Broken promises
Richard Clarke, writing in the same New Republic, Iraq: What's Next piece cited in the last post (registration required) argues that it is always possible to withdraw from Iraq because it can always be invaded again:
As the head of the British Army recently noted, the very presence of large numbers of foreign combat troops is the source of much of the violence and instability. ...
Advocating a near-term withdrawal of U.S. combat divisions is not the same as the United States foreswearing to act in Iraq in the future. We should declare that we will act, with the Iraqi government or without, to prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven after we depart. Pursuing the terrorists in Iraq does not require 150,000 troops; it can be done with intelligence capabilities, U.S. Special Forces, and airpower—much of which can be based in Kuwait. Moreover, the Iraqis themselves may rid the country of Al Qaeda once that becomes their responsibility. Already, Sunni groups opposed to the U.S. presence are taking action against Al Qaeda.
There's a lot to sympathize with in Clarke's ideas. But like every other proposal put forward in the New Republic special, there is no Free Lunch. It's very well to say that a large number of foreign troops destabilizes a country. However that's rather obviously at odds with the theme, echoed everywhere, that it would have been better to have deployed half a million troops to begin with and kept them there. Or with proposals to increase the troop numbers even now.
And the idea that the US can always pursue terrorists in a country with Special Forces sounds appealing. But if this were always possible, why not pursue terrorists suspects in Iran? Or Lebanon? The battlefield in Afghanistan has been steadily evolving from the near-exclusive use of Special Forces to a more conventional battlefield. During the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon three Special Forces were publicly mounted; but none significantly damaged the enemy.
The US can "declare that we will act, with the Iraqi government or without, to prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven after we depart". But who's going to believe threats and declarations from a force in retreat? It may be argued that on the contrary, US declarations will have even less force once it has been shown that American main forces can be driven off, not even by threats to kill American troops but simply by threats among the locals to kill each other.
The real point of OIF -- if one excludes declarations to bring democracy to the Middle East -- was to warn off terrorist supporting states by threatening to destroy them. All over the world the forces Richard Clarke thinks so highly of -- police, intelligence and Special Forces operatives -- are going after terrorist cells in coordination with their host country counterparts. It's not an easy task. Corruption means that American-provided equipment is sometimes misused; as in wiretap gear employed for political espionage; air assets used to ferry local Generals to golf tournaments; reward money being scammed by crooked counterparts. And the sheer evil of the world means it is an unending task. But it can be done. It can be done if state support for terrorist cells can be limited to some manageable level. Otherwise they enemy cells will overmatch the agents fighting them on a daily basis. Really large amounts of state support makes it hard to use police, intelligence and Special Forces in places like Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq with any decisiveness. Iraq is itself a recursive problem; originally invaded to dissuade the Saddam Hussein's it is under internal assault from groups supported by Syria and Iran. Defense Tech provides an example in the work of the Queen's Royal Hussars along the Iraq-Iran border.
Lieutenant Colonel David Labouchere commands 500 soldiers in three squadrons scattered across the dry expanse of Maysan province on the Iranian border. His mission: to intercept illegal weapons and foreign fighters slipping across the old minefields and hulk-dotted former battlefields left over from the Iran-Iraq war. As many as 3 million people died here from 1980 to 1988 in what was just the bloodiest chapter of a long bloody history. Maysan is entirely Shi'ite, deeply tribal and hostile to all foreigners -- defined as anyone not from Maysan. That means Sunni insurgents and terrorists don't last long here. On the other hand, British forces aren't terribly welcome either. It didn't help that, until August, British forces in the province operated from a former Ba'ath prison called Abu Naji. The base became a magnet for mortar and rocket fire.
What Labouchere is engaged in stopping, though everyone seems to be at great pains to avoid mentioning it, is State support for Shi'ite terrorist groups in Iran. The reason that Labouchere must keep moving is because he "only" has 30 mm guns for his 500 man unit; and the reason those are inadequate is because he is facing an enemy with state support; and the reason he must patrol the border is because the State -- Iran -- will not be deterred by any of Richard Clarke's suggested declarations that "we will act, with the Iraqi government or without, to prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven after we depart". Nor will policemen be able to operate since the support is so great it can menace a British Army battalion once it is immobilized.
One of the most tangible effects of a perceived American defeat in Iraq is that no state supporter of terrorism need fear it any more. The UK Times describes the open rearmament of Hezbollah from Syria. The IDF's withdrawal from both Gaza and Southern Lebanon may have achieved many things, but none of them include putting the fear of God into Syria. Neither America nor Israel seems to worry it much, nor apparently does the EU-heavy United Nations Peacekeeping force tasked with stopping it.
“Since the ceasefire, additional rockets, weapons and military equipment have reached Hezbollah,” said an Israeli intelligence officer. “We assume they now have about 20,000 rockets of all ranges — a bit more than they had before July 12.”
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has confirmed the Israeli estimate. In a recent interview with al-Manar, the Hezbollah television station, he claimed his organisation had restocked its arsenal and now held at least 30,000 rockets, sufficient for five months of war. Israeli military intelligence has warned the government that renewed fighting with Hezbollah, which it regards as a terrorist organisation, should be expected as early as next spring.
