I know that Slate is considered a bit of an indelicate subject around here. But I have to confess that I was an avid reader of Slate for years. I found it a useful source of information on a wide variety of topics. Since I started following DailyKos in the run up to last year's elections, I have less and less time for Slate. I still get over there, though.
This evening when I went over, I was curious to read Jacob Weisberg's article, which had top billing on the home page with the heading Was Victory in Iraq Ever Possible?
I know I've read some things by Weisberg that I've enjoyed. Several weeks ago he offered a theory about Why you're not demonstrating against the Iraq war that I thought was both interesting and plausible [no draft]. But a lot of his stuff falls into what I think we would call concern troll here.
In this latest article, he proposes to answer a question that's stumped everybody else. As he puts it:
Virtually everyone now agrees that the war in Iraq has been a vast mistake. But what, exactly, was the nature of that mistake?
He says that there are two theories in general circulation. Either it failed owing to incompetence, as expressed in:
... the 20/20 hindsight of the neoconservatives, who blame the Iraqi tragedy on Bush, Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, Jay Garner, Paul Bremer—on anyone, in short, other than themselves. In the January issue of Vanity Fair, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, and others explain that incompetent Republicans spoiled their picnic by failing to prevent looting, to give contracts to the right people, to rein in Paul Bremer, to trust in Chalabi, and so forth.
Or it was in principle impossible:
... no occupation of Iraq could have been successful because it is an artificial country, or because we don't understand it, or because the ethnic and religious factions there prefer war to peace
And his conclusion?
An American defeat still would have been possible with better planning, sufficient troops, realistic goals, and sound strategy. But even in this mistakenly chosen war, our failure wasn't inevitable. It is the product of blunders made along the way by President Bush and his people—and the blunders they are making still.
I don't really see how this is different from the incompetence side of the argument that he is at pains to distance himself from:
what's irritating here is the continuing fantasy that war in Iraq could have dependably followed any preconceived plan. Rumsfeld is right about one thing—stuff happens. Military decision-making demands improvisation and entails error.
Well, duh.
It all seems a bit scholastic to me, arguing about whether the Iraq War was:
- Impossible in principle
- Merely difficult
I can't quite see why this deserves top billing on Slate. (I know, Weisberg is the editor, but still.)
Your thoughts are welcome.