I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise. But Kofi Anan has not, to my knowledge, called for the US to withdraw from Iraq. Has he?
Dude, you’re the one parsing here, not me. I don’t know precisely what he means my “influence”, but I just said it’s an odd word to use in this context. If we kill or capture X number of insurgence, have we “influenced” the insurgency? Probably not. But have we stopped them from some committing violent acts? Probably so.
Besides, I also offered you the option of tossing out the report if you think it’s riddled with contradictions. But you can’t just pick and choose which parts you agree with and toss the rest. If you really think there is a contradiction between those two statements, then ditch both of them.
The “insurgency,” John, are the Iraqi people.
As much as they are involved in a grasp for power, the reality of it is, noone wants the US there as long as they are not serving their purposes. When killing Shiites, Sunnies will cheer, as is true in the reverse. When Americans get killed they all cheer. Grim but true.
Thus there’s no “defeating or keeping from getting worse” as long as there are American soldiers/targets on Iraqi soil.
Not that hard to understand is it? Imagine if the situation was reversed and you’ll see just how easy it is to empathize.
Dude, if all you have to add to the current conversation are personal snipes, you’d do well to open a Pit thread and really let me know your feelings there.
Careful though, I shoot back as well.
Not in so many words, but I need not remind you he is a career diplomat. Thus he said the following instead (from prior link):
Surely you can read between the lines. After all, this is the same man that confirmed the invasion “illegal.”
If we’re going to do some junior modding of each other, I would equally suggest that if you’d like to post entirely irrelevant articles that you open your own debate thread.
The question at hand is whether staying in provides some bulwark against the coming descent into further sectarian violence. Or more broadly, whether there is any possible US policy in the region which can lessen the disastrous impacts of this calamitous war.
If your point is that the US is the sole cause of sectarian violence, fine. Make that point. But pointing to chaos in Iraq says little about the possibility of other approaches, and even less about whether that chaos could get worse because we leave.
I still don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Simple question: If the Anericans leave ASAP, will the violence in Iraq increase or decrease? That’s the question being bandied about here, and you’ve really offered no evidence that it would decrease other than your own opinion. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis much more than they are fighting US soldiers, judging by the death tolls, whcih is > 10:1 on the side of the Iraqis.
Now, our friend **elucidator **wants us out ASAP same as you, but he offers a different argument-- one that I can respect, and that I’m not too far away from myself. As he said in a recent thread, he’s less concerned with what will happen after we leave than he is with preventing more US soldiers from being killed. Presumably (and he can correct me if I’m wrong here) he also wants us out because he thinks we have no moral right to be there in the first place. That’s a reasonable argument, and isn’t based on any false assumptions.
So, if you want to argue for us getting out, fine-- I want us out, too. But let’s not pretend like we know things will get better if the US leaves. Right now, the US is acting in large part as the police force. When there’s an increase in violence in an area, you don’t pull the police out. Most people oppose Bush’s open ended policy of keeping US troops in Iraq “as long as it takes”, but few people are calling for an immediate withdrawl-- for the simple reason that most people think things will get worse if we get out too quickly. Even your post about Annan, which you claim has him wanting us out now if you “read between the lines”, says nothing of the sort. Wanting more people in does not equate to wanting the US out, and I can’t fathom how you can think it does.
Two of many. Pretty sure that the “immoral” argument is not as high on my list as “Goddam braindead fucking stupid”.
And, yes, it is true that I want our people not to be at risk, not being killed by Iraqis. But almost equally important is that our people aren’t killing Iraqis, either. And, stepping aside from the grave moral consequences, there is the starkly cold-blooded analysis of realpolitik, we sow the dragon’s teeth, and a bountiful harvest of fanatical enemies is guaranteed.
We have, in essence, three wretched choices: stay, and attempt to intervene and police a civil disorder we do not understand and have no reliable intelligence, with no allies that can be trusted. Or, we choose a side (the Shia, almost no doubt) and participate in the oppression/suppression of a targeted segment, for the sake of possible stability and order. Which risks not only putting our troops in harm’s way, but the moral threat of putting them in the service of a genocide. And neither of these have any concrete basis for approval, it is the nature of chaos that predictability is absent. A frogs guess is as good as mine, or yours, or Rummy’s.
Or, lastly, the repugnant decision to get the Hell out of BaghDodge. Which is where I, with grave reluctance, come down.
Elucidator: OK, and that’s a good argument. One that, as I said before, I’m not far away from myself. The only statement I’ll really take issue with in that post is:
Numbers added by me for clarification purposes. It’s unlcear to me that any of those 3 statements is correct-- they may or may not be true. It’s not so much that I want to debate those points with you, but I said earlier that your argument wasn’t based on any false assumptions. I can no longer say that, although I don’t think those points are critical to your argument anyway.
As to number one, I do not have a thorough grasp of nuances of Sunni-Shia social, economic and religious interaction. I don’t know anyone who does. Do you?
Two? We don’t speak the language, we don’t know the players, we will have no option but to rely on the testimony of others. And who might that be? Who could we trust to give us the straight skinny? Chalabi?