This is what the argument that the enemy will pursue following a withdrawal from Iraq really means. It will send the signal that even relatively weak powers like Syria and Iran can openly destabilize their neighbors and attack the United States without any real fear that their regimes will be changed. And inevitably they will do so again and again. Perhaps the most cruel aspect of proposals to "withdraw" from Iraq without decisively winning is that the word is really a euphemism for a change of venue. Using the word "withdrawal" falsely implies a choice between war and peace when it is really a choice between war and more war. In the New Republic article cited above, George Packer, while advocating a withdrawal from Iraq, warned that Iraqis who had helped America would suffer the fate of the Cambodians left behind to the Khmer Rouge, citing British poet James Fenton's eulogy to make the point.
One man shall smile one day and say goodbye.
Two shall be left, two shall be left to die.
One man shall give his best advice.
Three men shall pay the price.
One man shall live, live to regret.
Four men shall meet the debt.
One man shall wake from terror to his bed.
Five men shall be dead.
One man to five.
A million men to one.
And still they die.
And still the war goes on.
And though the verses are good, nothing I have seen or recently read has disgusted me more. In Fenton's poem is captured self-indulgent smarminess which left millions to their deaths and yet has the insolence to wallow in anguish over it. But this time it will be different. This time no man will get to say goodbye. All shall meet the debt; it is as much as we deserve and sadly, all we can look forward to.
posted by wretchardthecat at 11/18/2006 12:04:00 PM
105 Comments:
Of course,
At what cost?
Of course if we do it right now, what will we do in the future? Never do something right the first time.
Wretchard, it's good and a bit amusing to read that you've a subscription to the liberal The New Republic. Sorta makes sense though. Perhaps you could do your readers a favor and post/comment on this article from Lawrence Kaplan written in January '05:
"The Last Casualty, The Tragic End of a Liberal Iraq"
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20050207&s=kaplan020705
In it Kaplan concludes that the liberal pro-American forces have no chance in the upcoming election and that the Islamofascists will win. This was published a couple days BEFORE the election, and proved to be quite accurate. Wrote Kaplan:
"On January 30, Iraq will hold elections touted by the White House as democratic progress. But liberal democracy demands liberals to sustain it--and, in Iraq, they have been completely marginalized."
Wretchard said . . .
This is what the argument that the enemy will pursue following a withdrawal from Iraq really means. It will send the signal that even relatively weak powers like Syria and Iran can openly destabilize their neighbors and attack the United States without any real fear that their regimes will be changed.
But Iran would not be so successful at "destabilizing" Iraq if we had not knocked over Iraq in the first place! That was why real conservatives argued so vehemently against the war, because this was obviously Iran's sphere of influece. There's no way we could win without finding a large and effective base of allies within the Iraqi population! Without Kaplan's liberals, who else can the US turn to among the Arabic majority? That's why you can't just "exclude" the democratic rationales for the war, or the horrible results they've generated. For some reason, this blog seems very reluctant to acknowledge this basic fact, even though neocons like Krauthammer already have.
By implication, Clarke & Wretchard are making the case for the US nuking North Korea soon, preferably following a UN directive that North Korea was under its protection.
This would:
(a) remove North Korea as a destablizing source of arms to terrorists & their state supporters world-wide.
(b) help put the fear of Allah into the Iranians & others.
(c) destroy the self-imposed barrier against the US using its most appropriate & powerful weapons.
(d) make the point in a less critical region of the world than the oil-rich Middle East.
After North Korea has been turned to glass, the US can bring its forces home from Iraq -- and from South Korea too. Middle Eastern states will have no doubt about US intents. EUnuchs will not hate the US any more than they do now. The Chinese & Russians will read the tea-leaves properly. The UN will be a dead man walking. The world will be a better place, especially for those North Koreans who survive.
All we need now is a female Democrat President with the balls to kill millions of human beings now, to avoid having to do worse later. How soon could Nancy Pelosi take over?
kinuachdrach wrote:
All we need now is a female Democrat President with the balls to kill millions of human beings now, to avoid having to do worse later. How soon could Nancy Pelosi take over?
The only thing worse than killing millions of human beings is killing billions of human beings. Why in God's name would any President "have" to do that, now or later? Don't tell me it's because the Pallies won't stop shooting Katushya rockets at what Cedarford calls our "Special Friends".
WC,
Uhhhh, if the provocation is sufficient it will happen.
The idea of pre-emption is to try head off just a situation. However, we can not pre-empt. This is why you will often see in my comments here and at Blogger Beer the left is pining for an all out live or die war. They must be, they certainly don't want anything less.
If there isn't rationing, tax increases, drafts, internment camps, etc then the left doesn't want to fight it.
Why in God's name would any President "have" to do that, now or later? Don't tell me it's because the Pallies won't stop shooting Katushya rockets at what Cedarford calls our "Special Friends".
Yes, woman catholic, a terrible conflagration that might be unavoidable one day would only be on account of a few rockets tossed at our Jew friends.
It's not like the Islamist movement is spreading, terrorizing and increasingly determined to take down Big and Little Satan both. Nope. We have a melting pot here and can do container inspections and crouch behind mile-high walls north and south and be perfectly safe. But you just know that America would be willing to incinerate untold numbers of Muslims for our Special Friend having to endure a little inconvenience.
buddy, errrr, cathode womanlic wrote:
"It's not like the Islamist movement is spreading, terrorizing and increasingly determined to take down Big and Little Satan both. Nope"
It is spreading because we are leading with our chin doing stupid wanton killing solely for our self interest. We are turning ourselves into straw men, a caricature or our ideals, inflaming the radicals and moderates alike.
