Say Anything Blog

If it is a ‘civil war’ - where is the rebel capital? Who is the rebel president/commander? What color is their uniform? What diplomatic recognition have they sought from foreign nations? What does their money look like?

Just askin’.

Can it be that, possibly, not every insurgency does a civil war make?

Good points Ken, but we should also ask if this debate over the label is even worth our time.  All it is is a political debate.  It doesn’t impact one thing on the ground.  Bush’s political enemies want to use that term so they can make the situation appear worse than it is.  Bush’s supporters in the war don’t want it used for the opposite reason.

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:

Sure, it may be political, but politics is a continuation of war by other means, with apologies to Clausewitz.

The MSM Left are beating the Defeat Drum.  Having Iraq devolve into a civil war after Bush made a spectacular carrier landing entry to declare mission accomplished would prove him wrong and thus steal his thunder.

The Iraqi people, the ones that braved bombs and machine guns to get a blue fingertip from voting, are the Leftists’ sacrifice on the altar of political power.  If they can create a defeat for Bush, it will propel them back into political power. 

I believe it’s a basic as that.

The one common unifying thing that guides the Left is to gain political power.  It is their guiding star and their lodestone, everything else, values, statements, principles, are completely malleable and situation-based. 

What Packwood did rated burning at the stake.  Demand his resignation. (See how often they demand resignations) Clinton’s rape of Jaunita Brodderick, on the other hand, was simply Right-wing drivel and it was time to MoveOn.org and get on with the people’s business. 

Clinton could say that Saddam had WMDs and then it was true.  Bush says Saddam has WMDs and it’s a complete and utter lie. 

Democrats can say we need more troops, but when Bush calls for more troops, he is viciously escalating this wrongheaded war.

Got it?

...for great justice

Damn, MZ, you pretty much covered it. I have asked for the names of the leaders of the faction attempting to wrest control of the Iraqi government several times. puzzle refuses to list them, and then toddles off into a tirade about how evil GW Bush is, and how America deserves to be defeated because we are stealing everybody’s stuff. Oh, and lets us not forget free healthcare and food and houses for everyone. I think that covers it all.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Puzzle
Its not technically a civil war because we are fighting on both sides. That pretty much confuses it enough to deny it.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie, what are you talking about?

Any good arms dealer knows you sell to both sides.

Dumb @ss.

Snark aside, since when is a war only fought by armed groups targeting civilians?

Show me a consistent pattern of military-on-military actions, and I’ll agree it’s even a war.  What we have now is an insurgency

Insurgencies a characterized by groups of cowardly thugs hiding behind women’s skirts waiting for the opportunity to attack and kill unarmed children. 

I’m afraid that’s what we have here, an insurgency, not a war.

You will notice that puzzledf**k has nothing to say on this subject. She does not care that children and women are murdered by their own husbands/fathers/sons, as long as she gets free money and healthcare she will continue to pour gas on the fire. Her party, the Democrat Party, is actively supporting terrorism in order to gain political advantage. And she is happy with that status quo.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq.  We are drawing them to us like a magnet, so that they will do less terrorism in other parts of the world, specifically in the US. Political labeling in this conflict is pure BS; it’s about radical Islam imposing itself on everyone else. The Iraqi people now have the opportunity to choose self-determination, where before they had only totalitarianism imposed on them.  The terrorists support totalitarian control of the population.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I agree that determining whether Iraq is in the grips of a civil war isn’t terribly important in the bigger scheme of things but it is useful to determine the nature of the conflict there if only to be able to speculate as to what to what measures are needed to bring the violence to an end.

A civil war “a war between political factions or regions within the same country.” A revolution is “an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough eplacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.” An insurgency is an “insurrection against an existing government, usually one’s own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.”

There are certainly characteristics of each of these conditions present in Iraq and to pinpoint just one as truly portraying the situation probably doesn’t do justice. My impression is that current strategies are aimed at restoring order in Iraq rather than repelling an attempt to take over the Iraqi state. My opinion is that the disorder is characterised primarily by acts of sectarian violence but also includes violence against the properly elected authorities and the foreign occupying forces.

