Blowback And Culpability

By Kleinheider Posted on April 23, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Don Williams spied what he believes to be a major admission by a member of the Bush Administration — that America became embroiled in a War in Afghanistan because of previous failures in U.S foreign policy:

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee April 10, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the following jaw-dropping statement:

“We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001 and we are at war in Afganistan today in no small measure because of mistakes this government made — mistakes I, among others, made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago. If we get the end game wrong in Iraq I predict the consequences will be far worse.”

That’s an astonishing confession. OK, he didn’t use the word “blowback,” but by definition, that’s what he’s talking about. A certain radio commentator in this town once all but called me a traitor for saying the same thing — and I didn’t use the B-word either. Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been denounced all over the country for suggesting Sept. 11 was caused in part by failed U.S. policy. So why are Big Media virtually silent about Gates’ admission?

Katie Allison Granju, however, thinks Williams may be overstating the case a bit. She says that it is a stretch to assert that what Gates is says here is an admission of U.S. culpability for 9/11.

But is that really what Williams is saying? Is there not a difference between admit culpability or guilt and “blowback.”

“Blowback” implies a realistic determination of cause and effect. Culpability implies guilt, it makes a moral judgment. Is pointing out that the difficulties we are having now in Afghanistan is a result of our past interventions an admission of guilt? Are we say we are culpable?

Or are we just recognizing a cause and effect?

Is there a difference?

permalink | 2 Comments

Tags: admission, Blowback, culpability, defense secretary, Robert Gates, why do you hate America  

A Crisis Of Leadership: Coop On The Division In The Executive

By Kleinheider Posted on April 18, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Congressman Jim Cooper breaks down the divide on the War in Iraq within the administration:

Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush support keeping troop levels in Iraq as high as possible — about 140,000 — for the foreseeable future. General Richard Cody and Secretary Robert Gates think the Army is losing morale and is unprepared for other possible conflicts. They have advocated a drawdown to roughly 100,000 troops (although Gates recently admitted we can no longer reach that target by the end of the year). This decision directly affects, for example, how many Tennessee National Guardsmen deploy (again) to Iraq. It also affects whether we remain the strongest nation on earth, or only in Southwest Asia.

permalink | Comment on this post

Tags: David Petraeus, Jim Cooper, Richard Cody, Robert Gates