Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Kevin,

I found these two pieces while trolling a few military blogs this past weekend, they are the closest I've found to explaining Bush and his administration and their actions in Iraq.

Col. Lang of Sic Semper Tyrannis had a discussion over the weekend on the differences between "warriors and Warrior Wannabes" and how the Warrior Wannabes have impacted our military and our policies in regards to Iraq. His discussion was led off by a reference to a screed by Fred of "fredoneverything" who titles his piece "Of Recent Wars", Fred gives his take on how we got into our splendid mess in Iraq and why we can’t get out.

As a former military man I found this discussion to be very interesting as it seemed to encapsulate my feelings on our current administrations policy makers and their misuse of our military. In particular, I found the comments on the Warrior Wannabes usage of language to garner support for their war to be prescient in regards to what has been said in the recent past of those who questioned the Iraq war and what is currently being said about the NY Times and others who question the president and his polices.


Sic Semper Tyrannis:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/07/warriors_and_wa.html#comments


Fred On Everything
http://www.fredoneverything.net/TheWarrior.shtml


Col. Lang and his commenters are primarily military/ex-military (warriors with a small w) who are shaken by the abuses going on in their military and they discuss how this could have come about. Fred speaks from his personal experience as a small town boy who served his country through one “bad” war and is now seeing it going through another one. The both give their explanation of why we are where we at and whose to blame.

P.S.

Also, I think the reference to the special place being reserved for Rumsfeld in the Robert Strange McNamara Wing of Hell is appropriate.

Kevin, of course you know that "fixed" means something else in England than it does in the US. Also, several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq so there is nothing Dearlove can add.

Kevin, of course you know that "fixed" means something else in England than it does in the US.

As an American who learned English while living in England as a child, no, it does not. The meaning of Dearlove's statement is the same in colloquial American as in colloquial English.

Also, several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq so there is nothing Dearlove can add..

What...the....fuck???

Did Weldon go digging after all?

Carl,
Take your head out ____, wash, rinse, repeat!! Did you know that they removed the word gullible from Webster's Dictionary, too!?!?

Further from Media Matters:

British Sunday Times reporter Michael Smith, the reporter who first disclosed the memo on May 1, ridiculed the notion that "fixed" has a different meaning in Britain in a Washington Post online chat: "There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the U.K. who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it."

mediamatters.org/items/200506210004

Bullshit,Styve - I looked it up and it's STILL in there!

But I suppose it would be rude to ask pointed questions like that at a fancy conference, wouldn't it?

Your Liberal Media™ at "work."

Carl demonstrates why an administration that couldn't solve Blues Clues still has some supporters left clinging on like, well, clingons.

Also, several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq

By the way, that is fucking hilarious. I hope it's meant to be satire.

I suppose this guys know more about terrrism than anyone here, but it makes you pause then he makes the fancy point that "terrorism is an extreme form of political communication." It may be semantical, but I see blowing up innocents as an exercise in power or perhaps coercion, not communication.

I am afraid Kevin's post reflects a weakness of current liberals. He want to focus backwards to find additional ways to bash Bush, not on the present or future to find ways to protect innocents and defeat terrorism.

brian, it was that well know liberal Clauswitz who said "war is diplomacy by other means."

Try not to be distracted by the "fancy points" of intelligent people.

He want to focus backwards to find additional ways to bash Bush, not on the present or future to find ways to protect innocents and defeat terrorism.

Yes, we don't need to know anything about how we got into this mess. It seems only fair that since Bush has got us this far that the liberals take us the rest of the way.

CARL: Kevin, of course you know that "fixed" means something else in England than it does in the US.

Kevin, I hope you will let me get away with cheating a little bit. This is in response to your post about Jonah Goldberg's comment on terrorists being covered by the Geneva Conventions. (There are already 300 comments following that post; I missed out as a result of a 4 day weekend.) The problem is that you and J. are talking about two different classes of people. You are talking about "terrorists" caught on a battle field: If they are caught there, they are soldiers on a battle field, not terrorists caught placing a bomb or gassing a subway. If they are caught doing the latter, then the Geneva Conventions should not apply; the criminal law of the place where they are caught, or where the act took place, should apply. J. and his ilk have successfully bamboozled liberals like yourself into accepting the characterization of all people who are fighting the US and its puppets as terrorists, no matter where they are caught or what they have done. And anyway, terrorists by definition, almost, do not fight on battle fields. Suggest you get out "Little Drummer Girl" and read it again.

Adding to F's post above about the Warrior/warrior dichotomy and Dearlove's former assertion that he thought "just about everything in the American approach to the war on Islamic terrorism had been ill-conceived," Colonel Hackworth (deceased) has a post SFTT about fighting a guerrilla enemy:

But unless we get real and bend our brains around what motivates our enemy, we will never prevail against the increasing millions of polarized Muslims who are becoming more united with every explosion of smart bombs and every Yankee occupation boot stumping across their turf.

This strikes me as exactly the kind of problem that the current adnministration, who prefers sloganeering to strategy, just can't tackle.

I rented the film Red Eye over the holiday and one thing that caught my attention was the Director of Homeland Security was staying at a very fancy hotel, the concierge new him by name, the room he and his family were staying in was presidential, and he and his family were flying to the destination on some super fancy executive jet. What bothers me is that a public servant is being treated like Saudi royalty. Is this common practice among big shots in DC to use the public trough to feed their needs for luxury?

The reason I bring it up, is this "Ideas Festival" seems to be taking place or sponsored by Aspen, CO, playground of the rich and the place where disgraced CEO's go to die. Wonks and pundits and big shots never go to non-luxury destinations or stay at tourist class hotels. We all pay for this extravagance.

"I am afraid Kevin's post reflects a weakness of current liberals. He want to focus backwards to find additional ways to bash Bush, not on the present or future to find ways to protect innocents and defeat terrorism."

Defeat terrorism ????

Terrorism has been with us since we crawled out of the caves and terrorism will be with us until we crawl into our nuclear graves.....

We represent 5% of the worlds population and even though we have the perponderance of nuclear weapons at our disposal you just can't really believe you can kill them all....

