Rumsfeld's Iraq Options in Leaked Memo

Great Debates
101

It isn’t an article of faith. The arguments are as follows:

  1. Wherever US troop presence has been reduced, violence has increased. This doesn’t prove causation, but it is a fairly strong inference.
  2. We provide some security for the political process. People were able to vote at astonishingly high rates. And most analysts agree that there is still some hope, however small, for a political solution, but that it can only come when people can meet without getting blown up.
  3. A trained military under the control of a democratically elected government is better than an untrained military. Marginal training is better than none.
  4. As poorly as reconstruction efforts have gone, they haven’t been totally useless, especially in provinces with relatively less violence.

All of these are marginal advantages. Agreed. And reasonable people can believe they are outweighed by the negative effects of our current presence. But it’s a debate worth having. Can you see how pointing out over and over again that the US should not have been there in the first place is irrelevant to the point of weighing the costs to Iraqis of leaving vs. staying?

Since one of the main points in this thread is to discuss what could be done differently, it hardly helps to reassert how badly the current strategy is going. No one is talking about magical silver bullets. We’re talking about what course means the fewest innocent lives lost.

Since you cite the Baker report, do you agree with its findings, RedFury?

102

Actually, I agree with Norman Solomon:

It’s Happening Again The media pushes to continue the war it helped launch

As for the panel’s conclusion, if it can be abridged to “try diplomacy in and around Iraq (Iran, Syria) and then leave,” then yes, I do.

103

BTW, you’ve been given many an answer to your original query. That you don’t like them is a whole 'nother issue. But getting the hell out of Dodge, as most of us are advocating in this thread sure as heck counts as a “different approach.”

As Solomon says in the linked article:

my bolding.

104

  1. All of our news sources are compromised by agenda. Which is why I will not “cite?” you on this, because there is no credible, disinterested bystanders to report. We can have very informative reports on conditions in the Republic of Greenzonia, outside of that, not so much. By the same token, there are many instances wherein an increase of troops has led to increased violence by design, as in the woeful excercise in bloody futility of Fallujah.

  2. Thats as may be. But do you really believe that the insurgents were simply bursting to hamper the political process of election, but were restrained by our presense? Or might they be angling for a propaganda advantage by standing down for such excercises as these? Certainly the Shia militants had no reason to interfere with an election that could not help but strenghten their hand.

  3. No, it isn’t. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that such a trained army could be the creature of an elected, hence legitimate, Shia theocracy. You may, if you wish, depend upon their gratitude.

  4. Again, the unreliability of reporting makes this point dubious. Maybe yes, maybe no. But expensive beyond the wildest dreams of squandor.

“Marginal” is a good way to put it. Another would be not worth risking my sons life, nor yours. Being honorable men, we could not ask our neighbor to risk his.

Who knows? We conjecture the shape of objects in a fog bank. Is it a may pole? Is it a missile site? All we can determine is the cost, the bloody, bloody cost.

I’m not. I’m talking about the lives of our best and brightest, squandered lavishly on a futile effort, while the perpetrators of this slithering clusterfuck of carnage insist on hanging on grimly, as an avalanche of ponies is due any month, any day, any minute, but never, ever here.

Enough. Any wiggle room offered will be exploited. If we offer any concession to “conditions on the ground”, those conditions will be found to demand that we stay just a little longer, the next six months being crucial. These people have been lying to us for years, whatever makes you think they will stop?

105

No, it cannot be abridged that way. In fact, they state:

106

I think the presumption has got to be with the news when the news is just quoting people on the ground AND it’s consistent with everything else we know.
That when we invade Fallujah in order to kill people more people die should not contradict the wider conclusion that when we’re policing an area we prevent more deaths than we cause.

I do think that without our protection, political reconciliation would be more difficult for security reasons. If only because the Sunnis might believe they might actually prevent elections through violence.

