Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 201 To 210 Of 246 Comments
THE WORDS NONE DARE SAY: LAKOFF IS AN IDIOT
"Since the beginning of the Bush adminsitration, we’ve seen leftwing journalists, academics and politicians ascribe evil intentions, incompetence, or both to nearly everything the President has done or tried to do."
Well, given the results, surely it has to be one or the other doesn't it?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.02.2007 @ 12:05
"What would have been the costs of leaving Saddam in power, in terms of American security?"
Pretty much nothing. To imagine that Saddam was a threat is to buy into the myth. What was he going to do? Commit suicide in order to order some (relatively) pinprick assault on the US because, what? What possible reason could he have had for attacking the US? I cannot imagine one at all. It is pretty obvious that he was desperate to appease the US while not grovelling so much that he was overthrown in Iraq. He was a warmongering, over-reaching murderer, but he wasn't a complete idiot.
"I’m really beginning to think that nobody remembers what it felt like immediately after 9/11, waiting for the next shoe to drop, and the next one, and so on."
That would be the 911 that had nothing to do with Iraq, yes? The one done by a bunch of Saudis based out of Afghanistan and Germany with little bitty knives, good planning and a lot of luck?
The idea of overthrowing a relatively stable secular regime that was repressive to Islamic terrorist groups (just like it was repressive to anyone who offered any challenge to its authority) to replace it with an Islamist, anarchic hellhole is an original one in terms of lowering the risk of terrorism.
"What would our response have been to a mass anthrax attack? "
Well, is seems that it is to largely ignore it. That is after all what happened. Any news on those anthrax attacks in the US?
"Our initial goals have been realized. Saddam no longer controls a nation-state and all of the resources that entails. He is not a threat to aid terrorists in their quest to kill Americans in large numbers. We proved to the world that we were willing to take preemptive action in the name of American security."
Erm. Your initial goals, as stated, were to remove his weapons of mass destruction. That had been done already. Regieme change is simply not a legitimate reason to invade anyone. Proving that you'll invade on thin intel and then get bogged down by rabble with RPGs has not done a lot for your credibility.
He wasn't a threat anyway. I don't get how afraid you all seem to be. You are America, the biggest, most powerful country in the world, yet rumours of a few nutcases send you into a panic that leads you to make vast strategic mistakes.
"The goals that subsequently attached themselves to the Iraq project, of injecting democracy in some form into the Middle East, in destabilizing the region (poking the hornet’s nest, so to speak), taking the fight to the enemy’s turf, have been frustratingly unattainable so far, to be sure. But is it worth the effort? What is the alternative to not trying these things?"
That's why they call it a quagmire. Easy to get into, impossible to get out of. All of your palatable options involve staying and bleeding for, I remind you, a Pro-Iran, murderous, obscenely corrupt bunch of Islamists.
I personally wouldn't sacrifice a single one of my people for that goal, since I consider looking after your own to be central to the responsibilities of any nation state.
"To wait until our options are reduced to cringing in fear or lashing out in the most violent and general fashion?"
Well, one could simply not be afraid. After all, by current standards your risk of dying in a terrorist attack are still rather less than your chances of dying as a result of, say, cancer. 553,768 deaths per year due to cancer compared to 2752 due to domestic terrorist attacks in the last 6 years.
To get a sense of proportion look at spending.
About $5.5Bn per year on cancer research.
That's 5.5bn/553768 = $9,931 per death
Iraq is costing about $100bn per year. If we assume that we are preventing a 911 per year (pretty pessimistic, since it was the largest terrorist attck of all time, but still) that's
100bn/2752 = $36,000,000 per death.
That's what I mean about costs. You have finite resources snd they have to be allocated. What's worse, we know that cancer research will save lives, we have no idea if the Iraq war is preventing terrorism (rather the opposite in fact).
What to do instead?
Concentrate on a consensus building and policework attitude towards terrorism. Invading and threatening Muslim countries is simply not a good way to stop Islamists from taking action, as has been shown. It is a very good way to inspire them to get involved and to train them in being better and better at it.
(I'll admit that taking Afghanistan wasn't a bad idea. Invading the "Graveyard of Empires", the place that had beaten the Brits and the Soviets, was ambitious (though noone seemed to remember their history at the time) but I thought doable. It would have been better done as an in-out operation with a note left behind saying "If we catch you at this again, you know what's going to happen", but nation building is admirable enough.)
"I still think the Iraq project has some promise along the lines of reshaping a part of the world that is exporting a death cult. And now that we’re in, I really don’t think we can afford to cut out precipitously."
Let's be honest. Iraq had nothing to do with the death cult that you speak of. It was just another ruthless dictatorship in a world with plenty of ruthless dictatorships. Now Iraq has a lot to do with said death cult. If reducing membership of said death cult was your goal you have failed.
