Un Bel Di
Max Boot details the history of "cutting and running" throughout American history. The consequences were often tragic and somegimes wide-ranging. The inevitable rhetorical question is asked. Why should any ally trust America?
Many Americans have been wondering why so many Iraqis are willing to fight for militias and terrorist groups but not for the American-backed government. Look at it from their perspective. Would you stake your life on a regime whose existence depends on Washington's continuing support? Given our long, shameful record of leaving allies in the lurch, that has never seemed to be a smart bet.
Some of those incidents are long forgotten. Others are green in memory.
But that was nothing compared to the betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites in 1991. President George H.W. Bush urged Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands" and overthrow Saddam Hussein, yet stood by as Hussein's henchmen brutally put down the uprisings. The U.S. did not even shoot down Iraqi gunships, which could have been done at little risk to American forces.
All might be forgiven if the twists and turns of policy were guided the constant star of national interest. Boot wonders if even that compass is heeded.
This long trail of American treachery has grave consequences for our foreign policy. It emboldens our enemies (the Bay of Pigs led to the Cuban missile crisis, for example), dispirits our friends and makes it harder to achieve our objectives. Knowing our history, few Iraqi leaders are counting on American support in the future. They're making their deals with the devil, whether neighboring states or sectarian militias. And if we do scuttle out of Iraq prematurely, Afghans and others whose support we seek will get the message again: Don't trust Uncle Sam.
It was the great novelist, F. Scott Fitzgerald who best captured the peculiar essence of betrayal committed by those too rich, too secure and too self-absorbed to care. Gatsby was destroyed through the single chink in his armor, his love for a woman who never gave him, beyond the attention for a fleeting novelty, a second thought: Daisy, his one and unworthy love. "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made…" And it was Puccini who might have written the final score.
Un bel di, vedremo
Levarsi un fil di fumo
Sull'estremo con fin del mare
E poi la nave appare
Chiamerà Butterfly dalla lontana.
Io senza dar risposta
me ne starò nascosta
un po' per celia e un po' per non morire
Un bel di.
31 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Almost none of those incidents described in the article are "cut and run". Rather the author is incorrectly blaming the US for not fighting other countries battles. Apparently he is making the same mistake about Iraq.
Both in those past incidents and now in Iraq, I think the world will think far, far better of the US for letting other countries fight their own battles. That is the normal state of military affairs, that each ally does some of the fighting by itself, in addition to the shared responsibilities.
It really gets down to what the US promised the allies. We can't have promised Iraq that we would stay in their territory forever, policing it and fighting their civil wars while they sit safely on the sidelines.
It also gets down to the difference between right and wrong. Should the United States force minority groups like the Sunnis to accept a Shiite government if they don't want it, and if they think it is tyranny?
Considering that our own top general has said that the Iraqis should be doing more of the fighting, the world could begin to think we are fools if we don't make the Iraqis fight for themselves.
Indeed, that is my big concern, that if we follow the "fight all wars like world war II" strategy, then the whole world will begin to think we are weak and foolish. Our enemies will know they can tie down 100k to 150k of our troops for years just by shooting at each other. No other military in the world fights under such restrictions. Plenty of countries are willing to invade, wipe out their enemies, and then pull out, leaving the survivors to pick up the pieces.
Depends upon the perspective, I guess.
Mr Diem, he thought we cut his throat.
The Shah, he thought Mr Carter cut and run, back in the day.
The Shia, in '91, they just thin we ran, and will again.
I thought we cut and ran in Somolia, but that is from my perspective in AZ.
So, from the view of the Iraqi, to count on the US standing shoulder to shoulder, with them, when the US public becomes fickle, would be suicide. From their perspective.
Beware of sentimental alliances where the consciousness of good deeds is the only compensation for noble sacrifices.
- Otto von Bismarck
Bismarck was writing for the stronger side, but it applies more so to the junior partner.
desert rat wrote:
So, from the view of the Iraqi, to count on the US standing shoulder to shoulder, with them, when the US public becomes fickle, would be suicide. From their perspective.
America will hold the football for a little while but you gotta bust a move, you gotta run up and kick it before the clock runs out.
wu wei wrote:
Plenty of countries are willing to invade, wipe out their enemies, and then pull out, leaving the survivors to pick up the pieces.
This is more or less what Russia did in Afghanistan and Chechnya, but it is indicative of strength only to the most shallow of observers. To be able to take out Zarqawi holed up in one house yet not so much as crack the paint on the neighbors' houses, that is true power. In the Palestinian areas this power has resulted in the use of "spontaneous" flash crows of human shields for defense. Olmert ought to (but will not) hit a few of these sites and take his lumps in the media. It's not like the MSM is well-disposed toward the Israelis otherwise.
