I didn't get around to reading it until today, but Mark Helprin
has a sobering
but worthwhile piece on how both parties have failed us on
national security -- the Bush administration through incompetent
execution of two wars, and the Democrats by failing to recognize
the seriousness of the terrorist threat. "In short, the
Right should have had the wit to fight, and the Left should have
had the will to fight," Helprin wrote. "Both failed. The country
is exhausted, divided, and improperly protected, and will remain
so if the new president and administration are merely another
face of the same sterile duality."
As far as I can tell, the proof that the war was "incompetently
executed" is, in general, that the enemy did something absolutely
bizarre and unprecendented: fought. In a competently executed
war, apparently, the enemy doesn't fight back and it is over in
two weeks.
I wonder if this definition will be preserved as the media goes
into full on glorification mode with the election of The One.
ruth| 12.24.08 @ 12:16AM
We haven't been attacked since 9/11; how is this a failure?
Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen failure yet.
Man! Do I get tired of the arrogance of clowns who so freely
criticize our achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq!
I suggest you all go back and read up on those experts who
predicted failure due to the ferocious Afghan winter, and who
thought a two-day pause for resupply indicated a lost battle in
the drive on Baghdad. And then there were those--including our
new Pres' adviser Shinseki--who declared the need for half a
million troops and a year's buildup before taking on the Taliban.
If Helprin (and you, Klein) think you can do better, by all means
join up and take the battle to the enemy. If not, send your
thanks to Don Rumsfeld and the guy who hired him.
Roy| 12.23.08 @ 2:10PM
As far as I can tell, the proof that the war was "incompetently executed" is, in general, that the enemy did something absolutely bizarre and unprecendented: fought. In a competently executed war, apparently, the enemy doesn't fight back and it is over in two weeks.
I wonder if this definition will be preserved as the media goes into full on glorification mode with the election of The One.
ruth| 12.24.08 @ 12:16AM
We haven't been attacked since 9/11; how is this a failure? Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen failure yet.
Dai Alanye| 12.24.08 @ 5:52PM
Man! Do I get tired of the arrogance of clowns who so freely criticize our achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq!
I suggest you all go back and read up on those experts who predicted failure due to the ferocious Afghan winter, and who thought a two-day pause for resupply indicated a lost battle in the drive on Baghdad. And then there were those--including our new Pres' adviser Shinseki--who declared the need for half a million troops and a year's buildup before taking on the Taliban.
If Helprin (and you, Klein) think you can do better, by all means join up and take the battle to the enemy. If not, send your thanks to Don Rumsfeld and the guy who hired him.