In Somalia, Al Queda and others viewed the U.S. departure as a defeat, but in fact the overwhelming response of the American people to the Blackhawk Down incident was one of disgust. We viewed it as a case of having gone into Somalia under the noblest objectives – to help feed starving people – and who rewarded us by attacking our troops and dragging their nude bodies through the streets. One result of that was Rwanda, and now, Darfur. The conclusion reached by everyone from top U.S. politicians to Joe Sixpack was that the people of Africa were not worth saving.
Somalia was not really a military defeat for the U.S., but was a defeat for the Clinton Admin policies. As a result of the failure of his half-assed attempt to switch from Pres. Bush’s mission of emergency food distribution to the U.N.’s objective of nation-building, Clinton wrote off both Africa and the U.N. He gave much lip service to both - but that was all. When he wanted to do more nation building, such as in Yugoslavia, he carefully did it without the U.N. being involved,
If we fail in Iraq – or for that matter, even if we succeed, now - the American people will have another race and region to write off as not worth saving. As the Canadian Gordan Sinclair asked in the early 70’s “What would happen if the Americans said ‘to hell with the rest of the world’?”
That may be just what Al Queda wants. Of course, the last time we said “to hell” with a race of people we burned down most of their major cities, adding a couple of nukes at the end to make sure they knew what “hell” looked like.
They have no hope of scaring us. They have a good chance of making us say “to Hell with all of you.” And then we will give them explicit directions for the trip.
It is spreading because we are leading with our chin doing stupid wanton killing solely for our self interest. We are turning ourselves into straw men, a caricature or our ideals, inflaming the radicals and moderates alike.
Ash,
How did Clinton or Bush inflame the Islamists to the point that 9-11 was visited upon us? Are you actually saying that terrorists can attack us if they don't like our alliances or where we station some troops at the invitation of host countries? Or that 9-11 would have been a one-off in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
"It's all our fault" is right only insofar as we haven't demonstrated strong and punitive resolve and zero tolerance towards Islamism and terrorism.
(Ash, although his politics are near-perfect, Buddy's a much better writer than I. Get clueful!)
CW, striking the pose of pure innocence ignores the history of our actions. Hijacking and flying airliners into buildings is an inappropriate response to slights we've committed. Invading and occupying Iraq is also an inappropriate response to 911. Actions have consequences. The Taliban suffered for their support of bin Laden and we are suffering for our decision to try to manage Iraqi governance. I am not saying 'blame the victim' but assuming the mantle of victim and justifying actions on that basis is so, so.....dare I say? Arabic. We are making poor decisions and compounding our errors through poor execution and we are not moving forward toward our goal (winning the WoT) but rather away from that goal.
Ash, it's all I can do to hang onto one identity in the real world, on the street where I live, in my room, going out of my head.
Ash wrote: "we are not moving forward toward our goal (winning the WoT) but rather away from that goal."
So that's the goal? And where is this "Terror" that our goal is to wage war on? Lat & Long, please!
Is North Korea the locus of "Terror"? Or is the Hizb'allah-controlled sector of Lebanon? Or nuclear weapon-building Iran? Or Sudan? Or the mind of man?
Years ago, when I was trying to learn to ride a horse, the instructor watched me vainly try to control a beast several times my size. Eventually, she pulled me off the horse and had me put on spurs. Kindest thing for the horse, she said. Use these once, and the horse will get on fine with you thereafter.
Lots of targets in the War on "Terror". The question is -- where best to apply the spurs? I'm voting for North Korea.
Excuse. me, Ash, but do understand the concept of "war"?
Was destoying the Imperial Japanese Empire a "proper response" to the attack on Pearl Harbor? One would not think so - after all, the attack was limited to military targets and not on the U.S. mainland itself. And the Phillipines was not our country, anyway was it? All but wiping out Japan - which we would have done quite completely if not for the use of the nukes - hardly seems like a "proportional response." As for Europe, why in the world did we bomb places like Romania when all we had to complain about was some rather provocative Nazi sub manuevers around our destroyers in the Atlantic?
But there is no proportinality or fairness in war. You do what you decide you have to in order to win. And that is bloody well that.
rwe, do you really see similarities between the war in Iraq and WWII? Are we rolling back wannabe empires who swallowed countries whole? No, not even close, instead, we have loads of rhetoric, our boys caught in the crossfire of a civil war, and we are vainly battling a tactic employed by many disparate groups.
Re Pearl Harbor, had we simply arrested those Japanese fly-boys, WWII would never have happened. We could have got them at Tora Tora, if it hadn't been for that damned Roosevelt and his obsession with invading Germany.
I think that when a Democratic administration gets hit by a major terror attack all bets will be off and the nation may unite behind a determined response.
The real anomaly was Bill Clinton, the opposite of a moralizing President and someone immune to humiliation because he had no shame in him. Any number of our embassies and ships around the world could have been blown up without exciting his interest.
Hillary is a far more typical Democrat, at heart both leftist and puritanical (the two are closely related) with a vain, brittle exterior.
