The Chicken Little Approach

Apparently, some people’s worlds are so perfect, so machine-like in the way things go in their lives that any little obstacle becomes insurmountable. One or two small problems and The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

In my entry where I criticized John Kerry for comparing the War in Iraq to the Bay of Pigs I just received the following comment, accompanied by a full post in a blog no less:

You wrote:
“What a great disservice Mr. Kerry does to those in the armed forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, dishonoring not only those Americans serving their country, but their allies.”

On what is this based? Please show me a Kerry quote in which he dishonored the servicemen and women in Iraq.

You wrote:
Like the men of Brigade 2506, the Iraqi’s are fighting for their freedom. They depend on the strength of not just the US forces serving alongside them, but of the strength and conviction of the one man leading them.”

I agree that leadership is key. I don’t think that you can possibly think that this war in Iraq has been well led.

Are we still vying for hearts and minds? Are the troops properly equipped? Are they properly trained for securing the peace? Are they serving unusually lengthy tours? Is the mortality rate rising? Are we bearing the bulk of this burden? Why are we there? Which reason is it today?

Don’t lump me in with the fuzzy headed liberals that would pull out of Iraq. That is not me.

But if you are talking about incompetence in leadership, I think it is fair to note JFK and the Bay of Pigs and George Bush and Iraq.

And I think that one can do this without being misconstrued as denigrating the brave soldiers that are bearing the additional burdens born from poor strategy.

Perhaps I’ll return the favor.

Mr. Stark, you wrote:

Please show me a Kerry quote in which he dishonored the servicemen and women in Iraq.

The entire statement dishonors the service men and women in Iraq. Those men and women are on foreign soil risking thier lives to achieve a specific goal. By equating the War in Iraq, a resounding success by any measure, to the Bay of Pigs, an outright failure, Kerry is basically telling these men and women that what they are doing is an effort in futility. A bankrupt measure.

Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, since the contrast can be measured by the fact that Iraq has already had interim elections and will have full and free elections at the beginnings of next year while Cuba, 40 years after the Bay of Pigs debacle, has not.

Mr. Stark, you wrote:

I agree that leadership is key. I don’t think that you can possibly think that this war in Iraq has been well led.

By all military standards, the war in Iraq is a complete success. Yes, some mistakes have been made, but, you see, it’s a war. Mistakes are going to be made. They are unavoidable. Mistakes were made in WWI and WWII too. Both wars were unconditionally won regardless.

Mr. Stark, you wrote:

Are we still vying for hearts and minds? Are the troops properly equipped? Are they properly trained for securing the peace? Are they serving unusually lengthy tours? Is the mortality rate rising? Are we bearing the bulk of this burden? Why are we there? Which reason is it today?

In order:

Yes, yes we are. Perhaps a quick perusal of some of the Iraqi blogs will help you understand that a little better.

Yes, the troops are properly equipped. There are 200,000 or so troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you have any idea what a challenge that is logistically? Statistically, there are bound to be shortages of one thing or another, but I can assure you, our soldiers get their three squares a day and they certainly arent scrounging around for bullets. Perhaps you think that Kerry would be able to supply these men and women with everything else they need, incuding cable TV, celphones and Lazy-Boys. Maybe Kerry could pull the supplies out of his lucky hat. Or maybe he could have just voted “yes” when the bill was put before him.

The Armed Forces of the United States are the most highly trained and best equipped forces in the world.

Yes, some are serving unusually longer tours. It’s a war. Shit happens. It’s impossible to predict every single need, every single occurence and every single movement of the enemy. That’s why it’s called a war. If not, it would be called the Asskicking in Iraq. (Which, coincidentally, is pretty close to the truth.)

And of course the mortality rate is rising, it certainly cant decline now, can it? With all of our technological advancement and military superiority, we still cant bring people back from the dead.

Perhaps we are bearing the bulk of the burden. The United Nations certainly wasnt going to help, given the fact that they were stealing billions of dollars through the UN Oil for Food program. Ousting Saddam was taking money out of their corrupt pocketbooks.

