creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
22 May 2012
A Book for Republicans

Democrats have been having a field day with the cry of "tax cuts for the rich" — for which … Read More.

22 May 2012
Big Lies in Politics

The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is … Read More.

18 May 2012
A Racial Revolution?

Now that census data show — for the first time in American history — the number of white babies … Read More.

A Sad Day

Share Comment

The flap about General Stanley McChrystal's "resignation" was nobody's finest hour. But there are some painful lessons in all this that go beyond any of the individuals involved— the general, the president or any of the officials at the Pentagon or the State Department.

What is far more important than all these individuals put together are the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans fighting in Afghanistan. What is even more important is the national security of this country.

It is certainly not politic for a general or his staff to express their contempt for civilian authorities publicly. But what is far more important— from the standpoint of national security— is whether what those authorities have done deserves contempt.

My hope is that General McChrystal will write a book about his experiences in Afghanistan— and in Washington. The public needs to know what is really going on, and they are not likely to get that information from politicians.

This is, after all, an administration that waited for months last year before acting on General McChrystal's urgent request for 40,000 more troops, which he warned would be necessary to prevent the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. He got 30,000 eventually— and a public statement by President Obama about when he wants to start withdrawing American troops from that country.

In no previous period of history has an American president announced a timetable for pulling out troops. They may have had a timetable in mind, but none of these presidents was irresponsible enough to tell the world— including our enemies— when our troops would be leaving.

Such information encourages our enemies, who know that they need only wait us out before they can take over, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. At the same time, it undermines our allies, who know that relying on the United States is dangerous in the long run, and that they had better make the best deal they can get with our enemies.

But the worst aspect of the national security policy of this administration is its clear intention to do nothing that has any realistic chance of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

This may be the most grossly irresponsible policy in all of history, because it can leave this generation— and future generations— of Americans at the mercy of terrorists who have no mercy and who cannot be deterred, as the Soviet Union was deterred.

All the current political theater about "international sanctions" is unlikely to make the slightest difference to Iran. Nor is the administration itself likely to expect it to. What then is its purpose? To fool the American people into thinking that they are doing something serious when all that they are doing is putting on a charade by lining up countries to agree to actions that they all know will not have any real effect.

There is another aspect to General McChrystal's "resignation."

Everyone seems to be agreed that Stanley McChrystal has been a soldier's soldier— someone who knows what to do on a battlefield and is not afraid to put himself in danger to do it.

Do we need more generals like this or do we need political generals who know how to cultivate Washington politicians, in order to advance their own careers?

Some people see a parallel between McChrystal's "resignation" and President Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.

MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army's budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.

If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America's ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
I notice that Mr. Sowell is a bit short on what we should be doing with the problem of Iran's possible nuclear ambitions. Does he propose that we invade Iran? If we think that Iraq is tough, imagine what would be required to occupy a nation the size of Iran. The foolish war of choice in Iraq has nearly bankrupted us and has shown the world the limits of US military power. Perhaps Mr. Sowell thinks we should bomb the enrichment facilities in Iran? Such action would result in a temporary set back to their activities, but would ultimately prove futile because Iran would simply disburse the next centrifuges. It would be viewed by the world as another unjustified act of war and it would unite the people of Iran behind the current government. (Note that as a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.) It is very easy to suggest that the president is being ineffective when the truth is that there are not any really good options for dealing with the mess that he inherited from that foolish little man from Texas. (Remember the idiotic "Axis of Evil" crap? Bush invaded Iraq but treated another "axis" member, N. Korea, with kid gloves. Iran seems to have gotten the take away message: If you are on the bad guy list, the only way to be certain that the US will leave you alone is to have the bomb.)
We cannot stay in Afghanistan forever and the other side knows it. They have been at war there for much of the last thirty years. What's a few more? The weak and corrupt central government is unlikely to ever be up to the task of standing on its own. Another Vietnam? Note that the latest Jihad fans busted on their way to the middle east for terror training were on their way to Somalia. Should we invade there too? Are we making them faster than we are killing them? Probably.
The most likely outcome of Iran's ambitions is that they will develop a nuclear weapons capacity. And then they will be contained as the Soviets were in the cold war. Iran will know that if one of their bombs hits a western or Israeli city that they would be leveled. Is this a good outcome? No. The reality is that there aren't any good options in this situation.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:56 PM
So this Mark fellow believes that the bankrupting of America will be predicated upon the cost of the Iraq war? Talk about being 'a bit short' on a subject. Say what you will about eight years of Bush, as there was much to disparage, the current administration is truly on a path to collapsing the dollar and our economy along with it. These are the kind of folks who firmly believe that Marxism can be a success if only it's done in some special 'correct' way... something akin to being told that the only reason you despise liver is because you've never had it prepared correctly. With well over one hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liability, and more coming every day, it's pretty clear at this point that like it or not, we will all soon be choking on liver and remembering with fondness how sweet liberty was. And we will lament the fact that we so took it for granted we actually believed that it was compatible with the progressive dream of 'utopia'.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mike Porter
Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:50 PM
As someone who is in touch with the real world of politics I find it distasteful that anyone person would compare our president to hitler. who brought on the huge debt we now have. The previous administration was and is responsible for the larger part of it. A billionaire who just passed away was able (thanks to the bush administration) to tranfer all of his assets to his family without paying any tax. Do you really beieve this to be fair then I realize your thinking is very might to the right which can only see what is good for the rich and the corporations.
Comment: #3
Posted by: libby73
Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:59 AM
@Mark - How can you compare Ahmadinejad with Khrushchev? Ahmadinejad has a totally different world view and determination. Khrushchev wasn't crazy, just communist. Ahmadinejad is a true believer; he will usher in al-Mahdi. Jesus will return and kneel at his feet, then they will annihilate Israel and force all the infidels to submit or die. Allah will ensure that they conquer. He doesn't believe in a nuclear stalemate. He believes he is destined to win. You can't reason with a religious zealot, and our supposed sanctions are a mere nuisance. A nuclear Iran is nothing like the USSR. You're right that there is no easy answer to this, but we're just toying with them, buying them time. President Obama and his staff are either complicit or incompetent.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Craig Metzer
Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:59 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

15 Feb 2011 Rocky and Republicans

9 Nov 2011 The Real Scandal

12 Feb 2008 The Media and Politics