PDA

View Full Version : Next Iraq move



ishmael
05-08-2007, 06:46 PM
There are interesting thinkers here, including some with military experience. I'd like to hear their suggestions. It's clearly a cluster **** the way it's going, and no one with half a brain thinks this "surge" is going to fix it.

I was an initial supporter based on the propaganda fed, but now I see it as a huge blunder. What's next? We've got to pick up and move on. It's a swamp without a drain. Okay, so what's next?

My thought is to draw back to our allies, the Kurds, perhaps the Kuwaitis, and simply let this fire burn itself out. It's going to anyway, and there's no reason our young men and women should be in the middle of it. But I'm no expert, and not a very good strategist, so I'd like to hear from those who are.

John of Phoenix
05-08-2007, 06:58 PM
My thought is to draw back to our allies, the Kurds, perhaps the Kuwaitis, and simply let this fire burn itself out.
Then go back in?

ishmael
05-08-2007, 07:09 PM
John,

Be ready to in order to counteract terrorist cells, when needed. Yes. But I'm not clear. I want some people who think in these ways to propose ideas. I think it would be a mistake to completely abandon the region.

What are your thoughts? We're there now. It's going to be, is, a horrific tragedy. But here we sit.

John of Phoenix
05-08-2007, 07:22 PM
I'm tied up 'til tomorrow. I'll get back to you though.

John A. Campbell
05-08-2007, 08:20 PM
I've had no military experience so I'm really not qualified to make a comment from that standpoint but I do have one question: What is the measure of a "win" in Iraq?

Vince Brennan
05-08-2007, 09:08 PM
Oh, hell, people... the answer is the same one we've used for the last fifty years.... start another war.

Invade Iran.

Invade North Korea.

Wait... you can sneer and scoff all you want to, but one of those two is coming up, and pretty damn fast.... immediately followed by our emulation of theSoviet Union's financial disaster...

You can only spend so much money, and we is done spent it.

Anyone seen the National Debt lately?

Reagan was a piker.

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 11:54 AM
What is the measure of a "win" in Iraq?
Good question. The mission as been variously defined as - getting WMD, regime change, killing them there so we don’t have to kill them here, and bringing democracy to the Middle East. I've skipped a bunch of others too.
This is the decider’s latest definition of “success” -

Either we’ll succeed, or we won’t succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.
Think LA and the Rodney King riots I guess.
--------------------
Ok, Ish, you there? So you want to keep the Apaches and Abrams around to “Be ready to in order to counteract terrorist cells, when needed.” Let’s think about that for a minute. How do we counteract terrorist cells here at home? How do they do it in Europe or Asia?

ishmael
05-09-2007, 12:03 PM
So you don't know what to do next either, eh John?

I was bamboozled into this war, and I resent it mightily. There's no turning back the clock. Somehow, we have to figure forward.

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 12:07 PM
Come on YOU can figure this out on your own (with a little help maybe). You don't have to be Sun Tzu to do it.

How do we counter terrorist cells in other parts of the world?

ishmael
05-09-2007, 12:23 PM
I proposed what I would do. It's a horrible choice, less horrible than the alternatives. But knowing my limitations I asked for different, from those more experienced. You are more experienced at war than I, John. What would you do?

I've never read Sun Tzu.

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 12:28 PM
You are more experienced at war than I, John.
It's not a question of "experience at war" Ish, it's a question of common sense.

Where else in the world are attack helicopters, tanks and mounted infantry used to counter terrorist cells?
The US? Australia? Germany? Japan? Anywhere?

ishmael
05-09-2007, 12:44 PM
If it's such common sense, why are you so chary of laying out what you would do?

TomF
05-09-2007, 12:55 PM
I think that the only Realpolitik way out is to create another Saddam. That is, another West-leaning strongman, who can suppress dissent. Preferably a secular guy, to counterbalance Iran. I think that perhaps at one point, setting up a proto Liberal Democracy might have been in the cards, but not now. Now, you just need the flames to go out. A transition to democracy, if it ever occurs, will have to be a long term policy goal.

In the meantime, keep forward bases there, and try to develop more robust intelligence networks into the various adversaries' camps.

It sucks.

But eventually, I think you'll have to let the civil war be a civil war, and try to pick the winning side to fund and support. Especially with a potentially resurgent Russia, the US can't afford either to get any more whipped in Iraq than has already occurred, or to leave the area strategically unstable in its lean.

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 12:56 PM
I know you're smarter than what you're showing today.
You CAN figure this out.

Where else in the world are attack helicopters, tanks and mounted infantry used to counter terrorist cells?
The Brits in Ireland (sans the helicopters) and the Russians in Afghanistan.
How'd those work out?
________________________

I think that the only Realpolitik way out is to create another Saddam. That is, another West-leaning strongman, who can suppress dissent. Preferably a secular guy...

