 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
...has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.So perhaps all that adds some weight to his comments on the passing of Cap Winberger:
But Weinberger also made a lasting contribution to U.S. policy; unfortunately, it wasn't lasting enough. In a 1984 speech, he outlined what came to be known as the "Weinberger Doctrine," which declared that the United States must use force only as a "last resort." And if force were to be used, the war had to be fought "wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning."Winberger's DoD had a purpose - and if it wasn't a singular purpose, it was close enough that Lebanon could be seen as an unwanted distraction from that mission - the triumph of Democracy over the Soviet Empire. I recognize that, and it deadens the pain (a bit) I feel on reading words like The United States withdrew from Lebanon shortly thereafter...What Weinberger was saying was that the United States would make no more half-hearted interventions, such as in Vietnam, or the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which occurred on Weinberger's own watch. That Lebanon mission, of course, culminated in the 1983 truck-bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 military personnel. The United States withdrew from Lebanon shortly thereafter, proving that Weinberger and his boss, President Ronald Reagan, weren't knee-jerk hawks; they were smart enough to cut their losses.
Yet in the years since Beirut, a curious intellectual revisionism has set in, in which "neoconservative" policy-makers have sought to trash Weinberger and Reagan for their "weakness" in the Middle East. These neo-critics cite the Lebanon withdrawal as a pathetic moment of "retreat"; their theory, apparently, is that the Marines should have stayed in Lebanon, somehow to bring law and order to combatants who were enthusiastically engaged in civil war.
So today we have Americans watching over civil war in Iraq, not Lebanon. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq mission, this much is obvious: The last six secretaries of Defense - including the incumbent, Donald Rumsfeld - did not take seriously, as did Weinberger, the "prepare for war" injunction contained in that old Roman adage.
Weinberger preached that a war plan had to be "wholehearted": Preparation often precludes the need to fight. So in Iraq, where was the overwhelming force needed to subdue a country of 25 million? Where was the training for counterinsurgency? The adequate armor? The effective anti-improvised explosive device technology?
In fact, there was a disgraceful lack of military preparation for Iraq, and the war hasn't been handled well since, either. Still, it was nice of Rumsfeld to show up and eulogize Weinberger on Tuesday - even if Rumsfeld's presence at the funeral highlighted the stark contrast between the performance of the two Defense secretaries.
Pinkerton is one of many who will deign to speak for a now-departed cold warrior. They may be very much disappointed upon discovering Weinberger's final bequest to America
