Opposition to the war is what elected the Democrats. Bush is not stopping in Iraq. If he goes into Iran much uglyness will follow.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Examples?
[/QUOTE]
The United States waged two successful counterinsurgency campaigns in the Philippines, the first winding down around 1902, and the second beginning after WWII and continuing through the first few years of Philippine independence.
The suppression of the Mau Mau in Kenya by the British is considered a very successful counterinsurgency, incorporating elements of reeducation and the use of reformed Mau Mau in actions against other insurgents.
There are obviously more, but this is a good start.
[QUOTE=cmkeller]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You’re saying US failure in Vietnam emboldened the Soviets to try to subvert Granada? That seems quite a stretch, and I’d defy you to find much evidence of it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The United States waged two successful counterinsurgency campaigns in the Philippines, the first winding down around 1902, and the second beginning after WWII and continuing through the first few years of Philippine independence.
[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how suppressing a legitimate aspiration for independence, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, counts as a success, particularly when you have to do it again a couple of decades later.
I think the problem is, whether we pull out tomorrow or in 50 years, the end result will be the same, broader civil war and the over throw of the U.S. backed government. As such we’d be better served by a plan for disengagement from the area, and a scorched earth policy waged against the terrorist for any organized attacks against the U.S. on U.S. soil. The idea we can rebuild anything lasting in the mid-east in the current climate is pure fantasy.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Pull out, and every enemy will then know that all they have to do, even if they lose the initial phase of the war, is blow up enough IEDs and wait for Democrats to win an election.
It that the reputation you want Democrats to have?
[/QUOTE]
“Win an election”? You mean, convince a substantial number of people that their plan is superior to the alternative, such that they should be given power in order to carry it out?
Reputation being, when the Republicans are too stupid or stubborn to realize they’ve mired us in a lost cause, the people have to turn to the Democrats to get us out of it?
That reputation? The one that, um, let me look at your post again, wins elections?
You’ll forgive me if I fail to regard with any seriousness any recommendations for Democrats about the political strategy they should follow and the good governance they should apply from someone who is an avowed opponent and who does not wish to see said group come to power. :rolleyes:
Moto: can you check out my question in post 21?
Okay.
I don’t think the world would be better if the Soviets had slugged it out in Afghanistan, nor do I think the Soviets would have been better off.
However, I don’t consider it a perfect comparison by any means, considering that the United States and the Soviet Union are very different countries, and were operating from very different motives.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Pull out, and every enemy will then know that all they have to do, even if they lose the initial phase of the war, is blow up enough IEDs and wait for Democrats to win an election.
[/QUOTE]
Are the Democrats the ones who’ve dropped the ball on Afghanistan? Are any prominent Democrats even talking about taking soldiers out of that country?
[QUOTE=athelas]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the “anti-terrorist” campaign that kidnaps innocent people and tortures them ? The one that helps to make more and more enemies for America ?
[QUOTE=cmkeller]
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.
[/quote]
And a major enemy of his, Saddam, is dead, Iraq’s secularism is also dead, and America is humiliated and crippled. He paid, but the rewards for him have been huge.
[QUOTE=cmkeller]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Then we should leave Iraq, since being there is a major support for them. Not that us attacking Iraq ever had a thing to do with Al Qaeda.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
You’ll forgive me if I fail to regard with any seriousness any recommendations for Democrats about the political strategy they should follow and the good governance they should apply from someone who is an avowed opponent and who does not wish to see said group come to power. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Okay. You can dismiss me in that way, if you like.
I’d like you to address the arguments of Mr. Haas on their own, if you don’t mind, since he obviously isn’t an avowed opponent and wouldn’t oppose said group coming to power.
Just as a reminder, he is a Visiting Senior Fellow at Georgetown’s Governmental Affairs Institute, former communications director for Vice President Gore, and a former OMB Communications Director.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
However, I don’t consider it a perfect comparison by any means, considering that the United States and the Soviet Union are very different countries, and were operating from very different motives.
[/QUOTE]
Outside of our borders, I fail to see any difference in our behavior or motivations.
And as far as the terrorists wanting the Democrats to win, last I heard the CIA said Al Qaeda was pro-Bush. Makes sense; when the WTC was bombed when Clinton was in office, he had the terrorists captured and imprisoned. When the towers are destroyed when Bush is in office, he attacks a third party and the terrorists can sit back and laugh at us.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Okay.
I don’t think the world would be better if the Soviets had slugged it out in Afghanistan, nor do I think the Soviets would have been better off.
However, I don’t consider it a perfect comparison by any means, considering that the United States and the Soviet Union are very different countries, and were operating from very different motives.