Why are we there? I dont have enough bandwidth to cover this entirely but let’s just do the bullet points, shall we? First, Saddam Hussein proved to the world time and again that he was trying to obtain WMDs. He used them before, and, given the fact that the country is basically a big ammo dump, chances are he had them already. You have to be completely naive to think that he didnt . He had 4 years of free reign over his country without the UN inspectors there to ensure compliance with the mandate of the UN. You think he was twidling his thumbs all that time? Second, the man was a murderer guilty of genocide. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have been found in mass graves. Did the UN give a shit about them? No. But the US apparently did, and had the balls and conviction to put a stop to it. The removal of any dictator or despot is a good thing any way you look at it. Third, Iraq is a central state in the Middle East, dont you think that militarily and strategically, it is an apt location to grab a foothold for the War on Terror? You know, it’s better to fight in Baghdad than in Boston.

Mr. Stark, you wrote:

Don’t lump me in with the fuzzy headed liberals that would pull out of Iraq. That is not me.

OK. Ill try not to, but you certainly dont make it easy.

Mr. Stark, you wrote:

But if you are talking about incompetence in leadership, I think it is fair to note JFK and the Bay of Pigs and George Bush and Iraq

Again, JFK and President Bush are night and day. One was a man who could not decide what tie to wear without a committee and another is a man that doesnt care what he’s wearing but concerns himself with doing what is right, not popular.

We are in a war. To take a few problems we are having with insurgents and terrorists in small and speicific locations and call the whole effort a failure is completely absurd. It’s the Chicken Little approach to life. It’s just a glass of water, no need to drown in it.

Look, you are entitled to your opinions just as I am entitled to mine, but let me offer some advice. If you arent a strong swimmer, make sure you touch bottom before you jump in the water.

3 thoughts on “The Chicken Little Approach”

  1. You criticize me personally without knowing me at all. Your critique shows more about you than it reveals anything about me or my points.

    I am interested in challenging my own ideas and perceptions and in trying to do the same to others. If you?d rather trade insults, or exchange high-fives with like-minded readers, I will just leave you to it.

    That said, you did address points that I brought up and I appreciate your taking the time to do that.

    Here are substantial disagreements we have:

    –You say that Kerry’s entire statement dishonors the service men and women. How is that he dishonors them by criticizing President Bush? It just doesn’t make sense. Can’t one say that the planning for a war, that the leadership was wanting, while still noting the valiant efforts of the troops? Isn’t that what you do when you rightly criticize JFK?

    –You say that the war in Iraq is a resounding success by any measure. I have no reason to believe this. I agree that Saddam’s fall was a resounding success. But the war doesn’t end until Iraq has enough stability to govern itself and we are out.

    I see disturbing evidence that the country is not moving in that direction. Perhaps you could direct me to the various measurements of success by which you feel the Iraq war is going so well. As you can see, I wander around into conservative outlets. Even in such places I am not seeing signs of impending success, or any much success at all since the fall of Baghdad.

    –I do agree with your point that criticizing the validity of the War is hard on troops. Though I think you were leaning more towards saying that it dishonors them, which I don?t get. But Bush’s leadership in Iraq has been marked my massive blunders that directly lead to more soldiers dying. I think that is far worse than the damage to morale that Kerry’s comments might have made. Further I think he needed to critique the President in an effort to reduce more blunders.

    –I understand that mistakes are part of war and that war is not nice clean and neat. I just think that when plans for winning the peace in Iraq were ignored, plans developed by President Bush’s own State Department, that Bush was inviting trouble – trouble that the troops are paying for with a rising mortality rate.

    –Thank you for the Iraq blog link. I will check it out.

    –On your point about the troops being properly equipped, I have to ask if you discount news reports? Reporting has been consistent on this point. I read recently that families would be reimbursed for sending their sons body armor. Hummers are being jury rigged with plating. The National Guard in particular has found itself ill-equipped.

