Great job as usual by Michael Goldfarb in describing the fighting in Basra. Basically saying that those who moan and cry about Iraq always like to point out that the militia’s are still running rampant. Well now Maliki is doing something about it and what do we get? More whining. Michael:
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it’s not at all apparent that the region’s more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government’s sovereignty. It’s the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government–even to the New York Times it looks like progress.
Meanwhile Obama said this today about the fight:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
Really? There are tensions in Iraq that have not gone away? Get outta here….
No one has said The Surge has done this, not Bush, not McCain, no one. Does anyone really expect tensions to ease in a few short months, or years? Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life. And to suggest that he, or anyone else, can reduce those “tensions” by running from the fight is just naive and foolish. If we leave before that country can defend itself from outside influence, and from within, then you can bet your ass that there will a bit more going on other then some tension. There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi government has been criticized for not taking advantage of the reduction in violence caused by The Surge. Well, here they are stepping up and the MSM quickly steps up and gives the gloomiest reporting possible. You would think that those who want us out of Iraq would take heart in this fight…..one more step closer to getting out of there.
But not if it means they can’t bash Bush.
When 2009 rolls around, and if HillBama is in office, you better believe the reporting by the MSM and the talking points from lefty politico’s will be markedly different.
See author page
Let me clarify my last post.
Iraq, while a democracy in name, was not. It was the only exception.
And all of the governments we backed (including Pinochet’s Chile) were brutal in repressing dissent, and all of them ran torture chambers, regularly “disappeared” people, and functioned as dictatorships after we meddled in their affairs.
There was never a single credible communist threat in any of them, they were all devoted capitalist countries, and all democracies (except Iraq, which was in name only). Oh, and did you know whose side the US was on when Saddam took power? Take a guess.
Socialists would never see or acknowledge or recognize a communist threat (let alone any threat).
Tell us, genius – just how would a communist (or islamofacist…SCARY) threat materialize, especially here in the US? In the form of labor unions? Healthcare? Where are all the “communists” hiding dude? Are they just waiting to come out and take away all your money and nice stuff and make you work on a potato farm?
Talk about tinfoil hat nonsense. The right wing in this country is as delusional as it’s ever been.
Wowza is right.
Oh yeah,
For those of you dredging up thin WWII and Japan post war occupation as an analogy to what we face in Iraq now, I have a question:
What was the Japanese or German equivalent of Sadr’s militia or of any militia (of which at least two exist) for that matter? Tell me about the civil wars we had to quell in those countries after WWII. Thanks in advance.
Umm we have no monopoly adn China and Russia have contracts with the Iraqi government for oil How can we have a monopoly when US companies do not een own the rights. Kind of strange when facts get int he way huh.
Didn’t Saddam say that he wanted everyone to know he had WMD and that when the sanctions were over he would start up the factories again. Kind of takes a little out of your talking points.
don;t want my taxes to go to programs that help no one and just eat away at our self reliance. This war is a fraction of all the social programs that our Dear Lord government spends every day. Do you know that we spent a half a trillion on our failed school system, but you want us to spend more on a failing system.
So Cuba isn’t communist, the whole Communist influence in Latin America was made up. I guess you should ask all the jailed and murdered people down there and. They might beg to differ with you.
And I guess Chavez was really elected on the up and up, I mean come on Carter said so.
If you haven;t noticed he has made himself dictator for life down there, ala Castro. reall democracy down there huh.
And I guess Reagan, the Pope and Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with the fall of USSR either???
Talk about delusional
Let me tell you we had a group called the Wolves in Germany killing people left and right. We did not quell them for years after the war. And some Japanese in the hinter land never got word that the war was over, and continued to fight afterwords. They had people that were at their posts up until the 90s. And would fire at any one that was not Japanese for decades. All wars have a nasty ending. Every war has had guerilla fighting after the war was over.
So Cuba isn’t communist, the whole Communist influence in Latin America was made up. I guess you should ask all the jailed and murdered people down there and. They might beg to differ with you.
Again with the alternate universe. DID WE DEPOSE CASTRO? Ok.
But regarding every other latin American country I referenced, the regimes we supported killed and tortured thousands more people than any preceding democratically elected government did. See Uraguay, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.
You’re reciting old red scare memes and aren’t adhering to reality.
As for your “examples” re: post WWII, those were FRACTIONAL, MARGINALIZED groups. NOTHING like the situation in Iraq, but nice try. I respect your wingnut credentials.
So havng roving bands of thugs killing people, kike Mookie Malitia is not the same. Huh, itersting. The Wolves were more organized than any of the Militias in Iraq right now. They might not have had as many men, but did a great deal of damage.
Yes the REd Scare was just made pu and no communists were trying to take over the Latin American countries. That is really good. Where did you read that from Che Guevera. FARC is a MArxists oraganiation that has been around for years, adn they were just caught with plutomium.
