Holbrooke also suggested something I hadn't heard before: sending troops up to Kurdistan, essentially to keep the PKK and the Turks apart.

To keep Iraq from spilling into a regional war.

Al nails Kevin again!

Success is (always) a Friedman away! Ignore the lives lost and billions spent...

If you read between the lines, Kristol and his NeoCon friends in fact WANT Iraq to fail. Why? Because we are building permanent bases there. Why? Because we intend to stay there. Why? Because we want to control the resources in Iraq and also want to use it as a staging ground for offenses against Iran.

The true Axis of Evil is comprised of:

1. Islamofascists, Christian Fundamentalists, Zionists
2. The Oil Industry
3. Friends of the Oil Industry (Chaney & Co.)

Group number 1 wants to take the world toward "end times" and believes that their individual cause is just.

Group number 2 wants to use the wishes of group number 1 in order to line its own pockets, because their mutually assured destructive goals serve the interests of those who seek the eventual ultimate control over the resource-rich region, and the monopolization of said resource in order to dominate over the emerging world powers who rely heavily on said resources (China & Russia).

Group number 3 uses the power of the government and military in order to make the wishes of group number 1 and 2 come to life and in the process lines its own pockets.

These people aren't stupid. Neither should we as the American people be. They are not incompetent. They are fully aware of what they are doing. It just so happens that what they are doing goes contrary to what's good for America's long term stability and safety -- and what's in turn good for the American people. The American people need to wake up, because these people will go to ***any end*** in order to keep us in this situation. Fear mongering is only the tip of the iceberg.

The American people need to wake up, because these people will go to ***any end*** in order to keep us in this situation. Fear mongering is only the tip of the iceberg.

i think that's called an "ironic juxtaposition".

What's strikes me again is how useless Holbrooke's suggestions are. He, and his old boss Bill Clinton, have been sad enablers of this disaster. None of this is going to work anymore, the US has lost and needs to get out. And it's hard to write a scenario where the US holds onto to those bases.

Holbrooke's simple answer, all along, should have been:

"Anything this crew does is going to be a disaster. If Bush wants to salvage anything in Iraq he'll need to fire Rumsfeld and his whole gang and hire someone like Wes Clark to try and save what we can.

But it's going to be really tough, because have the staggering magnitude of the incompetence to date. We have no Friedman's left."

Stop implicitly accepting that this crew can do it. They can't. That's the first, and biggest problem. Address it.

Irony: "They hate our freedom" = They hate our freedom to control their resources.

Juxtapositon: As the fundamentalists are at each others' throats, the bankers and oilers are dipping into the oozing cookie jar filled with the blood and misery of innocents (on all sides) and extracting value in a way similar to how the Nazis extracted hair, skin and gold teeth from their victims for their bizzare get-rich-quick scheme.

History repeats itself, but never exactly in the same manner.

A dose of Cosmic Irony for all with their heads in the sands of the Middle East.

Well, given that George Will was willing to concede that Kerry was right, I will have to swallow what is left of my pride and state that I was wrong about our approach to Iraq. Next time, I will listen more carefully to reason

Nonsense.

Iraq is such a wonderland of peace and democracy, and their newly-trained army strong and solid, that Iraq should be able to spare 20,000 to 30,000 troops for southern Lebanon for peacekeeping duties.

The only reason American troops are still in Iraq is to pick up their candy and flowers.

Interesting post by Kevin. I agree with most of it, but will quibble with his "reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer."

In what aspect does Kevin believe we cannot afford it?

Financial? No. The war is expensive, but it's affordable at the current spending level.

Number of casualties? No. We're experiencing relatively few casualties.

Impact on our reputation abroad? I think our reputation would be much more harmed if we withdrew and left peace-loving Iraqis to their fate.

We do have the manpower to increase troops, if we wanted to. Kevin points out that we can't withdraw troops from Afghanistan. However, we could withdraw troops from other areas, such as South Korea, Germany, etc.

"It displayed an appreciation of human nature and the realities of foreign affairs that a junior high school student would have gotten low marks for."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, Kristol has the same grasp of affairs as Bush? comforting........

Yeah..., they argue on a soundstage, we argue on our keyboards and meanwhile:

people are dying in whimmish invasion/occupation that's set the next thousand years of world history into motion.

Anyone who seriously thinks that we are going to "nuke" Iran or Iraq (i.e. any oil-rich region) is out of their minds and obviously belongs to the *true* axis of evil category number 1 if you read my first post up top.

If you seriously think that we are going to nuke a region that serves as a storehouse of oil that will need to be extracted without the risk of contamination from fallout, you are driven mad by your unique blend of fundamentalism (whichever one it is).

Note, all fundamentalists, you are BEING PLAYED. Nobody is nuking anyone (who lives in an oil-rich state). Gently remove your head from your hate-filled private part and look in the mirror, seeing yourself for the pawn that you are being played for.

"the terrorists will have done their job, we will have failed to defeat them early enough to prevent them from lighting the matches that set off the timber."

And why exactly would that be? Because liberals protested the war and tied Bush's hands or because Bush ran this war like he was some draft dodger from the Vietnam era?

Unless Rose had Crisco on just so he and Holbrooke could embarass him, he otherwise deserves no attention from anyone for any reason.

PatientObserver:

I think the "ironic juxtaposition" to which cleek referred is a sexual pun on "go to **any** end" :)

Holebrook's suggestion of basing the bulk of our forces in Kurdistan, both to keep the PKK and Turkey at arm's length and to watch for any new al Qaeda training camps, was made persuasively by Peter Galbraith in a NYT Op-Ed piece of a few weeks ago.

I think the Democrats need to adopt this as their uniform strategy position.

Bob

"At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too"

How long was diplomacy given a chance in the Balkans vs Iraq? He obvioulsy didn't mean that.

One thing missing from the Charlie Rose debate was any cross-examination of Kristol's credentials.

What is in Kristol's background that gives him any standing to be granted such a platform? He's just a talking head.

Anybody can stand up and say "We need to get tough with Syria and Iran." I just said it right now.

So when am I going to appear on Charlie Rose?

I tend to agree with 'PatientObserver' above in that I think the Neocons & their ilk have never wanted democracy in Iraq. They wanted to tear down a functioning Arab state & let chaos take hold. The feeling among the Neocons was that it would show that Arabs can't be trusted to run a functioning, non-feudal-style state, & most importantly, the guerilla actions that would take place against U.S. troops would tend to radicalize the American populace against Arabs in general & thus bring them closer to the Israeli-Likud view of Arabs. This would hopefully pay dividends down the road for Israel if they ever decided to pursue the 'Eretz Israel' gambit.

"If you seriously think that we are going to nuke a region that serves as a storehouse of oil that will need to be extracted without the risk of contamination from fallout, you are driven mad by your unique blend of fundamentalism (whichever one it is)."

Ever heard of the neutron bomb?

Speaking as a Democrat, I do not want my party to be in favor of another evacuation a la Saigon embassy rooftop -- the U.S. should not abandon our hard-fought bases.

I, for one, think it would make far more sense for the US troops to be massacred, as the British troops were during the First Afghan War. (sarcasm).

A point we don't think much about is that the oil industry isn't actually dumb.

Consider, there are all kinds of research projects to replace petroleum in fuel and as the basis of plastic and in every other application. Eventually they'll succeed, and when those processes come on line, where will petroleum prices head? This is the oil industry's last hurrah and the Saudi's last hurrah. They're like the railroads in the early 20s --gone as an important player in 25 years.

The companies will still be around, but they'll all be in to other things, they won't have their collective force.

