Mr. Moto, let me ask you an off-the-wall question: do you think the world would be better today if the Soviets decided to slug it out in Afghanistan, and kept fighting and fighting even after nine years and 15,000 troops killed? Do you think that, if the Soviets toughed it out for many thousands of more troops killed and unknown number of years more of fighting, they could have won Afghanistan and destroyed the nascent Taliban and Al Qaeda?
In other words, did the Soviets blow their chance at winning in Afghanistan by pulling out too early?
I’m not entirely clear how the blame for a failed Iraq will attach to the party that got us out of the country, and not the party that got us into it. Can you clear that one up for me, Mr. Moto?
To me the way the Democrats lose is by being vaguely down on the war, but not doing anything to actually end it. Basically everyone knows it’s a lost cause, and given that we know that, the smart thing to do is lance the boil and get out. I don’ t see the Democrats doing that, because they’re fearlful that calling for pullout will be construed as being insufficiently supportive of the troops. So instead, the Democrats temporize, to the detriment of their limited credibility, and to the detriment of the nation.
So what kind of thinking will result in a “victory”?
Do we keep killing until everyone willing to resist us with violence is dead? That will never happen.
This is NOT the Cold War where we prepared for a battle with uniformed battallions opposing us across the fields of Germany.
The Communists in Vietnam knew they could not defeat the American war machine on an even footing. They engaged in guerilla tactics and fought a successful, disproportionate war.
And those who oppose us nnow in Iraq have taken note.
A uniformed, traditional military cannot defeat a motivated insurgent force who blends into the population. Especially not in an urban environment that precludes massive use of firepower.
This war is like diving into a sewer. Its gross and revolting and we should probably get out for our own health. But no matter how you get out, your gonna smell like shit.
People looking for a clean exit from this sewer, complete with ticker tape parades and victory speeches have been deluded. They are completely bought into the American myth of a benevolent invulnerable force for good. Admitting defeat and suffering the humiliation due us for this immoral war of folly would shatter the illusion of America as the shining city on the hill.
We fucked up. And yes, because of our actions, the situation is likely to get more dangerous no matter what we do. But remaining in Iraq as an occupying force is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The Carpathia has arrived and she is shooting the survivors in the water.
We need to get out and beg the world’s forgiveness.
I think Kimstu nails it. There is an utterly bizarre confusion over whom the “enemy” is here. Al Qaeda is not stymied by our prescence in Iraq. They benefit from it. Their attacks worldwide have been going up, not down, discounting the violence in Iraq. The fact that US troops are doing God’s work primarily fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq to keep them away from the US is an utter fantasy. While many radical Muslims have rushed into that conflict as a way to attack the US, that’s an argument for us leaving not staying. The whole advantage for these radicals is that in Iraq, thanks to Bush, Americans are easy to find and kill. Without Americans there, they wouldn’t have anyone within reach to go after. And even this pales in comparison and size to the real conflict, which is an ethnic and anti-colonial conflict that dates back to before Saddam (remember, Saddam may have been the Iraqi nightmare, but he was the nightmare that Iraqis traded to GET RID OF American and British colonial control).
There is far more of a case to be made that Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran are deserving both of our attention and of a free hand of an uncommitted military.
Furthermore, having a Democrat in the White house would almost certainly defy the expectations.
It’s also pretty facetious to claim that Clinton backed down in Somalia, thus showing that Democrats are weaklings. Many of the primary critics of Clinton being in Somalia were Republicans. And during the Bosnian conflict, Republicans in Congress, giant hypocrites as they were, were doing everything that Democrats are now doing, including talking about cutting military funding. And this was for stopping an ongoing genocide against Muslims that cost not even a single American combat fatality.
In short, the worldview you are pushing, Moto, is one largely uncontaminated by reality.
I have no idea if he’s bone-stupid or not, but he’s certainly paid to be a hawkish motherfucker. Based on his other writings, if he says the Democratic party should be afraid of this or that stance, my first instinct would be that going against him would probably be the best course for the future of the party. I wouldn’t consider him “far right”, except in matters that involve Israel, directly or indirectly, but he’s certainly not liberal in any sense of the word. I think of him as a paid mouthpiece with views on the Middle East that are similar to Lieberman, but with a lot of fiscal conservatism tossed in.