All the Narco-Terrorists organizations were bankrolled by Russian handlers. So was the IRA. They hand their hands in a lot of places. After the Wall fell and the USSR was no more, many documents there proved that the Red Scare was true.
These are what the typical leftists who are commenting on this site look like:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R_Dd8cRIhjI/AAAAAAAAMf0/m_fmtzjR5og/s1600-h/mac+mn.jpg
It’s no wonder they have completely naive views, live in a world of fantasy, and refuse to condemn the real monsters in this world.
It’s sad — what you leftists do with the freedom our brave men and women died for is completely disgraceful.
Excellent Post, Richard Romano, I agree completely.
Scott, were you able to link with the website’s fine?
KC, Curt’s “sooooo cheap” monopoly reponse was sarcasm. Tho you demonstrate manners devoid of social civility, I’m positive you can’t possibly be that dense.
Much of what has gone done in Iraq is a direct result of the actions of a stateless enemy, calling no country home, hitting US shores Sept 11th. This makes this war completely unique by comparison to those of the past generations. This also makes some comparisons to previous wars completely absurd. One fact cannot be refuted. New governments and their mark of efficience do not happen in the span of 22 months.
Deposing Saddam was US policy attitude since Clinton’s 1998 Iraq Freedom Act. However the likelihood of it actually being implemented was probably zip, nada, nil. But it sure made for “feel good” legislation… like the Darfur resolution and so many others that accomplish nothing.
No change of implementation until, of course, 911. That’s when we “bombed” the human cockroaches out of their Taliban/Afghan nests and knew they would merely run to friendlier digs to continue proliferation. Raised in Florida as a youth, it’s not hard for me to make the jihad movement to cockroach analogy. But, if you’re not familiar with the critter, for some uncanny similarities, you may want to check out the five steps to killing cockroaches at the bottom of this pesticide site… assuming at least the common bond between us is that you are not a supporter of the global Islamic jihad movement’s agenda.
You give no credence to translated IIS documents. So we won’t even go there. However I find the the credibility you freely grant to Senatorial reports (Riegle), while you give none to Joint Forces Command, incredibly partisan, Thereby you lose viability simply because you pick a report because it best suits your particular beliefs and close your mind to anything else. I reject your counterpoints here as nothing more than anal attitude that we cannot surmount.
Your constant references to past administrations support of despotic factions tell me that you have a surprising naive black and white view. While I believe mistake by leaders have been make (and will continue to be made) thru time, reality dictates that we don’t always have a choice between good and bad, but between worse and worst. This holds true to most POTUS elections as well. Picking the lesser evil with which to deal until further in the future, and other actions and events push it over the edge of tolerance.
This lesser evil theory applies mightily to dealing with Muslim nations, of which their visions and those of the west, will never truly gel. The “hate Musharraf” campaign is a perfect example of demonizing a leader and ally who’s had to tread a fine line to aid the US with intel, and tacitly approve joint military strikes in order to keep a semblence of peace in Pakistan. We will be dealing with a world without Musharraf’s help soon enough… a not-so-distant future problem to face.
Last, while I don’t apply the “communist label” to many of the proposed DNC programs, they dance ever so close to the edge and are socialist in structure. So I do not support them, and suspect that if they are implemented, they will indeed alter life in this nation…. and not to the benefit of the ambitious. If, however, you prefer mediocrity as your life’s financial rewards, it’s gonna be heaven.
But then, I’m entering my golden years… such as they may be. So my concern lies for my granddaughter’s future in this nation. I’m sorry to be handing her the reins to a country filled with ungrateful, unambitious types that refuse to fight for all we hold dear, and prefer the government hand them everything from cradle to grave. Such a life holds no joy nor adventure. Merely a false “guarantee” that one pays for dearly.
KC, read my entire post! That fact that you responded to one small aspect of my post with the notion that I had already debunked in the rest of the post proves that you suffer from selective hearing/reading(I guess, for this case since we are blogging), and that when you find the very meat and potatoes that you are looking for so desperately to use in your absurd response, the rest of the post that you are responding to means nothing. So tell me, after having looked at the confessions made by the terror suspects(in the links I had provided) of the thwarted VX attack, how was Saddam’s regime not a threat to my security? How was an agent that was supposed to be used to kill 80 thousand people and wound 160 thousand not a WMD?
In your response, you called me stupid. No, I am not stupid, for a 19 year old who has peers that aren’t as concerned about political issues, I am well informed. I also have a good understanding when it comes to economics and military affairs. I also am active in my community when it comes to helping solve problems. I also am someone who is perfectly ready for the Navy Seals after I finish school, and I know the difficulties that await me. Your comment only exemplifies your ignorance, and your short attention span, given that you didn’t read my entire posted comment.
