This is strange. This is the angriest picture I've ever seen of Jim. Normally, he's so mild-mannered looking. Where did I get it? His campaign website, of all places...
I was more than a bit alarmed when the HuffPost reported, somewhat confusingly, that “Jim DeMint advisers say he’s not the shutting door on a presidential run.”
Well, I certainly wish he would “the shut door.” Slamming it would be better. Nailing the sucker shut would help me sleep at night.
Then our good friend Peter Hamby had to threaten my future slumbers with this:
Washington (CNN) – News that South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint will travel to Iowa on March 26 to address a conservative forum organized by Rep. Steve King is sparking another round of chatter that DeMint might launch a dark horse bid for the White House in 2012.
The Republican gadfly has been adamant in denying such intentions for more than a year – just Wednesday, he gave CNN’s Wolf Blitzer a flat “No” when asked if he plans to seek his party’s presidential nomination.
But the ground may be shifting in DeMint-world, and several of his closest advisers and political confidantes are now telling CNN that he is at least open to a presidential bid if a suitably conservative candidate fails to emerge from the early and wide-open GOP field.
“I think that you can read into it that he sees he has a role in the process and he hasn’t completely shut the door,” said one DeMint adviser asked about the Iowa foray.
Perhaps a beer would help calm me down as bedtime approaches. But they say I shouldn’t have a beer after giving blood. I’ll just have to tough this out…
Related Posts
That’s a pretty high barrier he’d have to hurdle to run. Suitably conservative contenders include (presumably) Huckabee, Palin, Jindal, Rubio. I think it’s likely at least one of those will make the race. Besides, our junior Sen has figured out it’s sometimes better to be a kingmaker than a king.
Exactly how is DeMint any different from the 2008 version of John McCain? McCain even selected the Tea Party queen as his running mate.
Oh, help.
Are you afraid he might win the election? And by that, I mean win the majority of the votes from Americans who feel DeMint’s philosophy is what this country needs? You know, like Obama did.
I hope he runs. I hope Rand Paul runs. I hope Mitt Romney runs. Let the guys with the best ideas run and if one of them wins, then let’s agree that America wants a different form of government than we have now.
Obama will have a track record to run on. Right now, he’s no lock for re-election.
No, but I think a quick trip to Vegas and a few hours at the gaming tables will calm him down.
May Sen. Demint’s Presidential run be as successful as Sen. Hollings.
Doug, I wasn’t aware that DeMint has any “ideas”. I understand he has “principles”…such as “gays are evil and second-class”, and “big government is always bad (except the military)”.
I would love for him to run. Please, run, Jim! Run! I would especially like to see him run on a platform that includes re-instating DADT…or perhaps outright banning gays from all sectors of public service. Good luck, Jim! I don’t think anybody fears that he will “win”. The fear is probably that he will continue to embarrass our state with his bigotry and fear-mongering. We haven’t recovered from the Sanford tragicomedy yet. DeMint will bury us.
But, personally, I hope he runs. He has no coalition, and no path to the White House (just like Palin, just like Bachmann). It would be, at the least, extremely entertaining to watch the 3 of them on stage (and maybe Newt, too), all attempting to out-froth each other.
These loons are going to chop each other up so bad in the primary season. Now all we need is for Ron Paul to run as a third-party candidate instead of a Republican, and Obama walks to home plate.
Actually, Doug — and everybody — I like, and respect, Jim DeMint a LOT more than I do Palin, Rubio, Bachman, or (forgive me) Rand Paul.
He’s a serious guy, a man of respect (as opposed to a comical figure like poor Sarah). But he’s an ideological extremist, and we don’t need anyone like that anywhere near the White House.
I don’t think Jim has much of a shot at the nomination. The snake-worshippers (I refer to the photo above) may adore him, but the GOP mainstream, particularly among the leadership, has a lot of reason to resent him. And that will tell in a long primary fight.
So one is tempted to say, “Let him waste time on this; maybe it would mean he would do less harm in other ways.” But actually, I think Jim would, in order to promote his candidacy, would step up his self-aggrandizing ideological trouble-making in Washington (and vice-versa — his candidacy could be seen as a great way to get even more attention for his other activities). None of which is good for the country.
