Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
1. again, ace, "leadership" for you has to do with the type of sentences in used in the marketing of war. "leadership" is a matter of short punchy statements that reassure people like yourself because they enable you to eliminate complexity when you imagine the war fantasy of your choice. it has no relation whatsoever to actual strategy in the actual conflict.
|
Leadership requires the ability to communicate how and why collective goals and objectives are aligned with individual goals and objectives. If this is what you consider marketing. I agree that leaders need to be able to market their cause and in this case war. The type of statements that appeal to me are going to be different than the types of statements that appeal to you. It is clear that Bush presented his argument in terms I understood but he failed to present his argument in terms that many others could understand. I agree with Noonan, no matter what statements work for ceertain individuals, there is a speech that has not been given. There are questions that have not been answered.
In my study of history no effective leader ever succeeded in making the simple complex or not being able to communicate complex matters in simple terms. In my mind the highest level of intellect involves the ability to simplify the complex. to me the greatest speech ever given was the Gettysburg Address. If there is a problem in the way that speech appeals to me, so be it.
Quote:
|
recall that the bush administration's "strategy" for iraq really was the farce called the "wolfowitz doctrine" at the time---grateful natives lining the streets to welcome their heroic liberators---and now we're 8 years on during a fiasco of a war the stench of which can easily be judged by looking at sources like the iraqi oil report and reading about the state of basic service delivery---you know, stuff like electricity---or reading almost any actual information about the empirical situation in actually existing iraq and not relying on simple sentences and assuming that the therapeutic effect those simple sentences have on you reflects anything beyond the state of affairs that obtains in your skull.
|
The "dancing in the streets" thing was empty rhetoric in my opinion. What was not empty to me was when Bush said the war would be difficult. Many including me, had mixed feelings about the occupation after removing Saddam. Eventually I agreed with Powell's assessment of "you broke it you fix it" approach. Regarding Lybia I still have mixed feeling on the point of "you break it, you fix it" - are we going to be there until the end? Should we be there to the end? At what cost? Etc. Etc. Again, I asked what have we learned?
Quote:
|
recall as well that almost any account of the iraq war concludes that there was no coherent strategy once the wolfowitz doctrine turned out to be absurd.
|
The occupation strategy was developed after removing Saddam. I agree we should have had a better occupation plan.
Quote:
|
and there was no coherent assessment of iraqi realities factored into the non-strategy.
|
After a strategy was developed, your point assumes war is static and predictable. It is not. The enemy responds to a strategy, that requires adjustment, and it is on going. To say there was no strategy is simply wrong. We can argue that the strategy was wrong, inadequate, etc., but there clearly was and is a strategy.
Quote:
|
so you may have had "leadership" on tv but you certainly didn't have it on the ground.
|
Again, I am not clear on your assessment of Iraq today. If you think Iraq is a failure, I understand your position. If it is not a failure, are you suggesting that it was simply chance that got us to this point?
Quote:
|
2. you don't care what is really happening in libya.
|
This is the point where we go off point.
You suggest to know what I care about. This illustrates a level of arrogance that is absurd. For you to pretend to know what I care about is irrational. Try again.