Also, the Reigle Report holds no water and lacks credibility. Given that it doesn’t mention the fact that the very countries who opposed our removal of Saddam have given him WMD’s in the past. In fact, these countries had deals to help Saddam with acquiring more WMD’s when the U.N. sanctions were lifted. Hell, even they don’t contest this. I should also add that I hope you have the integrity to restrain yourself from setting up double standards based on your own biases. It wouldn’t make any sense for you to use the “we gave Saddam the WMD’s” argument against the WMD rational that helped justify Saddam’s removal from power, and not hold the people who oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom accountable on the same standards when they commited the same crime, right?
It’s also pretty damn funny how the report claims that the radioactive material we supposedly gave to Saddam was causing brain damage in our troops, yet not one of the other countries who have had troops in the same areas of operations as the U.S. troops who got sick didn’t have the same health issues. Not one Italian, British, Danish, or Czech soldier who was in the Persian Gulf had anything like the United States troops did. Yet, they drank the same water, and operated while collaborating with each other. This leads me to conclude that the radioactive material which supposedly came from the United States that the Reigle Report blames for sick troops with malfunctioning brain tissue in their Basal Ganglias doesn’t exist. Therefore, the causes for the damaged Basal Ganglias of U.S. troops must’ve come from a different cause. Probably the impact from the blasts that come from the bombs which insurgents use, which are also helped paid for by people like Code Pink.
If you want a report that has some credibility in it, then read the one from Richard Butler who is a former U.N. inspector. His report didn’t undergoe the political crucifiction that the Reigle Report did. Also, I am not a winger. I have no political party. Apparently, you are because you are willing to cite old news agit-prop that has been discredited only because it helps you advance your talking points. This leads me to conclude that your political views mean more to you than anything. It is this type of behavior that is exemplified by someone who is going to try and win at all costs no matter how many good reputations they step on. Now, I am not going to call myself a victim, because I can defend myself. However, I have seen some nasty stuff in the blogosphere coming from people of all political views and I have to say that you are no exception.
Please, go showcase your seperation from reality some place else.
Robert in BA #28 wrote:
As Scott indicated, do you think it’s just lefty “kids” being forced to go to war? Do you think serving on the frontlines in combat infantry is the only way to serve your country? Regardless of whether that plays to one’s strengths or not?
Not everyone is suited for the military. Not everyone within the military is suited to being an infantryman. Everyone has their talents, everyone has their roles where they can best serve their country; where they can best serve in winning this war.
When you talk about money, who do you think donates to military charities more? The anti-war left? Or the pro-victory right?
Here’s some food for thought:
Rand in comment #31 (and Robert in ##33 and KC in #34 linking to the same exact cherrypicked line)? Your link validates my point. I’d say “nice try, though”; but then….I’d be lying. My link trumps yours.
psmarc93 wrote #32:
As wordsmith types, “Cursed are the pessimists, with shovel in hand they shall bury alive the optimists in a mountain of shit.”
KC writes:
Maybe you hippies should allow military recruiters onto school campuses? Make Marines feel welcomed in Berkeley?
Maybe you lefties could actually honor our war heroes, rather than make it seem like a sin to be soldiers in this war.
Do you support fighting fires? Stopping crime? Why don’t you volunteer yourself up to be a firefighter? Or force your children to join the police academy? How can you say you support the police and fire depts in fighting fires and fighting crime from the safety of your living rooms, with nothing at stake yourselves?
What do you say to the gold star parents who are the anti-thesis of Cindy Sheehan? What do you tell the majority in the military who want to win in Iraq?
I’ll say it again. Draft Bill Kristol’s kids, and have Marty Peretz pay for the war. That’ll make Kristol and Peretz leaders in the anti-war movement.
Don’t believe me? Try it!
Elect John McCain for President and then draft his two sons into the military. That’ll make him the leader in the anti-war movement.
Oh….wait.
Do you support fighting fires? Stopping crime? Why don’t you volunteer yourself up to be a firefighter?
now you’ve crossed the line. i AM a firefighter, a-hole!
bring it on any time chickenhawk. your webmaster can give you my IP whenever.
Thanks again! in advance sheep!
Hippie? are you kidding?!
I know plenty of “hippies” that woud eat your lunch big guy.
and i’m FOR the right to bear arms.
you psychos have taken control of our foreign policy for too long…i.e 50 years.
and you’re asking for it “tough” guys. seriously. call me a “moonbat” on the street and see how many teeth you’ll soon be missing you little armchair-war-quarterback-pussies.
Seiously. Bring it you litlle pussies. I’m NOT a troll and do expect to be banned, but you chicken hawks are DONE spending my TAX dollars fighting your gift for the MIC wars.
Again, find me and back up the tough talk….better yet….enlist tough guys.
God damn. I’m one hearbeat away from giving all you psycho wingnuts my physical addy. You’d be really sorry to come knocking on my door. Go on. dare me to divulge. Really; dare me.
Bring it on to a man who believes in the Constitution; unlike you pussies who kowtow to bush and his gay-ass cheney who claims to be the intellectual.
