Cue Randy Newman:

"Let's drop the big one and see what happens..."

Has there even been any incidents of our troops being hurt by their rules of engagement?

It's not like Korea where we decided not to bomb the Chinese troops before they entered the war; or like Vietnam where we pretended to abide by country borders while anyone on the ground just skipped merrily wherever they needed to go...

In fact, from the Iraqi point of view, it seems out rules of engagement are a bit lax - we pound houses and people into the dirt on little or no evidence, and certainly no recompense.

Yeah, that's it. It was those liberal generals in the Pentagon who lost this war, by insisting that it would be a bad idea to kill civilians while trying to create democratic institutions.

What IS disturbing is this rising drumbeat to just kill more Iraqis. That if the US escalates and just shoots a whole lot more people, then things will get better.

There are, at this point, three options. Side with the Shiites, side with the Sunnis or leave. The first two options would entail making the US party to genocide and ethnic cleansing. That the fight is not about that, but about whether it's worse to piss off the Saudis (Baker's side with the Sunni argument) or support the eventual winners (which seems to be the White House view), is really, really appalling. It shows no respect for human life, and no respect for American values. (Oh,okay, never mind about the Native American thing, and that slavery business. You know what I mean.)

The problem is that the military is good at fighting armies, especially run-down, disorganized and demoralized ones like Saddam's.

But it doesn't take a genius to see that "if it moves, shoot it" won't help secure the civilian population of a country. The military is bad at that job.

Today we've had an admission from the Commander in chief that we're not winning.

A resignation would be appropriate.

The arguement that it's the rules of enagagement and not the nature of the engagement is just intentionally conflating causes with correlations in an attempt to shift blame. The Army and the Marines are really good at breaking stuff and killing people, which isn't the sole criteria for how you succeed in fighting a war like the one in Iraq. Thus its easy, and appealing for the people who got us into this mess, to blame the tactics instead of their own strategy, or the lack thereof.

There were huge strategic blunders that are to blame for the current conditions in Iraq, starting with going there in the first place. Then we went too light (because the adminstration had to lie about the scope of the war to bamboozle the American public), and from those bad premises, we've gone swiftly down hill. The triumph of politics over sound strategy has brought us to where we are now.

The wingnuts are right. Take Israel in the Palestinian territories...whatever their "rules of engagement" supposedly are, the IDF is certainly less "hamstrung" than our soldiers. And look how well it's turned out for Israel -- quick decisive victory! Um, right?

What this doesn't quite take into account is the fact that by doing these actions, by changed our rules of engagement, we will more likely than not succeed in making our troops less safe. Not to mention that in an insurgency, the only path to victory in through the "hearts and minds" of the locals. Somehow, I'm skeptical that killing MORE of them will achieve any kind of lasting peace except the peace of the dead.

It is also a narrative, which allows the wingnuts to completely bypass any recollection of the extent to which we are in this mess, because of the Administration's failure to BUILD (not destroy) Iraq.

It was the failure to provide security in the initial occupation, the failure to secure Saddam's massive stockpiles of munitions, the failure to keep the already trained Iraqi Army intact and to use it to maintain order, which allow the insurgency to get started.

And, it was the utter failure of the Reconstruction to build the infrastructure -- electricity, water, sewage treatment -- necessary to a functioning economy, which left more than half Iraq unemployed and hopeless.

But, an acknowledgement of those failures, shades of Katrina, would be to draw attention to the heckuva job Bush has done in Iraq.

No, we would not want to draw attention to the millions Cheney has made on his Halliburton options, or the billions diverted to the 100,000 contractors in Iraq . . . much better to blame the Iraqis, and complain that 100,000 to 600,000 we've killed so far, have just not been enough to "finish the job".

The PNAC strategic objective in Iraq was a permanent U.S. presence, assuring U.S. hegemony in the Persian Gulf.

But, building a strong Iraq was not compatible with that objective, because a strong Iraq would ask the U.S. to leave.

So, instead Bush created a weak Iraq, so weak that it could not hold together.

wait, the GOP has been in complete control for six years and they haven't bothered fixing these horribly broken RsOE ? typical Republican failure.

The revised ROE came about because of this Admin's lack of clear ROE in the first place, which created the situations at Abu Graib and the like, resulting in a more intense insurgency.

If winning the GWOT is truly a battle of hearts and minds, then the current conservative view on this is more evidence they are simply unwilling to learn.

It never takes much effort to convince wingnuts to kill MORE scary-looking nonwhites.

