Say Anything Blog

They have gone so far down the anti-war road that at this point it would be politically devastating for their to be victory in Iraq.

Calling for the withdrawal of troops does not mean that there won’t be “victory” in Iraq.  Most of those calling for withdrawal see it as the only way to achieve victory at this point.  The terms of victory for the U.S. is that Iraq becomes a stable, democratic country and long-term ally.  There is no one who doesn’t want this. 

We really need to drop this pretense that opponents of the war in Iraq want a US defeat.  That would mean that about half the population of this country have no concern for their own well-being or survival.  It is a ludicrous proposition.

If any representative in congress, R or D, believes that work should begin immediately for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, then that’s what they should vote.  If their constituents don’t like their vote, they will find a new representative. 

The problem they are going to encounter is that the Bush administration will accuse those who vote for a withdrawal of not “supporting the troops,” and their patriotism, as usual, will be questioned.  I think that if they stand up to this assault, this ploy could likely backfire on the house Republicans.

To follow up on MI’s post, I’d like to mention that many people believe the nationalist insurgency will die off when America leaves.  The nationalists view us as an invading conqueror/oppressor and fight against that.  The jihadists will, of course, continue, but there’s debate as to how long the Iraqis would put up with that nonsense.

For now, the nationalists and jihadists work together most of the time because they both want to fight America.  If America left, but provided military advisors to train Iraqi troops (especially in anti-terror tactics) and humanitarian aid, the Arab view of us there could improve.  It would also make the terrorists look really bad when they blow up weddings at Radissons.

If your not watching this you should be…
Watch the debate live

Whether anybody chooses to believe it or not, President Bush has stated repeatedly that most of our troops would be withdrawn as soon as the Iraqis are able to defend themselves.  I think that eventuality would be a lot closer if terrorists weren’t continuing to infiltrate from Syria and Iran.  A recent news article for which I do not have a reference said that today few of the so-called insurgents are Iraqis and that the bulk of them come from other Arab countries including Chechnya.  The point of this is that the Iraqis must be able to secure their borders if they are to have a stable government. [I know some of you are probably chortling since we the USA has very leaky borders, however our borders are not yet leaking suicide bombers] The northern border is fairly well secured by the Kurds.  It is the borders to Iran and Syria that are still problematic.

As far as the house vote is concerned, it is simply a political counter to the Democratic time table tactic.  If the Democrats had not pushed for a withdrawal schedule, the Republicans would not have countered a loyalty vote.  You play with fire you may be burnt.

Even if the US can seal Iraq’s borders, stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country’s insurgents. Only 4 to 10 percent of the country’s combatants are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released last week. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html

It will be interesting to see how this plays
out tonight.

The GOP version:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

woofie? Why are you here? You keep telling us how much you hate this blog and the people who comment here. And yet, here you are.

What I haven’t seen much discussed is the rest of Murtha’s idea: redeployment to Kuwait, Okinawa, and other sites “on the horizon.” That is going to be the first step we take, no matter when we take it; no troop withdrawal happens immediately. At this point, the only response we hear is that it’s unthinkable, or even reprehensible, that we even consider to talk about what that will look like.

Not everybody thinks we should withdraw our troops from Iraq.  Didn’t John McCain just say that we should add another 10,000?  I think others too, some of them Democrats, have suggested beefing up the numbers.

You keep telling us how much you hate this blog and the people who comment here.

When did I say that ButterBar?
You are hallucinating,
does the V.A. cover that? Service connected?

Not everybody thinks we should withdraw our troops from Iraq. Didn’t John McCain just say that we should add another 10,000? I think others too, some of them Democrats, have suggested beefing up the numbers.

So let’s have them vote.

Ah! so you are jadegold. Thanks for finally admiting it.

woofie, you have made that statement several times. And we are still waiting for you to show the morals of your convictions. Go away, and we will leave you alone, to think your happy, happy thoughts. All you have to do is go away, as you keep claiming you wish to do.

I agree. Vote on the issue.

So let’s have them vote.

