The Lost Opportunity

I liked Barack Obama's summation of the big strategic picture in late 2001, and the massive lost opportunity of the Bush/McCain strategy:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

• We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
• We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
• We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
• We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
• We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
• We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
• We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.
• We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Looking forward, Obama outlines five goals for our post-Iraq foreign policy: "I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Comments

A strong & decisive statment---and it couldn't have come at a better time.

Posted by jack | July 15, 2008 11:40 AM

"We could have avoided debasing the American identity by associating it with the torture of people suspected of having marginally useful information."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 15, 2008 11:45 AM

Obama is going to win this walking away.

This is good stuff.

Posted by TDE | July 15, 2008 11:51 AM

Now that sounds like a plan. A policy that actually has measurable goals...something unheard of for the last 8 years.

Posted by jerri | July 15, 2008 11:54 AM

I should add, in a debate with 'I'd invade Iraq all over again' McCain, this line of attack will be devastating.

Posted by TDE | July 15, 2008 11:54 AM

Speaking of Barack, I hope you'll all take a few minutes to check out my new post on the New Yorker cover as well as other new posts on my blog. http://swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com

Posted by Swan | July 15, 2008 11:58 AM

A sad spectacle, not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it's so late. And because there are still some people who don't agree with it.

Better late than never, I suppose. And if America is really finished, there are at least going to be some nice speeches at the funeral.

Posted by sunsin | July 15, 2008 11:59 AM

So Matt,
Do you and Marc get into water balloon fights in the office? Since your take on things pretty much emulates mine and Marc tends to make me cringe, if you need any assistance with water balloons, whip cream pies, extra thick and elastic rubber bands, or anything else....I am your man!

Posted by Ed S | July 15, 2008 12:00 PM

Obama is going to win this walking away.

There's a new national poll that only puts him up by 1%.

Maybe he's still winning electoral college votes right now, but it's actually getting close. It's really way too early to think we have this thing in the bag, considering the kind of success the Republicans have getting people to respond to demagoguery and their usurpation of the media.

We all need to keep fighting hard.

Posted by Swan | July 15, 2008 12:04 PM

A great summary of what we should have done after 9/11. The wasted opportunity will come back to haunt us in years to come, if not in the form of al-Qaeda, then in some other terrorist group.

Posted by TheExpatriate | July 15, 2008 12:08 PM

That's all nice and good, but what about the economy?

Iraq could become a #2 or #3 issue, as inflation, Wall Street jitters and mortgage/banking snares become impossible to ignore...

Everything points to Obama winning by a strong margin. But even if (when?) he runs into brick walls trying to settle the Iraq issue, he'll be devoting huge amounts of time to the economy, as well.

Posted by some guy | July 15, 2008 12:14 PM

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11

So, Barack Obama proposes to invade Pakistan AGAIN!

Posted by Al | July 15, 2008 12:14 PM

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars,... in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

It's good, and salutary, for the country to hear that last sentence again, from as many prominent sources, as often as possible. The 9/11 attacks were an opportunity, to be charitable, and a pretext, to be harsh.

The 'goal' for the whole bloody war was to give the GOP, operating out of the White House, a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher, using a wartime surge of nationalism and the powers of an aggrandized executive.

A war was the key to the One-Party State. A long twilight police-and-counterinsurgency effort against a few thousand non-state actors wasn't going to cut it. That's the 'big strategic picture of 2001'.

This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war -- this time fought by proxy -- attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war about it -- but this time not having the war here.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 15, 2008 12:17 PM

"There's a new national poll that only puts him up by 1%."

Which one and where? Rasmussen's daily tracking today had him up 47-45 w/leaners, an improvement over his 1pt lead yesterday and the tie that was registered over the weekend. Gallup's daily has had him with a 3pt lead for three days running. And the Quinnipiac poll released today had Obama up by 9, 50-41. I'm not doubting you...I just didn't see it.

That said, we definitely need to keep fighting hard. This is hardly over - far from it.

Posted by OGLiberal | July 15, 2008 12:17 PM

I watched the speech on streaming video which was a bit hurky jerky. The "lost opportunities" section Matt pointed out was very effective in itself and as a rhetorical setup for his proposals to change direction.

No suprises on the substance, so I was more interested in how he came across in terms of delivery and stature. On the small screen, he looked and sounded very comfortably Presidential -- a natural authority and gravitas which incorporated, but in a toned down way, the inspirational voice typical of his domestic speeches. If he can match that delivery in Berlin, it will be a bottom of the ninth, bases loaded home run.

I'm curious if Matt got a different impression of his delivery and the audience response in the hall -- or in the press pit.

Posted by nadezhda | July 15, 2008 12:40 PM

I watched the speech on streaming video which was a bit hurky jerky. The "lost opportunities" section Matt pointed out was very effective in itself and as a rhetorical setup for his proposals to change direction.

