I’m in agreement with RedFury. Our nation’s current leaders belong in cages. As war criminals. That’s really just what they are. The fact that no one has the power to put them there doesn’t change a thing.
I guess the only other thing I can add to the thread, and then I guess I’m spent (as far as following this conversation goes) is that the OP’s article was ridiculous. The clearly established pro-war bias of the reporters, and their apparent inability to wake up and smell the burning flesh shows that they are anything but “converted critics.”
Someone near the beginning described them as cheerleaders. Sounds about right to me. Several people, including Xtisme have already stated how early reports are showing we aren’t meeting the goals set for the surge, and I think we can all agree this current tactic doesn’t seem to be doing jacks*** as far as the Iraqi parliament is concerned. It’s time to end this, we just need to figure out how we’re going to go about that (not cut&run, not another push, and not another endless chain of friedman units).
As for the side-track about Xtisme’s comments on waiting for Petraeus report… It’s stupid to ignore the track record from this administration, or to not assess the situation with the fairly current information we have about how bad it is… But I do agree that one should at least hear what he has to say and take the time to actually think it through. Just that you should keep these other concerns in mind as part of that assessment.
I realize it’s a foolish hope, but I sincerely wish that Petraeus says the truth, and that (unless there’s some miraculous turnaround between now and then) when congress hears how futile things are, they “grow a pair” and start the process on wrapping things up and getting our servicemen* back home.
*Servicemen used here in the gender-neutral sense. Remember, old english root for man is neuter, werman masculine, wifman feminine.
If Gen Petreaus offers even the faintest glimmer of optimism, it will be inflated and expanded into a shining beacon. And/or another wonderful new tactic will be discovered (my bet is currently on arming local militia to attack AlQ, which as everyone knows is the number one threat in Iraq) that offers hope of victory, guarded optimism is prudence, and the defeatist naysayers, those nattering nabobs…
You know the drill.
I like this. We have an administration that lied and distorted its way into a bloody, costly war & occupation, a war that is one of the biggest fuck ups in American history. An administration that and has been doing so for years now. An administration that has every reason to again mislead us about the progress in the damn fool war. And being skeptical of their upcoming assessment is a lack of critical thinking? Really? Their credibility is pretty non-existent at this point. Assuming that they will lie about this seems to me the conclusion critical thinkers have to arrive at.
In other words, Charlie Brown should keep an open mind about whether or not Lucy is going to let him kick the football this time.
Success will be holding on to the bases and controlling the oil. They do not give a squat about Iraq. If anyone actually believes this has anything to do with creating a democracy ,I would fear for their sanity.
Heh, couldn’t resist throwing in my thoughts on this;
I think they did want a democracy, or at least a secular, america-friendly government, because
[ol]
[li]It would reduce the presence of hostile insurgents, making using Iraq as a military platform in the middle east much more viable[/li][li]It would better secure our access to oil there[/li][li]there are a lot more opportunities to plunder and take advantage of a people when you play a decisive role in establishing the entire infrastructure of their new nation[/li][li]It would be a seed, which, along with Afghanistan (had we been successful with it* there), could be used to further spread a western-world secular outlook in the middle-east, and undermine the control of the islamic fundamentalists and extremists, much like awareness of what west germans and free europe had made it increasingly difficult for the eastern block to retain their communist regimes.[/li][/ol]
*it being establishing a US-friendly secular state, preferably democratic because it’s easier to justify to our people and the world at large (from a strictly real politik perspective)
…my good friend xtisme, way back in 2005 we debated the Bush strategy for victory in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347270&page=2&highlight=iraq+victory
What I pointed out in that thread was quite simply the metrics and the objective measures that the Bush administration had put in place to measure the success of the mission in Iraq were basically set up to show improvement no matter what the state of Iraq is. Some of the questions I remember asking in that thread were:
-How do we measure Clear, Hold and Build?
-Reconstruction money is running out, how will the country get rebuilt?
-Billions of dollars went missing under the CPA: what measures will be put in place to monitor the remaining reconstruction funds?
-Leaked reports show the death toll is rising dramatically: what measures will be put in place to stem the tide?
-The plan to reconstruct 85% of all water treatment facillities have simply been abandoned-what plans are in place to get them going?
None of those questions were addressed by the Bush Administration from the time they publically released the Strategy for Victory and around about the tail end of 2006, when things started to turn really sour for the Bush Administration.
