Greetings and welcome to my blog. I can't say I have too much to say, but I thought it would be fun to start a blog site. Some of the more "mature" sites have graphics, links, etc. I'm new to this and somewhat of a technical novice. I also don't have a whole lot of time to spend putting a bunch of stuff on the site. But I will try to (for a while) and see what happens.
JB
5 comments:
Hey JB! Weird calling you that. Still think of you as sir. :) I guess the more people you tell about this thing, the more will get on here. I assume that's the way it works. Have fun with it.
Why didn't Bush fire Rummy before the election? It's a near certainty that the GOP would not have lost the Senate and that losses in the House would have been reduced. Bush would have been accused of playing politics, but since he is a politician and his action would have been in response to a chorus us requests on the left and right, the downside would have been minimal.
I posit that he and his planners wanted the Democrats to win at least one house so that they would be put in the position to come up with a workable solution to the war in Iraq -- and therefore assume part of the blame if things (continue to) go badly. What's the downside for Bush of the Democrats controlling the the Congress? His six nominees for judgeships were not going anywhere anyway, social security reform on his terms was dead in the water anyway, etc... I further posit that Bush has his eye focused on his legacy and that when all is said and done, he and Rove think a Democrat congress will help him achieve a better outcome than a GOP controlled Congress that draws fire at every turn.
My thoughts are not well defined, at this point, but I think my proposition is worth debating. Thoughts please?
davea brings up some great points. Any comments from the peanut gallery?
JB
All:
I've been reading quite a bit on Middle East politics and religion. In part, I can't escape the logic of the SamueL Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis given the Judeo-Christian struggle with Islam. I have listed five books from the Wall Street Journal, indicating books essential to understanding Islam. I have only read Bernard Lewis's book, What Went Wrong? and the biography on Muhammad, but I intend to read the other four on this list as soon as possible.
In the 1920's, Winston Churchill warned the British Parliament of the inherent dangers of Wahhabi Islam. He viewed this sect as a potential and gravely serious threat to the free peoples of the world. It appears that his assessment was correct. Given the events leading up to 11 Sep 01, and its implications ever since, it seems to me that all of us--irrespective of how old we are--need to have a firm grasp on the history and tenets of this faith so we can be informed citizens in the political process that will shape the debate and effect decisions having an ultimate impact on the security and prosperity of our children and grandchildren in the years ahead.
These books are essential to understanding Islam.
1. "Islam" by Vartan Gregorian (Brookings, 2003).
2. "Muhammad" by Karen Armstrong (HarperCollins, 1992).
3. "What Went Wrong? by Bernard Lewis (Oxford, 2002).
4. "The Koran Interpreted" translated by A.J. Arberry (Macmillan, 1955).
5. "Wahhabi Islam" by Natana J. Delong-Bas (Oxford, 2004).
CEB
It's probably well that the SecDef did not step down before the election - it could have been interpreted as a strong sign of weakness by the Democratics and disloyalty to friend exactly when the going got tough.
I have recently finished reading Fiasco and I think it's clear that there was a failure of the interagency process after major combat operations in 2003. Unfortunately, there's several ways to look at the problem with the SecDef. First, the SecDef was probably right with the Army Transformation and resistance to change from the military. We didn't need the Crusader even before 2003. Second, the current problems in Iraq could be the result of a flawed force structure (the Generals could have been right on troop levels) or SecDef could have been right on force structure (the speedy results in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001 were certainly testament to that). The book Fiasco makes a strong case for flawed leadership in the first year (Bremer v. military dictonomy) with lots of lost opportunities.
I submit that Rumsfield may not have been the real problem over the past few years in Iraq. We haven't seen the political leadership with clear chains of command and adequate resourcing for economic & security projects with regard to the post-war period. In sum, the post-major ops planning wasn't a military problem, but an interagency problem. We didn't see the NSC leadership, directing Defense and State.
I'm currently reading Bing West's book - No True Glory - about Fallujah in April and November 2004. The Marines were ready to go in April after the contractors were killed and the operation had support from Rumsfield. General Abizaid and the President had doubts about the political wisdom of taking down the Sunni stronghold. Bing West is an excellent observer and writer; he has some interesting things to say from the tactical level right up to the President. The book highlights my earlier blog on the critical importance of understanding Islam and the problems it creates for us.
CEB
Post a Comment