Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > 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
Kindness or unkindness is irrelevant. Know the enemy AND ABOVE ALL DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE ENEMY.
I believe _both_ Marvin _and_ Doug are seriously underestimating the enemy. It is by no means obvious that the invasion of Iraq was _either_ stuped _or_ even a "miscalculation." In fact no one in this thread has even raised as a possibility the question of whether an important tautology is operative or not: Any organized social entity must fight the battles it must fight, regardless of likelihood or unlikelihood of success.
U.S. imperialism _must_ establish and maintain military bases in the mideast. It is not a choice but a given. The choice was only when and how and under what pretences. Success was to be measured by one criteria only, whether or not the chosen course was the one least likely to be a failure. Those who wish to label the u.s. ruling class and its primary agents in the great media, the DP, and the RP "stupid" (and you can't call Bush stupid without also calling all the DP leadership who supported him) must show not only that the Iraq invasion has _no_ chance of culminating with troops permanently stationed there but that _other_ strategies to the same end were available and more feasible. You can't do it.
Carrol