When people like this saw Bush about to take all the credit for a stern and effective response to 9/11 they just went berserk and poured unrestrained hatred and invective at him for five straight years. Imagine that 'Bush=Hitler" fervor plus the force of our military turned against our enemies and you have an idea of what a second Clinton presidency might be capable of.
Insensate rage at being crossed and fear of humiliation are of course poor strategy guides, and the last time this happened the Democrats got us completely tied up in the Vietnam fiasco, but I see zero evidence that they learned anything useful from that (except for some startlingly effective experience in using the media to rewrite history and throw the blame onto Republicans).
Groan, two revisionist anklebiters on the same thread...it's more than I can stomach...
"startlingly effective" indeed.
Buddy Larsen Goofed...
"Re Pearl Harbor, had we simply arrested those Japanese fly-boys, WWII would never have happened. We could have got them at Tora Tora, if it hadn't been for that damned Roosevelt and his obsession with invading Germany."
Sorry Buddy, fact check, after Pearl the Huns declared war on the US:
BBC archives.
1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers.
Three days ago, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Today Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win.
Then Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.
I have won more than a few drinks on this bit of historical trivia.
ectually, my dear Watson, I knew that (sniff). I was under cover, orders from MI5, in an attempt to expose Lord Ash.
My bar bet (no answer past thirty seconds counts [google time]):
Name the four U.S. states that occupy the extremes of the the four directions (N,S,E,W):
Sorry I missed the time Buddy. i was gloating and bemoaning Michigan but that would be Alaska Hawaii. Florida and Michigan>⚁
> Are you actually saying that terrorists can attack us if they don't like our alliances or where we station some troops at the invitation of host countries?
Life is not so simple. People and countries and help or hurt us in other ways besides terrorist attacks. For example let's say an Arab country becomes aware of a terrorist attack which is being planned on the US. Will they tell us about the plot? It might depend on how they think we behaved in the past. If a sunni arab nation is the one aware of the terrorist plot, and they think we took sides against sunnis in Iraq, or slaughtered them, as some have suggested, then they may never tell us about the attack or just let it happen. The same could be true for a shiite country.
The trick is the international date line--it passes through Alaska's Aleutian islands, so Alaska is the farthest east AND west, as well as north. Hawaii is hundreds of miles south of the the southernmst tip of Florida.
(Michigan ?)
"wannabe empires that swallowed other countries whole"
Well, Ash, you have an interesting and highly selective defintion of what justifies going to war...
But did you ever hear of a place called KUWAITT?
The difference between Iraq and Japan in world war II is huge. Japan attacked us and declared war on us. Iraq did neither. We simply have no reason to take sides in Iraq or to pacify it like Japan, and in fact we have no right to.
It would be rather bizarre to argue that after we invaded their country the Iraqis started shooting at us, so therefore we have the right to brutally suppress them and to make them a colony / the 51st state. Any conquerer could use the same argument.
Ironically Saddam could have used the same argument to justify his invasion of Kuwait, that the Kurwaitis started shooting at Iraqi troops after they invaded, which gave Saddam the right to make Kuwait a province of Iraq.
Do the sunnis have the right to violent resist their elected government? The Confederate States felt they did during our Civil War.
RWE,
Bush may have wanted to annex Iraq as our next furthest state east.
an x marks the spot
annex marks despot
:) But does a next Marx despot mean a neck’s marks the spot?
Wu Wei said...
The difference between Iraq and Japan in world war II is huge. Japan attacked us and declared war on us. Iraq did neither. We simply have no reason to take sides in Iraq or to pacify it like Japan, and in fact we have no right to.
11/18/06 4:53pm This thread.
But on the last thread he/she wrote:
Wu Wei said . . .
And by the way that is one of the reasons why our liberation of Iraq was a war of self-defense. Saddam continued to fire on our planes in the no-fly zone, even though we were there with the permission of the UN security council, and even after we tried milder military resoutions like destroying the bases with anti-aircraft weapons which were attacking us.
11/18/2006 03:51:41 PM Last thread
Hmmm, I don't get it. Was the Iraq War self defense or not, Wu Wei?
wu wei
It would be rather bizarre to argue that after we invaded their country the Iraqis started shooting at us, so therefore we have the right to brutally suppress them and to make them a colony / the 51st state. Any conquerer could use the same argument.
Wu Wei, statements like this offend the dandies around here and elicit charges of "moral equivelence". Do as America says, not as she does.
What is wrong with killing people who have already attacked you and vow to continue doing so?
Said it earlier today, will say it again:
"Slaughter or surrender (which leads to our slaughter soon after). Slaughter now or slaughter later; later means more. Not a time for squeamishness as squeamishness means later means more slaughter.
We did not choose this. We have not set the ultimate rule (slaughter or surrender). We MUST play by it, however."
One of the most dangerous conceits of Western society is that we are living in a "post-modern" World. We aren't. Most of the World is NOT modern. IMO, in both agression and violence control the day ultimately; through murder, mayhem and rape in the pre-modern and bureaucray, regulation and "litigation" in the post-modern. What the post-moderns do not get is that sawing off heads trumps printing regulations every time. Theo van Gogh learned this the hard way.
Richard Clarke has a comicbook view of the world. He wants the "Buck Rogers" SpecOps guys to fix the problems out of sight with minmal disturbance. He has never struck me as terribly bright. I will grant you that he was an accomplished bureaucrat. The World is full of cunning, stupid people.
