Rewarding Those Who Were Right

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 16:00


I can't say I know all that much about General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff. Like most Americans, about all I know about him is that, before the Iraq war, he argued that occupying Iraq would require an enormous American military presence far is excess of what the country was being told. The upward range of Shinseki's estimate was 500,000, a number that, if regularly offered by those who supported the invasion, would almost certainly have driven public and congressional support for the war down significantly. Instead, Shinseki's estimates were called "outlandish" by Paul Wolfowitz in testimony before Congress:

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.

These are the sorts of lies that led to the war in Iraq, which has cost America thousands of lives, killed or displaced one in four Iraqis, not to mention severely damaged both our economy and international reputation.

Given that he was right about this disaster, it is a positive development that Eric Shinseki has now been selected to run the Department of Veteran's Affairs. People who were right about such major decisions facing our country should be rewarded, just as President-elect Obama was rewarded by the country at least in part due to his early opposition to the war in Iraq. In truth, Shinseki should probably have received an even higher post for his foresight, such as Secretary of Defense.

Beyond perceived ideological leanings, it bothers me even more to see people who screwed up the country and the world so badly via support for the Iraq war and / or de-regulation of the financial sector be rewarded with major administration positions despite f**king us all over so badly. Shinseki didn't do that, and in fact suffered a career setback for trying to prevent it from happening. I'd love to see more picks like this in the future, because right now is a time when the people who can say "I told you so" should be in power.

Chris Bowers :: Rewarding Those Who Were Right

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Being Right over Affirming Consensus (4.00 / 6)
It seems that all too often politicians reward people for affirming consensus, even if that consensus is wrorg, over people who rock the boat by being right.  According to this view, people who rock the boat loudly are even worse.  Boat rockers cause trouble, and who wants that.  I agree with Chris here 100%

It is good, and the Veterans Affairs (4.00 / 2)
position is important, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who got it right making Defense Department or national security POLICY?

Still, crumbs are better than nothing.  

Good post, Chris.


A lot easier said than done (0.00 / 0)
I agree overall with your feelings but you act like there is a waiting list of folks who were both right and capable of doing the job. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case which is why we have been getting all of these "best and brightest*" appointments.

At the end of the day it is Obama that sets the agenda and his appointments will just have to carry them out.


Good post. Shinseki is probably the person who suffered the most (4.00 / 1)
for his anti-Iraq war stance, losing his job over it, his career basically over.  

As Gates is said to be a one-year appointment could it be possible that Shinseki moves over to DoD to replace him?  I think this shows that even if Shinseki is not moved to DoD that something with similar views will become Gates' replacement after the one carryover year.      


I don't think Shinseki is eligible (4.00 / 2)
Just as Clark isn't, because he was an active general too recently.  It needs to be ten years past retirement, which puts Shinseki in Obama's second term.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
Does this requirement hold for all DOD employees? (0.00 / 0)
e.g. Could he be asst. secretary for something?

[ Parent ]
you mean picking people who have foresight is PRAGMATIC. (0.00 / 0)
and it's stupid to pick people who got it wrong simply because they're in the "center" of the pundit class. in fact, picking a "centrist" is more like an ideological test than what you're suggesting.

Well, he was right (0.00 / 0)
about needing far more troops in Iraq. I don't see anything that says he opposed the invasion itself. (Of course as a general he shouldn't be speaking on policy, but that sure didn't stop many of the others.

Eric Shinseki (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps just as important in being right, Eric Shinseki had the courage and character to voice his opposition in a time when Donald Rumsfeld & crew were browbeating military brass into yes-men.  

This is the kind of leadership that the VA is desperately in need of.  Plus, being that I'm from Hawaii, it's great to see yet another local boy from the islands make good.


Crying Wolfowitz (0.00 / 0)
Actually, what's Wolfowitz doing these days? I'm also interesting in convicting the guilty. Wolfowitz wasn't merely disagreeing, he was lying. A central lesson of American military experience since 1898 has been that an occupation army must ALWAYS be larger than an army tasked only with conquest. And, as Duncan Black pointed out on his site when he linked to this post, we didn't have enough troops to occupy Iraq according to our traditional, well-tested, standard. Full stop. Failure was certain so long as the Iraqis behaved like normal human beings.

overruled by wolfowitz (0.00 / 0)
Instead, Shinseki's estimates were called "outlandish" by Paul Wolfowitz in testimony before Congress

So, Wolfowitz was what?  A F***ing field marshall or something?  Why was a f***ing paper-shuffler's word taken over an actual general's?  Don't answer.  Rhetorical question.


Rewarded (0.00 / 0)
" it bothers me even more to see people who screwed up the country and the world so badly via support for the Iraq war be rewarded with major administration positions despite f**king us all over so badly"

You mean, like our next Secretary of State?  Because that bothers me.


Well... (0.00 / 0)
Since Obama says he wants to expand the military, maintain forces in Iraq, and have a surge in Afghanistan, I guess it helps having a sympathetic person dealing with Vets who will sacrifice their lives to do these things.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search