The Babushka front and center says it all. Classic.
@Doug, in contrast to Rand Paul, or even to Mitt Romney, DeMint is a potentially far more divisive figure because of his culture-war religious-fundamentalist extremism. It’s questionable whether any member of the “Family,” the C Street gang, could be a plausible Presidential candidate. DeMint might find the going easier in Uganda, where his fellow “Family” member David Bahati (member of Ugandan Parliament) has been leading the charge for the death-penalty-for-gays law, and helping to foment the general atmosphere of anti-gay violence that just claimed the life of gay rights activist David Kato.
True libertarians among the Tea Party crowd will not countenance DeMint’s culture-war activism and belief in intrusive government.
Since Brad ignored my question I’ll go ahead and answer it. McCain and DeMint are basically the same. They even have the same number of letters in their name and capitalize the third letter. McCain oppossed Obamacare. So did DeMint. McCain is pro war. So is DeMint. McCain is anti immigrant. So is DeMint. Both have cowtowed to the Tea Party as evidenced by McCain’s choice for running mate. Both talk a good game when it comes to the budget deficit but neither offers any military spending cuts. Both oppose earmarks. Both are smug. Just go check out McCain’s horrendous response to the woman who asked: “How will you beat the Bitch”.
When it comes to the good of this country both Jim DeMint and John McCain are out of touch with reality. Actions speak for themselves regardless of whatever worthless rhetoric they throw out.
I’m not saying DeMint could win or that I would even vote for him. But if he wants to run, let him. And if by whatever fluke he happens to win, then the people have spoken, right? Even if “he’s an ideological extremist”.
I’m for getting as many ideas into the public forum as possible and having people debate the merits.
Although I would never vote for Guiliani, I watched a very good sit down interview he did with Piers Morgan on CNN the other night. (Note: Morgan is far, far better than Larry King). Morgan was tough but fair and gave Rudy ample time to answer. Rudy is smart, just wrong on a lot of things (like the war). Sarah Palin could never handle that type of interview… but I bet DeMint could.
Let me put it this way from a tactical perspective – could Jim DeMint win the nomination? Maybe finish second or third in Iowa… second or third in NH… first in SC… could he win Texas? Georgia?
There are also a lot of politicians who now owe DeMint some payback.
I don’t particulary care for Jim DeMint’s politics but he’s refreshing in some ways. He doesn’t pretend to be one of the “let’s get along” guys that just want’s to get legislation passed. He wants policies and laws that he believes will be good for America. And he doesn’t mince words about what he wants. And he’s certainly not a mealy mouthed lout like Lindsey Graham.
I’m a bit prickly right now because of one particular news story that just frustrates me to no end. That’s the political riots in the middle east especially Egypt. After Jimmy Carter successfully brokered a peace between Isreal and Egypt back in the 70s we have been determined to squander the momentum toward peace in the region with our continued waging of war. Why do we have such a self-defeating foreign policy? We simply must be a neutral in the region and get our own troops out while at the same time working toward a peaceful resolution to the region’s problems. Jimmy Carter understood that. Why haven’t politicians since gotten the same message?
Actually, bud, things are going pretty well. The swamps are now starting to drain themselves.
Yes, it’s a mess at the moment. But these developments are quite promising. Of course, we’re all waiting to see whether this is the fall of the Berlin Wall, or Tiananmen Square… Change is always risky. But the status quo was unacceptable.
DeMint booster — He REALLY BELIEVES in his idiocy.
Brad illustrates my point. Egypt is likely to make a sharp turn toward an Islamic Theocracy just as Iran did. Yet somehow all the death and destruction is viewed by the Neocons as “draining the swamp”. To continue with the analogy, if we drain the swamp that will leave the alligators with no safe haven and they’re likely to turn on us with a vegance.