Also, I don't get it...we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because there was no WMDs found (query: If I tell you I'm coming to your house to look for your sofa in 8 months and then remind you repeatedly right up until 48 hours before I show with my armed buddies, is your sofa going to be at your house in 8 months?) and terrorist breeding ground is insufficient because we crossed that off the spreadsheet when we did Afghanistan, but we can reinvade Iraq if it is a terrorist breeding ground...huh?
'Why in God's name would any President "have" to do that, now or later?' Let's say 6-10 U.S. cities are smoldering, irradiated rubble. I expect San Francisco will be spared as the jihadis figure it is favorable to them and they will have it's denizens for sport later. Surrender to Sharia is an option, you are right, WC. Vaporizing Damascus, Tehran and Warziristan are also options; the jihadi leadership will have left, of course, because they knew the timing of the nuking of the U.S. cities.
3case, give 'em both barrels--they need it--
a next Marx despot--ok, the cat's outta the bag on at least ONE doppelganger!
;-)
3case
You know there areactually some on this blog that are so screwed up that they don't believe any of what you say.
I've advocated killing 1/10 of the islamic population to send them a message not to continue to fcku with us but NOOOOO others cry foul.
Well they'll be here in the morning like they were on 9-11 and fat Americans will start looking for protection. I'll use 'em for human shields, the Cindy Sheehans et al and kill me a mess o muzzies.
istarious,
well put in a scholarly way. now how many islamofascists should I mark you down for killing?
i mean we're a quota country, from handing out jobs to demographically challenged to sales quotas for crack sell'in pimps..lemme put you down for 275..a nice number..so get a gun and get ready..we ain't send'in any more troops and if we get out the bad guys will just ramp things up 'round here..you're not against squeez'in off a few rounds into an Islam are you?
jane dough, i've been trying to trail your wraithlike shadow since we took on the needlenose, lo the many moons past.
or we could all just jump off a bridge. That would shame them reeeeal gooood.
istarious,
great, then it'll only take the two of us...and with the people gone the chances of a big revival of Islam, it's culture etc. are, like way slim dude.
I mean they have oil and that's it. Who needs 'em they're just a pain. They're always angry and they can't even figure out their own ideology. yeah nuke'em all.
okay, memory trial (*strain*)--a bad troll invasion--late night back in ought four or five--roger simon's site--a limerick-head named cf finally subdued him...
Remember, buddy, that you argued that just being there, in Iraq, was Offensive.
But I'd argue that our Actions there were Defensive, our troops garrisoned in mega-gases. Mr Allen, in his debate, confirmed my view of the primary "Mission". Force Protection.
So there you have it, the US is offending the Iraqi with it's presence, but the US is not exploiting that presence to it's maximum benefit.
Because "time" is running out.
The very concept of "Long War" was rejected by the Electorate.
If things are going to "stabilize" in Iraq, in four to six months...
A whole lot of people are going to die, very soon. The Op tempo has to step up now, to see an impact by then.
In Baghdad and Anbar at the same time, lock the Country down for the duration. It could end sooner, then.
Motivate the blogging Iraqi wimpoids to take action. Even after their family members are killed the Iraq Model boys wait for others to save them from themselves.
They'll all exfiltrate Iraq, most of the Sunni, or die under the new Iraqi Federal Solution.
The reocon fellow is fun to read. He asks the same questions, about Iraq. Just who are we supporting, if not the Islamo-fascists we are sworn to defeat. Same thing I was saying about a year ago, getting the same non-answers from the true believers, kool-aid drinkers and those that refuse to admit we made a wrong turn, and got ambushed, just like that Sp4 Jessica Lynchs' convoy did, back in the early days.
The only way forward, successfully, in Iraq is to get tough and exemplify a city or two, like Hama, or start coming home and let the Iraqi do it for themselves. Force, through death and intimidation the Sunni Insurgency to stand down, if only to regroup, 6 to 8 months later.
We have empowered the Islamo-fascist Mohammedan in Baghdad, we have provided them a 250,000 man force, reasonably well trained and armed, by the standards of the Region.
Another problem for another time, or do we take down the 2.5 million people living in Sadr City?
Bend them to our Will, on the way out the door?
DR, as you probably know the US electorate has no stomach for taking out a city or two for that would fly in the face of our noble fight for freedom which leaves the only other option. The trick being not to get hit too hard by the swinging door on our way out.
Isn't an expeditionary force automatically "offensive"? Even if you're in the end defending homeland skyscrapers?
istarious,
hell I'm in. let's just git to missouri and crank up a couple o them b2's and we're off.
although i think some folks would take offense at that.
I'd settle for an Arc-Light campaign over Ramadi, levelling it to the ground. Iron bombs, big craters, rubble..damn goog, get some.
istarious said...
...it's the religious historic economic cultural political ideological institutions of Islam that need the killing. If that takes a billion Jihadis dead to achieve, you can mark me down for a billion.
Pure insanity. People calling for the incineration of 1/6ths of the human race, and no one raises an objection, but I get dinged by whatsherface just for calling some bloggers here "fascist".
DR...time ain't a runn'n out ..just looks like we're gett'n fixed ta run out ..time, well it'll still be click'n away...
then one day on their side someone will say hey, it's time to nuke the USA ..so see they'll have time.