As for getting out, I hear a lot of talk of requiring will, sticking to it, going for the long haul, outlasting them, etc. The problem is that you live in the wrong country. The US has great ability to sacrifice when it (collectively) feels genuinely at risk. If you're genuinely threatened, you'll spend lives like water and have people queuing up at the recruiter's offices.
You're also quite keen, as a country, to support brief shows of military muscle in a nationalistic manner.
What you're not so good at is sacrifice when you don't feel directly threatened. It is no good pretending that you live somewhere else. The American people seem to be deeply disillusioned with this war, and consider it largely not worth the effort. This means that you *will* be pulling out in one way or another. That's the glory of democracy, baby :)
And when you do you will have spent untold billions of dollars and thousands of US (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi) lives for the grandiose dreams of some Washington intellectuals.
Just imagine the things that could have been done with all that money...your money, that you earned and then handed over to people who seemed more interested in giving it away than in using it for the purposes it was intended.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 2.03.2007 @ 05:28
"At least we gave Vietnam 10 years before we pulled the plug, and even then if we would have stuck by our promises to our South Vietnamese allies, we may have won. Or excuse me, “wonâ€."
No need for quotes. If you had achieved your goals then you would have won. You didn't because your goals were largely unachievable. The same problem applies to Iraq.
In the meantime the insurgency is making the costs of staying and keeping what minimal achievments you have been able to put together quite high, both politically and economically. They leave you with the choice to either give up and go home or keep paying this price for these minimal gains forever. You think the costs are worth it because you think that you can go from minimal achievements to significant ones, but no-one has any real idea of how to even try that. The best you (your government) are currently aiming for is a vagualy stable Islamist, Iranian friendly government killing enough of its sectarian rivals to not need US troops anymore by the time of the next election. That's pretty minimalist. Frankly, geopolitically speaking, you'd have been better off with Saddam.
"How about examples of insurgencies in recent times that worked? How about insurgencies that worked without another state’s support?"
Just before we start, we're going to have to point out that there's no big reason why we should imagine that the Iraqi insurgents aren't getting all sorts of support from various states.
So, a list?
The US against the British? On to Mao (Just as a starting point). Move through the IRA in their various guises (though some nice handling at points). On to Cuba. Afghanistan and the Russians. Algeria and the French. The Africans against the white settlers (various). The Africans against the Africans (various). The Indians against the British (Though original tactics from the Indians).
Some with, some without state support. All different in their own ways. All ending in different ways.
Unfortunately the general news of the 20th century was that colonial occupation wasn't a long term prospect. With the increase of access to media and advanced weapons, this has become more and more the case.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.03.2007 @ 15:08
"Ask the Malaysians. Oh wait, don’t ask them."
No, ask them how that insurgency was won. The insurgents were a seperate and generally despised minority group with only a very small base of support. They could be identified by their Chinese ethnicity in a much more direct way than the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, and the solution was, largely, genocidal towards that ethnic group.
Also, forcewise, we are talking about 40,000 British troops versus about 8000 communist guerillas. Still, it is a better comparison than WWII.
Any more examples of succesful counterinsurgencies in recent times?
"If only we could muster the force of will they had and we used to be capable of, we might see our way through to victory."
Well, yes genocide and ethnic resettlement in camps is always one answer to insurgency. Are we willing to do it here?
"A victory defined not by treaty or ceremony, but by a gradual cessation of political violence in Iraq, a gradual growth of stability, and a gradual reduction of the need for U.S. troops."
Well, it has been 4 years and violence, instability and US troop numbers have only gone up. That's not exactly promising, is it? How much sunk cost to sink in, that's the question?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.03.2007 @ 04:58
"Read the damn post and don’t put words in my mouth."
Sorry, no need to swear about it.
"You wildly overestimate the influence of Iran on many Iraqis – a country that killed more than a million of them in the Iran-Iraq war."
Not on "many Iraqis", on the people who are running the current Iraqi government. Even many Iraqis have taken to refering to the Green Zone government as 'Iranians'. You're fighting and dying for the Iraqi government. That government is wildly Pro-Iranian. This is basic stuff, surely.
"There are many Shias in the parliament and the ministries are not under Iranian influence of any kind and some who have feelings of solidarity with their Shia brothers but who are Iraqi nationalists."
Ministries not under Iranian influence? SCIRI and DAWA have the prime minister, a VP, Finance, Public Works, National Security, Trade, Labour and social affairs and two others. Until recently they had the interior ministry (now a UIA Indy), and when they did it was running death squads quite openly under the man who is now Minister for Finance.
Are there Shiite Nationalists who are not directly influenced by Iran? Yes, there certainly are. Many of the Shia ones are part of the Sadrist movement, our current avowed enemy.
