> Marvin Gandall wrote:
>>I also think it's mistaken to consider the invasion of Iraq an act of
>>"stupidity" so much as of miscalculation
>
> Almost everyone who knew anything about Iraq predicted what would happen
> if the US invaded, and the Bush admin ignored or fired them.
> Miscalculation seems too kind a word for that.
===========================
I didn't mean to be kind, and it was a stupendous miscalculation - by people
who may be lacking in character or humanity but, outside of Bush Jr.
certainly not wanting in political sophistication and experience: Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Feith, Bolton, Libby, Perle, Fukiyama, Wolfowitz, etc., not to
mention liberal imperialists like Pollock and Packer and Ignatieff right
through to our old friend Hitchens on the socialist left. None of these
folks are fools, however else you might describe them and however much
others, including myself, characterized the invasion of Iraq as reckless and
adventurist in terms of the US's larger strategic interests. But across the
political spectrum, there was an equally widespread perception that Saddam,
already confronted by a disaffected Shia and Kurdish majority, would be easy
pickings for the mighty US military machine.
So it wasn't the case, as I recall, that "almost everyone who knew anything about Iraq predicted what would happen if the US invaded." It's more accurate to say the US bourgeoisie was seriously divided on the issue, with a large part of the foreign policy and miilitary establishment, prominently represented by its alumni Scowcroft, Brzeninski, and Zinni, nervously opposed to it. But they didn't speak for everyone, and when Bush staged his theatrical landing on the aircraft carrier, the dissenters were on the defensive and it was the triumphant neocon intellectuals and politicians like Rumsfeld who seemed the more clear-headed in their insistence that US interests could be advanced farther through the raw unilateral exercise of power than through accomodations with America's allies and opponents, a policy orientation they identified with "soft" Democrats. As Yoshie has pointed out, it wasn't until the development of a serious Iraqi insurgency that the pro-invasion conservatives and liberals began revisiting the issue and having second thoughts and jumping ship. And I too don't recall many on LBO and other left-wing lists up to that point confidently scoffing at the Bush administration for being hapless and headed for defeat, however much it was being hated for all the other right reasons.
It really is, to my mind, an open question as to when force is productive or counter-productive in pursuit of a political objective, and the answer can only be determined in hindsight on the basis of the outcome. From the standpoint of the Marxist and anarchist left also, no serious historical change has occured without coercion, however much the reluctance to exercise it, and it has also had its own share of mistakes and adventures. It's naive to think the right-wing doesn't reason in similar fashion about its own interests, and that it is instead somehow possessed by ignorance or madness. It can both lead to an underestimation of the other side's capabilities and inhibit a serious analysis of its interests and motives to think that it is.
My own view is that if the US or the Israelis or both launch air strikes involving tactical nuclear weapons, it will be as a result of their rational calculation that (1) such action will be effective in crippling Iran's nuclear weapons development and sending a message to other unfriendly governments, and (2) that they will be able to contain and ride out the resulting economic and political damage. You can be certain they are as aware of the potential backlash as we are. They may be proved wrong if they conclude that will be a small price to pay for an intimidating demonstration of power, but we might equally be too glib in so baldly asserting before the fact that such a "mad" enterprise would be inevitably doomed to failure. In the meantime, they have decided to ratchet up the pressure on the Iranians in the hope they will back down, and are carefully testing allied, US and world opinion before making any decision to launch. If I were on their side, I would be doing the same thing, and not regarding it as insane.