You misjudge the people, if the Military rolls, the majority will support them.
It's all up to the "Generals", you know, right.
The Electorate will give the Administration four to six months of Offense. That would not be a problem, the troop levels would raise without a change of plans. 57,000 were just advised they were deploying to Iraq from US, so by extending the departure dates of those already in Iraq and letting the new troops arrive, we get a surge. They've done this before, a number of times.
No, ash, the public will support a good smack down of the Insurgents, it'd raise Mr Bush's approval by 10 points.
He has all the legal authority needed as well as the funding.
All he lacks is the balls to push to the limits and force the issue to a conclusion.
istarious,
watch your six friend. there's a psycho chick on here who is well, a psycho chick. i think she's around here..
Psycho Killer
I can't seem to face up to the facts
I'm tense and nervous and I
Can't relax
I can't sleep 'cause my bed's on fire
Don't touch me I'm a real live wire
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
Psycho Killer
Qu'est Que C'est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away
You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?
Psycho Killer
well, the only reason to've waited around is Iran/UNSC, and to let the enemy form into engageable units so that the troops can have an actual target. These things are reaching crisis stage, for sure. You know we need crisis.
Amen Dr...so lets all get behind a "GIVE THE PREZ SOME BALLS" drive..we could do a Wille Nelson Farm Aid type gig...get Toby Keith and for a big finale we'll roast the Dixie Chicks.
HUEVOS GRANDE POR EL PRESIDENTE!!!!
i guess back in May 1944, we could've complained that the troops are just sitting around England costing a fortune and doing nothing.
Ash wrote: "DR, as you probably know the US electorate has no stomach for taking out a city or two ..."
It is amazing how much people think they know about the great multitude called the US electorate. Hell, most of the US electorate sat out the last election, didn't vote for anybody -- what does that mean? The Democrats certainly did not run on any clear message about Iraq -- some were for cutting & running, others were for winning the war. If you listen to the Democrats today, you would think that the big issue in this past election was the Minimum Wage.
So let's not assume that because some previously Republican voters declined to vote this time for big government, big spending political insiders, that means the people of the US want to abandon the people of Iraq.
"Do you like the Dixie Chicks?"
"Oh, yes, I do!"
"Well, have another bowlful!"
Jane's Id's the psycho chick and just given her a ferociously factual facial...good on ya girl.
well they's actually say Sheila
Kinuachdrach,
right you are and if you look at the margins of victory in most races it was close..the dems ran to the middle but now they have to make some BIG choices that will define them for 08.
No, buddy, because we knew they'd be rolling East. Cross that water obstacle and drive to Paris and then Berlin.
The "Plan" was broadcast far and wide. There was no doubt that the "Vichy" were bad and the "Free French" good.
Italy, Germany, Japan and France, those were the Enemies, now we've come to learn that the Mohammedans were part of that Axis. A small part to be sure, but Axis none the less.
Today, buddy, Iran is no foe, not like the Axis of '44, nor even '39.
By their actions the qualify, to be sure, but by US actions they fall farshort of an Axis enemy.
Same goes for Syria and portions of Pakistan.
So, buddy, you think we are on offense in Korea, and have been for 50+ years?
That Occupation equals offense?
We've been there, on the NorK border for over fifty years, it has not intimidated the Norks, did not stop their weapons program.
Why would having US troops on the Iranian border have a different effect than they by being on the NorKs?
It did not intimidate lil Kim nor does it intimidate the Mullahs. Why would they?
Lights out..best to all
The Dems will support the troops, and the Generals.
Pelosy played to the left with her support of Murtha, but got who she needed to run the Caucus.
They'll give the Military the 4 to 6 months, puts US into July, revving up for '08. Mr Maliki wants the Security Mission to be internalized by Nov 07. That has been the timeline since before he was sworn in. The timeline since the Cairo Conference, really.
Smackdown the Sunni Insurgensts, declare Victory and start to leave.
Bet that'll be is the "Baker Plan", in a nutshell.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No, not really. Many used to say they were connected, but never Mr Bush. Nor Mr Rumsfeld or Mr Cheney.
Early on, during the negotiations for the Authorization, the Administration wanted a Regional Authorization. The idea was rejected in Congress.
So by that reasoning both Iran & Syria were excluded from the Iraq "War", deliberately. Foolishly, I think, but deliberately no less
kinuachdrach said:
So let's not assume that because some previously Republican voters declined to vote this time for big government, big spending political insiders, that means the people of the US want to abandon the people of Iraq.
Poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:56 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq.
"The very concept of "Long War" was rejected by the Electorate."
Gee, long war rejected by Electorate! I'll bet that carried a LOT of weight with the jihadis!!
jihadis:
Please excuse our electorate. As you suspect, they are not very bright. I understand that you use that a tool in your tactics and would do the same were I you.
Thankfully, I am not. Fact is I was raised, and have several times sworn oaths, to protect these ninnies, who, ninnies though they may be, are the most interesting, decent and varied people on the Earth, even Senator Clinton (I am not so sure about Senators Dodd and Kennedy, but that may be a personal thing as I am a bit touchy about men who ill-treat women). So, they'll go on thinking they can reject things that have to do with you, you'll keep doin' your genocidal thing, and, someday, they will let me and my Brothers at your directly and for "long time". You already know what that means, it is the reason you hide so hard; like the cockroaches you are...you hide better than cockroaches....