Bud, While McCain and DeMint may have some similarities, I personally see the difference being a matter of degree. DeMint is way more rigid than McCain. I would take McCain over DeMint any day. I don’t like all his positions, by any means, but I think he is at least capable of having a dialogue. DeMint is one note charlie – not much processing happens once he gets an idea in his head.
You’re right, Bud. (Did y’all catch that? We were talking foreign policy, and I said, “You’re right, Bud.”) It’s a scary situation, and the more I dwell on it, the more I worry about it.
Because, well, when the swamps drain themselves, some really bad stuff can flow in place of the authoritarianism that was there before. That’s why it’s better to drain them systematically, with a large occupation force in place while liberal institutions take root and grow. Say, a force the size of what we had in-theater in 1991, which is why we SHOULD have taken Baghdad then, rather than waiting to do it on the cheap later.
But, I find that we’re in danger of disagreeing now…
Back to agreeing…
I shouldn’t have been so sanguine about the situation in that thoughtless comment yesterday. Egypt is increasingly looking like a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. A lot of those people in the street no doubt see Mubarak as OUR guy, that that is likely to incline them away from Western values, which would be cool (to each his own) except that that tends to militate against liberalism, which, in that region, means a big opportunity for the nastiest sorts of Islamists.
So once again we see the central dilemma of foreign policy, at least in that part of the world (and we’ve seen the same in SE Asia and Africa and South America and other places): Do you back the strongman and overlook his unseemly characteristics for the sake of stability and keeping out the communists/Islamists/what have you, or do you take a risk on disorder?
(At this point, Bud and Doug and others will insist that we DON’T have to make such choices, that we can just disengage and pull our heads into our shell and put what remains of our army down along the Rio Grande to keep those terrible, awful, frightening Mexicans out. But that is an option that doesn’t exist; it is based in a neo-Jeffersonian fantasy of what this nation should be and can be. This country is SO entangled in the world, so interdependent with it, that that course is no longer even close to being possible, even if it were a good idea, which it isn’t.)
Of course, they aren’t always OUR strongmen. Take Tito. Take the strong Soviet hand in Yugoslavia. Freedom and liberal values certainly didn’t flow into the Balkans once the Evil Empire fell. It took a hell of lot of sustained Western effort (and prolonged troop presence) even to create a space in which the violence could abate, much less have decent civil institutions emerge.
The 2003 Iraq invasion was a big course change for the U.S. on that eternal question (back or tolerate the strongman, or allow or create a risky vacuum?). As I’ve said many times before, before 9/11 we were firmly in the “back or tolerate the strongman” camp throughout the region. We were for the status quo. Then we woke up to what the status quo was producing — those alligators to which Bud refers. So we decided to do the risky thing — take down a strong man, and see what happens. Of course, we SHOULD have managed what happened — in keeping with the Pottery Barn analogy that when you break it, you own it. But Bush/Rumsfeld, tragically, were not prepared to accept that responsibility, and let things get out of hand in the aftermath of the brief war that toppled Saddam.
Nevertheless, there were good effects throughout the region at first — Qaddhafi giving up the quest for WMD, progress for liberal elements in Lebanon, even some loosening up in Saudi Arabia. But that didn’t last long, and many of those advances reversed, as we got bogged down in Iraq and divided at home, and it became clear that Iraq wasn’t the start of something, that no one else in the region was “next.” Today, our will to make a difference in the region is so weak that we’re antsy to cut and run in Afghanistan — you know, the place where al Qaeda was cosseted and nurtured.
So… now the people who live under repressive regimes are taking matters into their own hands. And given the demons that haunt that region, ANYTHING could sweep into the vacuum. And the probability is high that that anything will be something pretty unpleasant.
So I’m regretting being so Pollyannish about it yesterday…
I’m still trying to understand how, since the alligators who attacked us on 9/11 were nurtured in the Wahabi swamps of Saudi Arabia, and matured in the Taliban swamps of Af-Pak, it made sense to take out a de-fanged secular strongman in Iraq. There’s always a good case to be made for taking out a tyrant. But you’d probably want to make sure you take out the right tyrant, at the right time, with the right method. Eh?