Consider what the politics of the Middle East would look like if oil weren't in the picture: our allies Kuwait and the UAE would no longer have the protection of their huge incomes, --but everything else would be exactly the same.

And, once the oil is gone, what does the Arab street think? They'll think that the west, no longer blinded by oil, will at last be interested to see what they really value in their societies and, finding a cool reception, will be insulted. Of course by that time about a third of France will be Muslims who will be demanding the right to try people in their own courts under sharia law. Because living in France insults them.

Hmm, not much spirit left in those trolls, is there? Either they sound like parodies of themselves or they have to tie themselves in a know to make a coherent point. Used to be that one or two of them were actually worth engaging, but no more.

By the way, if things keep going the way they are in Iraq (as seems likely) any base we establish there is going to be about as useful as our bases in Vietnam are.

"in an knot, darn it.

"How long was diplomacy given a chance in the Balkans vs Iraq? He obvioulsy didn't mean that."

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on August 16, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I'll have a go. Given that the the bloodshed in the Balkans began in early 1991, and outside military action was finally undertaken in the summer of 1995, that would be about 4.5 years.

But, it was 4.5 years that included at least:

1) A couple of hundred thousand civilias dead;
2) Millions more ethnically cleansed;
3) The largest single massacre of civilian life in the European continent since WWII when thousands of Muslims were killed by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica in July, 1995.

I'd argue that even this wasn't going to get the U.S. and Europe involved military and that it took the combination of a) the ignominious failure to act to prevent the Rwandan genocide, and b) the potential for another Srebrenica-type massacre of Muslim civlians in the northwestern Bosnian city of Bihac (which was in imminent danger of falling to the Bosnian Serbs), for the West to finally agree that diplomacy had failed and that the only answer was a military one.

I'd say that this would qualify as a "last resort" type of situation.

I think the "ironic juxtaposition" to which cleek referred is a sexual pun on "go to **any** end" :)

close, but no :)

Thomas1,

If you seriously think that dropping "One Small Nuke" on Iran is going to somehow scare them into submission, I would very much doubt it. In fact, I would think it would do the opposite, inciting them to attack Israel and bring about the "end times war" that you are so dearly eager to see come to life.

If you believe that "One Small Nuke" can eliminate your perceived enemy and bring peace to the world, I would say that your hope for peace through destruction -- as admirable as it might seem -- is as misguided as a precision guided bomb that hits the wrong target, causing collateral damage worthy of U.N. Condemnation.

Citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of your defense is interesting. Of course, we all know that those who died and suffered horribly by us becoming the monster we aimed to destroy (when we became the first civilized nation to murder using nukes) were **civilians**...we could have dropped nukes on the army, but we chose civilians...purposefully targeting civilians in order to get a political message across is defined as...what? I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

But yes, if you suggest that by simply dropping "One Small Nuke" on innocent civilians in the middle east in order to prove our point, we can put an end to war in the middle east once and for all, I would respectfully argue that you are dead wrong.

Now if you tell the truth and say that you really wish that we can drop "One Small Nuke" on Iran so that they can attack Israel and we can wipe them all off the face of the map so that the temple can be rebuilt -- and later destroyed so that Christ can return, then, I would say, I see where you are coming from, and would further respectfully challenge you with this....if you murder millions so that Christ can return, do you seriously think that he will be happy to see your hate-filled face and murderous claws before him, bowing and scraping for forgiveness, because you had to do what you had to do in order to summon him to you (indeed, as you would have taken it upon yourself to SUMMON him)? I would almost be willing to pay to see what would happen to you next...

"1) A couple of hundred thousand civilias dead;
2) Millions more ethnically cleansed;
3) The largest single massacre of civilian life in the European continent since WWII when thousands of Muslims were killed by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica in July, 1995."

So are you making the point that use of force as a last resort is not the best approach?

I think the big question is, why is Kristol taken seriously anymore? Really?

The guy is right about almost nothing. That, in itself, should exclude him any title of "expert" or "analyst". In almost any academic field, if someone is continuously wrong (and rarely correct) and does not have persuasive arguments, they inevitably lose their job. How many times does Kristol have to be wrong without being correct before he loses credibility.

I suppose the same applies for the current crop of Republicans. (I really do hold out hope for future, less politically cynical cohorts of GOP.)

cleek:

You have me curious now ...

Bob

ex-liberal: Number of casualties? No. We're experiencing relatively few casualties.

We do have the manpower to increase troops, if we wanted to. Kevin points out that we can't withdraw troops from Afghanistan. However, we could withdraw troops from other areas, such as South Korea, Germany, etc.

Actually the manpower situation has stretched the Army to its breaking point. That's why they've had to increase the percentage of cat IV's that are allowed to be recruited. This article by Fred Kaplan lays out the problem succinctly:

Then again, viewed from another angle, this would double the Army's least desirable soldiers. These are the soldiers that the Army has long shut out of its ranks; that it is now recruiting avidly, out of sheer desperation; and that—according to the military's own studies—seriously degrade the competence of every unit they end up joining.

this is not an army on the way up but one on the way to a disaster. we need more and smarter soldiers. not more Cat IVs. so far it is the willingness of these young men and women to serve, and to deploy multiple times, and to work grueling and dangerous 18 hour days 7 days a week that is the glue holding things together. all the cheap fixes have been used; all the one-time-only gains so beloved of legislators trying to balance a budget and get out of town.

Did I say they had their heads in the sand?

"If you seriously think that dropping "One Small Nuke" on Iran is going to somehow scare them into submission, I would very much doubt it. In fact, I would think it would do the opposite, inciting them to attack Israel and bring about the "end times war" that you are so dearly eager to see come to life."

If any Moslem power is actually capable of destroying Israel, it would have been done already.

"At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable."

I'd say it's at least questionable.

When cool heads like Holbrooke have no ready answer, it makes you even madder when the WaPo editorial page keeps nagging Dems to come up with their own plan.

Dammit, what part of FUBAR do they not get? BAR means Beyond All Repair. Think Humpty-Dumpty.

For god's sake, can't somebody paint faster?

ed

"Kristol ... displayed an appreciation of human nature and the realities of foreign affairs that a junior high school student would have gotten low marks for."

Sounds about right for a neocon.

Freedom fighter:
And how many neutron bombs are in our military's inventory? (A hint: same number as in your garage)
I see the appeal to folks like you; we get to sterilize the area of pesky "not like us" citizens and leave most of the oil intact without any inconvenience to the good old USA
Except for the blazing fires near the point of impact
Except for EMP fried electricals of the equipment
Oh, And the time needed to bury all that "collateral damage"
And the economic fall out after the US is declared an international pariah.

Iraq is the greatest demonstration of the brilliant geopolitical strategic greatness of the great GWB, and also France and the UN suck.

Now I'm going to drink a dozen cups of coffee and post the same thing, only this time using 1,000 words to say it.

Thomas1: I have no problem getting rid of Social Security and Medicare if the savings go into the military.

Hm... not sure that money is the answer to the Army's recruiting problem. Basically people who are not currently in the military don't want to die for this war, and the ones that are in and re-upping seem to be doing it out of loyalty to their units from the regimental level down.

Kristol is a fucking idiot.

So, Kevin, you want all the troops out tomorrow. I wonder why your candidate Lamont has now backed off and is saying "next July." Maybe he knows that the American people are not ready to give up on civilizing the middle east. Maybe he knows that that position will lose elections. Holbroke is submitting his resume to anti-war Democrats in hopes of being a Secretary of State someday. Diplomacy has had 50 years to solve the Palestinian problem. Now you have Jimmy Carter saying the Israelis are at fault for everything. I don't think that wins elections. There is an old definition of diplomacy. It is Diplomacy is saying "Nice doggie" while you look for a stick big enough. We need the stick now.

