The Senate is voting on funding the war – again – and the Democratic leadership is pushing hard to fund conditional on withdrawal.
Senator Lieberman has a response that puts it better than I could:
Over the past nine months, American forces have begun to achieve the kind of progress in Iraq that, until recently, few in Washington would have dared to imagine might be possible.
Working together with our increasingly capable Iraqi allies, U.S. troops under the command of General David Petraeus have routed al Qaeda in Iraq from its safe havens in Anbar province and Baghdad — delivering what could well prove to be the most significant defeat for Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network since it was driven from Afghanistan in late 2001.
As al Qaeda has been beaten into retreat in Iraq, security conditions across the country have begun to improve. Iraqi civilian casualties are dramatically down. IED attacks have plummeted, while mortar and rocket attacks are at an unprecedented twenty-one month low. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level in nearly two years. And as a result, U.S. commanders on the ground have begun a drawdown in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.
According to the BBC just this weekend: ‘All across Baghdad… streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business. People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes. Everybody agrees that things are much better.’
Unfortunately, congressional opponents of the war have responded to the growing evidence of progress in Iraq not with gratitude or relief, but with unrelenting opposition to a policy that is now clearly working.
Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, anti-war advocates in Congress have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat in Iraq — reluctant to acknowledge the reality of progress there.
Rather than supporting General Petraeus and our troops in the field, anti-war advocates in Congress are instead struggling to deny or disparage their achievements — and are now acting, once again, to hold hostage the funding our troops desperately need and to order a retreat by a date certain and regardless of what is happening on the ground.
It bears emphasizing that none of the progress we see today in Iraq would have happened, had these same anti-war activists prevailed in their earlier attempts this year to derail General Petraeus’ strategy.
In fact, throughout the past nine months, anti-war advocates in Congress have confidently and repeatedly predicted that General Petraeus’ strategy would fail, and that the war in Iraq was ‘lost.’
It is now clear they were wrong.
Rather than another ill-advised, misguided attempt to cut off the funding for our troops in the field, it is time for anti-war forces to admit that the surge is working and stop their futile legislative harassments.
It is deeply irresponsible for anti-war forces in Congress to hold hostage the funds that our men and women in uniform need to continue their successful efforts. Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure.
I said it before, i’ll say it again- Democrat opposition to the war, particularly in the Congress, will grow more and more frenzied as conditions improve in Iraq. They are so invested in defeat their level of hysterics will vary inversely to the level of violence.
“TIME is already bitching about triumphalism.”:http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/are_we_winning_in_iraq.html
But Klein is keeping his frenzy at an even, high-pitched squeal: “Let me reassert the obvious here: The war in Iraq has been a disaster, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President.” That’s ever, ever, ever. Klein has ransacked his entire knowledge of American history, possibly with the aid of hypnosis, and he can’t think of anything more obvious.
Lots more to come. I can sense the Clinton Revisionist team stirring. Soon we will be hearing how Bill and Hillary saved Iraq – indeed, the entire world – over the objections of George Bush …
If the surge is, in fact, working, as Lieberman (and you, by proxy) are claiming, then I see no reason to oppose efforts to begin US troop withdrawal.
Siding with Lieberman is basically like saying you agree that Arabs are all evil Islamic terrorists who “hate us for our freedoms” and want nothing more than to kill us all as we sleep. A more delusional, paranoid and vile war-monger I can hardly conjure in my worst nightmare.
Alan – I’d suggest you contemplate the difference between ‘is working’ and ‘has worked’ for starters: anf if you think Lieberman or I are the worst faces America can present to the Arab world, you need to get out more.
A.L.
Do you agree with this part of his statement:
bq. Everybody agrees that things are much better.
?
Alan – I’d suggest you contemplate the difference between ‘is working’ and ‘has worked’ for starters.
OK, done. Now let me ask you, what do YOU think the difference is, in light of this comment:
bq. And as a result, U.S. commanders on the ground have begun a drawdown in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.
If it is only “working” but not “worked”, why have any drawdown at all?
Greatest foriegn policy blunder ever? Yeh, that reeks of hyperbole. I might give him a pass for lack of historical perspective, but i _know_ Joe Klein has heard of Vietnam and i think he’d be hard pressed to make the case that Iraq will have been worse than Vietnam unless there is a total regional meltdown.
I’d argue the CIA initiating the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh had much larger long term regional ramifications than Iraq. That kinda started the spiral towards where we are- Mossadegh is ousted, the Shah clamps down, Khomeini overthrows him, Hussein smelling blood and fearing fundamentalist Shiia starts the Iran-Iraq war (is eventually supported by the West), Hussein develops and uses WMDs against Iran and Kurds, Iraq goes deeply in dept especially to Kuwait, Iraq invades Kuwait, Allies boot Iraq out of Kuwait and impose WMD demands, Hussein bluffs that he has reconstituted WMDs to deter Iran, we invade Iraq and depose Hussein, Iran helps make our lives miserable.
I’m not saying this is all causal, but i dont think there is much doubt that pushing over the apple cart on Iranian democracy in 1953 really set the stage for a lot of our current nightmare. It without question was one of the issues that eventually pushed Iran away from the West, and a lot of the geopolitics of the last few years revolves around that.
Will it be possible to trace the current Iraq war for a host of unwelcome circumstances as the years and decades pass? Impossible to say, but i dont think there’s much doubt that if we withdraw now we pretty much INSURE that outcome, whereas if we hang in there and conditions continue to improve, we could well see a balance of happy long term consequences down the road. And anything that makes Joe Klein look silly I am in favor of.
_”If it is only “working” but not “worked”, why have any drawdown at all?”_
Because if you were paying attention you would know that that has been part of the plan since Patreaus formulated it. Hence the term ‘surge’.
There will be a measured drawdown.
The Dems otoh want everybody out within a year and that is simply disasterous. Do they want a disaster? I dont believe that, but i do think they are desperate to put an ‘imprint’ on the end of the war for good or for ill. If that means putting a rooster in the henhouse at a critical juncture i dont think they will balk.
That being the case Bush will need to cut some kind of deal so the Dems can claim they somehow influenced the decision making and claim credit for the victory they long ago labeled certain defeat. Thats still preferable to letting them stick their fingers in the soup because they cant believe Bush could pull this out of the fire by himself (and couldnt live with it anyway).
I am not a liberal Democrat. I am a conservative Republican and I agree completely with
_”Let me reassert the obvious here: The war in Iraq has been a disaster, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President.”_
I don’t even care if we “win” the war. Whatever that means since the administration has not ever given what the criteria for winning is. If it is to make Iraq a democracy, this only compounds the foolishness. A good reason would be to install a politically friendly regime in a geopolitically important area. We have failed in that miserably.
I commend Petreaus and the armed forces for doing their job as well as they have under the completely inept and naive leadership that has come out of Washington. You can continue to completely delude yourself that this is some kind of Republican vs. Democrat, Liberal vs. Conservative war or see it as a war intellectually bankrolled by a particularly deluded political cult that call themselves Neo Cons.
We are going to walk a way from this thing after spending a fortune without anything. And it is all going to be blamed on not staying there long enough. These Neos threw the President under the bus the first time anything turned sour and their excuse for the blunder will be the same. No one did it the way they would have done it.
There is no defeat for us in Iraq. We have committed a blunder. We can have a strategic retreat with consequences for the Iraqis if they do not fix their own problems. This administration is lost. I would trade the whole lot of them for a graduate student who had actually read the Koran.
Who cares what the Democrats say. This isn’t the Army/Navy football game and the idea is not to score points. This has been a horrible geopolitical blunder and anyone that wants to wait another minimum 3 to 5 years to clean it up, IMO must be out of their minds.
_”This has been a horrible geopolitical blunder and anyone that wants to wait another minimum 3 to 5 years to clean it up, IMO must be out of their minds.”_
These are the EXACT arguments made against continuing the Korean War. Everything looks so mundane from close up. Its easy to see the current blood being spilled, and hard to judge what 50 years or more down the road can look like. Buts is bad logic to suppose withdrawing now will ensure no more blood and treasure being spent. Just as ceeding South Korea to the tender mercies of NK was no guarantee of peace- and thats even if you dont give a damn about abandoning the allies you are fighting with all this time.
#7 from Mark Buehner at 9:20 pm on Nov 14, 2007
_I’d argue the CIA initiating the coup against Mohammad Mossadegh had much larger long term regional ramifications than Iraq. That kinda started the spiral towards where we are- Mossadegh is ousted, the Shah clamps down, Khomeini overthrows him, Hussein smelling blood and fearing fundamentalist Shiia starts the Iran-Iraq war (is eventually supported by the West), Hussein develops and uses WMDs against Iran and Kurds, Iraq goes deeply in dept especially to Kuwait, Iraq invades Kuwait, Allies boot Iraq out of Kuwait and impose WMD demands, Hussein bluffs that he has reconstituted WMDs to deter Iran, “we invade Iraq and depose Hussein, Iran helps make our lives miserable.”_
We not only invaded Iraq, we occupied it. That is when the wheels came off the Foreign Policy. It was a geopolitical blunder of immense proportion.
