Shots In The Dark
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
  Could TR Win in Iraq?
In Slate, David Silbey argues that as we fight the war in Iraq, we could learn from the lessons of Teddy Roosevelt and the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902.

In the Philippines, the United States won with relatively few casualties. A little more than three years after the start of the war, President Theodore Roosevelt could declare victory and, unlike George W. Bush, not be undercut by a continuing insurrection. America succeeded less by waging war and more by waging politics, politics that co-opted much of the Filipino population and isolated the revolutionaries. That victory offers a central lesson for our current involvement in Iraq: Counterinsurgency is less about conquest and more about persuasion.

It's a fascinating piece, and it suggests that a crucial difference between the two conflicts is the men in the Oval Office. GWB, in short, is no TR.

It also suggests at least one disturbing continuity: the use of torture. Now, we water-board. Back then, we used the "'water cure'—in which a captive was forced to drink gallons of water and then vomit it back up...."

And, of course, it raises the question of whether either war was really necessary....
 
Comments:
Not to excuse GWB, but Iraq is a vastly more complicated, dangerous and intractable problem than was ever presented in the Philipines. While it is true that a counterinsurgency must be fought via politics, the real issue is the question you raise at the end: was either war necessary. And the answer, certainly in the case of Iraq, is a resounding no. Not only was the war not necessary, its purpose was clouded by deviant political interests that have severely damaged the country. No amount of persuasian could have changed the outcome in Iraq. Maybe someday the country will find peace, but it won't be through us. The Iraq war is an unalloyed disaster and the longer it goes on, the longer we delude ourselves about war, its purposes and consequences. This country is not angry enough yet, and we're probably going to pay a huge price -- very soon.
 
Yay! I remembered my password. I don't think anyone's been impersonating me, but this should set as ease the minds of those who noted Standing Emu's passing doppelganger difficulty the other week. I just saw it tonight, and would like to add that I appreciate the self-naming shout-out from that personage.

Speaking of which: hello shellgirl! I intend to follow your classy comments with interest; shoulda known you'd be lurking as I am.

To the business of the moment: Richard, what kind of thing does a person who reads the papers have to be smoking to write that last sentence of this post? Did you fall through a wormhole to the hazy capital-gains-tax-cut-relief-addled Gestalt of a dimwit, circa May 2002? Or did you miss the part where the point of the public conversation these days is not to ask whether the war was 'necessary,' but whether we as a nation can live down its criminal folly and negligence so that avenues besides public self-immolation still seem open to us with shreds of self-respect and/or an interest in the noble experiment of democracy?

Shellgirl, if you didn't guess who I am before I bet you have now.

Standing Eagle
 
Oops, standard-issue erratum again: '03, not '02. Duh.

SE
 
What were you smoking when you wrote that penultimate sentence, SE? Sometimes I think you write well, and sometimes I read closely.
 
Hey, anonymous,

If your mom would pay me on time I could smoke the good stuff more often.
 
"A" for effort, SE, but "C" for delivery. The key with the "your momma" tradition is brevity. You've been told before: O.N.W. Forget the salutation and get right at it, perhaps just "your mom reads closely." But still, much improved over your usual treatise.
 
hot air rises
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name: Richard Bradley
Location: New York, New York,
ARCHIVES
2/1/05 - 3/1/05 / 3/1/05 - 4/1/05 / 4/1/05 - 5/1/05 / 5/1/05 - 6/1/05 / 6/1/05 - 7/1/05 / 7/1/05 - 8/1/05 / 8/1/05 - 9/1/05 / 9/1/05 - 10/1/05 / 10/1/05 - 11/1/05 / 11/1/05 - 12/1/05 / 12/1/05 - 1/1/06 / 1/1/06 - 2/1/06 / 2/1/06 - 3/1/06 / 3/1/06 - 4/1/06 / 4/1/06 - 5/1/06 / 5/1/06 - 6/1/06 / 6/1/06 - 7/1/06 / 7/1/06 - 8/1/06 / 8/1/06 - 9/1/06 / 9/1/06 - 10/1/06 / 10/1/06 - 11/1/06 / 11/1/06 - 12/1/06 / 12/1/06 - 1/1/07 / 1/1/07 - 2/1/07 / 2/1/07 - 3/1/07 / 3/1/07 - 4/1/07 /


Powered by Blogger