No suprises on the substance, so I was more interested in how he came across in terms of delivery and stature. On the small screen, he looked and sounded very comfortably Presidential -- a natural authority and gravitas which incorporated, but in a toned down way, the inspirational voice typical of his domestic speeches. If he can match that delivery in Berlin, it will be a bottom of the ninth, bases loaded home run.

I'm curious if Matt got a different impression of his delivery and the audience response in the hall -- or in the press pit.

Posted by nadezhda | July 15, 2008 12:42 PM

You know, it's certainly possible that we could have "lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats" WHILE deploying the full force of American power to hunt down Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Maybe that's in service of a better cause than the one we chose, but once Osama gets into the tribal areas of Pakistan, I really don't know what we do to catch him.

On the other hand I don't think there's any evidence that catching OBL has been more than a hobby to the present administration. I have some hopes for this fall, though.

Posted by mark | July 15, 2008 12:51 PM

We could have :

Pushed for a legitimate settlement (whoops, wrong word) of the Israeli/Palestinian issue that would have involved the Israeli's giving up the settlements, drawing the new border at the old one of the green line and agreeing to share Jerusalem as the Capital, and the Palestinians agreeing to give up "the right of return". But unfortunately, Obama has already given away Jerusalem and you just can't say any of this and run for the Presidency of the United States. No matter that a majority of Israelis are actually for all of this. So on it goes. Forever.

We could have :

Not gotten into bed with the glorified crime family that is the Pakistani military and the ISI, and President Musharaff and in turn all the Islamic extremist groups that are presently kicking our ass along the border and actually chose to align ourselves with legitimate democrats of Pakistan - since that is what the overwhelming majority of Pakistani's want as well.

We could have :

Not got back into bed with the warlords of Afghanistan and at least attempted to make a legitimate effort a reconstruction since that country was only the graveyard of the Cold War to which a million-five Afghans gave their lives.

So now I will transfer thousands of troops to that other war - what we all like to think of as the 'the good war' - just as it begins to dawn on all of us that this one is every bit as "unwinnable".

And just as a side note -

We could have :

Recognized the legitimate democratic government and aspirations of the Haitian people and not done everything we could to support the coup de tat of February 29, 2004 and the reconstitution of the brutal Haitian army whose only purpose is to terrorize its own citizenry and grab the back end of whatever corruption is working at the time.. But I know that nobody gives a shit about this anymore and I certainly wouldn't expect a Presidential candidate as cautious as Barack Obama - African-American or otherwise - to go any where near this.

I could have :

From the time I entered the United States Senate actually highlighted some of this stuff, any of this stuff, instead of continuously elevating my single comment during an antiwar rally in 2003 that I did at the behest of one of my most lucrative supporters as some super righteous example of my impeccable integrity and truth telling.

But I chose instead to do be President.

Thank-you all. God Bless America. And can I get an amen?

Posted by Wu Tang | July 15, 2008 1:02 PM

I watched the speech on streaming video which was a bit hurky jerky. The "lost opportunities" section Matt pointed out was very effective in itself and as a rhetorical setup for his proposals to change direction.

No suprises on the substance, so I was more interested in how he came across in terms of delivery and stature. On the small screen, he looked and sounded very comfortably Presidential -- a natural authority and gravitas which incorporated, but in a toned down way, the inspirational voice typical of his domestic speeches. If he can match that delivery in Berlin, it will be a bottom of the ninth, bases loaded home run.

I'm curious if Matt got a different impression of his delivery and the audience response in the hall -- or in the press pit.

Posted by nadezhda | July 15, 2008 1:02 PM

These points need to be placed in ads and Barack should bombard the television and radio waves with them. People seem unaware or too willing to forget how much this war has cost our nation, both in lives, treasure, and opportunity.

Posted by jbentley | July 15, 2008 1:03 PM

The first three goals are fine, but the last two?

achieving true energy security

Surely this means more coal and nuclear power plants, plus offshore oil drilling, right?

rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I've never quite understood which alliances were in great disrepair. Maybe the Spanish? Our non-allies -- Venezuela, Iran, etc -- have been a bit more belligerent than usual, but our alliances with UK, France, Japan, Israel, Canada, Germany, Mexico, are all pretty healthy. We've never been better aligned with India and China before.

Posted by right | July 15, 2008 1:06 PM

right, the thing is that I never understood why "energy security" required removing non-renewable energy sources from the ground, ensuring we would not have them available in the future. I'm not quite sure whose energy security is being served by that.

Posted by Tyro | July 15, 2008 2:57 PM

Yah, he's right back at invading Pakistan with the full force of the US military to find 6 AQ fugitives - as if American casualties his "opportunity costs" of defeating AQ and shaking up Iraq would not have been affected by full warfare in Afghanistan, tribal region of Pakistan against 30 million Pashtun warriors & family.

