Gahhh! Make that “withdraw all [troops]” from the recent poll, not “withdraw now”. My bad.
Third party neighbor: What can you do? I don’t know…help maybe? Yeah, he started this mess, no doubt…but it IS a mess now, and SOMETHING needs to be done. Or not. I suppose we could just watch it all burn down I guess. Hey, its no skin off MY nose…its your house that might go up in flames next.
As for stopping Cowboy dude from rushing into that other house…hows that working out for you? Seems like your way is no better than his…since if Cowboy dude doesn’t rush in, its likely that the house and neighborhood might go up in flames anyway. From my perspective, it doesn’t seem like you are doing anything effective either…but you sure do talk a good game. 
Third party neighbor: Well again…I suppose since he offended you, you COULD just sit there and watch the fire. Its your house as well after all…
You said it yourself, he’s a moron. However, YOU are being a moron too, since just sitting there and watching while patting yourself on the back that you predicted it all could very well lead to your own house burning down too. I suppose it will be some comfort when you are sitting there with no house that it was all Cowboy dudes fault, and that he didn’t ASK for your help (though of course, he really did)…
How do you suppose that will work out for you?
Anyway, this was fun but we don’t have to keep it up unless you are having fun with it too. My point is that Europe needs to decide if they are a world power that can DO something or not…and also realize that if Iraq goes completely tits up, its going to be cold comfort to them that its all the US’s fault when/if the oil stops flowing.
-XT
We need to put a million people in front of the White House and politely ask how many Iraqis we have to kill in order to have won.
Of course we still haven’t found the weapons of mass distruction, or the major Al Queda support areas from which the great threat of attacks agianst the United States were being launched. Well, I guess we have to stay.
Besides, if we left Iraq, there would be a civil war!
Tris
A pity. Perhaps when you have more time?
No, not really. Several of my points, like training pilots and arming Iraqis, have almost nothing to do with Bush’s popularity. Though I can certainly see how that might be more comfortable.
Hardly likely, haven’t had a popular political opinion in a very long time. I have, however, had opinions that became more popular with time. I despised GeeDub when he had an 85% approval rating. That changed too. So will this. It is changing, even as we speak. Because its not getting better. Because its getting worse. If you disagree, please advise. If you see some miracle on the horizon that will reverse that, please advise.
Perhaps not by that precise mechanism. But it will happen if he refuses to cooperate. Because, in all probability, its going to get worse. Absent that aforementioned miracle.
The Dems are being pretty cautious. They will get less cautious as public sentiment sours. When the people lead, the leaders follow.
Aww. c’mon, John, if you’re gonna snark, snark! Pretty weak tea.
Naw…if it was simply about dead Iraqi’s we’d be better served by asking how many would potentially die if we pulled out tomorrow and things went completely tits up. As that number is bound to be higher than either the current rate Iraqi’s are dieing and probably higher than the total that have died thus far…well, I’m not sure what that would mean to be honest.
But ‘winning’ isn’t about how many Iraqi’s have or will die at this point…so that would be kind of a stupid question to ask. ‘Winning’ at THIS point is about some kind of stability in Iraq, and some kind of containment of the situation so it doesn’t overflow into neighboring countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuait.
If you want to get your million people together to confront the White House (politeness is optional afaiac) on THAT and tell them to get their fucking heads out of their collective asses…well, sign me up.
At this stage, why is this important? Are you keeping score? I think we all know the President and his merry men screwed the pooch on this one…right? There were no WMD. AQ wasn’t connected to Iraq and SH. Iraq really wasn’t any kind of threat to the US. Blah blah blah. Its moot now…history happened, and unless you have a time machine its too late to go back for a re-do. We are stuck.
Though I’m sure you are being sarcastic here, you hit the nail on the head. If we leave Iraq (and no one (UN, Arab League, NATO, EU, Pink Unicorns, etc) takes our place) then there WILL be a civil war. What we have right now is bad enough…a real honest to Allah civil war would be MUCH worse. It was bad enough when it happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets tucked tail and bolted…no one really gave a shit about Afghanistan. There is a distinct lack of oil there, the terrain sucks, and its not really in a critical location to cause its neighbors a lot of grief.
