Thinkers of all types and at all times have learned form their enemies.
Robert Parry of Consortium News examines Max Boot’s contribution to what he calls “an important outlet for neocon thinking,” Commentary magazine:
Apparently Boot foresees a Libya-style operation in which the U.S. military and its allies destroy a government’s armed forces from the air while rebels on the ground ultimately take power. In 2011, the Libya strategy led to the ouster and murder of Muammar Gaddafi followed by the country collapsing into violence and chaos, including the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi and the decision by Western governments to abandon their embassies in Tripoli.
In Syria, such a scenario would likely lead to a victory by Islamic extremists, but it would fit with the Israeli strategy of favoring the ouster of Assad, an Iranian ally, even if the conflict ended with al-Qaeda-related radicals in power.
Boot’s recommendations match closely the strategic interests expressed by Israel’s Likud leadership. As the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post in September 2013, “The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. …
“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Oren added that this was the case even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
We don’t have to take Mr Parry’s word for it about the ‘apparently’. In the current (November/December) issue of Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, the lead article — pages 5 thru 14 — is titled “More Small Wars,” by Max Boot. In an issue prominently headlined, “What Have We Learned” from “Afghanistan and Iraq” to give your piece the headline “More Small Wars” rather nails one’s colors to the mast.
As I said, we don’t have to take Mr Parry’s word for it: Mr Boot does indeed apparently foresee a Libya-style operation in Syria.
War for ever and ever. From page 14:
Washington must recognize that counterinsurgency and nation building
— Mr Boot does not question that the American Empire Must and Shall Be Preserved —
take time. In Iraq, the United States had all but won by 2011, when US troops had to leave because Obama failed to negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement, in part because he never made it a priority.
Now, ISIS has gained control of a chunk of Syria and Iraq larger than the United Kingdom and declared a caliphate
— as supporter of freedom of religion, no doubt Mr Boot promotes the existence of a new nation in the world, dedicated to the literal truth of some Scripture — a new society not unlike the State of Israel, come to think of it
and violence in Iraq has shot back to its 2008 level.
Yes, now um . . remind me if I’ve got the details quite right, but that’s the year we were talking, was it not, about the United States of America having been ‘defeated‘ in Iraq, right?
A similar disaster could occur in Afghanistan if the United States pulls out completely in 2016, as Obama has pledged.
Yes. Well, Daniel P. Bolger, who retired at the level of lieutenant general last year, and who might be presumed to know something about the recent unpleasantness in Mesopotamia, does in the 11 November New York Times seek to warn us about a so-called ‘legend’:
. . . a legend that’s going around these days.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq and toppled a dictator. We botched the follow-through, and a vicious insurgency erupted.
Four years later we surged in fresh troops, adopted improved counterinsurgency tactics, and won the war. [emphasis added]
And then dithering American politicians squandered the gains. It’s a compelling story. But it’s just that — a story.
To which Miguel Cabron Speaks.
“You guys haven’t heard of the Dolchstosse, have you?”