Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Walter Russell Mead Interview

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on November 12th, 2004 (All posts by )

    Good as, usual, with good historically-based insights. Here is his view of the political consequences for Bush of the Iraq war.

    At this point, are you able to speculate a bit on Bush’s place in history? He is obviously a strong campaigner.

    I think a lot is going to depend on the situation in Iraq. Bush essentially has no excuses now: he has a mandate, he has both houses of Congress, and he is in full control of the foreign policy machinery. The war in Iraq is one that he chose, that he planned, that he has led. Bush is going to look pretty good if even two years from now Iraq is more or less pacified, and there is a government that is at least, in some ways, better than Saddam Hussein, and you have an island of stability in the middle of the Middle East. In retrospect he will look like a visionary, and people will forget all the ups and downs. When people now think of the Mexican War, they think about it as this quick, glorious dash. But in fact [President James] Polk had terrible problems during the Mexican War [1846-1848].

    You mean politically, at home?

    Yes. Politically, at home, there were questions like, “Will those Mexicans ever negotiate?” “Are we stuck in this quagmire?” And this was a war that ended with the United States getting a whole lot of territory. Likewise, if you think about the Filipino insurrection after the Spanish-American War, I think we lost significantly more troops in suppressing that insurrection than we did in the Iraq war. [American casualties in the Filipino guerrilla war are estimated at 4,000 killed and 3,000 wounded]. What’s interesting is that by 1910, even people like Teddy Roosevelt, who himself was an arch-imperialist, were saying that it was a strategic mistake to take the Philippines because it gave us an Achilles heel exposed to Japan. So here you have a war with thousands of U.S. casualties to capture a place that we then basically spent the next 30 years trying to figure out how to get rid of. Yet nobody who supported that war ever paid a political price, and everybody who opposed the war paid a political price. And conceivably, if the war in Iraq goes even reasonably well, Bush looks good.

    It is like’s Grant’s famous comment, at Missionary Ridge, when his troops spontaneously began assaulting the Confederate positions: “Well, it will be all right if it turns out all right.” That will be true of Iraq as well, at least politically. We broke it, we bought it, let’s hope it’s reasonably fixable in some reasonable amount of time and that some good comes of the effort.

    Bush is certainly not showing any signs of changing his approach, as demonstrated by today’s press conference with Tony Blair:

    As [Iraqi] elections draw near, the desperation of the killers will grow, and the violence could escalate. The success of democracy in Iraq will be a crushing blow to the forces of terror, and the terrorists know it. The defeat of terror in Iraq will set that nation on a course to lasting freedom and will give hope to millions, and the Iraqi people know it.

    (The rest of the Mead interview is here.)

     

    One Response to “Walter Russell Mead Interview”

    1. MatyaNoBaka Says:

      Thanks for the pointer, i enjoyed the interview. I particularly appreciated his avoiding the bait when asked about the Neo-cons. Even The Economist has been baying for Rumsfeld’s and Wolfowitz’s heads, it was nice to see someone at least neutral on the issue.

      But more interesting was the comment on US relations with France and Germany. The comments on Schroeder looking for foreign policy prestige because his domestic policy is a shambles really strikes me as true. Can you imagine how the press would react to even a Democrat president in the same situation?

      It looks to me like we will really get a “historical Clinton in Pyong Yang” deal between Schroeder and Iran. After all, Iran would be pretty happy about keeping quiet about it’s bomb program again. And “Peace in My Term” is a slogan that should warm Schroeder’s heart. (Though he probably would not phrase it that way.)

      Matya no baka