They depleted the "political patience" of the American public by signing onto wars that they couldn't win on short enough timelines. I don't know why Pentagon planners don't think about that part, but they ought to. A lot of it came from Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule" concept (you break it, you buy it) concept where if we were going …
They depleted the "political patience" of the American public by signing onto wars that they couldn't win on short enough timelines. I don't know why Pentagon planners don't think about that part, but they ought to. A lot of it came from Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule" concept (you break it, you buy it) concept where if we were going to do regime change then we were on the hook for a nation-building mission thereafter, which I always thought was dumb as hell--especially compared to conflicts like Panama and Kuwait. George Bush the senior finished two large-scale conflicts--one of which included regime change, the other didn't--within a 4-year period. Know why? Because he avoided regime changes where he could, and didn't stick around for nation-building missions when he couldn't.
Of course, if Colin Powell were alive today and were confronted with this post-hoc argument he would still probably waive off any kind of personal accountability for pushing that kind of mindset into the Bush admin, because it's like JFK once said: "success has many fathers, failure is an orphan."
Travis, since I have all of you FP experts here do you think it would make any difference if Bush would speak out against Trump. I was very disappointed to hear John Bolton speak today. Yes he said Trump was a danger to America but he also said Biden was too. Arrgh. As an Activist I try to find all the ammunition I can use against Magas in my Red state. Thanks in advance.
I don’t think it would make a difference because the MAGA base hates neocons, the Bush people, and old guard NatSec experts in general. The only people they seem to like in the NatSec realm are guys like Mike Flynn and Allen West who speak out against the old guard. Everyone else is either considered suspect or openly hated.
Very very interesting. I honestly don’t know what the “right” thing to do is but leadership had to know that nation building wasn’t something Americans would be interested in.
I mean it took a huge attack from Japan to force our hand in ww2. It’s amazing that people think that Americans would concern themselves with how women are treated in Afghanistan or Iraq (I’m not saying this as a positive thing just that it is how we are).
"...but leadership had to know that nation building wasn’t something Americans would be interested in."
I think they knew this--which should have been enough to not do it--but I think they also worried about a repeat of the post-WWI situation that led to WWII. Germany had to foot the bill for WWI, leaving them impoverished and susceptible to populist autocrats riding "stab in the back" narratives to power. But even then, that's the German people's fault rather than the allied power's fault in my book. People have agency and choices after wars and we can't absolve them of that by blaming ourselves for not supporting them better via nation-building--which can be done from afar rather than through occupation as it was done after WWII via the Marshal Plan. An alternate scenario to imagine is if we had left after capturing Saddam and discovering no chem weapons (besides the American ones we sent him in the 80's) and then just sending money to whoever filled the vacuum via a kind of neo-Marshall Plan.
It’s why I don’t judge Biden to harshly when it comes to Ukraine (beyond that the republicans wouldn’t do shit for Ukraine). I try to listen to a lot of fp podcasts and I always get mad because every analysis goes “what Biden needs to do is to tell the American people what is at stake and that we want Ukraine to win.” I’m always like are you guys fricking nuts? Do you have any idea who votes? They couldn’t point out Ukraine on a map and couldn’t give a shit if it was run by islamists. You really want to tell Americans how much it will cost for how many years? You want a quick NO or a HELL NO.
These very intellectuals really think it’s another time where a president can mold public opinion (shit Roosevelt was an astounding politician who literally had super majorities in both houses and still couldn’t convince anyone to send shit to Britain for 5 years). Obama who was an amazing political figure couldn’t get more than 52% of the vote. We just live in very different times.
If republicans think their voters will go to war in Iran or Taiwan I got a bridge to know where to sell them
Vietnam started off as a funding/advising campaign until the Turner Joy/Maddox. What happens if Russia starts getting desperate if we ramp up weapons deliveries and decides to hit an American-flagged ship delivering the weapons via a submarine-launched torpedo while denying they did it? I've yet to hear anyone in NatSec land talk about that scenario, and it could potentially draw us into that conflict. At best we'd start sending Navy escort vessels alongside the weapons deliveries and then hope that Russia doesn't engage the delivery ships with the escorts in place.