"And how many neutron bombs are in our military's inventory? (A hint: same number as in your garage)"

How long do you think it'll take to build one, or a dozen?

We do have the manpower to increase troops, if we wanted to. Kevin points out that we can't withdraw troops from Afghanistan. However, we could withdraw troops from other areas, such as South Korea, Germany, etc.

We already have withdrawn the ones we could from those areas, moron. They're either in Iraq, on their way to Iraq, or resting up from Iraq. Unless we're willing to degrade all other military assets worldwide for the sake of Iraq (and to what purpose would we want to do that?), then this is it.

Freedom Fighter,

For someone who introduced the concept of "The Neurton Bomb", you sure have a way with words by saying, "If any Moslem power is actually capable of destroying Israel, it would have been done already."

Absolutely right! Therefore, as you so eloquently state, there IS NO REAL THREAT TO ISRAEL...since as you so eloquently state, it would have been done already if they were able to do it. SO, setting all idiotic posturing aside (from ALL SIDES), this is the path to true peace:

1. The U.S. & Britain invite (honestly) the international community to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq and phase themselves (as the Empires) out and melt into the international rebuilding force. Remember that the international community was WILLING to initially help with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, but the Brits and U.S. Oilers and Bankers said NO WAY. The "go it alone" strategy in Iraq came DIRECTLY as a result of the U.S./Britain's unwillingness to "share the spoils" (as disgusting a term as that is, it's the truth). Therefore, if the U.S. and Britain did that (invited the international community, i.e. Russia, France, China, Germany, etc.) to participate in and profit from the rebuilding and training of the army, the following would happen:

a) The Iraqi people would no longer see the occupation as a British/U.S. Imperialist / Economic collusion, and diminish their hatred of the "occupation".
b) The Iraqi people would cooperate with an international rebuilding effort and begin to participate in their country's effort to renew itself.
c) Eventually the terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq would no longer be able to use the British/U.S. Imperialist occupation sell as a reason to recruit, and neither would the resistances since they would get PAYING JOBS and the REBUILT INFRASTRUCTURE they have asked for from the beginning...that is all these people want. They have not gotten it yet. An international force would ensure that these projects would actually be carried out instead of laden with fraud as the U.S. Contractor attempts have shown themselves to be.

2. Israel relaxes its dealings with the Palestinians and gives them what they want, knowing FULL WELL that in a couple of generations, through peaceful commerce and intermixing, those Palestinians will eventually become Israeli Palestinians (the same as there are now Israeli Arabs living in Israel) and all of that land in Israel will eventually be Israel anyway, but in a peaceful way. Instead of bulldozing Palestinian houses, Israel should help the Palestinians build houses and schools...and supply those schools with books that don't teach hate. Fight the problem through peace, not war.

These are just 2 very simple action items that any reasonable person can arrive at. I am no genious by any stretch of the imagination, so I can only assume that others in the international community have also the same feelings/desires. The only thing that I can therefore extract from the current state of affairs is that certain powers WANT IT THIS WAY. Therefore, we have to ask WHY do they want it the way it is, instead of doing what any reasonable person would do? Why?

All I can do in response is arrive at the True Axis of Evil that I have already outlined in my first post above.

Sadly but surely.

And I apologize for the long post...it is easy to say "kill em all"...much harder (and more work) to think of other, more HUMAN methods, since that is, what I believe, we are -- and how I believe we should act.

Thomas1,

Maybe, but that's not going to happen is it? So what's a realistic solution for keeping the Army from coming apart at the seams?

One small nuke is not going to destroy the entire Middle Eastern oil reserves -- see Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sayeth the fuckwit. Do you honestly believe nuclear weapons have any plausible utility in Southwest Asia? Just in case ya didn't know, Mecca isn't the capital of someplace called Islamofascistland -- so please don't wheeze the inane "We'll turn Mecca into glass!" chestnut.

I don't understand why Democrats - who are absolutely right about the total collapse of our current policy and our failure to create a functional government and/or basic security - say nothing afterwards except "something needs to change." Republicans paint "Cut and run" as a victory for the terrorists and ***no one challenges them.**

Frankly, ending our attempt to militarily destroy the Sunni insurgency and "cutting and running" are not the same thing. What we need to do is bargain an end to our FAILED COUNTERINSURGENCY against Sunni nationalists
--- in EXCHANGE for a Sunni-Shiite truce.

Major elements on all sides want us out of there. I guarantee that we could condition our depature/redeployment to kurdistan, to a truce.

But no one even thinks about negotiations in Iraq. Everyone assumes that since we're already there, we must be seriously negotiating. We're not.

Kevin, if you steal this idea, use my name, please.

I think the big question is, why is Kristol taken seriously anymore? Really?

I've been wondering that ever since he made his brilliant strategic observation that "We should lob a few bombs into Syria" to cut Iraqi insurgent supply lines. Kristol is simply irresponsible and intellectually void.

Closer to home, an analogous question is, does anyone in this comment thread take Thomas1 seriously? Looking through his remarks, I see that my description of Kristol applies to him, too.

Speaking as a Democrat, I do not want my party to be in favor of another evacuation a la Saigon embassy rooftop

Me neither; the only way to avoid that is to conduct an orderly withdrawal before the situation gets anywhere that bad. The time for that is now; later may be too late.

-- the U.S. should not abandon our hard-fought bases.

Were we liberating or conquering?

Thomas1,

A 3.1% increase is in line with what can be expected, a 30% increase isn't going to happen. So in terms of policy that actually can be adapted, what can be done?

I was talking about using nukes as a last resort in Iraq, not Saudia Arabia.

And you would use them where, exactly? Christ, you're even more goddam stupid than I thought!

I rambled - sorry. I just couldn't let what ex-liberal's remarks go unchallenged, and then I got on a roll. I've reread this post, and it jumps around ALOT, but I think it's a good one, so here you go -

ex-liberal,

In September, 2001, the U.S. Army had 33 manuever brigades\brigade equivalents. Two of them in Korea, five in Europe. Of those 33, 32 have been tapped for duty at some point in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Only one brigade in Korea has never been touched.

This description is complicated a bit by the fact that those 33 brigades are in the process of being reorganized into 42. However, there has been no real increase in troops, and the point is that there is only one brigade (in Korea) that has been untouchable. We could have built up ground forces in 2001/2002. But we didn't. All five of the briagdes assigned to European Command (EUCOM) in 2001 (a net of three have since moved back to the U.S.) have served in Iraq. The idea that there is some vast pool of soldiers in Germany that have never been to Iraq that could be used to support our efforts in Iraq appeals to conservatives\the Republican Party, presumably because it allows them to blame our support of Europe (insert comment about "them damn feriners" here) for the shortcomings of our efforts in Iraq. The problem is - it's not true.

Instead of taking a hard look at the basic choices Bush and Rumsfeld made about the structure of the military (on 9/12/2001, it was obvious manpower intensive ground operations were on the horizon, and there was time to build up - instead, we threw massive amounts of money at F-22s and the like), the Republican Party (my party, by the way) continues to demonstrate that, though it sits around patting itself on the back for it's supposed knowledge of defense matters, in many ways it is profoundly ignorant.

