Gee, is it Tet already?

Great Debates
61

To be fair, though, that doesn’t seem to have been most Iraqis’ first choice. The trouble is that there was no national government capable of adequately filling the power vacuum that was created by the invasion. If your national government can’t or won’t protect you and your family and it seems as though your sectarian militia perhaps can (or at least avenge you if you get murdered), you’re likely to bestow your loyalty on the sectarian militia, even if it isn’t what you really wanted in the first place.

Again, I think most Iraqis have essentially been swept along in the bloody chaos that followed from the power vacuum. Remember, we were the ones who destabilized their country and disbanded their government and army without managing to adequately control the resulting anarchy and disorder. It’s not quite fair to turn around and blame the Iraqis in general for not being able to fix the problem that we couldn’t fix ourselves, even though we precipitated it.

62

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Boy, the ingratitude of some people, huh?
[/QUOTE]

Do you disagree with anything I said, luci?

63

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Evil One: That was a nice little moral lecture for the Iraqis, and I’m sure they appreciate it… but, seriously dude, the UN already pulled out at least 2 years ago. How do we get them to go back in? Why would they go back in?
[/QUOTE]

We go to the UN and say this in more diplomatic terms:
“We tried to do the right thing for the right reasons and we screwed up. We need your help to be part of the solution because a stable middle east benefits us all.”

And behind the scenes we inform the major players that the pursestrings are closing and it’s time to step up or let the country dissolve into chaos and give Islamic facists access to petrodollars.

64

They were probably confused. Even though everybody now knows that our goals were noble and above reproach, we kept saying how it was about these terrible weapons and stuff. We just didn’t advise them early enough what the new! improved! motivations were. Pity.

65

[QUOTE=Evil One]
Remove the United States as the public face of attempted peacekeeping and societal underwriting and replace it with the United Nations. It worked in the former Yugoslavia and it will work here if enough countries are willing to put their money where their mouth is in the name of middle eastern stability.
[/QUOTE]

The gall of it!, the US screws up and you expect the nations that, in their mayority where against this war from the start, to throw their people into a meat grinder of your making?
The US choosed to go to war, you flopped miserably now pay the consequences, it´s a shame the the Iraqis have to do the same without having been given a choice.

66

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Again, I think most Iraqis have essentially been swept along in the bloody chaos that followed from the power vacuum. Remember, we were the ones who destabilized their country and disbanded their government and army without managing to adequately control the resulting anarchy and disorder. It’s not quite fair to turn around and blame the Iraqis in general for not being able to fix the problem that we couldn’t fix ourselves, even though we precipitated it.
[/QUOTE]

True…but enough of them have to be willing to be part of the solution to reach critical mass. Our society functions as it does not because of the number of police that we have…but because the vast majority of us make the conscious choice to be productive and law-abiding.

We do not have enough troops to stablize the entire country (or even Baghdad) by pure force for any significant length of time. People in the neighborhoods know who the nuts are…so they have to make the choice of turning them in or joining them.

67

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Even though everybody now knows that our goals were noble and above reproach, we kept saying how it was about these terrible weapons and stuff. We just didn’t advise them early enough what the new! improved! motivations were. Pity.
[/QUOTE]

Except for some satisfaction in the “I told you so” vein, does it really matter anymore?

The problem needs to be fixed as quickly as possible to the benefit of everyone…especially the Iraqis. If the United States has to eat a little public crow, so what? We can take it.

68

[QUOTE=Ale]
The gall of it!, the US screws up and you expect the nations that, in their mayority where against this war from the start, to throw their people into a meat grinder of your making?
The US choosed to go to war, you flopped miserably now pay the consequences, it´s a shame the the Iraqis have to do the same without having been given a choice.
[/QUOTE]

We are paying the consequences and continue to do so. Please let us know when we have paid enough so that you think we have been punished sufficiently enough to justify your help.

The United States has helped others in the world clean up messes for decades. It’s time for other nations to quit enjoying the little nationalism self-esteem boost that seeing the United States having trouble is giving them and step up to the plate.

69

[QUOTE=John Mace]
If that’s the case, I won’t bother responding point-by-point to your last post.
[/quote]
That’s certainly fair.

True dat. At this point, the only possibilities that can reasonably be excluded are that things will get better (a) by themselves, without our help, (b) by trying more of the same, or (c) through some form of aid or intervention that is itself quite unlikely (e.g. another 100K Western troops in Iraq).

