Why Iraq is not Vietnam

While I agree that Iraq and Vietnam were both strategically foolish things for the United States to involve itself in, I think that the comparisons between the two are somewhat overstated.

First of all, Vietnam was tactically mismanaged, as well as being a strategic blunder. General Westmoreland was too set in his convictions that infantry should find the enemy, engage him, achieve victory, and return with honor. In fighting a counter-insurgency, tactical logic dictates that you go defeat the enemy and hold on to territory, not get in your choppers and go home, only to retake the same hill the next day. Iraq, on the other hand, has been managed quite well tactically, with the small exception of heavily armed units running too far ahead of their supply units. There wasn't the problem of the corridor collapsing (see: Wehrmacht, Barbarossa) but rather, enemy forces would hunker down and wait for the less-able-to-defend-themselves supply units came up a few hours later. So, difference one: tactical management.

Second, and more importantly, we had and have much clearer goals in Iraq than in Vietnam. The Bush administration's reasons for going to war have changed, (this is a debate that isn't worth getting into right now) but our strategic goals were clear: go in, remove Saddam from power (+10 bonus points for his capture,) set up a democratic government. In Vietnam we were ostensibly trying to contain communism, through showing our commitment to our SEATO obligations (as New Yorker columnist Wm. Whitworth put it: "we have the blance of power in order to deal with the problem, and we have to deal with the problem in order to preserve the balance") thereby deterring any future aggression. The problems were that we weren't sure who we were deterring (Hanoi, Peking (Beijing), Moscow) and most importantly, we weren't sure what the best way to do that was. We failed to appreciate von Clauswitz's addage that "war is an extension of politics by other means." As John Lewis Gaddis points out, process overtook goals, means became ends in themselves, and all meaningful strategy ceased to exist.

We haven't yet made these strategic mistakes in Iraq. While our exit strategy seems to be lacking (like in Bosnia in '95,) we haven't yet lost sight of our goals and what we want to accomplish. As much as these ends may not justify their means, at least we've got our eyes on the prize.

To finish this off, let me say that I believe we need to leave Iraq as soon as our goals are achieved. Once a government is in place, and the new Iraqi state has the means to enforce its sovereignty, we should get out of town. We must not simply sit on Iraq as we have sat on Germany and Japan since 1945. We can't do this yet. That would be like coming into someone's home to redo his kitchen, tearing out the appliances and the drywall, and then deciding the job was harder than it looked at first, and leaving. However, once the infrastructure: government and instruments of sovereignty, are in place, we must leave, even if the situation in Iraq isn't as calm and peaceful as some isolated town in the Catskills. We must do this, without regard to any notions of "international credibility and respect." As the great soon-to-be-centenarian George F. Kennan said in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1966:

"[T]here is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant and unpromising objectives."

Iraq isn't Vietnam, not by damn sight. But that doesn't mean that we won't lose our focus, and head down the slippery slope.

Note:
With regard to facts, I relied a great deal on the book chapter that got me thinking about this: Chapter 8 in: John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.)

Thoughts on thoughts

Some thoughts on The Virginian's primary post:

(1) Like my colleague, I don't care, from a policy standpoint, who wins the Democratic primary; frankly, I haven't even investigated what substantive differences (if any) there might be. I'm much more concerned with practicalities at the moment, and what my practical interest desires is a defeat of Bush. No more, no less.

(2) Kerry's an arrogant asshole. All the evidence goes to support this. I have two seperate personal anecdotes from people who know him which lead me to believe this evidence (including the testimony of a classmate of his at Andover who leveled the charge that Kerry "would not pass the puck"). But you know what: Bush is an arrogant asshole too. So is Sharpton. And Jesse Jackson. Clinton's got a bunch of arrogance in him aswell. They're freaking politicians. With the exception maybe of Russ Feingold, it's the nature of the game. The relevant matter is whether he can fight that IMAGE, which Bush has done successfully. The knock on Kerry hasn't hit the streets yet; let's hope it doesn't. And if/when it does, the Dems need to FIGHT BACK. Stop being pussies, gentlemen. If Dean's done anything for the party, he put some fire in its gut. I hope.

(3) Don't trust Mickey Kaus. DON'T TRUST MICKEY KAUS.

