tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post7031930058922534949..comments2024-03-28T16:15:19.319-04:00Comments on Saideman's Semi-Spew: Ask the Reader: Single Dumbest Mistake in US Foreign/Defense Policy?Steve Saidemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-17597388978239722292009-12-05T11:11:27.369-05:002009-12-05T11:11:27.369-05:00That the Iraq war involved heaps of bad decisions ...That the Iraq war involved heaps of bad decisions is clear, and the small size of the force was clearly a bad idea for the post-conventional war phase. I would say this is a close second to the disbanding of the Iraq army.<br /><br />But the second competitor--advancing to the Chinese border may be a winner. <br /><br />Perhaps I should posit a tournament--a bracket of 16/32/64 bad decisions and have people vote? Only if I had the mad web skills and the time. <br /><br />More suggestions?Steve Saidemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-84015644632034724902009-12-05T10:27:42.733-05:002009-12-05T10:27:42.733-05:00The decision to invade Iraq contains many smaller ...The decision to invade Iraq contains many smaller choices that each look incredibly dumb. Disbanding the army is definitely one of them, but you might also cite the decision to use a small number of troops (perhaps partly as a result) not to provide security in Baghdad after the city was occupied in April. The whole thing was a bad idea, badly implemented.<br /><br />One competitor for worst choice ever is the October 1950 decision to advance to seize all of North Korea, advancing to the Chinese border in spite of strong indications that the Chinese would intervene as a result. There were people in the State Department, including Paul Nitze, who thought this was a bad idea at the time. They were overruled.Benjamin Fordhamhttp://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~bfordham/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-29233887691734979532009-12-05T08:46:29.727-05:002009-12-05T08:46:29.727-05:00Given the design of the League and given the unlik...Given the design of the League and given the unlikely chance that the US would have really done anything int he mid-1930's to stop Germany early, I don't think opting out of the League is unambiguously dumb--the effects are not clear and it was not running against all previous experience like disbanding a large military is/was.<br /><br />For the latter, maybe misplaced faith, but again, the effects you posit are mostly things that didn't happen or didn't cause dramatic hardship.Steve Saidemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881915512311951902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8446351548038522890.post-82544173507373636172009-12-04T12:50:01.097-05:002009-12-04T12:50:01.097-05:00How about the U.S. Senate's decision to reject...How about the U.S. Senate's decision to reject U.S. membership in the League of Nations in 1919? If the U.S. had been a member, France and the U.K. might have been more inclined to work together proactively to address the rise of Nazi Germany... although the structural challenge's would have remained so that point is not clear.<br /><br />Or how about the dramatically misplaced faith in the "action-reaction" Arms Control model during the Cold Way (particularly the late 1970s)? While we were fortunate and didn't pay much of a price for this error, U.S. leaders were incredibly wrong when they thought U.S. reductions would lead to a similar Soviet response... when in fact it had the opposite effect. Deterrence could easily have failed (and the fact that it didn't is not proof that it "worked") so this could have been a mistake of existential proportions.Brian Mazanechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444264033075402730noreply@blogger.com