EPTOn September 03 2008 03:24 Kaesi wrote:
I don't get it. What you're citing as "learned" through experience, I could have told you with absolutely no experience as a commander. In fact, I did tell many people exactly what would happen. The Iraqi gov't would capitulate within weeks, and the actual military would go to ground and lead an insurgency, which would then be complicated by a vast array of foreign powers sending their own agents in to foment rebellion and factional warfare. I've got no way to prove it to you now, but I honestly called it, and quite a few others did too. It wasn't hard to see.
I don't get it. What you're citing as "learned" through experience, I could have told you with absolutely no experience as a commander. In fact, I did tell many people exactly what would happen. The Iraqi gov't would capitulate within weeks, and the actual military would go to ground and lead an insurgency, which would then be complicated by a vast array of foreign powers sending their own agents in to foment rebellion and factional warfare. I've got no way to prove it to you now, but I honestly called it, and quite a few others did too. It wasn't hard to see.
God you are arrogant beyond belief. You still haven't answered my question -- have you ever studied any of the fields your naive intellect is criticizing? Do you really want to make that argument against someone who's majoring in it, when you have no knowledge at all?
Second, your analysis is wrong. No, the mujahadeen and AIQ became powerful movements because the republican guard was dismissed, left jobless and angry at the US. Iraqi infrastructure and administration was so inept at first because of the policy of de-baathification, which banned the only administrators with experience from holding office. Bush refused to engage in nation-building in Afghanistan, assuming a democratic government would bring stability. He didn't pressure Musharaff into eradicating the Taliban, and was happy with just eliminating al qaeda leaders, which allowed the Taliban to regroup. There are countless other errors I could name that have nothing to do with ideology, only with poor management. And if you think micromanaging commanders is a good idea, my only response is *facepalm* and that you are woefully ignorant of what you're talking about.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding. When I say experience, I do include learned knowledge. Sarah Palin has no hands on experience and no learned knowledge. If she had conducted the war in iraq, she could not have foreseen the problems Bush did. If she were to conduct another war, say against Iran, her lack of experience would likely cause her to repeat some of Bush's mistakes because of her unfamiliarity with what happened before. The advisors she picks, being similarly inept because her lack of experience could not weed out the morons, would have made the same errors.
And honestly, micromanaging commanders is a bad thing? Rly? "Learned the differences and grievances of the different ethnicities?" Come on, any jack ass with a modicum of learning about the Mid-East region would understand the political environment in Iraq. Sunni/Shiite is not a new conflict. Neither is the concept that ayatollahs and mullahs play an influential role in the Muslim world. Give me a break.
ORLY? Did your "modicum of learning" tell you that of all the oil in Iraq, only a small portion of it is located in Anbar, where most Sunnis live? or the concerns Turkey may have had about its Kurdish population to the south? Would you have been able to predict, had you and your advisors been driven only by ideology and lack knowledge and experience, the effects of dismantling the central government? Could you have developed, or been knowledgeable enough to select subordinates capable of developing, a strategy for uniting, stablizing, and rebuilding Iraq? By your argument, someone like you who's driven only by ideology and have no substantitive knowledge of the region would have done a fine job of managing the war.
Experience does matter. But it matters far, FAR less than innate talent, intelligence, and temperament. I'd place temperament and intelligence far above any other trait when it comes to leadership. Using "experience" as a qualification is absurd to me. Everyone started as a baby. What, a kid shouldn't go to school because he doesn't have experience in it? That means he'll do poorly in school? Temperament and intelligence play a far bigger role in determining how well a person will deal with a certain job than "experience." Experience is an indirect filter that implies, IMPLIES that a person has done something a certain amount of time, so will probably be able to do it again. Except, oftentimes there are multiple factors influencing why a person has managed to do something, and it's impossible to use pure experience as a qualifier. A teacher could have 30 years of teaching experience. Does that mean they're good? No. It means they have 2 years of experience, replicated 15x. That's typically what that means.
So you've essentially conceded that there is a correlation between experience and future success. I'm pretty sure that if you made a vertical survey of preschoolers who did poor academically or did not do preschool, you'd find that they're much more likely to do better later on. Oh there are always exceptions. And I haven't argued that there aren't. What I have argued is that when it comes to presidencies, that correlation is very strong. I've made that argument not indirectly, through ridiculous analogies, but directly, by addressing the issue. Pretty much I have a stronger case. So uh, please tell me why I'm wrong.
![[image loading]](http://media.heraldonline.com/smedia/2008/09/01/16/McCain_2008_Palin_Daughter.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.6.jpg)