The name Reza Pahlavi ring a bell?

ljb5
05-09-2007, 12:59 PM
Monday will be the third anniversary of this thread (http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/archive/index.php/t-22258.html), in which I laid out my plans as clearly as I possibly could.

The only difference between that thread and this one is that my thread made specific recommendations --- and about 3000 Americans have died since then.

TomF
05-09-2007, 01:03 PM
The name Reza Pahlavi ring a bell?Wish it didn't. But IMO the most likely future, is the past.

t

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 01:11 PM
Wish it didn't. But IMO the most likely future, is the past.

t

Interesting thought. The Iranians won't go back that way because the theocrats won't relenquish power. It'd be another blood bath.

The Iraqis....hmmm....maybe, but, much like Iran, the mullahs are already calling the shots.

TomF
05-09-2007, 01:20 PM
Sorry. I meant that the most likely outcome desired by the West would look like the past.

Islamist extremism is, I think, the new Nationalism. It's a brand of identity politics perfectly suited to an increasingly globalized world, where countries' borders are increasingly obsolete.

Nationalism was the 19th and 20th Centuries' game; I think the future is in local territorial control, and pan-national movements.

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 01:49 PM
Where else in the world are attack helicopters, tanks and mounted infantry used to counter terrorist cells?

The Brits in Ireland (sans the helicopters) and the Russians in Afghanistan.
How'd those work out?
Get the idea?

George.
05-09-2007, 02:04 PM
Be ready to in order to counteract terrorist cells, when needed.

Which requires a puppet government.

You do know the meaning of "sovereign nation", do you not? What makes you think Iraq - or at least parts of it - will not be such?

TomF
05-09-2007, 02:07 PM
Sole legitimate use of force within a territory is the conventional international relations definition.

Smoke and mirrors though. Puppet governments may look sovereign, but aren't any more than weak pseudo-states are.

George.
05-09-2007, 02:15 PM
Notice that while the US kills people with Predator-fired missiles in Yemen, they (mostly) cannot chase al-Qaeda into Pakistan.

George.
05-09-2007, 02:18 PM
Here

George.
05-09-2007, 02:20 PM
Here is what rumours say is the next move:


Saudi sources say the king has given up on the ability of Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to overcome sectarian divisions and unite the country. The Saudi leadership is also said to believe that the U.S. troop surge is likely to fail, deepening the danger of all-out civil war in Iraq.
The Saudis appear to favor replacing the Maliki government, which they see as dominated by Iranian-backed Shiite religious parties, and are quietly backing former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite and ex-Baathist who has support among Iraqi Sunnis. Allawi's advisers say that his strategy is to exploit tensions within the Shiite religious alliance and form a new ruling coalition that would be made up of Sunnis, Kurds and secular Shiites. Allawi's camp believes he is close to having enough votes, thanks in part to Saudi political and financial support.
The Bush administration appears to have little enthusiasm for an Allawi putsch, despite its frustration with Maliki. U.S. officials fear that a change of government in Baghdad would only deepen the political disarray there and encourage new calls for the withdrawal of troops.
The ferment in the region is driven partly by the perception that U.S. troops are on the way out, no matter what the Bush administration says. To dampen such speculation, Bush is said to have told the Saudis that America will not withdraw from Iraq during his presidency. "That gives us 18 months to plan," said one Saudi source.

Sounds like stall for 18 months while you try to install a Sunni strongman.

Uncle Duke
05-09-2007, 02:28 PM
Sun Tzu:


He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

TomF
05-09-2007, 02:50 PM
Except if the object of your warmaking has less to do with the putative external threat, and more to do with broader political concerns.

Low-grade war is often a great boon to the domestic economy, a solidifier of the current concentration of power, and a fuel for patriotism. At least, when you're winning. Success in more-or-less constant low-grade wars can enhance prestige internationally, and reduce dissent within your own population.

It's all a matter of your intended audience.

John of Phoenix
05-09-2007, 02:51 PM
Yeah, you can pretty much pick anything from the Art of War and see where these guys have screwed the pooch.

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's
country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to
recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a
company entire than to destroy them.
2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme
excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to
prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army
in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

TomF
05-09-2007, 03:16 PM
Have you any idea how furious many are, that Bush created the situation which will afflict the next administration? Whoever forms it?

The terrorists will fill the power vacuum if it's allowed to exist. That's why, I think, another puppet Strongman regime will be instituted instead.

So much for regime change. Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

ljb5
05-09-2007, 04:58 PM
If it is such a good idea to withdraw, don't you guys want such a marvelous decision to happen under your parties presidential watch?

