judgement calls have been on the money, but that he doesn’t seem to trust himself to make the decisions without significant pressure to do so. I disagree with a lot of his domestic policy, but if you just made him more decisive, I think the president has good judgement on foreign policy.
Foreign policy isn’t as easy to turn into left-right stuff. You can use left, right and center ish talking points to support or attack the action in Libya. He seems commonsensical… just far too unsure for the leader of the free world.