Matthew Yglesias covered this recently, making the point that there is an inescapable trade-off between rules of engagement that maximize troop safety vs ones that help stabilize an invaded country.

All we need to do is demonstrate to the suicide bombers that we're not afraid to hurt them.

I guess it would be bad form to point out that the rules of engagement allow us to kill anyone we feel is a threat to us. And i mean anyone!

This is just to soften the public up for when our "embedded" advisers are with a group of iraqi soldiers that brutalizes another group of Iraqis. Innoculation against atrocities to come.

The wingnuts are right. A big pile of neutron bombs would fix the problem in a hurry.

I think Farley is paranoid. The ROE came from the military. Questioning the ROE is reasonable and appropriate, since we're losing in Iraq despite our overwhelming military advantage.

I think the US and the West have a serious problem, not just with ROE, but with tactics in general. When we're fighting insurgents, who use ruthless guerilla tactics against innocent civilians, it's urgent that we defeat them. However, it's not acceptible that we descend to their level of barbarity. How can our warfare methods be both civilized and effective?

Absolute bullshit.

Bushies were given free reign to change the rules of engagement anytime they wanted. If it was a pragmatic necessity to do so, then the ONLY explanation that they did not, is incompetence, because there was nobody in any kind of position of power to dissent.

This was 100% Bush's war. He was given absolute power, and he proved he's an absolute fuckup.

One way or another, conservatives are going to find a way to blame the Iraq disaster on liberals.

You're wrong, Kevin.

The wingnuts will blame the disaster on liberals, the Iraqis, the military, the media, gays, immigrants, unwed mothers, global warming (ok maybe *not* global warming), and anything and everything else but themselves and their own failed policies.

That's what happens when you put two-year olds in charge.

The wingnuts are right. A big pile of neutron bombs would fix the problem in a hurry.

Forward back to Vietnam.

...A legacy of the Vietnam War was that rules of engagement had come to be viewed chiefly as constraints on the employment of military force. The more historically correct view--and the one that is in ascendancy--maintains that in peacetime these rules dictate the circumstances under which hostile forces may be engaged and, at a minimum, authorize a commander to employ force as a matter of preemptive self-defense in response to the imminent threat of force. In wartime, they should not unduly impede the effective use of force.

Rules of engagement are not the same as the law of armed conflict. These rules are directives that the US imposes on its own military forces to govern the employment of firepower. The law of armed conflict, however, is binding on all nations and their armed forces.13

One way or another, conservatives are going to find a way to blame the Iraq disaster on liberals. I imagine they'll keep floating one theory after another until they finally find one that sticks.

The conservatives are definitely going to blame liberals for the Iraq disaster. They began doing so months ago; their efforts have accelerated since the ISG report.

If the Democrats do not launch and sustain a vigorous counter-attack against this propaganda, it will be accepted as true by the 2008 elections, 2012 at the latest.

The solution for Democrats is to conduct thorough, tedious and unrelenting investigations into the whole post-9/11 GWOT scam: Homeland Security, Afghanistan, Iraq and all related matters. It will be difficult. The Bush/Cheney Junta will fight them all the way. The corporate press/media, who are all complicit in this, will fight them all the way. But they have to do it anyway. The people will back them up, but only if they stay with it.

I do not have any illusions. I fully expect a "let's move on" attitude from the Democratic leadership. They, too, bear responsibility for this disaster.

I was pretty sure Iraq would be a failure all along but the idea that we could stumble through the looking glass into WWIII hadn't occurred to me till a couple of months ago.

alex: The wingnuts are right. A big pile of neutron bombs would fix the problem in a hurry.

Since the advantage of neutron bombs over standard nuclear weapons is they have a lower ratio of blast to radiation, so they kill people without damaging the landscape as much, and since the landscape is pretty well destroyed anyway, why should we bother with them? The extra radiation would just make it take longer before it would be safe for us to go in and spread salt on the soil. Standard nukes will work just fine in this situation, and God will know his own.

What IS disturbing is this rising drumbeat to just kill more Iraqis. That if the US escalates and just shoots a whole lot more people, then things will get better.

jayackroyd

This is, when all is said and done, the fundamental tenet of the War Party's ideology.

And it is popular with many Americans because they equate killing people with strength. Any reluctance to do so is weakness. This is a deeply embedded belief in Americans' minds.

It's worked so well for the Israelis that it is no wonder that Americans belief it will work in Iraq.

Actually anandine, IIRC radiation from neutron bombs dissapates much quicker then that of our regular arsenal. That was one of the selling points.