How about your guys clean up their own stinking mess before they leave office?

PeterSibley
05-09-2007, 05:05 PM
Where's Sadam when you need him ? There was a very good reason he was there .

skuthorp
05-09-2007, 05:43 PM
For a start forget about fantasizing about desired outcomes and plan to deal with the likely ones. We need a 'friend' to help begin a dialogue, and less agressive talk about 'winning', who is acceptable and who is not to talk to. A new admin in all 3 countries may be able to begin this process. If there is a 'solution' it's diplomatic, not military.

ishmael
05-09-2007, 06:02 PM
"Military force is neccesary to stabilize the area long enough for a democratic Iraq emerge fully."

Horse hocky. These people have been at it since Hussein split from orthodoxy thirteen hundred years ago. Our presence, if anything, is a lid on an old old pressure cooker.

Look, I don't like this. I think Tom is right and a potentate is going to arise. It would have been a whole lot cheaper, in dollars and lives, if we'd just kept Saddam. Let go the idiot rhetoric about democracy. It's silly.

swankostorm
05-09-2007, 06:13 PM
The Iraqis think: 1) We are there to control the production of the oil (production sharing agreements). 2) We will build permament military bases to secure our interests. 3) We will defend and support Israel making any evenly balanced negotiations with the Palastinians impossible and causing that problem to go on forever.

The Iraqis will not be able to pacify the insurgents until the US leaves or give a deadline for thier departure. Based on 1, 2 &3, we are not going anywhere. That is why the administrations echo chamber keeps saying we will be there for a long time. And after spending $500 billion and over 3000 American service men killed so far, how do you walk away with nothing?

Osama might rack up another superpower if it goes on for years with no settlement and no oil.

ljb5
05-09-2007, 06:17 PM
the Democrats threatening to detonate a financial IED in the troops laps...

This is the Democrats' plan in action:

http://asoldiersblog.blogspot.com/h-war-4.jpg

Does he look like he's in any danger?

ljb5
05-09-2007, 06:38 PM
So you would be alright with Saddams treatment and dispensing of human life?. Even Amnesty International is glad he is gone.

Yeah, but look at who we replaced him with..... secret prisons, torture, rape, murder and corruption. Did you hear that the new guy is secretly operating a shadowy group inside the government that is supporting sectarian violence?

This is what we fought for?

SamSam
05-09-2007, 07:10 PM
Dems talk the talk, but don't do s*&(. If your incompetent "Perjuror in chief" did his job, we would not be in there. The war on terrorism has been going on for decades, we just finally have a President ( unlike his father ) who stepped up regardless of what France said. Just get your "Magic Negro" in the White House, and talk the talk

More like stepped in it. Maybe you could dredge up some Rambo talk or tap into the Terminator script. Or quote Monkey Boy and his pals. ''48 hours to get out of Iraq'', ''Dead Enders'', ''Final throes'', ''Cakewalk'', ''Bring Em On!'',''Mission accomplished'',''Slam Dunk'', ''Welcomed with flowers''. You right wingers have done a real fine job of ''walkin the walk''. ''Magic Negro''. Ignorant Honkie.

Uncle Duke
05-09-2007, 08:07 PM
Erster advises:

You need to check the facts..... <cut>
By David Ehrenstein, L.A.-based DAVID EHRENSTEIN
Erster,
Is this the David Ehrenstein who is noted as "an American critic who focuses primarily on issues of homosexuality in cinema."
Just curious. Because, if so, I'm not sure that he's really a valid source of geo-political advice.
That's from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ehrenstein

Tom Montgomery
05-09-2007, 08:41 PM
It's a despicable characterization regardless of who uses it. :mad:

Tom Montgomery
05-09-2007, 09:07 PM
I don't watch Saturday Night Live, nor read or subscribe to Time magazine, never voted for Biden and am registered in the Commonwealth of Kentucky as an Independent.

few3 used that label here without qualification, and you are defending its use with your "two wrongs make a right" argument.

It's a despicable label regardless of who uses it. :mad:

Ishmael, perhaps you should delete this thread.

glenallen
05-09-2007, 09:17 PM
Yeah, Ish, please delete this thread before I puke on erster and few3.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
05-09-2007, 09:48 PM
I think we should ask Dutch.

LeeG
05-09-2007, 10:46 PM
Jack, last week I saw these three authors speak on Iraq and terrorism: Fawaz Gerges, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, and Nir Rosen.
The reason I mention them is that they were fairly unanimous that the characterization of terrists/terrism tends to be overemphasized by the US gov't/military. Not that it's not there but that the initial disinformation program by Cheney conflating Iraq/9/11 has left a lot of folks continuing the line that US troops are gettin' terrists like the ones that got us on 9/11. So if we pull out,, well won't that make Al Qaeda grow? Nope,,Al Qaeda wants us in Iraq building up resentment about another occupation by western powers.