I will ask you again, what did we gain by occupying Iraq or by invading it. Instability in the Middle East? A de facto alliance with the Shia and the Kurds? An alienation of our traditional Sunni allies in the region? Nearly $100.00 a barrel oil prices? Immersing our selves in a standoff between the Shia and Sunni that has lasted for 1400 years? Strengthening Iran? Tensions with Turkey our most loyal ally in the region? A show of the limits to our power? A Trillion or two down the drain before it is over?
Again, this is geopolitics, not a football game. I find it incredibly offensive for this administration to continue to wave support for our soldiers in our faces as a reason to continue to support a bankrupt and idiotic Foreign Policy. I am especially disgusted by the Neo-Cons doing the same since the vast majority of them, as I have said before, have never even been in a fist fight.
TOC –
Pat Buchanan can say all of that in three sentences. On Comedy Central, right to Jon Stewart.
Actually, he could sum up his complaints with three letters, but Comedy Central would probably bleep it out.
#10 from Mark Buehner at 9:44 pm on Nov 14, 2007
“This has been a horrible geopolitical blunder and anyone that wants to wait another minimum 3 to 5 years to clean it up, IMO must be out of their minds.”
These are the EXACT arguments made against continuing the Korean War. Everything looks so mundane from close up. Its easy to see the current blood being spilled, and hard to judge what 50 years or more down the road can look like. Buts is bad logic to suppose withdrawing now will ensure no more blood and treasure being spent. Just as ceeding South Korea to the tender mercies of NK was no guarantee of peace- and thats even if you dont give a damn about abandoning the allies you are fighting with all this time.
_This is not Korea. This was a country run by a guy that we played like a fiddle as long as he suited our purposes. We invaded and occupied Iraq. North Korea invaded South Korea. There is a bit of a difference there, No? Who is the NK Here that we are ceding things to.
Al Queda? Saddam was doing a pretty good job controlling them and as far as I can see the locals are not too enamored with them either. Give the weapons and let them shoot it out.
Iran? This occupation has only strengthened and emboldened Iran. Luckily, these guys are as inept as this administration is and have not been able to capitalise on it. I am of the opinion that Amahadinejad is a CIA operative. We couldn’t script a better better enemy.
Turkey? Don’t doubt for one minute that Turkey will get the largest piece of the Irai pie if there is a break up.
Geopolitically, we should have left things as they were. We had a crippled fox in cage, now we are stuck in quicksand. I don’t know how this is not a blunder and Korea has nothing to do with it._
#12 from Glen Wishard at 10:01 pm on Nov 14, 2007
TOC –
Pat Buchanan can say all of that in three sentences. On Comedy Central, right to Jon Stewart.
Actually, he could sum up his complaints with three letters, but Comedy Central would probably bleep it out.
Brilliant, Glenn. Good to see that you are still living up to the high standards you have set for yourself with your previous posts. Please don’t respond to my posts any more. I don’t have that much time to waste.
_”I will ask you again, what did we gain by occupying Iraq or by invading it. Instability in the Middle East? A de facto alliance with the Shia and the Kurds? An alienation of our traditional Sunni allies in the region? Nearly $100.00 a barrel oil prices?”_
If you judge your foriegn policy in 4 year chunks you have a point. Unfortunately most of the truly horrible blunders this nation has made comes from doing just that. We are awful at longterm- ask the Kurds, ask the Iraqi Shiia, ask the Lebanese, ask anybody we’ve abandoned after asking them to take a stand.
What have we gained? So far, very little. So far. Thats the point, you don’t judge an enterprise by the middle, you just it by the long term. TOC the problem you and I have is our goals and how we value them are too far different. I value democracy in and of itself- you dont. Even democracies that oppose us. Your brand of realpolitic set the stage for the ‘disaster’ the so called neocon adventure managed in just a couple of years. Propping up friendly dictators is worse- look at Pakistan. There could be Islamacists in control of a nuclear arsenal any day now and we’ve been playing by your rules there for years. They may work in the short term but the long term they are _at least_ as unpredictable and fraught with peril. Go back to Mossadegh for chapter and verse. Was an unfriendly Mossadegh worse than a REALLY hostile Khomeini?
_”This is not Korea. This was a country run by a guy that we played like a fiddle as long as he suited our purposes. We invaded and occupied Iraq. North Korea invaded South Korea. There is a bit of a difference there, No? Who is the NK Here that we are ceding things to. “_
Err, Iran? You’re right, this isnt Korea. This is a region far more important to world stability.
_”Saddam was doing a pretty good job controlling them and as far as I can see the locals are not too enamored with them either. Give the weapons and let them shoot it out.”_
Controlling them? As in giving aid and comfort to that monster Zarqawi?
_”Iran? This occupation has only strengthened and emboldened Iran.”_
In the near term. Now Iran is surrounded by US bases and _potentially_ their pipeline of discontent through the Iraqi Shiia can be reversed and cause some Iranian discontent… if we get Iraq turned around.
_”Geopolitically, we should have left things as they were. We had a crippled fox in cage, now we are stuck in quicksand. I don’t know how this is not a blunder and Korea has nothing to do with it.”_
All it has to do with Korea is the idea that we can just shut off the valve and walk away, no big deal. Thats a silly premise, there WILL be consequences for walking away, bad ones. That has nothing to do with what started the war, that has to do with here and now. And crippled foxes have a way of spreading disease btw. Again- look to Pakistan. You are creating a very false sense of status quo. When you keep explosive things in a bottle they tend to blow up all the more for it. Was Hussein going to live forever? By his own confession he was still hoping to build a nuke as late as Sept 11, 2001. To some degree the chaos in Iraq was going to happen sooner or later and we were going ot have to deal with it somehow (or somebody else like Iran or Russia would be happy to do it for us). So lets stop pretending there is some happy idyllic world where the status quo of propped up dictators lasts forever and doesnt backfire on us horribly.
I’m not sure why it’s worth arguing with people who insist it’s all lost, that it’s all over.
The president is going to stick it out in Iraq. He’s said it, and he’s doing it.
(Boy, them Jews have him—and all of us—over a barrel, don’t they?)
And if things work out in Iraq, well fine, good and dandy. But since we’ve already lost, then there’s no point in debating it or getting all enthused when things APPEAR to be going better.
You see, we’ve lost. And that’s it. End of story. (Even if things there do settle down. Even if things do get better.)
That’s right. We lost, ‘cuz really bad things happened and it didn’t work out like it was supposed to. And the planning was bad (what planning there was). And we have no metrics. And too many have died. And it’s all taking way too long. Just ask me and I’ll tell ya.
Should I say it again? WE LOST. (And even if it ain’t so, we still lost.)
There. I feel better already.
Barry,
You forgot one. George Bush must be tried for war crimes. For oppoposing a monster such as Saddam is, of course, the height of moral irresponsiblity. Allowing him to continue to fill mass graves? Saint like in its benvolence.
“The last two weeks have been critically important and I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.â€
Lieberman, 12/15/2005
Think I’ll wait a little longer.
If we are making significant progress then we can have a significant troop drawdown, and switch the funding to reconstruction. We could have all but say 30,000 troops out of iraq by September 2008 asnd be putting over $100 billion a year into reconstruction, and things will be vastly improved.
This was the surge plan, we’d provide the stability that the iraqi government needed to make progress. We claim we’re providing lots of stability and it might be true — the situation is still too bad to get independent reporting that might tell us how bad it is, so we have no test on the claims. They could be true. The iraqi government is still doing nothing useful, but maybe they’ll start doing good stuff within the next 6 months or so now that we have the stability we said they needed.
I think it’s far more likely that we aren’t particularly winning except against AQI which is a small splinter group in the running with us for most unpopular. Then instead of a large troop reduction and diverting the money for reconstruction we’ll have a small troop reduction and the money will go for more military stuff. That means we aren’t particularly winning, but of course if we keep spending the money and keep on keeping on someday we might get an acceptable result.
Let’s not argue about whether it will cost 4 trillion or 8 trillion or 20 trillion, we won’t know ahead of time. People who count the costs tend to lose wars. It’s easier to win if you just resolve ahead of time that you’ll do whatever it takes, make any sacrifice. Once you get it straight that iraq is the most important war of the 20th or 21st century, and that a loss in iraq will inevitably lead to losing everything, then you’ll have the mindset to keep pouring resources there no matter what. The Bush administration has failed to convince the US public of that. If the public was convinced it was important to win this war the Democrats would be going after the Bush administration for being so unserious about fighting it.