Now Ms T says:"...but you gotta bust a move, you gotta run up and kick it ..."
But the Iraqi are kickin the ball, they are bustin' their moves. It's just that while both US and Iraq are playing "football" the games are not at all similar.
Can we think World Cup, instead of Super Bowl?
To me its a question of what application of US force makes the most sense in terms of US interest. That's the essence of the quote fellow peacekeeper shares.
Further, I agree with WuWei, much of what Max Boot call cut and run is really the divergence of lofty rhetoric and actual capabilities.
Further, having read a bit about Wilson, his efforts to cobble together something that wouldn't automatically result in WW2 failed in large measure because of the sneering cynicism of the victors in WW1. After centuries of being at each others throats, they took a father knows best attitude and dismissed Wilson as an indealist hayseed from that bothersome America. We'll call you when we need you woodrow That call came about what, thirty years later?
No, Max Boot is wrong on that count as well. It wasn't US that sold out those countries, it was the Euros.
DR points to some true examples of American leadership failure. Viet Nam is the principle example IMHO because I don't know that anyone could have withstood the onslaught of radical islam that brought down the shah.
It is interesting the Henry the K is getting some face time right now. IMHO that's because he's saying what the newsies want to hear. As the architect of one of Americans most ignominious deeds I wonder how the guy can show his face. But hell, the assholes in the media would resurrect Nixon if they though he'd say what they want to him to.
Finally I agree with CW. Our strategy in Iraq has to be one where we hold it together losely enough for the Iraqis to settle their scores and face the modern world. It is easy to understand the seething rage many Iraqis must feel. I have a harder time connecting to the clear denial of the sunnis who have made one deal with the devil after another in an effort at regaining control.
Still we don't want a police state here. We don't want to substitute Sadam's machine with ours no matter how much better we are as people.
I have to believe that the people in the ME can overcome thier heritage and join us in the modern world.
Well said Skip. You took my post, so I think it borders on brilliance and insight. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.
There are long term consequences to defeat and to running from those you promise to stand by as Ally and Friend. Those that are in the 'realist diplomacy' camp have tried to wash their hands of the stench that has accrued to doing that and the consequences to the Nation.
Unfortunately those self-same realists have now handed us an enemy that no longer uses 20th century conceptions of warfare and Nation States that act in a non-rational manner by holding to fantastical belief. If they could have solved these problems we have today, then why didn't they when they had the ears of those in Power and it could be done at far less cost than today?
We are seeing the butcher's bill get longer and we quiver at the mere interest accruing to it in forestalling that self-same butcher. When does America stop running? They have *already* come to our doorstep.
Perhaps hide under the bed and hope that a fateful day does not arrive when the hand is on Our ankle and the entire bill comes due. Because that is what you get when you set an upper cost in blood and money upon friendship and liberty. You can then be *bought* by the highest bidder, and then it is a bit too late to fight.
Its nay so much a problem of cutting and running as a habit, as a bad habit of going in half-assed to places and situations (basically 3rd world holes) where there never really was a compelling reason to go in, let alone stay:
- Vietnam
- Lebanon
- Iraq during Gulf 1
- Somalia
- Iraq
The places the US went in serious, cause they really mattered, the US stayed serious
- WWII
- Cold war Europe
- Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
I have no idea why the US continues to back the Kosovo Albanians, maybe noone except Madeline Albright ever did. Korea was 50/50.
Where that leaves Afghanistan is anyone's guess, but the likes of Darfur is and will be a guaranteed looser.
Here is an article that is too long to post in comments that I believe explains why we run.
No it’s not our fault! We didn’t know. They lied to us. The nonsense of no-fault citizenship!
> President George H.W. Bush urged Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands" and overthrow Saddam Hussein, yet stood by as Hussein's henchmen brutally put down the uprisings. The U.S. did not even shoot down Iraqi gunships, which could have been done at little risk to American forces
Did any of the Shiites ask their USA CIA contacts if we would provide them air support? Only insiders can know for sure. If the Shiites had no assurances and decided to gamble that we'd back them up, then they choose their own fate. No reason to blame the US. We aren't obligated to do things we didn't promise.
> the Bay of Pigs
Again, what did we promise them? Only insiders know. If President Kennedy told the Cuban exiles they were on their own, then there's no reason to blame us. They tried, out of their own free will, to overthrown their government, Castro's government. Since it is their country, not ours, any assistance we provided them was a favor.
> Many Americans have been wondering why so many Iraqis are willing to fight for militias and terrorist groups but not for the American-backed government. Look at it from their perspective. Would you stake your life on a regime whose existence depends on Washington's continuing support?
That is an amazing paragraph, one which seems to reverse cause and effect. The government was selected solely by the Iraqis in elections, elections based on a constitution they wrote themselves. The only reason why the government seems to depend on our support is because the Iraqis are choosing not to support it.
