Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Paul Campos Reveals the Limits of his Expertise
I've not commented on University of Colorado law professor and Tuesday columnist at the Rocky Mountain News Paul Campos for a while because he's lately been talking about things he knows about, generally health problems and obesity. Oh yeah, and he knows whatever subject he teaches in Law School. I'm confident of that.
But today he's back with a vengeance, declaring lost the war against Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq (but don't call him a defeatist). Let's look at some of what he writes and then you can make the call.
He starts by disapproving of President Bush landing on the USS Lincoln after we captured Baghdad. As I recall, the guys and girls (mainly guys) on the carrier ate that stuff up with a spoon and felt pretty special for that day. Campos says it was phony propaganda. I thought the President was really there, but perhaps I quibble.
With a little more than two years remaining in his presidency, Bush is on course to end up as the worst commander-in-chief in the 217-year history of his office.
During the Bush Administration's first term alone, we liberated 50 million people from either 7th Century rigid theocracy or full 20th Century fascist despotism and helped set up fledgling democracies for which we are providing security as we help train their armies, our replacements. It has cost us so far less than 2,700 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and women (mainly men) over 5 years. That's a monumentally low casualty rate for the population and physical size of the countries liberated. The British went into Afghanistan in 1839 and of the 16,000 retreating from Kabul in 1842, only one Brit survived. The Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979 and lost at least 25,000 before retreating ten years later. Those are lost wars, Professor Campos. How many American lives have we lost winning the 5 year war in Afghanistan 200, 250?
As to bad Presidential Commanders-in-Chief, under Campos' simplistic criteria, how about President (not General) George Washington during whose administration General St. Clair in 1791 lost the Battle of the Wabash to American Indians and 1/4 of the entire American Army was killed (around 650)? That was a substantial loss. Therefore, according to Campos, George Washington was a terrible Commander-in-Chief, Fallen Timbers notwithstanding (because it came during Washington's second term of office).
It's easy to make historical comparisons when, like Campos, your grasp of history seems to starts on January 20, 2001.
Then Professor Campos asks us to imagine Hillary Clinton was president and had the same history as President Bush. I didn't quite get the point of the thought exercise, but I played along.
Imagine if Hillary were in the process of losing not one, but two wars against miserable Third World countries whose combined armed forces didn't equal a fiftieth of America's military might.
Professor, we've won both wars (more properly thought of as campaigns in the long war against Jihadist). There is an insurgency going in both countries, but then there's also a wider war being waged against us and our friends around the world. But we're winning those insurgencies too. (Too early to call the bigger war). We are doing especially well in Afghanistan where the Canadians and Australians are just chewing up the Taliban. Bill Roggio said on Hugh Hewitt' s radio show today that the Taliban has lost (killed or captured) 2500 in 7 months. Standing up and fighting does not mean you are winning. The Taliban decided to take on the supposedly weak NATO forces, and its fighters are paying a huge price for that miscalculation, but that does not mean it is winning. The Japanese decided to fight pretty much to the last man on Iwo Jima (118,000 dead Japanese); did that mean they were winning too?
Imagine if she refused to fire the inept buffoon who was her secretary of Defense, despite repeated complaints from across the political spectrum - and even from her own generals - that he had utterly bungled both the wars her administration was in the process of losing.
See above.
Defeatists. There I said it. And a pretty massively uninformed one too.
But today he's back with a vengeance, declaring lost the war against Jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq (but don't call him a defeatist). Let's look at some of what he writes and then you can make the call.
He starts by disapproving of President Bush landing on the USS Lincoln after we captured Baghdad. As I recall, the guys and girls (mainly guys) on the carrier ate that stuff up with a spoon and felt pretty special for that day. Campos says it was phony propaganda. I thought the President was really there, but perhaps I quibble.
With a little more than two years remaining in his presidency, Bush is on course to end up as the worst commander-in-chief in the 217-year history of his office.
During the Bush Administration's first term alone, we liberated 50 million people from either 7th Century rigid theocracy or full 20th Century fascist despotism and helped set up fledgling democracies for which we are providing security as we help train their armies, our replacements. It has cost us so far less than 2,700 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and women (mainly men) over 5 years. That's a monumentally low casualty rate for the population and physical size of the countries liberated. The British went into Afghanistan in 1839 and of the 16,000 retreating from Kabul in 1842, only one Brit survived. The Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979 and lost at least 25,000 before retreating ten years later. Those are lost wars, Professor Campos. How many American lives have we lost winning the 5 year war in Afghanistan 200, 250?
