Why was the administration so slow in respondi to the crisis in Iraq?

Question: Why was the administration so slow in responding to the crisis in Iraq?

Jim Woolsey:  I don’t know.  The U.S. historically has reacted pretty quickly, at least in modern times, to changes in enemy tactics.  We didn’t fight well on land for the first year of World War II for ‘42, much in neither North Africa or the islands like Tarhuna, but we got better fast because the military is very candid in their after actions reports and the things that have to be corrected.  Lincoln, it took him two years to get his strategy and his general right, and he almost lost the 1864 election to McClellan.  If Sherman hadn’t burned Atlanta, he probably would have.  So that was a close one.  But Vietnam, it took them over three years in one way or another to give up on search and destroy, and to move toward clear and hold strategy that made it possible for Abrams really to defeat the Viet Cong.  People forget that in ‘73 the Viet Cong were essentially defeated.  There was a pretty decent peace treaty with the north.  That’s what led to the exchange of prisoners, all of that.  The Viet Cong didn’t defeat South Vietnam or the United States.  What won the Vietnam War for the North was a main force, armored invasion of the south in ’75.  And the U.S. was so war-weary by that point that Congress didn’t support even using air forces and air power to help hold them off, and they defeated the south Vietnamese.  But I guess what one would conclude from that is that if you can make all your changes in the first year of a war – these are very rough historical analogies – you can probably start winning.  You can probably keep the American people’s support.  Two years is right at the margin, but three years is a very long time of continuing to fight a losing strategy.  And that’s what Johnson did with Westmorland in the Vietnam War, and that’s what Bush has done with his generals in this war.  Three years is very, very hard to come back from.

Recorded on: 7/2/07

Jim Woolsey on renewable energy and the war in Iraq.

Why the ocean you know and love won’t exist in 50 years

Can sensitive coral reefs survive another human generation?

Videos
  • Coral reefs may not be able to survive another human decade because of the environmental stress we have placed on them, says author David Wallace-Wells. He posits that without meaningful changes to policies, the trend of them dying out, even in light of recent advances, will continue.
  • The World Wildlife Fund says that 60 percent of all vertebrate mammals have died since just 1970. On top of this, recent studies suggest that insect populations may have fallen by as much as 75 percent over the last few decades.
  • If it were not for our oceans, the planet would probably be already several degrees warmer than it is today due to the emissions we've expelled into the atmosphere.
Keep reading Show less
Image source: Topical Press Agency / Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Though we know today that his policies eventually ended the Great Depression, FDR's election was seen as disastrous by some.
  • A group of wealthy bankers decided to take things into their own hands; they plotted a coup against FDR, hoping to install a fascist dictator in its stead.
  • Ultimately, the coup was brought to light by General Smedley Butler and squashed before it could get off the ground.
Keep reading Show less

Health care: Information tech must catch up to medical marvels

Michael Dowling, Northwell Health's CEO, believes we're entering the age of smart medicine.

Photo: Tom Werner / Getty Images
Sponsored by Northwell Health
  • The United States health care system has much room for improvement, and big tech may be laying the foundation for those improvements.
  • Technological progress in medicine is coming from two fronts: medical technology and information technology.
  • As information technology develops, patients will become active participants in their health care, and value-based care may become a reality.
Keep reading Show less