I don't see how that can be blamed on us. We don't prop up the governments of Poland and Iceland, yet their people still support them anyway. We followed the same pattern in Iraq as Afghanistan, and always had many more troops in Iraq, yet the Afghan government is much more stable. The difference clearly is not the US, but that many Iraqis are rejecting the new government and being sectarian.
It seems amazing that any Iraqis would lose faith in us when they are the problem. "USA, stop us before we kill each other again. USA, make us love our government".
I personally don't think we should pull out. We should sign a 20 year basing agreement to make that clear, and because it is in our self interest.
But we need to make clear that it isn't our job to make the Iraqis love each other, and it isn't our fault if they shoot one another. We would stay in the country, hunting global terrorists, US-hunting terrorists, and keeping an eye on Iran and Syria. But it would be up to us when and where we get involved in the Iraqi civil war.
Our casualties would be greatly reduced, which would stop the calls for us to be pulled out. At that point I think peace would come fairly quickly in Iraq. The parties would see that they can't outlast us, so sooner rather than later they'd get tired of being shot and living in a war zone. They'd finally sign a peace treaty and accept the government, which is all that is needed for peace, for the Iraqis to choose it.
I mean let's face it, all we need for peace in Iraq is for al-Maliki and al-Sadr to embrace in a bear hug saying "Let's have peace Iraqi Brother", while the Kurds look on with joy. Then they would say, "Let us begin our happiness by eliminating the foreign terrorists from our land. That should take two or perhaps three days if we move slowly."
ww
your lack of historical knowledge, as to historical precedent is overwhelming, to say the least.
Study up on what the "insiders" did, who funded what and when as well as where, in reference to each occurance, then come on back.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. No knowledge and an opinion is even more so.
WC's tragic assumption is that the "gangbangers" in Iraq have been scattered. Someone with some tactical knowledge (that eliminates virtually everybody in the U.S. who has not served in the officer corps) would say they have taken cover.
She then compounds her inconsequence by likening the search and destroy effort against the "gangbangers" in their cover by likening it to the building of a golf course! Worse yet, she and her ilk seem to believe, quite childishly, that the "gangbangers" will not operate against us from their cover.
3case wrote:
WC's tragic assumption is that the "gangbangers" in Iraq have been scattered.
3case, the scattered part means the attack on Tora Bora that sent AQ to the four winds. At any rate, take a break from the Wars and go have some turkey with your family.
we didn’t have any real vested interest in viet nam but now the bastards are after us (viz 9/11) and we’ll take casualties till the cows come home if necessary. and a lot of the rest of the world thought, yeah, right. sure thing, podner. and now the rest of the world is sniggering because those arabs did call it right. like a fist fight, it does no good to say so and so could have won if he’d really wanted. if he’d taken off the gloves. if he’d done this and that like he really wanted to but was constrained, etc.
We are cowards and the sooner we realize this the sooner we might do something about it.
Why should any ally trust America?
--
That point is well taken.
The better question is who else should an ally of America trust?
Blair and W as odd as they might be to some understand which way is up.
Neither one is Thatcher. Then again you play the cards you are dealt.
Once again. Who else with real power deserves trust? Putin? Kofi?
Chirac? Chavez? Pelosi? Murtha? Obama? Kerry? Gore? Dore? Gold?
A good thatcher weaves a watertight, weatherproof roof.
By the definition of cut and run some people use, we could never support any covert operation. According to some, it seems that once a US soldier is involved at all, then we must follow all the way through with conquering the country and a 20 year world war II type Marshall Plan to rebuild them.
The Cubans in the Bay of Pigs certainly knew what they were getting into. It was totally covert, with the understanding that we weren't going to openly fight on their side.
Prouty, the first “focal Point” officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations, quotes the report by General Maxwell Taylor, a member of the Kennedy-appointed Cuban Study Group: “From its inception the plan had been developed under the ground rule that it must retain a covert character, that is, it should include no action which, if revealed, could not be plausibly denied by the United States and should look to the world as an operation exclusively conducted by Cubans. This ground rule meant, among other things, that no U.S. military forces or individuals could take part in combat operations.”
Cedarford,
"the Iraqis are not our allies". But individuals are, and whatever we undertake, whichever individuals come in on our side, whatever their political status or citizenship may be, they are our allies. And they are less likely to do that when one has a record of leaving them in a lurch.
At one level the question is entirely practical. I'm sure many readers have had the experience of trying to convince someone in the field to take a risk. You are more likely to succeed if they know you either a) will not ask them to get in over their head; b) stand by them. Or you can ask yourself what the greatest fear of a locally recruited intelligence agent is. It is being sold out.