Taheri’s a much reliable source of Mossadeq; he was essentially a puppet of the Tudeh (Communist)
factions. Neither the mullah nor
the bazaaris(merchants) supported
him. Hence his unsustainable position. One could argue that much of the Shah’s troubles really
began with the “White Revolution program of land reform; which threatened many of the traditional interest groups. Khomeini’s opposition really starts there and soon he is exiled to Najaf, Iraq; for much of the next 16 years. At
the time, the virulently anti-Shia
Baath is in ascendancy driving Mohammed Sadr’s Dawa movement out of politics and into ‘direct action’ Saddam never really challenged Khomeini; though he did
make it difficult for the Sadr and
Al Hakim (SCIRI)clans. The dust up
between the Shah and the Baathist
junta; allowed Saddam to negotiate
the Shatt al Arab treaty. That in turn, included the exile of Khomeini to Paris. Khomeini disseminates his taped sermons from Paris; provoking the Iranian revolution; returns just like Lenin did to Kerensky topple the Provisional Govt of Bani Sadr. The
subsequent American embassy
takeover; which was really
conceived as a feint; leads to Saddam’s miscalculating his support in Iran; due to exiled Savak officers. The invasion provokes trans sectarian solidarity
(Saddam with Saudis)(Iranians with
Lebanese and Emiratis) The Badr Organization; somewhat like Vlasov’s forces arise organically
from Shia consciousness. The entire
world arms one or both sides of this alliance (re;Timmerman’s
“Fanning the Flames) Saddam’s forces get bogged down in the quagmire of Iran; while “The War in the Cities” exact an awesome
toll like some gothic tennis match. Saddam’s other side light
beside Chemical weapons, was being
benefactor to Palestinian dissidents like Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas. The war ends with Saddam somewhat victorious (like Britain at the end of WW1. Although equally in debt. He moves on Kuwait; that provokes the US intervention into Saudi and Osama’s first fatwa. Osama would in later years, amke contact with
Iranian proxys like Mougniyeh; despite their sectarian differences
Andrew –
December 15th, 2005, was the date of an Iraqi general election that was noted for high turnout (significantly among Sunnis) and low levels of violence.
Lieberman was right; it was a turning point, and is recognized as such today.
#14 from Mark Buehner at 10:18 pm on Nov 14, 2007
If you judge your foriegn policy in 4 year chunks you have a point.
_Nice strawman. I do not judge foreign policy in 4 year chunks._
Unfortunately most of the truly horrible blunders this nation has made comes from doing just that. We are awful at longterm- ask the Kurds, ask the Iraqi Shiia, ask the Lebanese, ask anybody we’ve abandoned after asking them to take a stand.
_When you mention Lebanon are you speaking about Reagan leaving? It was probably the best thing he ever did not throwing good money after bad. He saw a mistake and left. Should we given Somalia more time? All situations are not the same. You do not say that time cures all ills.
It is better in the long run and wiser to recognize blunders and correct them. We are not responsible for every sparrow that falls from the sky. Taking on these centuries old social problems half way around the world saps our power and makes things worse in the long run. I think you are hung up on defeat. We cannot be “defeated” in Iraq, nor can we “win”. we can though, continue with a horrible strategic plan that weakens us and strengthens our enemies._
What have we gained? So far, very little. So far. Thats the point, you don’t judge an enterprise by the middle, you just it by the long term.
_This make no sense. What you are saying is that IF we blunder we should give it more time and we can overcome the blunder just by hanging around. What is long term and the middle? Who defines that? Did Reagan and Clinton leave Lebanon and Somalia in the Middle?_
TOC the problem you and I have is our goals and how we value them are too far different. I value democracy in and of itself- you dont.
_Well, sit back and slap yourself on the back for that one. Go ahead, take the “high moral ground”. But, this kind of naive statement might afford you with some feelings of moral superiority, but not only is it not true, it has its costs. You want democracy in the Middle East. Then you better be ready to pay the price for it. This sort of puffery is exactly what we heard from the Neo Cons before the invasion and occupation. How about letting the thought that maybe the muslim world prefers to fight for their social system, no matter how odious you may think it is. I have lived in 5 countries in my life on 4 continents. It is exactly this attitude that causes resentment. What ticks me off the most about it is that it has been taken to the point now that we are weakening ourselves defending it._
Even democracies that oppose us. Your brand of realpolitic set the stage for the ‘disaster’ the so called neocon adventure managed in just a couple of years. Propping up friendly dictators is worse- look at Pakistan. There could be Islamacists in control of a nuclear arsenal any day now and we’ve been playing by your rules there for years. They may work in the short term but the long term they are at least as unpredictable and fraught with peril. Go back to Mossadegh for chapter and verse. Was an unfriendly Mossadegh worse than a REALLY hostile Khomeini?
_I am impressed that you know Mossedegh’s name. Not a whole lot of people do because he was a very minor player in a World War we called the Cold war. In life and death struggles like that between Great Powers, sometimes minor players are like grass trample underfoot, to paraphrase Shakespeare’s telling of the fate of Rosenkranz and Guildenstern.
Since you are against “propping up dictators”. What would you suggest, an eternally moving expeditionary force to replace them with democracy”? And as far as the lack of foresight in the Mossedegh – Khomenei-Neo Con trail you draw, expediency is very useful at times of very real threats to oil supplies. We played the Shah well for over two decades and established ourselves as the major power in the region. Not a bad trade off as far as I can tell. But maybe we shoudl have sent some troops to make sure that Iran was democratic?_
_As far as what you said in your next post, how about refraining from ominous phrases like “there will be consequences”. The fear mongering that surrounds this Neo Con nonsense is probably the most despicable part of the whole exercise. I am not afraid and I resent anyone who tries to make me so. It is distressing to me to look back at the generations coming behind me and seeing them fall for this kind of crap._
TOC, i am unable to comprehend your formatting. Might i suggest just putting peoples quotes in quotes and leaving your words alone?
I’ll try to cut through the mess:
-re: Lebanon, Somalia- we would have been far better off never getting involved in the first place if we didnt intend to stick it out. We get our reputation as cut and runners for a reason, which is one of the reasons Al Qaeda challenges us the way they do. Most of the world thought a handful of casualties sends us running for the exits, which makes killing Americans expediant, not feared.
-If you want to avoid any of these entangles, say so. But isolationism got us involved in the 2 biggest world wars our race has ever known, so maybe that isnt ideal either. Pay me now or pay me later (bigtime).
-As far as dealing with dictators, I would say we should pressure them to democratize and let the chips fall. How many of ‘our’ tinhorns have been overthrown by popular resentment and become more implacable enemies than they would have been to begin with? You still havent addressed that argument. Why is your way less bloody or expensive in the long term? Historically can you support that?
A few quick points A.L before you break out the bubbly over the “progress” being made in our mass-murderous, petro-imperialist, war of aggression in Iraq. The Dems (Kucinich excepted of course) are not seriously considering an actual withdrawal of American forces, just their redeployment to the 14 permanent bases we’re building in “sovereign†Iraq against the wishes of its people.
Secondly, the jury is still out on the efficacy of America’s introduction of the “Salvadorian Model†of counter-insurgency warfare (read: state supported terror via proxy forces) in Iraq, for the resistance to our presence there remains quite ferocious.
*”It is deeply irresponsible for anti-war forces in Congress to hold hostage the funds that our men and women in uniform need to continue their successful efforts. Congress should support our troops in Iraq, not undermine their heroic achievements by imposing a formula for failure.”*
-Sen. Lieberman
What about those in Congress (a minute minority) who hold fundimental moral objections to wars of aggression? Is it not their duty to prevent further “heroic achievements” of a kind that has led to perhaps 1,000,000+ excess Iraqi deaths and over 2,000,000 refugees–all in violation of the UN Charter? One would at least hope so.
[NM: alphie, you’re banned here — for attempting to post on 8 Nov while banned ’til 10 Nov, as well as for other behavior. If you forget, we’ll remind you. We’re all about service here at WoC]
If you judge your foriegn policy in 4 year chunks you have a point.
OK, let me come up with some sort of foreign policy you’ll despise. How about this one — we accept that nonproliferation is dead and we stop trying to prevent other nations from having nukes. We take the 10 poorest nations in the world and we give them each $30,000 per capita for 4 years, and then if they aren’t still the 10 poorest nations we pick the new poorest 10, and we take the money for this project from the military budget.
Now suppose I somehow get a temporary majority of the public and the Congress supporting this stupid plan. (Actually when I think about it some parts of it seem like they’re related to something that wouldn’t be stupid, but put that aside.)
So after a few years the public starts to come to its senses and reject this idiotic plan. And I say, “We can’t just change our foreign policy every few years. We have to look at the long run. Don’t judge my plan until it’s had at least 30 years to take effect, you haven’t seen the long-run results yet.” Are you going to agree to gut the military budget for 30 years to wait for the long-run effects?
*But that’s what you’re asking for.*
Our military transformation budget is partly on hold because we’re busy fighting a war. Our military has had to reduce its recruitment standards. We aren’t ready to fight other wars.
You want to argue that the war isn’t costing the economy much, just a small fraction of GDP. But remember your first-year economics? If you reduce the rate the economy grows by 1%, what will that do to it in a generation? What if you reduce the growth rate by 2%? Enough to make a big difference in the debt level we can sustain, right?
And all the positive long-run benefits from the next half-trillion dollars have to be assumed on the hope that we’ll win. I can understand you’d be optimistic. We have more to be optimistic about now than we ever did, and if you were optimistic a year ago when there was no good news at all then of course you’ll be optimistic now that a couple of statistics have almost improved to where they were then. But remember that the public at large aren’t true believers; they’ve listened to 4 years of predictions that things were getting better when every time things got worse. We have a long way to go to get back to where we were 3 years ago. A lot of buildings to unbomb etc.