It’s a lot like the old threads where Mr. Moto would tell us poor lefties that if we would only adopt the Republican platform, we’d win more elections. I guess he thinks that if he can get support from someone that was once somewhat involved with a Democratic administration, that we’d all just think “Oh, he’s on my side, so he must be right”. I often see Hitchens used in this manner (in fact, I think Mr. Moto has used him in the past as well).
I can’t speak for anyone else, but it doesn’t work on me.
Oh, I didn’t think he’d get much support here. Still, I think Haas provides an important opinion. And it fits in with my opinion that an America with two pro-defense parties would be beneficial for all, all things considered.
Are you aware of what “counterinsurgency” entails?
One option being floated is the “El Salvador Solution” in which we form death squads that terrorize the terrorists and their families. Believe it or not we are the best at it. We helped the Salvadoran government form and field these death squads during their civil war. That is counterinsurgency.
I was in El Salvador last June, and I am going back next month. I have stood in rooms where torture took place. I have seen women with their ears cut off. I have heard them cry over their sons and daughters disappeared in the night. You would be ashamed to know what was done by the United States there.
If we are going to forfeit all of our decency and humanity, or turn a blind eye while our government does, then I guess we can win. But then, why not admit who we are and just burn the place down Dresden-style?
Who isn’t “pro-defense?” You think the dems don’t care about the defense of our country? I think you mean something else; we are not defending ourselves in Iraq, if anything we are exposing ourselves to more harm. I feel that the real pro-defense position is to get out of Iraq and many agree with me.
We do have two pro-defense parties. The debacle in Iraq has never had anything to do with defending the US. The suggestion that opposition to remaining in Iraq is equivalent to opposing national defense is disingenuous at best and fighting words at worst.
Well, to be fair, there are counterinsurgency methods and tactics that are different than what was used in El Salvador. But, as to Mr Moto’s comment, sure, insurgents don’t always win, but counterinsurgency is hard, and we’re not very good at it, and we’re not doing very well at it in Iraq.
Don’t get me wrong. I want the US to “win”. I think that we’re the good guys here, and I want Iraq to become peaceful and democratic. I just don’t see that happening in the short term, and I know the US doesn’t have the will to spend 15-20 years there fixing Iraq.
One way for counterinsurgencies to win is to have the vice-president’s son-in-law lobby for making chemical plant targets in our country better and easier targets.
Absolutely. Without the ability to play the world media like a fiddle, confident in the knowledge that eventually a certain party will lose the stomach for an aggressive, prolonged antiterrorist campaign, the terrorists will have much more trouble acheiving their goals. Don’t expect it to happen, though, at least until all the Vietnam-era politicians retire.
My point was not that the Soviets were successful, but that the US failure in Viet Nam, or the anti-war attitude in the US associated with it, emboldened them to make further conquest attempts.
9/11 was a terrible debacle for al-Qaeda, if you think about it. Osama Bin Laden had been living in palaces with the mullahs who ruled a country. He directed his operations by satellite phone, and openly had money flowing in from Middle Eastern princes. After 9/11, he’s hiding in mountain caves or huts, communicates by relays of loyal foot-messengers, and if he’s getting money from anyone, it’s not a thousandth of what was able to reach him before. His main proxy in Iraq has been killed.
Would we be happy to encourage al-Qaeda to engage in more “debacles”? Or do we want them to get the message that the opposition to them and their philosophy will be relentless?
Aww, it’s another “[blank] will cost the Democrats thread.” It feels like it’s been forever.
Opposition to the war will cost the Democrats- because in the decades to come, I expect a lot of liars to say “we were going to win the war, and then the Democrats made us leave.”
America has two insanely “pro-defense” parties, at least if by pro-defense you mean military spending. What’s our defense budget, $500 to $600 billion? And most Democrats’ idea of beating the Republicans on defense is saying we need a bigger army.
You need more than a military to win a war, and in particular you need more than a military to deal with terrorism. Perhaps if we weren’t as fixated on the military and being “pro-defense,” somebody would have figured that out before we got stuck in Iraq.