As to bad Presidential Commanders-in-Chief, under Campos' simplistic criteria, how about President (not General) George Washington during whose administration General St. Clair in 1791 lost the Battle of the Wabash to American Indians and 1/4 of the entire American Army was killed (around 650)? That was a substantial loss. Therefore, according to Campos, George Washington was a terrible Commander-in-Chief, Fallen Timbers notwithstanding (because it came during Washington's second term of office).
It's easy to make historical comparisons when, like Campos, your grasp of history seems to starts on January 20, 2001.
Then Professor Campos asks us to imagine Hillary Clinton was president and had the same history as President Bush. I didn't quite get the point of the thought exercise, but I played along.
Imagine if Hillary were in the process of losing not one, but two wars against miserable Third World countries whose combined armed forces didn't equal a fiftieth of America's military might.
Professor, we've won both wars (more properly thought of as campaigns in the long war against Jihadist). There is an insurgency going in both countries, but then there's also a wider war being waged against us and our friends around the world. But we're winning those insurgencies too. (Too early to call the bigger war). We are doing especially well in Afghanistan where the Canadians and Australians are just chewing up the Taliban. Bill Roggio said on Hugh Hewitt' s radio show today that the Taliban has lost (killed or captured) 2500 in 7 months. Standing up and fighting does not mean you are winning. The Taliban decided to take on the supposedly weak NATO forces, and its fighters are paying a huge price for that miscalculation, but that does not mean it is winning. The Japanese decided to fight pretty much to the last man on Iwo Jima (118,000 dead Japanese); did that mean they were winning too?
Imagine if she refused to fire the inept buffoon who was her secretary of Defense, despite repeated complaints from across the political spectrum - and even from her own generals - that he had utterly bungled both the wars her administration was in the process of losing.
See above.
Defeatists. There I said it. And a pretty massively uninformed one too.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 6:40 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Roger,
There are at least 13 ways of looking at a blackbird. I don't read Paul Campos b/c most of what he writes is silly.
Of course men and women in our services are thrilled when the C in C shows up. But I suspect that the president now regrets that particular photo op. If "Mission Accomplished" merely denoted kicking the snot out of the degraded Iraqi army why then mission accomplished.
I think your thinking is not as well articulated as the rest of your intellect when you attempt to compare the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan w/ Fallen Timbers, Iwo Jima, or other conventional battles.
Afghanistan was a training camp for terrorists. The U.S. presented the Taliban w/ amn ultimatum which the Taliban declined to meet and now, as a government, they have been relegated to the scrap heap of history.
There is much work remaining in Afghanistan. The poppy crop is at record levels; there was a call for more NATO troops this morning; and our massive commitment in Iraq has diverted our resources from rebuilding the country which after 20 years of conflict,was a mess b/f we arrived.
As to whether our efforts will succeed in Iraq, time will tell. I think not but we need not rehash that here.
The stated reason for the invasion of Iraq was not that Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy but that he posed a threat to the security of this country and our allies.
If, in 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, deposing Saddam Hussein results in greater threats to our security that that of our allies, then the photo op on the USS Lincoln will render the president the poster boy for any number of labels that I am certain he would just as soon forego.
By the way, how are we paying for the war in Iraq?
T
There are at least 13 ways of looking at a blackbird. I don't read Paul Campos b/c most of what he writes is silly.
Of course men and women in our services are thrilled when the C in C shows up. But I suspect that the president now regrets that particular photo op. If "Mission Accomplished" merely denoted kicking the snot out of the degraded Iraqi army why then mission accomplished.
I think your thinking is not as well articulated as the rest of your intellect when you attempt to compare the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan w/ Fallen Timbers, Iwo Jima, or other conventional battles.
Afghanistan was a training camp for terrorists. The U.S. presented the Taliban w/ amn ultimatum which the Taliban declined to meet and now, as a government, they have been relegated to the scrap heap of history.
There is much work remaining in Afghanistan. The poppy crop is at record levels; there was a call for more NATO troops this morning; and our massive commitment in Iraq has diverted our resources from rebuilding the country which after 20 years of conflict,was a mess b/f we arrived.
As to whether our efforts will succeed in Iraq, time will tell. I think not but we need not rehash that here.