As opposed to the Rumsfeld/Cheney spin-the-bottle method.
“Listen, Dick…our biggest threats are here and here. BUT…maybe if we invade over HERE, and take out this loser who everybody hates anyway, then maybe the entire region will MAGICALLY TRANSFORM!”
“I like your style, Don. But who can we get to sell it at the UN? We’d need someone with spotless military and diplomatic credentials…unlike, um, us.”
“What about Colin?”
Brad speaks of “the central dilemma of foreign policy…Do you back the strongman and overlook his unseemly characteristics for the sake of stability and keeping out the communists/Islamists/what have you, or do you take a risk on disorder?”
Here’s a wild and crazy thought: How about what do the people of the country themselves want? Whoa, what a concept, huh? Surprise, the world does not exist as the sole plaything of the USA, with all things dependent on “gee should we pursue course A or course B?.” And you’re raising a tired straw man in accusing Bud and Doug, or me, of outright isolationalism. Of course we are inextricably bound in many ways to the events in the world today, but there is a vast gulf between crawl-in-a-shell isolationalism and the gee-let’s-push-this-button-and-see-what-happens global adventurism of post-Wilsonian neo-conservatism.
As for “a big opportunity for the nastiest sort of Islamists,” the largest opposition group in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, is itself reviled by Al Qaeda and similar extreme Islamist fanatic groups, for being committed to nonviolence and to democratic principles. Mubarak (and his ilk in the region) have played that “it’s us or the Islamists” card successfully for a long time now. We have to keep our eyes wide open, to be sure, but even if they play a major role in a new government we need not fear this tide of regime change that may be in the middle of being generated from within the countries themselves. We can’t intervene on behalf of the uprisings, because that stamps them with the imprimatur of “outside interference.” But we can make back-channel efforts (which I bet are going on feverishly right now in Mubarak’s case) to set up 3rd-party places of exile for deposed leaders. The people in the streets in Cairo now, or in Tunis last week, and maybe in Jordan or Yemen next, want the same things all of us want: a job, enough to eat, a roof over our heads, a sense that there is a future. They want a “third way”: that is, they want neither to be subjugated by a authoritarian regime propped up by the US, nor do they want their movement of liberation to be co-opted by US intervention and thus swept up into a larger narrative of geopolitical gamesmanship (see Iraq). In other words, Brad, they do not see themselves at all as just bit players in this US foreign policy question, but as a driving force in the future of their own nation.
If we have the wisdom to let history take its course, with wise and careful diplomacy at work behind the scenes, we may well find that our own security will be enhanced beyond what any of our steps towards “war-with-no-end-ever” will have produced.
Phillip, I hope you’re being facetious with that “How about what do the people of the country themselves want” stuff.
You seem to think that by taking a position — recognize or not recognize, trade with or not, or any of the thousands of other decisions we must make with regard to other nations — one is somehow IMPOSING upon the will of other peoples.
Sorry, guys, but we do have to make such decisions. Everybody expects the United States to do so. And the U.S. is so linked in with the world, so much the 800-lb. gorilla, that deliberately trying NOT to take a position is also a position, with consequences.
Sure, I’m prejudiced here — as a guy who has spent so much of his adult life taking positions on everything, it’s harder for me to imagine NOT doing so than it is for others. But I think I’m still seeing the position clearly when I realize that in the world of 24/7 instantaneous communications, every SECOND that a position is not taken increases tension.
Have you ever, for instance, watched the way the media pressure the president of the US to “take positions” on things that have ZERO to do with his job (my favorite example was the newspeople standing outside the White House tensely waiting for the president to have something to say about the Columbine shootings). The pressure is infinitely greater to take positions on the things that ARE in the president’s job description, such as foreign policy.
This “let those people decide” thing sounds lovely, peaceful, humble, whatever. And you know what? Ultimately, they will. But in the meantime, not giving a damn, and not taking a position, is not an option.
As Phillip correctly stated, I am not an isolationist. I believe the U.S. should defend itself with all of its full force WHEN WE ARE THREATENED BY ANOTHER NATION. That has yet to happen in my lifetime.