Come out! Come out! Wherever you are! We will be far more merciful tha you deserve. Know why? Because the ninnies will talk to us, we will listen and you'll get some mercy (quick trial, short rope is my preference).
ttfn,
3Case
sorry, rat, hadda go consume mass quantities. ok, we can't do much but quibble, can't prove/disprove these hypotheticitables about what is offensive or not, what the effect on NoKo the usa army has been, etcetera--but you have to give 'flypaper' at least one thing, that it MAY have helped stave of an expected series of mega-attacks on USA. No need to repeat the consequences of another 911 or two, and the promise of regular more, on the very quick and core of usa and the world.
any way usa can nominate vladimir putin for president in 08?
I mean, a martian come to earth would look at what we faced on 9-12-01, and say, "damn, you guys are winning, on your main war goal, how come you so hangdog?"
Martians probably don't 'have' ninnies, they fed them to the livestock years ago.
"You know there are actually some on this blog that are so screwed up that they don't believe any of what you say."
Yep, Habu1. I know that. That's why our oath is to the Constitution, I suspect. The Founders understood the Ninnies and Evil symbiosis, too.
Can we bury 'em (da Muzzies) in the leaching fields at the pig farms when we done?
Woman Catholic wrote: "Poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:56 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq."
A left wing organization designed some biased questions. Then they phoned an unrepresentative sample of the US people -- those guys who still use landlines. And pollsters rarely mention that 2/3 or more of the people they succeed in contacting refuse to take part in the survey -- making the group surveyed even more unrepresentative. And after all of that, the Pew boys got little better than a 50/50 split on this issue.
Not very impressive.
If the issue of Iraq was so important to the US people, why did the Democrats instead run on an anti-homosexual message about Republican Congressmen? If public opinion was so clearly "get out of Iraq", why did the Democrats not forcefully run on a clear platform of cutting & running?
> People calling for the incineration of 1/6ths of the human race
One could have imagined what those people said in world war II. The first thing they would have done, the first time Hitler threatened us, was to invade and occupy England.
Someone would ask "Why did you invade England? Hitler is the dictator of Germany, which is a totally different country. They might have been our ally in the war against the Nazis."
The reply from some people around here would be, "How can you be so weak and stupid? Hitler is a European and so are the English. Hitler threatened us, we've got the threat right here on this paper. If we don't kill all the Europeans, we'll all die. England, Germany, France, they're all European countries, so we invaded England. The only reason you say the England might have been our ally in the war against Europeans is because you are soft, and you aren't smart like me to realize that all Europeans are the same and if we don't treat them all the same Hitler will be setting up concentration camps in Detroit and Chicago. Oh, why can't everyone be as smart as I am, to see the danger and the soution. The whole USA is soft and weak except me."
nice example of the use of ridicule and trivialization, wu wei.
I accuse you of Apostrosy!
I don't know, the Holy Q'u'r'a'n sort of ruins the apostrophe for me.
I always think of them as little comets, which we Celtics believe are omens of wrong useage.
kinuachdrach said:
And pollsters rarely mention that 2/3 or more of the people they succeed in contacting refuse to take part in the survey -- making the group surveyed even more unrepresentative
Only if you have reason to believe that the people who refuse to take part in the survey are systematically of one or another viewpoint. If this is just based on a general irritation with pollsters, the non-respondents on both the Left and the Right should cancel each other out.
I've heard and read dissimilar people posit the same idea, that lefties are generally much more voluble, argumentative, and zealous about their positions (than are conservatives), and that this does in fact skew polls leftward.
shh, don't tell wu wei--it'll mess up his reductio ad absurdum--but Operation Torch was opposed by the French, our WWII ally. Anglo-American KIA numbered some 800 in the landings.
"nice example of the use of ridicule and trivialization, wu wei."
Choice of allegory is seriously wide left and defective in any number of details.
the possum woke up with rabies this mornin
Oo ee baby, baby you so fine,
got to have your lovin,
any old time,
ooo, baby, baby baby you sooo fine, fine, fine--
(Lloyd Price? Little Walter? hep me i am slippin)
Victoria's Secret, i thought it was Victoria's Egret
synchronicity: Uncle Remus, who sang Zippedy-Doo-Dah in Disney's late 40's movie "Song of the South", also lent his name to a song on Frank Zappa's album "Apostrophe".
The Irish branch, the O'Possums, breed so fast they're always Dublin
andrewsdad wrote:
If I recall correctly, the first country the United States invaded after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was......
Tunisia !!!!
More like Guadalcanal, Aug 1942.
ok, that's a good set-up you two-- now i'm under the desk, waiting for the punch line--typing with my elastic-man arms
WC, the Solomons were a British Protectorate, still legally so even tho EOJ had occupied them. So, technically, it was not an invasion of the territory of another sovereign nation.
...since Britain had given permission.
LATimes: "Bomb Iran!"
That's the voice of the left, alright, catherine. The antiwar party can turn hard, hey? Turbans better look out.
The LA Times has a new Publisher and Editor, I do believe. The Chicago home office has pulled the "old guards" chain.
It's a new age at the LA Times.