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope pal....time for a "re-education" before someone with a chinese accent or a russian balilika converts your ass into a hat...

If he's concerned about amplifying the terrorist message, he might support stronger censorship of media coverage of terrorism and the military. The UK is much less free in that regard than the US. It's terribly short-sighted to embrace the guy just because he's critical of Bush.

brian:I suppose this guys know more about terrrism than anyone here, but it makes you pause then he makes the fancy point that "terrorism is an extreme form of political communication." It may be semantical, but I see blowing up innocents as an exercise in power or perhaps coercion, not communication.

Granted, Dearlove may have used a more British parsing of the problem than our ears are used to, but is what he said all that different from this?[emphasis added]

In insurgency warfare, taking real estate – mountain or city – means zilch. Long-term winning is all about getting the people over to our side. As a Marine sergeant wrote last week from Fallujah, “ ... for every one killed five more are recruited.”

This gets back to F's post about Warriors and warriors, reducing this conflict down to "smoking 'em out"; "dead or alive"; or "bring it on" are disastrous over-simplifications.

"several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq"

and

"Bullshit,Styve - I looked it up and it's STILL in there!"

LOL!

Carl, thank you, I needed that laugh. It was at your expense, but it did alleviate the tension.
Now, if you don't mind, lets get back to reality.

The critic always has a superficial advantage short term in their arguments against any action (in this case, the Iraq war) because: (1) they ignore the potential cost of inaction (i.e., what Sadaam and his sons would have done if left in power), (2) they seize upon short term problems (terrorist attacks in Iraq), and (3) they ignore the potential long term benefits (democratic Iraq, 250k Iraqi Muslem soldiers and 25 million citizens joining with Americans in defeating Al Quaeda in Iraq, freedom spreading across the region, etc.).

So the supporters of the action are left with arguments largely about unknowns -- the cost of inaction and the long term benefits of action -- while the critics can focus on the known short term problems.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the fact of multiple fiascos during the Civil War. All these were subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

if you check out the attendees/sponsors et alia

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.1421007/k.7231/Speakers_and_Moderators.html

i think you might note that this conference is the continuation of the bilderburger event held a month ago in ottawa, canada.

we know that dearlove was/is a spook. i wonder how many other spooks were attending.

this conference commenced on 3/7/06. interesting isn't it how ken lay[a spook, i think]became disappeared in aspen within hours after the assemblage of this bunch of bilderburger wannabees/are alsos.

i wonder if ken lay was partying with any of the attendees on 4/7/06? richard dearlove, perhaps?

there are medications that can induce an apparent cardiovascular catastrophe. often used by the assassins in the intell community.

similarly, it would be interesting to review the departure logs of private jet aircraft late 4/7/06 and early 5/7/06.

i wonder if ken lay was spirited out of the usa to his property holdings in argentina?

three card monte at a conference consisting of lots of intell assets, i think. and that includes jim fallows.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results?

Maybe, but it's more likely Bush just f*cked up and now he doesn't know what to do about it and is just hoping that something will work out. You claim one long term benefit would be "25 million citizens joining with Americans in defeating Al Quaeda in Iraq", but the Iraqis are largely fighting against each other, not against Al Qaeda. By the way, Saddam did not attack us on 9/11, and was not part of Al Qaeda.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

Anything is possible, so the better questions would be "Isn't it probable Iraq falls in the same category....etc." And so while my answer to your first question would be yes, it's possible, in the same sense that all things are possible, my answer to the second would be no, it's not probable at all.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

Sorry, but the answer would be no.

Firstly, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before you invaded (I can't believe we are still having to repeat this!) as Saddam suppressed most challengers to his authority and Baathism is a secular movement. So one 'positive outcome' is sorta beyond the point.

Secondly, 'freedom spreading across the region' is a) a lovely dream like a worldwide workers revolution, and b) unlikely while the US supports repressive regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

It's interesting being of a liberal mindset and arguing for a return to hardheaded realism in foreign affairs against dangerously starry-eyed and naive 'conservatives'.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the fact of multiple fiascos during the Civil War. All these were subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits.

They are also in no way connected to the current situation, in which America has unilaterally invaded and occupied a country for reasons which have all been discredited. Let's look at the French in Algeria, and then consider the possibilities of 'magnificent long term benefits'.

I'd say it's time to drop the comforting dreams, Brian, and face up to the cold reality of what's happening. Heartwarming comparisons with FDR or Reagan, in which you can continue convincing yourself of the essential moral goodness of America's mission (which, let's be honest, is really what you are concerned about) are foolish and dangerous. It would be better to acknowledge mistakes (oh no - talking about the past again!) and change tactics, brian.

I'm halfway through Risen's "Secret War," and he's just mentioned Dearlove and the Downing St. Memo on page 106 or so. We'll see what else he has to say about Sir Richard.

Dearlove said, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

Kevin seems to think that quote that means that coalition forces will plant WMDs and blame them on Saddam.

Kevin also quotes Dearlove as concluding, "hard evidence of WMD in Iraq would never be found."

Doesn't the latter quote refute Kevin's interpretation of the former quote?

This understanding, he said, explained why his country approaches counter-terrorism in so different a way from America’s.

It was certainly black and white in Iraq. Couldn't be more different.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

No, I really don't think so. We are fighting a holding action right now while the administration hopes to get the Iraqi army and police force up to snuff enough to start drawing down troops. If this war was worth fighting, then it was worth fighting right. Not preparing for an insurgency was ridiculous. Rumsfeld's statements about the war taking not months but weeks betrays a complete lack of understanding of this entire endeavor, and the fact the GWB hasn't replaced the people responsible for this "strategy" shows his lack of credentials as a leader.

At some point in the future Iraq may limp into a semi-functional democracy, but it won't be because we helped birth a nation. It will because by some lucky chance they didn't implode into civil war after we left.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the fact of multiple fiascos during the Civil War. All these were subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits.