Iraq however doesn’t really enjoy those factors…being as how its chalked full of oil, sits next to some of the largest oil producing nations in the world as its neighbors, etc etc. If it goes tits up…well, one might speculate that things could be very bad from a ‘getting our oil’ kinda perspective. Leaving aside for a moment all the increased loss of life for the Iraqi’s caught in a vicious civil war…and not to mention if some of the other nations (like, oh, say Iran and Saudi) decide to join the fun.
-XT
If you are suggesting that our presence is the one factor which is preventing these terrible things, please offer some evidence. You see, we’ve been here for some time and things have gotten steadily worse, and are proceeding apace. Is something just about to happen which will make it all better? An election, perhaps? Some ceremonial of sovereignty? The next six months are crucial?
What evidence can you offer that our presence is slowing the move to bloody chaos rather than accelerating it? What evidence can you offer that the chaos you warn us against won’t happen regardless, only with our people stuck in the middle?
And now the exact same dynamic is playing itself out in Iraq. The options that outside governments have to make are the same as in Bosnia, just with different faction names. Do you:
[ol]
[li]Step into the middle of the firefight, try to impose order, and have everyone turn on you for your pains[/li][li]Back the Sunni, and turn a blind eye to atrocities inflicted against Shia as a result[/li][li]Back the Shia, and turn a blind eye to atrocities committed against Sunni as a result[/li][li]Keep the hell away from the whole mess, wring your hands a lot and trot out the same tired platitudes whenever there is a particularly reprehensible bloodbath.[/li][/ol]
Currently the US is going for strategy 1, veering into 3 occasionally. Recent changes in public opinion seem to be veering towards 4.
With regards to analogies about neighbours and houses and whatnot - the worlds ‘hyperpower’ is having its ass comprehensively handed to it in Iraq, despite having 140,000 of the worlds best-equipped troops in place. The last I heard, all the EU countries combined could maybe scrape together a mish-mash of 60,000 troops for force projection, and many (or most) are already committed to the Balkans, Lebanon, Afghanstan and Iraq[li]. Russia isn’t going to volunteer for another Chechnya writ large, the Chinese are unlikely to go so far out of their neighbourhood to help prop up the US, ditto for the Indians - that’s assuming these nations even have the logistics to deploy that far. The neighbouring states don’t have adequate military clout to suppress an insurgency on this scale, and would almost certainly just get sucked into the Shia/Sunni fratricide or play to their national agendas.[/li]We’re talking about tens of thousands of soldiers being needed to make a difference. Where exactly are these divisions of well-trained well-equipped troops going to come from to bail the US out of this mess?
It’s not just a matter of persuading the rest of the world to stop complaining and pitch in to help - even if there was the will, I doubt there is the capability to suppress the insurgency at this point. The ‘righteous neighbours’ have already written the building off as a dead loss and are thinking more about dynamiting firebreaks and how to stop the homeless squatting in their living rooms.
[*] - Britain and France probably have the forces most capable of overseas operation. This article outlines how British forces are deployed - bear in mind that they are suffering from overstretch just as badly as the US.
Nope, because…
What, that it “takes a lot longer to train a helicopter pilot than to build a helicopter”? Got a cite for that, because I don’t think so. And what does that have to do with the price of butter in Denmark anyway?
You underestimate Bush’s tenacity and his willingness to go it alone as long as he has to. The wheels of the democratic process turn slowly, and Bush only has 2 more years til he’s gone. It will, as he said, be up to “future presidents” to get all the troops out of Iraq.
What other mechanism?
Well, there’s no accounting for taste, is there?
That wasn’t you? Turns out, upon investigation, that training a helicopter pilot is a matter of a few months, not as long as I would have thought. So, happily for your scenario, a lot of helicopter pilots could be trained within a single Freidman Unit. So, if we were willing to send enough helicopter pilot trainers (assuming we have such…), we might very well be in the happy position of supply Muktada al Sadr with airborne capacity. Think they’ll play “Flight of the Valkeyrie” when they swoop down on a Sunni village?
(Of course, we did train a hell of a lot of chopper pilots a while back. But most of those men are men of mature years and judgement, like ourselves…)
Perhaps. Just as you say, “out now!” only garners about 33%. But that is a huge number for a radical position, a position that will only become more attractive as the situation worsens. It is worsening, you know.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16092045.htm
The situation is already grim, and getting worse. America is already sick to death of this war,and that number will increase. Republicans are already thinking about how to save thier own bacon.
Of course, all of this could be mooted by some dramatic reversal of fortune in Iraq. See any such prospect, John? I sure don’t.