I have no doubt you whimps will report my IP to the CIA or FBI…in the mean time. how’s about a fist fight between the tough ass “wing nuts” and the rest of us?
I am not a democrat, but you’d be insulting me to all ends by calling me a republican in this day and age…you people need to learn to think for yourselves
serious: one legitimate post and I’ll throw my addy out there. I’m waiting…..
Maybe you hippies should allow military recruiters onto school campuses? Make Marines feel welcomed in Berkeley?
Maybe you lefties could actually honor our war heroes, rather than make it seem like a sin to be soldiers in this war.
Again, I will gladly divulge my phizzy addy. Stop erecting straw men to support your armchair philosophy. Bring it to the octagon tough ass. I am SOOOO waiting. pussy. pussies. I’ll keep my identity silent for now, but please yell in my face. please. PLease?
Wow, such violent, threatening, dander-raised rhetoric from people who oppose the removal of a dictator. Interesting. Useless, but interesting. Reminds me a lot of the violent peace protesters we see so much of lately.
Yeah, Ryan, those links worked, but I didn’t see anything that said they used vx from Iraq. I’d heard that before, but must’ve missed it in those articles.
Ya know, last week Al Queda (which was in Iraq before the invasion according to Al Queda, AQ detaineess, regime detainees who worked with them, and captured docs), took over a village in N Iraq, killed all the women and children including a 15month old baby. It didn’t get any msm coverage (someone daring to ask Chelsea about Monica was more important). I have to wonder:
-why people don’t protest against Al Queda?
-why people advocate leaving Iraq to Al Queda’s free reign (keeping counter-terrorist forces, support forces, and forces needed to protect Americans=current force levels)
-why people don’t unite and applaud the amazing efforts that people are going to in Iraq to fight and kill Al Queda?
Oh yeah, doing that wouldn’t help prevent GWB from being re-elected.
How do Conservatives spin this one?
We’ve been hearing for more than four years that “90,000 Iraqi police have been trained” (or 50,000, or whatever the “we are turning the corner in Iraq” story of the week was.
It appears we were training and equiping them all right… for the Sadr militias.
And you know that if this may turnovers happened in front of the cameras, how many more are happening every day.
The “Surge” may have succeeded militarily. However the occupation has failed, and is failing, and will contiue to fail.. as long as itis being mis-managed by the Bush Administration.
http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/552387.html
Iraq’s new army is “developing steadily,” with “strong Iraqi leaders out front,” the chief U.S. trainer said.
That was three-plus years ago, and the trainer was David H. Petraeus, now the top American commander in Iraq. Some of those Iraqi officials at the time were busy embezzling more than $1 billion allotted for the new army’s weapons, according to investigators.
The 2004-05 Defense Ministry scandal was just one in a long series of setbacks in the five-year struggle to “stand up” an Iraqi military as President Bush has promised and allow hard-pressed U.S. forces to “stand down.” The latest discouraging episode was unfolding this weekend in bloody Basra, the southern city where Iraqi government forces — in their toughest test yet — were struggling to gain the upper hand in a battle with Shiite Muslim militias.
…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/sadr-militia-defies-iraqi-call-to-disarm/2008/03/30/1206850706025.html
Representatives of the Sadrist Movement, meanwhile, said dozens of Iraqi police and soldiers had offered them their weapons, saying they would not use their arms against fellow Iraqis.
One apparent handover took place in Baghdad’s Sadr City. About 40 police were seen walking through Sadr City’s streets to lay their automatic weapons at the feet of Salman Furaiji, director of the Sadrist office there.
Most of the soldiers wore dark glasses and covered their faces to hide their identities. One of them said he was a second lieutenant in the national police and would not use his weapon against fellow Muslims to support the current offensive.
“We came here to tell our brothers, the followers of Sadr, that we will not be against you,” he said. The man said the group would not fight the Sadrists, but neither would it join the militia.
Wordsmith, when you cause someone to unravel, it ain’t pretty.
Well, I’m a wife, mother, daughter, niece and aunt of veterans that have fought in a number of our wars and none of them have ever mentioned that you lose your right to free speech if you or yours haven’t served. Knowing them as I do I think I can speak for them in saying that they would appreciate voices from home that support their mission.
In a recent conversation with my nephew who returned from Iraq in October and is now waiting for orders to return, said he was disappointed with the way the press has twisted the Iraq story. He saw specific incidents where troop’s conversations with reporters were so mangled that they didn’t even resemble what the troops said. He’s a big Michael Yon fan, btw. Even though Yon spends quite a bit of time in Iraq with our troops, he provides a similar, more detailed message of what many supporting the mission from our shores do. You know, those that should not speak because they don’t have a child serving.