Another historical example would be the US war in Vietnam, which resulted in millions of casualties to achieve the same result that could have been achieved years earlier for far less blood and treasure. Another would be the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, an invasion which helped speed-up the USSR's economic and military collapes. Another would be Germany's invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, an invasion which tied down 40 Wehrmacht and Waffen SS combat divisions in a fruitless fight against the partisans. All of these were subject to intense short term criticism, and in all of these the intense short term criticism was right, and the illusory magnificent long term benefits never materialized.

Beware the dangers of facile and ill-informed historical analogies.

We are fighting a holding action right now while the administration hopes to get the Iraqi army and police force up to snuff enough to start drawing down troops.

But, of course, they're not really trying to train an Iraqi army and police force. The fact that the Iraqis aren't being provided with tanks, APCs, artillery, helicopters, fighter jets, ground support aircraft, or any sort of quatermaster corps or logistics -- all of which they would need to defeat the rebels -- proves that the Americans have no intention of actually developing a coherent and self-supporting Iraqi military -- at best, we're training a few thousand guys with AK-47s who ride around in trucks. That's not a military, that's a militia. We claim to want them to "stand up," but our actions speak otherwise.

Dearlove retired what, about a year before the massive terror attacks in London?

I would also like to hear what the "British approach" to counterterrorism would be. Anything like the British approach to southern Iraq? there the Iran-backed militias pretty much did whatever they wanted to in Basra while smiling and waving at the nice British soldiers who bragged about being able to walk around in berets instead of helmets.

mr. jayarbee: Exactly. It's just like when Blair said, "I know that President Bush will be a friend to Britain and a friend to Europe, a friend to free trade, new technology and solid defence." It turns out that in England "friend" actually means "laughingstock."

You're not taking regionalisms into account here, hon. In London, it does mean "laughingstock." In the north, people are more likely to use it to mean "utter and total tool."

...what had been done via executive action in the United States “would be illegal in Great Britain, as a matter of common law.”

Silly C! Our Declaration of Independence trumps your Magna Carta!!

Kevin: "But I suppose it would be rude to ask pointed questions like that at a fancy conference, wouldn't it?"

You're damn right that it would be rude.

And, pray tell, how would characterize right-wing darling Ann Coulter's recent description of Democratic Congressman John Murtha as "the reason soldiers invented fragging"?

I'm tired of watching Democrats and their allies turn the other cheek, only to get that cheek slapped as well. Aren't you?

It's high time that we go out there and kick some lying GOP ass, and stop worrying about whether voters will think that we're rude. They already think that we're pussies -- wouldn't it be nice to change that to something else?

我向大家推荐:中国 粉末涂料 网，打造粉末涂料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球粉末涂料品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找粉末冶金信息请访问 粉末冶金 网，各种粉末冶金应有尽有。上海 水性聚氨酯 公司专业生产水性聚氨酯产品，欢迎选择水性聚氨酯。您想要了解 反应锅/反应釜 吗？请到中国反应锅/反应釜网来寻找反应锅/反应釜。要想寻找聚氨酯合成材料信息请访问 聚氨酯合成材料 网，各种聚氨酯合成材料应有尽有。聚氨酯包装材料 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的聚氨酯包装材料,丰富聚氨酯包装材料行业资讯助您成交。北京 导热油 厂向广大客户提供导热油产品及导热油服务。铝材 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的铝材,丰富铝材行业资讯助您成交。中国 铝型材 网，打造铝型材领域专业搜索平台，提供全球铝型材品牌公司及产品展示。北京 聚氨酯硬泡 厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯硬泡产品及聚氨酯硬泡服务。要想寻找聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料信息请访问 聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料 网，各种聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料应有尽有。您想要了解 橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料 吗？请到中国橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料网来寻找橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料。光稳定剂770 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的光稳定剂770,丰富光稳定剂770行业资讯助您成交。北京 水性复膜胶 厂向广大客户提供水性复膜胶产品及水性复膜胶服务。中国 试剂/试纸 网，打造试剂/试纸领域专业搜索平台，提供全球试剂/试纸品牌公司及产品展示。上海 热熔胶 公司专业生产热熔胶产品，欢迎选择热熔胶。北京 螺旋藻 厂向广大客户提供螺旋藻产品及螺旋藻服务。上海 脱氢醋酸钠 公司专业生产脱氢醋酸钠产品，欢迎选择脱氢醋酸钠。您想要了解 泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备 吗？请到中国泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备网来寻找泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备。北京 聚四氟乙烯生料带 厂向广大客户提供聚四氟乙烯生料带产品及聚四氟乙烯生料带服务。上海 特富龙 公司专业生产特富龙产品，欢迎选择特富龙。上海 防腐木 公司专业生产防腐木产品，欢迎选择防腐木。北京 有机玻璃/压克力制品 厂向广大客户提供有机玻璃/压克力制品产品及有机玻璃/压克力制品服务。中国 包装用聚氨酯泡沫塑料 网，打造包装用聚氨酯泡沫塑料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球包装用聚氨酯泡沫塑料品牌公司及产品展示。润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封,丰富润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封行业资讯助您成交。

Some random thoughts...

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

I believe so. I believe it's going to be a long slog, as Iraq tries to pass through the stages that traditional democracies go through. A generational thing. I spent the 4th with an Army bud who just got back from 6 months in Iraq. He was an advisor to an Iraq unit, spending every day with interpreters and Iraqi Army. He feels similar. In fact, I'm really just echoing him.

For the British gent, I really worry about Britain and their muslim population. Especially when I read

As I brought up 9/11, I was taken aback when he began to talk about a “western conspiracy against Muslims”. I had been in London on the day of the 2001 attacks and like everyone else had watched in amazement and horror as the twin towers fell. I had never doubted that Osama Bin Laden had inspired the atrocity and that Islamic terrorists had perpetrated it. Jabbar doubted it. He told me the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy and that he had a DVD which proved it. So were the London bombings, he said.

The milblog link is a new one for me. Not Fred Reed, the other guy.

I believe so. I believe it's going to be a long slog, as Iraq tries to pass through the stages that traditional democracies go through. A generational thing.

Except that Iraq has alre4ady had an elected government - a functional democracy. Shall i tell you what happened to it after it tried to nationalise the country's oil?

For the British gent, I really worry about Britain and their muslim population.

