[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
IOW, the Shi’ites that are killing Sunnis, with the government’s tacit approval - we don’t regard them as enemies.
So we’ve taken sides: we’re for the Shi’a, against the Sunni.
[/QUOTE]
I should have said that criminal activity made such people legitimate targets for detention. Oh wait, I did.
By that definition, the enemy appears to be most of the damn country. Are you in favor of killing them all and letting Allah sort them out? Which way would *we * be sorted if we do as the OP wants?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Why is it intelligent? The “enemy” are those who are taking up arms against the legitimate government of Iraq and those who are actively assisting them. Now, it might at times be difficult to determine who is taking up arm against the state and who is engaged in plain ol’ criminal activity, but both are legitimate targets of the ISF and the US military in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that in the paradigm of military force, we operate under the tacit assumption of facing an indentifiable, organized opponent on a battlefield. Much of the reason that we will never “win” in Iraq is that there is no single force to defeat in combat. Nobody on the “Them” side is wearing uniforms or answering to a single would-be government, and there’s no decisive move to end the war. The only win–as far as ending violent conflict between warring factions–is to separate and disarm the combatants in a massive (and literal) police action; something our troops are neither trained, equipped, or supported to do. This isn’t like WWII, with an obvious opposing force; it’s not even like Gulf War I, with a clear objective (push the Iraqis out of Kuwait and obtain capitulation from Hussain). This is like trying to rid New York City of crime after the Moses Urban Planning fiasco.
The honest and intelligent thing to do would have been to admit up front that this would be a long term occupation in adverse circumstances, and plan accordingly (i.e. work to gain approval from and compromise by various factions). We didn’t, and now basically anybody could be the enemy. This is why Bush The Elder made the smart move in leaving Hussain in power, however dubious his motives and post-war pledges of support to ethnic Kurds were.
Stranger
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
By that definition, the enemy appears to be most of the damn country.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. Do you have a cite to prove that statement?
Well, let’s see:
So, that would be a “no”.
I don’t believe in Allah, so I wouldn’t know how to answer that.
But I do think the OP is grossly mistaken if he thinks the only thing preventing us from achieving “victory” is that the Iraqi government puts too much restrictions on what we can do. In fact, I think that’s mice nuts compared to the real problems in Iraq.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I should have said that criminal activity made such people legitimate targets for detention. Oh wait, I did.
[/QUOTE]
And if, as has been suggested, the government of Iraq is selective it its response to “criminal activity”, what then?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Well, that’s nice. What does it matter to anyone else, though?
All it takes to answer that is to have some sort of moral code higher than the self. You do have one, I trust? What conclusion would it lead you to?
You’re acknowledging “the real problems in Iraq”? {falling to the floor swooning}.
Just to indulge that petulant demand for a cite for what should be widely known by those who follow the news:Sep 27 '06
Now, John, would you care to tell us what facts you considered in leading to your “not thinking so” instead?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I was referring to the aftermath . . . both short-term and long-term. If we pull out, the government will fall. In the short term that will shed a lot of blood, as in Vietnam. In the long term (we’re talking at least a decade) it might be the best thing that ever happened to Iraq, as the Communist victory was, on that time-scale, the best thing that ever happened to Vietnam.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all like Vietnam, in either the short-term or the long-term. In Vietnam there were, certainly, some executions, some political re-educations, some repressions after the North won the war, but there was never the potential for genocidal civil war that exists in Iraq.
The only possible way I see to avert that potential is to leave a Saddam redux (from whatever faction) in charge when we leave. I’m not even sure that would be good enough - we have broken everything.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
The problem is that in the paradigm of military force, we operate under the tacit assumption of facing an indentifiable, organized opponent on a battlefield. Much of the reason that we will never “win” in Iraq is that there is no single force to defeat in combat. Nobody on the “Them” side is wearing uniforms or answering to a single would-be government, and there’s no decisive move to end the war. The only win–as far as ending violent conflict between warring factions–is to separate and disarm the combatants in a massive (and literal) police action; something our troops are neither trained, equipped, or supported to do. This isn’t like WWII, with an obvious opposing force; it’s not even like Gulf War I, with a clear objective (push the Iraqis out of Kuwait and obtain capitulation from Hussain). This is like trying to rid New York City of crime after the Moses Urban Planning fiasco.
[/quote]
But you wouldn’t say that we can’t define who the criminals are. So, “who is the enemy” is still easily answerable, even if the enemy is not easily defeatable. And our goal needn’t even be that we defeat “the enemy”, but that the Iraq government can sustain itself without our help. I’m not saying that will be easy to achieve, but it is possible.