Ryan #60:
Hopefully some that have found their way in here will go back and read your posts, they are excellent. You are a mature young man we can all be proud of, best wishes for your future goals.
we had a group called the Wolves in Germany killing people left and right
You are thinking of the Werewolves. And they were not ‘killing people left and right’; they were actually quite ineffectual, not just by comparison with the Wehrmacht that preceded them but also compared to later guerrilla outfits. German culture I think does not lend itself to secret insurgencies.
some Japanese in the hinter land never got word that the war was over, and continued to fight afterwords
Yes. Of course these guys couldn’t communicate with each other and were basically bandits. I think the question was about organized militias.
at their posts up until the 90s
Really? The last one I know of was Hiro Onoda (surrendered in 1972). I think there was one guy who was revealed to be a Japanese soldier in the 1990s, but he had integrated into Filipino society.
However Donald Rumsfeld (the “Greatest Secretary of Defense in History” – Dick Cheney) used these comparisons to declare there was no insurgency. And that was the spin for quite a few Friedman Units.
“Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell.”
Hmmm….examples? Are there differences between “insurgencies,” “guerrilla movements,” and “terrorists?” Our experience in South America, alone, would seem to contradict this assertion; FARC has been fighting in Columbia for roughly 40 years, and Shining Path (or, at least, elements of that group) are still active in Peru after 25+ years. The mujahideen in Afghanistan saw 15 years pass from their original fight against the pro-Soviet regime through the rise of the Taliban (who were insurgents themselves, yes?). There are still insurgents in Kashmir, 60 years after the boundaries were drawn. The Phillipines has been dealing with Islamic insurgents for 30+ years (Abu Sayyaf, anyone?).
define “quell”
It seems the definition wavers depending on its potential value in political discussion.
KC #64
You’re also an April Fool and a joke.
Don’t you have that backward? Isn’t it “a-hole firefighter”?
My analogy’s lost on you as well as the merits of my argument because you invest too much of your own ego into your comments.
I don’t give a rat’s ass who you are nor what a badass you think you are. Your personal background doesn’t qualify nor invalidate the merits of the discussion we are having. Your “expertise” in any given field will speak for itself in a well-reasoned argument.
So far all you’ve given are emotional outbursts and temper tantrum-driven ad hominems.
In coming here and attacking us, you ignore that one of the contributors is still currently fighting in this war; and the head sheriff here is a former Marine and currently in law enforcement. I myself have been working on getting into the military. So what?
The chickenhawk “insult” is nothing more than a ploy to shut down debate.
We’re all “chickenhawks” when it comes to something; but it doesn’t disqualify one’s beliefs regarding the importance of a profession and the role it fulfills to a society; nor support for the profession.
It is because there are those brave enough to serve and sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us who aren’t, that we are in awe of those in the military, in law enforcement, in the fire department….a-hole firefighters being the one exception.
Internet bullying is lame. The funny thing is, I spent a good chunk of my life in combat sports. But unlike you, I walked softly and carried a big stick. You’re a blowhard and a dick.
Come back after you’ve shaken the sand out of your vagina.
wesmorgan,
USA Today (by way of the Air Force Times): Insurgencies like Iraq’s usually fail in 10 years
They’ve been dealing with it a lot longer than that if one considers that the Moros have never really been pacified for over 500 years. But the Philippine Insurrection officially lasted only about 4 years. Pockets of fighting and skirmishes never really stopped though.
Re: ““Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell.”
Hmmm….examples? Are there differences between “insurgencies,” “guerrilla movements,” and “terrorists?” ”
And what is the timeline when the “insurgency” is really a civil war in which the United States has inserted itself as the trainer, equipper, financier, as well as the second favorite target, of all sides?
What I find amusing is the implicit assumption that being against the current war gives moral high ground and absolves the adherent from any responsibility for national defense. And the vast majority of such commenters are not veterans, nor do I believe there is any conceivable scenerio in which they’d enlist themselves. (And not to put too fine a point on it, in my 20+ years in the Marines, I met damn few who were of like mindset.) Those who do enlist tend to be a bit more conservative and hawkish (go figure), and surprisingly idealistic.
Moreover, the contention that one must enlist in a particular conflict ignores some basic realities. When I signed up, the gathering storm was the Soviet Bear. By the time I was trained and somewhat competent (a few years later), we were looking at other threats, and my only combat tour (a couple years later yet) was in a wholly unforeseen fracas in the desert.
People tend to join an all-volunteer military because they believe national defense is worthwhile. And if the contention is that those people bring a special perspective and expertise to such a discussion, I agree. If the claim is that being anti-war is so congruent with non-service that it gives a special cachet to such folks’ opinions, well . . . not so much.
Re: Firefighting.
America is struggling to put out fires? We don’t have enough firefighters on staff to keep the blazes from getting out of control? Housefires are burning for weeks on end? The US needs to pay privately held companies just to put out fires around the country?
Links please.
Surely, i will volunteer to be a firefighter if the situation is as big a clusterfuck as the Iraq war. (BTW, clusterfuck is the right word to describe the Iraq situation. Calling it a quagmire is just sugarcoating it).