(4) I had something else to say but it slipped my mind. What I am afraid of is the winner of the nomination extending a hand to his first choice for VP, who then says "no thanks, I'm not interested in the number 2 job." I want all these guys to agree that beating Bush is job #1. It's like the Grady Little/Pedro Martinez thing. I don't think Little made the right call, but I wouldn't have wanted Martinez pitching for my team if he didn't think he could go all the way. I don't want a Dem involved if beating Bush isn't the NUMBER FUCKING ONE PRIORITY on his agenda.

Thoughts on the primaries

As Marginalized Tuesday (come on, it's stuck between what The Economist calls "Super Tuesday" and "Super-Dooper Tuesday") approaches, I've been thinking a lot about Kerry and Edwards. I sent off my absentee ballot on Wednesday, with a sort of strategy in mind. First, let's establish that Dean and Clark are probably dead in the water.

As far as ability-to-beat-Bush, I feel like they're about even. Republican friends of mine have said Edwards is the only one with a chance. I'm not sure about that, but in some ways I'm afraid of Kerry. Like most politicians, he probably has something to hide. Edwards, on the other hand, is more of an empty vessel. Also, John Kerry might have a streak of the dour Al Gore in him, whereas Edwards, at 50, looks younger than I do.

On the issues, I could handle either one of them. After a candidate gets the nod, he does a little jog to center, and once he's in office, he'll be for free trade. Sure, we won't have another Clinton, but with Gephardt out, there's no danger of a hard-line protectionist. There seems to be similar moderation on the other issues.

So here was my strategy: Vote for Edwards, hoping to give him a strong showing in the South (particularly in Virginia and the Carolinas.) If he picks up huge speed and is the nominee, so be it. A lot of people seem to think that the South is a lost cause. But, if every other state goes the way it went in 2000, and any one of the three states I just mentioned goes to the Dems, they win it. An Edwards presidential campagin might be able to accomplish this.

More likely, if Kerry is the nominee it'll alert him that he needs to campaign a little more in the South. Another possibility is that Kerry will take Edwards as his VP. This is my dream, this is my nightmare. It's my dream because, like I said, ceteris paribus any one of those three states switches, the Dems win. It's my nightmare because it haunts me. It haunts me because nobody thinks it can happen, and they're probably right. Terry M. Neal, of the Post's Talking Points [non-memo] gives evidence that Edwards won't take the VP slot. He might change his mind. You never know. Mickey Kaus gives a number of reasons why Kerry won't pick Edwards:

Kerry, if he wins, is unlikely to pick Edwards because a) Kerry's a vain man and won't want a running mate the press will continually say is a better speaker and campaigner than he is; and b) like virtually all candidates, Kerry will want a #2 who can go negative on the opposing party while he remains above the fray. But that's exactly what Edwards has shown he can't or won't do, for fear of blemishing his goody-goody image. (See Lieberman, Joe, 2000 general election.) ... also c) kf hears semi-reliably that Kerry's polling shows that Edwards on the ticket doesn't win any states for Kerry, even in the South--while Evan Bayh does win Indiana (which is hard to believe, Indiana being a pretty Republican state). ... Might as well go after him, John!

Alright, on a: Kerry is a vain man - so are most politicians. On b: Yeah, you're probably right, but is that going to be what makes the difference? c: Polling? feh. And Evan Bayh? There was lots of talk about him in 2000 before Gore went with the unorthodox (cough) choice of Lieberman. Also, "Bayh?" As my friend John Lovejoy said: "That's a hard name for people to pronounce." True.

I'm still at a loss for any solid opinions or thoughts on the primaries. All the nonsense above is really just two weeks of voting calculus boiled down into a few paragraphs. The one solid thing I can take away from my primary voting is this: Talking Points [non-memo] says :

THE VIRGINIA PRIMARY, Tuesday: This is big. Big state. Big implications. And if Edwards wins, as he's predicting he will do, it could give him big momentum. Or at least keep him in the game... The race is thought to be between these two candidates. Clark's military background could be appealing to many voters here, and he has advertised heavily as well. But political analysts are not sensing much vitality in his campaign.

Shutting down Clark, (with hopes that Dean will drop this week, too) narrows the field. I may have helped to do this. After next Tuesday, with NY and California weighing in, we might have our candidate. The more time before the general election, the more time the nominee has to solidify his positions and prepare. My only hope at that point is that the nominee concentrates on his positions and strengths, not Bush's shortcomings. Anyone who is going to vote "against Bush" rather than "for [whomever]" is going to do so regardless. The key will be for the nominee to talk about himself, not his opponent: something at which Edwards seems to be better than most.