It bothers me that Mark says Saddam was supporting Zarqawi. Zarqawi’s base was in kurdistan, wasn’t it? Is there evidence that Saddam supported Zarqawi more than the other nations he sneaked through? Didn’t we go over that repeatedly, and Saddam didn’t particularly support Zarqawi at all, less than the Kurds did?
It’s kind of a dead issue now. Saddam’s dead. Zarqawi’s dead. But this is one of those creeping undead factoids, it just keeps coming back over and over and over again, with no credible evidence behind it. No one, except known liars, has ever claimed to have believable evidence that Saddam tolerated Zarqawi. (The negative has also not been proven.)
#23 from Mark Buehner at 5:55 am on Nov 15, 2007
“re: Lebanon, Somalia we would have been far better off never getting involved in the first place if we didn’t intend to stick it out.”
What was commendable about these two actions was that we were able to admit mistakes and rectify them. This is good Foreign Policy. We can’t run a foreign Policy based on what other people *might* think. We must behave solely upon what is in our best interest. It was in our best interest to get out of both places.
“We get our reputation as cut and runners for a reason, which is one of the reasons Al Qaeda challenges us the way they do. Most of the world thought a handful of casualties sends us running for the exits, which makes killing Americans expediant, not feared.”
It is not the “Cutting and Running” that is a problem here, it is a policy that presumed that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. The occupation was not only a dumb, dumb idea, it was bungled from the get go. These guys had no vialbe plan for occupation because they were drinking their own kool-aid. If there ever was a reason to believe that
people without combat experience shouldn’t be put in positions of authority like the Neo Cons were *(I do not believe this, myself)*, this whole Neo Con Umwelt is a poster boy.
“-If you want to avoid any of these entangles, say so. But isolationism got us involved in the 2 biggest world wars our race has ever known, so maybe that isnt ideal either. Pay me now or pay me later (bigtime).”
Here is the same old black and white “You are either form me or against me” mentality that is constantly used by defenders of the blunder. Just because I disagree with the basic assumptions behind the war, the handling of the occupation, the incoherent statement of why we are there, the weakening of our Geostrategic posture and want to do something about it, does not say that I am an isolationist nor does it say I want to cut and run. The argument is simplistic and I am fed up with hearing it.
“How many of ‘our’ tinhorns have been overthrown by popular resentment” Not many. And you should give some thought to the reasons for that.
“and become more implacable enemies than they would have been to begin with? You still haven’t addressed that argument.”
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
“Why is your way less bloody or expensive in the long term?”
This questions strikes right at the heart of your position’s greatest flaw. You pre-suppose that doing things that are beneficial to us in the short run will always be less harmful in the long run. There is absolutely no logic in that.
The longer the “long run” is the less likely we will be correct in our assumptions. Military force is very seductive, but we are learning its limits. Our problem now is that the administration fell hook line and sinker for the naive world view that the Neo Cons were flogging based on might is right. You now see the consequences.
One other thing. How about addressing what the goals of this war are? What “winning” means? What are the benefits that we are getting diplomatically and Geo strategically from this occupation? You know, the normal ABC’s of Strategic and foreign policy thinking. I gave a list of negative effects above.
I will ask you again, what did we gain by occupying Iraq or by invading it. Instability in the Middle East? A de facto alliance with the Shia and the Kurds? An alienation of our traditional Sunni allies in the region? Nearly $100.00 a barrel oil prices? Immersing our selves in a standoff between the Shia and Sunni that has lasted for 1400 years? Strengthening Iran? Tensions with Turkey our most loyal ally in the region? A show of the limits to our power? A Trillion or two down the drain before it is over?
How can you not call this a Blunder?
“Historically can you support that?”
The British ran a very successful Empire based on indirect rule.
#7 Mark:
bq. Because if you were paying attention you would know that that has been part of the plan since Patreaus formulated it. Hence the term ‘surge’.
I don’t appreciate the snark, Mark. Of course I am fully aware of the PR campaign surrounding the recent build-up. The fact that it was called a “surge” from the outset and had a fixed end point in no way impacts on whether the situation in Iraq has been improved from previous extremely bad levels to not-as-extremely bad levels. I am not yet convinced, by objective, independent analysis, that it has directly and primarily been responsible for a measurable improvement in the situation in Iraq. For example, there is no simple connection between an increase in the number of US troops and a decrease in the number of roadside IED’s that have been reported recently (please don’t come back with the argument that the bombers are “afraid”).
In my view, this places Pro-war, anti-withdrawal people in a bit of a logical pickle.
1) If the “surge” didn’t work, then would the “draw down” have gone forward or not?
2) If the “surge” was NOT largely a pre-scripted political/PR operation (and I would hate to think that Bush would sacrifice the lives of US servicemen/women for domestic political purposes….) then why stamp it with an expiration date in advance, when it’s effects could not have been known or even predicted with any level of confidence?
3) If the “surge” is “working” to reduce violence, then won’t withdrawal threaten these gains by reducing the number of additional troops (ostensibly the reason why the “surge” worked) to previous levels?
4) If there is a reduction in violence in Iraq that is not directly attributable to “the surge”, then the number of US troops there is not the relevant issue. Hence, a pull-out will not be the “disaster” you all predict (but cannot justify).
Regarding this final point: If Iraq can’t survive WITHOUT the presence of occupying US troops, then the situation there is far far worse (even hopeless) than you all seem willing to admit. In other words, if real improvements there are not due to US force levels, then this should be greeted as good news, not bad, by all.
I fear, however, that many would rather deny this in order to justify continued occupation for reasons having nothing to do with Iraq domestic security. This is where your arguments begin to look suspicious and shaky.
bq. The Dems otoh want everybody out within a year and that is simply disasterous.
That is your opinion, Mark, and I do not agree that this can be predicted with certainty, especially since the current situation, even if it is improving from an arbitrary time point, can be also fairly characterized as being disastrous. And furthermore, it can also be argued that the disaster is, in part, exacerbated by our presence there, not in spite of it.
_””How many of ‘our’ tinhorns have been overthrown by popular resentment” Not many. And you should give some thought to the reasons for that._”
Chiang Kai-Shek? Batista? The Shah? Have we spent much time and treasure dealing with China, Cuba, and Iran, just to name the most obvious candidates? Do I need to bring up Vietnam? Cambodia? Nicaragua? Ethiopia?
_”The British ran a very successful Empire based on indirect rule.”_
Yeh, and the Brits weren’t afraid to apply a little cannonade to defiant cities and towns. Plus once the Kalishnakov got busy Colonialism was never the same. If you are championing imperialism i’d say you might want to see how well thats worked out in the last hundred years. Even ‘indirect’ imperialism, which seems to be a contradiction in terms. YOu are trying desperately to have your cake and eat it too. Have you discovered a way to be a little pregnant?
Hey, the British invaded and occupied Iraq more times than the Americans; we’re just trying to catch-up.
_”I don’t appreciate the snark, Mark. Of course I am fully aware of the PR campaign surrounding the recent build-up. The fact that it was called a “surge” from the outset and had a fixed end point in no way impacts on whether the situation in Iraq has been improved from previous extremely bad levels to not-as-extremely bad levels.”_
You asked why there was a drawdown. I told you why there was. Just because you brush off the ANNOUNCED strategy as PR doesnt affect the reality of that. If you want to talk about the success or failure, fine, but please dont spread disinformation. There is a drawdown because that was Patreaus’s plan from the beginning.
_”) If the “surge” didn’t work, then would the “draw down” have gone forward or not?”_
I don’t know. Thats a counterfactual, and hence unanswerable. It has worked and we are drawing down. Can we deal with facts instead of what ifs?
_”2) If the “surge” was NOT largely a pre-scripted political/PR operation (and I would hate to think that Bush would sacrifice the lives of US servicemen/women for domestic political purposes….) then why stamp it with an expiration date in advance, when it’s effects could not have been known or even predicted with any level of confidence?”_
Er, same reason you make any plan. Because, umm, its a good idea to have a plan? Go ask the general why he made it that way. I’ll give you a great reason, however. It proves to the Iraqis we dont intend to stay forever, which is something we should have demonstrated to them long ago. The Sunni in particular have been massively concerned about this. The surge was planned to be temporary (by definition), this is an act of good faith with the Iraqis which may be an important reason for the Anbar Awakening.
_”4) If there is a reduction in violence in Iraq that is not directly attributable to “the surge”, then the number of US troops there is not the relevant issue. Hence, a pull-out will not be the “disaster” you all predict (but cannot justify).”_
If the apple fell out of the tree purely by chance and had nothing to do with gravity. There was a surge. Violence has DRASTICALLY decreased. There have, of course, been other factors (there always are). Just because you refuse to connect the dots is hardly reason for rational people to not.
_”Regarding this final point: If Iraq can’t survive WITHOUT the presence of occupying US troops, then the situation there is far far worse (even hopeless) than you all seem willing to admit.”_
Err… South Korea couldnt survive with UN troops during the war… did it follow that as long as we were fighting we were losing, even hopeless? That makes no sense. Time is a factor.
