Does Godwin's Law Apply to Foriegn Policy Now?

[JPhillips]

I just saw a debate between a Repub strategist and a rep from the Heritage Foundation on CNN. (It was interesting seeing two traditional allies really lay into each other.) As expected the strategist was playing up the Liberian intervention. The Heritage rep was opposed.

About two thirds in it came out. The Heritage rep said there was no need for intervention because no vital American interests are at stake. Then the strategist shot back with, "That was the argument in 1937."

Are we to a point where every failed country is the Third Reich revisited and every rogue leader is Hitler? Liberia isn't anything like Nazi Germany and the suggestion that it is is simply moronic. Nazi Germany was the dominate land power in the world, had one of the largest industrial bases, led the world in several technological endeavors, and sat in the middle of the Europe. Liberia is a small strip on the west of Africa with no functioning government or economy.

We have to be able to discuss military options without resorting to Nazi comparisons and cries of appeaser. Liberia may or may not be a wise move, but it sure as hell doesn't threaten the future of democracy.

ftr- I'm skeptical about Liberia because we don't seem to have a tightly defined mission or a clear exit strategy. There isn't any peace to keep right now, and I don't want us to be in charge of starting it. On the other hand, we do have historical ties to Liberia and this could do a lot for our image both in Afrca and globally. They have nothing we want, so this certainly isn't imperialism. If it were my call I'd probably say no. I tend to base interventions on how many American youth I think its worth. Here I'm not willing to have one American family lose a child. But, I'm willing to support the President and hope for the best.

[The Afoci]

edit: I really have nothing to say and what I said I have said before and it needs no repeating. Carry on as if this post never existed.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
[BAbout two thirds in it came out. The Heritage rep said there was no need for intervention because no vital American interests are at stake. [/B]

This is exactly the test I apply to moves in the international arena. Of course, the US has vital interests if the Pres says so, so the test is a bit flawed.

Playing the Hitler/nazi card is getting to be a Strategy folks on all sides of the politcal use. It is sort of like a trump clause in the did not/did so wars that children fight.

[JPhillips]

Agreed. It really bugs me because it just shows their ignorance of history. WWII was so destructive and the cost in lives and money so extreme that it would be very difficult to find a corollary. It dilutes the real sacrifices that were made around the world.

[Fritz]

A better guy to compare many of these African leaders to is Pol Pot, but not enough people know about Cambodia.

[JPhillips]

Amin is always a winner for African despots!

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JPhillips
ftr- I'm skeptical about Liberia because we don't seem to have a tightly defined mission or a clear exit strategy. There isn't any peace to keep right now, and I don't want us to be in charge of starting it. On the other hand, we do have historical ties to Liberia and this could do a lot for our image both in Afrca and globally. They have nothing we want, so this certainly isn't imperialism. If it were my call I'd probably say no. I tend to base interventions on how many American youth I think its worth. Here I'm not willing to have one American family lose a child. But, I'm willing to support the President and hope for the best.

That didn't stop us in Iraq.

[sabotai]

I'm a member of the Amin Fan Club! A winner all the way!

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by Blackadar
That didn't stop us in Iraq.

You are correct it didn't stop us from taking a tyrant out of power.

I guess we could just forget about what is going on in the rest of the world and let tyrants kill innocent people all day long. But then I suppose Bush is a tyrant for sending poor American Soldiers to war to be killed. I am sure he fells no pain when one dies. He probably enjoys it. If he is smart enough to know what enjoyment is. Because god knows that a man as dumb as him was able to get 40 some percent of the voting public to vote for him. Not only that, he was able to convince the supreme court to not let him win when he really didn't and even was able to make them change laws they had changed only days before to stop the recounts.

But yeah, that didn't stop no one in Iraq. Maybe we should all stop and think that everything isn't black and white. Not everything is going to be perfect. If we hadn't gone in to Iraq, Saddam would still be ruling with an Iron Fist, raping and killing as he pleased. Yes a few 100 or 1000 soldiers would still be alive, but think about those who for the first time in their lives have some amount of freedom and don't have to worry that some secret police are going to kill them for their actions. No longer will they have to travel to a foriegn country to try and start a free life. They won't have to leave thier familes to die back in the home country until they can get them out, they can try to live a dream in the world that is home and comfortable to them. But that freedom was given to them by a dumb man elected who has no clue what is going on.