Bits and pieces (or: I will not become an instablogger)

President Bush has named those to be on the panel to investigate intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Some interesting choices: Sen. McCain - a good non-toe-to-the-line Republican, but former Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia? What is it with the junior senators from Virginia? Chuck Robb, then George Allen? Though a Democrat, I can respect John Warner. Chuck Robb? He only got his last term because he ran against Ollie "Iran Contra" North. George Allen? Lousy governor, worse senator - well, not terrible, just do-nothing.

A couple things from Under The Dome (you'll need to scroll down to the 2nd and 3rd items):

Washington Post columnist (and U of C alum) Bob Levey is leaving the post after 32 years. Sad, he was cool.

The Four Seasons hotel in Georgetown has created drinks named after the various primary contenders. They look either really sweet (girly) or really foul. I particularly like how the "Cup A' Joe" (Lieberman) includes decaf coffee. Also, although you probably can't be sure until you've tried it, it looks like the "George W. MD" that the Dem drink winner faces off against has been set up to take a fall. White tequila, vodka, gin, rum and spiced iced tea just sounds foul.

A suspect editorial

George F. Will, (you know him: the guy from This Week who always looks like he's just had dental work done?) in his editorial from yesterday, educates us about the shift in the electoral preferences of the South (it used to be the "Strong South" because it was strongly Democratic,) and intimates that the Dems aren't going to find the states they need to win in the South. I happen to disagree, but I'll talk about that in a later post. There are a few things suspect about this editorial:

1) In giving us his history lesson, Mr. Will fails to use the word "dixiecrat" even once.

2) Gerard Alexander (see 2nd, 3rd and 4th-to-last paragraphs): First, Dr. Alexander is very cool. One of my friends down at UVa has taken a few classes from him. I've had the oppertunity to meet him and sit in on a lecture. He's a cool guy and is one of those gifted few who can speak exactly the way that they write. Second (and here's the suspect part,) Dr. Alexander is a professor of comparative politics. This isn't to say that he knows nothing of American politics (we're all generalists to some extent as I, a international relations student, write about American politics.) My point is that UVa is known for it's American politics scholars. Why not ask one of them? The answer is probably quite simple: George Will frequently makes no sense (not in the sense of "he's incomprehensible" but in the sense of "I frequently question choices he makes.")

Lest I be all negative, there is one quite good takeaway line in the editorial in the last paragraph:

Their Southern problem is rooted not in regnant racism, but in the region's increasingly individualistic, optimistic, entrepreneurial and religious culture.

As Dr. Drezner would say: Indeed...

Illiud latine dici no potest

OK, I'll give the Latin a rest fairly soon. Maybe after this post. To be honest, what fluency I ever had has deteriorated to the point where I have no creative power, only the ability to look at somone else's sentence and figure out if it essentially means what I think it does. That's right, he says hanging his head in shame, I've been cribbing these stock Latin phrases from somewhere else.

As regards the post downstream (frankly, Virginian, I think it's a tad wonky to use links to items that are essentially a second's use of the scroll bar away), I'd like to register for the record that: I'm not turning into Spinoza or the Unabomber, seeing as I lack the requisite knowledge of geometry and/or explosives. I'm also neither Jewish nor a Luddite. And I'm familiar with the existence of The Elegant Universe and the potential of string theory to resolve the complications I gestured towards...but I read that book four years ago, and therefore my memory is hazy and I also don't know whether it retains scientific currency, or if the knowledge presented in the book shas been superceded (I doubt the book's accessibility to the layman has been superceded, though).

My astrophysics professor had a joke about someone parodying physicists annd in particular Dr. Chandrasekhar, but I don't remember what it was. He had another joke about rabbit stew, though, a concept to which he made reference and then had to explain since we were staring at him confusedly:

"So you go into a restaurant and see rabbit stew on the menu, and you're intrigued but also skeptical, so you ask the waiter:
"'Hey, what's with this rabbit stew? Is it really rabbit?' and the waiter is equivocating, he seems hesitant, and you say 'Come on, give me the truth, there's some horsemeat mixed in, isn't there?'
"'Yes.'
"'Well, how much is horsemeat?'
"'The proportion is 50/50.'
"'What does that mean?'
"'One horse, one rabbit.'"

They didn't deliver my paper this morning...

...but that won't stop me from getting my news. So, Paul Krugman usually deserves a link. No comments now. Wasted too much time already. Off to class.