But while I can see a mechanism for how other countries might get involved in Iraq, I don’t see a means by which it’ll go the other way - that the Iraqi conflict will spill over elsewhere. Or what that will look like: will handcuffed bodies be found in Damascus, with power drill holes in them? Will Shi’ites kidnap a whole bunch of Sunnis (or vice versa) on the streets of Riyadh? Will Sunni and Shi’ite militias have gun battles on the streets of Amman?

I don’t think there’s any scenario where things will look better than they are now. Just that some scenarios are less worse than others, and some are more worse than others.

The only reason to stay is if we’ve got a clear idea of what the ‘less worse’ scenario is, and if we have a practical, non-pony plan for nudging Iraq in that direction. Otherwise, we’re sacrificing more lives, while fooling ourselves that it might do some good.

I’ll freely admit I am unwilling to sacrifice more U.S. lives if we have no idea whether their sacrifice will have a good chance of helping bring about one of the less worse of the assorted worse-than-now outcomes. That’s where my idealism and realism meet.

70

[QUOTE=Evil One]
We go to the UN and say this in more diplomatic terms:
“We tried to do the right thing for the right reasons and we screwed up. We need your help to be part of the solution because a stable middle east benefits us all.”
[/quote]

The UN has had some limitted success in maintaing the peace once it has been established, but I’m unaware of any time that the UN established peace in the middle of the kind of violence we are seeing in Iraq today. Are you? And I see no reason that UN troops would be any more welcome in Iraq than US troops are. The most likely scenario would be that the insurgents would run over the UN troops like they were boy scouts.

I’m afraid we’re on our own on this one. But we need to announce in no uncertain terms that we intend to get out, and then back it up with action. In the mean time, we need to start talking to Iran and Syria and make it clear to them that we will go back in if they start to interfere. We also need to make sure that the ISF has the equipment it needs and the training to use it.

Are you talking about the major players in Iraq? If so, I agree. They need to be put on notice that the US isn’t going to prop up the government forever.

71

Yeah, but it’s a lot easier to make that choice when the infrastructure, the law, and public order are reasonably stable and functional. It’s easy to sit here in a stable state and tsk-tsk about how badly people are behaving in a failed state, but I’m not sure we’d be any better if what had happened to them were happening to us.

And if they turn them in, they may well be found outside the morgue tomorrow morning with drill holes in their skulls. I doubt that you or I or most other Americans would find that choice an easy one to make if we were facing such a situation.

Actually, I think the countries that managed to avoid abetting or approving our spectacularly misguided fuckup in Iraq are entitled to enjoy their self-esteem all they want to. However, if scolding them will really increase their willingness to take a shot at pulling our national collective dick out of the mangle (not to mention providing a chance at survival for tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis), I’ll be happy to join you in scolding them.

72

Got a few problems there, John.

Numero uno, it leaves GeeDubya too many trapdoors. These people appear to be convinced, beyond all reason, that sheer determination will win them the day. Its not just wrong, its dead wrong. They will immediatly start in weasling for one or two F.U… that’s all, last one, then we quit, really, this time we mean it… in the forlorn hope that one day it will just suddenly start to work.

For instance, your proviso that we will return in force if we determine that Syria and/or Iran is meddling beyond limits acceptable to us. Fat chance, and they know it. The patience has run out, the troops are coming home, and Kuwait is not home. Secondly, a war with Iran would be an unmitigated catastrophe, even if we won, we would be knee-deep in Muslim blood. The Iranian people would see it as an invasion and resistance would be vigorous. Bluffing is smart in poker, 'cause all you lose is money.

Whats to stop GeeDubya from claiming thier interference on the basis of “secret intelligence”? Scruples?

And train and equip the Iraqi Army? More training and equipping the Iraqi Army? How about we just leave them all the worn out shit we used up while we were there? A lot of it probably isn’t worth hauling back to repair. Are we to equip them to the point where they can reasonably be expected to prevail if attacked by Iran? Or Syria? Or Iran *and * Syria? Or do we leave them a IOU, a promissary note from Hell, that we will go to war if either of them attack?

And having trained and equiped these splendid lads, at enormous expense to ourselves…whats to ensure they don’t become the willing military arm of a Shia theocracy? Remember those missiles we gave to the Afghan “freedom fighters”. This would be like giving them a couple of armored divisions.

And if we could give them all this fancy equipment, how long would it take to train them to use it? In Arabic? And until they can use it, do we remain the guarantors of their sovereignty? No thanks.