I'm sure they appreciate it greatly.

Thanks for the respectful responses to the question of whether Iraq might still be an action, like some historical ones, that is subjected to intense criticism and then produced very good results.

I found the more negative answers to be very focused on the past, rather than the present or future. And I don't think the examples of other past failures (like Hitler[?], Vietnam and Russian invastion of Afghanistan) have much relevance to whether Iraq turns out to be a success. There are always going to be both successes and failures in history.

I just think there are historical successes that Iraq could turn out to parallel (Lincoln, FDR and Reagan) in terms of the contemporary criticism. I also think you don't put enough weight on what a great result it would be if a Muslim country joins with America in defeating a jihadist movement, i.e., Al Quaeda in Iraq, which I think is very likely to happen in Iraq.

I don't want to hog the thread, but no one addressed my point about how short term criticism has a superficial advantage in a situation such as Iraq, Reagan's military buildup, FDR's pre-WWII actions, and Lincoln's fiascos for three years of Civil War. The critics can always find mistakes to criticize, while the proponents must rely mostly on arguments about what would have happened without the action and what will happen with future success.

Fascinating reading, for those who have an open mind...

http://www.irism.com/pubs/advstudy.htm

Stefan, this one touches on logistics...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/20060513_5127.html

This guy is a blogger and an advisor to an Iraqi logistics unit.

http://www.fyste.com/

Google on "Iraq" and "MTT" (military transition team) to find out what's being done with them.

I think the most interesting comment by Dearlove is
"Terrorism is an extreme form of political communication,” he said. “You want to be sure that, in your response, you don’t end up amplifying the messages that terrorists are trying to convey.”

The successful examples of dealing with terrorists are mostly European (Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades, Black September). The not so successful example is the Brits in Northern Ireland and it can be argued that an important reason for their lack of success was using the military.

Sending a traditional army to fight a "war" on terrorists is the kind of thing you would dream up if you never served in the military and have watched too many Rambo movies. Like Bush. And Cheney. And Rumsfeld.

Al Qaeda was an excuse. What they wanted, consciously or not, was a splendid little war. What they got, sadly for the rest of us, is a clusterfuck.

Stefan:

The fact that the Iraqis aren't being provided with tanks, APCs, artillery, helicopters, fighter jets, ground support aircraft, or any sort of quatermaster corps or logistics -- all of which they would need to defeat the rebels -- proves that the Americans have no intention of actually developing a coherent and self-supporting Iraqi military -- at best, we're training a few thousand guys with AK-47s who ride around in trucks.

Somehow I have completely missed this story, although now that I'm confronted with it, it's a forehead-slapping, "Of course!" moment. Has this been in the public discourse and I missed it?

A link to flesh it out would be much appreciated ...

I found the more negative answers to be very focused on the past, rather than the present or future.

And I find the more unrealistic views to be focussed entirely on the future, rather than the present or past.

And I don't think the examples of other past failures (like Hitler[?], Vietnam and Russian invastion of Afghanistan) have much relevance to whether Iraq turns out to be a success. There are always going to be both successes and failures in history.

You say this, and yet you immediately follow it with:

I just think there are historical successes that Iraq could turn out to parallel (Lincoln, FDR and Reagan) in terms of the contemporary criticism.

So the examples where it didn't work don't have much relevance, yet those when there was a positive historical result (no matter how tenuous the situational similarity) somehow have much to teach us?

I also think you don't put enough weight on what a great result it would be if a Muslim country joins with America in defeating a jihadist movement, i.e., Al Quaeda in Iraq, which I think is very likely to happen in Iraq.

So I'm not sufficiently hopeful? Maybe I'll try clapping louder so Tinkerbell can hear me, then.

A wonderful and hoped for result is one thing, yet at what point does starry-eyed optimism get tempered by mature realisation?

BTW, has it excaped your notice that you're not (primarily )fighting 'al Qaeda in Iraq'? You are fighting a range of religious and/or nationalist resistance movements (in which foreign fighters play a tiny role) and which are also fighting each other.

You just have the best armed faction, brian.

I think the hardest illusion to give up will be that belief that the US can remake other countries and/or cultures in their own image. Kissinger knew this - whatever criticisms I have of him (and they are many!) at least he wasn't naive.

Well-armed naivety is still naivety - and America has stumbled naively into a maelstrom.

I don't want to hog the thread, but no one addressed my point about how short term criticism has a superficial advantage in a situation such as Iraq, Reagan's military buildup, FDR's pre-WWII actions, and Lincoln's fiascos for three years of Civil War.

Well, one point to consider in the success criteria is the intention with which you embark on an edeavour. Were your initial assesments correct, and if not, did you adjust to a new situation on the ground, or did you just muddle through? Remember that Rumsfeld said he thought it would take weeks not months, so by the terms he defined are we really in a short term situation three years in? Obviously not. By initial assesments we should have been done years ago.

So if the administration's initial assesments and plans were off by such large magnitudes (I'm also thinking of the Shinseki/Wolfowitz dust-up about troop strength), what have they done to correct? From what I read on milblogs there seems to be a dearth of understanding within the administration and at high levels of the military on how to fight an insurgency, and very little seems to have been done to change how we fight the war.

For these reasons, I don't think any net positive result can really be credited to GWB. Success in this endeavour will come despite him (mainly through the blood and sweat of the troops), not through any contribution he has made as a leader.

A functional democracy in Iraq would certainly be net positive result, but that wasn't how the war was sold to the American public, and the execution of the war does not lead me to believe that much thought or effort was put into this nation building project.

The critics can always find mistakes to criticize, while the proponents must rely mostly on arguments about what would have happened without the action and what will happen with future success.

In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

Ouch.

Brian, I think the likely result of our time in Iraq is that a bunch of hardened and experienced insurgents (whose friends or family members were killed in the recent conflict) will become a significant, albeit decentralized, international terrorist force. They'll mostly attack tourists, businessmen, and diplomats, but they'll have enough successful attacks to keep the US spending billions of dollars on security and intelligence for decades. They might even figure out how to take out a dam or large building in the US.