As for what to do going forward in Iraq - folks on both ends of the spectrum like to throw out the rhetoric of "constructive ideas" e.g. "So what should we do?". That's understandable, but misses part of the point. The point is, we went to war without understanding what the point of the war was. Our strategic goal is, apparently, an Iraq that is fundamentally decent, non-threatening, example to it's neighbors, etc. That's a massively ambitious goal, perhaps so ambitious and bloody that it's a terrible idea, but it's a valid goal, in the sense that we could have come up with a plan to achieve the goal. Instead, our President completely and totally failed to ensure that his Secretary of Defense was pursuing those ends. SecDef wanted cheap regime change and validation of his theories. Neither the President nor the SecDef are likely to see it that way, but it's an objective fact. As long as you fail to understand the nature of the conflict you're in - you're likely screwed no matter what you do (see Clausewitz). "Constructive suggestions" be damned.

Having said that, I'll make a couple of suggestions. First of all - the President can make his strategic goals for the Iraq mission clear - over and over - with a communications strategy to match. "Fighting them there so we don't fight them here" is politically convenient, but emphasizes attrition at the expense of counter insurgency. He can replace the current civilian leadership at the Pentagon with leaders who want the mission to succeed, who understand the strategic magnitude of the situation, and who understand the moral burden of their place in the chain of command, rather than treating Iraq as a warfighting lab, and their positions like they're merely riding herd on a corporate earnings conference call.

Operationally, you can continue to muddle through - our current strategy. Likely costs include a continued massive drain on U.S.\British\Coaltion resources, a relatively low number of continued U.S.\British casualties, and no likely strategic breakthrough. Benefits include some reduction to sectarian blood letting, with the possiblity of the eventual evolution of a decent situation.

You can withdraw. Either all the way or in a limited way, perhaps into Kurdish territory. That will appeal to many here. Understand though, the bloodshed that is likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to follow that will make what has happened so far look like a scraped knee. Furthermore, American power will be badly damaged, perhaps for a generation. That may appeal to the moral vanity of some here, but whether you realize it or not, American power can be a profound force for good in this world. Benefits include reduced committment of U.S.\British resources, reduced U.S.\British casualties, while retaining some, though reduced, influence on the situation.

Lastly, we can go for broke. Frederick Kagan describes one way to do this -

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23629/pub_detail.asp

Don't let the fact that it's coming from AEI put you off. His plan is oversimplified, but the approach is valid. Costs include higher casualties, both U.S. and Iraqi, near term increased committment of U.S. resources, albeit at a modest level, and the possiblity of imminent strategic failure. The principal benefit is the possibility of a strategic breakthrough, and the resolution, one way or another, or Iraq.

Double everyone's pay in the military and you won't have a recruitment problem.

Given that the increase in signing bonuses and other incentives has largely done that for new recruits, and yet a recruitment problem still exists, I don't see a lot of reason to believe that that's true.

Closer to home, an analogous question is, does anyone in this comment thread take Thomas1 seriously?

Of course not--everyone knows it's the same person who previously posted as Charlie and numerous other names. He doesn't even bother trying to hide his M.O., so it's kind of funny that he chooses to lie about it.
Sociopathic behavior.

here's the thing: why were Holbrooke and Kristol on like equals on opposite sides of the question? That is the first problem. Holbrooke where you like him or hate him is a career foreign service policy maker/diplomat and sometime banker. Kristol is a journalist -- at best -- who thinks he's a king-maker. I would raise this point, btw, if it was Kissinger and Kos. I hate Kissinger but really, Holbrooke should be debating Rice or someone. Kristol has nothing to do with anything but hot air. don't give him more air time for crissakes!

And you would use them where, exactly?

In the area around Baghdad and Tikriy, and East, South, North, and West of there, presumably.

You answer my question and I'll be more than happy to answer your question.

Classic Charlie

"Absolutely right! Therefore, as you so eloquently state, there IS NO REAL THREAT TO ISRAEL...since as you so eloquently state, it would have been done already if they were able to do it."

You can't fault the Moslems for not trying.

BTW: we don't need enhanced radiation ("neutron") bombs to protect 5 bases in Iraq effectively.

In that neither neutron bombs nor anything else is going to protect those bases, this is true.

I want our troops out now.
Their blood is spilling for nothing, and I don't like it.
Freedom...pfft, the Iraqi's are going to have to sort out their own problems, without the US acting as practice targets for their own sectarian war.
Pull the US out, now!
No damn bases, which means no damn targets for the insurgents and the jihadists to calibrate their artillery on.
It's time to stop!

You can withdraw. Either all the way or in a limited way, perhaps into Kurdish territory. That will appeal to many here. Understand though, the bloodshed that is likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to follow that will make what has happened so far look like a scraped knee.

The internal bloodshed in Iraq that is going to happen whether or not we withdraw is likely to dwarf what has happened already there.

Our withdrawing will not cause it; if it doesn't happen first, though, it will probably be caused by it.

What if the solution is in part to admit that the Bush administration invaded for venal reasons and to show some humility for the human suffering caused?

Perhaps the solution is about more or less troops. Maybe it's about taking the difficult but moral path.

Maybe it's a waste of time debating this "raise their pay 30%" canard, but let's try to rebut it as simply as possible.

People don't want to enlist right now because they know, if they do, chances are 99.9% they'll be quickly shipped to Iraq, where they stand far too great a chance of dying. Higher pay you won't live to receive is rather poor incentive.

I rambled - sorry. I just couldn't let ex-liberal's remarks go unchallenged, and then I got on a roll. I've reread this post, and it jumps around ALOT, but anyway -

ex-liberal,

In September, 2001, the U.S. Army had 33 manuever brigades\brigade equivalents. Two of them in Korea, five in Europe. Of those 33, 32 have been tapped for duty at some point in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Only one brigade in Korea has never been touched.

This description is complicated a bit by the fact that those 33 brigades are in the process of being reorganized into 42. However, there has been no real increase in troops, and the point is that there is only one brigade (in Korea) that has been untouchable. We could have built up ground forces in 2001/2002. But we didn't. All five of the briagdes assigned to European Command (EUCOM) in 2001 (a net of three have since moved back to the U.S.) have served in Iraq. The idea that there is some vast pool of soldiers in Germany that have never been to Iraq that could be used to support our efforts in Iraq appeals to conservatives\the Republican Party, presumably because it allows them to blame our support of Europe (insert comment about "them damn feriners" here) for the shortcomings of our efforts in Iraq. The problem is - it's not true.

Instead of taking a hard look at the basic choices Bush and Rumsfeld made about the structure of the military (on 9/12/2001, it was obvious manpower intensive ground operations were on the horizon, and there was time to build up - instead, we threw massive amounts of money at F-22s and the like), the Republican Party (my party, by the way) continues to demonstrate that, though it sits around patting itself on the back for it's supposed knowledge of defense matters, in many ways it is profoundly ignorant.

As for what to do going forward in Iraq - folks on both ends of the spectrum like to throw out the rhetoric of "constructive ideas" e.g. "So what should we do?". That's understandable, but misses part of the point. The point is, we went to war without understanding what the point of the war was. Our strategic goal is, apparently, an Iraq that is fundamentally decent, non-threatening, example to it's neighbors, etc. That's a massively ambitious goal, perhaps so ambitious and bloody that it's a terrible idea, but it's a valid goal, in the sense that we could have come up with a plan to achieve the goal. Instead, our President completely and totally failed to ensure that his Secretary of Defense was pursuing those ends. SecDef wanted cheap regime change and validation of his theories. Neither the President nor the SecDef are likely to see it that way, but it's an objective fact. As long as you fail to understand the nature of the conflict you're in - you're likely screwed no matter what you do (see Clausewitz). "Constructive suggestions" be damned.