But the plain fact is that the bosses of the UIA are SCIRI (inc. Badr) and Dawa, both Pro-Iranian groups, and that the UIA is in charge. The fact is also that corruption is rife, death squad activity is clearly supported by some factions in the government, notably Al-Hakim and Jaber, and that the government has very little popular support or authority in the country.
Thus "Iranian backed, murderous, obscenely corrupt bunch of Islamists."
The trouble is that the more Iraqi Nationalist you are, the less you want foreign troops running everything, and the more Pro-Iranian you are the more you need US troops to keep you in power over the Iraqi Nationalists. A rather elegant Catch 22 all round really. You have to support the Pro-Iranians because the Iraqi Nationalists hate your guts. The pro-Iranians also hate your guts, but they will co-operate as long as you keep them in power with force of arms against the nationalists.
"It is a valid point, crudely made as I point out. Sorry it went over your head."
No, the point's fine. I agree with you, there certainly are such times, it was just a very disconnected example, that's all. I see so many analogies with WWII (Which is bizarre enough when you think about it, could anyone imagine a war more unlike Iraq than WWII?), I just wanted to note that this was the most unconnected one I had seen so far.
Yes, armies have to go against the rule book in times of extreme necessity, but short term efforts cannot make a meaningful difference here, while they could in the Battle of the Bulge. The overuse of your National Guard and Army is pretty obviously starting to upset many of them, particularly the Stop-Lossed ones, and since this surge isn't going to work anyway, how much longer should these measures be endured?
If this surge fails, are you going to support the pullout of US forces? What would you define as success?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.02.2007 @ 11:50
Well, I've seen some curious comparisons in this war, but I've never seen one as curious as the Battle of the Bulge with the counterinsurgency efforts in Bagdhad. I'm going to have to congratulate you for that one.
"This, for all practical purposes, is it. Time to realize it and act accordingly."
While looking back at WWII you have again missed the point of the sort of war you are now fighting. This isn't the time. There never is a time. The guerillas, militias and death squads can always outlast you. Standard guerilla doctrine from Mao's time tells you to retreat into the population when your opponent floods the area with troops.
The big difference between WWII and this war is that in WWII someone was always going to surrender eventually, in this war only an accord or virtually total destruction of one party by the other is going to end it.
An accord with the warring parties is impossible as long as there are US troops in place because it is obvious to all that the Green Zone government are US suppported puppets. Even if this were not so it would be impossible to persuade your opponents out there that it wasn't.
Obviously without the US troops the Green Zone government wouldn't have any authority. They barely have any at the moment. So this government would fall. This might not be the worst thing that can happen, since at the moment the war is between people who have popular legitimacy in the country and people who are regarded as puppets.
The other option for ending things is the almost complete destruction of one side or the other. It looks like the destruction of the Sunni in Bagdhad is going well for the Iranian friendly Shiites in the Green Zone government what with US forces going in hard against Sunni areas and carefully against their main rival in the Shiite areas. This tactic might well work, in a limited fashion.
But it is worth remembering that it is little more than ethnic cleansing. Your troops are, wittingly or unwittingly engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Sunnis in Bagdhad. You might not think this, but it is clear that the average Sunni Arab does.
Now, you tell me. How is an accord ever going to be reached with these people when they *know* that they will outlast you.
And while we're here. US forces arrested Al-Hakim's son and released him, remember? On his way from Iran to Iraq. He is senior in the Badr brigade, unquestionably involved in sectarian killings from within the Ministry of the Interior. What happened? Apologies all round, protests, general wringing of hands.
Remember that when you think of US soldiers fighting and dying over there. No matter what the good intentions may be, they are fighting and dying to prop up an Iranian backed and supporting, murderous, obscenely corrupt bunch of Islamists. That's the reality.
Let's repeat that.
When you see the next casulaty report try saying to yourself "He died to support an Iranian backed, murderous, obscenely corrupt bunch of Islamists."
Then tell yourself that you should keep sending more troops in.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.02.2007 @ 10:10
"Other, more erudite scholars, have so thoroughly debunked Dr. Cole’s “translation†that for you to keep harping on it only shows a towering ignorance of the facts."
Would you happen to have a link?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 26.02.2007 @ 05:02
ARKIN: IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED...
"Oh, and my “evidence?†Have you been living in a cave for the last 40 years?"
So, no then, you just look at a small sample and extrapolate it to everyone, demonising half of the population of the country as traitors.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 4.02.2007 @ 10:22
"The libs don’t just not “support the missionâ€â€”they hate the troops and the millitary, PERIOD, regardless of the mission—at least as long as a Republican president is in the White House."
That is an awesomly offensive thing to say and, in my experience, gobsmackingly untrue.
Where's your evidence?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.02.2007 @ 16:46
"Logically, you cannot say we are losing the war without meaning the enemy is winning!"
In guerilla war the normal result is that everyone loses but the people who actually live there can't leave so they end up in control of the ruins of the country.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 2.02.2007 @ 14:21