I don't see the analogy to Reagan as you can't bankrupt or "outscare" a suicidal dude with a knife.

I don't see the analogy to WWII as we didn't fight a serious insurgency in Japan and Germany. pre-WWII analogy?? Do I compare that with the lead up to Iraq?

I don't see the analogy to Lincoln either. He ended up freeing the slaves but he didn't stick around for three years killing them at checkpoints and bullying their religious and political leaders. Bush is popular with the kurds! Woohoo! Is that what you mean?

Alf: In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

Red State Mike: I believe so.

Belief is all there is. This is where our self-mythology serves us badly. "We're America! We can do anything!" Except that we can't. Being merely human has its drawbacks.

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

Alf: In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

Red State Mike: I believe so.

Belief is all there is. This is where our self-mythology serves us badly. "We're America! We can do anything!" Except that we can't. Being merely human has its drawbacks.
Posted by: craigie

My belief is based on interactions with people who have "ground truth", i.e., they've been to Iraq and seen it up close and personal. Including advisors who spent their days elbow to elbow with their Iraqi counterparts.

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

For an informed approach to what the so-called terrorists are actually upto, goto Global Guerrillas.

The basic flaw with Dearlove's thesis that "Terrorism is an extreme form of political communication," is that it is a great deal more than that. It is an innovative military strategy that attempts to disrupt various networks upon which industrialized societies depend.

Alf and floopmeister illustrate my point. They relish in what they call the "reality" of the current and past mistakes, and they think that wins the argument.

What I suggest is that the issue and argument are much larger than current and past mistakes, and the focus should be on whether there is a reaslistic and acceptable path that can achieve a good result or, even as old floop says, a "wonderful and hoped for result" of Iraqi muslims and Americans joining together to defeat a jihadist terrorist group and creating a functioning democracy in the middle east. If that result is possible, as most concede it is, it would be great for Americans to unite behind that objective and achieve it. I realize that is not going to happen at least with the politicians, although I suppose if things broke well quickly, most would get on board.

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

Some interesting stuff in this thread, not the least of which was Kevin’s link to James Fallow’s blogging about Sir Dearlove’s comments on America’s approach to terrorism - thank you for that, Kevin. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, it’s hard for the rest of the world to take America seriously about it’s resolve in fighting terrorism, when the American government has undertaken terrorist acts itself with such misadventures as Operation Northwoods or Michael Pillsbury and the 208 Committee. Sir Dearlove might also ask why Mr. Bush provides terrorists like Luis Posada Carriles safe haven or why his dad pardoned known terroristOrlando Bosch. Europeans might think terrorism is a morally relativistic concept to American conservatives.

I also enjoyed Carl’s assertions about those “WMDs” that Rick Santorum and Curt Weldon want desperately for you to believe were found in Iraq. He has been a good little dittohead and has been getting his daily dose of FoxNews. I saw the propaganda on Colmes and Hannity tonight myself. The good news, Carl, is that there were definitely artillery shells with mustard gas and other chemical agents in them found in Iraq. The bad news is that Bush’s dad sold them to Saddamover 20 years ago! The shit that Weldon and Santorum are crowing about were made in the 1980’s and are more worthless than a screen door in a submarine –kind of like Bush himself!

The last point I want to make is that Sir Dearlove’s point about risk management is dead on accurate. I have been saying on this blog for months that al-Qaeda is a vastly overblown threat and certainly not one worth pissing away $320 billion on. Ditto for Saddam Hussein. While certainly dangerous, al-Qaeda is not a threat to the entire American way of life like a nuclear-armed Soviet Union was. After invading Afghanistan and finishing the job at Tora Bora, a much more low-key, coordinated international police effort would have finished off this low-level threat. Instead, by blustering into a Muslim country like Iraq and slaughtering thousands of innocent people, Bush created several hundred new Osama bin Laden’s who are undoubtedly now plotting revenge against this country. Thanks, George! You don’t swat a fly with a sledgehammer.

...and the focus should be on whether there is a reaslistic and acceptable path that can achieve a good result...

How about withdrawl? Or is that still unthinkable?

...or, even as old floop says, a "wonderful and hoped for result" of Iraqi muslims and Americans joining together to defeat a jihadist terrorist group and creating a functioning democracy in the middle east.

Yep. Wonderful dream. No arguments there.

They relish in what they call the "reality" of the current and past mistakes, and they think that wins the argument.

Yeah, sorry for assuming that reality actually means anything.

I'll let you on in a little secret - change tactics, and I'd have to reassess my opinion of whether or not success is possible. No change in tactics, and there'll be no change in probable situation.

That is, in 5 years things will be worse, given that the current trends are downwards.

If that result is possible, as most concede it is, it would be great for Americans to unite behind that objective and achieve it.

Of course, 'most' don't concede it's possible, but let's ignore that little faux pas.

More importantly, what are Iraqis going to be doing? Standing around and scratching themselves? Who cares if Americans are 'uniting behind that objective' - this is a poltical slogan, not a plan for victory. If a large proportion of Iraqis do not want you there, there will be no victory, regardless whether or not the US population is cheering in front of their TV sets of putting flag stickers on their cars.

You make the mistake of assuming what happens now is in American hands.

You make the mistake of assuming what happens now is in American hands.

Sorry, correction: You make the mistake of assuming what happens now is entirely in American hands.

I'd argue it's primarily in Iraqi hands, although the US can of course choose to change tactics or withdraw.

They relish in what they call the "reality" of the current and past mistakes, and they think that wins the argument.

I believe Bush is in way over his head on many things, including Iraq. I do not relish anything about it. My fantasy would be that a more competent leader would have made better choices, leading us on different trajectories than we seem to be currently headed.

There cannot be a War on Terror because terror itself is a tactic. The forces of a nation-state cannot target it. The use of the word ‘war’ is a plain abuse, certainly a political manipulation, and should be reserved for confrontations between nation-states. Modern terror was created by ‘anarchists’ in the last decades of the 19th century and was known as “propaganda by deed”. It is employed by small, isolated, and relatively powerless groups (who could not threaten nation-states) to amplify their political agenda. Modern media is the messenger and improved weapons make for more dramatic advertisements. In the 19th century dynamite, much more powerful than black powder, was the weapon of choice. This is what Dearlove is getting at- terror is advertisement so lets not help.