Nir Rosen said it's worse than most media portray the mess in Iraq. The idea of leaving, to come back really isn't practical. Maintaining large forces isn't likely given the wear and tear for the size of Army we have. So it seems that allying with a Shiite gov't that is facillitating wholesay movements of Sunni as we've been doing is a possibility,,, and watching the fires burn.

What should we do? At the very least learn about the mistakes to date so that proposed plans have some kind of reality to frame it.

Patreaus has mentioned the two clocks ticking , the one in Iraq and the one in Washington. It's worth recognizing that reality,,,the war occured primarily for reasons residing in US gov't and not in Iraq. Likewise the path out will reflect the reality in DC. Iraq is screwed, nearly 4million Iraqis displaced, the infrastructure for injured iraqis is crap,,and they are injured in numbers 50X ours with a lot more fatalities following an injury.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Pat Lang has interesting things to say every once in awhile.

http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com/

ishmael
05-10-2007, 04:34 AM
I'm not sure how race reared it's head here, but I'm not going to delete on the basis I've read. The Magic Negro has an interesting ring to it. I've often wondered how the black intellectual thinks about current portrayals of blacks in the media.

Thread drift, sorry. What the hell are we going to do over there? It seems a lose lose situation.

George.
05-10-2007, 05:45 AM
Would a magic nigger be worse than a stupid redneck?

George.
05-10-2007, 06:36 AM
The democrat party has no one running that has any experience at all

SO you acknowledge that a president with no experience at all, particularly in foreign affairs, is a bad thing?

Tom Montgomery
05-10-2007, 07:02 AM
I have provided the factual context, unedited, with many other references. You cannot blame me for one single thing.I missed the part where you pointed out that few3's use of the label was as despicable as its use by David Ehrenstein (published by The LA Times) and various reprehensible statements made by Al Sharpton.

Some people have no shame.

Tom Montgomery
05-10-2007, 07:11 AM
The democrat party has no one running that has any experience at all, providing nothiing more than lip service.That would be Democratic Party to you.

Ever hear of Bill Richardson? After college, Richardson worked on congressional relations for the State Department. He was later a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He served as a United States Congressman for 15 years; former Ambassador to the United Nations;former Secretary of Energy; currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of New Mexico.

Any George W. Bush supporter ought to be too embarrased to even mention the issue of "experience" with regard to presidential candidates.

Tom Montgomery
05-10-2007, 07:35 AM
If he doesn't win the nomination he, and others like him, are very likely to be members of the new administration.

A cross-dressing former Mayor of New York City, a former Governor of Massachusetts, a former Governor of Wisconsin.... in any other year one would guess that these were Democratic candidates. :eek: :D

ljb5
05-10-2007, 08:07 AM
I have provided the factual context, unedited, with many other references.

No, Oyster, you have not provided any facts. You provided a cut and paste of someone's commentary.

That's not fact, it's opinion. It doesn't matter whose opinion it is --- it is still not a fact.

In case you missed it, the figure he was talking about in that C&P is a mythological stereotype sometimes used in literature and cinema.

Barack Obama is a real person with a sucessful career.

Do you see the difference?

TomF
05-10-2007, 08:10 AM
The problem with moderates has always been without hard core principles in politics, it makes it very hard to govern properly and for the good of this country. Really? Does your view apply to both ends of the political spectrum? An extreme Leftie, if they had the interests of the country at heart, would be preferable to a moderate too?

George.
05-10-2007, 08:18 AM
Nice try at spin, but pretty weak. :rolleyes: In today's world, there seems to be one party that is actually placing skin color over and above ...

This thread is like... so... red American! :D

First we have Jack ass-u-ming that the US has the God-given right to burst into a sovereign nation whenever it sees fit. And now, we have Oyster thinking that America is the world.

No wonder you guys went into Iraq so unprepared, and no wonder that four years later you are still getting your ass whipped by a bunch of fanatical ragheads.

cs
05-10-2007, 08:24 AM
Okay, so what's next?


Okay, so we pull all troops completly out of the mideast, all the way back to the US of A. Issue a world wide press release stating that if they don't play nice over there we will let Israel have its way.

See than we are all nice and safe here at home and they will play nice over there because they know if they act up that Israel will not play nice. :) ;)

But really there is no right answer at the moment. I had hopes that the surge would work. I had hopes that training their police force would work. I still think that either one of these plans would work if excuted right.

There is a lot to be said though for winning the hearts and mind of your enemies. So maybe the answer lies in that direction.