_”The Dems otoh want everybody out within a year and that is simply disasterous._”
_”That is your opinion, Mark,”_
That would seem to be the opinion of the military,our government, the Iraqi government, our allied government, etc.. The only people who seem to claim us leaving Iraq precipitously wouldnt be a disaster are the anti-war Americans who dont have much reasoning behind it that i am aware of. Just- hey, maybe it will be ok! Hope is not a strategy.
Alan, that’s kind of hysterically funny.
So the current improvement in conditions can in no way be causally related to the change in tactics and manning that we’re calling the ‘surge’; it’s kind of a random walk instead.
So, if we can’t be responsible for the good outcomes – but we’re totally culpable for the bad outcomes – I’m puzzled about what we’re supposed to do. Because if it doesn’t matter what we do – what does it matter what we do?
A.L.
We’ve got this amazing Zeno paradox at work here. If we havent won yet we must be losing. So how can you ever be winning?
Sure, _something_ had to be done about Iraq. Or at least that’s what some people think, and therefore let’s go with that premise, and let’s even go with the premise that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do in response to an attack inspired by a Saudi Arabian, carried out by an organisation led by a Saudi Arabian, and paid for by Saudi Arabia.
But was what America did the _right_ response? NO.
I have said this before and I will say it again. The _right_ response was to invade if you really had to, with very specific objectives – them being the only thing Iraq has to offer anyone else, which is its oil, and the power stations and other infrastructure required to make use of it. And bomb the rest of the country back into the Stone Age – especially including schools, hospitals, factories, water treatment plants, government buildings and everything else required to run a 21st century society. The fundamentalist nutters want a return to the Dark Ages – well, let them return to that state from below.
What would that achieve? It would remind everyone, including other Islamofascist thugs, of the first motto of the new United States – DON’T TREAD ON ME.
bq. Alan, that’s kind of hysterically funny.
bq. So the current improvement in conditions can in no way be causally related to the change in tactics and manning that we’re calling the ‘surge’; it’s kind of a random walk instead.
Who ever said it was a “random walk”???? There are a lot of possible explanations for why some measures of violence MIGHT be down in Iraq, and your failure to even consider them (or even evaluate the validity of the underlying assumption) provides a striking example of the obvious bias in your view.
For example, as I asked above, how can a reduction in roadside IED’s be explained by a small % increase in US forces?
Do you wish to deny the possibility that there can be diplomatic or civilian reasons why violence might drop? Your reply makes it clear that you realize that this line of thinking undermines the pro-occupation argument.
bq. So, if we can’t be responsible for the good outcomes – but we’re totally culpable for the bad outcomes – I’m puzzled about what we’re supposed to do. Because if it doesn’t matter what we do – what does it matter what we do?
You’ve gotten yourself into a bit of a mental pretzel here, I think. Because what you’re sentence states….we’re not responsible for good outcomes but are for bad ones (BTW, your use of the words “can’t” and “totally” in these sentences is another demonstration of your predilection for mis-characterizing and mis-representing viewpoints that contradict yours by jumping to their extremes), then a clear solution presents itself quite obviously. WE GET OUT.
None of this is funny, by the way, so if you think you can continue to dismiss counter-arguments by asserting such hyperbole (like the “are you serious?” from another thread) then you might as well write yourself out of the entire conversation.
Mark, let me restate your question… If we can’t define victory, how do we know we’re winning?
It’s difficult to judge wether we’re winning from my office in North Carolina. The news I read seems more concerned about People magazine’s “sexiest man alive” than with talking about a war zone.
One thing is for certain, we don’t have enough troops to hold the surge up forever. So what do we do during the ‘drawdown’? Will violence rise or fall? Will Iraqi politics stabilize and start to work together?
I guess we’ll figure this out soon enough. We’re not going anywhere for a at least a year, and then it will be the next president’s problem.
Additionally: If we can’t define victory, how can we EVER know that we are winning?
_“OK, let me come up with some sort of foreign policy you’ll despise. How about this one — we accept that nonproliferation is dead and we stop trying to prevent other nations from having nukes. We take the 10 poorest nations in the world and we give them each $30,000 per capita for 4 years, and then if they aren’t still the 10 poorest nations we pick the new poorest 10, and we take the money for this project from the military budget.â€_
-J. Thomas
I’m afraid we must accept that nonproliferation is dead because Team Bush has killed it. It was the Bush junta that withdrew the US from the ABM treaty, which had been the crown jewel of Salt I & II, in order to pursue the so-called Star Wars initiative (instantly recognized by both the Russians and Chinese as a first-strike system). As a result of these and other policies such as Team Bush’s radical departure from the UN Charter as announced in NSS 2002, both Russia and China have taken steps to update their conventional and nuclear forces as a credible deterrence to the most aggressive force on earth: the United States.
As far as what policies would be most effective in addressing the poverty of so-called third world nations, I would suggest that we reverse course on our promotion of “free-trade†agreements such a NAFTA which seek to lock developing nations into a state of permanent dependency.
I don’t think “nonproliferation” means what you think it does, Coldtype. Perhaps you meant to use a different term, such as “arms reduction”.
If so, feel free to make the correction yourself. If not, I don’t see the connection between, e.g., the US dropping the ABM Treaty and Kim Jong-Il building nukes.
Alan you are defining your own terms. ‘The Surge’ isnt just a bunch of numbers on a page. The way the forces are being used is a big part of what you are talking about. Establishing security by living and patrolling neighborhoods, creating alliances with local shieks, working with neighborhood groups, facilitating coming together between Sunni and Shiia honchos- these are what the troops are being used _for._
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. If our troops weren’t out in the towns and villages and were holed up in their bases like Casey had them, they never would have established alliances with the local Sunnis and learned to work together.
You want evidence? Look at the towns and neighborhoods with heavy US presence. A lot of hotspots were occupied block by block, cleared, and held. Those places are much more peaceful right now, while others we havent reached yet are not.
_”I guess we’ll figure this out soon enough. We’re not going anywhere for a at least a year, and then it will be the next president’s problem.”_
Thats pretty much true. We may not have a definitive victory ‘goalline’ but there certainly are metrics. Violence has always been the most important, and its way down. If when we start drawing down from the surge violence flares back up and all the gains evaporate, thats a pretty good indicator that it didnt work right? At that point, I dont think anybody will have an appetite to stick around long- particularly a new president.
My problem is the people who wont give this thing even that much opportunity. We’ve already paid the price, why wont we see where the wheel lands? The truth is if we havent made any progress the end IS in sight.
If we have been successful, we will be there longer. Bush opponents cant live with that no matter the opportunity.
Coldtype, I didn’t intend to make a serious proposal that would be worth discussing alternatives to.
I intended to start with unacceptable aims and use unacceptable methods, and then claim that nobody should argue with them until we’ve spent enough time following them to decide whether they’ve worked in the long run.
Kind of like our long series of iraq policies….
mark, yeah, I’ll admit that I was squemish about Iraq before the whole thing started. I just felt that beating saddam was inevitable, but how do you deal with the guerilla warfare (in full disclosure, I felt the royal guard would stay in existence, but would attack similarly to vietnam troops, and not militias).
Nontheless, even though I was arguing against Iraqi progress, I feel like my main goal was metrics. People wanted to say the war was going grandly, and I wanted to point out the places where things were going bad in a hurry. We got to those problems very late in the occupation, and I think our overpowering optimism got in the way of doing this thing right.
At this point, we may be wasting money, but I’m willing to give it some more time(at least for the moment). I still wish this administration would be realistic in their assesments and not hide behind false numbers and covered up tragedies. It just makes everything look worse when it comes to light… “What else don’t we know?” is always the first question that comes to mind.
Hopefully this will last. It’s in the hands of the Iraqi goverment now.
Alchemist:
“Or we may be saving it.”:http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/11/14/is-the-iraq-war-costlier-than-doing-nothing.html
Now these figures can be debated endlessly. But from the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan must be deducted some estimated amount that we would have spent dealing with Saddam and the Taliban – a price tag that would include not only money, but stability and human lives.
Whether the very best estimate of these costs would result in a positive or negative balance, it has to be recognized that peace doesn’t happen for free. As I keep saying, the error of all pacifism and isolationism is their refusal to acknowledge that inaction costs blood and treasure, too. “Peace on Earth” is of no use to dead people, and of little use to slaves. If money is the measure, then enduring a troublesome regime for decade after decade costs far more to the world economy than any war does. And it costs more in human lives as well, if the lives of the people affected by that regime have any value at all.
To which the left retorts, “So you just want to bomb and invade everybody.” At this point they swap moral categories, and fall back behind an absolutist “war is evil” which overrules all economic and human costs of refusal to resort to war.
If we engage in the world we are accused of God-like responsibility for everything bad that happens in the world – though, not surprisingly, we get no credit for anything good that results. Presumably, if we disengage from the world we could sit back and watch it with a clear conscience. But that doesn’t seem to work either; if we don’t oppose Dictator X, then he becomes “our guy”, our own ex nihilo creation, and we are held solely responsible for everything he does.