It was around about then that the majority of the work revolving around the **Political Track ** (Refer to the Strategy for Victory posted in the other thread) was complete. The Iraqi’s had an elected government, but the death rate had sky rocketed.
Which is what I personally believed bought about the surge, because no matter how hard the Bush administration tried to fudge the numbers, the mood of the public had changed to the point where the volume of deaths could no longer be ignored.
I would invite you to read a few of the archives from the Brookings Institute. A variety of sources have been used in this thread: whenever I want to get a snapshot of Iraq I prefer to use these figures simply because they are “relatively” untarnished.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm
The statistics show a snapshot of Iraq, where, I believe that even if the surge is “successful” in the short term and US troops pull out, with no reconstruction funds and a poor quality defense force the outlook for Iraq is extremely grim.
Some major points from the Brookings Institute figures:
-Baghdad only gets 5 hours of power a day. (As noted in this thread, it has been decided that this is no longer an objective measure by the Bush Administration, and will no longer be measured. Watch it be removed from the Brookings Reports shortly.)
-55% of all world wide terror attacks happen in Iraq. (This stopped getting measured in about September of 2006, so you will have to go back in the archives to find this statistic.)
-Water treatement has dropped from 3 Million cubic metres per day pre war to 1.3 million in 2006. Sewage cover dropped from 6.2 million to 5.6 million, and potable water could be accessed by 12.9 million people pre war and only 9.2 million in 2006.
-Out of 32000 registered doctors pre-war, an estimated 12000 have left the country, 250 have been kidnapped, and 2000 murdered.
-Nearly 765 000 people are internally displaced. 1.8 million Iraqi refugees are living abroad.
The problem with the surge is that none of these problems have been addressed. There quite simply is no plan. I believe the arguement goes that once the country has been secured from the insurgency, the reconstruction phase can begin. My personal feelings are that without a pledge of fresh reconstruction funds, the promise of ongoing security, and a fair dash of hope that there is no true “happy end” in sight for Iraq.
I’ve decided that I don’t belong to either the “stay the course” or the “bring 'em home” brigade. I think that the United States has become so polarized by the Iraq war that it has come down to either one or the other.
While this will upset a lot of the people I support on the boards, I think that the current surge needs to be maintained, and it should be maintained until the Bush Administration is voted out (hopefully, with thunderous applause. ) and the next US Administration gets voted in. I believe that to pull US troops out now might (or might not) cause a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions: and I don’t say that because of a gut feeling, but I say that based on the glut of statistics I have been absorbing on the war since it begun. The current Bush administration is so corrupt and self-serving that the full extent of exactly what they have done to the country of Iraq will not come out until they are out of power.
A plan needs to be drafted **now **on how to reconstruct Iraq. Once the Bush Admistration has been purged of power and their tendrils removed of every aspect of Iraq and the purse strings, the plan needs to take effect.
US Troops need to be replaced with an International Coalition (not run by the United Nations-I believe they could do it but the opposition in the United States would simply be too great) with a focus on stability and reconstruction. The billions of dollars poured into Iraq between 2003 and 2006? The same amount needs to be poured in again, this time with oversight and with clearly defined achievable goals. The International Coalition should remain in place for at least two years, get the country fixed, and then get out, leaving Iraq to its own devices.
I admire posters like Redfury, because their passion for the well-being of the Iraq people is paramount, and that passion is something sorely lacking in the political debates at the moment, and in the mainstream news media.
The lack of passion regarding Iraq is the thing that puzzles me the most: the evidence is alarmingly clear that the United States in their invasion and occupation have been responsible in a large part for destroying the Iraqi infrastructure and not being able to get it rebuilt. That almost nobody seems to care about this and that there is noone advocating getting Iraq fixed is one of the most bizzare things I have ever had to think about.
Hand-waving denial. Not listening to liars when the preponderance of evidence is against what they are hawking is critical thinking.
Any claim that flies in the overwhelming mass of evidence and history is extraordinary.
Yes it is the USA’s fault that things are getting worse. You break it you bought it. They are the people who screwed the aftermath up, let corruption run rife and failed to reconstruct.
I don’t have to come up with an analysis or alternative. It’s pretty clear to all except the ideologically blind what went wrong and what is going wrong still - not the least being the patent fiction of the govt of the green zone and the factional militia’s masquerading as its security forces.
There’s ‘open minded’ and there’s ‘doors flapping hopelessly in the wind, letting all kinds of shit into the house’.