To follow up on MI’s post, I’d like to mention that many people believe the nationalist insurgency will die off when America leaves

There is plenty of evidence for an increase in ethnic purging of the Sunni Arab minority (they are only 20% of the population after all) by the Shi’ite majority.  Many Shi’ites are incensed by the insurgency attacks aimed mostly at Shi’ite population centers.  I’m pretty sure it would get very ugly in a hurry, were we to leave.

Dave:

On whose bill? Murtha’s legitimate plan, or the Republicans’ “Gotcha!” bill?

Not your finest post though I understand your frustration with the ‘pubs outmaneuvering Murtha and the other antiwar people.

WOOF:

Even if the US can seal Iraq’s borders, stopping the flow of foreign fighters would do little to eliminate most of the country’s insurgents. Only 4 to 10 percent of the country’s combatants are foreign fighters, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released last week. But while they are a minority, says the report, they are a potent segment largely from Algeria and Syria.

4 in 10?  40% is not much of a minority in an insurgency which is fueled mostly by the foreign terrorists who are carrying out the suicide bombings. 

The key is shut down the pipelines of sophisticated bomb detonation equipment making its way into the country across the Syrian and Iranian border.  The newer detonators use frequency-hopping spread-spectrum [*] and are much harder to jam than the ad hoc triggers built from cell phones by the Iraq insurgents.

Closing the borders with Syria and Iran are crucial to winning this war.

[*] This is not as hard as it sounds, given access to the appropriate electronic components.... this is as much as it is responsible for me to say on an open web site.

Carrick

Only 4 to 10 percent

Murtha’s legitimate bill??? The guy who has been anti-war for a year and a half and suddenly wakes up one morning and decides he’s antiwar, then submits a bill for political gain that he knows there is no way in hell will pass… and this is a legitimate bill???

Murtha actually wants the troops to come home. The Republicans don’t.

Murtha actually wants the troops to come home. The Republicans don’t.

What a mind numbingly stupid statement, Dave. But that’s about par for the course for you these days.

Believe it or not, we’d love for the troops to come home to parades celebrating one of the biggest victories in the history of democracy. We also recognize that Iraq isn’t ready to stand on it’s own two feet. And until they are, we’ve got to stay.

If America left, but provided military advisors to train Iraqi troops (especially in anti-terror tactics) and humanitarian aid, the Arab view of us there could improve.

Uhh Ryan. Don’t you think training the troops right now is priority uno? It doesn’t matter to the Zarqawis of the world how much or how little of a military presence we have there. Nor do I think our foreign policy should be guided by the actions of Islamic radicals.

Pulling out for the reasons you mentioned above would be tantamount to allowing Zarqawi and his ilk running our foreign policy. And that can’t happen.

None of the Republicans who sponsored the bill voted in favor of it. THAT’s how it wasn’t legitimate.

Whether anybody chooses to believe it or not, President Bush has stated repeatedly that most of our troops would be withdrawn as soon as the Iraqis are able to defend themselves.

That is true. The Iraqis ARE defending themselves though, that is what the insurgents believe. We are seen as the enemy, not liberators.

We need to leave now, or open up dialogue with the nationalists and tell them if they take care of the jihadists, we will be willing to negotiate. We need to give up our dream of a liberal western style democracy. The Kurds in the north might achieve something remotely similar but as soon as we leave they will go back to being an autonomous area. They want a Kurdistan.

We are still worried about it becoming a civil war? Iraqis are not only killing other Iraqis more then coalition troops, they are frequently targeting them, which makes it a civil war.

We need to start preparing on how we are going to react to a Islamic theocracy. Ironically the nationalist element that is such a problem now with the insurgency, might prove to be helpful when Iran tries to influence the Shiite majority in Iraq. We are lucky the insurgents haven’t been smart enough to rid themselves of the Zarqawi bunch, they might be a political threat if they weren’t linked to the jihadists. Zarqawi is using the war as a training and recruitment tool. Zarqawi loves it when the tv reports attacks he had nothing to do with as jihadist terrorist attacks. Free publicity and recruiting. The nationalists insurgency will die out when we leave and the Zarqawi bunch won’t be able to operate long when they are blowing up Iraqis with no foreign troops present.