Yep, lets just sit by and let more and more innocents be killed because we can't get a concrete plan that will save the world from anymore death and pain without the lose of one life for the cause of it.

But what do I know.

[The Afoci]

Dola, I just hate how people act as if the President mindless throws around human lives. From all accounts he is a very religous man. Being President requires him to make decisions that involve the possiblity of loss of lives. Is their anyone here who would like to have that responsibility?

I wouldn't.

[The Afoci]

Double Dola---

Just so it is known, I have no leanings one way or another about Bush. I voted for him, but I also liked Clinton and if I was eligible to vote for him, I would have.

But then again, I voted for Jesse Ventura for Governor. So I am probably a complete fool and everything I said is horribly off base.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

Originally posted by JPhillips
I'm skeptical about Liberia because we don't seem to have a tightly defined mission or a clear exit strategy.

This is what I love about FOFC, we always know exactly what the military and foreign policies are.

It's not even the slightest bit possible that the government has some plans that they haven't told the media or FOFC.

"good stuff" says The Hair

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Fritz
A better guy to compare many of these African leaders to is Pol Pot ...

Wasn't he the guy we fought in the Drug War?

[JPhillips]

Of course its possible, but isn't it equally possible that we don't? We clearly didn't do enough planning about post-war Iraq, and according to the Washington Post we are looking at shaking up the civil administration there yet again. During 1944 we had huge volumes written on our occupation plans, can you find me one person who read the Iraq occupation plan?

On another note, if there is a clear plan, why can't the American people know about it? What National Security interests are protected by saying, we're going in to establish a working government in Liberia, we'll take out Taylor if necessary, and barring a major breakdown we'll be out in two years? I want my government to be as transparent as possible. Tell me what you want to do and why and most Americans will probably go along. But that's not what happen's with Bush, hell yeaterday he wouldn't give a straight answer to how many troops will be involved.

[Dutch]

On another note, if there is a clear plan, why can't the American people know about it?

1. Topple baath party/Saddam
2. Install American Civil Administrator
3. Install Iraqi Interim Government
4. Iraqi's install new constitution and vote for leader
5. American stay or leave based on Iraqi government's will

This has been clearly defined and laid out, we are at step 3 already....remember the media thought we would still be at step 1 right now. And yes, the media (where you get your news amazingly enough) are the ones who failed to remind us of this plan, because pissed off people buy newspapers more so than ones that think everything is going okay. ;)

[JPhillips]

Dutch: You leave out our indecision on the interim government. First there was going to be one, then it would be done later, then it was cancelled, and then we picked one. It simply wasn't as clean as you want it to be.

I'll also question #5. I really hope, and don't believe we will, base our decision entirely on the Iraqi government. As I pointed out earlier, one election does not a democracy make. We need to be engaged until at least the second election. Anybody can take power, but not everyone can voluntarily give it up.

Finally, five bullet points is not a plan, its an outline. With the exception of #5 I don't have any disagreements with the outline, but it needs a detailed analysis and execution plan. Its that detailed plan that I don't believe has ever been done fully. At least if it has, no one is willing to say they have read it.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
During 1944 we had huge volumes written on our occupation plans,

Hadn't the US been at war for a few years in 44? Did we have "after the war" plans prior the war? Have we ever had concrete post war plans? Has anyone ever?

[JPhillips]

Fritz: I'm not asking that everything be laid out with no deviations. A lot of people, both left and right, have said that the US failed to adequetly plan for post war occupation. And if you believe Woodward, the admin was looking at invading Iraq shortly after 9/11 at the latest. They had plenty of time to prepare, but didn't think they would run into some of the problems they have. DOD and State were split and didn't plan much of anything together. Just look at the comic sequence of events with Chalabi. Which makes me wonder, is he now in the secret bunker with Cheney?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by JPhillips hell yeaterday he wouldn't give a straight answer to how many troops will be involved.

Maybe he's taking a page from wise game designers who don't promise a release date and then circumstances prevent them from reaching it.