One can quibble whether a war is taking place but to dismiss the competition of violent sectarian factions as merely part of a general insurgency certainly misses the mark. That the aim of much the violence is to secure primacy, in the case of the Shiites, or a meaningful place in the power structure, in the case of the Sunnis and Kurds, suggests that we are at least in a civil war pre-game if not a civil war proper.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

Mike, I’d disagree that our goal in Iraq is necessarily to stop all of the violence.  Certainly we need to bring it down to acceptable levels, but only so that we can accomplish our true goal: Equipping the Iraqi government to stand on it’s own so that it can fight the violence.

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...the fact that the “surge” involves deploying troops throughout Baghdad’s neighbourhoods suggests that restoring order is job #1. I’m sure that everyone would like to see the Iraqi government able to reduce the violence on its own but that’s clearly a project for later.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

Rob...the fact that the “surge” involves deploying troops throughout Baghdad’s neighbourhoods suggests that restoring order is job #1

Mike, if you were paying closer attention you would realize that the surge is a temporary deployment to settle down violence so that our troops can concentrate on training Iraqi troops.

The big problem right now is that our soldiers are so busy stopping violence that training Iraqi soldiers has gone to the back burner.

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:

Carrick

Any good arms dealer knows you sell to both sides.

Ah! Like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Zaharoff]Basil Zaharoff:

Zaharoff sold the first model to the Greeks. He then convinced the Turks that the Greek submarine posed a threat and sold them two. After that, he persuaded the Russians that there was now a new significant threat on the Black Sea, and they bought two. None of these submarines ever saw battle. In a trial by the Turkish Navy, one of theirs attempted to fire a torpedo and became so unbalanced that it sank stern first.[/url]

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

sorry. botched the link.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Rob said

The big problem right now is that our soldiers are so busy stopping violence that training Iraqi soldiers has gone to the back burner.

That’s been true for awhile. I’m not sure how a temporary deployment is going to change the situation such that training can occur but then maybe that’s why I’m not making the big bucks.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill

2H9-er, thanks Bro.

R108, I completely agree with your 02/03/2007/15:05 post.  The US-based Left’s labelling is BS, but then again this labelling is consistent throughout the world wherever the Left is running the media and, incidentally, where Al-Jazeera types have a deathgrip on the public microphone.  For the moment, their interests are in concert and there is a bit of incestuous photoshopping and partyline sharing between the two.

The Left wants domestic control of the US and they’re willing to get it over the bodies of the next Killing-field victims that will result from a premature US withdrawal. 

The Islamofascists want total control over the Middle East, knowing that the Middle East, until some alternative energy source comes online, will have the rest of the world by the short hairs. 

Remember, Red China has developed a ferocious new appetite for energy and raw materials and of course, North Korea is essentially controlled by a madman with Nukes, and thinks that swapping missile technology for oil, money and food is just peachy.

It helps to have a view that looks at factions within the country, regionally and internationally.  It also helps to understand the historical context of each group, faction or personality.  The tiger tends not to change his stripes and very often in history you will see a lineage for groups, leaders, what have you. 

As some of you has suggested, this isn’t just your everyday, run of the mill civil war.  There are a lot of hands in this pot.  Iran wants desperately to strangle the Free State of Iraq while its in its cradle, co-opt it and rather, to turn it into a Islamofascist satellite state, which incidentally, terrorize the rest of the region into blackmailing the rest of the world, not just with oil-denial, but with crazy-eyed imams with fat thumbs hovering over a nuclear trigger.  They have learned that terrorism works, Spain being a glaring example of blowing people up and the armed forces retreat (kinda like our Beirut and Mogadishu Blackhawk Down Retreat strategies. 

