[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
That’s a Democrat for you, screw what the guy who is actually an expert on this stuff says. If what he’s saying doesn’t fit with your ideological viewpoint on the decision to invade Iraq, then you’ll find pretty all the excuses you want to ignore what him and other military leaders have said.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if we had been as critical of Colin Powell as he told lie after lie to the UN, we wouldn’t be in this mess we’re in right now.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
Hayden isn’t necessarily a better source than Patraeus, I think. For most of us, it seems to be a weaker one.
[/QUOTE]
There is no worse source than someone who works for Bush. As bad ? Possibly; I don’t know anything about this Hayden fellow. But worse ? Not a chance.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The problem is that there is no “Iraq,” not any more, only the factions; and that the various militias are not so much representing the citizens as preying on them. Reread Hayden’s article.
[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously citing Tom Hayden as an expert on Iraq and counter insrugency measures? You’ve got to be kidding. Everyone knows the person to ask is Al Sharpton. Get with it BG.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
That’s a Democrat for you, screw what the guy who is actually an expert on this stuff says.
[/QUOTE]
The irony of this coming from a Republican is too rich for words.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
Agreed. All I saw was a lefty op-ed, spinning faster than my washing machine on spin cycle.
[/QUOTE]
And which purported historical or contemporary facts in that article do you dispute?
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
I mean this is literally the guy who wrote the book on CI. Who am I to cite against him? This guy?
From what I’ve read, his stuff is in line with the other experts.
Small Wars Center of Excellence
[/QUOTE]
Hayden emphatically acknowledges Petraeus’ expertise in counterinsurgency theory and the agreement of other experts. That is not the point at all.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
screw what the guy who is actually an expert on this stuff says
[/QUOTE]
cough shinseki cough
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Hayden emphatically acknowledges Petraeus’ expertise in counterinsurgency theory and the agreement of other experts. That is not the point at all.
[/QUOTE]
So, the point is that war is hell? That war is full of choices between the lesser of evils?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And which purported historical or contemporary facts in that article do you dispute?
[/QUOTE]
Article? It was an op-ed.
So, chuck that one. It isn’t like there aren’t dozens upon dozens of authoritative sources in dissent.
The Iraqis think the surge is just making things worse, if their opinion counts for anything. I know, they’re not **experts.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The Iraqis think the surge is just making things worse, if their opinion counts for anything. I know, they’re not **experts.
[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about whether the surge is “working” or are we still talking about whether or not the surge is “worse than the disease”?
Where exactly are the goalposts here?
I’m convinced that things in Iraq are monumentally fucked up. I’m not convinced that Petraeus’s work is worse than having some other yahoo in there.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
Article? It was an op-ed.
[/QUOTE]
An op-ed is a form of article. Anyway, which facts do you dispute? Many facially important ones were alleged.
**Since little of the linked piece actually deals with Petraeus and his efforts it seem a little bit less than entirely disingenuous to try to associate all the failings of the Iraq war with Petraeus’s work. **
from the link
The goal of COIN is to replace Arab nationalism with a subdued, fragmented culture of subservient informants split along tribal and sectarian lines, like the mercenary Ute manhunters against the Navajo.
This is a decidedly untrue statement. The goal is something else entirely and we all know it.
from the link
One would think that past experiences with death squads indirectly supported by the United States, as in El Salvador in the 1980s, or the recent exposure of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan’s Bagram facility and Guantánamo, would justify such worries about complicity.
This makes reference to practices that are explicitly derided in the COIN manual (.pdf) as counterproductive. Why they are being lumped in w/ Petraeus is entirely unclear. It’s certainly not for clarifications sake as they only muddy the water. Perhaps the author has never actually read the manual for himself. Or perhaps he has misunderstood. Or perhaps ‘other’. In any case, the practices / events cited are directly countermanded.
from the link
*The effect of the “gated communities” and Kit Carson Scouts … has been to grind native populations into a state of anarchic fragmentation, with the vacuum filled by multiple sectarian militias. Consider the following evidence:
[indent]A bombshell Pentagon report in September recommends “scrapping” the sectarian Iraqi police force and starting over.*[/indent]
Despite the author’s say so this is not a result of the Surge. Corruption in Iraq’s police force existed prior to the change in tactics.
from the link
According to a July Los Angeles Times analysis, the current Interior Ministry, heavily funded and advised by Americans, is run by loyalists of the Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and is responsible for secret prisons and torture. An average of one to two employees are killed each week, with Sunnis now “almost entirely purged from the ministry.”
Despite the author’s say so this is not a result of the “Surge”.
from the link
The prestigious Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group noted last year that the Iraqi police “routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians.”