The stated reason for the invasion of Iraq was not that Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy but that he posed a threat to the security of this country and our allies.
If, in 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, deposing Saddam Hussein results in greater threats to our security that that of our allies, then the photo op on the USS Lincoln will render the president the poster boy for any number of labels that I am certain he would just as soon forego.
By the way, how are we paying for the war in Iraq?
T
# posted by 
: 9:59 AM
: 9:59 AM
I agree with you about your first two paragraphs (I think the mission accomplished was for the Lincoln--as it had indeed accomplished its mission) but no doubt it was a precursor to the propoganda slogans they plaster behind political figures they film.
I don't care how many poppies the Afghanis grow it is not a barometer to their goodness or badness, freedom or oppression. It's a cash crop--it grows there, why not grow it. (We should buy it). The call for more troops was because the central and western European countries have only sent about 85% of the troops they promised. If you think it was a call for the cavalry, I believe you have been misinformed (certainly not from this site). We finally built some roads in Afghanistan. What else do we need to do? Again western Europe has pledged money but I'm not sure they've ponied up all they promised.
I have to go with the reasons for regime change in Iraq in the 1998 Act, the pitch President gave the UN accentuated what they would consider reason to support. It did not make the only reason the threat to the security of ourselves and allies. If you google the old speeches, I think you'll see that Bush always gave other reasons most of which were from 1998 thing. Hey, I did oral Arguments in front of our Supremes today. Didn't embarass myself, might not have hit it out of the park. Talk to you.
I don't care how many poppies the Afghanis grow it is not a barometer to their goodness or badness, freedom or oppression. It's a cash crop--it grows there, why not grow it. (We should buy it). The call for more troops was because the central and western European countries have only sent about 85% of the troops they promised. If you think it was a call for the cavalry, I believe you have been misinformed (certainly not from this site). We finally built some roads in Afghanistan. What else do we need to do? Again western Europe has pledged money but I'm not sure they've ponied up all they promised.
I have to go with the reasons for regime change in Iraq in the 1998 Act, the pitch President gave the UN accentuated what they would consider reason to support. It did not make the only reason the threat to the security of ourselves and allies. If you google the old speeches, I think you'll see that Bush always gave other reasons most of which were from 1998 thing. Hey, I did oral Arguments in front of our Supremes today. Didn't embarass myself, might not have hit it out of the park. Talk to you.
Sure Afghanistan has always been Flander's fields, but if the major cash crop of your country is the raw material to produce heroin, this is not a good thing. It's drugs, money, guns and warlords.
It is not as if Afghanistan achieved a high degree of civilization in the last 2000 years. W/ the inception of aviation, Afghanistan became a stagnant backwater, hence a perfect breeding place for terrorists.
I am hearing conflicting rep[orts about the effectiveness and viability of the central government. Do some Afghanis yearn for the return of the Taliban and their supposed imposition of order and lack of corruption? If so, then the mission in Afghanistan is failing. If not, then it is succeeding.
W/ respect to Iraq, I don't care about the legal arguments. It was a bad gambit then, it is a bad gambit now. Having the best military on earth does not necessarily contribute to our prestige.
If democracy fails in Iraq, as I fear it shall, our real enemies, already emboldened, shall continue to work to erode our interests.
It is not as if Afghanistan achieved a high degree of civilization in the last 2000 years. W/ the inception of aviation, Afghanistan became a stagnant backwater, hence a perfect breeding place for terrorists.
I am hearing conflicting rep[orts about the effectiveness and viability of the central government. Do some Afghanis yearn for the return of the Taliban and their supposed imposition of order and lack of corruption? If so, then the mission in Afghanistan is failing. If not, then it is succeeding.
W/ respect to Iraq, I don't care about the legal arguments. It was a bad gambit then, it is a bad gambit now. Having the best military on earth does not necessarily contribute to our prestige.
If democracy fails in Iraq, as I fear it shall, our real enemies, already emboldened, shall continue to work to erode our interests.
# posted by : 9:24 AM
: 9:24 AM
If we try our best and fail in Iraq, it will be a defeat and our enemies will be emboldened to a degree (depending on how hard we fought and how they preceive the win--grand or Phyrric). If we leave because it got hard, without trying our best and without seeming to protect our Iraqi allies, it will be a shame (not unlike Viet Nam) that will cause our enemies to think that we can be attacked with impunity. I see a huge difference and I want us to be loyal to our friends. Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home