We have enough problems in this country that we don’t need to go looking for places to exert our will upon others. It hasn’t made things any better that I can see and has cost us significantly in human life (ours and innocent civilians) as well as weakened us as a nation because our government leaders are unwilling to actually pay for the wars they wage. If there is a war, declare it. If there is a battle to be waged abroad, make sure Americans are willing to make the sacrifice to pay for it.
Lats point – “Everybody expects the United States to do so.” Says who? Who is “everybody”? It’s not nearly half of all Americans. And it isn’t a majority of the people in the places we’re fighting.
We screwed up in Vietnam and didn’t learn from that mistake. We’ll keep screwing up as long as there is money to be made dropping bombs on other countries.
This was the one area I thought Obama could have lived up to his pre-election hype. He didn’t.
What has been missing in large part since the Carter administration is some type of intermediary work between the various factions. Now we have a great opportunity to do so in Egypt. What is missing, or so it seems outwardly, is the coherent factions that we will need to be the intermediary of. Yes, I give a damn and it’s mostly about how absolutely critical it is NOT to have a military role in the events as they unfold. That’s where we get into trouble.
And that’s the point that Brad and others fail to grasp. It wasn’t that the Iraq occupation was handled poorly. Rather it was that the Iraq occupation was handled at all. Let’s learn from that debacle and try to steer a diplomatic path in Egypt. Heaven help us if we get this wrong and Egypt becomes a beligerant of Israel once again. That would set us back a good 30 years. Thankfully we have a bright young president in charge and not a neocon imbicile.
Well, once again, you posit a false choice. Who’s not giving a damn? But does “giving a damn” have to involve guns and bombs always? The link I posted on your later entry (the headlines) lays out pretty well what the Obama Administration seems to be doing, and it certainly is not about not giving a darn or not taking a position. That’s not what I’m hearing from this administration. They’re threading a needle here, and so far doing a good job. I never said “take no position.” I mentioned diplomacy for example, behind the scenes stuff. Not the Bush-Cheney way, I realize, but I think more effective here than Texas-style bluster.
Also, you know as well as I do that the problems in American foreign policy post WWII have to do with things far beyond “recognizing or not recognizing, trade with or not.” That wasn’t our issue in Iran in 1954, or 1979. That wasn’t our issue with Iraq in 2003. That wasn’t our issue with Vietnam in the 1960’s. That wasn’t our issue with El Salvador in the 1980’s. When we talk about “imposing,” we are talking about something much deeper, ex. the idea that our choices are limited to empowering and enabling authoritarian regimes or to actively overthrow them via military force.
And I was facetious to the same extent you were facetious about “it’s better to drain [the swamps] systematically, with a large occupation force in place while liberal institutions take root and grow.” Yeah, that’s just what Egypt needs, a large occupying force.
Obama’s restraint is probably the best and only course of action that can be taken right now.
The invasion of Iraq, and the US’ passive permission to let Israel continue it’s ethnic cleansing and humiliation of Palestinians, plus many other aspects of our foreign policy, have led to radicalization of the Muslim world. We have pursued policies for years that have made the situation worse, not better.
If there was no profit to be made from warmongering I seriously doubt that “we” would be trying to drain so many swamps.
Sigh. I always forget how quickly I tired of these war-and-peace discussions. We talk past each other. For instance, my antiwar friends think that it you don’t rule out military action walking in (as bud would do), then your position is, as Phillip put it, that you “have to involve guns and bombs always.”
Guys — and gals — as I’ve explained a gazillion times, force is just one of the things you always have in your toolbox, oiled up and ready to go, along with all your other tools. If you DON’T have it, you might as well not show up — just as you should stay home if you’re not going to bring diplomacy and trade and humanitarian aid and all your other tools along.
And of course, you make sure everyone knows you’re prepared to use it, that it’s not just in the box to look impressive.
Speaking of using all your tools, what do y’all think about the reports, from Russia and the Jerusalem Post via Wikileaks, that the uprising is a CIA op? That we’re behind the opposition?
