More Andrew Bacevich

Since I watched that interview yesterday, I have continued to mull over his take. I disagree with some of his analysis on the political side. For example, I think he is far too harsh on the Democrats for not being able to end the war after the 2006 election, but there is little doubt that he correctly notes that Pelosi and Reid seem more concerned with protecting their majorities than doing the right thing.

But his analysis on the problems with this Global War on Terror just keep resonating, and of course, remind me that even the conservative Rand Corporation believes that the military is the wrong tool to use against terrorism. Bacevich compared Al Qaeda to a "criminal conspiracy" (a violent one, obviously) and argued that the best way to battle this very real threat was to use intelligence and police forces wisely.

He also has some suggestions for where we are now as a nation after 8 years of Bush and Cheney. From the the Boston Globe, this op ed on "What Bush hath wrought":

Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;
Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;
Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;
Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";
Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances

Hard to argue with him on any of those, I think. He also notes that McCain, while different than Bush in many ways, is the one most fundamentally wedded to Bush's approach to foreign policy.

"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course."

Bacevich makes a very strong point that history has taught us that military power can be useful for sure, but it has very clear limits. Bush and Cheney seem to have missed that altogether, and when you add that to a public who believes that our military is invincible, it becomes and intoxicating and addictive thing to call for military force.

Bacevich seems like a pretty credible source on this, btw. He served in the military for some 20 years and retired as a Colonel. One of Sully's readers recalls how he retired when he was passed over for General after an incident in Kuwait. Bacevich, according to this reader, took full responsibility for what occurred under his watch.

At any rate, when you talk about Bacevich, not only has he lost his son to this stupid war we both supported, but he is just a decent, honest, honorable, good man. At a time when no one ever takes responsibility, he is a man who believes in it, and walked the walk.

Contrast that with this administration, (and one can argue--the previous administration as well) where nothing is ever their fault.