You go with what works, and we have rewarded terrorism before.  Invading Iraq must have really irritated the towelheads (hey! aren’t these running -dog infidel supposed to be cowards???)

Saudia Arabia, Syria and Pakistan, as well as the non-state Islamofascist actors, all have a part to play in this unfolding tragedy. 

These guys are all pouring into the fray.  Notice that the attacks are principally against civilians now, not US soldiers.  The MSM are glossing over this and busy calling it a quagmire.  Remember, a good third of this country wants us to fail over there (and well, everywhere the US sets its boots on the ground).

Foreign fighters are being fed in from Pakistan, Syria and Iran, as well as volunteers from every part of the Middle East.  There’s an unending supply of petrobucks to feed this war.

We can look at the conflict at one of two ways:

We win and we’ve planted a free state smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of Islamofascist states and, goshdarnit, freedom might just catch on the in the neighboring states.  Also, we will have accomplished with Iraq what we did with Nazi Germany and Tojo’s Japan—turned them into friends and allies.

Being a friend and ally, we will have secured a reliable source of oil and a land-staging area for naval, air, ground and intelligence assets.

The Islamofascists know this and want the exact opposite.  THAT’s why they are throwing everything into killing Free Iraq before it can really defend itself.

As far as the internal factions are concerned, I think there is something to be said into partitioning the country, as fairly as possible into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite areas.

Just my 2 scents.

...for great justice

Please move_zig, enlighten us how we will plant a “ a free state smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of Islamofascist states” with 20,000 more troops when the Iraqis themselves won’t stand up for their own country.

Please enlighten us how you will get your free state smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of Islamofascist states accomplished because this has to happen in order to get it :

1

. Sunni acceptance of the current government structure as well as Iraqi federalism
2.  The Shia and Kurds would have to cede to the involvement of Sunnis in Iraqi federalism.
3.  working within the communities and with neighborhood watch groups to take control of their communities and start the reconciliation and rebuilding process.

For all you verbosity, you are a bit short on how it will be accomplished but go ahead and enlighten us with another diatribe as to how a “free state smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of Islamofascist states” will happen with the current state of affairs.

...but go ahead and enlighten us with another diatribe…

Puzzle,

Please explain how a diatribe (n: a tirade, harangue, attack, or rant) can be enlightening?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

B1 you’re right, what he writes won’t be enlightening!

Puzzle,

At your level, most likely not.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Is this possible and if it is, how can it be accomplished in light of the civil war and ongoing violence?

Puzzle,

Since we are getting a troop level surge and the President’s escalation is going to happen, why not get behind the troops effort and give our troops the moral support they need and watch what they can accomplish?

For all you verbosity, you are a bit short on how it will be accomplished but go ahead and enlighten us with another diatribe as to how a “free state smack-dab in the middle of a bunch of Islamofascist states” will happen with the current state of affairs.

So certain are you. Always with you what cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?

Gosh, I didn’t realize that I was diatribing.  Was I diatribing?  I didn’t think I was diatribing. 

Hmmm.

Oh, I get it, that “Leftist” stuff kinda struck a nerve perhaps?

Especially for you, I’ll try to type slowly and use small words.  For starters:

As far as the internal factions are concerned, I think there is something to be said into partitioning the country, as fairly as possible into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite areas.

Second, we are in a war. 

Since the end of the Korean war, the Soviets, Chinese and all their proxies learned that frontal assaults involving the USA on the opposite side meant getting their clocks cleaned.  They switched tactics.  No longer would they directly confront the US (until the US’s will had been sapped and the populace had long since withdrawn support for whichever ally we had been supporting.  ) A far cry from ‘pay any price, bear any burden, ‘ hey?

Now it was war in the shadows.  The Cold War.  Instead of the 582d Chinese Mongolian Horde storming up Porkchop Hill, bugles blaring, it would proxy troops in some nondescript SHC (Shithole Country), one not exactly in the US orbit or even sphere of influence. 

