I read about half of the Helprin piece, and while I'm not averse to critiques of the Bush handling of Iraq (I read TNR after all!), it was so full of criticism bereft of useful analysis that I quickly tired of it. His Claremont affiliation also led me to question the value of his analysis, since Claremont is close to Cato territory on relentless negativity on any foreign war policy. One of my professors used to be a Claremont fellow, and upon the initial invasion of Iraq he sounded more like Pat Buchanan than Bill Kristol.

Well OK Greg. Obviously, I value your opinion. What could we be doing better in Iraq, in your view? Let it fly!

My thoughts:

1)I find it strange that any political pundit can so strongly and confidently critique a battle taking place in a foreign land. Though Helprin has some military credentials, I still can't help but be skeptical about his attempt at being an Armchair General. When it comes to military strategy, we are better off not second-guessing the professionals who have been training for this their whole lives.

2)I haven't heard anything resembling a cascading chain of events that should cause the Warplanners to "recoil in piggy-eyed wonder at the lameness of their policy." It seems Helprin has succumbed to the constant deluge of negative press.

3)I fail to see how conquering a country the size of California in roughly a month is not an impressive, fear-inducing military victory. Maybe he has another view as to why Libya suddenly wanted to give up its WMDs?

4)By and large the native population of Iraq is not thirsting for our blood. Indeed the last polls I saw indicated that though the Iraqis didn't like being occupied (who would?), they were glad we were there. We must keep in mind that most of the problems are caused by foreign terrorists and not the Iraqis themselves. Helprin seems to have forgotten this.

5)I thought the first paragraph critiquing the Democrats was very well stated.

6)I like his ideas about remounting the military and, ideally, freeing them of nation-building activities. Though the idea of using the military as a hammer solely to smash offending countries seems like it might be counter-productive to our ultimate ends. The last thing we need to do is leave behind a wake of broken, chaotic countries full of pissed off populations. Though the idea of having a staging area in Saudi Arabia from where we could strike at will has a lot of appeal.

7)I think Helprin would benefit by practicing clearer writing. Or maybe I'm just tired.

Even though the question was not directed at me, I'll answer it -- get serious, kick some ass and make it clear to the Iraqis sitting on the fence that it's either the Baathists or us -- no more fence sitting (if you want the intellectual version of this, you can read my earlier Seattle Times piece that you blogged).

I, too, am not above criticizing the Bush administration (for example, I think the Green Zone was a terrible idea -- it creates a bunker mentality for us and makes the Iraqis question our resolve to engage the Iraqis in depth and stay). But Helprin's criticisms of the war are simply wrong. This was NOT a war of bare sufficiency. We have waaaay more than "sufficient" military power at our disposal to destroy the Baathists a million times over.

We have not exercised that power because of the fear of "offending the Arab street" whatever that means. The reality is that the Iraqi street will respect our aggressiveness against the Baathists even at the expense of significant collateral damage. If we seem serious, they are more likely to help us finish the work and leave (eventually).

Again, our problem is the fear of exercising our own, plentiful military power, not running a war on the cheap. The idea that "we need more troops" is ultimately the quest to be strong everywhere. That's just not possible or even desirable.

BTW, I do like his criticisms of Kerry and the DNC would-be-powers. They are right on the money. But it seems as if he felt the need to be "balanced" and had to hastily put together some criticisms of the administration "too."

As for Claremont, I like this from its website:

http://www.claremont.org/weblog/index.html#001260

L.A. Times In Panic Mode Over Assault Weapons Ban

I thought this was a fair piece. In my opinon, the Bush administration has pretty much wasted a year in rebuilding the political structure of Iraq. The rest of the situation is going as well as can be expected (security, infrastructure, etc) but they have really botched the political aspect. The governing council was a horrible idea and they should have just followed the Afghan model (i.e. have a central, unifying figure) which for all intensive purposes, has worked quite well.

My reaction to Helprin's article was mixed.

On the one hand, I was sorry to see him join the critics who fault the Bush administration for not throwing enough troops into the fray. Rather than signalling greater commitment, a larger force might just suggest confusion. When in doubt, add soldiers and stir. That was the repeated resort in Vietnam, with unimpressive results. It would be nice to have an army large enough to avoid rotating the same exhausted people back into the same battlefields, but apart from that, how exactly could more troops reduce the number of improvised explosive devices, suicide truck bombers, or random attacks on the infrastructure?

On the other hand, Helprin does tap into the sense of frustration many of us have about the Bush administration's loss of momentum. It is not the primary mission of the armed forces to restore civil order, reconstruct Iraqi society, or give them a legitimate government. These would be nice goals to attain, to be sure, but they may be beyond our reach. What is not beyond our reach is at the core of the military's real function: to kill our enemies, keep them strategically off balance, and away from the resources (weapons and oil) that could do us serious injury. We are not doing enough of this.

Moreover, the Bush administration is rhetorically off-balance in its new-found rationale for our presence in Iraq. Americans are not going to put up with the death of our fellow citizens for the sake of freedom and democracy in Iraq. It's our freedom that matters, not theirs.

Helprin is right to point out that merely saying over and over again that we will not cut and run is unsatisfying. Endurance is an intention, not a strategy; and it may not even be a durable intention unless more Americans can be convinced that it rests firmly upon a workable war plan likely to re-elect those who pursue it.