Having said that, I'll make a couple of suggestions. First of all - the President can make his strategic goals for the Iraq mission clear - over and over - with a communications strategy to match. "Fighting them there so we don't fight them here" is politically convenient, but emphasizes attrition at the expense of counter insurgency. He can replace the current civilian leadership at the Pentagon with leaders who want the mission to succeed, who understand the strategic magnitude of the situation, and who understand the moral burden of their place in the chain of command, rather than treating Iraq as a warfighting lab, and their positions like they're merely riding herd on a corporate earnings conference call.

Operationally, you can continue to muddle through - our current strategy. Likely costs include a continued massive drain on U.S.\British\Coaltion resources, a relatively low number of continued U.S.\British casualties, and no likely strategic breakthrough. Benefits include some reduction to sectarian blood letting, with the possiblity of the eventual evolution of a decent situation.

You can withdraw. Either all the way or in a limited way, perhaps into Kurdish territory. That will appeal to many here. Understand though, the bloodshed that is likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to follow that will make what has happened so far look like a scraped knee. Furthermore, American power will be badly damaged, perhaps for a generation. That may appeal to the moral vanity of some here, but whether you realize it or not, American power can be a profound force for good in this world. Benefits include reduced committment of U.S.\British resources, reduced U.S.\British casualties, while retaining some, though reduced, influence on the situation.

Lastly, we can go for broke. Frederick Kagan describes one way to do this -

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23629/pub_detail.asp

Don't let the fact that it's coming from AEI put you off. His plan is oversimplified, but the approach is valid. Costs include higher casualties, both U.S. and Iraqi, near term increased committment of U.S. resources, albeit at a modest level, and the possiblity of imminent strategic failure. The principal benefit is the possibility of a strategic breakthrough, and something approaching a resolution, one way or another, of what the next ten years of Iraq will look like.

Given an absolutely awful situation, I vote for Kagan's plan, but it's a legitimitely close call. In response to the usual comeback from those on this board - I will be more than happy to go - and am already in a position to do so. I'll be sure and look for Al. HA!!!

"And you would use them where, exactly? Christ, you're even more goddam stupid than I thought!"

How about where Jihadists are churned out... like a mosque?

Correction:

Perhaps the solution isn't about more or less troops. Maybe it's about taking the difficult but moral path.

Freedom Fighter, are you advocating military action against Muslims coming or going from Mosques?

glasnost:

I agree that we should move the bulk of our forces into Kurdistan a la Holbrooke and Peter Galbraith, and I agree *in principle* to trying to a broker a deal to withdrawl in exchange for a Sunni/Shi'ite rapproachement.

But I don't think we have much to do at base with the grievences they have with each other, at least at this point. Pulling out of their areas can change the equation and perhaps take the pressure off the jihadi strategy of trying to spark a civil war because we're there -- but I doubt seriously if it's going alter the dynamic of alternating reprisal killings on anything like the scale it needs to be.

I think we need to argue for a strategic withdrawal from those areas based on what's best for US national security -- but I think the idea that we can make things better between the sectarian hatred is a dog that no longer hunts, sad as it might be in humanitarian terms to admit that.

Bob

Thomas1,

It's not a question of what I want; I think the military should invest way more in its people than it does in crap like the Osprey and the JTF fighter jet. It's a question of what's possible. Do you think a 20% pay increase is going to happen? I'd say there's about as much chance of that happening as there is of us pulling troops off the DMZ.

"Israel relaxes its dealings with the Palestinians and gives them what they want"

You mean the destruction of Israel?

"Palestinians will eventually become Israeli Palestinians (the same as there are now Israeli Arabs living in Israel)"

Palestinians used to be Israeli Arabs... I wonder how they came to become Palestinians...

Carl Nyberg:

Freedom Fighter is a troll just trying to yank our chains by saying the most provocatively Islamophobic things he can dream up.

Don't waste you time taking him seriously.

Bob

I too think that Lon Chaney and his ilk are part of the Axis of Evil. He just looks evil, and he killed those Germans to get those papers.

"Freedom Fighter, are you advocating military action against Muslims coming or going from Mosques?"

Is there a difference between those who come and those who go?

Freedom Fighters, your sad attempt at word play only shows your inability to deal with the real issues.

You made your point well. You are now dismissed, and may go and word play with the posts of others.

"Freedom Fighters, your sad attempt at word play only shows your inability to deal with the real issues."

Ummm, last I checked, the freedom loving Palestinians elected Hamas (who's stated goal is the destruction of Israel), to represent them.

Kevin: "[Bill Kristol's political analysis] displayed an appreciation of human nature and the realities of foreign affairs that a junior high school student would have gotten low marks for."

That's because the GOP has become a party of spoiled, well-connected C students who have inherited their respective positions in life, rather than earn them. Their cheap and easy rhetoric belies the fact that they have no real appreciation or understanding for the challenges that the average American faces on a daily basis.

It's not a fair comparison between them. Holbrooke is an experienced diplomat at the highest levels, Kristol is a propaganist, at most a "political analyst." Whoever booked the two together erred.

ther is no appreciable difference between electing hamas and electing likud.

... or voting repub, for that matter.

If there'a another 9/11-type attack, the military will not need another pay raise.
Posted by: Thomas1

but dems would gain the talking point that repubs are worthless pussies unable to keep us safe. ...

and it would reinforce the argument that after 8 yrs of repubs, the world, and america in particular, is demonstrably less safe because of failed repub policies ... such as letting osama go, lying about iraqi wmds, failing to keep the peace in iraq after having destroyed the country, and thus creating more terrorism worldwide.

military enlistment will be the least of your worries.

If there'a another 9/11-type attack, the military will not need another pay raise.

Posted by: Thomas1

What?! So your solution to the Army's current problems is to allow another 9/11 attack to happen so that we can get recruiting up again?

Ummm, last I checked, the freedom loving Palestinians elected Hamas (who's stated goal is the destruction of Israel), to represent them.

$%@#!*&$$#+>! democracy, huh? That freely expressed will of the people will get you every time....

Thomas1 on August 16, 2006 at 4:24 PM: We conquered Japan in WWII but in effect liberated that country.

In a comment section chock full of Thomas1 idiocy, this perhaps stands out as the most idiotic and ignorant of history...but I could be wrong; I feel that we haven't fully plumbed the depths of Thomas1's ignorance of the world outside his mother's basement...

If 'Shock and Awe' didn't cow anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, 'Shock-ier and Awe-ier' will fail as well. Call the neoconservative fascination with the use of nuclear weapons and expanded, hardcore military action in the Middle East what it is - the response of cowards to their failed attempt to establish a non-functional neoconservative reality.

Accept it; like many other areas of neoconservatism, Kristol's brand of foreign policy has utterly failed. Doubling down ain't gonna make him or anyone else a winner when the principles he's trying to apply are flawed in the first place.

Thomas1 on August 16, 2006 at 4:55 PM: If there'a another 9/11-type attack, the military will not need another pay raise.

Damn. I stand corrected; this comment is the most idiotic yet.

I'm probably still wrong...the day is still fairly young, after all.

That's because the GOP has become a party of spoiled, well-connected C students who have inherited their respective positions in life, rather than earn them. Their cheap and easy rhetoric belies the fact that they have no real appreciation or understanding for the challenges that the average American faces on a daily basis.

It is kinda remarkable how many of the nationally prominent right-wingers owe their position to their parents' pull, isn't it? Bush, Kristol, Podhoretz, Lowry, Goldberg, surely others whose names I can't recall..... All their chest-thumping and kneejerk calls for "tough" actions seems to spring from insecurities as much as any consistent ideology.

