# What will civil war mean for US troops in Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827 "2006-02-23T18:48:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/41 "2006-02-27T00:16:10Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Sure. Modern conservatism is made up of two prongs: they are religious and economic fundamentalists. Neither is especially empirical, alas, and neither are particularly concerned with foreign policy. A few qualifications (more tangents). Economic fundamentalists tend to be free traders, but again this foreign policy stance isn’t especially relevant here. (Though I recall that the Bush admin was especially thrilled with its [Iraqi tax-cut plan](http://watleyreview.com/2003/101403-1.html), which somehow failed to establish either electric power or security). There are also traditional conservatives to consider. Think Kissinger, Scowcroft or Martin Feldstein. These realists do have an empirical bent, which they combine with a suspicion for what they see as overly ambitious governmental policy. Whether they attain power within a Republican administration depends upon the experience, sense and proclivities of the Chief Executive. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/42 "2006-02-27T01:14:50Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Hey, that’s totally uncalled for. My partisanship is hardly over-the-top. Sorry…the laughing smiley was supposed to convey ‘I’m not totally serious about that’. Obviously it did not. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/43 "2006-02-27T02:15:05Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sorry…the laughing smiley was supposed to convey ‘I’m not totally serious about that’. Obviously it did not. > > -XT No, it did. Obviously my humorous reply fell flat. It was supposed to be one of those “pick the one insult out of three to challenge as erroneous” kind of replies. You know, like “Who’s scruffy lookin’?” Sorry for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/44 "2006-02-27T02:21:30Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > So no, I don’t think Bush is crazy. I don’t either, but I think a case can be made for delusional. The rosy pre-assault scenario. Laws appear to him to be merely advisory during a war. Allowing high Justice Department officials to make niggling quibbles about what is or is not torture. (This might not be a delusional indicator, but it shows to me an unwillingness to fact unpleasant reality.) And the continued insistance that “progress” is either being made or is just around the corner. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/45 "2006-02-27T02:47:18Z")
You see delusion, I see propaganda and spin-based policy[sup]1[/sup]. Bush (I speculate) sees himself as a practical man who deligates things to those he trusts, that is those whose opinions are easiest to understand. That would Karl Rove. I think though that we’ll have to wait for more memoirs to be written before getting a solid fix on this. At any rate, I see the real problem as modern conservative feel-goodism: this condition becomes more intense when the Commander in Chief lacks experience with or interest in policy. [sup]2[/sup] [sup]1[/sup](along with an indifference to fact-based analysis). [sup]2[/sup]Actually, W has some interest in policy. But he has an insufficient attention span – he isn’t a big reader. Thus, he makes no attempt to make midcourse corrections on his baby No Child Left Behind, to take one example. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/46 "2006-02-27T02:51:39Z")
You see delusion, I see propaganda and spin-based policy1. Bush (I speculate) sees himself as a practical man who deligates things to those he trusts, that is those whose opinions are easiest to understand. That would **be** Karl Rove. … ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/47 "2006-02-27T03:11:29Z")
I do think Bush is delusional, because his lies are so transparent; like trying to redefine torture. Those are the sort of lies a delusional person tells themselves, to convince themselves; not the sort of lies you tell others to convince others. I also think that he’s so isolated himself from the external world that he’s _effectively_ delusional, no matter his actual mental state. Half the planet could be eaten by purple goblins, and he wouldn’t know unless his aides/handlers/puppetmasters chose to tell him. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/48 "2006-02-27T04:42:21Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > You see delusion, I see propaganda and spin-based policy[sup]1[/sup]. Bush (I speculate) sees himself as a practical man who deligates things to those he trusts, that is those whose opinions are easiest to understand. That would Karl Rove. > > I think though that we’ll have to wait for more memoirs to be written before getting a solid fix on this. > > At any rate, I see the real problem as modern conservative feel-goodism: this condition becomes more intense when the Commander in Chief lacks experience with or interest in policy. [sup]2[/sup] > > [sup]1[/sup](along with an indifference to fact-based analysis). > [sup]2[/sup]Actually, W has some interest in policy. But he has an insufficient attention span – he isn’t a big reader. Thus, he makes no attempt to make midcourse corrections on his baby No Child Left Behind, to take one example. > [@](#): > > You see delusion, I see propaganda and spin-based policy1. Bush (I speculate) sees himself as a practical man who deligates things to those he trusts, that is those whose opinions are easiest to understand. That would be Karl Rove. … Either way, it’s bad. You have described a lazy individual who thinks he’s delegating but in reality leaves everything to others and doesn’t bother to follow up. And he appears think of himself as a super duper “big picture executive.” If my reading of your posts is accurate, what would you call someone like that? In any case, it appears that there is agreement that this isn’t a desirable state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/49 "2006-02-27T05:14:57Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > If my reading of your posts is accurate, what would you call someone like that? A [bad CEO](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003829.php). > [@](#): > > _From the link, penned about 2 years ago_ > > Bush styles himself a “CEO president,” but the world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. They assign tasks to subordinates without making sure the subordinates are capable of doing them — but then consider the job done anyway because they’ve “delegated” it. They insist they want a realistic plan, but they’re unwilling to do the hard work of creating one — all those market research reports are just a bunch of ivory tower nonsense anyway. They work hard — but only on subjects in their comfort zone. If they like dealing with people they can’t bring themselves to read all those tedious analyst’s reports, and if they like numbers they can’t bring themselves to spend time chattering with distributors about their latest prospect. > > And most important of all, weak CEOs are unwilling to recognize bad news and perform unpleasant tasks to fix it — tasks like like confronting poorly performing subordinates or firing people. Good CEOs suck in their guts and do it anyway. > > George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who’s convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he’s about to learn that being sure you’re right isn’t the same thing as actually being right. Though actually, I’m characterizing W as inexperienced and basically disinterested – a poor combination. Still, I really don’t blame the guy: he’s just fundamentally unqualified. Instead, I shake my head at those who tapped his shoulder and the ~80% of Republicans who remain in his thrall. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/50 "2006-02-27T14:14:08Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Instead, I shake my head at those who tapped his shoulder … I’m not all that surprised at the unending greed of some people, and those who tapped his shoulder have done pretty well with him as president and Cheney as VP. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/51 "2006-02-27T18:06:52Z")
Er, on a completely unrelated subject (“What will civil war mean for US troops in Iraq?”), the answer is… nothing good. Picking sides is hard enough as it is, but at least when you have the semblance of a government, it gives you something to support. But in a three-way (or four-way, or five-way) slugfest, where the parties keep mutating and recombining, what the hell do you do? And am I wrong, or would this be a situation more or less unique in history? I can’t think of another example where an outside army purporting to do what the U.S. is purporting to do found itself right in the middle of an all-out civil war (not that Iraq is there yet). I don’t know if UN peacekeeping missions rise to the level of an example here, but it’s worth nothing that they haven’t fared well in these circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/52 "2006-02-27T21:33:06Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > And am I wrong, or would this be a situation more or less unique in history? I can’t think of another example where an outside army purporting to do what the U.S. is purporting to do found itself right in the middle of an all-out civil war (not that Iraq is there yet). South Vietnam was having a civil war (Viet Cong vs. the government) when the U.S. intervened. The U.S. also intervened in civil wars in various Central American countries in the early 20th Century. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827/53 "2006-02-27T22:11:37Z")
Well, right, but intervening in a civil war doesn’t really describe what we are doing in Iraq. We went in to overthrow a government, mucked about for a couple of years, then civil war burst out (hypothetically, of course – as mentioned, it’s only on simmer at the moment, not full boil). In Vietnam for instance, we came in to _support_ one side in the civil war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-civil-war-mean-for-us-troops-in-iraq/345827.md?page=2)