« David Kilcullen: the decision to invade Iraq was "f***ing stupid" | Main | Abu Muqawama on insurgencies in the Southern Philippines and Southern Thailand »
August 03, 2008
Kilcullen's views on the decision to invade Iraq
My last post quoted David Kilcullen in the Washington Independent. However, there has been some discussion about the particular quote that jumped out at me (and that I highlighted). Kilcullen has since blogged that:
Spencer Ackerman, in yesterday’s Washington Independent, claims I told him the Iraq war was “f*cking stupid”. He did not seek to clear that quote with me, and I would not have approved it if he had. If he HAD sought a formal comment, I would have told him what I have said publicly before: in my view, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was an extremely serious strategic error. But the task of the moment is not to cry over spilt milk, rather to help clean it up: a task in which the surge, the comprehensive counterinsurgency approach, and our troops on the ground are admirably succeeding.
Ackerman - who wrote the original story - has since reported that
In the course of a piece I'm proud of about David Kilcullen's forthcoming strategy-level counterinsurgency handbook, I included a profanity-laden quote from him about the wisdom of the Iraq war. This was a mistake on my part and I take full responsibility for the fact that it overshadowed what I consider Kilcullen's valuable, serious, and hard-learned counterinsurgency insights...I included the profanity because I thought it underscored the depth of his commitment to try to dig American strategy out of the morass of Iraq, which I and many others view as uncomplicatedly admirable. What I should have realized is that the profanity overwhelms the broader points presented in the handbook and about Dave's personality and professional vision. For that, I apologize, not only to Dave, but to my readers, who I hope will pay attention to those broader points despite my error in judgement.
What's interesting about this discussion (and I highly recommend reading the whole post/article) is that the dispute is not so much about whether Kilcullen believes that the Iraq war was misguided, but whether the tone was appropriate. I'm not sure myself what constitutes an appropriate tone for this kind of debate. While I was struck by Kilcullen's statement and expletive, I wonder if such a turn of phrase is a distraction from the debate around such 'serious' issues - or if it helps to hammer home a significant point.
Posted by jon_mendel at August 3, 2008 11:55 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.watsonblogs.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1607
