The present-day U.S. military qualifies by any measure as highly professional, much more so than its Cold War predecessor. Yet the purpose of today’s professionals is not to preserve peace but to fight unending wars in distant places. Intoxicated by a post-Cold War belief in its own omnipotence, the United States allowed itself to be drawn into a long series of armed conflicts, almost all of them yielding unintended consequences and imposing greater than anticipated costs. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. forces have destroyed many targets and killed many people. Only rarely, however, have they succeeded in accomplishing their assigned political purposes. . . . [F]rom our present vantage point, it becomes apparent that the “Revolution of ‘89” did not initiate a new era of history. At most, the events of that year fostered various unhelpful illusions that impeded our capacity to recognize and respond to the forces of change that actually matter.

Andrew Bacevich


Thursday, May 24, 2018

Update for Thursday, May 24, 2018

Tell me something I don't already know department. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction declares the effort a failure. The $5 billion expenditure by the U.S. has largely been squandered.

The report says the effort proved ineffective in stabilization because the military focused on the most dangerous districts first, where poor security made it hard to move on to the building phase. U.S. civilian agencies were compelled to conduct their stabilization programs in dangerous areas not ready for rebuilding, and once coalition troops and civilians left those districts the stabilization ended.
The report also says that U.S. funds created opportunities for corruption, and the Obama administration's deadline for troop withdrawals also created problems with a race against the clock. I would say, however, that it is not clear that anything could have worked.

I'll skip the roundup of daily violence, which continues at a steady rate.

In IraqMuqtada al-Sadr met with political leaders in Baghdad and says he has agreement to form an inclusive government. Whether he will truly transcend his past and provide the leadership to build a unified nation and an accountable, effective government obviously remains to be seen. But he's still saying all the right words. I remember writing here back at the height of the civil war that I didn't see anyone standing up for Iraq. Our friend River left the country in despair. (I wonder where she is now and what she is doing), as did many other progressive Iraqi nationalists. Is there truly hope now?

0 comments: