by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Here we go again. Jamie Kirchick goes after Obama's foreign policy worldview via gross distortion. Hilzoy provides a good rejoinder.
What's more, the Kirchick piece contains zero discussion of the capability of US military (or non-military) intervention to
produce the desired humanitarian outcome. I'm sure military analysts could provide more specific insight, but I have to believe the US has much more capability in Darfur or the Congo than in Iraq (Update: to say that military action is more likely to succeed in Darfur or the Congo does not mean that it's likely to succeed; indeed, commenters point out that beyond enforcing the no-fly zone, there's only so much the military can do in Darfur). I'd wager that both African nations [sic] are much poorer, have a less developed infrastructure, possess no military capability to speak of, and have a population that's more likely to view the US favorably. In Iraq, of course, virtually every effort to insure domestic tranquility by force has backfired; "the surge" will at best reduce violence to somewhere below its current level, but above the level seen in 2006. Under these circumstances, it's quite possible that a "Dayton II" type summit that brought together whatever warlords we can find in Iraq might actually do more to dampen the violence than any tactical changes the military might make.
The failure to consider how to use American capabilities to achieve American goals is what got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place. It would be a shame if the same mistake caused our policymakers to miss an opportunity where they might make a difference.
