|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| User Profil |
Message:
 | composed: 24-05-2021 23:25 |
  |
|
Kultan
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by wtf_dragon
Bill Clinton.
|
That's not an argument. That's {Insert most recent Democratic president I don't like here}
What was the pivotal event during which Clinton failed miserably, alienated the rest of the globe, threw the nation into a war it didn't want by lying to it, exasperated several fold the problem he ineptly tried to solve, destroyed any faith the majority of Americans had in him, and on and on?
Anyone can come up with a hundred reasons to dislike either Clinton or Bush. My opinion is that if you weighted them by severity, Bush would come out on top by a long stretch.
| quote: |
It's a war...what did you expect?
I don't concern myself with Iraq as much as I do with Afghanistan because I'm not an American, and we Canucks don't have any real military commitment in Iraq at present. We do in Afghanistan, though. So forgive me if I don't really comment on Iraq, but in plain point of fact it doesn't concern me nearly as directly as Afghanistan does.
Although while we're on the subject of Iraq, it should be noted that although there have been casualties, those casualties have been exceptionally low. Compared to any other conflict of similar duration and intensity, the losses that the Americans have sustained in Iraq have been negligible.
And also, please use actual arguments instead of specious ones: yes, more Americans have died in Iraq than in 9/11...but there's a difference. The people who died in Iraq volunteered to serve their country (America doesn't have a draft anymore, remember?), and died in the line of duty. The people murdered on 9/11 didn't volunteer to be in the path of an oncoming airliner.
|
That may be easy for a non-US citizen to say. I don't see any losses as negligible for a war that should never have happened. I see each one as a tragedy. I would think you would agree given that you admittedly could never support the war due to your religious convictions.
It's becoming harder to compare the current Iraq "war" with other American conflicts. This is basically just a case of troops patrolling around and either getting shot or blown up instead of engaging hostiles and gaining ground. The military can't even come up with a measure of progress as there is so little intelligence on the status of the opposition.
| quote: |
1) What will happen if the U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq prior to stability being restored in the region?
2) Are you okay with that?
|
You're assuming stability can be restored while US troops are there. I'm starting to see the two as being mutually exclusive more and more.
| quote: |
Still, they seem to be getting things done. Do you read many embedded journalists? You ought to...folks like Michael Yon, for example. Despite what the mainstream media tends to portray the conflict as, progress is being made in Iraq, and the insurgents are losing men and losing ground. The Iraqi government is getting stronger, its military growing more capable. They're not at the stage yet where the U.S. could withdraw and not plunge the country back into chaos...but that day is getting closer.
|
If this is the case I would love to see the administration's optimism based on it. Bush's recent statement that violence and bloodshed are going to escalate in coming months does not mean the insurgents are losing ground to me. His thoughts on what the ongoing troop surge will accomplish basically amounts to, "either we'll win or we won't." Again, that doesn't signal to me that he's confident that troops staying ultimately leads to a stable Iraq.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 25-05-2021 06:25 |
|
|
wtf_dragon 
|
|
|
|
| Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 6 The False Prophet |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by KultanThat's not an argument. That's {Insert most recent Democratic president I don't like here} |
It wasn't my intent to make an argument, although I could have easily said Nixon or ol' Lyndon Baker...one goes with the first name that pops into one's head. I find a little facetiousness always takes the edge off of an outbreak of BDS.
| quote: |
| What was the pivotal event during which Clinton failed miserably, alienated the rest of the globe, threw the nation into a war it didn't want by lying to it, exasperated several fold the problem he ineptly tried to solve, destroyed any faith the majority of Americans had in him, and on and on? |
The way he messed up handling the Balkans, for one. And the illegal bombing of that...was it a fertilizer plant?...in the Sudan for another.
I'll concede the point that Bush has done a lot that hasn't enamoured the West to the Arabic world, but equally so, it must be noted that the terrorists who struck on 9/11 were probably not acting in response to the Bush presidency's actions, but were in fact -- given the length of time now known to have been involved in planning the attacks on the WTC -- taking revenge on America for the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans.
In fact, this has been said more than a few times in statements by al-Qaeda.
| quote: |
| Anyone can come up with a hundred reasons to dislike either Clinton or Bush. My opinion is that if you weighted them by severity, Bush would come out on top by a long stretch. |
I don't know about that so much; I think Nixon would take the cake, although I think LB Johnson could be on the list as well.
Of course, if we get down to the root of it, most people would probably agree that George Washington was the worst president the U.S. ever had...after all, he helped establish the country as an entity independent of Britain.
| quote: |
| That may be easy for a non-US citizen to say. I don't see any losses as negligible for a war that should never have happened. I see each one as a tragedy. I would think you would agree given that you admittedly could never support the war due to your religious convictions. |
I agree that deaths are a tragedy; did I say they were not? But let us face reality for a moment: our world is not perfect, and tragedy is sometimes a fact of life. Of course it's sad that soldiers are killed, but mere sorrow is not a sufficient grounds upon which to base a belief that the U.S. should immediately, or prematurely, divest itself of its commitment to the Iraqi people.
Or, to put it another way...leave the emotionalism out of it. Find other reasons to oppose the war (for example, moral grounds, or perhaps 'just war' doctrine). But remember...it's easy enough to oppose the initial Iraqi invasion, back in 2003, on those grounds...opposing the continued U.S. mission in Iraq on the same grounds gets somewhat more difficult. "You break it, you bought it" isn't just a pottery-shop cashier slogan; it's also a moral obligation that the U.S. now has to the nation it has destabilized.
And that's why I ask the two questions which you dodged (shame).
| quote: |
| It's becoming harder to compare the current Iraq "war" with other American conflicts. This is basically just a case of troops patrolling around and either getting shot or blown up instead of engaging hostiles and gaining ground. The military can't even come up with a measure of progress as there is so little intelligence on the status of the opposition. |
I suggest you read more reports from embeds and less from the MSM. Just a thought, but it might change your viewpoint a bit on that. Seriously...look up Michael Yon.
It is true that a lot of what the U.S. is doing could be termed as policing, but a lot more of what they are doing can also be described as soldiering. What is more, given that I'm willing to trust the words of journalists embedded with units in Iraq somewhat more than I'm willing to trust the words of reporters back in the U.S., this latest 'troop surge' seems to be having some tangible results in several hot zones within Iraq. The insurgency is beginning to peter out in some regions.
| quote: |
| quote: |
1) What will happen if the U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq prior to stability being restored in the region?