Staying the course isn’t working. I say start withdrawing now. Besides staying the course, what are any other plans??

As for Jack Murtha, go see what Marines think of the man and his ideaology. Not from the last 2 days. From the last 10 years. He is roundly despised for his obstructionist stance on just about everything connected to the military. As for him supporting the GWoT, he fills every statement with caveats and addendums to the point no one can figure out where he stands on anything. With the exception of payraises, that is. He always votes for those. Just like the rest of the lawyer scum in our government, both Fed and State.

In the eloquent words of the Knights,"Run away, Run away”. That worked so well in Somalia and Vietnam. Lets us do that.

"None of the Republicans who sponsored the bill voted in favor of it. THAT’s how it wasn’t legitimate.”

There is a certain naivete in that statement.  The bill was basically crafted as a vote of confidence (or no confidence) something that is frequently seen in parlimentary governments but does not have an equal in our government.  Prime ministers have fallen from such a vote.  For this country the vote was important in that it showed at least by its numbers how much Congress supported Bush.  How anxiously bloggers all over the world anticipated the results of the vote is telling on how important this vote was.  Other aspects of the result of the vote are:
. Our troops now know that most of the anti-war rhetoric in Congress is just political smoke that would be backed by the Congressmen when they are suitably challenged.
. The anti-war people now know they can’t easily push a withdrawal proposal thru Congress creating a Vietnam style cowardly withdrawal.
. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere now know that there is a lot more resolve to continue the war against terrorism than they probably anticipated.

Of course, many leftist will not acknowledge these points and for certain that also applies to most of the media.

WOOF:

Only 4 to 10 percent

I was wondering where 40% came from.  It sounded awfully high....

I think the point is still there.... you need to control the borders and the main roadways.  Deny the enemy mobility, communications, resupply and in this case, his pool of suicide bombers.  Classic military doctrine.  That’s how you win wars, even against insurgencies.

The only thing that really bothers me is that this should have been going on in July, 2004 not November, 2005.  They are also finally shutting down insurgency activity along major roadways.  Closing the Syrian border is a start, but they appear to be ignoring the Iranian border.  Once you close the border, you still have to leave troops there, or the insurgents will simply reopen their supply lines.

Graeme:

That is true. The Iraqis ARE defending themselves though, that is what the insurgents believe. We are seen as the enemy, not liberators.

You also have failed to address that the indigent insurgency is almost entirely from the Sunni Arab regions, a group that holds only about 20% of the population.  Most of the attacks of an Iraqi are from Sunni Arabs and are aimed at Shi’ite Arabs and not the United States military.  How is that “defending yourself?”

Finally, you have failed to address the fact that many Iraqis, including Sunnis, are very concerned about an early US withdrawal and the chaos that would ensue with such a premature departure.

Staying the course isn’t working. I say start withdrawing now

Oh, really?  Based on what facts are you making this assertion?

Here’s an interesting metric:  The number of insurgent attacks & casualties in the first election compared to the number of attacks in the second.  300+ in January, 89 in October.  109 attacks on polling stations in January, 19 in October.

How about the percent of the country, number of cities, etc controlled by insurgents?

A year ago, they controlled major population areas like Fallujah, today they are running to ground in the western desert.  A year ago, insurgent attacks looked like a shot-gun pattern across Iraq.  Today, insurgent attacks occur almost exclusively in the three Sunni Arab majority provinces and in Baghdad.

Murtha’s resolution:

Therefore be it

1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the- horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

Republican resolution that was voted on last night, and defeated 403-3:

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Rather than have an honest debate about the resolution and actually vote on it (as all of us on this thread have been calling for), the House GOP forced a vote on their version that was intended to fail.  Really very sad, pathetic.  Also hypocritical, after calling Reid’s surprise closing of the senate a “political stunt”. 

Finally, not so bright politically: if Murtha’s version had been voted on, we would have actually gotten some answers and been able to hold our representatives accountable.  Instead, they gave the leverage back to the democrats, who can now point to the GOP’s unwillingness to engage in honest debate.