Damn. I stand corrected; this comment is the most idiotic yet.

I'm probably still wrong...the day is still fairly young, after all.

Thing to do is ignore him. He's a twit.

Hezbollah is showing up the US something fierce the way it is helping the Lebanese rebuild. They help individuals while the US builds bases. Hmm, pretty humanistic to me.

I agree this was Kristol's lamest appearance I've ever seen, and it illustrates how on-the-ropes we who supported this war are at this point.

Thomas1: One of you asked "Do you think a 20% pay increase is going to happen?" To which I responded: "If there'a another 9/11-type attack, the military will not need another pay raise." Of course, I don't WANT that to happen, but it was in response to your hypothetical that pay raises cannot be handed out. Also, 9/11 happened less than 5 years ago -- what is the reference to 8 years?

No reference to 8 years, don't know what you're talking about. The hypothetical isn't that pay can't be increased; the hypotetical was your idea that we could have an unprecedented 20-30% pay increase by axing Social Security and or Medicare.

The validity and usefullness of a solution is directly related to whether it is any way possible to implement said solution. Your hypothetical pay increase is a fantasy. Since you aren't suggesting anything that has a chance in hell of being implemented, I have to assume that you don't really care about what's happening to the Army. Good to know.

More Americans die every day in traffic accidents than have died in Iraq. Do you really want to start comparing occupational death rates?

And, of course, since we've invaded Iraq all those deadly traffic accidents have magically stopped! That's why Americans are dying over there so they won't have to die over here....

ThomasWorld -- where building "secret" military bases by outside contractors for an occupying power trumps the construction of schools, clinics and the disbursement of funds to rebuild one's home and businesses ....

Bob

Of course it does not "have a chance in hell" of passing since we are too busy throwing good Democrats like Joe Lieberman overboard.

What's the connection between him and doing away with Medicare and Social Security as a means of financing a 20-30% pay increase for the military? Does Lieberman have the power to jump over tall buildings in a single bound too?

Enlisted base pay (per month) E-1 with less than 4 months of service = $1178.10 or $14,137.20. Current Army enlistment bonuses range from $1,000 to $6,000 for a 2-year enlistment period

Yes, for a two-year enlistment period. The maximum for a four year period was recently doubled from $20,000 to $40,000, at the same time the maximum for a three year bonus was increased from $6,000 to $40,000. But I did't just refer to increases in signing bonuses, but to other incentives as well, which have also increased (seasonal "quick ship" bonuses increased from $7,000 to $15,000 for a three-year or longer enlistment from 2004 to today), "civilian skills" bonus has increased this year from $3,000 to $5,000, prior education bonus which didn't exist before 2004 of up to $8,000 depending on education and irrespective of MOS; there are other incentive increases as well.

And, sure, some of these are limited to particular MOS's—the ones where the Army has the most trouble meeting its needs! So, quite relevance to the utility of throwing more money at people to solving recruiting problems.

So, no, that is not equal to a 100% pay raise across the board.

Its quite possible, today, for someone in one of those categories where the recruiting problems are the most acute, with no prior military experience, for a three-year enlistment, to be eligible for around $50,000 or more in incentives that they would not have been eligible for had they enlisted two years ago. Spread out over the three years of enlistment, that's a bit less than 100% increase, but not vastly less. And still the Army has recruiting problems, and still concentrated in those areas where the maximum incentives have been applied.

Forget a pay increase. I was in in '80 when Carter managed to get a 11% pay increase through and it didn't help the manpower situation one bit. The other thing to remember is that while republican congresses are great about overall military spending they are historically very stingy with pay increases.
The only way we're going to be able to stay in Iraq for longer than another year is to reinstate the draft. And there is no way that the chicken hawks who got us into this mess are going to sit still for their precious little larva being sent off to a land that they only wanted to rob to die.

More Americans die every day in traffic accidents than have died in Iraq.

More Americans are in traffic every day than are in Iraq, too; less, proportionally, of those in traffic die each day than of those in Iraq.

Do you really want to start comparing occupational death rates?

Sure, as long as you do it right, by looking at the ratio of deaths of people engaging in an activity to the total number of people engaging in that activity, rather than just looking at the second number in isolation.

Thomas1, When you propose eliminating Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for the military are you also proposing eliminateing the payroll taxes that are levied specifically to pay for them? If so that would be a net loss. If not, then you proposing stealing from every working American in order to fund your fascist wetdream.
WHICH IS IT, BOY?

The U.S. has spent more helping individuals in Iraq than Hezbollah ever will in Lebanon

Yes, but the issue is doing more for people, not spending more by fattening Halliburton's bottom line to do less;

The connection is that any Democrat supporting SUCCESS in Iraq will be thrown overboard too. If Lieberman can survive this latest attempt on his political life, don't be surprised if he pulls a Jeffords and votes to privatize Social Security ; )

Well now you're yoking pure supposition to an erroneous cause and effect argument that supports your predetermined position on Lieberman.

This seems like a good point to note that where we started was with ex-liberal's assertion that they were no manpower problems in the military(demonstrably false given recruitment shortfalls). So let's try and get back on topic: do you have any workable solutions for the recruitment problems the Army is currently experiencing?

I don't believe ex-liberal asserted "there are no manpower problems in the military" -- in fact, he / she specifically gave one possible solution for the problem -- I've given another one. If we get up to some magic number of possible solutions, when will you admit there's at least ONE possible solution?

No. What you've given is some BS that can't be implemented. When don't we just wave the magic faery wand and make evverything in Iraq better? That's as realistic a solution as your idea about chopping Social Security and Medicare.

Thomas:

If the media "wants us to fail in Iraq," then where do you get *your* information?

Hezbollah's doing a much better job, which much more gratitude from the people its helping, than the US ever has a prayer of doing in Iraq -- and damn the aggregate numbers.

Hebollah's infrastructure projects only get blown up by Israel, not the Lebanese themselves ...

Bob

Good article on this...........from Jeff Huber

Billy Kristol's Balls:

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/7/16/13392/8957

US traffic deaths in 2004: 42,636
Deaths per day = about 117
US deaths in Iraq = 2,604

Statistical troll:reality ratio = 22.3

C'mon folks, a little reality check: given that every word that this troll is says is unreliable -- including "and" and "the" -- why buy into his framework and construct arguments around his falsehoods? I mean, a moment's thought to his claim that "[m]ore Americans die every day in traffic accidents than have died in Iraq" should have made you realize that he's suggesting nearly a million people die each year in traffic accidents.

The only way we're going to be able to stay in Iraq for longer than another year is to reinstate the draft. And there is no way that the chicken hawks who got us into this mess are going to sit still for their precious little larva being sent off to a land that they only wanted to rob to die.

Spot on iaintbacchus.

And yeah, getting more money for the military would really mean more money for nuclear subs, whizbang Airforce crap and the like. The grunts are the last to benefit (i.e. the whole Dragon Skin armor debacle).

charlie's little facade of being a dem is slipping. ... I guess there's only so long he can go without revealing fascist tendancies.

or, he's just really stupid and inept.

I am all in favor of the Dem party throwing overboard the mathematically illiterate.

I'm a Reagan Democrat -- are you throwing us overboard too?
Posted by: Thomas1

along with reagan, yes.

reagan dems are scared white people who became concerned when the dems began giving a voice to minorities and women. I have little tolerance for your type.

and why identify with the senile ignoramus who empowered and armed saddam and helped form the taliban to begin with. ... siding with the orginator of the inevitible blowback seems ... well ... stupid.