Maybe the answer is pulling back troops to protect vital intrest, training the police force, investing in promoting the health and welfare of the citizens and use specialized teams to hunt down terrorist leaders.

Chad

john l
05-10-2007, 08:26 AM
the problem with a lot of repubs speaking on this thread is that they believe their own bulls..t.

come on now, get in line, tow the rope, and follow the leader off the cliff. because that's where we are headed with leadership.

this war was a waste of time, money, blood and lives. who benefited from it? military industrial complex courtesy of your taxes. and lets wait and see how the oil industry fares once the iraqis determine how to distribute the oil wealth and get down to business. hmm... perhaps thats why we can't pull out. you/we pay for the gain of a few.
now that's democracy in action!!??

it's f....ing embarressment to us all. and a fine example of equal doses of stupidity, arrogance, greed and ideology. and throw in inexperience too!

George.
05-10-2007, 08:36 AM
I had hopes that the surge would work. I had hopes that training their police force would work. I still think that either one of these plans would work if excuted right.


Even if limited to Baghdad, and with a fraction of the troops that the general in charge recently wrote are required?

ishmael
05-10-2007, 08:47 AM
George,

I didn't extol the "right" and I don't think that's a fair characterization of what we did. I'm still not sure what the national policy guys were thinking, but the typical American wasn't thinking, "Okay, let's go take over a sovereign country just because we can." The typical American perceived a threat, and was for this invasion for a reason. I know I was.

I'm really angry that I was lied to. If I'd known the facts about Iraq, rather than the propaganda, I'd have been against going to war.

George.
05-10-2007, 09:01 AM
Jack: you are right, you personally didn't extol the "right."

But there is a very large section of the American public that does believe America has this right. They evaluate everything from the US invasion of Grenada, to CIA-instigated coups, to Iraq, based on a cost-benefit analysis that completely ignores the violation of sovereignity as a factor.

Needless to say, no other country in the world sees things that way, at least since 1648. Which explains why the US is so "misunderstood" and resented, and seen as the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

Keith Wilson
05-10-2007, 09:06 AM
. . . no other country in the world sees things that way, at least since 1648. Huh? Did you mean 1948? :confused: Some have, actually, but it hasn't generally worked out well - the USSR in Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, Iraq in Kuwait, Argentina in the Falklands (although that had some unexpected benefits for Argentina) , the Armenians and Azeris, the North Koreans (well, that was sort of a civil war), Israel's neighbors several times, Israel several times . . .

George.
05-10-2007, 09:11 AM
No, I mean the Treaty of Westphalia.

Keith Wilson
05-10-2007, 09:23 AM
The Treaty of Westphalia? Oh, come now - yes, the idea of sovereign nation-states may have been codified in 1648, but if I made a list of all the times nations have behaved otherwise since then I would run out of patience LONG before I finished. The US has not been exceptional in this regard until lately.

George.
05-10-2007, 09:36 AM
What I mean, Keith, is that since 1648, the idea that a nation's sovereignity can be legitimally violated due to ideological differences or political expediency has been discredited.

The nations that did so since then, from Napoleon's France to Hitler's Germany to Saddam's Iraq, have been broadly condemned. "


The US has not been exceptional in this regard until lately.

I believe the US has violated the sovereignty of other nations more times in the last 100 years than any other country, by far.

By comparison, the old USSR did so no more than 3-4 times in its entire existence.

Keith Wilson
05-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Hmmmm . . . . it would be interesting to make a list - a long list, no doubt, and I'm not sure what it would reveal; perhaps you're right. What's even more interesting is that you, in Brazil, are quite convinced that "the US has violated the sovereignty of other nations more times in the last 100 years than any other country, by far." And you are certainly not an ignorant anti-American anti-capitalist; quite conservative in many respects, whatever our troglodytes may think. We have a problem.

George.
05-10-2007, 10:29 AM
Just off the top of my head: Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Grenada, Panama, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Lybia, Cuba... and that's only counting actual invasions, not minor violations of sovereignity, like the U2 incident, or covert ones, like countless CIA coups.

Some of those may be more justifiable than others, but the record does seem to be held by the US.

Keith Wilson
05-10-2007, 10:40 AM
Ther's a long list here. Many of them are minor - landing some marines to protect the embassy during a period of unrest, that kind of thing - but even still ,the list is very long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

Wild Wassa
05-10-2007, 11:34 AM
"What is the next move ..."

There is only one move ... keep reaping the harvest you have sown.

Warren.

ishmael
05-10-2007, 03:29 PM
Warren,

We've sown and are going to reap it for all of us. OZ land is there too, albeit minorly. How this plays is going to affect all of us. If you could only turn back the hands of time.