Half measures won’t do it. Partially removing a gangrenous limb doesn’t accomplish anything but suffering.

73

[QUOTE=Ale]
The gall of it!, the US screws up and you expect the nations that, in their mayority where against this war from the start, to throw their people into a meat grinder of your making?
The US choosed to go to war, you flopped miserably now pay the consequences, it´s a shame the the Iraqis have to do the same without having been given a choice.
[/QUOTE]

:stuck_out_tongue:

Stupid ass neighbor in cowboy hat: Damn, I think this fire is getting out of control. I really thought I could get those bandits out of that guys house over there without setting it all alight. :frowning:

Rightous neighbor who prefered sitting on his hands: I TOLD you, you fucking moron, just to let things alone! Now look what you’ve done…the house is burning up and everything you seem to be doing is making it worse. Gods you are a fucking idiot… <goes on in this vein for quite a while, having a good rant>

Stupid ass neighbor in cowboy hat: I was just trying to help. I thought that I could do it and that things would be better.

Rightous neighbor: You are a moron. I TOLD you it wouldn’t work, and that you should leave things alone. Gods you are stupid…<blah blah blah>

(fire gets higher)

Stupid ass neighbor: (looks frantic) I am trying to do everything I can…and it keeps getting worse!

Rightous neighbor: You are a moron. I TOLD you, you stupid shit, that this would happen. Why didn’t you listen to me? I ALWAYS know what I’m talking about you idiot! Sheesh…you are a fucking cowboy, you never listen to your betters who KNOW what to do always…<blah blah blah>

(fire starts to spread)

Third party neighbor: Hey man…that fire is starting to spread. Its REALLY going. It could spread to your house you know…

Rightous neighbor: Fuck it…its HIS fault, the moron.

Third party neighbor: Yeah, but…that fire could spread to your house and burn it down too. You think maybe you should help out? I mean, yeah, cowboy dude is a moron and all…but all YOU’VE done is sit there looking smug and bitch. Maybe you should help?

Rightous neighbor: Fuck THAT! Its not MY fault…I told that asshole not to do what he did, and he ignored me. Let the shit burn…serve cowboy dude right!

Third party neighbor: Yeah…but man, that fire is getting HIGH. I could burn the whole neighborhood if it keeps on, and cowboy dude is obviously flailing there. Maybe you should pitch in and help instead of sitting there and crowing that you were right and that he’s a stupid shit.

This little skit brought to you by half a bottle of REALLY good single malt scotch (20 year old Glen Levits). I doubt that it will get through to our fabulous Euro buddies, or the rest of The World™…but how are you guys going to feel if the whole region goes tits up? Rightous because its all our fault? How do you suppose thats going to work out for you when Bush is proven to be the moron you’ve been saying for years now, when the US is proven to be the fuckups you’ve been saying…when the oil stops flowing? Will it make you feel really GOOD?? :stuck_out_tongue:

Carry on me foil lads, carry on…

<starts singing “And we’ll all…go down…together…”>

-XT

74

Why, we’ll go right ahead with our smug gloating, of course. We don’t really care what happens to our country, unlike, you know, real Americans.

75

Righteous neighbor: Help how? What exactly am I supposed to do here that has a chance in hell of putting this fire out, or stopping it spreading? I’m already talking with the neighbors in the other house that Cowboy Hat wants to charge into with flamethrowers, trying to stop an even worse fire breaking out.

What’s Cowboy Hat asking me to do to stop this fire? He’s been yelling all along that he can handle it, that he knows what he’s doing, he’s got a strategy for victory in putting the fire out. Well, what’s his strategy? If he wants me to help with it, shouldn’t he make some kind of request and explain his plan to me? He keeps saying he’s got this under control, and if I tried to butt in without his consent, he’d probably punch me. So how exactly am I supposed to “pitch in” here?

76

Applause and hearty cheers would probably be appreciated.

77

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Got a few problems there, John.

Numero uno, it leaves GeeDubya too many trapdoors. These people appear to be convinced, beyond all reason, that sheer determination will win them the day. Its not just wrong, its dead wrong. They will immediatly start in weasling for one or two F.U.. that’s all, last one, then we quit, really, this time we mean it… in the forlorn hope that one day it will just suddenly start to work.
[/quote]

Well, you can’t will Bush out of the picture. He’s the CiC and what we do over there is his decision. You simply can’t design a plan around the idea that Bush won’t be able to make desisions as the CiC. Your plan’s first step would have to be for Congress to revoke the AUMF. What odds do you give that of happening? (I’d put it at essentially 0.) I’m talking about something that Bush could conceivably do, and that Congress could conceivably buy into. Whatever plan emerges it’s going to be, at best, a compromise between what Bush wants and what Congress wants.

