Comments Posted By Cutler
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments
THE $64,000 QUESTION IS ANSWERED
I've suspected the entire time that a desire not to complicate our relations with our perfidious "partners" was a significant for our lack of effort towards propagating what we've found in Hussein's vault.
However, it is time that the American people knew the score. We can't run our foreign policy by stealth forever. The American people have been left in the dark for too long regarding our fair-weather friends in Europe, regimes such as the Saudis, and Russia's little groupies throughout the region. I am not a fan of democracy, as opposed to representative government, but our system demands a certain amount of sunlight.
The problems facing us are not going to be solved by a small back room committee whispering "trust us" to the American people.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 26.03.2006 @ 00:02
FOR THE LEFT: A COMPASSION VACATION
Great post.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 1.09.2005 @ 02:22
BAINBRIDGE: A THOUGHTFUL BUT FLAWED CRITIQUE OF THE WAR
Your declaration that you are correct and that’s that's *all there is to it* is underwhelming.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 22.08.2005 @ 12:01
"TJ, Cutler, you need to get your heads straight and support the troops. Defending failed strategies for political reasons is what’s losing this war."
Wrapping yourself around the flag won't get you any more points with me than Cindy Sheehan.
"Disbanding the Iraqi army sent thousands of young men home with plenty of guns, lots of resentment and no jobs. That was patently stupid and directly resulted in the current insurgency that’s wearing down our troops just like the mujihadeen bled the Soviets dry in Afghanistan. It’s ridiculous to suggest that it ever made sense. The more excuses you make for past incompetence the more you harm the war effort going forward."
As I've already said, considering the goals, it was the correct thing. There is a difference between objectives and the steps taken to achieve those objectives. If Iraq ultimately is a defeat, then it will primarily have been due to its unrealistic objectives, not the unbanding of the military, which was necessary to achieve those objectives.
Of course, the unrealistic goals were due to the desire to end this war without the even more deadly and longer lasting bloodbath that a less sanguine look of our options will guarentee. If we can't reform these societies, and they continue to pose a threat to us, in time we will merely destroy and cower them.
"The more excuses you make for past incompetence the more you harm the war effort going forward."
Oh really? So are you, like the Democratic Party, convinced that our future relies on an unending debate on the mistakes(?) of the past? I'm sorry, here I thought debating the future more competently moved the war effort forward. Your declaration that you are correct and that's that it is underwhelming.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 22.08.2005 @ 11:59
Oh yeah, shortsightedness about disbanding army. Iraq may have been a fool's errand, doomed because of our unrealistic goals, but considering those goals it was the correct thing to do. You couldn't build a new Iraq on a corrupted military which had been staffed by Hussein cronies and carefully balanced to maintain Sunni rule. The problem was we screwed up initially in rebuilding the new military, not in choosing to do so. Everything now depends on the good airborne general getting it right the second time.
Just my opinion.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 22.08.2005 @ 00:30
"Expect North Korea to glow in the dark if we get hit with a nuke we either can’t trace or trace to them."
Forgot to say the same for Iran too.
Also expect Saudi Arabia and other countries in the reason to start looking into going nuclear too, probably with the aid of Pakistan.
Nope, not going to be a stressless 21st century.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 22.08.2005 @ 00:26
We can still take out Iran and North Korea, but it means ditching the notion of "you broke it, you bought it," and giving up on neo-conservativism. It also means preparing Americans for much more bloody and total warfare, a desire we've spent years suppressing to humanize the enemy.
Both Iran and North Korea are getting nukes, and probably would have anyway even if we hadn't gone into Iraq. We can't deal with North Korea so long as the South Koreans have stockholm syndrome, and considering the costs of war, we probably wouldn't anyway. Expect North Korea to glow in the dark if we get hit with a nuke we either can't trace or trace to them.
Consider it a blessing that we didn't invade Iran while still under the illusion we could rebuild these societies so easily. Considering our problems with a country 1/3rd the size, it would have been a disaster. Defense spending needs to go up and the army increased before we can think about invading a country that's unlikely to welcome foreign liberation to disarm them.
Of course, if we stopped holding back militarily we can wreck both of the above examples, but it means giving up on the romantic notion that we can rebuild them back better than before.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 22.08.2005 @ 00:23
ISLAM GUILTY AS CHARGED? NOT EXACTLY
You hit the nail on the head with regard to their lack of introspection. The Arab world in particular has an incredible siege mentality, feeding off conflicts in Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, etc. Not only because the leadership uses them as scapegoats, but because the people themselves refuse to acknowledge their own failures.
Like the blog, just blogrolled you.
Comment Posted By Cutler On 30.07.2005 @ 23:48