However, it's not acceptible that we descend to their level of barbarity. How can our warfare methods be both civilized and effective?
Posted by: ex-liberal

The way to do this is not to use the military as a fix-all tool for the complicated, multifaceted set of problems we face in Iraq. The emphasis can't only be on warfare. That's why the JoCS are saying that they don't want to "surge" troops and they want to increase the emphasis on other dimensions like reconstruction and relief. Whether it's too late or not for this is another issue...

Keith G - The Neutron bomb was doubly insidious - it would kill all vertebrate life in the area, while leaving infrastructure intact. The radiation would dissipate quickly and then the area could be occupied, devoid of all previous inhabitants.

*except the cockroaches.

This was 100% Bush's war. He was given absolute power, and he proved he's an absolute fuckup.

And basically, that's all there is to it.

In my Cold War time, it was "If it moves, salute it; if it doesn't move, paint it"

So, the new war time rule is "If it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't move, paint it, but call in a DoD PR team to show it on Pat Robertson's News Hour.

and therefore certain Republicans.

I have been trying to determine how, if we knew in 1999 that we would need at least 300,000 more troops going in than we launched this merry fuck-up with; how how the hell are we going to stabilize the place now, three and a half years later, with an additional 30,000? I can't make this equation balance, even using theoretical math.

cyntax: The way to do this is not to use the military as a fix-all tool for the complicated, multifaceted set of problems we face in Iraq. The emphasis can't only be on warfare. That's why the JoCS are saying that they don't want to "surge" troops and they want to increase the emphasis on other dimensions like reconstruction and relief. Whether it's too late or not for this is another issue...

That could be right, cyntax, but we've done an enormous amount of reconstruction and relief. I can think of few wars in all of history where the victor has spent so much on reconstruction and relief. It's hard for me to believe that we can win the war if we just do a bit more reconstruction.

In my view, the key to success is convincing the Iraqi people that our side will prevail. Our failures have been military and diplomatic IMHO. We haven't killed or captured enough enemy fighters and leaders. We haven't stopped support from coming in over the border from Iran and Syria. We haven't stopped funding of insurgents from Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying I know how to fix these things, but ISTM we need an approach that will be effective in these areas.

This just reflects the resurgent myth among many right wingers that the media is to blame for the problems in Iraq and the myth that the only reason we lost in Vietnam was some weakness of will.

The answer for authoritarians is always more coercion, more power for authority and more brutality. Because they represent eternal truth they do not need to look for alternative strategies or compromise. This would suggest fallibility. They must have victory and submission or they perish. It is hard to grasp because of their cunning, but authoritarians are dogmatic to the point of destruction. When they do not succeed they protect their righteousness by insisting failure is the responsibility of others. In the end Hitler blamed the German people.

The fascist critique of the liberal state centers on liberal rules and norms that prevent the use of absolute power to establish absolute protection of the nation-state. Every fascist argues that liberalism undermines victory and triumph- something that must not be bond by constitutions, treaties, and normative social life.

Oh, GC, details, details -

They are simply going to call up Patton's Phantom Army from Southern England - No, not his Ghost unit, but the Army built with fake tanks.

Simply have Halliburton carpenter's build fake Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers - Paint them and constantly move them about - Lots of airborne gummipuppin drops - The insurgents will emulate the Wehrmacht officers in The Longest Day, in asking in Arabic, "Gummipuppins?"

Smoke and mirrors, ala the White House.

how how the hell are we going to stabilize the place now, three and a half years later, with an additional 30,000? I can't make this equation balance, even using theoretical math.
Posted by: Global Citizen on December 20, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

The goal is not to stabilize it.

The goal is to hang on for dear life, and suck as much profit out of the situation as possible before retiring to the lecture circuit.

Keith G: Actually anandine, IIRC radiation from neutron bombs dissapates much quicker then that of our regular arsenal. That was one of the selling points.

On checking, I see you are right. As Wikipedia points out, "'(E)nhanced radiation' refers only to the burst of ionizing radiation released at the moment of detonation, not to any enhancement of residual radiation in fallout."

So alex is right: a big pile of neutron bombs would be a wingnut's dream (if not final) solution. And we could sow salt right away.

More brutality please . . .

Hmmmmmmm . . . . . .

Seems like a tactic someone like . . .

. . . Saddam Hussein . . .

. . . or Stalin . . .

. . . or Hitler . . .

. . . or Musselini . .

. . . or Pinochet . . .

. . . or Rios Montt . . .