2) Are you okay with that?
|
You're assuming stability can be restored while US troops are there. I'm starting to see the two as being mutually exclusive more and more. |
Was that what I asked? No, it was not.
I really don't see where people get this defeatist attitude from...well, besides the MSM, but I refuse to count them. I prefer to get my news from slightly...er...'closer to the front' sources, such as the various embedded journalists and bloggers who are currently in Iraq, attached to Marine units, following them around and reporting on life in Iraq directly. Michael Yon, whom I have mentioned repeatedly, is probably the foremost example of such an embed, though not the only one.
And the beauty of the current crop of embeds is that most of them don't labour under any particular political agenda...they're just there to tell it like it is, relate events as and how they happen. And that's important...and what's more important is that the reality they describe utterly fails to conform to the doom-and-gloom one sees on the front pages of newspapers over here.
| quote: |
| If this is the case I would love to see the administration's optimism based on it. Bush's recent statement that violence and bloodshed are going to escalate in coming months does not mean the insurgents are losing ground to me. His thoughts on what the ongoing troop surge will accomplish basically amounts to, "either we'll win or we won't." Again, that doesn't signal to me that he's confident that troops staying ultimately leads to a stable Iraq. |
That may be...but the troops leaving will ensure a three-way Sunni/Shia/Kurd bloodbath.
To be fair, I think the president may be right that the violence will escalate in the short term...he sent his reinforcements in, and Iran will recruit and fund more insurgents as well. But the longer-term prospects, assuming Pelosi et. al. are unable to extract American troops from Iraq prematurely, are better.
Let's face it...no standing force in the world can hope to beat the U.S. Army on the battlefield. The U.S. knows this...and so do the insurgents. The way you beat the U.S. Army, now as surely as in Vietnam, is to cripple support for the mission at home.
And the insurgents know this, because the Iranians know this. They know that if they fill the Western newspapers and television screens with scenes of horror, the people of the West will recoil and demand that the U.S. withdraw from the region. But that's precisely the opposite reaction we in the West should be taking.
A bit less than a century ago, a certain battle was fought at Vimy Ridge. In the span of a day or two, 10,500 soldiers were either killed or wounded...and the war was far from over at that point. But did the Canadians and the British withdraw from the conflict in Europe because of those devastating losses? Not that I seem to recall. And the parallel is a decent one, really, because the First World War was a war that was started over the stupidest of reasons.
But as stupid as the basis may be, once one has committed one's self to war, one should commit one's self to seeing it through to the end. This is especially true against groups like the insurgency, like Iran, and like al-Qaeda, because any withdrawal will be seen as a sign of weakness, as assuredly as the American unwillingness to invest ground troops in the Balkan intervention was seen as weakness.
And the Arabs have a saying to describe the attutide that the above-mentioned groups will take toward the U.S. if it demonstrates what in their eyes is weakness: "a falling camel attracts many knives."
One cannot help but notice that since the onset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no terrorist incidents have been perpetrated on American soil, despite the repeated promises of such actions by major terrorist groups. One wonders how that reality might shift were the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq?
WtFD
Withstand the Fury Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 25-05-2021 19:09 |
|
|
Kultan
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
| quote: |
It wasn't my intent to make an argument
|
I know but I wanted to turn it into one. 
| quote: |
The way he messed up handling the Balkans, for one. And the illegal bombing of that...was it a fertilizer plant?...in the Sudan for another.
...it must be noted that the terrorists who struck on 9/11 were probably not acting in response to the Bush presidency's actions, but were in fact -- given the length of time now known to have been involved in planning the attacks on the WTC -- taking revenge on America for the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans.
In fact, this has been said more than a few times in statements by al-Qaeda.
|
If anything that was one item on a long list of reasons that had been growing since before the Clinton administration. One needs only look at bin Laden's statements/interviews through the years to see that. Their main beef being that the US used Saudi Arabia as a base of operations during the first Iraq conflict, and retained troops there after the fact. That really pissed him off, towards the US and the Saudi rulers, and is regarded as the basis for the formation of al Qaeda and bin Laden's hostility towards the US.
| quote: |
I don't know about that so much; I think Nixon would take the cake, although I think LB Johnson could be on the list as well.
|
I was speaking of a Bush/Clinton comparison alone.
| quote: |
Of course, if we get down to the root of it, most people would probably agree that George Washington was the worst president the U.S. ever had...after all, he helped establish the country as an entity independent of Britain.
|
His establishment of the largest scale whiskey distillery at the time quelled any protest of his moves towards unpopular independence. He totally snookered the people into not caring long enough to make his takeover.
| quote: |
Or, to put it another way...leave the emotionalism out of it. Find other reasons to oppose the war (for example, moral grounds, or perhaps 'just war' doctrine). But remember...it's easy enough to oppose the initial Iraqi invasion, back in 2003, on those grounds...opposing the continued U.S. mission in Iraq on the same grounds gets somewhat more difficult. "You break it, you bought it" isn't just a pottery-shop cashier slogan; it's also a moral obligation that the U.S. now has to the nation it has destabilized.
|
That's not the basis of my belief. The question is at what cost do you do maintain the "you broke it you fix it" mentality? I could go into a long spiel on what should be happening over there, but that's a completely different debate. Ultimately my conclusion to whatever scenario is not how to get a stabilized, secure, happy Iraq out of what we have now. That's impossible and will not happen regardless of how many lives and how much money you throw at it. The question is how to make the best of it given the conditions and the cost it takes to make it better.
To continue the analogy, the ceramic mug is way beyond fixing. It's going to look like crap when you're done gluing it back together no matter how much effort you spend on it. It's a question of how much effort should be put into it given that increasing effort will result in diminishing returns.
| quote: |
And that's why I ask the two questions which you dodged (shame).
|
You included assumptions in your questions that aren't valid. But I'll answer anyway.
| quote: |
I suggest you read more reports from embeds and less from the MSM. Just a thought, but it might change your viewpoint a bit on that. Seriously...look up Michael Yon.
It is true that a lot of what the U.S. is doing could be termed as policing, but a lot more of what they are doing can also be described as soldiering. What is more, given that I'm willing to trust the words of journalists embedded with units in Iraq somewhat more than I'm willing to trust the words of reporters back in the U.S., this latest 'troop surge' seems to be having some tangible results in several hot zones within Iraq. The insurgency is beginning to peter out in some regions.
|
I guess we'll see. It's not the first time I've been told that.
| quote: |
1) What will happen if the U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq prior to stability being restored in the region?
2) Are you okay with that?
|
If they left right now, it would be a disaster. If they left 30 years from now, things would be better. Am I ok with either? No.
