PREFACE: Maseh Zarif is the Director of External Relations at the Institute for the Study of War and James Zumwalt is a former Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal officer who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mr. Zarif and Lt. Zumwalt's 21AUG19 The Hill article, 'Forever war' slogans short-circuit the scrutiny required of national security choices, asks, "Americans must aim for a difficult but necessary debate rather than adopting a strategy-by-slogan that promises an easy way out. How can we begin that dialogue?". I answered the question. Mr. Zarif and Lt. Zumwalt didn't respond to my e-mail, so I don't know whether they've read it.
from: [Eric LC]
to: [Institute for the Study of War], [The Hill editorial department]
date: Sep 3, 2019, 3:39 PM
subject: Maseh Zarif and James Zumwalt: Here's how to begin "a difficult but necessary debate" versus the 'Forever war' slogans
Messrs. Zarif and Zumwalt,
I use the primary source authorities, i.e., the set of controlling law, policy, and precedent and determinative facts that define OIF's justification, at Operation Iraqi Freedom FAQ to lay a proper foundation and provide a study guide for the Iraq issue.
Your 21AUG19 The Hill article, 'Forever war' slogans short-circuit the scrutiny required of national security choices, asks, "Americans must aim for a difficult but necessary debate rather than adopting a strategy-by-slogan that promises an easy way out. How can we begin that dialogue?".
That's easy to answer: The prerequisite for "a difficult but necessary debate" is laying the proper foundation for it with clarification of OIF's justification that corrects for the conjecture, distorted context, and misinformation propagandized by the 'Forever war' sloganeers to obfuscate the Iraq issue.
The "dialogue" must begin with clarification of the Iraq issue at the premise level because the 1990-2011 Iraq intervention was paradigmatic for American leadership of the free world. The national security principles you apparently support fully manifested with Iraq, most of all with the enforcement of UNSCR 1441 per Public Law 107-243 and the UNSCR 1483 peace operations per Public Law 105-338. Therefore, opponents and detractors of American leadership of the free world have stigmatized the Iraq intervention in order to discredit those national security principles, toxify policy choices derived from those national security principles, drive your school of policy into a shrinking defensive crouch, and thereby predominate their school of policy.
Simply said, if the consensus is America was wrong on Iraq, then that means the paradigm of American leadership that manifested with Iraq is wrong. Which means the debate is done, your school of policy is obsoleted, and your advocacy is vestigial. On the other hand, if America was actually right on Iraq, then that means you are right to call for a corrective "dialogue" that discredits the 'Forever war' sloganeers and revitalizes the sort of principled resolute American leadership that manifested with Iraq before President Obama changed course.
As yet, the specious stigmatization of the Iraq intervention has been allowed to freely metastasize in the politics and thereby set the path for the inimical policy decisions criticized in your article. However, the false narrative is readily correctable with the incontrovertible set of law, policy, precedent, and facts that define OIF's justification.
As a layman, I can help model the substantive piece needed to clarify the Iraq issue but not compete the political piece. In the political arena, pundits like you are needed to lay the proper foundation for "a difficult but necessary debate".
I hope this recommendation reaches you. If you have questions about my work, please ask.
Related: Regarding pundits and David Brooks's "Saving the System" and Expanded list of responses to leaders, pundits, and other media.
No comments:
Post a Comment