That Policy Sucking Sound

Madame M:

Well, the occasional “business” person has (to be kind) often been far from impressive, although perhaps it’s because they haven’t been business people in the usual sense. 

Yes, with the exception of the first, it’s largely been a parade of lawyers, with the occasional ex-soldier thrown in.  Even Wilson the Progressive, who was an actual political scientist (rather than just having majored in political science prior to becoming a lawyer, as many lawyers do), was also a lawyer.   In addition, although he emphasized it a good deal less, Wilson was a historian.  Given Wilson’s enthusiastic support  and fascist-like enforcement of the reprehensible Espionage and Sedition Acts during the First World War, as well as what could be termed some of his sexist and racist views and actions, it is a caution to this historian and political scientist that not only are people complex and flawed, but power can twist even those who should know better!

In addition, historians in particular, but political scientists too, often have trouble coming to policy decisions.  Whether it’s because they get lost in “analysis paralysis” from looking at so many variables and instances and factors and possibilities, or if it’s just their academic natures, effecting of policy could be problematic.  Although historians can sometimes craft policies (or, rather, portions of policies), my confidence in their execution of said policies (and the quick/real time flexible adjustments necessary as the policy went along) would not be extremely high.

It’s probably better in most instances that historians and political scientists and other specialists sit in positions of high advisement, and have real, significant input into the crafting and execution of those policies.  Finding a decisive non-historian political leader who values historian and political scientist input is unfortunately all too rare in our society, and the few who do often lack the “charisma” factor that the fickle and intermittently attentive America public seem to require.

The Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld (and Wolfowitz, although he at least displays a small modicum of real reflection on it) et al, gang of barely-or-never-served-in-the-military foreign policymaking imploders have ensured that our treasury is depleted (the final financial bloodletting, once all costs—including VA—of the policy criminality of Iraq alone are projected into the future, will total in excess of $4-6 TRILLION dollars) and that our options from this point forward are poor.  Ironically, we now are not only probably propelled to some accommodation with Iran on what to do in Iraq, but have spurred into production far more terroristic individuals than have been eliminated.  The comments from the general American public, about wanting to stay out of something we so thoroughly broke in our willful ignorant arrogance, are probably closer to the least bad of all the now bad options there are.  Aside from the tribal difficulties of Iraq (a whole ‘nother animal), the triple sectarian contention of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias will be the Iraqis’ to sort out, likely quite violently.  Our efforts will probably be focused on dampening down any chain-reaction spiraling of involvement of those (Turkey and Iran, particularly) with interests there.  Such a “policy” by us will have a thoroughly mixed reaction in and on the rest of the region and world, but as you said, we have so royally screwed things up (and made possible so much other screwing up and machinations by others), it may be the least-bad option.  The Obama administration gets a good deal of criticism (this Prof may be one of its critics) for foreign policy dithering, but in fairness it’s also been left holding a smelly, rotten bag of crap.

I really was wanting to return us to lighter summer fare, and look at all the air that has been infused into the windbag! :)  Guess my lighter topic will have to wait until next week!