I'm severely pissed. I was led into this by false information. By rights those reponsible should be punished, Bush and Cheney at the head of the docket. They knowingly lied to me on the grave matter of war. It's unforgivable as it sits, and I'd support a bill of impeachment.

High C
05-10-2007, 03:44 PM
...I was led into this by false information. By rights those reponsible should be punished, Bush and Cheney at the head of the docket. They knowingly lied to me on the grave matter of war....

Bull

John of Phoenix
05-10-2007, 04:08 PM
Which part do you think is bull? Being accountable for the lies or the lies themselves?

Wild Wassa
05-10-2007, 06:44 PM
When the Leader of the free world is totally thought disordered, what hope is there for even a tidy cut and run strategy for quitting Iraq.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - said George W Bush.

So not only have we blown their country to bits, killed 100's of thousands of them, caused 4,000,000 to become dislocated, not provided adequate security for utilities like electricity and water services ... now we are going to hunt them down and kill even more of them ... justice Bush style?

What must it be like to be a free Iraqi?

Warren.

LeeG
05-10-2007, 08:42 PM
Bull

mounds of it. Given that you have never carried a dialog about the basis or execution of the war more than a few propoganda points I'd say piles of bull. Big piles of it. That shining city is on a hill of bull.

High C
05-10-2007, 10:45 PM
...Given that you have never carried a dialog about the basis or execution of the war more than a few propoganda points I'd say piles of bull...

Propaganda points, yep, that's what we get around here when the war is discussed. DNC talking points, the propaganda du jour, and of course, the big lie of the week.

Why would I waste my time attempting in depth discussion with anyone who is equipped with nothing more?

When I see bull, I call bull. You wanna discuss the bull in detail, be my guest. But I find it boring and pointless.

Wild Wassa
05-11-2007, 05:54 AM
These thoughts of the Supreme Decider have helped me a true non believer, to form an opinion of ... something, but I'm not sure what.

"See, we love - we love freedom.That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love. - George W Bush.

"I'm honoured to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein" - George W Bush.

"Redefining the roll of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment." - George W Bush.

We must be winning with supreme razor honed leadership. Or have I missed something cultural?

Warren.

George.
05-11-2007, 06:08 AM
Ther's a long list here. Many of them are minor - landing some marines to protect the embassy during a period of unrest, that kind of thing...

Keith, you are making my point. A violation of sovereignity is never "minor" to the nation violated. But the US seems to think that it sometimes is.

Note that few, if any, other countries ever send troops "to protect embassies" and the like. The only ones I can think of is France in its "former" West African colonies and the USSR in its satellites. Hardly good company.

Keith Wilson
05-11-2007, 08:46 AM
Keith, you are making my point. A violation of sovereignty is never "minor" to the nation violated. But the US seems to think that it sometimes is.

Note that few, if any, other countries ever send troops "to protect embassies" and the like. The only ones I can think of is France in its "former" West African colonies and the USSR in its satellites. Hardly good company.Actually, at one point it was fairly common for the great powers to do that, generally in what today is called the "third world" (probably a term that should die a natural death, since the "second world" is long gone). Of course, intervening in one's own colonies isn't technically a violation of national sovereignty, is it? Acquiring colonies in the first place, OTOH - but most of that was done in the 18th and 19th centuries. And it was rarely necessary for the USSR to send troops into Eastern Europe, because there were already substantial forces there, and those countries were firmly under Russian control.

You could make a case that the US has directly meddled in other countries affairs more than other powers recently. The Europeans and Japanese aren't nearly so ready to do that anymore. The Russians are broke, so they confine their ambitions to places on the periphery of their own country, like Chechnya The Chinese have limited territorial ambitions, but when they intervene, they do it with a vengeance, as the Tibetans found out.

Although I'd agree that particularly in Latin America the US has been all too ready to send in the Marines, I'm not at all sure that our record is much worse that other powerful countries. US interventions tend to be smaller and shorter-lived, if possibly more numerous - few colonies as such, no occupied areas like Tibet or Eastern Europe, at least until very recently. This is not to defend the Current Occupant and the Current Idiocy in the slightest.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the US hasn't been invaded on our own territory since 1814. We have no idea what it's like. Couple that with an unshakable conviction that we have the very best of intentions (we sometimes really do), add a dose of ignorance and arrogance ,and you a pretty unpleasant influence on US foreign policy. I can see why it looks worse from Latin America. Tan lejos de diós, tan cerca de los Estados Unidos and all that.

cs
05-11-2007, 08:52 AM
Maybe the answer is pulling back troops to protect vital intrest, training the police force, investing in promoting the health and welfare of the citizens and use specialized teams to hunt down terrorist leaders.

Chad


I guess my best guess isn't worth the electrons I typed it on. Oh well guess thats why I'm not in charge.

