When You’ve Lost David Brooks

Even if he won’t admit it, he’s starting to realize what a fool he was in 2008, when he thought that pants creases were a good indicator of presidential material:

Wars, military or economic, are measured by whether you achieved your stated objectives. By this standard the U.S. and its allies lost the war against Iran, but we were able to negotiate terms that gave only our partial surrender, which forces Iran to at least delay its victory. There have now been three big U.S. strategic defeats over the past several decades: Vietnam, Iraq and now Iran.

And the latter two of those occurred on this president’s watch. In fact, they seem to have been his goal, right from his campaign in 2008.

8 thoughts on “When You’ve Lost David Brooks”

  1. three big U.S. strategic defeats over the past several decades: Vietnam, Iraq and now Iran

    You know why? Because they didn’t matter. In the case of Vietnam especially so. The domino theory was BS. Once the US left Vietnam the tacit China-USSR entente in Vietnam against the USA collapsed and Vietnam and China had a conflict over who would rule Cambodia. Because the Vietnamese-USSR axis won that conflict over Indochina the Chinese sponsored mass murderer Pol Pot was ousted. sIndochina actually was better off once the USA left Vietnam.
    As for Iraq the problem, as usual, was poorly defined mission objectives. If the objective was only to take out Saddam the mission was done so they could have just packed up and left afterwards. But it wasn’t was it? The talk about redoing a Germany or Japan was always nonsense. Those countries were surrounded by the Allies once WW2 ended. This was never the case with Iraq. It was always going to have outside influences from Syria and Iran.

    1. “The domino theory was BS.”

      The Domino Theory is NOT BS.

      However it has to be carefully applied and just because there’s an aggression doesn’t mean several will follow.
      It requires very careful analysis with clear unbiased vision to determine if the domino Theory applies in any specific case.

    2. The statement made about Vietnam is conventional wisdom nonsense. The strategy of the free world against the Soviet Union was Containment. Tie up their resources, slow them down, keep them from successfully having war feed war. That’s what we did, and we succeeded, and the Soviet Union went bankrupt and is no more.
      If the United States had supported South Vietnam in the end, they could have stood even then, and it was terribly sad and shameful that we didn’t. But the strategic objective was obtained.

      1. “If the United States had supported South Vietnam in the end, they could have stood even then, ”

        It is a stain on our country just as much as slavery, the treatment of the native americans, and the interment of the Japanese.

    3. “As for Iraq the problem, as usual, was poorly defined mission objectives.”

      Except that Iraq was doing fairly well after Bush. Whatever problems there were in the beginning were different than the problems at the end. If you want to say we lost in Iraq, it wouldn’t be when we were actually fighting but later when it was time to secure the peace.

      You can’t just ignore everything that happened after 2003.

      IMO, the failure of Iraq was failing to remain diplomatically engaged and a failure to commit to treating Iraq as an ally or friend. After Obama was elected, diplomatic efforts to keep Iraq improving its military and civilian leadership all but stopped. Surrounded by hostile countries, they had to guarantee of the USA providing any help with security. This drove Iraq into Iran’s sphere of influence, stopped the development of a less corrupt civil service, and ushered in ISIS genocide on populations that Democrats hate.

      Obama could never go to the Democrat party and argue that we need troops in Iraq to prevent genocide against Christians. Had it been any other group, except Jews, Democrats would have supported stopping ISIS. Just look how Democrats rallied around the “humanitarian” intervention in Libya. But Democrats will never support helping groups that they hate.

    4. The domino theory was BS. Once the US left Vietnam the tacit China-USSR entente in Vietnam against the USA collapsed and Vietnam and China had a conflict over who would rule Cambodia.

      What is the basis of your claim? There was a difference of ten years and a war to weaken the power of Communists to extend their Vietnam victory further.

    5. Please explain how one can believe both that “the domino theory was BS” as well as “redoing a Germany or Japan was always nonsense. … [Iraq] was always going to have outside influences from Syria and Iran.”

      I truly do not understand how those statements are reconcilable, as they seem mutually exclusive to me. Either one believes that the surrounding countries are completely incapable of spreading influence and/or ideology (domino theory is BS), or one believes that surrounding countries have significant influence (Iraq, Syria, and Iran).

      Or is radical Islam just that more powerful than Communism?

Comments are closed.