What he perhaps does not appreciate is how important amplifying the threat of terrorism is to the American conservative movement. Indeed, everything that even seems like a threat- every hectoring word coming out of some dusty backwater- is repeated and amplified by conservative politicians and the media machine that serves their interests. Anyone who is seduced by the exaggerations holds in their head two contradictory beliefs- that the US is the most powerful nation in the world and that it is threatened in a substantial way by tiny groups of men.

My parents, who spent their youths on the receiving end of Hitler’s bombs, like to draw contrasts between Britain in those years and America in the Age of Terror. When the threat was real, when your family and friends were being killed and the most powerful army of the blackest empire Europe had ever seen was just over the horizon you were told not to be afraid and to soldier on. But now, in America, everyone is told be very, very afraid of gangs of men with box-cutters. History will remember George Bush as the anti-Churchill- a witless minion of small and petty men.

okay floop, I'll bite, what is the non-withdrawal change in tactics that you think would produce a good result?

They relish in what they call the "reality" of the current and past mistakes, and they think that wins the argument.

And here I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But if the actual past constitutes mere "reality" while the might-be future is really reality - well, good luck.

"“Terrorism is an extreme form of political communication,” he said. “You want to be sure that, in your response, you don’t end up amplifying the messages that terrorists are trying to convey.” This understanding, he said, explained why his country approaches counter-terrorism in so different a way from America’s."

I'd just like to point out that you're mistaken if you think we're fighting a political enemy. We're fighting a fanatically religious enemy.

First we have to contain them and then maybe we can change them. Gitmo would be a good experiment.
I wonder if we've changed anyone.

...what is the non-withdrawal change in tactics that you think would produce a good result?

a) Stop the focus on force protection and the use of artillery and air power within urban areas. Accept that creating a truly national Iraqi Army aint gonna happen any time soon, since the ethnic and/or religious divides will make it suspect until a truly national secular culture can be rebuilt.

Instead, work with the militias such as the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, as well as the regional tribal militias, which ARE the state security forces in their respective areas. Bring them to the table - plan joint patrols, if you have to.

These militias are not particularly pleasant, but they are the real sources of authority within a fragmenting country. Especially on the neighbourhood level, which is the level to which authority is devolving - the government in the Green Zone is rapidly losing relevance.

The tribal militia/security forces have no love for the jihadis, especially since they have taken most of the casualties from this small element in the country. Get them onside, and they'll kick any al qaeda-like groups out of the country in no time.

Al Zawahiri has been quoted saying he fears this - Zawahiri was too indiscriminant in his attacks on Shiites, and alienated the Shiite majority. Use that to your advantage - work with the sheiks on a neighbourhood/town level by helping them run security and staying the fuck out of their way.

b) Stop building the 4 or 5 permanent/'enduring' bases in Iraq and state openly that US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq in entirety. No mealy mouthed words about 'negotiating security arrangements' with a government that is widely seen as a puppet regime. Note you don't need to state a date - I'd challenge the administration to simply state openly, and on the record, that there will be no US troops left in the sovereign state of Iraq when complete sovereignty is handed over.

This would do wonders towards convincing disbelieving Iraqis that you don't plan to stay indefinitely.

Of course, the US does plan to stay for the foreseeable future, which is why this statement will never be made.

c) Accept that Iran is the actor with the most influence in Iraq, and that Iraq will be a predominantly Shiite country closely tied to Iran. With that in mind, bring Iran to the table as well - chair a regional forum with Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They are the relevant parties here, with the most to gain or lose if Iraq disintegrates. They also have the most REAL influence on the ground level, with the militias which are the real sources of local influence.

Hell, invite the Arab League to get involved - they might even send peace keeping troops if they can be convinced the US is not planning to stay.

First we have to contain them and then maybe we can change them. Gitmo would be a good experiment.
I wonder if we've changed anyone.

Probably. But not in a good way.

floop,

Thanks for answering the question. I don't know if your ideas are any better than the ones currently being followed, and I don't know of any reason why you would be smarter/have better judgment than the folks committing and sometimes sacrificing their lives to try to make it succeed, but I was interested in seeing them.

From my limited knowledge, I am always skeptical about the idea that neighbors, particularly Syria, Iran, Turkey and Egypt, necessarily have a since interest in the success of Iraq and would be part of the solution.

I also don't know the significance of long terms bases (no bases are ever really permanent). If it really is such an inflamatory issue within Iraq, I would tend to agree with you, because the bases would not be there long anyway. But if we are long term friends with Iraq, and the issue is not highly inflamatory, why shouldn't we have bases in the country to help protect Iraq's interests and our interests? This is going to be a country that owes its freedom to the U.S.

From my limited knowledge, I am always skeptical about the idea that neighbors, particularly Syria, Iran, Turkey and Egypt, necessarily have a since interest in the success of Iraq and would be part of the solution.

There will be no solution without Turkey, brian. Don't trust the Kurds to always remain US allies. That's not a criticism of them per se - my partner and I have travelled through eastern Turkey ('Kurdistan') right along the Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi borders and the Kurds are wonderful people. The troubles had quietened down when we were there, but this was still a seriously militarised border, because the Turks see themselves as essentially alone in a very nasty neighbourhood.

The Kurds are great people (as are the Turks, BTW) but, not surprisingly, they are looking out for themselves and want to create the state they've never had. Don't think they'll refrain from making a play for it just because the US says no, and if they do then the gates of hell will open. The Turkish army is not to be sneezed at, and they will invade northern Iraq if they feel their territorial integrity is threatened. Attaturk (the Turkish Washington) said "We will take no more than Anatolia, and no less". This is not an issue for compromise with Turkey, especially since he made that quote as Turkey was being carved up by the Western powers at the time and he was essentially leading a war of Independence. Hell will freeze over before the Turks let the Kurds have an independent state that includes Turkish territory.