At this point giving credence to the Bush Administration and its cronies when the eveidence is overwhelmingly against them, which it is, is either foolish or an ideological choice.
You are making the extraordinary claim that somehow things might be improving. I’ve shown violence as bad as ever, a giant refugee crisis, an Iraq ‘government’ that is corrupt, powerless, divided and incompetent. An army with a one third desertion rate and a police force implicated in bombings.
Bush, Patreus or anyone else saying they spy light at the end of the tunnel, just trust us, is not going to cut it.
Overwhelming proof is required.
One of the original ideas of the neocons, and given how loathe they are to admit error I expect they are holding to it, was that a plan was both unnecessary and outright wrong. The Invisible Hand of the market would take care of it all; just keep the evil tentacles of the Iraqi government away from it’s own economy and Iraq will change into a capitalist paradise. IMHO, there is no plan in large part because many of the people in charge don’t want a plan. Planning how to rebuild a country smacks too much of the ultimate evil : socialism.
It makes perfect sense. We never cared a bit about the welfare of the Iraqis, or we never would have invaded in the first place. Some of wanted to exploit them, some kill them, others use them as ideological or political tools, and some of us just didn’t care; but the majority of Americans never cared in the slightest about the welfare of the Iraqi people, and they still don’t. I honestly believe that you wouldn’t see much compassion from the majority of Americans if the entire Iraqi population was killed off; perhaps embarrassment at how that made us look, but not concern for the fate of the Iraqis.
Which is another reason for the lack of a plan for reconstructing Iraq; there’s no political will to make a plan because almost nobody cares what happens to the Iraqis. If the Iraqis are frying in the heat and lack clean water or proper medical care, so what ? They aren’t American, and so they don’t count in American eyes.
I’ve got to go with what DoctorJ said. To refuse to consider someone’s track record in deciding whether you’re probably being lied to is an abdication of common sense, let alone critical thinking.
About those political benchmarks. Not one of them was met. Wen the members of the administration spoke of them they seemed happy that “progres” had been made on half of them.
I think you nailed it on the head here. I was discussing the enormous death toll with a coworker recently and she said “I just remember the way I felt on September 11, and when I think about that I don’t care how many of them die. They deserve to feel like I felt.” (This is the same coworker I quoted before as saying “I will always think George Bush is the best president we’ve ever had because he’s the only one I felt I could go up to and give a big hug.”) The Iraqis are sub-human to many people, the same way that Tutsis are considered sub-human by the Hutus. No amount of carnage will ever bother them. It’s like stomping on an anthill to them.
Will someone please diagram this one for me?
“Political progress” is the reason for “The Surge”. That “political progress” is now on hold for a month because the Iraqi Parliament wants a vacation.
So, “The Surge” is being extended for at least another month because the Iraqi Parliament wants a vacation.
How is what we’re seeing not an indication that even the Iraqi Parliament knows that “political progress” just isn’t going to happen?
-Joe
Turkey news led with a story saying Turkey and the US are entering into an agreement for a joint military attack the Kurdistan Workers Party in Northern Iraq.
“Workers party”? Sounds kinda commie to me.
-Joe
Since I’m basically being pounded (over and over) about the same thing I’ll just pick one to reply too and then leave it at that:
Good grief RTF! You quoted what I said and then walked in lockstep with the herd on misconstruing it! Lets take a look at what you quoted again, ehe?
Hm…interesting. I don’t see where it says anything about ‘refusing to consider somone’s track record’. I see it saying if you assume you are being lied too and THUS DISREGARD EVERYTHING its as bad as swallowing the bullshit whole. That really bears NO FUCKING RESEMBLANCE TO THE GANG BANG ATTACKS ON ME REGARDING WHAT I ACTUALLY FUCKING WROTE!!
Get a grip guys! I know you want to pound anyone who is out of lock step and not singing kumbya on the right key or loud enough but at least pound on me for what I wrote. Sorry if some of you can’t wrap your minds around the fact that a knee jerk reaction is a knee jerk reaction…no matter how many times you have been (or think you have been)lied too. If you’ve locked your mind on something (BUSHALWAYSLIESBUSHALWAYSLIESBUSHALWAYSLIES) then YOU HAVE STOPPED LOOKING AT THINGS CRITICALLY. Sorry…thats the way it is.