Likewise, in Developed Nations, Greece, Germany Italy, Spain, Japan, it would be fomenting unrest through Agents of Influence, Front Groups, and terrorism a la Roter Armee Fraktion, Black September, ETA, the M5, Senderos Luminosos, Red Army Brigade, and so on.  All indirect.

And so it is here.  Iran is in this fray, doing the same thing the Soviets did for many years.  Notice how the Soviets, er… New Russians (remember Putin was KGB), are watching Iran and Syria’s backs, making sure that UN sanctions don’t happen, and when they do, they are so watered down and so circumvented that the sanctioned states will never feel any pain?  France and Germany were there too, making sure that Oil-for-Food scheme made sure Iraq was going to weather UN sanctions.  The same actors are there, as well as a host of others.

Imagine you being just a little kid on your first solo bike ride… only this time no training wheels and the neighborhood gangs are all throwing rocks at your head.  That’s where Iraq is in its current stage of development. 

Have you been paying attention?

The Iraqi people are coming out from decades of murderous rule.  Anyone who had any cahone-ays ended up being fed feet-first into tree chippers or tied to a rape-room chair, culminating in their sharing space in an unmarked mass grave. 

Prior to that, they really hadn’t any chance to develop a concept of nationhood.  Was that area not under Mandate after the Ottoman empire collapsed?  Had they also not fought a debilitating war with Iran starting from 1979 onwards?

It took us years to get the Germans and Japanese on their feet, and even so, the Germans and Japanese had long histories of societal development and highly advanced educational systems.

For the Iraqis, the concept of a Free State, the concept of being free, is novel concept. The concept of a National State and Will are vastly important in the cohesiveness and fighting effectiveness of any nation. 

To train their army, they had to unlearn all that they had learned before.  The Leftists are showing their ignorance and contempt of what it is to raise a national army to an effective force because, like babies, it does not happen overnight. 

Put it this way, if someone, a brand new private, was just learning the ropes of military fighting, from the time we began training them, they would have only just barely reached the stage of being a boot Noncommissioned officer.  Even our boot lieutentants and junior NCO’s have the benefit of a protective layering of senior NCO’s and Officers—all the way up to Generals and Admirals—to show them the way and keep them out of serious trouble.

The Left is just bitching to bitch.  The victories in Afghanistan and Iraq were lightning quick and at a breathtakingly-low rate of casualties.  Have you compared those campaigns to any successful US military campaign?  The Wilderness Campaign?  Battle of the Bulge? Tarawa? Iwo Jima?  Have you studied the history of warfare at any level? Crimea? The Kyber Pass?

The Left refuses to acknowledge the speed and economy of these victories and also refuses to acknowledge that, in the past, it has taken YEARS to get erstwhile enemies in a position to walk and then run.

They are pushing for defeat and are irritated to no end by any successes that we have had.

All this being said, I still think that partition of the country is the best course of action for a peaceful resolution and pacification of the area.

Even before we can accomplish this, you must acknowledge that Iraqs problems are not internal.  There are being stoked from without, as I had discussed before and, I must say, greatly simplified.

Now I have a question for you.  Instead of being so exercised about how impossible this operation is going to be, why not try rooting for Americans and her allies for once and do something FOR freedom?

What’s the hurry for US withdrawal? 

Why do you and your fellow traveler commies ache so much for Iraq’s defeat? 

Why do you agonize of the plight of poor, poor misunderstood, broken-home, cry-for-help Saddam, and how the meanie Americans yanked his chain?

Tell me this.. what is YOUR plan for victory?  Do you have one?  Or are you a one-trick pony and that one trick is just surrender?

...for great justice

This isn’t a civil war, as much as the media would like to make it out to be. This is no more than gang warfare hiding under the guise of religion or sectarian strife.

Same with the Hamas/Fatah issue. Gangs. Thugs. Homicidal animals who don’t truly represent anything but murder and mayhem, much less a real government.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim,

Thanks for fleshing out the Macro with the Micro.

The in-fighting among warlords, and that hateful bloodymindedness, as the Brits call it, has been the recurring theme of the Arab / Persian world. 

And the hot Spanish blood?  No doubt in part by a long-time infusian of Cathaginian blood from the times of ancient Rome and another 400 years of Moorish rule until driven out by El Cid, et al.

...for great justice

And the hot Spanish blood?

No dissing on Spaniards now M_Zig[-Zag smoker]. Hot blooded Spanish girls are wonderful, no matter how they got to be that way.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

The way I see it, the mideast is going to continue to be a war zone as long as time goes on. The thing that we need to concern ourselves with is fighting the terrorists on their own soil. So far we have been extremely fortunate that more attacks have not been carried out here! As far as the civil war question goes ??? What ever we call it? It is pathetic that anyone would be encouraged to strap a bomb on their back or their childs back to become a martyr? AND can someone tell me exactly Why they hate everyone so much that they want to kill us instead of trying to convert us? I just don’t get it???

Zsa Zsa,

Under Islam, from the very first days of the teachings of the Prophet, their worldview was defined by the domains of Islam (dar al Islam) and Domain of War (dar al harb) Non-believers were Kaffir or infidel.  Infidels’ lives were worth nothing.  You could kill them, seize their property, take them as slaves, rape their women.  This is their religion.  It is one based on hatred and war.  It is not a religion of peace or even peaceful coexistence, but one of eternal Jihad or holy war, against all infidel domains.

Like communism, it is a belief system of aggression.  I also don’t understand the draw that it has for American blacks because the Muslim were primary slavers of Africans and remain so to this very day.

I don’t understand any woman’s desire to become Muslim because it is based on total subservience of the female to the male.  It’s worse than that, the female is not counted as a full human and is little more than a possession for the sexual gratification of the male (as much as I agree with that premise) and in certain Islamic regions, they practice female cicumcision, infibulation, or as the Libbers call it, Female Genital Mutilation, which includes the unanethestitized (spelling?) cutting away of the labia, excision of the clitoris and the sewing shut of all but a small part of the vaginal opening.

They also practice Hadd, or the severing of body parts as punishment, such as hands and ears, nose and tongue, as well as decapitation.

But perhaps even worse than this is stoning.  Google some vids of how a stoning is conducted and what it looks like.  It’s pretty barbaric.

I am out of the service now, and have been for some time, but I can foresee the possibility that I may be called back to service.  If so, I would be eager to bust caps on these sub-humans.  Rules of Engagement?  Sorry, if they put me back there, it will be full-auto for anything that moves.

...for great justice

Islamism, Zionism, and Christian Fundamentalism seem awfully similar to one another, to a non-partisan of that particular triad.Islam and slavery do co-exist, but a Muslim cannot enslave a Muslim. That is forbidden. Christians owned Christian slaves, here in the U.S. Blacks here were interested in finding an alternative. Please understand that it was widely perceived, and there is justification for this, that Christianity was used as a way to justify or encourage the enslaved or otherwise inferior social status of blacks here in the U.S. Rejection of this particular tradition was a statement of a new freedom from the past (in sentiment if not in fact). Also, from wikipedia on Islam and slavery:

Within Islamic jurisprudence, slaves are able to occupy any office within the Islamic government, and instances of this in history include the Mamluk who ruled Egypt for almost 260 years and the Eunuchs (castrated human male) who have held military and administrative positions of note.[12]. They are also able to marry, own property, and lead the Muslim congregational prayers (the five daily ritual prayers).[13] Annemarie Schimmel, a contemporary scholar on Islamic civilization, asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war (this was soon restricted only to infidels captured in a holy war)[1] or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam.[12] [clarify]Islam’s reforms seriously limited the supply of new slaves, according to Lewis.[1] In the early days of Islam, he notes, a plentiful supply of new slaves were brought due to rapid conquest and expansion. But as the frontiers were gradually stabilized, this supply dwindled to a mere trickle. The prisoners of later wars between Muslims and Christians were commonly ransomed or exchanged.[1] Patrick Manning states that Islamic legislations against the abuse of the slaves convincingly limited the extent of slavery in Arabian peninsula and to a lesser degree for the whole area of the whole Umayyad Caliphate where slavery existed since the most ancient times. He however notes that with the passage of time and the extension of Islam, Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse. [14]