Troops won't leave after stability has been restored in Iraq because it won't while a large troop presence is there. Their presence is too tempting a target for extremists to pass up. Their presence is also the fuel that keeps the extremists reinforced with a practically limitless supply of manpower.
| quote: |
I really don't see where people get this defeatist attitude from...well, besides the MSM, but I refuse to count them. I prefer to get my news from slightly...er...'closer to the front' sources, such as the various embedded journalists and bloggers who are currently in Iraq, attached to Marine units, following them around and reporting on life in Iraq directly. Michael Yon, whom I have mentioned repeatedly, is probably the foremost example of such an embed, though not the only one.
|
I'm not speaking for others, but I don't feel my attitude is defeatist.
Everyone's biased. Don't tell me you really believe a former soldier with no journalistic training, who was embedded with other soldiers, has absolutely no bias. I believe he's motivated to write about the positive things that are coming about due to the troops' efforts in Iraq. And that's great to see positive things that are happening at a local level. I just feel the forecast for the big picture is glum.
Who else do you follow?
| quote: |
And the beauty of the current crop of embeds is that most of them don't labour under any particular political agenda...they're just there to tell it like it is, relate events as and how they happen. And that's important...and what's more important is that the reality they describe utterly fails to conform to the doom-and-gloom one sees on the front pages of newspapers over here.
|
Again, it's great to see the positive. But...
Car bombings, a gaping inter-cultural divide, troops dying, civilians being massacred in groups of dozens if not hundreds, corrupt police and military, armed militias, billions of unaccounted for dollars, a hopeless, corrupt, and bickering fledgling government aren't reality? I could go on.
| quote: |
That may be...but the troops leaving will ensure a three-way Sunni/Shia/Kurd bloodbath.
To be fair, I think the president may be right that the violence will escalate in the short term...he sent his reinforcements in, and Iran will recruit and fund more insurgents as well. But the longer-term prospects, assuming Pelosi et. al. are unable to extract American troops from Iraq prematurely, are better.
|
We have to stay there at current levels a while longer regardless. But overall, it won't fix the main issues.
Basically, I think the policy towards Iraq has to go through major changes before things get better over there. Bush will not allow that while he is in office. That's why he's a bad president. He's a stubborn good ol' boy. I live in the South. I see them all the time, and know some. They act just like him and vice versa.
Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take if Bush stayed in office indefinitely and got his way until the situation in Iraq was acceptable to you, given that it has been four years already?
| quote: |
And the insurgents know this, because the Iranians know this. They know that if they fill the Western newspapers and television screens with scenes of horror, the people of the West will recoil and demand that the U.S. withdraw from the region. But that's precisely the opposite reaction we in the West should be taking.
...once one has committed one's self to war, one should commit one's self to seeing it through to the end. This is especially true against groups like the insurgency, like Iran, and like al-Qaeda, because any withdrawal will be seen as a sign of weakness, as assuredly as the American unwillingness to invest ground troops in the Balkan intervention was seen as weakness.
|
Maintaining a large troop presence in Iraq until things are fixed is not going to happen. Their presence is what perpetuates the insurgency. Military operations will not break that cycle. Keeping troops there to prevent complete chaos while other means are used to initiate some sort of stable system that the three main faction can agree upon (or don't agree upon, I couldn't care less anymore) is acceptable for a reasonable duration. That won't happen under the Bush administration. It's too inept. Will it happen under another one? We'll see. If not, what then? We'll see.
| quote: |
One cannot help but notice that since the onset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no terrorist incidents have been perpetrated on American soil, despite the repeated promises of such actions by major terrorist groups. One wonders how that reality might shift were the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq?
|
You're right, the plan to keep all of those Iraqi born terrorists at bay worked. When do we move on to the rest of them?
Seriously, I wouldn't argue for a second that Iraq isn't a reason why we may not have had more attempted attacks on US soil. Iraq is now too tempting a honeypot for many reasons; kind of like a fly trap. But that wasn't among the reasons we were given for going there in the first place. And it's not a valid reason for keeping troops there. Even if we were to stabilize Iraq and move out, the international terrorists would move on and continue operations as normal. If they didn't have an easier, softer target like Iraq to hurt us, then it would be the West. Iraq isn't solving the al Qaeda problem, it's making it worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 25-05-2021 20:15 |
|
|
wtf_dragon
|
|
|
|
| Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 6 The False Prophet |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| I know but I wanted to turn it into one.
|
Eh, fair enough. It has at least picked up the tempo at which posts are being made to this thread.
| quote: |
| If anything that was one item on a long list of reasons...and is regarded as the basis for the formation of al Qaeda and bin Laden's hostility towards the US. |
Well, that and the fall of al-Andalus back in the...what was it?...13th century? The other thing, though, that the Balkans mishap managed to achieve was to radicalize a sizeable chunk of a generation of Muslims world-wide; the sufferings of people in one part of the ummah become the casus belli of the rest of it.
| quote: |
| I was speaking of a Bush/Clinton comparison alone. |
I wasn't.
| quote: |
| His establishment of the largest scale whiskey distillery at the time quelled any protest of his moves towards unpopular independence. He totally snookered the people into not caring long enough to make his takeover. |
I was speaking more to the current trend of anti-Americanism and America-bashing that seems to infect...well...a lot of different governments and media outlets, including many in my own home nation of Canada. It would have been better, to hear them pour out vitriol on our neighbours south of the border, had the U.S. never been founded, or won its independence.
And that damnable George Washington is to blame!
/facetious
| quote: |
| That's not the basis of my belief...The question is how to make the best of it given the conditions and the cost it takes to make it better. |
That doesn't change the fact that at present, if the U.S. were to withdraw, the bloodshed that would ensue would make the current violence seem far more palatable, even temperate.
The calculus of maintaining the "break it, fix it" mentality is complicated, primarily because it is predicated not merely on the metric of how many American soldiers are being killed, but on how their sacrifice holds other, more devastating and terrible things at bay. I have no particular desire to hear, in a headline, that another American soldier has been killed...but at the same time, I have even less desire to read about a city full of Sunni Muslims being slaughtered at the hands of Shia butchers.
In other words, I have no desire that soldiers die in Iraq...but I prefer that tragic reality to the possibility that the Sunni Triangle could become a second Darfur.
| quote: |
| To continue the analogy, the ceramic mug is way beyond fixing...increasing effort will result in diminishing returns. |
That may be true, but if you will permit me to complete the analogy then...withdrawing prematurely from Iraq would be the equivalent of saying "it'll never get fixed right anyhow" and dropping the mug on the floor again, letting it break and damn the consequences.