Before I keep giving you more possible solutions, I'll ask again -- if we get up to some magic number of possible solutions, when will you admit there's at least ONE possible solution? The next defense appropriation bill could easily restrict $100 billion for pay increases -- getting Congressmen to vote for it would not be impossible -- I think it is shortsighted to take even more away from the Joint Strike Fighter, etc. though

But you haven't shown me one possible solution; you've shown unworkable solutions. Show me a possible solution. Or explain why any number of unworkable solutions should substitute for one workable solution. Also, why do we need the JSF and the F-22? As hotrod points out upthread, more money for the Generals toys was not the right answer.

Also, comparing the raw traffic fatalities from a population of ~300MM with the raw KIA's of a population of ~123M as anything other than a percentage is just silly.

The death rate in Iraq is orders of magnitude higher than that for traffic fatalities.

Also, comparing the raw traffic fatalities from a population of ~300MM with the raw KIA's of a population of ~123M as anything other than a percentage is just silly.

Yep. Brit Hume tried the same retarded game back in 04, and thoroughly had his ass waxed.

Yep. Brit Hume tried the same retarded game back in 04, and thoroughly had his ass waxed.

And rightly so. These people who "support the troops" by asking us to "stay the course" (sorry I meant "adapt to win"), are the same ones who minimize the danger and sacrifice that our troops are being asked to undertake. What wankers. I think Rove did the same thing on his website.

I'm just talking about the AMERICAN TROOP death rate though.

Uh yeah, me too. It's still orders of magnitude higher than traffic fatalities. I calculate about 70 times higher so the equivalent of ~2.9MM deaths in the general populace.

Karl Rove has a website? I thought he just faxed out daily talking-points?

Sorry, meant Rush Limbaugh. Fat, jingoistic, white guys who never served in uniform, so many of them it's hard to keep track.
; )

Also, why do we need the JSF and the F-22? As hotrod points out upthread, more money for the Generals toys was not the right answer.

Because someday, aliens will invade, and we have to keep feeding the Aerospace Engineers with work, otherwise we won't know how to build Flying Saucer Interceptors.

Because someday, aliens will invade, and we have to keep feeding the Aerospace Engineers with work, otherwise we won't know how to build Flying Saucer Interceptors.

Best explanation I've ever heard....

"American power will be badly damaged, perhaps for a generation. That may appeal to the moral vanity of some here, but whether you realize it or not, American power can be a profound force for good in this world."

In an otherwise very good and thoughtful post, you wrong those of us who want a semi-immediate withdrawal. We don't want this out of some misplaced "moral vanity--we want it because we don't believe that anything definable as a "victory" can result from our occupation of Iraq, not at any price the country can or should be prepared to pay.

The damage to American power was inflicted by the decision to start a war with, as you point out, inadequate resources, no plan and no strategic goal, not to mention our complete disregard of all the principles of international law the US has supported since the end of WW II.

Every day that passes without our committing to a quick withdrawal from Iraq coumpounds the damage to American power. By staying in Iraq, we are running an unreasonable risk of acheiving, not victory, but defeat on a larger scale.

We need to cut our losses and get out.

Freedom Fighter posted:

"How about where Jihadists are churned out... like a mosque?"i

Thomas1 posted:

"One small nuke is not going to destroy the entire Middle Eastern oil reserves -- see Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

As others have pointed out, using nukes would only serve to inflame the situations in the Middle East even further. You have little understanding of human nature, and particularly of the situations over there, if you seriously believe that nuking them would result in some sort of “shock and awe” so that they would throw up their hands and accede to our superior fire power.

And a MOSQUE, for God’s sake! (Or I should say for Allah’s sake.)

Guys, try for once to put yourselves in their place. If, say, the Chinese were to invade the U.S., overthrow our government, impose one of their own design, build multitudinous bases, etc., etc., what would be your reaction? Would you be thankful to them? Would you recognize their “superior” wisdom? I seriously doubt it. You and I and most Americans would be doing guerrilla warfare in any way that we could, right?

And that is part of the reason that our current methods in the Middle East are failing and will continue to fail.

thomas1: Double everyone's pay in the military and you won't have a recruitment problem.

"The Army spent approximately $426 million on reenlistment bonuses in fiscal year 2005 or almost 8 times more than its budgeted amount to meet its retention goals."

- gao.gov

calton bolick: I mean, a moment's thought to his claim that "[m]ore Americans die every day in traffic accidents than have died in Iraq" should have made you realize that he's suggesting nearly a million people die each year in traffic accidents.

for perspective...

i read somewhere that....

that the 50k deaths in iraq so far..given their population (about 25-million)

would equal proportionately to

nearly 600,000 deaths in america given its 300-million pop.)

World War II
292,131 Combat fatalities

Days after bombing Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered to U.S. forces: 1,365

Days since September 11, 2001 that Osama bin Laden has remained uncaptured: 1750+

Thomas1:

"Speaking as a Democrat, I do not want my party to be in favor of another evacuation a la Saigon embassy rooftop -- the U.S. should not abandon our hard-fought bases."

What purpose do you see these bases serving? I see them as continued irritants to the Iraqis.

"We conquered Japan in WWII but in effect liberated that country (see also, U.S. military bases in Japan)."

A HUGE difference, which I have yet to see any apologists for this clusterfuck of a war to acknowledge, is that Japan was the aggressor in WWII, and WE are the aggressor in Iraq.

Yes, we did defeat Japan, and I submit that part of the reason for that defeat is that many people don’t really like knowing that they are aggressors, and they won’t fight to the death as aggressors. This is obviously not true of all people; kamikazi pilots were willing to die and did so. But the general, non-military population is much less likely to continue to fight and is more willing to surrender, when they know that they are the aggressors, rather than the defenders against some other power’s aggression.

Also, we had a reputation for treating our enemies in a relatively humane way in WWII. I don’t think that reputation can be presumed to be the case now.

Japan also had some previous history of representative government, something lacking in Iraq’s history.

"The U.S. has spent more helping individuals in Iraq than Hezbollah ever will in Lebanon -- $592 million for one of our bases is a drop in the bucket -- just because the Arab ur, I mean New York Times refuses to print that fact doesn't mean it's not true."

1. I hardly think that a base is going to be considered equivalent to humanitarian aid such as giving groceries to a family, or making sure that they get medical care, two things which Hezbollah does regularly. In fact, a base is likely to be regarded with high disfavor amongst the occupied populace.

2. The fact that we have built some schools or hospitals (and they seem to be getting destroyed just about as fast as they are built), is simply the LEAST we could do. Remember, we invaded them. We can’t count building hospitals/schools as some sort of huge charitable effort for which we should receive great thanks and obeissance.

3. While our dollar amount surely exceeds that of Hezbollah considerably, I wonder what the equivalent amount per capita spent is, comparing U.S. population with the numbers of people in Hezbollah.

4. Hezbollah are Lebanese. They are native. They aren’t the invaders, they’re part of the people they’re helping. We are the INVADERS, the aliens, the other. And that’s the biggest difference.

Thomas1, you are mental. And stop "speaking as a Democrat" - cause you aren't one.

Funny how some trolls and neocons are so eager to offer up the nuclear option to eliminate those crazy, unbalanced, endtimes lovin',Muslims because they don't trust Muslims not to eliminate Israel.

OK, maybe it's not so funny.

Thomas1, the highest figure I can see for US forces in theater in Iraq are ~214,000 during the invasion (US troop strength in the occupation phase has fluctuated around 120-150k IIRC.) But lets use the high figure for troop strength, and your 744/year -- that gives a death rate of just over 347 per 100,000.

