Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

May 31st, 2007

Tags

Comments

12 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Kaplan Preview

Robert Dreher at Beliefnet somehow got his paws on not-yet-published Kaplan essay in the forthcoming issue of The American Interest:

Last night I was reading a Robert D. Kaplan essay from the forthcoming issue of The American Interest, an advance copy of which I received yesterday. Kaplan talks about the warrior class in American life, and how perilous it is to have an Army that is asked to fight for a society that no longer believes in itself—by which Kaplan means no longer believes there is anything worth fighting for. I don’t believe that is America, and neither, it seems, does Kaplan. But it could be America. The blowback of this war on American society will be ferocious, when it gathers full strength. We have lost this war, because in truth, the war was never winnable. And the war wasn’t even necessary. In the end, when the full cost of the war comes home, the American people will not forgive Bush this humiliation. But when we come to examine in Congressional hearings—as we will in the next Democratic administration, most likely—the lies that were told to justify this war, who can imagine what kind of loss of confidence in American authority that will result?

Lucky punk!

Comments to this entry

snow
May 31, 2007
6:54 am
This Kaplan article looks to be very interesting as I want to read his view, rather than that of Dreher, who was obviously against the war. First of all, I heard from a war historian acquaintance that the Gulf of Tonkin was not what sparked events in Vietnam. It was merely a reason for what was already being undertaken, even before that happened (I think that's what he said, it's been awhile). And the idea that the justification for the war was all centred on WMD's just seems bizarre to me. Did people really only support this thing because Bush said it was about WMDs? I think they truly believed that this invasion would be in the US strategic interests by gaining a foothold in the region. I don't see what is wrong with that. The problem is, was it a realistic goal and did they plan for it properly? And as mentioned, is it a winnable war in the first place. But this crap about it all being based on lies is typical leftist crap. Agencies around the world believed that Saddam was a problem. How long do you bury your head in the sand when two-bit dictators like Saddam continue to defy you and shoots at your planes in no-fly zones? Was that worth starting a war over? Maybe not, but I think the idea of gaining a foothold was appealing, though we're seeing that it was not realistic, at least certainly not in the short term so far.
snow
May 31, 2007
7:20 am
And I would hardly blame Bush alone for eroding trust in the US government. It's been going on for a long time, at least since JFK's assassination, when people started to not believe everything the government told them (I think some level of scepticism always existed, it just increased). The negative side of increasing freedom of the press and american life was the spreading of crap leftist (and other) ideas infecting and destroying any trust in the government at all. That's why there are so many ridiculous conspiracy theories that have sprung up around everything under the sun. I still hear people blaming the CIA for almost anything that occurs anywhere on the planet.

Actually, I think there's been plenty of scepticism throughout history, it's not just a recent thing. But with the rise of the internet and the easy spread of ideas, it has become easier to diseminate information and ideas, whether good or bad. This is a great thing, but we should never lose our scepticism of the government nor of those who criticize the government, as they may have a hidden agenda, just as the government does. In other words, be sceptical of the government and be sceptical of the critics of government.
Matt Schiavenza
May 31, 2007
11:41 am
Snow, just to clarify: Dreher actually supported the war but turned against it about a year or so ago, an about-face that led to an NPR essay and mild media attention elsewhere.

And I don't know if I agree that the WMDs were merely tangential- I think had the US (and European governments) known that Saddam's weapons program was moribund, they'd have a far more difficult time drumming up support for the invasion.

But then again, as a hypothetical, we'll never know
tequila
May 31, 2007
4:18 pm
Snow, I'd like you to find the major speech where Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice makes the case for the war in Iraq based on "gaining a foothold in the region." Seriously, try.

OTOH, I do remember a certain speech at the U.N., but I don't think Powell claimed that we needed to conquer Iraq for greater basing rights in the Middle East. What was his main argument, do you remember?
TDL
May 31, 2007
5:18 pm
Since I have not read much Kaplan (I understand that is apostasy here,) I am curious about one thing; should we be cultivating the notion of a military class in the U.S.?

When it comes to a military class (as well as faith in government), I do know that the majority of the founders were extremely opposed to that notion. To the extent that it took almost 40 years before veterans of the Revolution received pensions for their service from the federal government. Since you folks are more well versed in Kaplan than I, I thought this would be a good place to posit the question.

Regards,
TDL
snow
June 1, 2007
2:21 am
tequila, I never said that this was Bush et al used the 'foothold in the Middle East' idea as their main justification. I don't know what they said to the public as I don't live in the US and don't read many American news sources. As far as I understood it, it was for this reason that they went in. Above, I say that the Bush admin went in for this reason, because they thought it was the right thing to do. It seems that it was not a realistic goal and they didn't plan well for it, but I believe that the reasons for it were this, among others, and I see nothing wrong with that idea. That's why I supported the war, because I thought it would give them a foothold in the region. I don't know what most Americans thought or were told. I still think it was a noble goal, just unrealistic and poorly planned.
alec
June 1, 2007
4:29 pm
The blowback of this war will be no greater than that of Vietnam. We'll see the opposition party take power, promise an end to hostilities & conflict, and begin reopening diplomatic channels.

Impressive trolls you have here, I didn't know a preview of an essay that details the shortcomings of a war undermined by the complete lack of support from both left and right could fuel mind-numbing comments about 'leftist crap'. Did Novak stop breastfeeding you or something?
Kurt9
June 1, 2007
8:08 pm
I think Ron Paul hit the nail on the head in the recent republican debates about our interventionist foreign policy. The WMD argument was used to whip up the American public for the war, but the real reason for the war was a misguided attempt to invade and "recreate" the middle-east in the same manner that we "recreated" Japan and Germany following our defeat of them with WWII. In other words, the Iraq war was a continuation of our "missionary" foreign policy of trying to convert the rest of the world to "Americanism", rightly or wrongly.

There are numerous reasons why this attempt was illfated from the beginning, based on the flawed comparision of the muslim middle-east with Japan and germany.
snow
June 2, 2007
1:05 am
Alec, so I went off on a bit of a tangent about leftist crap. So sue me. Everyone has their biases.

Anyway, I actually agree with your opening statement that blowback will probably be no worse than Vietnam and that there will be efforts to reopen diplomatic channels.
Kurt9
June 2, 2007
6:36 pm
Snow,

I don't think anything you said was leftist at all. I agree with you that public trust in government has been eroding since JFK (if not before). The government kept a great many secrets as part of fighting the cold war, secrets that have proliferated over time and have created uncertainty in the minds of much of the public. Combine this with stuff that LBJ and Nixon did, a certain distrust of government by the public is warranted. Bush is the continuation of a trend that began in the 60's.

Consider that some of the Bush administration are Nixon retreads (like Rummy).
jomama
June 2, 2007
6:49 pm
...the lies that were told to justify this war, who can imagine what kind of loss of confidence in American authority that will result?

Justly so and long overdue.

I can hardly wait.
The Descent into Blog Nihilism | Prose Before Hos
June 3, 2007
3:30 pm
[...] noteworthy news: Coming Anarchy has a preview on the latest Kaplan article, a four foot ledge makes an excellent suicide platform, Pundits are always wrong (how did he [...]