At a forum here in Boston yesterday, former Nixon advisor Al Haig said that the Bushies are repeating a mistake made in Vietnam by not applying the full force of the military to “win” the war in Iraq:
- “Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don’t do it,” Haig said
Actually, it’s not totally clear to me that Haig was saying there that the US still should be trying toi “apply the full force of the military”– or was the quoted statement perhaps meant as a critique of the Bushies’ past actions? Well, I wasn’t there, so I’ll have to trust the reporting of that AP reporter as to what Haig meant.
Either way, though– what an incredibly stupid, irresponsible, and I would say even borderline criminal statement!
Has Haig forgotten that back in March-April 2003, the US did win a decisive military victory in Iraq? Fat lot of good it did them! This is not now and never has been a war that could be won solely on the battlefield. The application of more forces, even of “every asset of the nation”, whether back in March 2003 or now in 2006, could not have “won” the war if there wasn’t a vision for how to translate that military victory into a political victory.
If Haig was indeed urging that now, in 2006, the US should be applying “every asset of the nation” to the war in Iraq– just exactly what military targets does he advocate that they target? And how, once they’ve achieved that, do they intend to transform that new military situation into a political victory?
At the same event, which was a forum on the Vietnam war held at the Kennedy Library, the ageing Henry Kissinger was also on the platform.
Here’s some of his interaction with questioners from the audience:
- He refused to directly respond to a question, submitted by the audience and read by a moderator, that asked if he wanted to apologize for policies that led to so many deaths in Vietnam.
“This is not the occasion,” Kissinger said. “We have to start from the assumption that serious people were making serious decisions. So that’s the sort of question that’s highly inappropriate.”
In another audience question, Kissinger was asked whether he agreed that the U.S. bombing of Cambodia led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, and, if so, was he responsible for the 2 million people the Khmer Rouge killed?
“The premise that the bombing of a 5-mile strip led to the rise of Khmer Rouge and the murder of two million people is an example of masochism that is really inexcusable,” he said.
These responses are interesting. Wth regard to the first one, why is his assumption that a suggestion that he apologise for the Vietnam-era deaths is not “serious”? An apology could be an extremely serious political act– as when, for example, President Clinton apologized to the Rwandans for the US’s failure to act to stop the 1994 genocide.
His response to the second question is simply an example of out-and-out evasion of any responsibility.
What a sad, sad old guy.
Here’s what he said about the US invasion of Iraq:
- Kissinger also spoke about the war in Iraq, saying he supported the invasion.
“We have a jihadist radical situation,” he said. “If the U.S. fails in Iraq, then the consequences will be that it motivates more to move toward the radical side. This is the challenge.”
What a jumbled argument. In 2002-early 2003, there was no “jihadist radical situation” in Iraq. (Even today, that is not the main thing that’s going on there.) Yes, since April 2003, some very serious “jihadist radical” elements have emerged in Iraq. But that emergence cannot be used, ex post facto, to justify the invasion. And nor can it be used to justify the continued US military occupation of the country– especially since it is precisely under the circumstances of that occupation that the “jihadist radical” elements have emerged.
Why did anyone ever take this sorry old guy’s “intellect” seriously at all? He strikes me as just a muddled, highly irresponsible, imperialistic old bully.
The “Jihadist radical” elements in Iraq aren’t a justification of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, they are the reason that the operation must continue until a successful conclusion.
It’s as if you operated on a patient for a tumor, opened him up, found there was no tumor, but the patient meanwhile started bleeding and an infection set in. You just don’t walk away letting the patient die because the operation “Wasn’t justified”. You have to stop the bleeding and cure the infection before sewing up the patient.
I think Kissinger is just evil.
WarrenW, your analogy is not appropriate. People with tumors give informed consent for an operation, and then they are treated with utmost care.
Neither happened in Iraq.
And, I would say, if someone opened up a patient for a tumor, started up an infection, and could not control the bleeding, then another surgeon needs to get in there ASAP to fix the mess before the patient dies. And the original surgeon needs to be investigated, at the very least.
Got to admit – that would be a highly incompetent surgeon – misdiagnose, start up infection, not contol the bleeding even. Sounds like he wants to kill the patient.
I’d require the surgeon, or a suitable replacement, to take all necessary care of the patient. I’d then fire the first surgeon for his misdiagnosis.
whoever played kissenger in “Nixon” was awesome. As was the movie.
It’s as if you operated on a patient for a tumor, opened him up,
http://waitinginthelight.blogspot.com/
WarrenW, if you want to use analogies, I think this one is more accurate –
The US is like a bull in the china shop of Iraq. It just keeps breaking things. All that it can do is break things. It doesn’t know how to and is not capable of fixing anything. Rational people just want to get that damn bull out of the china shop and back into the cage where it belongs.
Kissinger was an ass when he was in power and is still an ass. Thank God that time has made him irrelevent.
Roy
Great post, Helena!
If you have a better surgeon, by all means bring in a replacement. I am a fan of Iraqi democracy, not of G W Bush.
The number of deaths in Iraq is lower now than it was when Saddam Hussein was ruling Iraq. It’s hard to believe but it’s true. It’s just all on TV now.