While I don’t know how I would have felt about it ahead of time, now that the uprising has happened and actually seems to be toppling the regime, I hope it’s true. It would be SO much better if the new regime saw us as being on their side, rather than as Mubarak’s buds.
Of course, it would probably be best that it remain deniable. Don’t want to lose our cred with our other “friends” around the globe.
Diplomacy, especially when it gets muscular, is a delicate thing.
The best analogy for America now is Mike Tyson. At one point, he was the baddest man on the planet. Anyone who messed with him went down fast and went down hard. But then something happened. Tyson got so full of himself that he started looking for trouble. What good is an awesome left hook if nobody stands in front of you to challenge you.
So we have this awesome military power that sees the Cold War pulled out from under them and they start searching for some weakling standing on the corner. “You looking at me, Grenada? What’s your beef, Iraq? Hey, you, Libya, are you eyeballing me?”
We flex our muscles again… get all pumped up… and then, like Tyson, end up bankrupt and a shell of our former selves.
And then we could talk about how we feel about the apparent vindication of the Bush Freedom Agenda…
I am such a trouble-maker…
“Of course, it would probably be best that it remain deniable. Don’t want to lose our cred with our other “friends” around the globe.”
Yeah, better to wait for the Wikileaks memos to come out and prove we’re liars than tell the truth from the start.
@brad
Before you start patting yourself on the back, maybe we should see what the new regime looks like when it happens. Replacing one dictator with an American hating regime wasn’t the agenda, was it?
Thought I might should provide at least one link for my assertions.
Brad, I can’t find any really reliable Middle East analysis that gives any credence to a US backing of the uprising.
For a general analysis, see this link. Or this one
I understand the need to carry the big stick in diplomacy, but methinks we wield it much too indiscriminately, and at great cost
Brad, we’re not “talking past each other”, we just disagree. We find the thought of yet another military engagement in the middle-east abhorent, counter-productive and illegal. Damn right we need to take it off the table from the start.
“It would be SO much better if the new regime saw us as being on their side, rather than as Mubarak’s buds.”
Hmmm…wonder which side the “new regime” would see us on considering Mubarak’s use of tear gas cannisters marked “Made in USA”.
Oh, I don’t know… does anyone really blame the Russians for all those AK-47s out there?
OK, bad example…
Have we had a completely successful military operation since WW II? The Berlin airlift doesn’t count since no guns were fired. Aside from that we’ve had:
1. The Korean War. We salvage half the country at least. But at what a cost. Not sure if we wouldn’t be better off now had we never gone in to start with.
2. Vietnam. The military disaster to end all military disasters. Nearly 60,000 lives lost and a history of burned villages, agent orange and a million dead Vietnamese soldiers/civilians. How sad.
3. Gulf War I. Didn’t accomplish much beyond saving the oil fields. So what? We could just as easily buy oil from Sadam as the Saudis/Kuwaitis. And we would have been spared a collosal environmental disaster, not to mention Gulf War II. Not sure why the Saudis with all their sexism are worth protecting.
4. Mogidishu. Bush Sr. started it, Clinton got us out after bumbling around for months.
5. Lebanon. Perhaps the dumbest foreign policy blunder in our history. Hundreds of dead marines for a cause that no one has ever been able to ariticulate.
6. Invasion and occupation of Iraq. Nearly 5,000 dead soldiers, perhaps a million dead Iraqis. $3 trillion dollars in treasure and the place still has sectarian violence occuring on a constant basis. Plus, there is no real government and oil production is just now approaching pre-war levels.
7. Afghanistan. Seemed like a good idea at the time. But after getting distracted this one is turning out like so many others.
8. Miscellaneous. Grenada, Nicaragua, Kosovo. All rather meaningless excercises that cost a bunch of money with little change in our overall security.
Bud’s list is disturbing. It seems to me to be un-American to ignore the plight of others in the world when we have the ability to confront human suffering.
What of Rwanda, Darfur, Burma, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Boznia, even the authoritarian terrors of South America in the 1970’s and 80’s? Should we always stand by and do nothing. Should we ever?