And now such a state is taking shape to the south, with overt US (and Israeli!) support. This has always been the reason the average Turk, whether islamic or secular, didn't want this war to happen - and it's why support for the US has plummeted in Turkey.

Who knows - in a few years Turkey might be a member of the EU with troops occupying northern Iraq and with a nominally US supported Kurdish insurgency struggling against an EU member state... Not pretty.

Similarly with Egypt and Syria - this invasion has stirred everything up and they are watching the Shiite balance of power very carefully. You can't invade the most advanced Arab state and expect the other Arab states to not notice. This is their backyard - the US will have to take notice or they'll make things very nasty for everyone.

I also don't know the significance of long terms bases (no bases are ever really permanent). If it really is such an inflamatory issue within Iraq, I would tend to agree with you, because the bases would not be there long anyway.

This is where I disagree with you, because it's obvious to me that the bases ARE meant to be there pretty much permanently. I mean, the US have removed bases from Saudi Arabia because Iraq was always meant to be a friendlier and neater solution (Mecca and what have you).

This is not conspiracy stuff - some of the PNAC material/theory mentions this quite openly.

Still, this is a war for Iraqi hearts and minds - and they don't trust the US to leave any time soon. have you read about the size of these bases? The costs? This is a long term investment we are talking about here.

This is going to be a country that owes its freedom to the U.S.

You could say the same about the US and France, you know. I don't imagine the Continental Army would have done so well without the French fleet blockading the British at various points. Not to mention the influence of French troops.

People are funny - they don't like being reminded about things like that. National pride and whatever...

;)

We would not have won the Revolutionary War without help from France (at least not for a long time -- we might have outlasted the British). But we've paid France back a couple times and, according to George Bush a few years back, we would do it again.

I realize Turkey has to be satisfied with the solution in Iraq, but I don't see how Syria, Egypt and Iran will be helpful players.

Yeah, I was just being facetious bringing up the French - but I just wouldn't count on Iraqis being grateful. Pride is a funny thing.

I agree that you could probably get by without involving the Syrians or Egyptians too much (apart from the whole pan Arab attitude and the chance they'd provide peace keeping troops once the US withdraws) but I can't accept that there'd be any meaningful settlement or solution without Iran.

They are just too influential in Iraq to sideline.

In a horrible irony, the neocon attempt to eventually topple Iran (who will always be the logical regional power - they're just too big and strategically placed not to be) has simply made them all the more influential. The Sunni Taliban to the north who hated them have been destabilised (although they're not gone!) and the Sunni strongman Saddam, who repressed the Shiite majority in Iraq for years, has gone.

In a way, the biggest winner of the Iraq war has been Iran - and the Shiite genie is out of the bottle now.

Gosh, 71 posts already, and only two so far used the word "Fallows."

Kevin, you should be nicer to James Fallows. We all owe him a great deal of kudos and thanks for his brilliant article Blind into Baghdad in the January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Excerpts are available.

If we really want to put pressure on the mideast we need to have energy independence our top priority. Let's really get serious about solar power and bio-butanol. I would hope that both crazy conservatives and looney liberals could agree on that.

Thanks for answering the question. I don't know if your ideas are any better than the ones currently being followed, and I don't know of any reason why you would be smarter/have better judgment than the folks committing and sometimes sacrificing their lives to try to make it succeed, but I was interested in seeing them.

Well, one reason why he might be smarter/have better judgment might be that he's been consistently right about what was going to happen in Iraq while the people who've been in charge, such as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, have been consistently wrong. You judge people on their record, and our ruling junta's record on Iraq has so far been abysmal.

From my limited knowledge, I am always skeptical about the idea that neighbors, particularly Syria, Iran, Turkey and Egypt, necessarily have a since interest in the success of Iraq and would be part of the solution.

Compared to the US, which has nothing but completely unselfish and disinterested love for Iraq, like the love of a mother for her child. Oil, you say? We never even knew they had any oil! It's news to us!

I realize Turkey has to be satisfied with the solution in Iraq, but I don't see how Syria, Egypt and Iran will be helpful players.

Well, whether you see it or not there they are and there they will remain. They will not, of course, be "helpful" players in the sense that they will do what the Bush regime wants them to do -- they will advance their own interests in Iraq, which interests may or may not be to the benefit of the US.

It's revealing, this deliberate blindness. Followers like brian can't make Syria, Iran et al. fit into the pretty picture of Iraq that Republican propaganda has painted for them, and so their response is to pretend that Syria, Iran and Egypt don't exist. "I don't see how they'll help, therefore I won't consider them." Reality, though, has a rather nasty way of intruding on such delusions. The fact that you've closed your eyes doesn't mean that what you can't see isn't still there....

rsm: My belief is based on interactions with people who have "ground truth", i.e., they've been to Iraq and seen it up close and personal.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created."

- Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism. 3/2/06

I don't know if your ideas are any better than the ones currently being followed, and I don't know of any reason why you would be smarter/have better judgment than the folks committing and sometimes sacrificing their lives to try to make it succeed

brian's tactics in this thread are interesting, and the above sentence most illustrative of all. By attempting to rule Bush's incompetence out of bounds and eking out a concession -- an obvious one, really -- that we all hope for an eventual positive outcome in Iraq, brian then posits that Bush's policies are at the very least acceptable as a default for achieving a positive outcome, and places the burden back on the critics, rather on the Bush Administration to justify its failing and unpopular policies. Neat trick, brian, albeit dishoenst of course.

Iraq may or may not be what we might call a "success" 25 years from now. But whether it is or not could be as well said to be an outcome in spite of US policy as because of it.

brian would like to imply that support for Bush's stated goals should translate into support for Bush's policies as a means of achieving them, or at leasty that Bush's policies should be evaluated in a neutral light against those of his critics. That dog just won't hunt.

brian's posts revolve around assumptions that are not at all established as fact. Indeed, taking analysis of the Bush Administration's incompetence off the table is the sole foundation for a possibility that you "don't know if your ideas are any better than the ones currently being followed." Factor in Bush's staggering mendacity and incompetence, of course, and the presumption that anyone else's ideas are better is immediately evident.