Theoretically, free-born Muslims could not be enslaved, and the only way that a non-Muslim could be enslaved was being captured in the course of holy war. [15] (In early Islam, neither a Muslim nor a Christian or Jew could be enslaved.[16]) Slavery was also perceived as a means of converting non-Muslims to Islam: A task of the masters was religious instruction. Although conversion and assimilation into the society of the master didn’t automatically lead to emancipation but there was normally some guarantee of better treatment and was deemed a prerequisite for emancipation [17]

Islamism, Zionism, and Christian Fundamentalism seem awfully similar to one another, to a non-partisan of that particular triad.

Sure...whatever there.

You can criticize two without risking death. Can you tell me which two?

I am out of the service now, and have been for some time, but I can foresee the possibility that I may be called back to service.  If so, I would be eager to bust caps on these sub-humans.  Rules of Engagement?  Sorry, if they put me back there, it will be full-auto for anything that moves.

If this is truly your attitude zoomzoom, then you have lost any opportunity for my respect, ever. Having issues with the Muslim faith is one thing (I do too), but what you are expressing is simply hatred. Shame on the everyone else here for not chastising you. I mean, you give conservatism a bad name!

CJ,

Let’s see, you quote me, but address zoomzoom.  Sounds like you’re a tad confused.

If you express disappointment with my statement of sentiments and the reasons therefore, well, that’s just peachy.  I didn’t know you were arbiter of what was conservative or not.

Does this mean you want my Conservative club ID card, iron-on and decoder whistle ring back?

Shucks.

...for great justice

I wouldn’t call it a civil war. I would call it botched.
1 - We planned the invasion for years, but gave only a few weeks to post-invasions plans. ‘Liberate and leave’ - sounds like some fucked up joke now, but its what these idiots believed.
2 - Garner was hired like a month before the war and given no budget. And he was replaced because he wasn’t in denial about the conditions on the ground there after he arrived like the rest of the Bush Admin.
3 - Naive, stupid planning and infighting between the DoD and the State Dept. caused lots of problems. Rumsfeld is an ass. Always was. Always will be. Feith and Wolfowitz are too. Grossly shitty judgment on this thing repeatedly, repeatedly.
4 - The dissolution of the army and the de-Ba’ath-ification of the country guaranteed a very strong insurgency and were questionably nec. Lots of Ba’athists were needed and yet were chased into hiding. Teachers, admin, all sorts (If you were a Ba’athist you were paid more so lots were). The Nazis were worse and we didn’t give every blondy the boot after WW2 did we?
5 - Many deadlines and attempts to hurry things along have been more political than having any relation to the reality in Iraq. Franks told 100,000 troops that, a few weeks into the conflict, they would be home within four months. Bush wanted it cleaned up for his re-election. What politicians want cannot always be made reality, even if they want it really bad.
6 - Jerk-offs stuck in the green zone watching titty-TV pumping the A/C still think a flat tax will help iron this out.
7 - The military higher-ups have all turned over like 5 times because the White House and the DoD won’t acknowledge how bad this really is. They need real troops and real effort to fix it.