Lots of talk about who won the battles in Iraq. Maliki? Sadr? Sadr? Maliki?
One thing’s for sure: The surge didn’t work.
Maybe Patraeus, who lost over 195,000 weapons he was charged with securing in Iraq, trained the Iraqi military–who just “changed sides” in the war, and has sullied the military brand by becoming a political hack, isn’t the great and brilliant General he’s been made out to be. In fact, scratch the word “maybe” from that last sentence.
To wordsmith, Re: chickenhawk insult.
And you can be against the war without “hating America”, “being on the side of terrorists”, or “loving Saddam”. In fact, most who criticize the Iraq War do so because they love their country and are disgusted by its actions.
The surge didn’t work
It sure looks to me like it worked, in the sense of dramatically reducing violent death across a wide swath (basically all) of Iraq. People who want to say ‘it failed’ do so by setting the bar unreasonably high, or by piling lots of non-military requirements on Petraeus’ plate. And I speak as someone who has never thought this war was worth the cost. Of course it’s reasonable to say ‘OK, the surge succeeded: what’s our next step, what other problems do we have?’, but saying the surge failed just because we didn’t magically turn Iraq into Switzerland is wrong.
Robert, that’s actually a very good counterpoint. Well done.
Of course.
What a bunch of morons.
It’s amazing to hear you wingnuts repeat all the tired horsesh*t you’ve been fed the last 6 years. Just one example:
“Umm we have no monopoly adn China and Russia have contracts with the Iraqi government for oil How can we have a monopoly when US companies do not een own the rights. Kind of strange when facts get int he way huh.”
this guy’s a genius! he’s totally debunked the “blood for oil” rationale for the war!!!
except that these documents are real and their source and veracity are irrefutable. The source is dick cheney’s office. The time was before the Iraq war:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
If you can read those documents and still claim that this war had nothing to do with oil (and the companies that drill it), I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You wingers are hopelessly naive about what truly drives our foreign policy, and watching you get played for rubes has just gotten sad and depressing. I pity you guys at this point.
Yes, but more to the point they were two months before this document came out (National Energy Policy, May 2001). If you want to see where the data from those documents went, try chapter 8 (Strengthening Global Alliances: Enhancing National Energy Security and International Relationships). If that’s your proof of “Blood For Oil!!!” well . . . not exactly compelling.
wow, lots o loons today.
Strange how silent they are on which Democratic candidate’s plan to stay in Iraq they’ll be voting for, or whether or not nations should just let this kinda thing go on and say screw em-they’re not Americans/not equals
Hmm, so let’s see if I’m following you (ME) correctly in #79:
Because Cheney had documents that said there was oil in Iraq, prior to the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq MUST be for the purpose of taking said oil. “Because these documents are real and their source and veracity are irrefutable.” This despite the demonstrable fact that the majority of Iraq’s oil has been, and still is contracted to non-American companies. And the fact that the referenced documents aren’t evidence of any sort of wrongdoing…
Yes, he had a map and a list of companies with interests and potential interests in Iraqi oil. This seems to me like a good bit of homework in preparation for an action that had potential to impact those foreign interests. Consider: Companies whose interests have been impacted may well seek compensation. Wouldn’t it be prudent to have an idea who those potentially damaged parties might be?
Then again, I should know better than to try and reason with someone who leads off with “What a bunch of morons.” I just find it interesting that your real documents to back up what you’re saying don’t really say a lot… Did I miss the subtitles or something?? “Super Sekrit Blud 4 Oilz WAR PL4nX0r3Z” scrawled in invisible ink in the margins? What????
Lots of anti-war ranting, conspiracy theories, etc., but about 200 days from now…these same people will be pulling a lever in a booth for a candidate who will continue the war until 2013 if need be-or more if the Bush Admin objectives are not met.
Sen McCain has military experience, and called for a shift to counter-insurgency operations years ago.
Sen Obama has no military understanding at all, and while he opposed the removal of a dictator who we now know was planning to attack the US (see also captured documents), he has zero ideas on how to handle Iraq today. Whether one likes his ideas from six years ago or not is irrelevant since he’s not running for President of the United States six years ago, but rather for the NEXT four years.
…and misled fools will vote for him just because of a letter D next to his name.
Hoodwinked and bamboozled?
Cecil Turner wrote:
That is undoubtedly true for many, but there are also many for whom military service is a job, benefits for one’s family, educational benefits, or even a path to citizenship. (We have more than 40,000 non-citizens serving on active duty, with another 15,000 or so in the NGR.) I do believe that enlistments/reenlistments since the invasion of Iraq are likely to have been prompted more by a sense of duty than by more pedestrian interests.
So, what about those of us who both served our country AND see major problems in the planning, execution and future of this operation?
Wordsmith wrote:
Nice headline, sure, but here’s the article’s lead:
It goes on to state:
This doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence, especially since we don’t know what percentage are “still going on.” I’d love to see that study; does anyone have any pointers to it?