The market knows best, and declining performance in sales of both advertising and subscriptions did count, eventually.
Everyone from the President to Congressmen and Newspaper Managers in the MSM have to realize that performance counts, eventually.
I've been hoping against hope, ever since they canned the horrid Robert Scheer, or whatever his name was. That's the op-ed guy who made Jason Blair look like Clark Kent.
desert rat wrote:
Everyone from the President to Congressmen and Newspaper Managers in the MSM have to realize that performance counts, eventually.
Meanwhile the reporters at New People's Radio (NPR) and Propaganda for Bolshevik Scatology (PBS) are breathing a sigh of relief that they are completely shielded from such crudities as the "market".
Tunisia?
Operation Torch was an invasion of France (oh, all right, Algeria, but it was actually part of France then) and French Morocco. Only after Operation Torch was concluded did the Allies move into French Tunisia where they encountered German forces.
kevin
Operation Torch was an invasion of France (oh, all right, Algeria, but it was actually part of France then) and French Morocco. Only after Operation Torch was concluded did the Allies move into French Tunisia where they encountered German forces.
Whereupon the green US Army got its butt handed to it like it hadn't since First Manassas.
...which cause the beginning of the brilliant phase of the career of George S. Patton.
> Wu Wei, what's your point?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
And then we find that a report on where Iraqi nuclear scientists have gotten to... yes, a lovely little land is Syria! One that loves all things nuclear, it appears, as scientists from Saddam's regime, Iran and the ex-Russian Republics head there to do... what, exactly? Perhaps look at some nice warhead designs from the AQ Khan network gotten by Iran and developments done by Saddam's regime? One never knows! And how about that supernote trade with North Korea in the Bekaa? Those lovely NoDong missiles bought by Syria in the 1990's?
Say, now wouldn't that be a thought! Iran distracts the World with its nuclear games, while getting together a warhead design and finishing group in the middle of nowhere Syria, and while we all hem and haw and bluster about Iran, they concentrate on getting refined nuclear goods to Syria. Why the entire World would be caught off-guard!
Of course my contention has been for some time that the path to any peace in the Middle East runs right through Damascus, Syria. And to try and actually end supplies for the western insurgents in Iraq, we really do have to address... well... Syria and redistribute it a bit to change the parameters of the Middle East so as to put forth that a very powerful Iraq can be *made* by balancing the ethnic and religious differences and giving them a two-seas capability that can only be gotten by a secular government. And if we had just a bit of foresight that could be done with the help of a smaller Arab Nation that has already been attacked by Hezbollah and thus Syria and Iran, and is at worse threat from a Nuclear Syria.
When the path forward is blocked, the way forward is often sideways. And then a whole new path opens up... because everything necessary to finally fix decades long problems has been put into play and are sitting out in the open for only One Nation to put together. If it can ever drag itself out of the 20th century and learn to fight a different kind of war that has not been fought for over a century.
But stupidity is also a cost of Freedom. Let us hope it is not fatal.
AJacksonian, unfortunate there are no leaders in the United States of the stature of Andrew Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt in the goverment, Sherman, Black Jack Pershing, Patton or MacArthur in the Army to do what is necessary: eliminate the Baathist regime in Syria. Half measures never solve anything. Israel is going to find out the true cost of her half measure of war against Hezbollah not taking the fight to the Syrians. We too are paying the price in Iraq for not putting on the boy Assad on notice and backing up the words with real action.
AJacksonian (and Tarnsman), for the life of me I don't understand why we have not taken action against Baby Face Assad and his thugs from Saddam's old outfit. Syria have been the middleman for some of our worst enemies. But, to this day Assad has been "untouchable."
From my research, Assad some how cons our "Allies" into believing he is on "our side" or is an indispensable "fountain of information" for our "Allies."
I see absolutely no evidence of Assad helping us or our allies - I see exactly the opposite. He and his Baathist thugs should have been removed long ago.
It looks like the new plan will be to stay in Iraq for a long, long time, but let the Iraqis do their own fighting. Good news, IMO.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html
(free registation required?)
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said...
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said...
Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
ledger said...
AJacksonian (and Tarnsman), for the life of me I don't understand why we have not taken action against Baby Face Assad and his thugs from Saddam's old outfit.
Interesting notion. Do we have the troops to do it? Rich Lowry and William Kristol co-wrote an op-ed last month in which they called for more troops to be sent to Iraq. A whole slew of MSM and military analysts wrote back saying we don't have the troops to send, at least not in the numbers they asked for. If our military's really that stretched, how many troops would it take to knock over and secure Syria?
1990-91 for the first Gulf War the US was able to field a 500,00 all voluteneer army to remove Saddam's forces in Kuwait. We could easily do that again. If we had the will. In WWII three million served under arms. We could do that again. If we had the will. Problem is, we don't have the will, and our enemies know it.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. -- Teddy Roosevelt
Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms. -- Andrew Jackson
War - An act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will -- George Washington
Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster -- William T. Sherman
The American people would be proud to be engaged in the greatest battle in history -- Black Jack Pershing
There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear -- Geogre S. Patton
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it -- Douglas MacArthur
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts [A]. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.[B]
A should have been the plan from the beginning.
B is a political sop to shore up the support of people who think we have to work harder for the sake of working harder. It is also counterproductive to A and harmful to the Army.
Post a Comment
<< Home