For a "serious Lefty who only wishes to bring those responsible for one act, not the rest that believe in violent Islamic global warfare...Black Messiah is not at all serious about bringing the 9/11 Mastermind and 4 other key players to justice after 5 years in captivity. Only moaning about mean Bush trammeling their precious terrorist rights and tying prosecution of them up in courts for 5 years. Many of Obama's supporters say the death penalty has to be out for KSM as he would best be tried by wiser Europeans at their ICC. Others say the filthy US military has no business trying him, only civilian courts.

Black Messiah also believes that somehow Iraq blocks research into "exciting alternative energy sources" available 20-30 years from now - when it was Democrats that blocked funds for ITER fusion research, and blocked work to make oil shale development and coal liquification cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

Sorry Barry O, but being a teacher or a cop was never considered "national service" like being military or in the Peace Corps, was.

We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.
We could have done that.

Yah, right Black Messiah...a chicken in every pot, all our bridges and roads rebuilt, college for everyone. And a perfect defense at all ports, airports, trains, subways that magically does not use profiling or makes any effort to provide border security since Black Messiah voted against both of those measures.

The Bushies have been securing loose nukes - just not in the "Obama style", I guess. Like the effort to lock up Russia's material and burn it in nuke plants (which Obama opposes until a "permanent waste solution everyone agrees with is found"). Or securing 550 tons of yellowcake in Iraq, or ending Libyan loose nuke program, almost ending the NORK program with the full prestige of China now riding on it, and the effort to deter Iran from going "loose nukes".

Posted by chris ford | July 15, 2008 4:39 PM

Obama: "finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;"

He isn't going to do that either in Afghanistan or Pakistan without starting major wars in both that will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

If he doesn't have a strategic and tactical PLAN to take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, all his bluster is so much horseshit on a par with McCain's "winning" in Iraq.

"securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states;"

In other words - "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" - once his flawed "diplomacy" fails because he doesn't understand the Iran situation any more than Bush does. In fact, Bush KNOWS Iran isn't a "threat" - he just wants the oil. Obama is too stupid to understand Iran is not a "threat".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 15, 2008 5:58 PM

The "lost opportunities" section Matt pointed out was very effective in itself and as the rhetorical link to his harking back to the statesmanship and vision of Marshall at the end of WWII -- what we should have done after 9/11, what direction we should take now.

No suprises on the substance, so I was more interested in how he came across in terms of delivery and stature. I watched the speech on streaming video which was a bit hurky jerky. On the small screen, he looked and sounded very comfortably Presidential -- a natural authority and gravitas which incorporated, but in a toned down way, the inspirational voice typical of his domestic speeches. If he can match that delivery in Berlin, it will be a bottom of the ninth, bases loaded home run.

The crowd was silent, but he delivered it without expectation of applause where natural applause lines were. As if both he and the audience felt the subject as too serious for political effects.

I'm curious if Matt got a different impression of his delivery and the audience response in the hall -- or in the press pit.

Posted by nadezhda | July 15, 2008 6:03 PM

The "lost opportunities" section Matt pointed out was very effective in itself and as the rhetorical link to his harking back to the statesmanship and vision of Marshall at the end of WWII -- what we should have done after 9/11, what direction we should take now.

No suprises on the substance, so I was more interested in how he came across in terms of delivery and stature. I watched the speech on streaming video which was a bit hurky jerky. On the small screen, he looked and sounded very comfortably Presidential -- a natural authority and gravitas which incorporated, but in a toned down way, the inspirational voice typical of his domestic speeches. If he can match that delivery in Berlin, it will be a bottom of the ninth, bases loaded home run.

The crowd was silent, but he delivered it without expectation of applause where natural applause lines were. As if both he and the audience felt the subject as too serious for political effects.

I'm curious if Matt got a different impression of his delivery and the audience response in the hall -- or in the press pit.

Posted by nadezhda | July 15, 2008 6:03 PM

Re Wu Tang

Mr. Wu Tangs' proposed settlement for the Israeli/Palestinian is impossible because it is not acceptable to the Palestinians who demand that inhabitants in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. Thus, even if the Government of Israel were forced to accept Mr. Tangs' proposed conditions, the Palestinians would reject them as inadequate.

Earlier on, I posted a link to Steven Novellas' web site where he discusses some new technology out of MIT which may push solar energy over the top, if it pans out. In which case, all this discussion about drilling off-shore and extracting shale oil is so much noise. By the way, I very much doubt that controlled fusion is ever going to happen. In 1970, it was predicted that controlled fusion would come on line by the end of the century. Didn't happen and at best it's another 30 years in the future, if ever.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=334

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2008 8:51 PM