Other than Grenada and Vietnam (and Libya), I see human suffering on a national scale in each of Bud’s examples by the time the U.S. intervened. In those three, or at least in Vietnam and Libya, I believe the U.S. acted to thwart the militaristic aims of despots. What’s wrong with that, even if it didn’t all go with complete success?
Is the world better off or worse off for America’s presence on the world stage? Case closed in my mind.
Amen, Mark. The great shame of Rwanda is that no one intervened to stop it. (I was SO ashamed of the West — personified by a Dutch officer played by Nick Nolte — when I saw “Hotel Rwanda.”)
And the great shame of Somalia is that, after going in intending to make a difference, we pulled out just as we were starting to do so.
By the way, that day that those 18 Americans were killed, which caused us to pull out (which in turn persuaded Osama bin Laden that all you have to do is kill a few Americans to get this country to back down), the mission was actually accomplished. (The mission being to capture several of Aidid’s lieutenants.) That fiasco of a battle (in which perhaps 1,000 Somalis were killed, vs. 17 or 18 Americans, depending on how you count) was about trying to evacuate air crews — and then the troops who went in after them — after two helicopters were shot down.
But the actual military operation that day was successful. I just mention that because Bud thinks that never happens. In fact, it usually DOES happen. The US military is amazingly effective.
The trick, of course, is that we need to identify the mission correctly, to make sure that what we need in that instance is what the military can provide.
I use the Mogadishu instance in order to employ irony in making a point. But there are other instances in which both tactical and strategic aims have been met without such casualties. Our mission in Bosnia, for instance, which Mark rightly mentions.
Oh, and the invasion of Iraq was entirely successful, taken as a military operation. We had a lot of subsequent problems as a result of bad strategic decisions made by civilian leadership before, during and after that brief war. But the military did its job.
Argue all day about whether we should have sent them in to do it, or about the complete lack of planning for the aftermath. But don’t give me this stuff about how we haven’t had a successful military operation since WWII. That simply isn’t true. It’s not the Marines’ fault that Reagan sent them into Lebanon, for instance. Or, if you prefer, the military’s fault that Bush sent them into Iraq.
“Oh, and the invasion of Iraq was entirely successful, taken as a military operation.”
Which begs the old saying, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
What you and Mark seem to forget is all those efforts to confront human suffering are not defined as an objective of the United States government. If they are, please show me where that might be noted.
Any time our military goes into another country to perform any operation, it should be done so under the authorization of Congress and paid for with real dollars, not deficit spending.
Geez.. twenty zealots with box cutters caused trillions of dollars of damage to the American economy. And some people think we can fix that by spending trillions of dollars more to try and hunt down every single person in the world who hates America.
Well, no one here things that, so you are digressing.
And my point about the invasion being a successful military operation was, as I made clear, NOT an argument about the advisability of the invasion (Lord knows we’ve hashed that out plenty elsewhere), but to address the narrow point of Bud saying the US military hasn’t undertaken anything successfully since 1945.
Oh, and in response to this from Doug: “Yeah, better to wait for the Wikileaks memos to come out and prove we’re liars than tell the truth from the start.”
… I say, no, better not to have a Wikileaks. It’s a GOOD thing (I hope) if the Wikileaks report is accurate. It’s a BAD thing if anyone reads, and believes, the Wikileaks report.
Follow me?
Doug,
That’s pretty much the only reason we became involved in Kosovo and Somalia – to halt and turn back the chaos.
It was disgusting that we did nothing about the horrors of Rwanda. Maybe there wasn’t much we could do at the time, but the total lack of attempt was a black mark on living up to our ideals.
At the same time, it makes no sense to attempt to alter conflicts such as those in West Africa where there appears to be no side worth supporting and the very real possibility that all sides would oppose our presence as a potential end to their looting of the country. So I’m not saying we need to rush into every world conflict – but some we clearly should.
@Mark
I think you are confusing personal ideals with government responsibilities. I would have no problem with giving money to the U.N. to deal with those issues – but America should not be in the position of being the leader of the military invasions of those countries.