Criminal organizations understand the prestige that comes with a reputation for being a "stand up". It has less to do with morals than credit. When you let people down, you use up your credit. And one day you have none left.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
that was a mighty cold bucket of water, foxenburg.
Wretchard,
What is the function of Cedarford on this site? Vitriol and name calling are not typically the currency your trade in. Is he your pet bigot?
As I,in part, wrote to the President last week:
The Iraqis are looking for the eventual winner in this struggle and our divided nation certainly does not project that strong “onward to victory” image. No wonder we have difficulty in crafting a unified nation there. I’m sure they know that supporting the Americans could get one abandoned and killed as has happened in the past. I will always remember the message from Cambodian statesman Sirak Mitak who penned a final note to the U.S. ambassador refusing his offer of evacuation just days before his execution at the hands of the Khmer Rouge:
"I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty....You leave and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under the sky.
"But mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we all are born and must die one day. I have only committed this mistake in believing in you, the Americans."
Here's a thoughtful essay --in the WSJ--on the state of the USA/Israel alliance.
The Cambodian letter is an authentic heartbreaker. And as with so many heartbreaking things, whether or not one's pissant little heart is broken after the fact, is utterly, supremely, irrelevant.
> The Iraqis are looking for the eventual winner in this struggle and our divided nation certainly does not project that strong “onward to victory” image. No wonder we have difficulty in crafting a unified nation there. I’m sure they know that supporting the Americans could get one abandoned and killed as has happened in the past.
Both this Iraqi attitude, and Mitak from Cambodia, have it reversed. It is up to their countries to solve their own problems. Any assistance we provide them is a gift which they should be greatful for.
Also, our allies end up being the ones who betray us, not the other way around. We have been in Iraq for 3 1/2 years, yet they are still holding back and "are looking for the eventual winner in this struggle"? Why should we help save someone that weak, who sits on the sidelines instead of fighting for his own country? During that 3 1/2 years most Iraqi groups have been telling us to "Get the hell out of our country now" and supporting or at least tolerating insurgents who are shooting at us. None of the Iraqi groups have been providing us as much intelligence information as they should.
The only thing the Iraqis need for peace is to make a deal with each other. They don't need our permission for that.
All the comparisions with world war II, Vietnam, etc. are irrelevant because in Iraq we have no enemy and no allies. It is just a bunch of warring tribes, each of which is looking out only for itself, and using the same "terrorist" tactics. There is no good guy. There is no one group that we can go crazy on and end the war by killing.
cedarford; 1:25:50 PM
re: Air Force cuts
You are mistaken. The Air Force will be reduced by 40,000 by 2009.
That "Special Friend" schtick is starting to sound Fred Rogersish. You can do better. Judenschwein has that certain ring of "Old World" authenticity, don't you think?
Hey, habu_1 might be helpful. Quite apart from his vast credentialing as a "Secret Agent Man", he has recently taken an interest in the USS Liberty and Jewish terrorism. Oh, and Rufus has shown his support of das Vaterland in a new minimalist post.
Link
I do like to be helpful to the worthies of the blogosphere.
Cedarford,
My question was not directed at you. But since you chose to intrude, I’ll respond.
And what is your purpose? To prove those with dissimilar loyalties do patrol blogs and express their discontent with some people looking after what should be the Anglosphere's vital interests?
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here so I’ll ignore the badly written question. Are your loyalties “dissimilar?” To whom and what are they dissimilar? And why should one’s loyalties lie with the “Anglosphere?” Are non-Anglos “lesser breeds without the law?”
That you believe instead those interests must be suborned to "Our Special Friend"?
Ah yes, “Our Special Friend.” Why be so prissy about it, Cedarford? Why not just call them Jew? Go ahead, have a cathartic moment. It may cure that verbal diarrhea you exhibit.
What exactly do you have to contribute in way of discussion of allies, "cut and run" philosophy as applied to Iraq, or Wretchard's point of possible loss of trust?
I’m here because I find Wrethard’s views interesting. Yours, not so much; your moral position repulsive.
I've expressed my opinion. Which is primarily that Iraq has badly weakened America strategically, diminished our strength in several vital areas.
Oh no, my friend. You have done a great deal more than that. You have engaged in constant personal slanders, your posts contain an endless stream of anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish state. You don’t reason or bring arguments to the table, you ridicule. That is why I asked Wretchard why he tolerated you.
Come on, boy, why not crawl out from under your rock and say what you believe...
I am not your “boy,” nor anyone else’s. You see, that is what seems to pass in your mind as reasoned discourse. It’s not. That’s why you are not a blogger, but rather a commenter on other people’s sites. A parasite.
Rather than engage in feeble attempts to delegitimize other opinions without offering a countering opinion.
You felt delegitimized did you? What tender feelings for one so prolix.
Post a Comment
<< Home