Chad

George.
05-11-2007, 09:48 AM
I did respond to your post, Chad.


training the police force

That's the problem, isn't it? After four years of sectarian violence, most Iraqis of the sort willing to enter the security forces have a chip on their shoulder - relatives tortured or killed, neighborhoods bombed, etc. There seems to be no way to get them to behave impartially. And of course, if they don't, you get the opposite of what a police force should be doing.

And without security, there is no way to promote health and welfare.

BTW, what do you consider "vital interests?"

ishmael
05-11-2007, 11:03 AM
I believe strongly in what this country, my America, represents. Lincoln wasn't far off with his statement of it being the last best hope. It's libertarian promise is a last best hope. I'll be damned if I'm going to lie down and be lied to with this kind of impugnity.

It's not a good time to pursue it, but this man ought to be impeached. He lied to me, straightfaced lied and led me to war. Them's the facts, whether you like them or not. If lying about a blow job rises to impeachment, this does in spades. I'm sure our congress hasn't the heuvos, but it should. I'm pissed.

cs
05-11-2007, 11:53 AM
Okay I've thought about this some and here is what I say.

First vital intrest would be schools, hospitals, utlities, transportation, and goverment offices. This does not include private industries. The military should be used as a security force and not a police force.

Second training the police force. Several things have to happen to make this work. First you need compitent and capable heads to run this operation. It needs to be local and not us. These heads need to be thourgly trained. Than a screening process for applicants to the police force. Maybe set up an acadamy like we have here in the states. Let the leaders that we train run these acadamies with maybe US advisiors. The screening process will not keep all bad apples out, but it is a step.

The goverment of Iraq will need to learn to stand on its own. We cannot prop them up indefinitly. By helping get their police force properly trained we move a step in that direction.

The police force needs to be able to handle any and all incidents outside those vitals I talk about above, while working to take over those.

Winning the hearts and minds starts with a more humantarian outlook toward the locals. By removing US interaction from the police force we move a step in that direction. Another step is to help the goverment start schools. Also food and medical relieve is an important step in that direction. Another factor is respecting the beliefs and religions of all citizens, regerdless of whether we believe or not. After all this is a country (USA) of relegious freedom. Why should we impose our individual beliefs on them?

The other part of my equation is about the terrosit situation. The Weed Whacker approch works about as well here as it does in your garden. You knock the weeds down and than next week they are back. To solve this problem you have to go to the roots. That is how we should approch terrossim. Small specialized units to hunt the heads of the orginazations out.

That is my plan and I'm sticking to it.

Chad

John of Phoenix
05-11-2007, 12:33 PM
Jack, I'm glad you're fed up. More and more folks like you are seeing the truth. Stay pissed.


Chad:
The military should be used as a security force and not a police force.I think your security training gives you the ability to do just that. But how about the typical grunt? I don't think it's that easy. There's a lot special training missing. No doubt, it's what's needed. In fact it's exactly what's always been needed from the beginning, but it's a little late in the process to convince the general population that the guys in the funny helmets have suddenly changed their stripes.

The problem with the Iraqi police force is that it isn't a police force. It's a number of tribal death squads out to settle scores, old and new. Think Hatfields and McCoys with ancient grudges that have been renewed.

The only problem with your terrorist solution is differentiating the weeds from the garden. We don’t know the language or the customs and can’t tell a Saudi from a Syrian or an Iraqi from an Iranian. We’re fighting an ideology. Since you can’t kill ‘em all, the best offense is a better ideology. The good news - all we have to do is offer one better than 72 virgins to every dead jihadist. The bad news – at this point, they won’t listen to a single thing we say.

This is right on and should have been the focus of our efforts from day one.
Winning the hearts and minds starts with a more humantarian outlook toward the locals. By removing US interaction from the police force we move a step in that direction. Another step is to help the goverment start schools. Also food and medical relieve is an important step in that direction. Another factor is respecting the beliefs and religions of all citizens, regerdless of whether we believe or not. After all this is a country (USA) of relegious freedom. Why should we impose our individual beliefs on them?

Keith Wilson
05-11-2007, 02:31 PM
Don, of course you're right about the Russians - I was thinking a few years back. I think Putin, despite all his faults, is planning much further ahead than the average American politician.

Looks like we have a serious case of Imperial Overstretch coming on. We put the Iraq war on the credit card.

cs
05-11-2007, 05:15 PM
John it wouldn't take much to train up the average grunt in security. They are doing it all the time now.

Sure at present the Iraqie police force is a wreck, but if screened correctly, trained right and supported by the local goverment, they could become a good police force.

As far as attacking the terroist at the roots is not for your average Joe. That is why I said specialized. We have the tools in place, we just need to do it using the proper tools.