MI:

Rather than have an honest debate about the resolution and actually vote on it (as all of us on this thread have been calling for), the House GOP forced a vote on their version that was intended to fail. Really very sad, pathetic. Also hypocritical, after calling Reid’s surprise closing of the senate a “political stunt”.

Like Murtha’s sudden amnesia about his previous opposition to the war wasn’t a political stunt?  Or that his bullshit resolution wasn’t a political stunt?

I would have liked to have seen his resolution put before the House, and agree with you that it was a political miscalculation among the ‘pubs not to use his rather than their own more tersely worded version.  Either version would have failed, none of the Democrats would have had the courage to vote for either resolution, but you would have had one less excuse to make for them.

As for honest dialog.... there hasn’t been any honest dialog (and little honest reporting) about this war since the Democrats decided they would use early withdrawal as a vehicle to get Kerry elected.

Like I’ve said before, I’m not happy with the way the ‘pubs are running this country, but I do get a sense that they are interested in our national welfare.  It doesn’t take a genius to understand why it would be highly irresponsible to withdrawal on the timeframe proposed by “my mind is going” Murtha.  If the Dems can’t put national interest ahead of their political interests, they have no business running this country.

Was this vote important?  Read this letter from General Chong and then comment.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=197&letter_id=509378041

You have failed to address the point that the majority of attacks and civilian casualties are from foreigners, not from Iraqis.

Ummm no, the foreign fighters make up 4 to 10 percent of the insurgency (that is 4 to 10 percent, not 4 in 10 like you misread earlier)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519_pf.html

Was this vote important? Read this letter from General Chong and then comment.

I think I bought a bong from him . . .

The letter you cite makes two passing references it Iraq.  It is not relevant to Murtha’s proposal or the one that was voted on Friday night.

GraemeA:

Ummm no, the foreign fighters make up 4 to 10 percent of the insurgency…

which is relevant to… what?

My point is that most suicide bombers are foreigners, not that most insurgents are foreign fighters. Hence, most casualties are from foreign fighters, not from the home-brew insurgents, as per my previous statement:

You have failed to address the point that the majority of attacks and civilian casualties are from foreigners, not from Iraqis.

References:

“‘Martyrs’ In Iraq Mostly Saudis”

Grim Saudi export—suicide bombers

As I had commented earlier, the newer and more effective car bomb triggers, as well as technical support, re thought to be foreign imports as well.

By the way, nice job snagging on one small point and ignoring the bulk of my comment.

I would have liked to have seen his resolution put before the House, and agree with you that it was a political miscalculation among the ‘pubs not to use his rather than their own more tersely worded version.

I don’t think anyone, Republican or Democrat, wanted the House to vote on the Republican version instead of Murtha’s version. Murtha’s bill actually gave us a chance to see how our Representatives feel about withdrawal from Iraq--and the Republicans threw that opportunity away.

The insurgency is using the ultimate smart bomb (suicide bombers) Without the support of the insurgency, the small number foreign fighters will die out.Without an occupying force the insurgency dies out. Iraq might very well dissolve if we leave, but maybe their nationalism and will hold them together, who knows. The point is we have to leave. The longer we stay the less chance of Iraqi becoming a unified, nonviolent country.
What is your solution? Yesterday, 80 more people died. “staying the course” is not working.

GraemeA:

What is your solution?  Yesterday, 80 more people died. “staying the course” is not working.

People die in war.  That’s why it’s called war.  People dying doesn’t mean it isn’t working or that we are losing.  I’ve already pointed out the sort of metrics that can be used to make a determination on the overall trend.  I notice that you are steadfastly ignoring them.

All your solution would do is send a signal that anytime a few terrorist thugs kill people you’ll scamper off and hide under a rock. 

My solution is to stay in Iraq, but get smarter about how we fight this war.  The campaign in Mosul is an exact model for how it should be conducted.  We move our troops in and challenge the enemy until he leaves the theater or is dead.  The recent campaign to close off the Iraq-Syria pipeline is another good maneuver, as is the campaign to deny the insurgents access to the major highways.  Both of these should have been done two years ago.