Are you suggesting no such mechanism exists, or only that you don’t know of any? Impeachment is still a long shot, but the odds are changing as we speak. GeeDubya is, as you point out, stubborn to the point of derangement. But if that spectre takes solid shape, I think he will cave. Not only will he cave, but he will begin to pretend that he has always been in the very forefront of the “Get the Hell Out of BaghDodge” movement. 'Struth, perhaps not, the man does appear to be as crazy as a duck on acid, so you might still be right…
Must…resist…urge…to…ask…for…wager…
Seriously, though, I did come up short thinking of mechanisms other than impeachment. But if that’s the option the Dems will choose, they need to get cracking. It takes longer to impeach a president than it does to train a helicopter pilot… or to build a helicopter, for that matter.
The Dems are being cautious, as well they might. They are opting for the most popular position, one that subsumes the “Out Now” into the “Deploy Away!, pretty darn quick!” Taken as an aggregate, that position has popular support, and leaves open the option of racheting up. An option which will become more viable, as the situation continues to deteriorate.
The “Tet offensive” analogy is accurate in that one aspect: if there is a massive bloodletting in Iraq, esp. of it involves large numbers of American troops…the “Out Now” position will become the only one that matters. Because “Redploy” is only “Out Now!” Lite.
Perish the thought! Thrust the impoverished Mace Munchkins into a cruel world, to stand about on street corners with signs saying “Will Cute for Food”?
Have I missed the set piece battles raging between large formations of militia units using artillary, tanks, rockets, etc? Have I missed the sacking of cities as raging bands move across Iraq?
Evidence? You want me to look into the crystal ball and somehow present that as evidence? How about I offer up something similar in the region? Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. Now…its not a direct parallel mind you. There are a lot of differences. But the Soviets were propping up a secular government after invasion…similar to what we are doing. Things were certainly bad under the Soviets (they really DID have battles using tanks, rockets, artillary, etc against large formations of insurgent militia groups…and said groups fought not only the Soviets but each other in some cases)…and they got worse after the Soviet pullout. There were (IIRC) something like 8 years(!!) of civil war after that…VERY bloody civil war. What makes you think that, if the US pulls out and no one steps up to take our place, that the same exact thing wouldn’t happen in Iraq? All the pieces are there…several ethnic/religious groups, a government thats both weak and perceived as having been installed by an outside superpower, a lot of hate and discontent…sounds like a formula for a full blow, knock down drag out civil war…perhaps with a side of ethnic/religious cleansing thrown in, just for fun.
You think things are bad now…and they are. But things aren’t REALLY bad yet. You have a lot of small scale insurgency type actions…a lot of car bombings, executions, torture, snipers, suicide bombs, etc. Thats certainly bad. But…when large formations of highly pissed off militia units start taking the field using large scale weapons and huge chips on their shoulders, things can go from bad to completely fucked up rather rapidly. And my crystal ball says that the US and Britian is the only thing preventing such and escallation of violence from happening…and maybe not preventing it from happening for too much longer unless we figure out how to change what we’ve been doing.
Is there something thats going to happen to make it all better? Damned if I know. You are putting words in my mouth if you think I said that though 'luci…I never made that claim, nor that the next 6 months (ad nausium) are critical. Bit of a strawman there. What I DID say was that, while I don’t know what can make things better, I can certainly envision what could make them radically worse. Key difference there, what?
Only the above, which is admittedly pure speculation. Lets turn things about though, ehe old boy? What evidence do YOU have that my grim scenerio is all hot air? That things will be better if the US/British humps our butts on out of there? That things will calm down without those evil American’s driving the faithful into a frenzy?
Because looking at the evidence I’ve seen, the US is seen more as a nusance than the true enemy these days, just someone in the way as the two major belligerants go for each others throats. Much of the current violence seems to me to be Iraqi on Iraqi…and I don’t see how the US/British tucking tail and bolting will suddenly shift that equation. From my perspective, and looking at similar things in the region in the past, I’d say that the US and Brits are the only thing keeping things from flying completely apart at this point. While not making the situation noticably better, they are certainly preventing them from getting radically worse…for now.
