the fix

[Tony Benjamin]

Hey Jim,
Very interesting.
Nice work.
I'm not sure this war or any war can be fixed. The fix, indeed, is already in once the shooting starts and the bombs fall.
Reading over this reminded me of the question/answer posed by Edwin Starr: War -- what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Which is simplistic, but not a bad place to start.
Even the "best" wars involve stupidity, waste and horror.
The Iraq War, meanwhile, takes all that to a new level.
This one'll go down, I think, as a mindless misadventure that really defined what happens when the American people are asleep at the wheel.
TB

[Stormy]

Jim & Tony,
Being VERY new... I want to go in the record and say that some war is unavoidable. It is the very nature of mankind. Even when we get the best and brightest of folks together and form a think tank for a better solution, the debate will drift back to WHO is right, rather than WHAT is right. When this happens, we begin to think with emotion vs logical thoughts. Thus a 'war' has begun within the group looking for a better solution.

Don

[Jim Vernon]

I'm not sure how I missed seeing your response, Tony.* More good thoughts to ponder.

My framework for analysis is a bit light on history, but I do have a few thoughts in there somewhere. My initial thoughts were more focused on how we can gain insight from our own history in the Middle East, as well as perhaps from parallel situations. I confess that I just haven't had time to think through to some better questions. I think that we do need to ask and answer many more questions about history to come up with a more sensible approach to our foreign policy, not just for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

You've also raised an extremely interesting general question, which not only touches on Iraq and Afghanistan but might help clarify some of the broader issues:

Under what circumstances is war avoidable or unavoidable?

I'm going to start a discussion topic under that heading, and link back to your blog post.

One reason I think your question is so great is that I think it has the promise of showing us where we are generally still very united as a country, as well as exposing those points where we are not. In other words, I think you'll see near-unanimity on whether WWII was unavoidable. Obviously, nothing like that about Iraq War -- current political climate makes that clear enough. But I'll be interested to hear what everyone has to say about other situations, like the Civil War, WWI, Vietnam, Afghanistan, ... so many wars to include in the topic! Before I post the question, do you have any other gems?

Jim

* As I'm posting this, I'm looking at a link that says "Follow" at the bottom of your blog post. You'd think that an "expert" such as myself would have automatically registered something like that! I'll file it under "missed the obvious" and maybe call that to the attention of others, since its a great tool.

[Tony Benjamin]

Yes, Jim, but...
That argument (the consequences of withdrawing) is not unlike those going on in England during the American Revolution. The world was finally turned upside down, and kept on spinning.
The main difference is that England actually had a more legitimate claim for war; ie. putting down a rebellion in its colonies.
I also recall the same during the Vietnam debate -- dominoes falling, the soft underbelly of China, etc. etc.
Until we confront the fact that our invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression without foundation -- a stark and disturbing departure from our past -- the answer will continue to evade us. The strategy is that we need to own up to the fact (which the rest of the world has figured out) that we screwed up. And say so.
We've been sold a neo-con bill of goods on this war on terror. What we have lost in personal liberty and national prestige can't be calculated. Athough eventually it will. History is like that.
Some wars are pretty much unavoidable. World War II is a case in point.
Our Civil War (still fodder for authors galore) was very much avoidable. If those in positions of influence had listened to their better angels. And Lincoln. Which is an interesting case: a peace candidate who prosecuted war with a vengeance.
I'm not big on international cooperation. I think we ought to be bright and strong enough to figure out stuff here at home. Only to be disappointed over and over.
cheers,
Tony B.

[Jim Vernon]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for joining. One big problem, as I see it right now, is that we have to fix what we've broken. While I'm not "pro war", I'm definitely "pro strategy", since we're in one. That strategy can still be a strategy to get us out, but I think that's actually pretty complicated. If we just leave without planning what that means and what happens afterward, I think we'll make it worse.

Part of what I'm saying is: If we are going to withdraw, we need to define what that means a lot more carefully than we have so far. We need to define it better than we defined things going in. Maybe that's not fair, but it's still the burden we have. If we stay, we have an equal burden to define things better, to say what it is we're actually trying to "win". That's why I'm trying at this point not to take a position on stay vs. leave, except to say that I'm in favor of making the a real strategy in either case. Right now, I'd say we don't have a strategy for either.

You'll probably find the International Cooperation strategy alternative the closest to your position -- maybe that's something you can help take to the next level.

Thanks again for joining and your comments. Comments, blogs and discussions are what will make Fix This War! a living community. I realized several months ago that the community was going to be much more important than the "book".

Best regards,
Jim