I don’t think that we can make a blanket statement that ‘stuff like this takes 10 years.’
Whoa… talk about regurgitating tired horsesh*t, guy… You’re stepping into that pile willingly with the “war for oil” mantra.
BTW, this may be a good subject to move onto the 200 billion barrel oil field thread. That is if you boys are done with the bar room brawl here.
I, for one, have no problems with evil “big oil”. History is filled with tribes and civilizations waging war for the essentials of life. I’ll wager any of you here if, under emergency conditions, found your family in need of drinking water and living next door to me – who was hoarding a supply and refused to share – you’d go after me with nary a second thought. So let’s knock off the pious “no war for oil” feel good crap and consider that concept in the context of reality.
Certainly the US wasn’t yet in the “kill the neighbor for water” scenario, so logic dictates it wasn’t the prime reason for deposing Saddam.
But when it comes to the 4th largest identified world oil reserves, who would you prefer is in control of that coveted resource?
1: A despot, plotting against not only his fellow states for a Pan-Arab empire, but who also views the US as a target?
2: The Islamic jihad movement?
3: Or a nation … not culturally akin to ours, but a form of democracy with freely elected govt… who trades with the rest of the world, a partner in terror intel, and is western tolerant?
It was never good idea for Saddam to control, and exploit oil fields for personal gain. It was merely a tool for him to thwart sanctions. I’ll assume we can all agree on #2… it’s *not* an option for the fields to be controlled by jihad groups.
That leaves door #3. So while it may not have been the prime reason to depose Saddam, I frankly consider it a perk of a free Iraq.
Wordsmith wrote:
Incidentally, anyone looking for a solid “military charity” should consider Army Emergency Relief. I’ve donated to AER ever since my own days in the service. It’s uniquely integrated with the chain of command, so there isn’t a great deal of bureaucracy; company COs and 1SGs can approve AER interest-free loans of up to $1000 for soldiers/families in need. They also help widows and children of those who give their lives.
Whether you’re “pro-war” or “anti-war”, this is a good way to truly “support our troops.”
Gee Matahary. You make Saddam sound like he was terrible. How bad could he have been, when Cheney’s company was doing business with him throughout the 90s?
Yes, the 90s.
Speaking of the powerful VP, it always makes me laugh that his supporters have no problem with the government spying on it’s citizens (the old “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide” mantra), yet he can’t let us know what was discussed at his meetings with the energy execs in early 2001.
Probably because he works for us, and we don’t work for him. Huh?
BTW, using your points, shouldn’t middle eastern countries have some say over the US’s natural resources as well, or is this a case of we can do what we want-screw everyone else?
I don’t want to misunderstand you, Robert BA. Are you suggesting that you equate US elected government bodies and our rule of law, plus US privatized business governed by federal regs in international trade, to the self-absorbed and brutal regime of a despot/dictator …Saddam Hussein?
Robert’s made a good point. The US has as much a right to order Middle Eastern countries how to sell their oil as Middle Eastern countries do to tell the US to break up into 3 semi-autonomous states (the Biden plan for Iraq). ‘Course, the US isn’t “ordering” Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan to sell their oil this way or that, and if that were the case, then American oil’d be a lot cheaper while Russia, China, and EU’s oil would be a lot more expensive.
Not only are we not dictating how Iraq handles their resources, Scott. US resources are not held hostage by a lone dictator, who gained and maintained that control/power by fear and violence while oppressing the citizens, and holding bogus elections.
The world has intervened before on such regimes, sans oil fields. I just happen to consider prying Saddam’s hands off that country’s wealth, and letting them decide how to handle it as a nation, a perk of his removal.
And totally agreed on a meddlesome Congress trying to mandate how Iraq’s govt should be formed.
Dunno, but it probably makes it a lot easier for you to get a spot on any news program, because they seem to like to hear from folks like you. Is there some magic in the combination? Not sure why there would be. And I suspect that it’s hard to find a military operation, let alone campaign, where one can’t find “major problems” . . . and that if we poll a cross-section of military personnel, they’d be disproportionately likely to support the war effort.
Wow, this topic sure seems to have churned the waters! Looks like we could break the 100 comment mark here without much trouble. I’m feeling a compulsion today to put down a left-wing argument; you know, that one about how those who support the Iraq War should either send their children off to battle, or join up themselves, or be derided as “chicken-hawks.”
This argument fails on two fronts; one is philosophical / ideological, and the other is what I will call a highly realist / economic count on which it crashes and burns. The United States has an entirely volunteer military (and without the threat of invasion, I think we will never need the draft again); meaning that all those who enlist do so because they have all done the internal math to sort out whether the risk of being called to battle where-ever our elected officials might judge necessary is equal to the monetary, citizenship, or status benefits of joining the military. As such whether a supporter of the war has a personal investment in the conflict or not, that should have no effect on the veracity of their support, since all the troops chose to be there.
If my first argument doesn’t satisfy the Michael Moore’s out there, so be it; but my second point is unassailable from any logical position. Economics teaches us that comparative advantage and specialization are the means by which any individual, company, or country gets ahead in the world. War being the most dangerous and weighty of human enterprises, it is imperative that our decision making in this regard remain cool and calculated. To elaborate on Wordsworth’s point earlier, there are those not best suited for the military who still choose to serve their country. A complete war effort requires not only soldiers, but intelligence gathering and analysis, creation of effective strategy, and of course the production of arms and the money necessary to continue the effort. Employing individuals in the careers where they are best suited is all part of this. Thusly, the U.S. would be foolish to simply ship off all those who would support the war into the battle itself, without first considering their best aptitude. Goodnight folks!
machiavelli,
All good points, which begin to fail miserably once you factor in that we will be fighting this war for “however long it takes”, and we don’t have nearly enough soldiers to do so.
Also, it seems the best aptitude of some is to make blanket statements on the web (and in the media) about how tough they are to support the never-ending war, puffing out their chests as if they are being brave by doing so (the true sign of a “chickenhawk”), and questioning the patriotism of those who point out the folly of fighting the war to begin with. To these supporters I ask again, if it’s so damn important to you (and to the country), why aren’t you putting your lives and money where your mouths are? Certainly a country running low on soldiers (and thus overextending the brave soldiers they do have), could use their bravery on the front lines of “the most important war evah”.
Also, I look forward to your take on where the money should come from to fight the war and support our soldiers. I hear a lot about who supports the troops, but returning veterans should get lifetime healthcare (physical and mental) no questions asked, adequate training and job search assistance to get them into the workforce, and assistance with home ownership. It’s the least we should do for those risking the ultimate sacrifice. I’m willing to raise my taxes to do so, but then again I’m practically a communist who hates our troops. Do you think we should rescind the tax breaks for our richest 1% (those who have the most to protect by sending troops to save their way of life), across the board 1% tax increase for all Americans, and a special tax on war profiteers? Or are you a good conservative who supports the troops with lots of talk about how you support the troops (what I call supporting the troops as pawns in the pro-war argument)?
I’ve had someone point out to me (upthread) how raising taxes might be bad for the economy, but is money more important than those who risk their lives for all of us?
Yeah, right after I posted, I decided to read it again (I read it when it first came out) and saw I misremembered that it was “after 10 years”, things tend to improve. Winning only 59% (or being inconclusive aren’t great odds).
I did a cursory look at the Dupuy Institute site and could not find it.
This might also be of interest: Small Wars Journal Reference Library.
A while back, I picked up the The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, but have not read through it yet.
Conclusion of the USA Today article:
You said, “Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life.”
I say, let me get on with my life, here in America. I just lost half of my retirement because Bush chose not to regulate the mortgage business (his trope is, I guess, that I should have either known better, regulated them myself, or they, the greed hogs, would regulate themselves). And I can’t continue my business because basically, the US has run out of credit, having shipped billions to China for the war.
Bring the troops home, stop the bleeding and bleeding money.
I want to get on with my life.
Yeah, blame Bush for your decisions. Is responsibility a bad word?
btw, bringing the troops home….
1) Bush is already doing it
2) The next President will end the occupation
3) Even if they all drove and flew out today, they’d just have to invade a 3rd time at an even higher cost
4) the war in Iraq has cost about $150bn a year. That’s a lotta money, but it’s cheaper than the cost of a 3rd invasion
btw, I lost all of my retirement savings thanks to President Clinton’s failure to regulate dot-com investment. Should I blame him like you do, or should the responsibility for MY investments be MY responsibility?
MataHarley said: It was never good idea for Saddam to control, and exploit oil fields for personal gain. It was merely a tool for him to thwart sanctions. I’ll assume we can all agree on #2… it’s *not* an option for the fields to be controlled by jihad groups.
That leaves door #3. So while it may not have been the prime reason to depose Saddam, I frankly consider it a perk of a free Iraq.
Define free Iraq. I think you mean one managed in some way by the US, because once its free, it will become, eventually as free as Gaza under Hamas. Or Saudi Arabia under its monarchs. Iraq is an islamic country and can be expected to act like a muslim nation, i.e. no separation of church and state. Which to me, means sharia law, et al. If we are in it for the oil, then lets act like it. Send more troops. suppress the population. Manage the politicians. Or whatever needs to be done. And by the way, I would like to hear what the plan is from our own political nattering classes. Is it about Oil? Freedom? Democracy? I submit those are in a practical sense contradictory goals.
Not that it makes any difference now, but Saddam, for all his brutality, ran a more secular society without most of the trappings of Islam. I think we should have tried other means to get rid of him before destroying Iraq to save it.
Lets do it right or get out. Another 100 years of the current crap, with no definition for “winning” is not a solution.