Still, I DO think that the US needs to withdrawl from Iraq…in an orderly and phased manner. I would LOVE to see us in a defensive posture by years end, and withdrawing from Iraq in a phased manner starting sometime before spring. While we are, IMHO, holding things from flying apart, we aren’t really helping them get better either. However, SOMEONE needs to step up and help out in Iraq as we pull out. As I said above and in other threads…IMHO failure in Iraq isn’t a viable option. If Iraq goes tits up, its very likely (again IMHO) that it will spread to other neighboring countries…other OIL PRODUCING neighboring countries. Even if it doesnt, Iraq alone has a significant portion of the worlds oil reserves right there. Even if, by some miricle, no other powers in the region decide to ‘help’ in Iraq ( :dubious: ), can the world really afford multiple years of all out civil war in Iraq? Without trying everything they can first to prevent such an outcome?
-XT
IIRC, there’s fewer than 100 non-US/Brit tnaks in Iraq right now; mostly T-55s and a few refurbished T-72’s.
http://www.daves-not-here.net/2006/05/iraq_9th_mechanized_division.php
There aren’t going to be any set piece tank battles in this civil war.
I just finished watching Meet the Press, and Russert had both the outgoing (R) and the incoming (D) chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee in for a discusion about Iraq. The incoming chairman (Ike Skelton, D-MO) was recommending pretty much the same thing I’ve been advocating. If you get a chance to watch this later today, or can read the transcript when it’s available online, I’d highly recommend it. You may disgree with this guy, but I think his position is a good indication of what the Democrats are actually thinking about doing.
There is one humorous moment (if it can be called that) when one of the other guests says that the next 6 months will be crucial.
Leaving aside the fact that if there was an all out civil war in Iraq that such things come be brought in from outside (and that a few hundred tanks can do a hell of a lot of damage, assuming they still work), how about artillary? Rockets? Mortars? Other armored fighting vehicles? How about simply battalion level insurgent formations fighting each other?
Perhaps you are right, and in a full blown Iraqi civil war there won’t be any tanks available to any of the sides ( :dubious: )…do you think it will make that much of a difference to my point?
Maybe so and maybe no…so what? Take the ‘tank’ out, and the point still stands.
-XT
To put it coldly and bluntly: my plan is to remove American troops soonest, based on the conjectures outlined above. American lives will be saved, Iraqi lives may be lost as a consequence (assuming that they wouldn’t be lost anyway, an assumption I am not willing to make…) You conjecture, based on the same lack of evidence as mine own, is that American lives are being sacrificed needfully, usefully, in prevention of disaster.
But, they are nonetheless being sacrificed. Ruthlessly put, American lives are more dear to me than Iraqi lives. I rather imagine that is a majority opinion amongst us, though we would be loath to phrase it so starkly. But there you have it: two conjectures, without any more substantiation than our wisdom. But one costs more American lives, and the other costs less.
I can respect that opinion elucidator…while disagreeing with it on several different levels. But you are right 'luci…its all conjecture. And you are also right that staying there will cost more US lives than leaving would…while almost surely costing more Iraqi’s their lives in the short and medium term. However, I think that leaving will end up costing the US and the world much more if things really go badly there.
I shudder to think what could happen if the violence spreads from Iran to Saudi…which from my view point is very possible. Leaving aside the human costs (of those stuck in the region) for a moment…imagine the effect world wide if Iraq produces no oil at all for several years…while Iran and Saudi produce something on the order of what Iraq is currently producing. I wouldn’t even like to predict what such a thing might cause, not just economically but to the fundamental workings of nations like the US and Europe, Japan and Korea…even places like India and China. Would countries, desparate for oil, go to war to secure that oil? In the region? With each other? I don’t know…and maybe I’m being chicken little here, and this scenerio is as unlikely as all the other doomsday predictors out there.
-XT
Of course they take that position, John, it has no risk! The Out Now crowd is co-opted into the larger majority of Out Pretty Darned Quick. As the situation deteriorates, it will be easy for Dems to slide towards Out Now. And the Pubbies will have no real option but to jump aboard. The Dems have the advantage of flexibility, why should they give it up? Especially when they haven’t yet actually got their butts in the seats. They lose nothing, they risk nothing, and look thoughtful and bi-partisan in the bargain.
The real trouble is not so much your position, XT, as the usefulness of that position to GeeDubya. It opens the possibility of stallling, fudging, keeping as many troops there as possible for as long as possible, because its going to start raining ponies any day now! While I have no doubt your concerns are sincere, it offers aid and comfort to men I do not trust. And neither do you.