Says who? It’s Bush’s decision. Besides, let’s just pretend, for the sake of argument, that Congress is going to make the decision. How many votes does “bring the troops home” have vs “redeploy the troops outside Iraq, but still within striking distnace”? The latter is what Murtha and his crowd is talking about.

I didn’t say we’d invade Iran, I said we’d go back into Iraq.

[quote]
Whats to stop GeeDubya from claiming thier interference on the basis of “secret intelligence”? Scruples?
Not much. What makes you think he needs a permission slip from anyone?

No, we make sure they have the equipment to deploy around the country and fight the isurgency. That’s helicopters, communications equipment, whatever. The first time Iran sends a battalion accros the border, we send in an air strike and bomb them on Iraqi soil, not in Iran. But we aren’t going to be redeploying our troops out of Iraq over night, and we’re going to have to leave some in Iraq to train and advise the ISF.

We owe them that, and it’ll be a lot cheaper than what we’re doing now.

We make the use of the equipment and the access to the trainers and advisers contingent on certain political goals.

That’s nice to say, but who is going to make that option happen? Bush isn’t. Congress isn’t. If you’re unwilling to compromise, then it’s going to be “stay the course”, because Bush isn’t going to sign on to your plan. And, AFAICT, neither is Congress.

78

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, you can’t will Bush out of the picture… at best, a compromise between what Bush wants and what Congress wants.
[/quote]

Well, then Houston, we have a problem. A withdrawal by any name whatsoever smells like defeat, and he’s not having any. He has clearly signaled this. Sure, he’ll bargain, negotiate, stall for as many Freidman Units as he can squeeze. Because he thinks he is going to win. Yes, that’s crazy, I agree. He thinks he is going to win.

Now, or six months from now, when we’re still there, neck deep in the fever swamp? So if you’re saying that the process of withdrawal will be long and miserable, I cannot disagree.

If they claim that their presence there is entirely motivated by a desire to protect their Shia brethren? Who is going to be believed, them or us?

Yes. I do. Us.

It takes a lot longer to train a helicopter pilot than to build a helicopter. This is a very ambitious training program you’re about, when previous training and equipping ventures have proved wanting.

And if they occupy an Iraqi town? With the blessings and admiration of its Shia citizens? Be quite the irony, no? Its the Iranian Army that gets the adulation as liberators, and the flowers strewn in their path…

You give a guy a machine gun and say “Now, behave, or I take it back…”?

I am unwilling to compromise. I want them all out at the earliest practical moment. Period. Full stop. That is not, currently, possible. But if things keep going straight to hell at the same pace that they have been, it will be politically possible very soon. In fact, it will be politicly impossible not to. The price will be far, far too high…but it will come.

79

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sure, he’ll bargain, negotiate, stall for as many Freidman Units as he can squeeze.
[/QUOTE]
Have you seen the latest [del]psyop[/del] leaked story at the NY Times ?
It seems that some shadowy group of government operatives have determined that “the insurgancy”, including al Qaeda in Iraq, is profitable enough that they may start exporting terror to your children.
It’d be unamerican to pull out with that sort of scary shit going on wouldn’t it?
Mighty convenient for Mr. 31% though.

80

elucidator: I’m not going to play the point/counter-point game with that lost post of yours. Suffice it to say that your entire argument is based on the idea that Bush will find it politically impossible to stay in Iraq much longer. We’ll see, but I doubt it. Even now, in the most recent polls, “withdraw now” gets a yes vote from only 33% of the people. Don’t confuse your own ideas with what most Americans think, or what the folks in Congress think.

I do want to clear up one item from that last exchange:

He already has one from us. It has to be taken away, and I don’t see anyway a proposal to revoke the AUMF is going to make it thru the Congress. It might have a slim chance in the House, but not in the Senate. That one vote majority that the Dems have isn’t gonna cut it. It’s laughable to think otherwise the when Democrats themselves are putting stuff out like this:

So, Nancy Pelosi is going to write a stern letter to Bush telling him he has to start drawing down troops in… July of next year? Or what… she’s going to send him to his room w/o dessert in July of the following year?

Oh, and I hope it’s OK with you that I quoted the Boston Globe. I don’t know whether or not they’re on Squink’s noticia non grata list along with the Washington Post.