Look at it this way -- nobody ever knows for sure precisely what number of troops will eventually be required for a situation. It's impossible to do anything more than project a figure because the situation develops and evolves over time, changing the manpower requirements right along with it. If the President had said 500 troops and then eventually needed 600, he'd have handed the left an opportunity to whine about "massive buildup". If he says 5000 but only uses 2500 then alternately he'll take fire from the left for either a) using a steamroller to kill a fly or b) not dedicating adequate manpower to the mission.

Saying anything that even sounds definitive to anyone other than those involved in the planning is a lose-lose proposition, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[JPhillips]

Jon: To a point I'll agree with that. I just tend to always lean towards giving the public more information when possible. I really don't care about the political ramifications.

[Dutch]

Now why is it that post war Iraq plans should have been made because the world is really "black and white" so concrete plans could realistically been made.

But when Georege W. Bush makes a decision to go to war with Iraq based on millions of pieces of information, he shouldn't have because "the world just isn't that black and white".

I don't get it!

And by the way, what kind of pre-planning did you folks have in mind? :)

[JPhillips]

Dutch: What the hell are you talking about? Who are "you folks"? For the one millionth time, I supported the war, but didn't and don't agree with the way it was sold to the public and the we don't need no stinkin' help attitude best summed up by Rumsfeld. That's not to say we should have let France dictate our actions, but I firmly believe that we could have done more with other countries, who might now be contributing more, ie India. I'm just not willing to give the admin free reign on everything. I believe manager's get better when they are pressed to be their best, not when every action is blindly hailed as perfect.

Now I'll readily admit to not having all the info and not being an Iraqi expert, so I can't give you a one hundred page plan for occupation. That's not the point. The point is nobody wrote the plan for occupation. We've been moving from crisis to crisis seemingly making it up as we go.

Garner's the guy, until he isn't.

Bremer's the guy, well now maybe not.

Chalabi will be vital in the government, until he isn't.

We'll have an interim government, no we won't, yes we will.

The Third ID will come home now, I mean later, I mean who knows when.

A large part of the occupation will be handled by our allies, under US control, except most of them won't help.

The oil revenues will pay for reconstruction, except they won't.

Should I go on?

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

Originally posted by JPhillips
The point is nobody wrote the plan for occupation. We've been moving from crisis to crisis seemingly making it up as we go.

The U.S. President and the Secretary of Defense must have forgot to send it to you, JPhillips.

No, that's can't be the case. If JPhillips hasn't read the plan, one must not exist.

Come on.

[JPhillips]

Well Mel, I guess I trust what I see more than what I want to believe. But it does make me feel better that the admin is doing everything perfect, they're just keeping it all secret. Thank God they're always right!

[kcchief19]

JPhillips' original question touched on something about my views toward foreign policy and the world. I take a very long-term view of these issues in that I believe that the actions of a national can define that nation for a lifetime.

Historical comparisons as the one Phillips noted bother me on two levels: (1) too many situations are compared to 1937 Germany, which both overstates the current problem and far dimishes the Nazi threat; and (2) users of these analogies are often ignorant of other similar comparisons.

I think a close examination of history is vital to future foreign policy, but it only valuable if looked at objectively. Too often we look at the "American" view of history rather than recognizing there is a significant part of the world that looks at our nation's history differently.

The Liberia situation is almost a no-win foreign policy situation created by a muddled Iraq policy. An increasing part of our justifcation for going into Iraq was to remove a brutal dictator. If that is grounds for U.S. intervention, then we in theory must go into Liberia, and perhaps other nations as well. If we choose not to go into Liberia, we run the risk perpetuating the global view that the U.S. acts only when its self-interest is in danger and will diminish our repuatation. The only "win" in Liberia would be a convincing military occupation, which will require a significant military committment, lest we forget the lessons of Somalia.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: I'm not asking that everything be laid out with no deviations. A lot of people, both left and right, have said that the US failed to adequetly plan for post war occupation.

My point was that not planning the aftermath in any detail is nothing novel.

Originally posted by JPhillips
The Third ID will come home now, I mean later, I mean who knows when.

I have a rotation schedule sitting right in front of me. Can't be too secret as it was emailed to 100,000 people or more.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by kcchief19
If we choose not to go into Liberia, we run the risk perpetuating the global view that the U.S. acts only when its self-interest is in danger and will diminish our repuatation.

Who thinks any country acts otherwise? Anyone?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Fritz
Who thinks any country acts otherwise? Anyone?

Dang.

You beat me to it.