I still don’t get how these people are still giving us opinions on foreign affairs though. When you fuck up as much as they did you got to question their judgement. Have you noticed that everything is a nail to these idiots
They depleted the "political patience" of the American public by signing onto wars that they couldn't win on short enough timelines. I don't know why Pentagon planners don't think about that part, but they ought to. A lot of it came from Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule" concept (you break it, you buy it) concept where if we were going to do regime change then we were on the hook for a nation-building mission thereafter, which I always thought was dumb as hell--especially compared to conflicts like Panama and Kuwait. George Bush the senior finished two large-scale conflicts--one of which included regime change, the other didn't--within a 4-year period. Know why? Because he avoided regime changes where he could, and didn't stick around for nation-building missions when he couldn't.
Of course, if Colin Powell were alive today and were confronted with this post-hoc argument he would still probably waive off any kind of personal accountability for pushing that kind of mindset into the Bush admin, because it's like JFK once said: "success has many fathers, failure is an orphan."
Wonder where General Powell is? I'm waiting for him to speak out.
That dude has been dead for like 3 years now
Travis, since I have all of you FP experts here do you think it would make any difference if Bush would speak out against Trump. I was very disappointed to hear John Bolton speak today. Yes he said Trump was a danger to America but he also said Biden was too. Arrgh. As an Activist I try to find all the ammunition I can use against Magas in my Red state. Thanks in advance.
I don’t think it would make a difference because the MAGA base hates neocons, the Bush people, and old guard NatSec experts in general. The only people they seem to like in the NatSec realm are guys like Mike Flynn and Allen West who speak out against the old guard. Everyone else is either considered suspect or openly hated.
Just read that covid got him. That's probably why I missed it. Makes me sad. Thanks for the info.
Oh my I didn't know that. Guess I missed that one. My bad. I'm sorry to hear that. Damn. He was one of the good guys.
Very very interesting. I honestly don’t know what the “right” thing to do is but leadership had to know that nation building wasn’t something Americans would be interested in.
I mean it took a huge attack from Japan to force our hand in ww2. It’s amazing that people think that Americans would concern themselves with how women are treated in Afghanistan or Iraq (I’m not saying this as a positive thing just that it is how we are).
"...but leadership had to know that nation building wasn’t something Americans would be interested in."
I think they knew this--which should have been enough to not do it--but I think they also worried about a repeat of the post-WWI situation that led to WWII. Germany had to foot the bill for WWI, leaving them impoverished and susceptible to populist autocrats riding "stab in the back" narratives to power. But even then, that's the German people's fault rather than the allied power's fault in my book. People have agency and choices after wars and we can't absolve them of that by blaming ourselves for not supporting them better via nation-building--which can be done from afar rather than through occupation as it was done after WWII via the Marshal Plan. An alternate scenario to imagine is if we had left after capturing Saddam and discovering no chem weapons (besides the American ones we sent him in the 80's) and then just sending money to whoever filled the vacuum via a kind of neo-Marshall Plan.
I do too.
It’s why I don’t judge Biden to harshly when it comes to Ukraine (beyond that the republicans wouldn’t do shit for Ukraine). I try to listen to a lot of fp podcasts and I always get mad because every analysis goes “what Biden needs to do is to tell the American people what is at stake and that we want Ukraine to win.” I’m always like are you guys fricking nuts? Do you have any idea who votes? They couldn’t point out Ukraine on a map and couldn’t give a shit if it was run by islamists. You really want to tell Americans how much it will cost for how many years? You want a quick NO or a HELL NO.
These very intellectuals really think it’s another time where a president can mold public opinion (shit Roosevelt was an astounding politician who literally had super majorities in both houses and still couldn’t convince anyone to send shit to Britain for 5 years). Obama who was an amazing political figure couldn’t get more than 52% of the vote. We just live in very different times.
If republicans think their voters will go to war in Iran or Taiwan I got a bridge to know where to sell them
Vietnam started off as a funding/advising campaign until the Turner Joy/Maddox. What happens if Russia starts getting desperate if we ramp up weapons deliveries and decides to hit an American-flagged ship delivering the weapons via a submarine-launched torpedo while denying they did it? I've yet to hear anyone in NatSec land talk about that scenario, and it could potentially draw us into that conflict. At best we'd start sending Navy escort vessels alongside the weapons deliveries and then hope that Russia doesn't engage the delivery ships with the escorts in place.
I still don’t get how these people are still giving us opinions on foreign affairs though. When you fuck up as much as they did you got to question their judgement. Have you noticed that everything is a nail to these idiots