And that is the worst possible solution. Which is why I refuse to advocate for it, and why I question why any sane person could advocate for it.
| quote: |
| You included assumptions in your questions that aren't valid. But I'll answer anyway. |
What assumptions might those be?
| quote: |
| I guess we'll see. It's not the first time I've been told that. |
It's easy to dismiss anything as just one more instance of somebody 'crying wolf'. And that works well...until it's true.
| quote: |
If they left right now, it would be a disaster. If they left 30 years from now, things would be better. Am I ok with either? No.
Troops won't leave after stability has been restored in Iraq because it won't while a large troop presence is there. Their presence is too tempting a target for extremists to pass up. Their presence is also the fuel that keeps the extremists reinforced with a practically limitless supply of manpower. |
Well, that and Iran.
But remember...the animosity that the insurgents are directing toward the American soldiers is simply an animosity that is being displaced from being directed at the insurgents' fellow Muslims in the same region. Sunni/Shia strife is rampant in the region, and was only held in check by Saddam's strongman approach (and even then, he tended to exacerbate things, given that he put the minority Sunni into a position of power which was then abundantly abused). Factor in the hatred of both sides for the Kurdish people, and you have all the recipe you need for an explosive situation.
A strong central government in Iraq, backed up by an effective police force and an efficient military, can hold those forces in check, if such a government can be built. And if that takes 30 years for the Americans to achieve, then it takes 30 years. As hard as it might be, it is still preferable to the strong possibility of a Sunni/Shia/Kurd orgy of mutual slaughter.
| quote: |
| I'm not speaking for others, but I don't feel my attitude is defeatist. |
Haven't you been saying there's "no way" that the U.S. mission in Iraq can succeed? Is that not, by definition, 'defeatist'?
| quote: |
| Everyone's biased. Don't tell me you really believe a former soldier with no journalistic training, who was embedded with other soldiers, has absolutely no bias. |
I think he has far less bias than, say, an reporter who is ideologically opposed to anything involving Republicans, the U.S. military, or George W. Bush personally (of which there are several). Put another way, I'll trust Michael Yon way more readily than I'll trust Dan Rather.
| quote: |
| I believe he's motivated to write about the positive things that are coming about due to the troops' efforts in Iraq. And that's great to see positive things that are happening at a local level. I just feel the forecast for the big picture is glum. |
But you're not a defeatist.
| quote: |
| Who else do you follow? |
Teh Pope.
Also, sorry...I've abridged my quotations of your post, because I kept hitting the character limit for a single posting. People can always scroll up if they wanna read the full text.
WtFD
Withstand the Fury Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 25-05-2021 20:16 |
|
|
wtf_dragon
|
|
|
|
| Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 6 The False Prophet |
|
|
|
Cont'd
| quote: |
Again, it's great to see the positive. But...
Car bombings, a gaping inter-cultural divide, troops dying, civilians being massacred in groups of dozens if not hundreds, corrupt police and military, armed militias, billions of unaccounted for dollars, a hopeless, corrupt, and bickering fledgling government aren't reality? I could go on. |
But you're not a defeatist, right?
| quote: |
| We have to stay there at current levels a while longer regardless. But overall, it won't fix the main issues. |
Agreed...but somehow, I don't think Islam is going to have its equivalent of a Protestant Reformation anytime soon, so we have to make due with the solution options that remain open to us.
| quote: |
| Basically, I think the policy towards Iraq has to go through major changes before things get better over there...They act just like him and vice versa. |
You should try living in Alberta, my home province. But then, I get along with that sort of person much more readily than a disinterested, decaf-latte-and-lemon-almond-biscotti urbanite, because though they may not score highly on any list of 'enlightenment' qualifiers, they are at least reasonably genuine people who can, typically, be counted on to do the right thing when it's called for.
So don't knock us good ol' boys too hard...we'll be the ones saving your butt when you're trapped in a burning building, after all.
| quote: |
| Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take if Bush stayed in office indefinitely and got his way until the situation in Iraq was acceptable to you, given that it has been four years already? |
I think that would depend on methodology. Your 30 years bet might be accurate if all the U.S. continues to do is allow its military to serve as a glorified police force with remarkably -- some might say 'unreasonably' -- constrained rules of engagement. Given a wider and more 'military' set of operational parameters, they might be able to rebuild the nation in 5 years. I'm speaking off the cuff here, and I'm not going to be so delusional as to think I can project with any concrete certainty how long it might take.
But here's some speculation I do care to stand by: how long did it take the U.S. to rebuild and modernize Japan after they pummeled that nation into submission at the end of World War 2? Iraq will take longer than that, because Iraqi culture, quite frankly, has farther to go than Japanese culture did in order to adopt a democratic government and social structure.
| quote: |
| Maintaining a large troop presence in Iraq until things are fixed is not going to happen. Their presence is what perpetuates the insurgency. |
Well, yes and no. Their presence deflects the Sunni/Shia hatred that would otherwise fuel a Darfur-scale bloodbath in the Sunni Triangle. And until that animosity can be dealt with, there will be problems. That's why the U.S. has made it its priority to strengthen the Iraqi police and military, and to keep strengthening them, so that they are able to actively police warring sides.
That's the reality on the ground. And it's better to maintain a larger troop presence at the moment, in order to build up the Iraqi government's strength and ability to deal with that violence, rather than cut and run prematurely.
| quote: |
| Military operations will not break that cycle....Will it happen under another one? We'll see. If not, what then? We'll see. |
What needs to happen to ultimately break the cycle of violence in that region won't ever happen, because such an event is not possible within the framework of the Islamic faith (that is, a Reformation-type event). Any solution other than that will be, at best, a patch, a band-aid.
But does that mean that the patch shouldn't be applied?
| quote: |
| You're right, the plan to keep all of those Iraqi born terrorists at bay worked. When do we move on to the rest of them? |
Not just Iraqi-born terrorists. Goodness me, the majority of the insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi by birth at all...they are imported from the Sudan, from Iran, and from other places in the region.
| quote: |
| Seriously, I wouldn't argue for a second that Iraq isn't a reason why we may not have had more attempted attacks on US soil...Iraq isn't solving the al Qaeda problem, it's making it worse. |
The alternatives, however, will make things even worse.
I'm not struggling under any delusions here: I know that a continued military commitment in Iraq is, at best, a case of a least worst solution. But as bad as it is, it's still better than not committing troops to the region until such time as the Iraqi government can handle its opponents on its own.