Chad

LeeG
05-11-2007, 09:06 PM
I wonder how many language experts we have in the gov't that speak Arabic compared to other languages.

George.
05-12-2007, 06:37 AM
The problem with screening Iraqi police lies here:


...training the police force. Several things have to happen to make this work. First you need compitent and capable heads to run this operation.

The "heads" - i.e., the Interior Ministry and the Maliki government - are sectarian themselves. Not likely to screen anyone, except for factional loyalty.

I am afraid step one in your program, Chad, would have to be regime change.

ishmael
05-12-2007, 07:17 AM
If the top guys had simply made mistakes, I could forgive that. It happens. But it's becoming clearer to me that Bush and Cheney didn't make mistakes, they consciously lied to lead the nation to war. Bush seems a dupe, so maybe we can forgive that, but Cheney is no dupe.

Impeach them both for this. That would be the correct thing to do. It won't happen.

My change of colors on this has been long coming. I believed these men for a long time. I don't believe them anymore. They knew there was little threat from Iraq, told us it was huge, and led us into this mess. Heads ought to roll.

Sorry for venting, but it really chaps my ass. I don't mind mistakes, but I don't like being fooled.

Tom Montgomery
05-12-2007, 07:38 AM
And now retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, is publicly criticizing the Bush Administration's conduct of the war.

A friend of mine visited with his nephew Thursday night. His nephew is an Army Staff Sergeant who has spent a total of 30 months in Iraq. My friends nephew told him that he did not know a soldier with a good opinion of the President. He said his soldier's have zero faith in Bush.

George.
05-12-2007, 03:26 PM
Meanwhile, Cheney is growling at Iran again. Sabotaging diplomacy while diverting the attention of the real dead-enders - that benighted minority of Americans who still believe in his administration.

LeeG
05-12-2007, 09:11 PM
Jack, this change in you seems kind of abrupt. Are there any particular details about the administration or the occupation that catalyzed a shift in your attitude?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
05-12-2007, 09:23 PM
Well, here goes....

Iraq is the least of the problems created by Bush foreign policy. Russia, disturbed once again by American unipolar power plays, is on the verge of creating another cold war. Relationships with the Bear are chilling.

Pakistan, another example of a military dictatorship supported by the USA, is starting to show serious signs of unrest. If Mussharif goes down, the entire Afghan arena is going to blow up

With American military forces and cash tied up in Iraq, Iran and North Korea are biding their time. US out of Iraq? Iran based insurgency in...

So many larger pictures have been painted in a grotesque and painful manner by the Bush administration, that it will be years before any kind of reasonable adjustments can be made. Islamic extremism is alive and well, and bred in the petri dish of American foreign policy under Dubya.

LeeG
05-12-2007, 09:37 PM
the fun part is how Bush rhetoric confronts the economic alliances of China and Iran. It's like they keep trying to stick the round and square pegs into hexagonal holes pretending no one notices the lack of fit.

ishmael
05-12-2007, 09:42 PM
Lee, the Bill Moyer's piece on NPR changed my mind. He laid it out, good old fashioned American journalism. Real inteviews, real journalism. This is how it happened, this is how they lied, this is how we were led by the nose.

I'm very angry. I believe Moyers is essentially correct, and his thesis is a combination of executive fibbing and journalistic compliance. The newsies have to take their responsibility for this. I heard, over and over, how Saddam was a real danger. He wasn't. The newsies lied too, I guess because it made money.

So, here we are.

LeeG
05-16-2007, 02:52 PM
Jack, it's shocking isn't it? There were knowledgable people all along saying these things but as a country we weren't receptive to the information. It's outside our experience. If we can't be sold the news product the news producers aren't going to try and stuff unwelcome information down our throats. Especially news the fundamentally contradicts our leaders in a time of war.

The book Fiasco lays out in another way the consequences on the ground in Iraq,,where the existential threat requiring destruction supposedly existed.

The book Chasing Ghosts shows what it's like from a Marines perspective right after the invasion.

For me it was the wholesale reliance on rhetoric that dismissed detail, dismissed any shading of grey. Life isn't like that. Then when the basis for a significant action like destroying a gov't/military is based on a shifting set of rationalizations that dismissed fundamental issues and details from EXPERTS as irrelevant it made no sense.

On one hand Cheney/GW would made every effort to conflate 9/11 with Iraq. And every expert on Iraq and Al Qaeda would say they were totally seperate. That's an important detail. Like telling the difference between Start Stop and Clear on the microwave. The microwave matters,,details like the difference between a fundamentalist extremist from Saudi Arabia and a dictator in Iraq really don't matter on a day to day basis to me. So if the Commander in Chief says "we gotta drain the swamp",,he must know something,,just like I know my microwave.