Fiasco

From the blog "Crooked Timber" Alex Tabarrok writes that he is dismayed that people would think that the Iraqi war would be anything other than a fiasco. He has been reading Thomas Ricks' book "Fiasco" where Ricks says "the war on Iraq and subsequent occupation was ill-conceived, incompetently planned and poorly executed". No wonder it has been a fiasco, Tabarrok writes, because "all wars are full of incompetence, mendacity, fear, and lies. War is big government, authoritarianism, central planning, command and control, and bureaucracy in its most naked form and on the largest scale".

I agree that the war in Iraq is a fiasco. However, it didn’t have to be that way. Wars aren’t inherently or necessarily fiascos as Tabarrok writes. This Iraq war has been run especially badly. In comparison, though, the first Iraqi war, in 1991, was much better organized and executed and ended in success. In the present war Bush the younger (his father organized the first war) has ignored advice, ignored history and ignored the world. Had Bush&Co not been so arrogant, ignorant and naive this war could have been a success. This war has been waged by children in comparison. This war was based on the lethal combination of ideology, simple mindedness, inherent incompetence, hubris and shear stubbornness. No wonder it has been a fiasco.

Tabarrok puts the incompetence of this war directly at the feet of the Pentagon. The Bush administration naively gave the Pentagon full command of what was to happen in Iraq, from the execution of the war to the rebuilding and democratizing of it. This completely shut out the State Department which generally is responsible for helping the democratic process in other lands. It is more experienced in such matters. For instance, the State Department played a major role in democratizing Germany and Japan after WW2. The Pentagon doesn't understand diplomacy, an essential factor for ending wars. The Pentagon has monopolized the whole process in Iraq and when monopolizing happens big problems inevitably develop. That is why democracies like the U.S. have developed competing levels of power, to discourage monopolistic practices. Had the Pentagon shared more responsibility with The State Department and others in securing Iraq it most likely would not be the fiasco it is today.

Had the administration not gone it alone this war would not have been a fiasco. Sure, it assembled a “coalition of the willing” but most of that has fallen apart, except for the British, as the situation deteriorated. Had the administration listened more to the military, which had learned valuable lessons from the first Iraqi war and Vietnam, this war would not be a fiasco. Bush&Co seemed to throw past experience out the window when it came to this war, thinking it could do it on the cheap and with minimum effort. Up to this point America had learned to be more cautious and pragmatic about war, especially after Vietnam. Political and economic engagement were now supposed to be the alternatives to war. But the Bush administration refused to do either with Iraq. The “age of reason” did not enter into the equation in this White House. They saw the alternative to war as appeasement and rewarding “evil doers”. The naiveté of this Company and its lack of understanding and nuance is what made this war a fiasco, not the inherent nature of war. Enough has been learned about war to make it reasonable successful, like the one launched against Yugoslavia under the Clinton administration.

Another blogger, Peter Levine, sees the Iraq war as systematic failure, meaning that the whole system of America, the collective zeitgeist of its people, the media, Congress and so on, is responsible. Somebody described what transpired as a group delusion. I agree. However, being the head of the system that failed, Bush&Co. deserve most of the blame. The “buck” stops with Bush. As America’s leader he is ultimately responsible. It is said that people deserve the administration they pick. So, by association the people are also part of the failure, as Levine implies.

After 9/11 America was itching for revenge but Afghanistan, where the attackers were trained, was not a target enough. The public and the media, and perhaps the military, wanted and needed a larger, more visible and rewarding cathartic experience. Afghanistan was not enough, Iraq was. What followed was like sheep following each other over a cliff. Perhaps this blind eagerness helped cause the fiasco.

As for the blog I quoted from at the beginning, “Crooked Timber”, I assume its name comes from something the philosopher Emmanuel Kant said : “From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned”. It is sort of appropriate for this subject because nothing about the Iraqi war has been straight. It was presented crookedly and it was executed crookedly. From such crookedness fiascos are bound to develop.