You're right...terrorists will find other targets in the absence of this honeypot...but in the meantime, that honeypot is serving quite well to bring a large number of them out of the woodwork, where they can be dealt with by a superior force. Better that aspiring jihadis spend their lives in battle with hardened troops than spend their time torching Citroens in a Paris ghetto, n'est ce pas?
Can I propose a better solution? I wish I could, but a huge part of this problem began over thirteen hundred years ago, and there's very little anyone can do about that now.
WtFD
Withstand the Fury Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 25-05-2021 23:34 |
|
|
Kultan
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
For the most part, I think we agree on a lot of the goings on.
| quote: |
You included assumptions in your questions that aren't valid. But I'll answer anyway.
What assumptions might those be?
1) What will happen if the U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq prior to stability being restored in the region?
|
Stability can only be achieved through US forces staying in Iraq is assumed in the question.
| quote: |
It's easy to dismiss anything as just one more instance of somebody 'crying wolf'. And that works well...until it's true.
|
Yet experience teaches us otherwise.
| quote: |
But remember...the animosity that the insurgents are directing toward the American soldiers is simply an animosity that is being displaced from being directed at the insurgents' fellow Muslims in the same region. Sunni/Shia strife is rampant in the region, and was only held in check by Saddam's strongman approach (and even then, he tended to exacerbate things, given that he put the minority Sunni into a position of power which was then abundantly abused). Factor in the hatred of both sides for the Kurdish people, and you have all the recipe you need for an explosive situation.
A strong central government in Iraq, backed up by an effective police force and an efficient military, can hold those forces in check, if such a government can be built. And if that takes 30 years for the Americans to achieve, then it takes 30 years. As hard as it might be, it is still preferable to the strong possibility of a Sunni/Shia/Kurd orgy of mutual slaughter.
|
At current cost (not just in dollars) 30 years is ludicrous and will never happen regardless of the end result in Iraq. That's why I used it as an extreme example. It's unrealistic to assume any country would tolerate Iraqis' internal animosity by taking the brunt of their frustrations towards each other for that long. Do you really believe that? Sorry, that's La La Land. You can argue its merits and moral necessity until you're blue in the face. It's not happening.
| quote: |
Haven't you been saying there's "no way" that the U.S. mission in Iraq can succeed? Is that not, by definition, 'defeatist'?
|
No. The man himself can't define success of the US mission in Iraq. His outlook for the eventual outcome becomes less and less optimistic with each address. Without a definition of success, how is my point of view a defeat? If anything, Bush's "either we'll win or we won't" statement is more defeatist than anything I've stated. Wish I had a link to where that's quoted.
Anyway, saying you can't win one way isn't saying you can't win at all.
| quote: |
Car bombings, a gaping inter-cultural divide, troops dying, civilians being massacred in groups of dozens if not hundreds, corrupt police and military, armed militias, billions of unaccounted for dollars, a hopeless, corrupt, and bickering fledgling government aren't reality? I could go on.
But you're not a defeatist, right?
|
Defeatism doesn't factor in with that statement. That's reality. Believing otherwise is delusion.
| quote: |
I think he has far less bias than, say, an reporter who is ideologically opposed to anything involving Republicans, the U.S. military, or George W. Bush personally (of which there are several).
|
What about a reporter who is ideologically opposed to anything involving Democrats and liberals? There are several on that side as well. Or are you *gasp* biased?
| quote: |
Put another way, I'll trust Michael Yon way more readily than I'll trust Dan Rather.
|
I'd group them all along with FOX News, CNN, MSNBC (Olbermann is such a tool), or any other news media outlet under Things Whose Opinions I Don't Trust and Facts I'll Verify... except for Stephen Colbert, he's irrefutable.
| quote: |
...I get along with that sort of person much more readily than a disinterested, decaf-latte-and-lemon-almond-biscotti urbanite, because though they may not score highly on any list of 'enlightenment' qualifiers, they are at least reasonably genuine people who can, typically, be counted on to do the right thing when it's called for.
So don't knock us good ol' boys too hard...we'll be the ones saving your butt when you're trapped in a burning building, after all.
|
Don't lump me with either. I get along with both just fine though.
| quote: |
You're right...terrorists will find other targets in the absence of this honeypot...but in the meantime, that honeypot is serving quite well to bring a large number of them out of the woodwork, where they can be dealt with by a superior force. Better that aspiring jihadis spend their lives in battle with hardened troops than spend their time torching Citroens in a Paris ghetto, n'est ce pas?
|
It's not serving all that well as we've seen in Britain and Spain so far.
Anyway, like I said before I'm not interested in debating what should happen to make it better. The reality is that in roughly 1 1/2 years the troops are going to start coming home whether you or I think they should or not. How slowly and how many will remain for a longer term has yet to be seen. That's just how the politics are going to play out. The burden is going to start shifting to the Iraqis for better or worse. Let's hope they're up to the challenge.
The greater historical aspect you brought up is something that interests me. I'm also fascinated by the huge cultural barrier between the West and the Middle East, and I feel that's one of the main problems. I liken it to some alien culture invading, telling us our forms of government are flawed, and trying to convince us to elect only dolphins as our leaders before we can be granted membership into the galactic alliance... Huh?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 28-05-2021 17:15 |
|
|
wtf_dragon
|
|
|
|
| Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 6 The False Prophet |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Kultan
Stability can only be achieved through US forces staying in Iraq is assumed in the question. |
Of course, built in to the rejection of that assumption is the reciprocal assumption that an understrength, still somewhat inexperiences national police force and national military (of the Iraqi government, just to be clear) would be able to stand on its own against an insurgency that recruits its members from places like the Sudan and arms them with weapons purchased with Iranian finances.
That's ultimately what the insurgency amounts to, a third-party-fought proxy war being waged by Iran. Think the Iraqi military is at a state of readiness yet to take than entity on without assistance?
| quote: |
| Yet experience teaches us otherwise. |
Until the wolf shows up.
| quote: |
| At current cost (not just in dollars) 30 years is ludicrous and will never happen regardless of the end result in Iraq. That's why I used it as an extreme example. It's unrealistic to assume any country would tolerate Iraqis' internal animosity by taking the brunt of their frustrations towards each other for that long. Do you really believe that? Sorry, that's La La Land. You can argue its merits and moral necessity until you're blue in the face. It's not happening. |
I realize that, and personally I'd rather see this thing resolved sooner than way later. Privately, I believe it will be.