[/QUOTE]
Not that different, surely. We both invaded a sovereign nation without a valid pretext, in a bid to remake that country in our image, wether the people who lived there wanted us to or not. Really, the similarities are rather striking.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’d like you to address the arguments of Mr. Haas on their own, if you don’t mind, since he obviously isn’t an avowed opponent and wouldn’t oppose said group coming to power.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, he would, unless the Democrats suddenly got hawkish as hell on Iran and Syria, and also sided with Israel in every dispute in the Middle East, whether right or wrong.
Just as a reminder, he is now a member of CPD-“3”, which doesn’t really align very well with the impression of him that you’d seem to like for us to have. Hell, just reading some of the stuff on his website would induce nausea in many a Democrat. I’m pretty sure the Democrats made it quite clear that Lieberman and his friends do not speak for the party when it comes to foreign policy, recently. Which person from “our side” is going to be trotted out in your next OP, Zell Miller?
As an aside, I think we should probably be nicer to Mr. Moto. In the past, he tried many times to help us poor Democrats win elections. If we’d have taken his advice, we might today control both the Senate and the House. It’s too bad we didn’t listen.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Not that different, surely. We both invaded a sovereign nation without a valid pretext, in a bid to remake that country in our image, wether the people who lived there wanted us to or not. Really, the similarities are rather striking.
[/QUOTE]
I started a thread on that here if you want to discuss the similarities.
[Quote=Mr. Moto]
Thus, the domestic and geopolitical implications of a loss in Iraq do not favor the Democratic Party in any way, and Democrats shouldn’t be so naive as to think that they do.
[/Quote]
Speaking as a registerd Democrat, I would be highly annoyed if elected members of that party made their decisions on what to do about Iraq based solely on whether they favor the party. I wouldn’t be surprised of course, just annoyed. I’m frankly rather disgusted with with the habit of many American politicians, and apparently the OP as well, incesssantly discussing the war only in terms of what domestic political leverage a particular course of action may provide, rather than in its most immediate terms: tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and many more to come.
Otherwise, given that Haas has apparently seriously argued the “Democrats soft on defence” and “emboldening the enemy” canards, netiher of which appear to have any factual basis whatever, I see no reason to pay much attention to him. I don’t care what party he claims to belong to or what credentials are claimed for him; he sounds like a pro-Republican hack to me.
Der Trihs:
But neither is likely to be replaced by a Sunni theocracy, like ObL would have liked. It will either be replaced by a democracy (with the voters mostly Shiite) or by a Shiite theocracy with Iranian allegiance. And there’s no way ObL likes that better than Saddam in charge.
Humiliated? Perhaps, but for all the non-support on Iraq, our allies are still our allies. Crippled? No way.
I don’t think so. Even if you ignore his loss of personal comfort (after all, he’s an experienced guerilla and probably treasures the martyr option for his soul), he’s operating at a vastly diminished scale. The big money is getting stopped before it reaches him, telecommunications have to be avoided, the Pakistani government (and yes, I know they’re not entirely trustworthy) has embraced American alliegance and begun hounding his and the Taliban’s supporters in a place where they once operated very openly.
Put it this way: if ObL were to manage another 9/11-style attack, is there a single nation on Earth who supported America on 9/11/2001 that won’t rush to support again? I don’t think so. All the harping over Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and lack of WNDs can’t change the fact that the bad press for the USA doesn’t translate to a gain for him at all.
And if we left, this “support” would just dissolve? Or will take firm root and become a new state sponsor, as Afghanistan had been?
A legitimate enough point of view, but irrelevant to the issue of whether our departure would embolden them.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
You can dismiss me in that way, if you like.
[/quote]
Already done.
Same “embolden the enemy” bullshit that’s bullshit no matter who’s offering it.
You must be seeing something in his background the rest of us are missing.
We done here?
I agree with the OP. The Dems could lose big on this issue, potentially. However, I disagree that it would be over legitmate reasons – the American public just has the political mentality of a five year old and about the same knowledge of history or any other relevant field.
The question is, can the Republicans do it? They have the tools and the motivation. I’ve been seeing a slow simmer on this issue over the last couple of years. I don’t see any reason why the American people won’t swallow it…
[QUOTE=cmkeller]
A legitimate enough point of view, but irrelevant to the issue of whether our departure would embolden them.
[/QUOTE]
Not that this is pointed towards you necessarily, but aren’t they already emboldened? I mean they are attacking us openly blowing themselves up in the streets and the have little fear of operating in the open. We are the ones stuck in the compounds, right? What could be more bold then that?