Good point. There are possibilities in which training would come back to bite us (it certainly has before). Do you find those possibilities more likely than the alternative?

Here I think the evidence is fairly clear, at least as limited to the provinces that are somewhat more secure. I’ll look for something to cite.

If the analysis were whether or not to intervene based on these marginal advantages, I would agree. But I buy the “you break it, you buy it logic” when it comes to an all-volunteer military. That is a matter of ethics, I suppose.

I don’t think they will stop; I think they are deeply and thoroughly corrupt. But I don’t think that answers the question of what we ought to do in Iraq.

107

Well, I suppose one can pick and choose, because they also said the following:

Iraq panel seeks more U.S. diplomacy, less combat

Which obviously agrees with my take.

108

Consistency is not to be trusted for it own sake. If we were being lied to before, and are being lied to now in order to obscure a ghastly truth, then those lies would be entirely consistent. Only a day or two ago, The Leader assured us that we are winning in Iraq. He is being entirely consistent.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “quoting people on the ground”. Who? Everyday citizens in far flung provinces? Or the maid who turns down your sheets in the Holiday Inn Greenzonia? The Shia fanatic who will advise you in complete candor that the Sunni are devilspawn heretic jackals? Who is being quoted, and what expertise do they offer? Military spokesmen, “lifers” well versed in the wisdom of treading lightly on the toes of your superiors? Who has the strict unvarnished truth to offer?

But of course it contradicts that conclusion, in the most starkly direct manner: it piles up corpses. You may assert that those sacrifices are needful and useful, but absent any reliable proof, it is a leap of faith. As a man of doubt, I have no such comfort, nor any such burden, as faith.

If the Sunni cooperate with elections, they will lose. If they violently resist elections, they will lose. They are outnumbered and outgunned.

I ask you: are we there to protect the Sunni from the Shia? If this were our firm and unwavering committment, could we do it? If we align ourselves with the Shia dominated “legitimate” government of Iraq, what would prevent them from using us to kill their political opponents? If they tell us that Ali bin Felafel is a Sunni terrorist, how will we know different?

Havent the foggiest. In such instances, I tend to rely on pessimism. I am seldom surprised. I am seldom wrong. Would that I were.

And again, who will tell you the unvarnished truth, free of agenda? I think a freshly painted schoolhouse is a lovely thing, to be sure, until someone’s brains are spattered across its walls. Then, not so much.

Did anyone volunteer to be the last soldier to die for a blunder? Is that last soldier there now, about to be shipped there, or walking through the door of his high school study hall?

We ought not to trust them, for starters. We ought to assume that whatever our good intentions, they will warp and pervert them to their own ends.

109

No, those points don’t agree with your take. And they are not inconsistent with their unequivocal rejection of your take.

Understanding that there are no guarantees should be common to everyone’s position (I assume it’s part of yours). That troops should be withdrawn from combat and redeployed to training and force protection is one of many possible strategies for continuing to engage with Iraq instead of “[going] home. [And getting] on your knees and beg the world forgives you.”

110

What kind of evidence would convince you of my claim, if statements from the media, military, shia, and sunni are inadequate?

No, I’m asserting that it doesn’t contradict the conclusion because the goal in the Fallujah operation was to go in and quickly, violently, and hamhandedly attack the insurgency. The military learned from that mistake. The MO of our operations now is different.

Therefore, what? Political reconciliation is impossible?

If you systematically reject all sources of secondary information, it shouldn’t surprise you that you reach whatever conclusion you wish.

Am I to take it that you disagree with the ethical proposition that since we caused it we have to help deal with it, even if it costs us more than it benefits us?

Ok. I don’t trust them. How does that relate to our question of what we ought to do in Iraq? Is it just that we know they’ll muck up any policy, so the only choice is to have no policy? What about 2008?

111

Well, for that matter, why do you not wholly accept mine own “statements from the media, military, shia, and sunni…” Surely you don’t mean to suggest that your propositions are founded in obvious fact, and mine are naught but “making it up.”?