But even if it takes a little longer, all I ultimately concern myself with is what the right thing is to do, and while I have not yet resolved that completely in mind, I do know that the absolutely wrong thing to do is withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq prior to the point at which the Iraqis are able to maintain a measure of stability in their own nation without that additional assistance there. I do know that it is absolutely wrong to set up a situation whereby the Sunni Triangle becomes a second Darfur.
And the weight of that responsibility trumps many considerations of raw cost.
| quote: |
No. The man himself can't define success of the US mission in Iraq. His outlook for the eventual outcome becomes less and less optimistic with each address. Without a definition of success, how is my point of view a defeat? If anything, Bush's "either we'll win or we won't" statement is more defeatist than anything I've stated. Wish I had a link to where that's quoted.
Anyway, saying you can't win one way isn't saying you can't win at all. |
So propose an alternative solution for achieving victory in Iraq, where "victory" is defined as the creation of a nation that is able to self-police and self-defend against the current proxy war being waged upon it.
| quote: |
| Defeatism doesn't factor in with that statement. That's reality. Believing otherwise is delusion. |
I love debates like this..."agree with me or you're delusional!" becomes the normative argument of virtually everyone I debate, and boy does it make me feel despair at the intellectual deficit of the age.
I still wonder, though...you say you're not a defeatist, and yet all you've said thus far is that Iraq won't stabilize while the U.S. is there. You haven't spoken to specific strategies, but to the actual presence of U.S. troops in the nation. So let's not have any of this talk of "saying you can't win one way...", because you've thus far been primarily focusing not on specific strategies but on any and all U.S. action in Iraq, and dismissing it as a losing proposition.
| quote: |
| What about a reporter who is ideologically opposed to anything involving Democrats and liberals? There are several on that side as well. Or are you *gasp* biased? |
Didn't you say that everyone was/is?
Of course bias exists in the opposite direction as well...but one can't help but notice that right-wing bias is not nearly so evident in most of the media as left-wing bias has become.
I do in fact have a bias, although it is not particularly left or right in nature. My bias is my Catholicism, and the way that reality shapes my viewpoint. Left, right, and all politics are mere subsets of truth, and then not always truth.
| quote: |
| I'd group them all along with FOX News, CNN, MSNBC (Olbermann is such a tool), or any other news media outlet under Things Whose Opinions I Don't Trust and Facts I'll Verify... except for Stephen Colbert, he's irrefutable. |
He's funny, I'll give him that.
But here's another thing about media bias: 18 UN peacekeepers have died so far in Darfur, just in the last couple months. When will we start seeing the "grim milestone" headlines and the calls for withdrawal of troops from that war-torn region?
| quote: |
| Don't lump me with either. I get along with both just fine though. |
That's as may be...but I notice that you didn't knock on the lemon-almond biscotti set.
| quote: |
| It's not serving all that well as we've seen in Britain and Spain so far. |
Point, although those nations have additional problems that would have exploded anyhow, I suspect...the problem, in this case, being large communities of culturally isolated, essentially unassimilated immigrants from Muslim nations. In and of itself, such communities aren't a bad thing, except that the extreme level of cultural isolation allows for radicalism to take hold and find both a captive audience and willing volunteers.
France has rejected involvement in Iraq from the get-go, and they've had to put up with all sorts of violence in the last few years. Where does THAT fit in to your point?
| quote: |
| Anyway, like I said before I'm not interested in debating what should happen to make it better. The reality is that in roughly 1 1/2 years the troops are going to start coming home whether you or I think they should or not. How slowly and how many will remain for a longer term has yet to be seen. That's just how the politics are going to play out. The burden is going to start shifting to the Iraqis for better or worse. Let's hope they're up to the challenge. |
I realize that sooner or later birds get pushed out of the nest, and one can only hope they've got good wings on 'em. Of course, that attitude and philosophy might work well enough for robins and sparrows...but for a nation of several million people, it's a far shakier thing to truly justify.
| quote: |
| The greater historical aspect you brought up is something that interests me. I'm also fascinated by the huge cultural barrier between the West and the Middle East, and I feel that's one of the main problems. I liken it to some alien culture invading, telling us our forms of government are flawed, and trying to convince us to elect only dolphins as our leaders before we can be granted membership into the galactic alliance... Huh?!?! |
I appreciate, slightly, the Adams reference, but I think it serves to point out that a reverse 'invasion' of sorts is also underway. Many European nations are struggling now to deal with issues related to those large, unassimilated immigrant communities I referred to above, and in a lot of ways are losing ground.
There is a cultural clash, definitely. In the end, I wonder, are we on the side that is the more invasive, or the more invaded?
WtFD
Withstand the Fury Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 28-05-2021 18:39 |
|
|
wtf_dragon
|
|
|
|
| Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 6 The False Prophet |
|
|
|
Although, one more thought on the subject of limited progress being made in Iraq, consider:
- 47 countries now have embassies in Iraq (that's a pretty high number)
- 3100 schools have been renovated/modernized, an additional 364 are being rehabilitated, 38 new schools have been built, and 268 more are in various stages of construction
- 20 colleges, 46 research centers, and 4 universities are operating
- 3600 new police officers graduate every 8 weeks
- 1100 new building projects are underway
- 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have been vaccinated against polio, and 4.3 million Iraqi children are in school now
- There has been a 158% increase in phone usage in the country (that's about 2 million new phone owners/users)
- 78 radio stations, 180 newspapers, and 10 television stations have been established
I don't know about you, but I see the above as a rather strong indicator that the U.S. mission in Iraq is beginning to bear real fruit. I don't see the above trend reversing with continued American troop presence, at least until such time as that (rapidly) growing police force is able to keep the nation policed and reasonably secure on its own.
WtFD
Withstand the Fury Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 29-05-2021 19:10 |
|
|
Kultan
|
|
|
|
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 7 Black Gate |
|
|
|
| quote: |
Stability can only be achieved through US forces staying in Iraq is assumed in the question.
Of course... |
Good.
| quote: |
...built in to the rejection of that assumption is the reciprocal assumption that an understrength, still somewhat inexperiences national police force and national military (of the Iraqi government, just to be clear) would be able to stand on its own against an insurgency that recruits its members from places like the Sudan and arms them with weapons purchased with Iranian finances.
That's ultimately what the insurgency amounts to, a third-party-fought proxy war being waged by Iran. Think the Iraqi military is at a state of readiness yet to take than entity on without assistance? |
My original point was that a huge troop level is causing a lot of problems. It's necessary for now, but those problems aren't going to be resolved while a US military presence is so visible.
| quote: |
But even if it takes a little longer, all I ultimately concern myself with is what the right thing is to do, and while I have not yet resolved that completely in mind, I do know that the absolutely wrong thing to do is withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq prior to the point at which the Iraqis are able to maintain a measure of stability in their own nation without that additional assistance there. I do know that it is absolutely wrong to set up a situation whereby the Sunni Triangle becomes a second Darfur.
