We already lost that, which is saying much, given the outpouring of sympathy that came our way just after 9/11. Any guesses as to why our national prestige is so low, currently? I’ll give you a hint: War, and false pretenses. America already has shown it doesn’t do what it pledges to do, like respect international borders, the UN, or peace. Our reputation is, quite frankly, in tatters over this war, which has strained our relationship with just about every nation that we call friend. Add to that it’s made our adversarial relationships all the more bitter, and I really see little left to salvage of our “superpower” immage. We have a criminal bully image now. We might improve that problem by not acting like one.
I think that what Merijeek was trying to say with this:
Is, if the Bush/Pub adminstration pulls out and war erupts, then they get put down in history as “the guys who caused civil in Iraq”. If they instead wait until somebody else eventually gets voted in, and that other party then pulls out, then the Bush/Pub guys can then stand on the sidelines shaking their heads, saying “We told you not to pull out and cause that civil war”, and come off looking nice in the history books, while the other party gets totalled in the next election.
This assumes the Bush/Pub guys to have a rather cold-blooded perspective of Iraqi civil war, of course. I do wish I could say I don’t believe them capable of such a strategy. I wish I could.
Pretty much dead on, Merijeek and begbert2. That’s why I think November 2, 2005 was actually John Kerry’s lucky day.
Even if they have such a plan, I can’t see it working out that way. If the status quo is maintained until the 2008 election, we will be at over 4,000 dead American troops, over 35,000 wounded and nearly $500 billion wasted. The American voter won’t give a crap about civil war in Iraq; any Republicans still beating the “stay the course” drum will be run out of town on a rail. Nobody will care if a million Iraqis die in the civil war. The price of their lives is simply too high.
Well, I never said it was a good plan. And if they have such notions, there may have noted that the only good outcome is if all their nation-building stuff actually works out. If they stay, they could either have problems as a result of mounting costs and casualties, or everything might just work itself out. If they leave now, they’re guaranteed a massive black mark, if the region breaks out into total war.
The may also be keeping a finger on the pulse of the populace, so to speak. If things don’t improve there, they can wait until they feel that it will appear justified that they bailed out, on the notion that the region was inherently unsalvageable. At that point they might be able to leave and still ‘break even’ in the opinion polls.
If we leave it will give tremendous encouragement to the bad guys. Al Qaeda made a big point of saying over and over again that the Americans will turn and run at the first drop of blood. And they had good evidence: Lebanon, Vietnam, Mogadishu. And that empowered them to a serries of deadly attacks against our citizens and our embassies, culminating in 9/11. Even though they’ve been getting whupped real bad a lot of them still believe that. Old ideas die hard. If we cut out now it will take at least another generation or two to undo the psychological damage of giving them a victory.
As for the question about majority rule at the end of the OP, how quickly we forget. Just a quick reminder for those who are having trouble with this. Bush won the 2000 election, the 2002 congressional election and the 2004 election (by millions of votes). That’s how majority rule works.
Hmmm…exactly what I was trying to say.
I had no idea I wasn’t clear. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. 
-Joe
And what message does it send if we stay without regard to the reality of what is happening on the ground? That Al Qaeda can slowly grind down the overextended American military through a war of attrition? That they can inflict a huge economic burden that will eventually destroy the economy of the Great Satan more surely than a hundred planes flown into a hundred buildings? The longer we stay, the weaker and more vulnerable we become. Iraq is a dangerous distraction in the war on terror.
But you know they aren’t really doing this from a military perspective. Like the North Vietnamese they are fighting on the political level…the insurgent battles are just the stage they are using. THEY know they can’t win a war of attrition (or any other kind of war) against the US…not on a purely military level. What they are grinding down isn’t our military, or even our military capabilities from any realistic perspective…what they are trying to grind down is the will and resolve of the American people.
And yet our economy, while perhaps not booming (yet), is quite health, despite this huge burden…and even despite flying those planes into those buildings. Again, they aren’t fighting this war on an economic level either, but on a political one…its a war of moral. One they seem to be winning by the looks of things…but only because of the possibly unique nature of America and American’s (or perhaps its the nature of Democracies to be vulnerable to this kind of thing).
I disagree completely. While Iraq didn’t start off having anything to do with AQ or the WoT (IMHO), its certainly become the central battlefield in that war. If we bolt from Iraq we will irreparably damage our image in that part of the world and hand the terrorists a serious victory…and one they should be able to capitalize on. If we stay there they STILL might win, as our image is tarnished anyway in multiple ways…but leaving is a sure loss. Not just for us either…but for the Iraqi people also as they will be the ones who have to face the music and a long drawn out and VERY bloody multiple sided civil war.
-XT
Has it become the central battlefield, or merely a battlefield of choice for some terrorists? Sure Iraq’s a great place to learn how to make and effectively deploy IED’s, but the London subway bombers sure didn’t get sucked in.
