The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Power Pointers

2.7.07 @ 12:01AM

DEBATING THE POINT
Re: William Tucker's Power Pointing to Victory:

William Tucker falls into the trap of believing that stability is preferable to anarchy under all circumstances. But there are circumstances in which the anarchy of war is preferable to a stability that allows evil to fester in peace. It also does not follow that any such regional peace initiative as he desires would result in a peace favorable to us. The salient examples he uses, Nixon's outreach to China and Teddy Roosevelt's settlement of the Russo-Japanese War, do not support his principal assertions. In the case of Roosevelt's settlement of the Russo-Japanese War, it did temporarily bolster American prestige, and it won TR a Nobel Peace Prize, but it also planted the seed that sprouted at Pearl Harbor and the fruit harvested at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nixon's initiative towards China is even more problematic, since it was intended to isolate the USSR and cause it to divert resources that otherwise might be deployed against the U.S. and NATO. Yet it did nothing of the kind. There is no evidence that the Soviet Union's grand strategic posture was altered in any way by the rapprochement between the U.S. and China (today, of course, Russia and China are on the road to becoming strategic partners, so Nixon's strategic intent of driving a wedge between the two countries has failed).

Rather, this rapprochement allowed the modernization of the Chinese economy while leaving its Communist government in place. Now that government looks likely to emerge as the next "peer competitor" to U.S. hegemony, its power greatly enhanced by access to the wealth and technology of the West (including the U.S.). If there is war between the U.S. and China in the next generation, one can point to Nixon's trip to China as the moment when that war became inevitable. If there is going to be a cataclysmic war between Iran and the United States, a regional peace conference of the sort Tucker advocates will be the event that makes it inevitable.

Sometimes, Mr. Tucker needs to realize, the only acceptable "exit strategy" is called "Victory."
-- Stuart Koehl
Falls Church, Virginia

William Tucker sits in his warm suburban house somewhere on the east coast and watches TV. The relentless negative reporting on Iraq, the nightly talking heads spewing forth nonsense that closely matches opinion polls, the articles in our major papers that continually stress the negative even when describing success, all these things have worn Mr. Tucker down. Mr. Tucker just can't take it anymore. He decides if the U.S. will just quit and come home he can watch TV without the stress of war reporting. Mr. Tucker has accepted, and is effectively advocating, U.S. defeat in war because Mr. Tucker is uncomfortable.

Power Pointing to Victory?

Weak-kneed journalists pointing to defeat!

I choose victory. I support the surge. I support a long-term commitment to success in Iraq. I will not rationalize U.S. defeat in war because I am uncomfortable.

Wake up, America.
-- Doug Santo
Pasadena, California

It is heartening to see that a few in your stable of pundits, William Tucker in this instance, are finally coming to recognize the error of the Bush administration's ways in Iraq. In fairness to Frederick Kagan, despite the wrong-headedness of his ideas, it is probable that his presentation was customized to accommodate the cognitive abilities of his target audience. PowerPoint presentations can work well in many business environments, and a business school graduate who doesn't read books might understand them better than traditional paper documents. I once thought that a businesslike approach in the White House might make it more effective, but now I see that effectiveness has to be balanced against quality of thought, which has been practically nonexistent for six years, as far as I'm concerned.

I am appalled to see Diane Sawyer meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when the Bush administration has refused to do the same -- in the face of almost universal agreement that all major parties in the region must be brought to the table. Nothing could be more obvious now than the need for open discussion rather than secret strategizing by an elite cadre of failed policymakers.
-- Abe Grossman
Pleasantville, New York

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I was surprised it took so long to get to the Vietnam analogy.

Of course, as with most Vietnam analogies there is a failure to mention the end result of all the negotiating, peace making and withdrawal of American support.

The massive genocide that occurred in Vietnam and Cambodia is a horrific reminder of what happens
when you negotiate with liars and then turn a blind eye to their subsequent actions. I seem to remember a similar ploy used by Chamberlain before the outbreak of WWII and as I recall that didn't go so well either.

If Iraq is "filled" with "lunatics" of the kind you suggest we would have been chased out of Iraq long ago.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Business, Social Security, Environment, Books, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, United Nations, NATO, North Korea, Conservatism, Oil, Unions, Medicare