And the weight of that responsibility trumps many considerations of raw cost. |
We're not going to end up with a completely stable country run by a just, equal government (reality not defeatist). The original Bush vision for Iraq was a fantasy from the beginning. When you have large numbers of Sunnis and Shiites who say they hate each other more than America and Israel, you know they're going to be killing and undermining each other for a looooonnnnnggggg time. Their mutual animosity is just as ingrained as their feelings towards the West going back hundreds of years (as you previously mentioned). Troops and politics won't fix that. Then you have several factions who are only there to kill coalition troops and destabilize the country to prove their point. Troops can minimize the violence while the country tries to improve, but the troops will eventually need to leave for the latter elements to leave. Again, the troops are an absolute necessity for now. The questions is what constitutes a "stable enough" Iraq to justify withdrawal. And even then it should be a gradual bell curve pullout.
| quote: |
| So propose an alternative solution for achieving victory in Iraq, where "victory" is defined as the creation of a nation that is able to self-police and self-defend against the current proxy war being waged upon it. |
At least someone is defining victory. It works for me. Send it to Bush.
Seriously, I'll just avoid that one. I already stated several times I'm not interested in posing solutions. Sorry if that's disappointing. I just don't want to get into that debate.
| quote: |
| I love debates like this..."agree with me or you're delusional!" becomes the normative argument of virtually everyone I debate, and boy does it make me feel despair at the intellectual deficit of the age. |
And I love debates like this... "I don't like you're point. You're stupid! (but I need to think of a really smart sounding way of saying it to make my point)"
Settle down, that wasn't directed at you anyway (I should have just left it out). You already did agree with me:
| quote: |
Car bombings, a gaping inter-cultural divide, troops dying, civilians being massacred in groups of dozens if not hundreds, corrupt police and military, armed militias, billions of unaccounted for dollars, a hopeless, corrupt, and bickering fledgling government aren't reality? I could go on.
That may be... |
I was making the point that stating (what we both apparently agree are) facts doesn't make me a defeatist.
Should I look at your list of positive items in the next post and accuse you of being a hopeless optimist?
| quote: |
| I still wonder, though...you say you're not a defeatist, and yet all you've said thus far is that Iraq won't stabilize while the U.S. is there. You haven't spoken to specific strategies, but to the actual presence of U.S. troops in the nation. So let's not have any of this talk of "saying you can't win one way...", because you've thus far been primarily focusing not on specific strategies but on any and all U.S. action in Iraq, and dismissing it as a losing proposition. |
Because it just opens up more and more cans of worms. Again, the troops have to stay there for a time. How long should depend on set goals, which no one will establish. I really do feel we need milestones. Not as a reason to pull troops if they're not met, but as a measurement of success to make it more clear how things are actually going. The administration hasn't done that in the past because it knew how things were going. Bush is starting to come around and face the reality of the situation though (Rumsfeld's departure and Bush's more recent statements prove that to me), and I'm not as cynical about the situation as I used to be.
At the same time I truly believe that many of the problems we're seeing are being fueled by a large, visible military presence. This thing isn't going to be "won" with an army.
| quote: |
| Didn't you say that everyone was/is?
|
Yes. Do you believe it?
| quote: |
| Of course bias exists in the opposite direction as well...but one can't help but notice that right-wing bias is not nearly so evident in most of the media as left-wing bias has become. |
True.
| quote: |
| I do in fact have a bias, although it is not particularly left or right in nature. My bias is my Catholicism, and the way that reality shapes my viewpoint. Left, right, and all politics are mere subsets of truth, and then not always truth. |
Interesting. From my experience the right is particularly conservative in nature.
| quote: |
Originally posted by wtf_dragon
...but I'll approach it from the conservative angle because a) I am one and... |
Doh!
| quote: |
| That's as may be...but I notice that you didn't knock on the lemon-almond biscotti set.
|
I was knocking Bush. He's an arrogant, stubborn ass. Let's not get into degrees of Good ol' Boyness and what distinguishes one from another.
| quote: |
| Point, although those nations have additional problems that would have exploded anyhow, I suspect...the problem, in this case, being large communities of culturally isolated, essentially unassimilated immigrants from Muslim nations. In and of itself, such communities aren't a bad thing, except that the extreme level of cultural isolation allows for radicalism to take hold and find both a captive audience and willing volunteers. |
I wouldn't argue that they don't have conditions for fomenting radicalism. But I believe the Iraq conflict was a catalyst for motivating volunteers to take action, not an inhibitor.
From a group that claimed responsibility for the London bombing:
We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.
We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.
| quote: |
| France has rejected involvement in Iraq from the get-go, and they've had to put up with all sorts of violence in the last few years. Where does THAT fit in to your point? |
I didn't mention France.
| quote: |
I appreciate, slightly, the Adams reference, but I think it serves to point out that a reverse 'invasion' of sorts is also underway. Many European nations are struggling now to deal with issues related to those large, unassimilated immigrant communities I referred to above, and in a lot of ways are losing ground.
There is a cultural clash, definitely. In the end, I wonder, are we on the side that is the more invasive, or the more invaded? |
I was more referring to us trying to nation build by impressing our systems of government onto a culture for which they are not compatible.
As far as the reverse invasion, that's pretty fascinating too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User Profil |
| Message:
| composed: 01-06-2021 17:38 |
|
|
wtf_dragon
|
|
|
|
| Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada |
| | Favourite Ultima: Ultima 6 The False Prophet |
|
|
|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by KultanMy original point was that a huge troop level is causing a lot of problems. It's necessary for now, but those problems aren't going to be resolved while a US military presence is so visible. |
And yet the evidence doesn't seem to agree with that, not entirely. Sadr City, to take just one example, benefited greatly from the troop presence, and what was once a violent pit has become stable and secure. And consider as well the list, above -- that's not a lack of progress, and has been made possible in a large part by the troop presence.
| quote: |
| We're not going to end up with a completely stable country run by a just, equal government (reality not defeatist)...The questions is what constitutes a "stable enough" Iraq to justify withdrawal. And even then it should be a gradual bell curve pullout. |
That is the question, yes...and yes, whatever gets left behind in Iraq will have to be a bit more of a 'strongman'-type government than we would be used to, or accept, or even need in the West.