I think a fair observer would have to agree with these three (pretty tepid) principles:
1. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us, but peace with those regimes would have cost us, too. Perhaps more, perhaps less.
2. The new Iraq may increase the stability of the Middle East and prevent far more war than it cost to bring it about, and serve as a model of reform to other Arab regimes (some of which, a fair observer would have to say, could use a bit of reform.) Or perhaps it will not, and the world will be worse for it. We certainly ought to hope for the former result, and regardless of how likely we regard it, we ought to admit and welcome the possibility.
3. Going to war is a dire thing, and carries a political cost even when fully justified. Renouncing war carries a cost, too, and does not have the pacifying effect that the pacifist imagines – especially when it eventually forces us into an even greater war not of our choosing. History may decide that we were too willing to fight, or it may decide that we were not willing enough. Making absolute values of “war” and “peace”, however, is moral and practical nonsense.
Wow, that’s a long response to an indefinate statement where I basicaly agreed with you (albeit, with caveats).
Things may work out, they may not.
I have long asked “How much, in real dollars, is Iraq worth?”.
Many people answer, that it’s worth every penny for US security. However, if we end up going broke, or break the Army or national gaurd, it’s not really worth it, it makes us less safe.
This is an extreme vision of what could happen, but it’s worth asking how much we’re willing to give before we start (like knowing how much you can possibly spend in vegas before you arrive).
Now that this occupation appears to have some conclusion in sight (either + or -) I’m willing to spend a little more to see the outcome. (like 5-card, sometimes it’s worth it to pay and see the river card…).
_If money is the measure, then enduring a troublesome regime for decade after decade costs far more to the world economy than any war does._
No, you’ve overstated that. Some troublesome regimes cost less than some wars. Some troublesome regimes cost more than some wars.
The USSR over its whole span cost much more than our invasion of grenada. But we could probably have tolerated the dimwits who were trying to run grenada forever for less than the cost of a thermonuclear war with the USSR.
You are letting your rhetoric cloud your mind.
_1. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us, but peace with those regimes would have cost us, too. Perhaps more, perhaps less._
We could likely have done better waiting a while longer on afghanistan. Maybe Taliban would have asked OBL to leave the country, and we might catch him in transit. We might have done better chasing him in sudan. And without OBL there, we’d hardly need to invade afghanistan. Persuade the pakistanis to stop funding Taliban, we fund somebody else, and Taliban loses quick. It might not have gone that way, but in the worst case we’d have been doing about the same things later, with about the same result. Taliban and AQ couldn’t do much to get ready for us, and we didn’t have or need much surprise.
The only thing to lose by more diplomacy first was the domestic political advantage for Bush. And that might not have been much different. Perhaps more, perhaps less.
We could have gained a lot by a negotiated surrender in iraq. Say we let Saddam live — so what? Are we running a war or a morality play? We might have won iraq without a fight, saving hundreds of US casualties and many thousands of iraqis, not to mention a whole lot of infrastructure damage etc. In the worst case we’d have invaded in September or so. We didn’t want to have to fight in the iraqi summer, but instead we wound up occupying in the iraqi summer and in repeated summers since. The money it would have cost us to wait, ready to attack, got spent anyway. What did we gain by attacking quick? Mostly Shock and Awe, we got to impress the US public with the light show.
_2. The new Iraq may increase the stability of the Middle East and prevent far more war than it cost to bring it about, and serve as a model of reform to other Arab regimes_
And maybe they’ll turn the whole country into a bunch of pony farms and every american girl can have her own pony! Sheesh.
_Making absolute values of “war” and “peace”, however, is moral and practical nonsense._
Sure. There are times you can get away with being pacifists, and times you can’t. Times you can get away with throwing your weight around and insisting everybody else do things your way or else, and times you can’t.
But in practical terms, both of these wars *may* have been unnecessary. And both have been poorly executed. OK, maybe they weren’t done badly, maybe there was no way to do better — and in that case we damn well needed to be sure they were absolutely necessary.
When it first went real bad in iraq we’d have done better to cut our losses. But that was politically infeasible for Bush. No matter how bad things got, he still couldn’t fold, he had to keep doubling down. No matter what the winning candidate says while he’s running, he’ll probably pull out after he gets into office because his reputation isn’t tied to winning and if he has any sense he won’t want it to be. A few wingnuts will say he quit when we were almost winning, but his supporters won’t say that and it will all blow over for a few years until the revisionist history starts that says it all failed because of the americans who didn’t believe enough. “If you clap your hands hard enough, Tinker Belle will live!”
“Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq,” said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.”
This was today, not 18 months ago.
Ladies and Gentleman, don’t say I didnt warn you. I give you- Improving Iraq Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome. As Iraq improves, the Democratic descent into outright lunacy accelerates.
*”Ladies and Gentleman, don’t say I didnt warn you. I give you- Improving Iraq Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome. As Iraq improves, the Democratic descent into outright lunacy accelerates.”*
Mark,
I think you are at war with Democrats. Which is far enough. But that war shouldn’t be played out in Iraq. And, you do not win these sort of real shooting wars by scoring points, which from what I see is what you are trying to do.
Your arguments are essentially based on a fear of “losing”. They are all over the place Korea, ’50s Iran, etc., but you never address the situation in Iraq. You have yet to mention anything that defines “winning”, nor have you answered a question that I have asked you twice. I will ask you again..
I will ask you again, what did we gain by occupying Iraq or by invading it. Instability in the Middle East? A de facto alliance with the Shia and the Kurds? An alienation of our traditional Sunni allies in the region? Nearly $100.00 a barrel oil prices? Immersing ourselves in a standoff between the Shia and Sunni that has lasted for 1400 years? Strengthening Iran? Tensions with Turkey our most loyal ally in the region? A show of the limits to our power? A Trillion or two down the drain before it is over?
Tell me what Iraq looks like when we “win”. How long it will take. How much it will cost. And what we get out of it. Then take the “winning” and “losing” out of it and tell me more opinion from a completely dispassionate viewpoint.
TOC, my opponents are any who i beleive are acting irresponsibly to the best interests of this nation- particularly those acting in their own political expendience. I dont consider them enemies, but they certainly need to be engaged at every turn, so that absurd quotes like Reid’s dont become the conventional wisdom via a media in idealogical lockstep with them.
What have we gained in Iraq? We’ve removed a dangerous wildcard from the table- one that if anything we have learned we had very bad intelligence about his capabilities and intentions.
Secondly we proved to the world we are willing and able to fight a protracted war, face to face on the ground. That was considered impossible if you read the words of our enemies.
Thirdly we have attracted a huge amount of resources from Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations- tied them down fighting in Iraq and using resources they would be using elsewhere to better effect. And killed a whole mess of em to boot.
Fourthly in doing so we have shown the world, particularly the muslim world how ruthless and nihilistic OBL and his kind are. Support for Bin Laden has dropped precipitously in the Arab world, even moreso than support for the US.
Finally, we have established an _opportunity_ to help create a self-determined multiethnic progressive state in the heart of Islamdom. Whether or not that state is the puppet you would prefer, it is in the long term interest of a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous world IF that goal can be achieved in any measure. Even if it takes the Iraqis 10 years to get their political act together, that is still something that can bear fruit many times the investment we have made in blood and treasure. We invested far more in many other nations and the world (and the US) is better for it. I understand you dont hold that of much value in and of itself, but you are wrong on that count.
TOC — Sorry to rain on your parade, but Osama bin Laden HIMSELF cited Beirut and Mogadishu as evidence that the US could be attacked with impunity. Or as Vladimir Putin (channeling Machiavelli’s words about unarmed prophets and lack of fear) said after Beslan, the weak got beaten and Russia was weak.
Being seen as weak invites attack. This has been so for all of written history.
Coldtype — I am afraid you are unfamiliar with the world. Proliferation is a fact of life once the Superpower duopoly ceased to function after 1991 with the end of the USSR. It was in fact widely predicted in the LA, NY Times as I remember reading many articles discussing that very thing. China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, and many in Europe will sell expertise and material and men too when it comes to it and nothing short of war will stop them. It is a cheap way to create dangerous enemies for the US and so they do it.
SALT I & II, the Star Wars Initiative has nothing to do with first Pakistan’s nukes which date to the late 1990’s and Bill Clinton (who would have had to nuke Pakistan to stop it) or AQ Khan’s network which dates from that time, purpose to spread “Islamic Bombs” or Iran’s effort or North Korea’s nukes (after Bill Clinton signed an agreement where they wouldn’t make them!).
J Thomas — I am unsure of your statement that implies Afghanistan as well as Iraq was an unnecessary war. Are you implying ala John Cougar Mellencamp (that noted Democratic Philosopher) that we should have “done nothing to prove we are strong” in response to 9/11 or issued useless indictments … or more intriguingly simply nuked Afghanistan out of existence trusting everyone would get the message? Please advise.
That latter certainly would have been cheaper if money is the main concern. We could have both replaced our nuclear inventory quickly and gotten valuable nuclear design testing data. Osama would certainly be dead (along with most Afghans) and the idea that “jihad” plus AK-47 = unstoppable would be proven a false equation with the nuclear eraser. It would have concentrated the mind of Saudis, Pakistanis and Iranians wonderfully and intimidated the Muslim street.