Why are you Brad sometimes, and Brad Warthen others? Is it like your Donaldganger?
17 Americans vs. 1000 Somalis. Well I guess that is the way the military has to think. We won, 1000 to 17.
There’s something about that score that makes me feel very ill, though.
By Brad’s definition Vietnam was a resounding success. We won every battle and inflicted far more casualties than we sustained. Yet somehow the objective of our intervention was not achieved. Given that we have a gazillion times more fire power than any other potential enemy we will always win the brawl. But the question is to what end? Simply killing a bunch of people is the gold standard for “Pyric Victory”. Only improving our security at home and creating an environment for a better way of life for the people we are trying to “save” are relevant here. And based on that definition we have pretty much failed in our foreign policy efforts for 60 years now. Just ask the North Korean people if they are better off today because of our intervention there.
Doug,
Government ought to be the embodiement of our collective personal ideals. I couldn’t do anything about the anhiliation of the Tutsis people in Rwanda (who were more like a different caste than a different ethnic group) – but the 82nd Airborne et al could have. Accept it or not, but we morally fail when we do not stand up for what is right and just; especially when no other nation possesses the same resources to rapidly deploy.
Bud,
Because of our large, robust military power, the citizens of South Korea (as just one example)are free and prosperous.
It makes me wonder what could have been accomplished with an even larger diplomatic corps…
It make’s me glad to see Teddy Roosevelt up on Mount Rushmore. You know, “speak softly and carry a big stick” on the world stage.
Someone said this before (I think), and I’ll say it again:
If Mark Stewart wants to run for something on the UnParty ticket, I’ll vote for him. Maybe I’ll even pull a few strings for him in a backroom meeting…
He expresses many of my thoughts quite well.
I’ll vote for Mark Stewart on any party’s ticket–I’m party blind that way!
@mark
As long as you’re fine with the U.S. going broke to pursue just causes around the world, I guess that’s fine.
Since we have all the issues related to poverty, hunger, disease, literacy, etc. eradicated in the U.S. we may as well use our resources around the world.
Isn’t “our collective ideals” what we have right now? You know, when the U.S. is experiencing a severe economic downturn, our collective ideals are probably related to making sure Americans are getting what they need. And our collective ideals are a whole lot easier to implement when you borrow money to pursue them. I wish I could max my credit cards out to donate to the American Cancer Society. But at some point, I won’t be able to pay for my charity.
Give me a balanced budget and then do with it whatever you want.
And look at how U.S. citizens responded to the earthquake in Haiti and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Americans opened their wallets to support the victims.
That’s our collective ideals in a perfect world. Individuals responding to a need rather than 50.1% of a governing body deciding what should be done.
Of course, a HUGE portion of that money went to the Red Cross. Which I think is great, but I’m wondering what Lynn thinks about it in light of this comment…
Doug,
I did not say we need to cure all the world’s ills – or go broke in the process. I said that in specific, horrific circumstances, such as Rwanda or Bosnia, America should show leadership. Once it became clear that these where situations of crimes against humanity and direct, swift action would be meaningfull, we should have been prepared to act (we did after a long period of dithering about Kosovo). Very few situations are like that, but they do arise (as with Afganistan). The same with containing North Korea.
And Haiti did require the U.S. military to open the airport and clear the harbor in the first days. Again, no aid group could do that – and we were still too slow to respond in those key ways. Rapid reaction is a very important tool for our country to possess.
It’s a red herring to think that our country cannot deal with both domestic and international issues at the same time. I would say that we have obsessed about this economic downturn – it’s over by the way. Just look around.
Brad and Kathryn,
Thank you for the vote of confidence. Much appreciated.
But Brad, is it that I express your thoughts well, or because we seem to agree about a number of issues? I enjoy this blog because many people have a wide range of sensible opinions and perspectives to share. I appreciate your insight into a lot of issues that are out there, but we have parted ways on a few, too. I think that the articulation of the need for good government in South Carolina is worth pushing. You did a great job articulating the needs in this area while at The State. Now might be a good time to push that agenda again. Just saying.