    –I appreciate you point about logistics and spotty difficulties, my sense was that this was more than that, more widespread. I will have to look into this more.

    –I never advocated for Kerry in my post as being a better leader for the war. I was just addressing his Cuba comments.

    –It?s just so funny to me. You want to write off major problems rather than look at them squarely and ask, “Can this be better?” You say, “Shit happens” regarding long tours. But this is a real problem. Why should there be no accountability for unnecessary errors that cost lives?

    We need more troops on the ground than we have, and the ones that are there are getting stretched. This is a valid point. The value of sweeping it under the rug is outweighed by the necessity of exposing the motive (political) and cost (death) of hiding it. Such exposure might lead to pressure to actually fix the problem by sending more troops.

    When mortality rates are rising and no reinforcements are coming should I just say, “Shit happens”? I’d rather advocate for sending more troops to get the job done with fewer US casualties.

    –You note that it is impossible to predict every single need and occurrence as if I am just being nit picky. As if I am saying, ?A soldier has dirt on his boot, oh my god; we’re all going to die.? It’s just not an accurate representation of my concerns.

    Even though you are clearly in support of not only the troops, but also their leadership, I am surprised to read your apology for the administration’s failure to utilize information gleaned from President Bush Sr.’s abandonment of Baghdad, as well as the many many many reports and recommendations that foresaw nearly all of the current challenges.

    This is one of the errors for which I can not forgive the President, because it was his administration’s willful ignorance of readily available information that has directly led to more troops dying. How can you give him a pass on that? Are you unaware of the resources that were not utilized? I would be happy to point them out.

    -Your point about the mortality rate: There is a difference between the number of troops that have died (this can’t be reduced as you pointed out) and the rate of their mortality. How fast are they now dying? The rate by which troops are dying is increasing.

    –The why are we there point: WMDs? Saddam’s a bad guy? These are compelling reasons to go to war. I won’t even argue that the WMDs weren’t there, though I don’t know why you would still think they were/are (evidence?).

    Bush went to Iraq because he knows that the Middle East is going to keep on churning out terrorists until democracy spreads there. He has said so on a few, all too few, occasions. My point was that this is a great reason to go. Why not make it *the* reason and stop with all the straw men?

    Talk about Kerry hurting troop morale, Bush had a great premise on which he could have floated the aspirations of the troops. Instead he cowed to political fear and advanced weaker arguments that he thought would be more effective in the short run as far as getting the war started. He did this even though in the long run those arguments are not sustainable.

    WMDs are bad? Okay, go get ?em everywhere else if that is a sufficient tipping point. Saddam a bad guy? Okay, go get all the other bad guys. I guess we’ll be headed over to Darfur soon.

    Flailing in the case for war cut into our political capital, the morale of the troops and support at home when he failed to advance his sincere argument.

    –As far as your foothold/strategic value point, I agree, but not as a reason for going.

    –I agree that JFK and GWB are like night and day, but that doesn’t kill the point that they have something in common ? after all both were President. Clearly some comparisons can be drawn, including that both were responsible for poorly planning a military action.

    –I am not calling the war a failure. I am saying that Bush’s incompetent planning has lead to more US deaths than necessary. I am not saying Kerry would have been, or would be, a better choice for leader.

    I am saying there is value in looking objectively at how policies are playing out in case changing them might afford a less costly victory. For me, this would mean sending in an overwhelming number of troops and equipping them well. It would mean reassessing the privatization of the military, which is a major strategy advanced by Rumsfeld.

    Perhaps if we all gave back our $400 tax refund from a few years back, we could send over some more body armor for the guys.

    Indeed we are both entitled to our opinions. I just hope that we are open minded enough to challenge our opinions when new perspectives and facts are presented.

  2. Matt,

    Please forgive my attack on your character. I responded to your post before my morning coffee and upon re-reading your comments realize that I may have gone a bit far. Perhaps compounded bythat fact that for the past year or so, I have been hearing and reading nothing but doom and gloom. Again, my apologies.

    That said, I want to responded to a few of your comments.