To take us back to the original topic of the thread, though, it's that exact timetable for withdrawal that's a major issue in this election, and the two schools of thought on the issue are quite clearly delineated. I can't think of a single Democrat candidate that's running on a platform that includes a realistic Iraq timetable, and even some of the Republican candidates have wavered on that issue.
The election will not be completely won or lost on this issue, but it will be affected heavily by it. And ultimately, the side with the better chance of victory is the side that adopts the more realistic view of the conflict...which, as you note, includes the realization that the troops are necessary for now, and that it's almost too premature to talk about withdrawal at this point.
| quote: |
At least someone is defining victory. It works for me. Send it to Bush.
Seriously, I'll just avoid that one. I already stated several times I'm not interested in posing solutions. Sorry if that's disappointing. I just don't want to get into that debate. |
Interesting.
| quote: |
| And I love debates like this... "I don't like you're point. You're stupid! (but I need to think of a really smart sounding way of saying it to make my point)" |
There's a bit of a difference, though...because it is indicative of an intellectual deficit to adopt the accusation of delusion as the default, fallback position in a debate. That's as true when lefties do it as when us righties do it. There's a measure of intellectual laziness in the practice, but unfortunately it seems to be the more prevalent practice in most debates today.
| quote: |
| Settle down, that wasn't directed at you anyway (I should have just left it out). |
Hindsight.
| quote: |
You already did agree with me:
I was making the point that stating (what we both apparently agree are) facts doesn't make me a defeatist.
Should I look at your list of positive items in the next post and accuse you of being a hopeless optimist? |
You're right...merely looking at facts doesn't make us a defeatist or an optimist. It's how we interpret the facts that defines that aspect of our viewpoint. The difference, as far as I can see, is that I look at the facts and see a situation that is still volatile, but definitely improving. I can still see ways it can fail, but I see the successes that have been made as well -- successes that have come about because of the presence of U.S. troops in some cases -- and I can see ways it can succeed. If that's the functional definition of hopelessly optimistic, then I accept the label.
But that's a long way from saying things will *never* work while U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. And saying that is a lot closer to defeatism.
| quote: |
| Because it just opens up more and more cans of worms. Again, the troops have to stay there for a time. How long should depend on set goals, which no one will establish. I really do feel we need milestones. |
Set goals can be a dangerous thing in war, though, if there is too much specificity.
Take the last World War...the set goal in the Pacific Theatre was stopping the aggression of Imperial Japan. Should the U.S. have planned for that to take two years, say, and then called off the war because they got bogged down in the Solomon Islands and the rest of that chain? Should they have withdrawn from the theatre of combat because the victory took almost four years instead?
Setting milestones is all well and good, but combat is not a corporate business quarter, and military targets can be set in as firm stone as sales targets can. That is also a reality that we need to take into account in this discussion.
| quote: |
| Not as a reason to pull troops if they're not met, but as a measurement of success to make it more clear how things are actually going. The administration hasn't done that in the past because it knew how things were going. |
And because it understands, I suspect, that you can't measure the success of a war effort as clearly, or with as sharply-defined metrics, as you can measure...say...an employee's work performance.
| quote: |
Bush is starting to come around and face the reality of the situation though (Rumsfeld's departure and Bush's more recent statements prove that to me), and I'm not as cynical about the situation as I used to be.
At the same time I truly believe that many of the problems we're seeing are being fueled by a large, visible military presence. This thing isn't going to be "won" with an army. |
Not entirely. But the army will do much to bring the "win" about.
| quote: |
| quote: |
| Didn't you say that everyone was/is?
|
Yes. Do you believe it? |
What, that I have my biases? It is as you say...everyone does. But people are also capable of reason and discernment, and the trick is to sort out those persons who can report on things in a way that either does not obviously suffer a strong bias, or in a way that at least presents both sides of the story. It is possible to give a report without imbuing the taint of ideological goals into it...if one chooses to do so.
Increasingly, in media portrayals of the situation in Iraq, this dual-sided, non-ideological nature is not nearly as evident.
| quote: |
| quote: |
| I do in fact have a bias, although it is not particularly left or right in nature. My bias is my Catholicism, and the way that reality shapes my viewpoint. Left, right, and all politics are mere subsets of truth, and then not always truth. |
Interesting. From my experience the right is particularly conservative in nature. |
x = x? Or did you mean to phrase that last sentence a bit differently?
| quote: |
| quote: |
Originally posted by wtf_dragon
...but I'll approach it from the conservative angle because a) I am one and... |
Doh!
|
Well, this was initially a political discussion, and I tend to find that the right side of the political spectrum is a bit of an easier pill to swallow when it comes to reconciling the politics I support with the faith I hold. Even then, it's not a perfect match...but it's a better one than on the flip side.
| quote: |
| I was knocking Bush. He's an arrogant, stubborn ass. Let's not get into degrees of Good ol' Boyness and what distinguishes one from another. |
Eh...ok.
| quote: |
I wouldn't argue that they don't have conditions for fomenting radicalism. But I believe the Iraq conflict was a catalyst for motivating volunteers to take action, not an inhibitor.
From a group that claimed responsibility for the London bombing:
We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.
We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused. |
The mere use of the word 'Crusader' indicates that these people have a list of reasons for terrorism extending back to...what? The 12th century or so? If the U.S. weren't in Iraq, then we'd be hearing them using Israel's airstrikes against Gaza as justification. And if Israel weren't bombing Gaza, then it would be something else.
Iraq is a convenient rallying point, but the whole point of the jihad is that it has almost a thousand years of 'justifications' fueling it. There wasn't a war in Iraq back in 2001, after all...or in Afghanistan. At least, not a war that the U.S. was involved in.
| quote: |
| I didn't mention France. |
And yet it works as an example: French is adamantly not involved in Iraq, and yet it too suffers terrorist attacks...because ultimately, Iraq is a convenient excuse for the jihad, not a raison d'etre. And absent the involvement of a nation in Iraq, terrorism will find other justifications.
| quote: |
I was more referring to us trying to nation build by impressing our systems of government onto a culture for which they are not compatible.
As far as the reverse invasion, that's pretty fascinating too. |
I agree on the lack of compatibility, and were it up to me I'd have suggested that the U.S. hand over the task of rebuilding the Iraqi government to the Brits -- they, at least, have a history of fusing a democratic system of government on to a variety of different cultures, and a vast deal of experience in the enterprise.
And indeed, if you look at the parts of Iraq that the Brits were responsibile for, the picture is quite different from what the U.S. has to deal with...southern Iraq is quite stable.
WtFD
Withstand the Fury Dragon
-=(UDIC)=-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