Alpha Omega (or: See, This Isn't Latin; It's Greek)

In response to this post specifically point 1 (oh dear, he's turning into Spinoza -- or the Unabomber): this disparity between the very macro and very micro level in physics is what string theory is trying to resolve. It's a good thing for this disparity to blow one's mind because Neils Bohr once said something like "If you can think about quantam mechanics and not get dizzy then you haven't understood quantum mechanics." And the great (U of C) astrophysicist Subramanyan Chandrasekhar when asked "is it true that only three people in the world understand relativity?" he paused for a while and then responded "I'm trying to think of who the third is."

Anyway, my point is that there is unresolved conflict between quantam mechanics and relativity (micro and macro) and that this is what string theory is about and string theory is pretty nifty. There's a great book on string theory that I read in the Summer of 2002 while being underworked by the Federal government by Brian Greene called The Elegant Universe which is very easily understood by anyone. It kind of blew my mind, though; but in a good way.

De nomine

First, off, I promise that not all of the post titles will be in Latin. The Quarterican took it in high school, I only have a meager knowledge of ecclesiastical Latin and a very nice bilingual dictionary.

The name "What You Think You Know, You Don't Know" is from the first season (can't remember the episode) of Alias, one of the best TV shows ever. At some point Victor Garber delivers the line: "Sydney -- what you think you know, you don't.... know" with pauses close to what I've approximated with dots and dashes. Yes, this is an unweildy URL, but whatyouthinkyouknow.blogspot.com (our first choice) was already taken by someone who seems to be rather melancholy and write poetry (this individual may not actually write the poetry, I didn't spend that long on the site) and youdontknow.blogspot.com is also taken. So, just bookmark us and deal with it.

And about us: we're both undergrads at the University of Chicago. The Quarterican is studying Philosophy (see previous post) and yours truly is studying Politics. These facts inform most of our personality traits (by which I mean defects) - mainly the "students at the U of C" part. I might flesh out this "about" nonsense, so then I can put a link over on the (perpetually misbehaving) right-hand section that says "About Us" and you can click on it and get information about us, and pictures of our dogs or whatever. But not now.

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant

For the past several years I've had the potential for obsession with the implications of modern physics on philosophy - namely, what would happen if a person were to take the things he saw in his study of the universe both in its gross and miniscule forms (i.e., the galactic and the atomic, or essentially the study of black holes and the big bang vs. the study of electrons and protons) and construct from them a personal philosophy. Several problems come to mind, at least to this layman's mind:

(1) As best as I can tell there isn't really a great deal of reconciliation and coherence between the two scales of physics I described above. To wit: a study of the big bang and galactic motions etc. etc. points, the way I'm currently tilted, towards determinism (see below), whereas the subatomic region points to either randomness or incomprehensibility (a pair of concepts which could be mutually inclusive).

(2) Physics changes. What we thought 100 years ago isn't what we thought 50 years ago isn't what we think now and probably won't be what we think in another 50 years. A philosophy which necessarily must reconfigure itself as scientific expertise changes its mind doesn't seem like a philosophy built to last. Of course, there's great modern appeal to disposability.

(3) It's highly dubious, of course, whether there's any value in applying lessons learned at either the large or the small scales to what I'll somewhat hubristically call the medium scale - i.e., human interaction. (Of course, there's a good question - one to which, since I'm not very good at imagining infinities, I can't readily answer: what would the difference of magnitude be between a comparison of my size to that of a bozon and my size to that of a galaxy? I have to presume that galaxy vs. me will be a larger difference than me vs. bozon, but are we talking by a factor of 10? 10,000?) There's nothing compelling that I can see which suggests that the galactic or the subatomic can actually provide explanatory power to my life, only a nascent concept that an understanding of the way the universe works might provide an interesting lens through which to view my tiny corner of it. The problem is that I'd just end up looking at everything like a physicist with no math, a more incompetent iteration of the accountant who can't help but see his life in deductions and writeoffs.

Nonetheless, the idea is compelling to me, and I'll probably use it somewhere. It's been brought to mind recently because in a severe lapse of mental capacity I suddenly watched the big bang and fell into a sinkhole of determinism in which I suddenly found myself forced to believe that the universe's beginning necessarily dictated the nature of its end, and then I started muttering gnomic proclamations like "the alpha contains the omega."

I don't have time for this shit.

Si hoc legere potes...

Arrived from the other end of the apartment. Operations are moving. Work is being, momentarily, shirked, and efforts are being made at more definite procrastination.

In principio erat verbum

It's not that I have free time, it's just that I'm under the impression that I'm smart and that people might care about what I have to say. Well, here we go again...