That said I NEVER made a statement that one should disregard past lies from Bush et al…hell, I SAID that one should factor that into your thinking and look VERY critically at anything the man or his fucked up administration DOES say. I know I do…as does anyone who is still thinking critically about this stuff. I don’t happen to think that there will be a miracle in September…I happen to think that the political situation in Iraq will be unchanged…or worse. I didn’t buy into the supposed ‘liberals’ in the OP saying the war was going whatever…but then, the point I was making is I don’t usually buy that kind of crap from ANY pundits. Even if they are saying what I want to hear.
However I haven’t shut off my brain (contrary to the continuous attacks implying so in this thread). To me Iraq is poised on a knife blade…and if it tips a certain way there is going to be a blood bath to make whats happened so far look like a picnic. Thats why I was watching (without much hope) carefully when Bush et al tried a new strategy…not because I thought they would miraculously pull a rabit out of a hat but because we NEED, desparately, to do something…or else a lot more people are going to die than have died so far. Its not a political game or scoring points…its life or death and it scares the living shit out of me.
Its still critical that the US do SOMETHING, even if that something is to pull out of Iraq. But whatever we do it shouldn’t be because a bell rang and our mouths watered…thats how we got INTO the fucking mess. Slick politicians and fucked up pundits lead us by the nose to war…and I very much fear that we are collectively being fitted for another nose ring by a new crop of politicians and pundits to lead (or stampede) us out again in an equally fucked up manner.
Carry on though…you guys are on a roll and working yourselves into a lather (again). You’ve got the echo chamber going and I think that the singing is all on key and at the right sound level now. I’m pretty much done with this thread at this point.
-XT
dispite all the best intentions: if Iraqis are unwilling to put aside their differneces, and work toward a common goal, then nobody elese can do it for them. Think about vietnam in 1968-how much blood and treasure would have been SAVED, had we pulled out then (instead of in 1972)? Someimes pouring good money after bad is not the way to go…
So, this mom was watching the troops in the parade, her son amongst them, who was marching to a different drummer, one not actually present…
“Why, look at that! They are all out of step but my Johnny!”
That’s fine. I won’t take the heat of the response personally, since I know it’s aimed not just at me, but at the proverbial multitudes.
Sure, let’s do.
The problem is, while Bush doesn’t always lie, it’s close enough, on anything Iraq- and GWoT-related, so as to make no never mind.
It’s close enough that you might as well assume that he’s lying. It’s why you don’t pan for gold in the runoff from a hog farm. There’s no guarantee there’s no gold in there, but you can safely assume it’s essentially all pigshit.
It’s been life or death since 2003 - mostly death. It’s stopped scaring the shit out of me because after awhile the emotions turn off, for the most part.
I don’t see a new strategy, btw. All Bush did this year was to add more troops. But they’ve been supposedly doing clear-hold-build since 2005, and they’ve been supposedly fighting the battle to secure Baghdad since Operation Together Forward began over a year ago. Maybe now we’ve got the general who can make it work, but it’s the same strategy.
I’m personally less worried about large-scale bloodshed than you or Sam is. First of all, the killing and ethnic cleansing has already been going on for quite some time now; Iraq is a much more religiously and ethnically segregated country than it was even a couple of years ago. And nobody in Iraq besides us has the heavy machinery of warfare, or the ability to do much in the way of logistic support. I’m just not that convinced that the Shi’ites can make serious inroads into Sunni territory to mow down large numbers of Sunnis. Or vice versa, if it should come to that.
If we leave in Year X, there will surely be a significant increase in bloodshed in Year X+1. But that’ll be true for any value of X. In the meantime, the bloodshed increases each year anyway.
Here’s the deal with war: Congress controls the key in the ignition; the President controls the rest of the car - gas, steering, brakes, power windows, and all the rest of it.
If we impeached and convicted Bush and Cheney today, resulting in President Pelosi tomorrow, we could debate options to some effect. But we don’t: we know Bush is going to keep driving the car straight ahead as long as he can. Congress can either turn the key off, or let him keep driving.
I’d love to have a leader capable of getting us out in a nuanced sort of manner. But we don’t have that; we just have Bush, who will keep fighting this war no matter what, for whatever his and Cheney’s reasons are. Like you say, we need to do SOMETHING, but there’s only one actual option we have besides staying the course.
The thing is, we’ve talked all this out hundreds of times on this board. We’re adding up the same sum yet one more time, and oddly enough, we get the same total yet again. So yeah, there’s an echo in here.