Peachy. An object lesson. Pity about the cost.

Don’t know. Doubt very much that anyone does.

That could be read to have rather snotty implications. An unfortunate result of hasty review, I have no doubt. Unless you wish to advance the notion that the reason we disagree is because you are smarter and better informed? Good luck with that.

Much the same, save that it slurs my character rather than my intelligence. I have stated often enough that I come to my conclusions reluctantly. You are free to take me at my word, or no.

Only on that one point: that any policy that relies on trusting in GeeDubya is a chimera. A policy that leaves him any decision making room will be exploited to his own ends. Beyond that, the despondent sayeth not.

112

Are there statements from these sources that suggest that when troops leave violence decreases? I’d like to see it.

It’s a tragedy, like the rest of the war.

No kidding. No one knows. But you’re clearly arguing something. You think political reconciliation is so unlikely that there is no sense trying to protect the political process?

What does any of that have to do with what I said? Mine point was simply this: how can you call yourself informed when you reject all sources of information about Iraq? I assume that you don’t actually reject all sources of information. So which sources you you accept?

How is asking you that question slurring your character? :confused: It was an honest question to understand your position.

I think we can separate what we ought to be doing from what will happen. No doubt, our arguing on this message board has no effect. Concluding, for example, that some strategy involving continued engagement was best, but that Bush would mess it up is different from concluding that we ought to disengage.

113

I may not be a native English language speaker – and I am not – but we might as well be speaking in Marceian if you read those quotes as anything else but an undated “redeployment,” to use current parlance. Beyond eating crow w/regards to Iran and Syria of course.

Hell’s bells, if they recommend talking to Iran, “getting on your knees and beg the world forgives you” should be the least of your problems. And, by the way, I do agree with them (the commission) that you should do just that. Clearly, the US as a nation, owes the world an apology – especially if they’d like to go back to their former standing as a respected world power.

Moving on:

And I think you either have no idea of what you’re talking about or/and are way too naive/patriotic.

From your own commission’s report (warning,pdf) pages 94 and 95:

Reality has a habit of biting you right in the face. Specially when you try to ignore it.

114

PS: Just another day in Iraq.

Wednesday: 11 GIs, 78 Iraqis Killed; 111 Iraqis Wounded

Thanks much, Mr Bush. No wonder we threw so many flowers into your glorious Imperialist march to Baghdad.

115

I don’t know how to explain it better to you, so we’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader. If you read the full ISG report it will help you understand.

What part of “when its consistent with everything else we know” don’t you understand?

Again, you’re far to eager to stereotype me.

116

What part of “there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq” don’t you understand? That statement clearly estates that you’ve been lied to. Or as 'luc might put it, “greenzoned.”

Never mind. No need to answer. My work in this thread is done.

You’re right. Let the readers decide. As they did in the last Congressional elections in their roles as voters. A day late and a dollar short surely, but enough for me to keep some semblance of faith in Americans as a whole.

Have a great life, all in red white and blue of course.

~Cheers.

117

What political process? Are there elections afoot? Any since purple finger day? What political processes are you eager to protect? The proceedings of the Mayor and City Council of Greenzone?

I’m suspicious of all sources, just as I say. When specific information is unreliable, you look toward the preponderance. I prefer the definitive, I seldom get it.

The phrasing led me to believe that you were suggesting an ethical absence. Of course I believe our responsibility for this shitstorm places a special burden. But I further believe that our sacrifices are futile, even counterproductive. And that alters the equation, that is sacrificing our young for no other purpose but atonement. We broke it, we should fix it if we can, if not, just as you say in regard to Fallujah, “it’s a tragedy, like the rest of war.”

118

A young Marine dares think – and speak out! – like you:

Thought you might enjoy reading that – more at source. He is indeed, one of “your best and your brightest” and as such, I wish him Godspeed.