Other positive changes include reintegration of former Ba’athists into the military up through the level of major, and inclusion of junior level government officials from the foreign regime.  The disbandment of the Iraqi Army was a huge mistake, as was not including former Ba’athists in the transitional government.

Had the Democrats been interested in the national interests they would have been putting pressure on the Bush Administration to improve its execution, and not just raise false arguments for early retreat.  A John Kerry who approached winning the war as essential to our national interests would have beaten Bush hands down, especially if he had been intelligent in the manner in which he criticized the prior conduct of the war.

We could have been doing much better in Iraq from the start. 1. Stop listening to the State Dept. and Colin Powell. Next, allow the people who know how to run a counter-insurgency run it. And last, but by no means least, stop undercutting our military. Don’t like the war, then tote your ass to the middle east and tell the terrorists. And when your remains arrive at Dover your family can pick them up. No one can negotiate with Wahabist deathworshippers, you have nothing to give them. Other than your life.

Program on the emergence of civilization.

“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. “
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none.  Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

Terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

They can affect the weather and Hurricane Katrina was accomplished for many reasons and involves many interests, as anything this historical is::
1. Take heat off Sheenhan/Iraq, protecting profitable war machine/private war contracts
2. Gentrification.  New Orleans median home price of $84k is among the lowest in major American cities, certainly among desirable cities.

Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”

This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.

I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe.

But they have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

I offer an example of historical proportions:::

People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles. 

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins.  They all do it.  Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise.  So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The middle class is being deceived.  They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

I believe the coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects.  Italy sent its criminals. Malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects.  It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries.  As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names.  I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

Royalty is the right way to organize a society.  Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is.  Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.

Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil.  These seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them. 

Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people.  “They came up at the same time for a reason.”

Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ. 
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their bondage in Egypt proves their disfavor.  The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of their methodology.

I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack “god“‘s most favored people will pay dearly one day.

Damn fine comment, 2Hotel9.  My only remark would be that (as it was pointed out to me) there were plenty of civilians in the Pentagon who were playing turf games as well.  It appears that they were mostly responsible for shucking aside the war planning that had been done and started ad libbing.  Like you said, let the people who know how to run a counterinsurgency run it.  War is too important to be left to the politicians.

"grandpa stole bets” forgot to take his meds.

granpa, come on over and try to make me pay.

I always wondered why, after we cleared a city in Iraq, we drew down troop levels there shortly afterward.  Seems like if we denied the terrorists access to certain safe havens (Falujah, Mosul, etc.) for long periods of time they’d be forced into the open.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:

I always wondered why, after we cleared a city in Iraq, we drew down troop levels there shortly afterward. Seems like if we denied the terrorists access to certain safe havens (Falujah, Mosul, etc.) for long periods of time they’d be forced into the open.

I’d be lying if I said I knew the reason why they were entering cities, cleaning them out, then leaving them for the insurgents to reoccupy.

One possibility is that we don’t have enough troops to maintain that type of presence.  Another is that the civilians had a policy of not maintaining long-term presence in the cities, either for reduction of casualties, or from some misguided notion that this would increase Iraqi anger.

From what I hear, Iraqis are generally more angry about the spotty American presence than our mere occupation of their country.  If we improved their security, it would be one thing.  When we hit, somewhat randomly destroy structures, then leave the Iraqi cities to lawlessness, this does nothing for our image.  The way things were being run for roughly the first year was in most ways the worst of all worlds.  Like 2Hotel9, my personal predilection is to blame interference from the civilians.

I don’t know for sure, but my impression is that they have changed the policy to one of maintaining a presence in the troubled cities.  The Iraqi security forces are becoming progressively more effective (another sign we are losing--right?), so perhaps this is giving us more strategic options than we had before.

The person who may know real answers would be Michael Yon.  You might trying popping him an email.  It’d be interesting to hear what his opinion is.

The person who may know real answers would be Michael Yon. You might trying popping him an email. It’d be interesting to hear what his opinion is.