Which is why, cmdicely, I'm thinking now that the total number of U.S. servicemen all around the world would be a more accurate comparison

Nope. If you use anything other than the number of troops in theatre for comparison to KIA's in theatre that's a distortion. Killed In Action only applies in theatres of combat. In the same way that only the troops who have been in combat can wear a patch on their right shoulder, only the troops deployed in Iraq should be under consideration.

PS: Didn't mean you were minimizing the danger; I was refering to Limbaugh, Hume, and anyone else who knowingly understates the danger for purposes of political expediancy.

"the highest figure I can see for US forces in theater in Iraq are ~214,000 during the invasion (US troop strength in the occupation phase has fluctuated around 120-150k IIRC.) But lets use the high figure for troop strength, and your 744/year -- that gives a death rate of just over 347 per 100,000."

I think this calculation overstates the death rate, because it doesn't take into account the rotation of troops in and out of Iraq. The number of troops who served in Iraq in the course of the year in which 744 were killed would be considerably greater than the number of troops in Iraq on a particular day--although how much greater, I confess I have no idea.

Looking at casualty rates rather than death rates might be more to the point, however--I doubt it's much incentive to enlistment to know that medical technology has made great strides in keeping the horribly injured alive . . .

More Americans die every day in traffic accidents than have died in Iraq. Thomas1 at 5:29 PM

Number of American motorists killed by IED? None. Number of American motorists killed by RPG? None. Number of American motorists killed by snipers? Perhaps a score. Number of American lives worth losing in a trade for Saddam Hussein? None. Number of Republican hawks fighting in the war zone? None. Number of Strawmen from Chuckles? Way too many.

rea,

You make a fair point. A small part of my first post got cut off - it didn't affect the substance, but did say something to the effect of the decision to go or stay being a "legitimitely close call". If you've seriously considered the consequences and believe that the "get out" option is the most likely to save the most lives and promote a less negative outcome, then more power to you, though we disagree. I do think there are those who have reflexively taken a U.S. out of Iraq position, simply because they're quite legitimitely angry over how we went in. But I don't mean to tar the entire, or even majority left, or any other group, with that view.

Hotrod:

You seem to like the intellectual side of things. Here's a challenge for you: why will sectarian killing increase when we leave Iraq?

Don't just say "of course sectarian killing will increase". Of course, as I think you'd agree, is a bullsh*t argument. It's conventional wisdom of the lamest kind. What's the actual logic behind it?

I have a lot of causal relatioships that suggest that sectarian killing won't increase.

They are:

1) We are having minimal or no suppresant effect on Shiite behavior already.

2) leading Sunni militant have explicitly stated that they are fighting until the US leaves. Why wouldn't they? We inflate Shiite power well beyond its natural state.

3) Most civil wars in the 20'th century have burned on by a factor of 2 or 3 times longer than they would have due to the proxy contest of regional and superpowers. This is more observation than strict causation, but I believe it.

4) Just listening to Moktada Al-Sadr, who led some wildly popular pro-Hizballah rallies recently, makes it quite obvious that Shiites want us out, even if it's to their military loss. They want it. That gives us leverage.

What is your genuinely spelled out causal relationships as to why sectarian fighting increases when we leave? What gloves are left to take off?

Thomas, it doesn't matter one fucking iota how much greater or lesser US deaths rates are relative to previous historical occupations when we are not doing one fucking iota of good for anyone there, nor benefitting ourselves.

If you put a tenth of the energy you put into arguing the righteousness of our cause into taking a serious look at the outcomes of our righteous actions to date, you'd be a changed man.

Glasnost,

I'm on EST, so I'll try and reply tomorrow.

Thomas:

You misunderstood my point about bombing in Iraq. And the part about bombing a mosque was actually in response to Freedom Fighter, whom I quoted just above your quote.

The reason I said shock and awe is that this has been used as a raison d'etre for bombing, conventional or nuclear. In other words, this is supposed to so intimidate the Iraqis that they lay down their arms and surrender. My point is that I don't think that this will happen.

Not to mention that I believe that bombing, especially nuclear bombing, is wrong in and of itself because of the number of people killed. Just as I think war is wrong for the same reason. I'm not saying never go to war but it really should be used as a very last resort which was hardly the case with this war in Iraq.

And I don't care if the bombing would be used to protect bases. That doesn't justify it. It still kills innocent people.

In fact, that brings up the issue of intent. A lot of people have tried to justify Israel's bombings in Lebanon because they supposedly didn't target civilians whereas Hezbollah's bombings supposedly did. Who cares? It's results that count. Both bombed places with civilians and both killed civilians. That's wrong regardless of stated intent. Moreover, the Israelis killed about 10 times the number that Hezbollah killed. Not that that makes what Hezbollah did right. Both sides are wrong.

And as for your postings about more people dying in traffic, again, how is this relevant? As long as we have traffic, because we want to get from point A to point B, we'll have traffic deaths. Sure, they can be reduced, and vigorous campaigns against drunk driving have reduced deaths in recent years. But traffic is a necessity until we invent teleportation. War isn't a necessity. Those deaths in Iraq are unnecessary deaths.

It would be nice if you would quit dragging in irrelevancies but I guess you can't help yourself. And you probably have no clue as to how lame you make yourself look.

And you probably have no clue as to how lame you make yourself look.
Posted by: Wolfdaughter

And you obviously have no idea how lame you look arguing with a troll.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itself a sign of weakness. Of course we should be willing to　据中国日报特稿 美国前总统克林顿在黑人中曾拥有很高的支持率，因此在卸任后才会把办公室安置在黑人文化重镇、纽约哈莱姆区，并在入驻当天受到盛大欢迎。 "> talk di　【提要】为了向中国“渗透”，盘踞在“金新月”的国际贩毒集团近两年越来越多地采用搭乘国际航班的贩毒方式 ">rectly to Syria and Iran, rather than leaving the j　　新华社北京7月25日电 中国外交部副部长杨洁篪25日与安提瓜和巴布达、巴哈马国、巴巴多斯、多米尼克国、格林纳达、圭亚那合作共和国、牙买加、圣卢西亚、苏里南共和国、特立尼达和多巴哥共和国的代表在北京举行了中国和加勒比建交国外交部间第三次磋商。 ">ob to thir

I think this calculation overstates the death rate, because it doesn't take into account the rotation of troops in and out of Iraq.

It understates it because it uses the peak troop presence in the invasion, rather than the much lower average troop strength. And rotation doesn't matter to an annualized death rate, which is properly the mean troop strength over the total deaths for a year.

Rotation, of course, may reduce (or increase, if the deployment extends beyond 1 year) the total risk to an individual soldier, but that's not an annual rate.

thomas1: you never did answer whether your comparison of days after bombing Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered to U.S. forces to days since September 11, 2001 means you think we should have dropped a couple nukes in this war too.

so the only inference you get from the following is....

Days after bombing Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered to U.S. forces: 1,365

Days since September 11, 2001 that Osama bin Laden has remained uncaptured: 1750+

that nukes would fix that?

so tom....is it your contention that bush using nukes is the only thing keeping america from victory?

thomas1: you never did answer whether your comparison of days after bombing Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered to U.S. forces to days since September 11, 2001 means you think we should have dropped a couple nukes in this war too.

so the only inference you get from the following..

Days after bombing Pearl Harbor that Japan surrendered to U.S. forces: 1,365

Days since September 11, 2001 that Osama bin Laden has remained uncaptured: 1750+

..is that nukes would fix that?

thomas1....is it your contention that the only thing keeping america from victory is that bush hasn't used nukes?

fascinating...