That’s Caesar’s method. Also Alexander’s, and Stalin’s and Mao’s, and Andrew Jackson’s. Ugly, brutal, without morality. But proven effective.
What Dems generally miss is that our choices range from: Unconventional War (proxies, and guerillas and such), conventional war, and nukes. Just today Dems in the House did two STUPID things: no more funding for the war meaning gutting everything for the year, including domestic bases, and requiring court orders for military intelligence abroad to listen in. Which yes would require a court order to listen for Osama in Pakistan.
I am open to arguments that we can respond to Jihad via UW instead of conventional warfare, or simply nuke our way out of trouble. But for me the idea that magically we rewind to the 90’s fantasy of PC Multiculti nonsense is a non-starter and has been since 9/11.
TOC — I’ll tell you what we gained from the Iraq War (though I am not Mark).
1. The ability to eliminate the uncertainty of Saddam’s counterweight to Iran with ourselves directly.
2. The ability to get rid of Saddam and make him an example — see what happens when you make an enemy of the US. A good point since Osama cited extensively Saddam’s staying in place against the US as proof of limited US power and will.
3. Ability to change the ugly stasis of tribes and tribal factions settling differences with themselves by uniting to attack the US — removing the Saddam regime makes that game too deadly as only the US exists as a counterweight to Iran/Shia/Persian domination of Sunni Arab tribes.
4. Ability to eliminate Saddam’s WMD uncertainty. Both the Duelfer Report and others show that Saddam bluffed that he had them and planned to get them for real as soon as sanctions dropped.
5. Most importantly, respond to Saddam’s provocative challenge to the US of kicking out the inspectors and bluffing that he had WMDs.
These all fall into the zone of controlling your own destiny. I.E. allowing the US not others to determine events.
But certainly Saddam HAD to be responded to. UW was not available. We were left with conventional action or nukes. Allowing Saddam to back the US down after 9/11 was a disaster inviting more attacks.
As I said could be the case in #37:
bq. BAGHDAD – Iran seems to be honoring a commitment to stem the flow of deadly weapons into Iraq, contributing to a more than 50 percent drop in the number of roadside bombs that kill and maim American troops, a U.S. general said Thursday.
“Diplomacy,”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq not the surge.
And BTW, Mark, thanks for sticking around to discuss this issue. That’s certainly more than can be said for the Armed Liberal, who has, again, abandoned his own thread the moment that some actual thinking was required. Makes you wonder whether he’s running a blog so he can put “blogger” on his CV and sell himself as some internet-savvy techie-type who’s in touch with the future….
Alan: Doesn’t make me wonder at all, actually. Makes _you_ wonder, maybe. AL keeps the lights on here at WoC, I gather; I despair at finding a way to suggest that he doesn’t run his life to your timetable in a way you will not read as sycophantic. *shrug*
J Thomas:
What is it that you find unbelievable about reform in the Arab world?
As I noted, no such reform might occur, and the world might be a worse place for what has happened in Iraq. This is a possibility. If you refuse to admit any other possibility, then I have to say it is you who is being blinded by rhetoric.
The left has committed itself to a position where only negative results are acceptable. They insist that any good results are impossible (not merely unlikely, or “not worth the cost”, but flatly impossible) and that to admit anything less is giving sanction to “warmongering” and “imperialism”. As for “democracy”, that’s become a cue for a gag reflex.
And on the other hand, they indignantly deny that their prescriptions would carry any cost or responsibility.
So maybe the benefits will outweigh the costs, and maybe not. I’m not qualified to judge the whole balance sheet, but what I am qualified to do is remember very clearly that while we were dealing “peacefully” with Saddam we were accused of starving upwards of a million Iraqi children to death with sanctions.
Gosh, Alan, I’m so darn sorry.
And it could be that you’re a troll.
I work, I raise kids, I spend time with my wife. This blog is and important part of my life (and was long before I started doing new-media stuff for a living) – but those things are my life.
Keep it up, and I’ll ban you and leave you with more time for your own life.
And I’ll suggest an interesting counterfactual for you to play with. If we hadn’t shown the commitment shown in the surge, and hadn’t had the military successes we’ve had – and gosh, if some folks in Iran weren’t worried about being blown up in airstrikes – would diplomacy have worked?
Step to the plate and swing away…I’m going grocery shopping.
A.L.
Certainly a unique excuse to stifle opposing views on yur blog, A.L.
Kudos to you.
Enjoy the echo chamber.
[Alphie, you were banned Nov 8th, for not complying with a suspension. Bye. I welcome disagreement, I don’t welcome rude guests. Marshalls, any future comments from alphie need to vanish.
A.L.]
Alan – WTF? You come into a man’s house and insult him? You are beneath contempt. Begone troll boy.
The Hobo
ps – AL sorry about the [RCOB] moment but he is just stupid.
alphaVICTIM (?)
Poor baby, you too? You and alan come into what amounts to another man’s house and insult him? BTW, I went to your blog and saw exactly
………(wait for it)
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
………………
……..ZERO, YEAH, ZERO, that’s right 0, ZERO comments on your first page! And you have the temerity to come into another man’s house and call it an echo chamber? ZERO, alphaVICTIM, ZERO. You really are stupid beyond belief.
Begone troll boy.
[NM: Sorry, Robohobo, but Movable Type gets a headache when you feed it really long unbroken strings of characters. That’s also why we deprecate bare URLs at WoC. I reformatted your post so this and the other posts in the thread would page-fill better.]
JT –
When you say we should have cut our losses when things first went bad in Iraq, I wonder what you imagine would have happened after we did…
A.L.
Wow….just, wow.
#56 A.L.
bq. And I’ll suggest an interesting counterfactual for you to play with. If we hadn’t shown the commitment shown in the surge, and hadn’t had the military successes we’ve had – and gosh, if some folks in Iran weren’t worried about being blown up in airstrikes – would diplomacy have worked?
bq. Step to the plate and swing away…I’m going grocery shopping.
Why should I waste my time attempting to engage in a conversation with someone who’s only willing to make a half-hearted effort at engaging the issues that they themselves raise? I think this “troll” (LMAO) will take a pass from this point forward.
#51 from Mark Buehner at 2:37 am on Nov 16, 2007
If this is what was presented to the American people as the reasons for going to war with Iraq and occupying it, no one, not even the Neo Cons would have approved.
*We have established an opportunity to help create a self-determined multiethnic progressive state in the heart of Islamdom.*
All I can say is “thanks” for the opportunity.
#52 from Jim Rockford at 2:53 am on Nov 16, 2007
TOC — Sorry to rain on your parade, but Osama bin Laden HIMSELF cited Beirut and Mogadishu as evidence that the US could be attacked with impunity.
Well, if Osama “himself” said it, it must be true. Why don’t we make him Secretary of State so he can run our roeign Policy.
1. The ability to eliminate the *uncertainty* of Saddam’s counterweight to Iran with ourselves directly.
2. The ability to get rid of Saddam and make him an example — see what happens when you make an enemy of the US. A good point since *Osama cited extensively Saddam’s staying in place against the US as proof of limited US power and will.*
3. Ability to change the ugly stasis of tribes and tribal factions settling differences with themselves by uniting to attack the US — removing the Saddam regime makes that game too deadly as only the US exists as a counterweight to Iran/Shia/Persian domination of Sunni Arab tribes.
4. Ability to eliminate Saddam’s WMD *uncertainty.* Both the Duelfer Report and others show that Saddam *bluffed* that he had them and planned to get them for real as soon as sanctions dropped.
5. Most importantly, respond to Saddam’s provocative challenge to the US of kicking out the inspectors and *bluffing* that he had WMDs.
This simply adds up to the following:
1. Let you enemies dictate your policy.
2. Act out of fear rather than reason.
3. Respond to any feint that your enemy makes.
Brilliant!
Whoops, seemed to have missed a little cherry left behind by AL for the picking.
Another bit of evidence supporting my contention that the Armed Liberal can’t even be bothered to read the comments in his own thread, a tractable problem even for those of us burdened with family, jobs and numerous other concenrs, as well as the accuracy of my predictions:
Here’s what I said in #7 wrt the issue of IED reductions:
bq. (please don’t come back with the argument that the bombers are “afraid”)
And so, how does the AL reply?
bq. and gosh, if some folks in Iran weren’t worried about being blown up in airstrikes – would diplomacy have worked?
Honestly, you can’t script stuff like this…it’s the kind of comedy that just writes itself.
_”I’ll tell you what we gained from the Iraq War_
-Jim Rockford
In truth J.R you’ve done the opposite. Let’s begin with the acknowledgement that our assault on Iraq constitutes the ultimate war crime of aggression. Iraq posed no credible threat to the US and Team Bush launched the attack under fictional pretexts [for details see my post (#185) from the “100 Silly Things†thread of Nov 3rd].