. . . or Kim Jong-il . . .

would take.

If we just kill another 100,000 Iraqis, maybe enough of them will actually be our enemies.

Tell us, ex-liberal, how much can we ratchet-up the brutality before we come close enough to the immorality of the above-listed villians that we must cease?

As Adolf might say, "Next time, no more Mr Nice Guy"

There is still time for the Bush Youth to complete basic, 2nd eight and ship out. Sort of a new Knights Templar unit with St George ablaze on their chests. Of course those were formed with the sons of the aristocrats. How many sons of CEOs supporting Shrub are going to allow their sons to go?

I must say it is a sight to see ex-liberal flopping around like a fish out of water, trying to find something, anything, that will let him win.

Sometimes, my friend, there really is NO solution, and it is folly to get oneself into that position.

We did not have to go here. Bush and idiot supporters like you led us here.

the brilliant strategists of Rumsfeld's Pentagon ignored the signs that Saddam's strategy from the first was to absorb the 'shock and awe' while preparing the ground for a long term insurgency. i'm not aware that anyone in the planning hierarchy even considered this possibility; we were certainly unprepared for it when it occurred and are still not combatting it effectively. In fact our command leadership in the White House and Pentagon could only celebrate how effectively they fought and 'won' the wrong war - Mission Accomplished indeed! Changing the rules of engagement would not have and will not change the outcome of this most basic strategic blunder.

But, Schaife told "ex-liberal", that if he could prevail in any argument, they would send a coupon so he could buy a Red Ryder BB gun, at a slight discount, for Christmas. Schaife's medical is even worse.

I can't make this equation balance, even using theoretical math.

Did you try using the square root of -1?

One question Messrs. Drum and Farley elide is whether, in fact, the ROE used by US troops in Iraq does need to be adjusted. I've never seen a previous war where the ROE didn't need continuous tweaking, and never got better than mediocre anyway. Why is this case different?

Someone else may have mentioned this above, with a neutron bomb you still get blast & heat like a regular atomic blast, just not near as much, since the explosive energy is diverted mainly into the radiation output. If you are within a few 100 yds of one when it goes off, you will still be disintergrated from blast/heat, rather than dying from radiation.

Simply have Halliburton carpenter's build fake Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers - Paint them and constantly move them about - Lots of airborne gummipuppin drops - The insurgents will emulate the Wehrmacht officers in The Longest Day, in asking in Arabic, "Gummipuppins?"

You would have thought that the Germans wouldn't have fallen for that tactic after they had successfully used it against the French.

How can our warfare methods be both civilized and effective?

Saying "excuse me" or "I'm so sorry" before we kill them?

Seriously, though, IIRC, insurgencies of this intensity are never resolved without an amnesty. Today's insurgent is tomorrow's policy maker. Killing the Iraqis to save them from themselves is no solution.

Saying "excuse me" or "I'm so sorry" before we kill them?

Now that would be a civil war, wouldn't it?

Saying "excuse me" or "I'm so sorry" before we kill them?

Which reminds me, kind of tangentially, to mention that Sleeper Cell: American Terror on Showtime was a pretty good miniseries (as was its predecessor, Sleeper Cell)...

Any day they're going to fix the blame on Col. Mustard.

Which reminds me, kind of tangentially, to mention that Sleeper Cell: American Terror on Showtime was a pretty good miniseries (as was its predecessor, Sleeper Cell)...
Posted by: cmdicely

Alas, my local cable monopoly (Cox) no longer allows any access to premium content to non-digital subscribers...I wish I knew why HBO hasn't issued 'The Wire' on DVD.

Google_This: Tell us, ex-liberal, how much can we ratchet-up the brutality before we come close enough to the immorality of the above-listed villians that we must cease?

I disagree with two aspects of your comment, GT. First of all, as we all know, war is Hell. Yes, your list of horrible people used brutality. So did Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Winston Churchill, and Harry Truman.

Second, there can be a cost to being nice. When we lose to crueler regimes, the people may suffer horribly. E.g., after we ended our participation in Vietnam and Cambodia, the Communists slaughtered several million people. If we withdraw from Iraq and the government falls, a similar bloodbath might take place.

From a humanitarian POV it's very important to find ways we can defeat the monsters while not becoming monsters ourselves. Unfortunately, I don't think we know how to do this.

Well if Col. Mustard wasn't always sneaking off to the conservatory with Miss Scarlett and that damned candlestick, his alibi might hold up...

Or General Dreedle and Maj. _____ de Coverly

'There's only one catch...'