    You say that Kerry’s entire statement dishonors the service men and women. How is that he dishonors them by criticizing President Bush? It just doesn’t make sense. Can’t one say that the planning for a war, that the leadership was wanting, while still noting the valiant efforts of the troops? Isn’t that what you do when you rightly criticize JFK?

    The simple fact that Kerry equated an abject failure to the War in Iraq dishonors them. Read the milblogs. Most of those men and women over there truly believe in what theyre doing. Having a person who is running to be their commander in chief state basically that this war is a mistake, as he did upon arrival from Vietnam, not only lowers their moral but demeans them as soldiers.

    You say that the war in Iraq is a resounding success by any measure. I have no reason to believe this. I agree that Saddam’s fall was a resounding success. But the war doesn’t end until Iraq has enough stability to govern itself and we are out.

    You have no reason to believe this because all we get is the bad news. Blood and death sell newspapers and increase ratings. Is it really possible that only bad things are happening in Iraq? In a country with a population over 26 million there a few haphazard thousand causing trouble and all of a sudden it’s a failure?

    I see disturbing evidence that the country is not moving in that direction. Perhaps you could direct me to the various measurements of success by which you feel the Iraq war is going so well. As you can see, I wander around into conservative outlets. Even in such places I am not seeing signs of impending success, or any much success at all since the fall of Baghdad.

    You see little evidence because the world media doesnt present it to you. There’s a newly elected interim government. The country’s infrastructure is being repaired. Power, water and other utilities are slowly being brought back to all areas. Iraqi citizens are free to open businesses and children are going to school where there is no indoctrination of ideals. Read milblogs like Blockfive, mudville gazette, chief wiggles and a slew of others and you will find less gloom and doom and more of the reality of the War in Iraq.


    But Bush’s leadership in Iraq has been marked my massive blunders that directly lead to more soldiers dying. I think that is far worse than the damage to morale that Kerry’s comments might have made. Further I think he needed to critique the President in an effort to reduce more blunders.

    I dont think that everything has been done perfectkly in Iraq either. But the original post was about the mistakes made by Bush compared to the mistake made by Kennedy during the bay of pigs. The war in iraq is not over and it is definitely not a failure whereas the Bay of Pigs was a failure specifically because of Kennedys decisions or lack thereof.

    I just think that when plans for winning the peace in Iraq were ignored, plans developed by President Bush’s own State Department, that Bush was inviting trouble – trouble that the troops are paying for with a rising mortality rate.

    I dont think I have read anything regarding these ignored plans. If you could provide a link, please.

    On your point about the troops being properly equipped, I have to ask if you discount news reports? Reporting has been consistent on this point. I read recently that families would be reimbursed for sending their sons body armor. Hummers are being jury rigged with plating. The National Guard in particular has found itself ill-equipped.

    Again, there are over 200,000 troops in harms way, as with any military endeavor, there will be some that go without certain things. I have some of the reports you mention, but I hardly think that all 200K troops are lacking those essentials.
    The media choses what to present to you, and if they focus solely on the few that dont have body armor it gives the impression that all the troops are lacking.

    I appreciate you point about logistics and spotty difficulties, my sense was that this was more than that, more widespread. I will have to look into this more.

    I really believe that these troops you say are lacking equipment are few and far between. There a hellova lot of men and women over there.

    We need more troops on the ground than we have, and the ones that are there are getting stretched. This is a valid point….

    Perhaps we do need more troops on the ground, or perhaps we just need to stop treating the enemy with kid gloves. If they kill our troops while hiding ina mosque, then raze the damn mosque.

    The value of sweeping it under the rug is outweighed by the necessity of exposing the motive (political) and cost (death) of hiding it. Such exposure might lead to pressure to actually fix the problem by sending more troops.

    Perhaps you are correct. Maybe now that the election is over, those political motives are voided. We’ll have to wait and see.