The intelligent thing to do would have been to no invade in the first place. But I certainly agree that if we were to invade, we should have planned for the need to fight a long and protracted insurgency-- that could easily have been foreseen.
No, that doesn’t support your assertion. I don’t consider anyone to be “the enemy” just because they say that they approve of attacks on US troops, and I don’t see how you could have gotten that from my definition: “those who are taking up arms against the legitimate government of Iraq and those who are actively assisting them.”
Is any government “legitimate” if it actively oppresses a minority of its citizens? Does that minority have a legitimate right to resist?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Is any government “legitimate” if it actively oppresses a minority of its citizens?
[/quote]
Depends. “Legitimate” means lawful or according to established rules. If the government has been established lawfully and is recognized internationally, then I’d say it’s legitimate even if it certain of its policies may not be. Besides, if what you said were true, then there would be few, if any, “legitimate” governments in the world.
Sure. Just ask Gandhi or MLK-- they could even tell you what the “legitimate” tactics are. When I see the insurgents staging sit-ins, I’ll stop calling them “the enemy”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Depends. “Legitimate” means lawful or according to established rules. If the government has been established lawfully and is recognized internationally, then I’d say it’s legitimate even if it certain of its policies may not be. Besides, if what you said were true, then there would be few, if any, “legitimate” governments in the world.
[/QUOTE]
How many countries recognize the Iraqi government as the legitimate government? (Not directed directly at you, John. Some googling has produced no results.) Certainly it is the de facto government, but, as an occupied country, can any government there be said to be de jure?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I don’t consider anyone to be “the enemy” just because they say that they approve of attacks on US troops, and I don’t see how you could have gotten that from my definition: “those who are taking up arms against the legitimate government of Iraq and those who are actively assisting them.”
[/QUOTE]
So you draw your firm, sharp line between actively assisting and merely passively supporting, then? Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Frank, the Thieu, er, Maliki crew isn’t even “certainly the de facto government” outside the Green Zone. The de facto government in Iraq apparently depends on what neighborhood you’re in.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
No… McCain seems to think we can do it. If you want to have a debate about the draft as Rangel called for today, that’s fine.
[/QUOTE]
It would be nice if McCain pointed out where these extra troops are coming from. The generals don’t seem to know, which is one thing I believe them about. More likely that when McCain runs for president he can say, “No one listened to my solution. Iraq isn’t my fault!” I think Frank Rich made that point today.
By the way, even Hnry Kissinger has given up on a military solution.
John - do you consider the al Sadr militia part of the government or not? Kind of hard to crack down on forces allied with part of the government. The government has really met the enemy, and they are us.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
So you draw your firm, sharp line between actively assisting and merely passively supporting, then?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Why not? And you don’t even know if those people in the survey are passively supporting the attacks. They just said they approve of them. Passively supporting would mean you were, for example, holding knowledge about the insurgents, but not telling the authorities. And, the US forces are not the government of Iraq. Many Shiites might want the US troops out, but they’re not taking up arms against the government. Same thing with the Kurds.
Frank: Why isn’t it the de jure government? There were openly free elections with international monitors in which high turnout was had throughout the country. How much more de jure do you want?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yes. Why not?
[/quote]
Because it’s beyond bizarre and into the range of merely silly. The people who aren’t, under your definition, “the enemy” are then the people we’re protecting from the people they support. What the hell are we doing there, then?
Do yourself a favor. Step back and take a deep breath for just a moment.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Frank: Why isn’t it the de jure government? There were openly free elections with international monitors in which high turnout was had throughout the country. How much more de jure do you want?
[/QUOTE]
And I could be convinced of that, partly by seeing how many countries recognize the government of occupied Iraq as legitimate, and, frankly, by seeing the Iraqis recognize the government of their country as legitimate. I see few signs of either the former or the latter.
Can you direct me to a site on the election monitors? I’d be interested to see how many were not from the U.S. or the U.K.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
It would be nice if McCain pointed out where these extra troops are coming from. The generals don’t seem to know, which is one thing I believe them about.
[/quote]
The US doesn’t have 20,000 troops somewhere? We might have to re-prioritize some of the things we’re doing, but we’ve got more troops than that sitting in Europe helping them defend themselves from the Soviet Union.
Not likely at all. McCain’s been calling for more troops for a long time.
As for the Sadr militia, no I don’t consider them part of the Iraqi government, and Sadr himself is not part of the goverment. Nor does the Iraqi goverment consider that militia to be part of itself:
It’s not even clear that it is one group: