How to Forget the Lessons of History

Here's a bit from a posting by James Gibney in the Atlantic magazine. This bit deals with Max Boot's attempt to re-write history and his role in it so that he can once again be a "leader" and lead people to another disaster:

Punditry and memory often don't mix. Consider Max Boot's Thursday column in the Wall Street Journal on "How To Win in Afghanistan." According to Mr. Boot, "If we don't make a substantial commitment--one that will require raising our troop strength beyond the 68,000 to which the administration is already committed--we are likely to lose."

For the record, I agree with him. But six years ago, he had a slightly different strategy for Afghanistan: In March 2003, he argued that the manhunt for Al Qaeda there "is a job for the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and a small number of Special Operations troops," and that our Afghan involvement shouldn't stop us from invading Iraq. And the disastrously flawed thinking behind that recommendation largely explains how we got to the Afghan war's current sorry state.

While I'm at it, I can't resist quoting this other howler from Boot's March 2003 piece: "Will invading Iraq lead to long lines at al-Qaeda recruiting offices? Possible, but not probable. The sort of people who are willing to become 'martyrs' for the cause are pretty far gone already. An invasion might push a few over the edge, but it might also give others second thoughts." The wonder is that Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is still taken seriously.

Gibney goes on to dissect Paul Wolfowitz's attempt to re-emerge as an "expert" after leading everybody over a cliff six years ago.

In the old days the Romans who lost their battalion fell on their swords. They didn't hide out a few years then come forward to once again "promote" themselves as leaders with ideas worth listening to. I sure wish the leaders of today had the virtues and courage of the old Roman leaders.