Finally, how dare you invoke those sacrificing their lives to give your support of Bush moral weight. As always, the cowards in the Bush administration, and their apologists, who sacrifice nothing, nor propose to, in the name of their policies, hide behind those who do the sacrificing to shield themselves from criticism. Utterly reprehensible.

Your pose of reasonableness fools few, brian (I'm surprised you haven't indulged yourself in another round of slagging John Murtha for his temerity in questioning the President's policies), and your arguments convince even fewer. Why do you bother? And why, oh why, is it so hard to defend Bush's mendacity and incompetence that his shrinking number of defenders here so rarely bother?

"I don't want to hog the thread, but no one addressed my point about how short term criticism has a superficial advantage in a situation such as Iraq, Reagan's military buildup, FDR's pre-WWII actions, and Lincoln's fiascos for three years of Civil War."

Well, brian, I don't know what you're referring to re FDR, and I think the whole "Reagan won the Cold War" thing is highly debatable. (And displays a typically American tendancy to think everything good that happens is because of something an American did.) But Lincoln, he is definitely not a good example for you, because when the Civil War was going bad for the Union, he fired the incompetant generals. He changed course when he had to, and Bush has not one scintilla of the intelligence that Lincoln had.

As for Saddam and his sons, who can say? It would have been interesting to see if his sons could really have held it together, or if intrafamily fighting would have brought their regime down from within. It will be interesting, too, to see what happens in Cuba when Castro finally dies.

I'm always amazed that people don't realize that Strong Man dictator are human, and when they pass, (and they WILL pass) so often does their "regime." See Yugoslavia. In that there were three factions there, as in Iraq, I think it is a better example of what would happen once the strong man was taken out.

I realize this thread is over, but in the slim chance anyone is still reading, I offer the following: (1) there is nothing "dishonest" about me stating alternative strategies should be compared to Bush's strategies -- there is no other way to assess the situation if you are focusing on the present and future; (2) Lincoln made a string of bad judgments, including on generals -- yes, he fired some generals but he brought in new incompetants and even brought back McClellan for a second disaster -- Lincoln is an exact example of a guy making mistakes and still achieving a great result through perseverance and a broader/higher view than his critics; (3) Iran obviously is a player in the area, but I think there is a fair chance that the people will overcome the current regime, with motivation from a free and democratic Iraq. Big picture folks, big picture.

Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online

Prescription drugs prescription drugs

Drug prescription drug prescription

drug online prescription drug online prescription

drugs store drugs store

Drugs online drugs online

Discount prescription drugs Discount prescription drugs

Discounted prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs

Prescription drugs discount prescription drugs discount

Cheap prescription drugs Cheap prescription drugs

Prescription drugs prescription drugs

Discount drugs Discount drugs

Drugs store Drugs store

Adult dating personals Adult dating personals

personal adult dating personal adult dating

dating personals dating personals

Adult dating Adult dating

Adult personals Adult personals

Adult dating personal Adult dating personal

Adult dating services Adult dating services

Adult dating online Adult dating online

Adult dating Adult dating

Online adult dating Online adult dating

dating online dating online

Online dating Online dating

Adult dating services online Adult dating services online

online dating service Online dating service

Adult dating site Adult dating site

Adult sex dating Adult sex dating

Adult dating service Adult dating service

Adult dating online Adult dating online

internet portal internet portal

internet search engine internet search engine

online portal online portal

seek and find seek and find

pay per click search engine pay per click search engine

ppc search engine ppc search engine

Discount pharmacy UK:

cheap cialis cheap cialis

discount cialis discount cialis

generic cialis generic cialis

buy cialis buy cialis

order cialis
order cialis

cheap tadalafil cheap tadalafil

discount tadalafil discount tadalafil

order tadalafil order tadalafil

buy tadalafil buy tadalafil

cheap propecia cheap propecia

generic propecia generic propecia

buy propecia buy propecia

order propecia order propecia

generic propecia generic propecia

cheap proscar cheap proscar

discount proscar discount proscar

order proscar order proscar

buy proscar buy proscar

generic proscar generic proscar

cheap meridia cheap meridia

discount meridia discount meridia

meridia pills meridia pills

order meridia order meridia

buy meridia buy meridia

generic meridia generic meridia

cheap soma cheap soma

generic soma generic soma

discount soma discount soma

order soma order soma

buy soma buy soma



Bad credit: stuff for all with bad credit:

bad credit mortgage bad credit mortgage

bad credit loan bad credit loan

bad credit home loan bad credit home loan

bad credit home equity loan bad credit home equity loan

bad credit personal loan bad credit personal loan

guaranteed bad credit personal loan guaranteed bad credit personal loan

bad credit refinance bad credit refinance

bad credit auto loan bad credit auto loan

bad credit auto loan financing bad credit auto loan financing

bad credit used car loan bad credit used car loan

bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation

bad credit debt consolidation loan bad credit debt consolidation loan

bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards

credit card for people with bad credit credit card for people with bad credit

unsecured credit card for bad credit unsecured credit card for bad credit

unsecured credit cards unsecured credit cards


bad credit military loan bad credit military loan

bad credit lone mortgage bad credit lone mortgage

bad credit loan mortgage bad credit loan mortgage

bad credit mortgage lender bad credit mortgage lender

bad credit repair bad credit repair

credit repair credit repair

bad credit motorcycle loan bad credit motorcycle loan

bad credit unsecured loan bad credit unsecured loan

bad credit boat loan bad credit boat loan

loan for people with bad credit loan for people with bad credit

second mortgage bad credit second mortgage bad credit

bad credit signature loan bad credit signature loan

bad credit motorcycle financing bad credit motorcycle financing

bad credit home mortgage bad credit home mortgage

bad credit lender bad credit lender

bad credit lenders bad credit lenders

bad credit home improvement loan bad credit home improvement loan

bad credit cash loan bad credit cash loan

california bad credit mortgage california bad credit mortgage

erase bad credit erase bad credit

bad credit visa card bad credit visa card

bad credit secured loan bad credit secured loan

bad debt credit card bad debt credit card

bad credit card bad credit card

online freelance online freelance

freelance jobs freelance jobs

bad credit help bad credit help