June 12, 2006
Sequels are never any good
from - RSA
I was against U.S. involvement in the Gulf War, back in 1990. Was I stupid? Looking back, fifteen years later, I don't think so (though I have gone back and forth in my opinion). My objections to it, now, are pretty easy to see as implications of the so-called law of unintended consequences. Basically, the idea is that if the U.S. hadn't gone into Kuwait, there would have been a downside for not having backed an ally, but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as what has actually happened years later.
First the hypothetical downside:
- America's international reputation suffers.
- America's foreign policy becomes more constrained in response.
- Americans pay more for gas.
- A foreign despot in the Middle East increases in strength and influence.
I'll grant that I'm not especially knowledgeable about history, but I see an obvious pattern here, except perhaps for the last point (which I'll argue is pretty much inevitable no matter what we do).
What about unintended consequences? Here's one: According to Wikipedia, "[A]s of the year 2000, 183,000 Gulf War veterans, more than a quarter of the troops who participated in the War, have been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs." The other consequences that I have in mind are more psychological. What lessons did George W. Bush and his cronies learn from the Gulf War?
- It's easy to line up an international coalition for a war in the Middle East. Not so much.
- A war doesn't need to cost much, and the burden can be spread around internationally. Not so much.
- A war can be won quickly and easily, with few casualties. Not so much.
- The people in a war zone will be grateful to the soldiers. Some, but not all.
- The American people will stand behind a man who stays the course. I do think this is true, but the underlying assumption is that the man is not a lying dunce.
I'm sure it would be possible to construct a very long list of comparisons of what went right in Desert Storm and what went wrong in Iraqi Freedom, but it would be a bit depressing.
Posted by RSA at June 12, 2006 05:59 PM
I supported/do support the first Gulf War... It is/was too easy to do an action like that, versus doing something of equal importance in non-Gulf areas, especially Africa.
And it wasn't consistent with our past foreign policy of permissiveness and assistance to the Iraqi war regime... but it was the right thing to do for Kuwait and for international law.
So, I think we need to rethink our policy for intervention in the face of unprovoked aggression, but the world - including the U.S. - is not safe when aggressors are allowed to violently undermine their neighbors' sovereignty and reap benefit from it.
The direct consequences - i.e. American, foreign casualties? I don't think they are nearly so dire as it would have been to allow Saddam's aggression to go unchecked... the war would have had to be fought sooner or later, and later the direct consequences would have been much greater - maybe even like WWII.
The indirect consequences? They were not merely consequences of the war - they were consequences of our (by "our" I mean the American body politic's) inability to discern the correct lessons, and apply them according to a consistent and enlightened foreign policy. I think that rather than refraining from doing what was necessary and right in response to Saddam's aggression, we should focus more on promoting understanding history and world affairs, and fostering a sense of peace-loving justice among Americans and the world. Doing the latter, I believe, would have been just as likely to prevent the current war as doing the former would have.
|
Posted by smijer on June 12, 2006 06:29 PM Link to comment |
The US abandoned hundreds of thousands of Shia to mass graves because we left Saddam in place after the first Gulf War. It's a horrible stain on our country.
I have no idea what the normal rate of findings for service connection are and if 1/4 is particularly high or not. The services to encourage you to get a full exam at discharge and VA will now do a Comp and Pen exam at discharge to get everything established... so hearing loss, back and joint problems are documented with a zero percent service connected rating. That way as the Veteran ages and problems become evident, the service connection has already been established.
That Gulf War Illiness has completely fallen off the media's radar screen is interesting.... Sec Principi under Presendent Bush finally recognized it as a legit ailment which Clinton consistenly failed to recognize.
|
|
Posted by Bill Baar on June 13, 2006 12:17 AM Link to comment |
Interesting. You guys are both probably better versed in history than I am; I think that a lot of the differences in our opinions may have to do with how we assess the likelihood of different outcomes that didn't happen.
|
|
Posted by RSA on June 13, 2006 01:06 PM Link to comment |
RSA - nice to find a point of disagreement... makes it more like a discussion.
|
|
Posted by smijer on June 13, 2006 01:35 PM Link to comment |
I heard Gen Wes Clark describe a Shia Mayor pleading with him not too pull back his troops to the agreed lines at the end of the first gulf war. He knew Saddam would slaughter his town which had risen up to welcome the coaliton.
|
|
Posted by Bill Baar on June 14, 2006 12:15 PM Link to comment |
Pardon my skepticism, but General Clark was training troops stateside throughout Desert Storm. Did this Shia mayor come to Fort Irwin, California to plead?
|
|
Posted by smijer on June 14, 2006 12:32 PM Link to comment |