_1. The ability to eliminate the uncertainty of Saddam’s counterweight to Iran with ourselves directly._
Iran needs a counterweight? Iran poses no threat to any nation and hasn’t invaded a neighbor in two millennia. Its only “crime†has been its successful defiance of US hegemony in the region. How dare they overthrow our hand picked brutal tyrant after all the trouble we went through in crushing their democracy in service to Big Oil back in ’53! How dare they support Lebanese resistance to Israeli aggression! How dare they support the indigenous resistance in neighboring Iraq to the illegal occupation by the global hegemon! The nerve.
_2. The ability to get rid of Saddam and make him an example — see what happens when you make an enemy of the US. A good point since Osama cited extensively Saddam’s staying in place against the US as proof of limited US power and will._
So…where does any of this reconcile with international law or the UN Charter? Is it the right of the US to careen about the world like a mafia don making examples of others? As to your second statement the incredible ineptitude of the Team Bush occupation has served as “proof†that we are anything but invincible. All that our illegal occupation of Iraq has accomplished is the further destabilization of the region and provide a fertile training-ground (and rationale) for future terrorists.
_3. Ability to change the ugly stasis of tribes and tribal factions settling differences with themselves by uniting to attack the US — removing the Saddam regime makes that game too deadly as only the US exists as a counterweight to Iran/Shia/Persian domination of Sunni Arab tribes._
Only the US exists as the most despised force in the region—for good reason. Have doubts? Check the polls of Arab public opinion.
_4. Ability to eliminate Saddam’s WMD uncertainty. Both the Duelfer Report and others show that Saddam bluffed that he had them and planned to get them for real as soon as sanctions dropped._
See my post referenced above for deconstruction of this canard (kudos to Jon Schwarz).
_5. Most importantly, respond to Saddam’s provocative challenge to the US of kicking out the inspectors and bluffing that he had WMDs.”_
Once again, post #185 from the “100 Silly Things†thread of November 3rd.
_When you say we should have cut our losses when things first went bad in Iraq, I wonder what you imagine would have happened after we did…_
I don’t know. I can speculate about best possibilities or worst possibilities. The best alternatives would look like I was hoping for ponies — I can make arguments for them but there’s no way to resolve disagreement, it’s water over the bridge now.
In the best case the iraqis would go ahead and set up a democratic government. They had some momentum in that direction but Bremer stopped them. Without Bremer would they go ahead? Would they ban Ba’ath and its members? If not, if they held unrestrained elections that looked fair, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t get much violence until the hard questions came up. Was there too much lust for vengeance among shias? Too much fear of vengeance among sunnis? I dunno. It could have worked. Al Sadr talked like he wanted reconciliation. If he had 30% of the vote and the sunnis added another 20% or 25%, that would almost be enough. If we’d pulled the army out but kept the reconstruction funds going to the iraqi government maybe it might likely have worked. They’d have had some reconstruction corruption but not as much as we did.
Iraq would not have had anything like a workable army for years. They would not be a military threat to their neighbors for that long. Would their neighbors invade? Turkey might, since the iraqi government would be too weak to stop kurdish attacks on turkey, as has actually happened. Iran might invade kurdistan too, over the kurdish attacks in iran. If kurdistan seceded this wouldn’t be a problem for iraq beyond the uncertain borders.
Apart from the question of kurdish relations with turkey and iran, I don’t think anybody else would invade. It would just look too crass to kick them while they were down. An invading nation would need to justify it to their own people, and the kurds are about the only justification I see.
Now, what about worse cases. Say kurdistan stays with iraq and they have a weak government that can’t stop provocations on iran and turkey and loses a war with them — losing some territory to nations that really didn’t want to have more kurdish subjects anyway, but that did want the northern oil. Probably whoever got the northern oil reserves would manage to pump oil at least as well as we have, and likely better. But meanwhile iraq would be trying to put too many resources into building the army too fast, and their reconstruction would suffer, and with generals getting the money and the prestige they might easily have a coup. Saddam lite in a few years. The new general asks for US support, we give him support and put bases in, generally bad all round but far cheaper for us in the short run.
Another worst case. Maybe the sunni/shia split would be just too bad. It was a secular government with shias in it, but it primarily benefitted sunnis and shias were preferentially tortured and killed. Maybe Sistani and Sadr couldn’t get them to forgive that. So they have a civil war. Would it be worse than what we’ve seen? Probably not. They have their civil war, ethnic cleansing drives maybe 20% of the population from their homes, perhaps as many as a million people get killed, and there’s bad blood over it for generations. No worse than what we actually have.
Would we look bad for invading iraq and then pulling out? I dunno. It was what Bush said we were going to do in the first place. I can’t get too excited about what iraqis think of us. If we’re the winners then it doesn’t matter what the losers think. If they want to think they had a victory and drove us off, they can look at the wreckage of their armor and their artillery, and the bombing damage, and the casualties, and the government buildings and records destroyed by their own looters, and think again. If one of their diplomats mouths off about the victory we can ask him if he’d like a rematch. But it’s a whole lot easier to say you’re winning when you pull out before you’ve already been in a difficult occupation. We could have pulled out right away, as planned. Or after 6 months. The longer we waited the more it looked like a defeat to pull out.
OK, next bad case. We pull out before we find Saddam, and he pops up and takes over the government again. He calls it a victory. Then what? Well, we failed to kill him before the war. We needed trustworthy assassins in iraq, and everybody we hired was untrustworthy. After we conquered iraq we’d be in much better position to find agents who’d kill Saddam if he ever popped up. And we’d have taken his yellowcake etc that the UN had sealed, we could honestly say we’d stopped his nuclear program and achieved our objectives. But more important, we could invade iraq again whenever we wanted and maybe catch him the next time. Two invasions would cost less than one invasion and 5+ years of occupation. And that’s the big argument against it being a defeat for us to leave. You’re defeated when they drive you out of their country and you’re afraid to go back. You aren’t defeated when you pull out and come back whenever you want to. Every latin american understands this — we’re occupying hardly any place in the western hemisphere but the closest they can point to as US defeats are the Contras and Bay of Pigs.
I don’t think Saddam could have come back. The shias had too much chance to compare notes during the first weeks we gave them free speech. That cat wasn’t ever going back into that bag. And for that matter the main reason to support Saddam was that he was in charge and he could reward or severely punish people. It’s very different to support him when he’s some geek hiding in a spidey hole who wants to get back to running everything. All in all I think civil war was far far more likely than a new sunni government on top again. But I could be wrong and a new Ba’ath government with the need for another invasion might possibly have happened.
Would the oil production get disrupted? Maybe. It did in real life. There’s the problem that whoever gets the money will have enemies who might possibly try to keep them from getting it. And people who trade in oil futures might bribe iraqis to disrupt pumping at particular times, to cash in. Maybe that would come out better or worse than it actually has.
It looks to me like what actually happened has been among the worse possibilities, and our army wound up in the middle of it. But hard to be sure, and no way to prove what might have happened.
Once again, the thing I’m truly convinced we should have tried and didn’t was to offer Saddam $5 billion and political refugee status for himself and as many of his top advisors as he wanted, to sell us iraq. We had nothing to lose by making the offer. Saddam himself offered to do it for only $1 billion and Bush turned him down. We’d still have to do some kind of occupation and it wouldn’t be all that cheap, but for far less than it cost us to destroy Saddam’s army and secret police and all that, we could *own* Saddam’s army and secret police etc. No airstrikes, no cluster bombs, no DU rounds, no damaged power plants, very few casualties. Foreign investment under US law. Democracy promotion in a US territory. There’s no way to argue that what we actually did was better. And the worst that could happen was Saddam might say no.
“I’ll tell you what we gained from the Iraq War”
-Jim Rockford
_In truth J.R you’ve done the opposite._
Coldtype, notice that you are arguing with Jim Rockford.
He is a strawman, and when you argue with him you demolish strawman arguments. Do it if you want to, but is it really worth the effort?
Coldtype:
You know, if you believed one single word that you write, you wouldn’t be telling it to us. You’d be calling a suicide hotline, waiting on hold behind Arthur Silber.
Not that it’s going to make the slightest difference to your Warp 9 Hyperbole, but Iran conquered India, Afghanistan, and part of what’s now Pakistan in the 18th Century, so you’ve over-calculated their harmlessness by a factor of at least 10.
I think you’d find life in your Evil Empire a little less frantic if you wouldn’t drink so much Starbucks.
But Glen, that wasn’t IRAN that did any of that stuff, that was Persia! Incredible but true. Iran didn’t exist until the Shah named it that. And that was, when, 1956 or something?
Also, the guy that created the Iliad and the Odyssey was not the Homer historians used to cite, but a completely different blind bard, also (coincidentally) named Homer. Got that?
“He is a strawman, and when you argue with him you demolish strawman arguments. Do it if you want to, but is it really worth the effort?”
-J. Thomas
Not really. Good point.
“I think you’d find life in your Evil Empire a little less frantic if you wouldn’t drink so much Starbucks.”
-Glen Wishard
Still waiting for your argument.
_”I think you’d find life in your Evil Empire a little less frantic if you wouldn’t drink so much Starbucks.”_
-Glen Wishard
Ah. I read that as ‘tantric’ the first time around. Now it isn’t as surreal.
I guess that shows where my mind is.
JT – thanks for what I imagine will be the laugh of the day.
A.L.