    Even though you are clearly in support of not only the troops, but also their leadership, I am surprised to read your apology for the administration’s failure to utilize information gleaned from President Bush Sr.’s abandonment of Baghdad, as well as the many many many reports and recommendations that foresaw nearly all of the current challenges.

    I dont think I have seen anything regrading the info gleaned from Bush sr’s administration. A link would be appreciated. Now, that said, the Bush Jr. administration relied on recent intelligence reports from our own sources and those of other countries. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback after the game has been played. Again, I have not read anything on the reports from the previus campaign which you state.

    This is one of the errors for which I can not forgive the President, because it was his administration’s willful ignorance of readily available information that has directly led to more troops dying. How can you give him a pass on that? Are you unaware of the resources that were not utilized? I would be happy to point them out.

    Again, I am not saying mistakes havent been made. The original post was clear, the War in Iraq is nowhere near being anything like the Bay of Pigs. I will criticize Bush when the situation merits, and you bring up apt points for this, but fact of the matter is that the War in Iraq is not a failure and comparing it to the Bay of Pigs is nothing but cheap political rhetoric.

    The why are we there point: WMDs? Saddam’s a bad guy? These are compelling reasons to go to war. I won’t even argue that the WMDs weren’t there, though I don’t know why you would still think they were/are (evidence?).

    To me, common sense dictates that WMDs were in Iraq. Saddam had them. He used them. He did everything in his power to foil UN inspectors efforts to inspect weapons sites and dumps for 8 years until he finally threw out the inspectors 4 years prior to our invasion. I mean, come on, dont you think 4 years or 2 years is ample time to either hide, sell, transfer, etc. all those weapons? Why should we give Saddam Hussein, a cruel despot guilty of genocide, the benefit of the doubt?

    Bush went to Iraq because he knows that the Middle East is going to keep on churning out terrorists until democracy spreads there. He has said so on a few, all too few, occasions. My point was that this is a great reason to go. Why not make it *the* reason and stop with all the straw men?

    Politics is the reason.

    Talk about Kerry hurting troop morale, Bush had a great premise on which he could have floated the aspirations of the troops. Instead he cowed to political fear and advanced weaker arguments that he thought would be more effective in the short run as far as getting the war started. He did this even though in the long run those arguments are not sustainable.

    Again, politics. Too many spoons in the stew.

    WMDs are bad? Okay, go get ?em everywhere else if that is a sufficient tipping point. Saddam a bad guy? Okay, go get all the other bad guys. I guess we’ll be headed over to Darfur soon.

    We may very well have to, regardless of the war in Iraq.

    Flailing in the case for war cut into our political capital, the morale of the troops and support at home when he failed to advance his sincere argument.

    I dont think I would call it flailing. Its politics. The administration no doubt looked at the scenario, decided on the objective, and made the decision they believed was correct at the time. I dont think this would hurt the morale of the troops as you say. Again, the orginal post was not about the merits and drawbacks of the war in Iraq. It was about its comparison to a failure caused directly by the then POTUS.

    I agree that JFK and GWB are like night and day, but that doesn’t kill the point that they have something in common ? after all both were President. Clearly some comparisons can be drawn, including that both were responsible for poorly planning a military action.

    Incorrect. While Bush may have made some errors, none of them have caused the War in Iraq to be a failure. Kennedy’s choice directly doomed the Bay of Pigs. You state that you dont think we have lost the war in Iraq but most of your statements are negative. As if you have already given up on the war in Iraq.

  3. Hey there.

    I realize that I am most likely forgotten already. Sorry for the delayed response.

    I won’t make a long post here. I just wanted to say that I think that Kerry’s comparison was not a good one. I appreciated hearing your perspective.

    The comparison is a relatively small point, though it was the reason all this started.

    We started talking about the larger issue of the planning and success of the Iraq War, for which I owe you a link. Here is a link to a PDF NYTimes article that goes into detail about the Iraq War planning effort:
    http://www.911born.com/pdf/bush_fails_to_plan_Iraq.pdf

    Also thanks for turning me onto the milblogs.

    Kind regards

Comments are closed.