Despite the author’s say so this is not a result of the “Surge”. It can easily be noted that the study concluded prior to the change in tactics.
from the link
The White House’s own July benchmarks report noted “evidence of sectarian bias in the appointment of senior military and police commanders” as well as “target lists emanating from the Office of the Commander in Chief that bypassed operational commanders and directed lower-level intelligence officers to make arrests, primarily of Sunnis.”
Despite the author’s say so this is not a result of the “Surge”.
from the link
According to the New York Times, as of the end of 2005, in Baghdad there were eight to ten secret prisons operated by militia units that reported directly to the Interior Minister.
Even a less than astute observer might note the date and reckon it against the date of Petraeus’s appointment and reach the conclusion that Petraeus’ the change in tactics was not the cause of it.
from the link
BBC television reporter Deborah Davies showed footage of torture and ethnic cleansing against Sunni civilians in late 2006, reporting that “it’s all happening under the eyes of US commanders who seem unwilling or unable to intervene.”
Even a less than astute observer might note the date and reckon it against the date of Petraeus’s appointment and reach the conclusion that Petraeus’ the change in tactics was not the cause of it.
from the link
*The United Nations has accused the Iraqi government of failing to address allegations of torture inflicted on the several thousand new detainees rounded up during the current Baghdad security plan.*Despite the author’s say so this is not a result of the “Surge”.
from the link
According to the US Government Accountability Office, since 2004 190,000 US-made AK-47s have gone missing, with many thought to be in the hands of various Iraqi militias.
See a trend here?
It’s noteworthy that in his criticism of Petraeus’ performance that Hayden has to resort to blaming Petraeus for things that are clearly not a part of Petraeus’s handiwork.
Why would Hayden choose to do that? Why didn’t Hayden stick to what is actually a result of the new tactics?
I don’t know the answer, but I think the question is worth asking.
A one-day guide to war supporters and their enablers
Read it. Ponder throughly.
You lost.
Give it up.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
You lost.
Give it up.
[/QUOTE]
The debate, or the war?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The debate, or the war?
[/QUOTE]
My guess (it IS Red after all) is: Both. I’m sure ‘give it up’ goes even further…probably wants us to give up on being a world superpower as well, perhaps give up on this life and put a gun to our collective heads.
My suggestion is to focus more on what PatriotX is saying in this thread and ignore Red’s drive by anti-American screeds.
-XT
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
The goal of COIN is to replace Arab nationalism with a subdued, fragmented culture of subservient informants split along tribal and sectarian lines, like the mercenary Ute manhunters against the Navajo.
This is a decidedly untrue statement. The goal is something else entirely and we all know it.
[/quote]
Do we? How does anybody know, any more, what the “goal” is? We should have learned by now that the stated (and restated and restated) goals of the Bush Administration (get the WMD’s! . . . no, wait, stop Hussein from supporting terrorists! . . . no, unseat a tyrant and usher in democracy!) do not necessarily bear any relationship to the actual goals. What is more, the actual goals, of various factions within the Administration, have been inconsistent and incompatible all along: The foreign-policy realists in the State Department wanted a stable, U.S.-friendly but not necessarily democratic Iraq; an Iraq where the social and political order would have remained substantially as it was before the invasion. The neocons in the Pentagon wanted to completely dismantle that order, and create an environment where American business interests would have a free hand to make profits, and to privatize the oil industry, depress world oil prices and break the back of OPEC. General Jay Garner wanted to turn postwar Iraq into a “coaling station,” a permanent base for the projection of U.S. power throughout the MENA as needed. Now . . . now the goal appears to be just to reach some outcome that can somehow be characterized as an American victory. What Hayden describes above might qualify if you squint.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
from the link
One would think that past experiences with death squads indirectly supported by the United States, as in El Salvador in the 1980s, or the recent exposure of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan’s Bagram facility and Guantánamo, would justify such worries about complicity.
This makes reference to practices that are explicitly derided in the COIN manual (.pdf) as counterproductive. Why they are being lumped in w/ Petraeus is entirely unclear. It’s certainly not for clarifications sake as they only muddy the water. Perhaps the author has never actually read the manual for himself. Or perhaps he has misunderstood. Or perhaps ‘other’. In any case, the practices / events cited are directly countermanded.
[/quote]
Then why are they happening nevertheless?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Then why are they happening nevertheless?
[/QUOTE]
Because we weren’t following that manual or Petraeus’ recommendations all along? And no one has a magic wand that they can wave to make it all better in a couple of months (or a time machine to go back and change whats already happened)?
-XT
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The debate, or the war?
[/QUOTE]
Take away the ridiculous hyperbole and for once, xt is correct.
The war and the “debating points” of the warmongers are nothing if not hot air.
And lots and lots of dead people.