Has there even been any incidents of our troops being hurt by their rules of engagement?

Beirut 1983

"until they find one that sticks"

Actually, no. Until they find one that isn't horselaughed out of existence in a few minutes.

10 minutes. Tops. Believe me: that's all our wingnut tightyrighties want. Not to feel like a horse's patoot for 10 minutes. Then, they'll go quietly back to their fortnightly meetings of the John Birch Society.

I imagine they'll keep floating one theory after another until they finally find one that sticks.

Do you really think they'll find one that sticks?

Do you really think they'll find one that sticks?

I'm sure we can count on you and "ex-liberal" to keep trying, Marler.

"One way or another, conservatives are going to find a way to blame the Iraq disaster on liberals."

Why are we so resigned to this? Why aren't liberals, one way or another, going to make sure the blame for the Iraq disaster sticks where it belongs: to the Bush administration and its Republican lackeys? Why isn't it as important to us to do this as it is to the conservatives to blame the liberals?

In propose that we henceforth refer to wingnuts as the Blame Everyone Else First crowd.

These people genuinely don't care how many lives are lost in their febrile efforts to save face
—especially when they've already lost it.

Jeffrey Davis: they'll go quietly back to their fortnightly meetings of the John Birch Society

Don't be so fast to besmirch the Birchers. In a poll of their members, a majority were in favor of impeaching W for lying about the reasons for the Iraq war.

When the likes of Pat Buchanan and the John Birch Society start to make occasional sense, I don't know whether to be heartened or even more scared.

Jeffrey Davis: they'll go quietly back to their fortnightly meetings of the John Birch Society

Don't be so fast to besmirch the Birchers. In a poll of their members, a majority were in favor of impeaching W for lying about the reasons for the Iraq war.

When the likes of Pat Buchanan and the John Birch Society start to make occasional sense, I don't know whether to be heartened or even more scared.

Kevin wrote: "One way or another, conservatives are going to find a way to blame the Iraq disaster on liberals."

Of course they are -- since so-called "conservatism" in American today, in its entirety, has no other content besides blaming liberals for everything. "Conservatism" is nothing but a cult of victimhood, a bunch of whiners who do nothing but complain about how they are the victims of "liberal elites".

They're not going to blame it on liberals. That's too much of a stretch to be credible.

They're going to blame it on Iraqi's.

The party line will go something like this:

"We did our best, but the Arabs/muslims are just too sub-human to be helped."

Fits in with their racist thinking just fine.

What they really want is to exterminate the indigeneous population and put up gated housing developments.

James E. Powell: The solution for Democrats is to conduct thorough, tedious and unrelenting investigations into the whole post-9/11 GWOT scam: Homeland Security, Afghanistan, Iraq and all related matters. It will be difficult. The Bush/Cheney Junta will fight them all the way. The corporate press/media, who are all complicit in this, will fight them all the way. But they have to do it anyway. The people will back them up, but only if they stay with it.

I agree with that.

Kevin,

The tragedy here is that no theory will stick, precisely because we all understand that is what they are trying to do.

ex-liberal, you are part of the problem of why we can't win this war. People like you enable an idiot manchild like Bush to implement his stupid policies - firing gay Arabic linguists, focusing on doling out pork to Halliburton instead of real reconstruction (schools we have "built" have to be gutted and rebuilt because Brown & Root and friends build them so crappily the overhead lights are filled with urine), not torturing Iraqis and turning the whole country against us - and fail to challenge him. Whenever someone calls Bush on his bullshit, FoxNews fills with little whores like you that spin their way into saying the sky is pink just to make Bush look good. A smart electorate is needed to win in a sectarian war between different guerrillas and militias and you are only hurting that.

ex-liberal: . . . war is Hell.

Torturing people already captured, many of them innocent, is not "war," but merely brutality.

E.g., after we ended our participation in Vietnam and Cambodia . . .

We weren't officially "in" Cambodia and even if we had been our actions there were preventing nothing, since our presence consisted mostly of indiscriminate bombing of the countryside in the hopes of killing a few more enemies than friends.

The lesson here is that no matter what happens, the conservatives are never wrong.

It's no more complicated than that. We see it in everything they write. Even when they say somethings going wrong, they find a way to blame anyone but themselves.

It's funny in its way. The party of personal responsibility is never responsible.

... we've done an enormous amount of reconstruction and relief.....ex-liberal at 2:08 PM

...Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Winston Churchill, and Harry Truman... ex-liberal at 3:31 PM