You didn’t just out a CIA agent, did you?

MI:

You didn’t just out a CIA agent, did you?

Actually, I think he’s <censored>, so there’s no problem with the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act.

Good point, doc! My training in counter-insurgency/insurgency was focused on training indigs to fight for themselves and control the avenues of ingress of supplies and enemy forces. The overall training doctrine of our military, circa ‘70s>’80s, was to stand fast against a numerically Superior force and inflict as much damage and casualties as possible before being destroyed. Then the remnants were to scatter into the countryside and fight a guerrilla action until reinforced. Or until everything between the Baltic and the Caspian/Black Seas was turned into a great, radioactive glass plain.Policing was never a major component of the military. Until we began doing these limited actions at the behest of the UN. Who promptly undermined us when we appeared to be reaching a successful outcome. Go figure.

The problem is that military forces are trained to take directive action against known enemy fortifications but are not good policing organizations which require a totally different tactic.  The problem with maintaining vigilance in areas cleared of terrorists is that this is really a problem for the Iraqis themselves who apparently still lack the skill and determination to get the job done.  Note that this is not the same for all Iraqis as the Kurds seem to be able to police their areas effectively without our help.  The Shiites are better in rural areas but not in Baghdad.  Most of the terrorists activities are in the Sunni areas who still have some apparent civilian support.

Excellent points, 2Hotel9 (strange name, how did you pick that one).  Another consideration is that the Iraqi civilians have to decide to cooperate in a major way to provide intelligence and even to actively defend themselves.  We in this country at least in the Bush states know that defense begins in your own home.  That’s way most of us are armed.

Its my radio call sign. I have suggested that each registered voter in Iraq be issued a rifle and 6 magazines. They have demonstrated their understanding of the importance of bringing a change to their country and society. And there is precedent for such policy, Switzerland. With the upcoming vote in December, Iraqis should be given their status as citizens in far clearer terms. Voters have shown they wish to show their responsibilty for their own nation. Who better to bear arms in its defense.

"Voters (Iraqi) have shown they wish to show their responsibilty for their own nation. Who better to bear arms in its defense.”

A very big AMEN to that!!!

I have suggested that each registered voter in Iraq be issued a rifle and 6 magazines.

By Santa. Who do you think would issue firearms to the citizens of a country? Come on, dave. Get legit.

Hmmm, Dave, do you own any guns?  Have you ever gone hunting?  Are you for gun control, disarming the people?

"Issued by whom?”

If you have to ask that question, then.. well, clueless is a word that comes easily to my mind.

Hmmm, Dave, do you own any guns?

Have you ever gone hunting?

Are you for gun control, disarming the people?

God no! Every form of gun control runs contrary to the second amendment.

However, are you for the government providing resources (like guns) to each citizen according to his need? Because that’s what it sounds like when you say the government should give each Iraqi voter a firearm, that’s all I can conclude.

Us? Or the Iraqi government? I honestly don’t know what you mean. I do think that, whoever issues them, it would be a very bad idea.

No. Quite the contrary, I’m a vegetarian, animal-rights activist type who finds hunting rather barbaric.

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around someone who can say that hunting is barbaric but that smothering babies “for the good of society” is ethically ok.

But whatever.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I can’t believe you supposed “conservatives” supporting raising taxes to provide every citizen with a firearm. Aren’t you supposed to be in favor of private enterprise?

I really don’t think it’s the government’s job to improve the common good.

Yea! Can’t have citizens being able to defend themselves. God forbid, they might actually start thinking they are not someone else’s property. And do you know how many privately owned firearms are in Iraq already? A man has a source of fire, edged steel, and a firearm to protect his family and home. Otherwise you are just another lower-caste slave. Don’t you know anything about Arab/Islamic culture? Issuing a rifle and mags to registered voters would send the clear message that it IS their country, and they are not anybodies property. That will begin the profound shift in the mindset of not only Iraqis, it will permeate through the entire region. Iraq was well on its way to being a modern nation. People who lived and worked before the Baathist subverted the government are still alive. They do remember. We, all of us, are in the cusp. Which way do you want to go? State slavehood? Or individual liberty. That is it in a nutshell. Do you own yourself or are you owned?

