This is common coin on the left, but the Bush administration consists of more than its simple-minded figurehead, and it can be misleading and disarming to think of the power structure or most any other institution this way, even when they are divided or seem confused or to have acted against their interests.
[...]
..................
I see your point but I'm using a very specific - and perhaps, idiosyncratic definition of "smart" and "clever": your plans, perfidious though they might be, are built from an accurate understanding of likely outcomes. Reviewing the statements of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and so on along with their chattering class supporters in the "Weekly Standard" and similar outlets it was clear to me from the start - and I make no claim of being a Rommel, Hideyoshi or Sun Tzu - their understanding was fatally flawed by ideological blinders which have the effect of making you "stupid".
Marvin:
I also think it's mistaken to consider the invasion of Iraq an act of "stupidity" so much as of miscalculation - about the welcome the US occupiers and their puppets like Chalibi would receive from the oppressed Shia majority, the scale and effectiveness of Sunni guerrilla resistance they would encounter, and the economic and military resources which would be required to secure and rebuild the country. These things are always easier to see as "stupid" in retrospect, but it obscures the fact that the decision to use armed force is not always or even mostly irrational, even when things don't turn out as planned.
[...]
............
Yes, but I'm arguing that this type of miscalculation is a *form* of stupidity.
Iraq, prior to the invasion, was one of the most heavily militarized places on the planet and the storage site for ton upon ton of munitions of all sorts.
Furthermore, a large cohort of battle hardened Iran/Iraq war vets, young hot heads, private militias and the simply pissed - many highly skilled and, once pushed, highly motivated fighters stood ready to wage brutal war upon the occupiers and their internal foes.
The neoliberal preoccupations of the the occupation's architects guaranteed the economic devastation of most of Iraq's population...consider also the racist treatment of Iraqis in their own country by occupation operatives high and low; more factors increasing the (predictable) likelihood of resistance. More nails in the coffin.
Bad outcomes matching our current troubles were accurately predicted by people as varied in outlook as Anthony Cordesman and Noam Chomsky. Indeed, when the "400,000 troops will be needed to stabilize Iraq post-war" statement was made (Anthony Zinni, yes?) that was a roundabout way of saying the mission was doomed (the number being so high it meant - as Rumsfeld seemed to understand - the thing shouldn't be done).
As I've written here before: yes of course Rumsfeld (to pick an obvious example) is "smart" in the conventional sense. But when you make the kinds of avoidable blunders this team has made, "miscalculation" and other polite words simply don't cut it.
Their position was not so desperate they needed to take extreme measures. In fact, they sat in a command position after 9/11/01, with much of the world's sympathy and the support of many Americans who might otherwise have been dubious.
They moved froma perceived position of strength, not weakness and squandered nearly all their winnings in unnecessary, poorly planned, ineptly executed operations.
With all due respect to your position Marvin, they are not smart hegemons.
.d.
--------- "If human beings had more of a sene of humor, things might have turned out differently."
Stanislav Lem