Very perceptive, Squink. It’s become America’s central battlefield. But the guerilla fighters will continue to act wherever they have the ability.
Der Trihs! You’re back! We missed you old goat!
Well if you really believe that then we both obviously agree that the terrorists are the bad guys and that it’s good if we win and bad if we lose. We disagree on strategy. We should be able to keep this friendly.
About the war of attrition…So far we have less than 2,000 dead. In WWII we lost 7,000 men in a training accident in one day. We lost 2,500 on DDay. We lost 10,000 at the beginning of the war in the Phillipines. And the country was half the size it was now. If you’re betting that Al Qaeda wins via attrition I’m betting on the other side.
The economic burden of 100 planes flown into 100 buildings…I disagree. Best estimate is that 9/11 cost us one trillion dollars. That’s 333 billion per plane. One hundred planes equals 33 trillion dollars. Ouch! So far the war in Iraq has cost about 330 billion, a bargain compared to losing. Not just economically, but what about the psychological costs of having to live under sharia? I accept that you honestly believe that we weaken the country by pursuing this war, so perhaps you think that we increase the chances of living under sharia by continuing the war.
And the longer we stay the weaker the Baathist and Al Qaeda assholes become.
Its become both I think…a central battlefield and a battlefield of choice for most of the terrorist groups with aspirations of an Islamic superstate (such as AQ desires). Initially I think it was just a matter of logistics…it was simply easier to fight and kill American’s in Iraq than in Afghanistan…or in New York. Now however they have committed major effort there as well, so I think they have some stake in the outcome. In addition I think they also realize it would be a blow to their cause if Iraq becomes even nominally Democratic…and a major blow to the US if we let it slip away.
I think its a lot more than simply a place to learn how to deploy IED’s…IMHO its become central to their current strategy (as well as ours) to bend Iraq’s destiny one way or the other. As for the London subway bombers, well…I’m not sure what this has to do with anything at all to be honest. Whether or not Iraq is a central battleground its not the ONLY battleground…either for the US or for the terrorists. It’s importance to both is in the eventual outcome…either the US turns tail and the Iraqi’s go tits up…or not. Or something in between those extreme’s. Reguardless though this war is fought on many levels…and one of those levels is to take the war directly to the enemy. The terrorists do this by attempting to sow terror at home (as seen by the London and Madrid bombings…as well as future attacks I’m sure will eventually happen unfortunately). The US does this by covert means, survalence, and attacking terrorist funding…and probably other ways as well.
Of course ole boy, I never said differently…I don’t think this is a terribly deep insight, though I do respect Squink quite a bit.
They will act where they can…as will we. Even if I’m 100% right and Iraq IS the central battle (now) in the WoT, that doesn’t mean its the ONLY place that war will be fought…just the more crucial place.
-XT
“Back” ? :dubious: I’ve lurked for a while, but I only started posting recently. I think you mistake me for somebody else. And 37 isn’t all that old.
Wonderful news! But before I don my dancing in the street shoes, would you be so kind as to provide some sort of factual ground for this remarkable statement? The nature and basis for your expertise would be a good start.
So you think the US can maintain current levels of deployment indefinitely? Retired General Barry McCaffery disagrees:
With recruiters consistently failing to meet monthly goals, it is unlikely we can sustain current levels of deployment, without a draft. Maybe that’s what you were angling at with your comparison to WWII. We could hardly have sustained the losses you cited with an all volunteer army.
Really? The 9/11 bombers were a direct result of the experience Al Qaeda gained fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The next wave of Islamo-terrorist attacks on America will be by operative from the training grounds of Iraq. How much will they cost America?
Not sure what you are talking about here.
So it is your opinion that the insurgents have lost potency since Bush declared an end to major combat? By any standard, casualties suffered, IED bombs, suicide bombers and engagements with armed gunmen, the insurgency is growing stronger, more confident and with better tactics and supplies. To say otherwise is simple denial of the facts.
My point was that if we leave Iraq, I think a multi-party civil war would ensue and last for many years and result in more civilian deaths per year fought compared to US fighting/occupation.
I think there is a scenario (many years) where a generally accepted govt takes hold and, while the “insurgents” don’t go away, civilian deaths are considerably less than if we leave today.
So I disagree that the only difference is the number of Americans killed.
A mutli-party civil war is going to happen, with the same number of civilian deaths. Whether we stay or leave, the same disasterous level of casualties will occur.
I do not share your rosey optimism. Once we leave, all hell breaks loose. Anyone who believes the Iraqi defense forces can or will ever be able to restrain the insurgents better than the US military can is just fooling themself.
Gee, I didn’t know you could read the future. Could you give me next week lotto numbers for New Mexico please?
I guess I’m fooling myself then…or at least I don’t KNOW that they won’t be able too. But then I can’t read the future like you, so I’m at a bit of a disadvantage. I was wondering if you could give us the exact time and date for the collapse.
-XT