I can’t believe you supposed “conservatives” supporting raising taxes to provide every citizen with a firearm. Aren’t you supposed to be in favor of private enterprise?

Who said anything about raising taxes you dingaling?  For all you know arming the Iraqis could result in a net reduction in spending on the Iraq war.

Say we spend a few million and arm the citizenry over there.  Now the Iraqis are better able to defend themselves against terror attacks, which means that we can get out of Iraq all that much faster.  Thus a potential savings in overall expenditures.

Before we did anything I’d like to see some opinions from people more knowledgeable on the issue than myself, but I wouldn’t shoot it down either.  I think it has some merit.

Some times you gotta think outside the box, kiddo.  All this knee-jerk, “all government spending is bad” stuff is well and good when you’re sitting in your dorm room reading Ayn Rand, but in the real world things are different.  Sometimes a certain amount of carefully considered government spending can go a long way toward promoting the general welfare, which is something our government is charged with in the Preamble to the Constitution.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"are you for the government providing resources (like guns) to each citizen according to his need?”

Actually, Dave, that is not as bad an idea as you think.  One country, I believe it was Switzerland, did this not only providing guns but heavy vehicles (like tanks) as well.  This must work because Switzerland hasn’t been invaded or occupied in recent times and I haven’t heard of any terrorist activity there either. 

Does anyone know if the Iraqi constitution prohibits gun ownership?

Dave, am I actually to believe you don’t have any idea of the numbers of shoulderarms and sidearms there are within the borders of the nation of Iraq? Remember? Saddam gaming the UN and Europe for billions? Building palaces and BUYING WEAPONS? Has it not occured to you that there is an enormous amount of capital tied up in all those toys? Dave, despite all my nasty snarkiness, I honestly thought better of you than that.

It’s ever so much easier to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat when you disarm them first.

If you think that handing out 8 million firearms is “carefully considered government spending”, well, there’s little I can do to convince you otherwise. While we’re at it, let’s hand out “free” health care and “free” college education! They’ll “promote the general welfare”!!!

Jackass:

First of all, what 2H9 said.

Second, we’re talking about a one-time expenditure on weapons for the general citizenry.  That can hardly be compared to a sweeping, never-ending government entitlement program like universal health care. 

Third, you didn’t even address my points about the guns being a net reduction in spending in Iraq.  Would you be for them if it would reduce spending?

Fourth, I was refuting your “there is never good government spending” crap by pointing out to you, yet again, just how naieve you really are.  This borderline anarchy crap you’ve got going on in your head is why your strain libertarianism will always be on the fringes of American politics while conservatism (which advocates reality-based fiscal responsibility) will remain in the mainstream.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Free enterprise requires free people making free choices, and Iraq isn’t there yet.

See?  Now that is some reasoned criticism.

I’m not saying I’m for this, I just didn’t like Dave’s reasoning (all government spending is bad!) for shooting it down.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: govt spending is a necessary evil, I will agree.  Providing arms to Iraqi citizens during time of war is different from providing them to our own population.  Free enterprise requires free people making free choices, and Iraq isn’t there yet.

Sometimes a certain amount of carefully considered government spending can go a long way toward promoting the general welfare

If you think that handing out 8 million firearms is “carefully considered government spending”, well, there’s little I can do to convince you otherwise.  While we’re at it, let’s hand out “free” health care and “free” college education! They’ll “promote the general welfare”!!!

No revenue, beyond the regular pay of military personnel and clerks, would be involved. The materiel is all in country and the legal property of the nation of Iraq. Those who have voted and will vote again have shown they will back their country, some voters will not wish to be issued an arm. Others will see civil militia as a not unpleasant duty, have formation once or twice a month, do some various training(CPR,Radio maintenance and use,sanitation and field hygiene), have events to promote family/community development. In other words, build an interlocking societal structure based on running their own country/defending their own country. 2 birds with one stone and all that.