Same with number 3. We might align ourselves with the Shia, they would probably be willing to let us sacrifice our blood and treasure on their behalf. But simply because they are willing to use us does not make them our friends.
Just to be clear, elucidator, I’m not so much trying to say that you’re wrong (except maybe wrt point #1), but that neither you nor I have enough information to speak intelligently about the subject. You could be right, but I wouldn’t know how to judge whether you are or not. I’d ask for cites, but are there any?
I think John Abizaid has a good enough grasp, and what he can lean on Iraqi advisors to fill in what gaps he does have. We also have Zalmay Khalilzad*. Those are the two top guys.
*Yes, I know he’s an Afgan, not an Iraqi. But he does speak Arabic, and is a long time student of Middle East History.
I don’t know either, but that speaks to my ignorance on the subject, not the truth of your statement. “We” don’t all speak the language, but we have Arab speakers who do. Could we use more? Sure-- but that doesn’t mean that “we” don’t speak the language.
I supsect we have the Kurdish leaders largely on our side. But we needn’t align ourselves with anyone other than the government of Iraq-- the one elected by the Iraqi people.
Khalizid, Arab speakers, Kurdish leaders, elections, all of these things…we have had, have we not? For quite some time now, yes? And yet, the situation continues to rot away before our very eyes. So, since these things have not compelled a happy result yet, is there something new! and improved! about any of them? “Elected by the Iraqi people” has a noble tone to it, but it sours once you reflect that it is the Iraqi people who seem most intent on killing the Iraqi people.
There is no happy result, only the least worst choice among a number of bad choices. If I thought we would make things better in Iraq by leaving, I’d say we should leave tout de suite. But I don’t think so. Yes, things are bad, but that says nothing about how much worse they could be.
All well and good, John. But we are there, and things are getting worse. Why then should I believe that our presence is keeping things from getting worse? The patients fever keeps rising, so its a good thing we’re applying leeches, otherwise he might get really, really sick?
Care to enlighten us about *how * you reached that conclusion?
Or how much better.
The opposite view of the one you hold has the immense advantage of factual support. But, in a debate forum, it’s more important to simply be contrary, isn’t it?
The point you have here is usually completely overlooked. The Iraqi people did not in any meaningful sense elect a government. The voted for ethnic and religious parties who eventually formed a set of ministry satraps we pretend is a government. A coalition emerged from the squabbling over the spoils. There is no government as we understand it and no legitimacy bestowed by the Iraqi people whether they voted or not, regardless of what political theory and wishful thinknig mught lead some to believe.
Besides the fact that a government that cannot protect you in your own home let alone when you step outside the front door is no government at all.
I believe that because that seems to be the majority opinion of the various experts I’ve heard/read discussing the subject plus it simply make sense from just thinking it thru. We’re the cops, at least for the time being. When you take the cops out of an area with lots of criminals, do you expect crime to increase or decrease? I expect it to increase.
But I’m not trying to convince you-- I’ve already said I respect your opinion and can easily see myself joining you at some point. My only real reason for coming into this thread was that I say people jumping all over Richard Parker because he dared to ask a few questions and to request cites to back up some pretty sweeping claims that were being made. That WaPo story that was being discussed did not say what folks were saying it said, and I suspected that few if any people had actually read the whole thing. That is all.
John, I appreciate the Quixotic nature of your presence in this thread. Poor Richard Parker clearly needed your aid in coming up with this magical silver bullet that will right all that’s gone wrong during the past four years.
BTW, what is it, this silver bullet of yours? Because the only thing I see both of you doing is defending the US presence in Iraq “because things could be a lot worse without them” as an article of faith – otherwise, where’s the beef in that statement?
OTOH, you’ve been given plenty of reasons and facts to show both of you that the American military presence in Iraq has only helped deteriorate conditions in said country, To wit:
From the article proper:
Now, you and Mr. Parker can play the semantics game till exhaustion overcomes any of the parties involved in this “debate.” Me? I’m not going to play that game. Point is, the infamous, so-called “cut and run” strategy voiced by many of us a long time ago and a few brave politicians as of late (Webb’s exchange with Bush comes to mind), has become the de-facto “solution” proposed by any number of experts both on the field and on the ground.
Sure, the wording on the Report, while quite clear, avoids saying so in so many words. But it’s there for all to see.
Parse away.
Meanwhile:
Tuesday: 191 Iraqis, 3 GIs Killed; 91 Iraqis Wounded
Where’s “the elected Goverment” and/or the “security provided by US forces” in all this? Mind you, as I posted many times before – and in this very thread – these are daily events.
Lastly, as for the argument that thing will improve or get worse after your exit, we can only guess. But one thing will be abundantly clear, it’ll be up to The Iraqis what to do with their country.
As it should be.
Why does this seem so darn obvious to many of us and yet escapes the understanding of many others, is really beyond my comprehension.
The “Green-Zone Gov.” is simply an illusion. And a worthless one at that.
Correction: first quote in my post to John should read as follows:
*Link to video found on main article page.