The US has a history of improving the situation in many countries, it is not a bull in a china shop, the US has liberated: France, Holland, Denmark, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Belgium, South Korea, sometimes the Phillipines (and sometimes not), Greece, Italy and so on. Japan and Germany are doing rather well, also. It is much more like a doctor who doesn’t save 100% of his patients than like a bull in a china shop.
I am very wary of people like the late Tom Fox who got all sentimental about the people who died in the Iraq war but didn’t do anything about the ongoing massacres under Saddam Hussein. I suspect that people who behave that way care more for hurting the US than for helping Iraqis.
“The number of deaths in Iraq is lower now than it was when Saddam Hussein was ruling Iraq. It’s hard to believe but it’s true.”
And your evidence for this claim would be??????
I have been following the number of mass graves uncoverd in Iraq from Saddam’s time. They number from 10,000 to 12,000 with about half the suspected sites not evacuated. Those suspected sites are also thought to be smaller than the ones already uncovered.
The number in mass graves in Fallujah from US violence is more than 1,000, probably about 1,400.
In Saddam’s trial, they clearly had a trial before they executed the 148 men who were accused of trying to kill Saddam. Another point in the trial is that Saddam ordered the destruction of orchards.
Which is exactly what US troops have done in Iraq also, only without any trials.
“I am very wary of people like the late Tom Fox who got all sentimental about the people who died in the Iraq war but didn’t do anything about the ongoing massacres under Saddam Hussein. I suspect that people who behave that way care more for hurting the US than for helping Iraqis.”
And your evidence that Tom Fox did nothing about the massacres under Saddam would be???
I have heard that Tom Fox attended Quaker meetings for over 20 years. I do believe that the Quakers have spoken out often about the killings of Saddam, against Saddam’s war on Iran, against Saddam going into Kuwait, and against the US support of Saddam in the 1980’s.
And I am certain the Quakers spoke out against the US veto of the UN resolution against Saddam’s massacres in Halabja. You know, the one where he “killed his own people”… even though many of “his own people” were fighting for the other side.
Now, I don’t know for sure if Tom Fox himself did this, but I did. So I therefore did “do something about the massacres of Saddam” in that I lobbied, wrote, called and spoke out against the US support of Saddam and his war against Iran.
I speak out against anyone and everyone who uses violence to solve problems. Of course, I work on the government that is answerable to me, since I cannot impact on the governments in other countries, can I?
And in light of the fact that the USA has killed tens of thousands of innocents, and helped evil dictators like Saddam kill even more….well, if speaking out and standing up to the US government hurts the USA, then so be it. They need to be stopped.
Evil needs to be stopped where ever it is, and morality is not “relative”.
Tom Fox gave up his life for peace and justice. To belittle him is to debase your own sense of decency and morality.
Tom Fox and the Quakers have called for no acts of retribution. They call for prayers for the killers of Tom Fox. They are attempting to follow in the example of Jesus, who said “Father, forgive them” (not “hunt them down and kill them”) while on the cross. The Quakers believe that violence leads to more violence and wars never solve more problems than they create.
The Quakers were right about slavery, right about equal rights for all, right about standing against the genocide of the native people of America, and right about war.
Nice post, Susan.
WarrenW, you really cannot quote past achievements of the US and use that to justify the current mess in Iraq. Our success in the past is immaterial – this is a different administration in a different time with a different civilian population and IMHO different goals, tactics and strategies.
Analogy time again, since I’m from MN, what you’re suggesting is like telling Kirby Puckett that since he was such a popular figure during his playing days and did so many nice things for kids and charities, well we can overlook the wife beating and sexual indiscretions in his later years. Nope, doesn’t work.
“A better surgeon” would be the Iraqis themselves. Let them make their country in their own vision. Civil war? Maybe if the populace want to go that way. Another dictator or a theocracy? Perhaps. A secular state as it was under Saddam? Maybe. Whatever it is, the Iraqis are the ones that need to work it out. Can the US and other nations stand by to help? I would think so – but not active military participation. The key word is self-determination. The US can serve diplomatic and business roles as mentors, advisors, customers, partners, and vendors but it is inappropriate of the US to force a vision upon Iraq. Remember, the US started this with an unjustified, illegal invasion. We diposed a strong dictatorship that was in fact holding the nation together. The country is broke but it is beyond the US to fix. Concievably we could enforce stability on the country through force but this would be imperialistic and also illegal not to mention very bloody. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The US presence as an occupying army is an instigator of violence. It will always be that way and will beome more pointed as time goes by. The US cannot fix this except by getting out and letting the Iraqis work it out.
The problem is that the Bush administration will not leave Iraq. Sure, they will talk of troop reduction and will pull out some ground forces, but we are building the largest embassy in the world there for a reason. Not only is it the largest, but it is the most fortified. We are also building 4 permanent bases there, highly fortified, also because there is absolutely no intention of leaving Iraq. So we have war, insurgency, pacification campaigns (orwellian?), and death squads so reminiscent of those in El Salvador under Negreponte’s watch. It’s not cool. I consider GWB a criminal for creating this environment in which so many people are being killed. GW – the unAmerican President.
I think your site is very good and complete, but the information you have here
I think your site is very good and complete, but the information you have here