It, so far, has been giant mistake after giant mistake. The White House and the DoD nec. worry everyone because one cannot tell if they actively lie about the conditions there and the recent past or if they are too far into their own dream land to even know what the reality is. Irregardless, for a population (that’s us) to have faith in their judgment or abilities at this point would be absolutely foolish. Everyone on this blog acts like the Demos are nuts to be critical of this conflict, but really, what isn’t there to be critical of? The whole thing is botched. Its botched like 10 times over, thoroughly, in every way possible, since the initial few weeks of the conflict ended. And people actually think its patriotic to support throwing more troops, money, and energy into this before we get a clear cut plan from the admin? 30,000 more troops ain’t goin to do shit at this point. C’mon. Join reality and let’s actually discuss this conflict. All I see is a bunch of idiots blowing smoke for a bunch of liars and assholes. And really, this war is pathetically botched.
I nominate myself to take over. I have a fair chance, considering Bush’s track record here. I think I can probably win the fucker compared to these morons in denial.

Does this mean you want my Conservative club ID card, iron-on and decoder whistle ring back?

You guys really have decoder whistle rings?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Irregardless, for a population (that’s us) to have faith in their judgment or abilities at this point would be absolutely foolish.

After World War 2, there were people just like you saying the same exact things. History shows us that it took a long time for things to get cleaned up in Japan and Germany. There was mistake after mistake made.

“Join reality” indeed. I’m not saying that you don’t make some good points Sparkie, but let’s keep our heads with this thing. Things are not hopeless or unwinnable.

I’m not saying that you don’t make some good points Sparkie

Let’s at least begin there and stop acting like opposition to continued escalation without a clear or even unclear plan is foolish. We need a plan and we need a backup plan. As far as I can tell we don’t even know who we are supposed to be fighting over there. Its clearly no longer simply a ‘sunni insurgency’.

Sparkie:

1 - We planned the invasion for years, but gave only a few weeks to post-invasions plans. ‘Liberate and leave’ - sounds like some fucked up joke now, but its what these idiots believed.

This is erroneous.  Detailed plans were made, some years in advance, that included purging rather than replacing the Iraqi Government and retaining the Army.  Most of the mistakes that have been made were foreseen and warned about by State Department and Pentagon reports.

The problem is that for whatever reason (no doubt political considerations), all of this planning was tossed out of the door by Rumsfeld and his bunch:

There are plenty of people on this site that admire Rumsfeld, but I personally have little regard for the man, extending back years before the invasion.  He performed during the war exactly as I expected him to.

Only a heavy-handed micromanager has the skill and arrogance to f-up a war as quickly and thoroughly as he managed to in a few short months after the war.  His first blunder being firing Garner, instead of pulling his head out of his own ass and listening to Garner like he should have.

In terms of a plan:  It’s pretty simple.  It’s not our job to fix all of the infighting amongst the Iraqi factions, it’s our job to provide enough security to keep the country intact, until (bluntly) Rumsfeld’s biggest blunder of dissolving the Iraqi Army has been fixed.  Once that is done, our role as security provider is pretty much done.  That’s the short version.

And I will disagree with a comment from Rob a bit about the lack of ongoing training of the IA.  Training of the IA is ongoing and highly successful.  Yes they look amateurish against our best, but our troops are literally the NBA of world militaries, and we’re teaching these kids to shoot hoops for the first time.  How would you expect that to look? (But what better teachers could you have?)

A link that’s making the rounds this morning (Istalaunched), from Bill Ardolino illustrates this point nicely.

Carrick
The purge of the Iraqi military had mainly to do with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Bremer. Before they pruged it they had 10,000 MPs and over 200,000 troops that could be ready within a month (the MPs within a week). After they got rid of the existant military in Iraq, they had 300,00ish armed, unemployed Sunnis. D’oh indeed. Even as late as a week before the invasion, briefings with the President and the State Dept made specific mantion of their intent to retain the Iraqi forces.
Moreover, even if you get rid of the armed Ba’athists and the gov’t types, retain the rest. Keep the teachers and the gov’t employees who were only Ba’athists to preserve their skin or to make an extra buck or two.

Sparkie, I’ve not seen an exact explanation of how that decision was made, but I’m pretty sure it preceded Bremer.  As I understand events (which could be flawed), Gardner was relieved of duty over exactly this point.  Bremer came in and pretty much acted like a “yes man” to senior Pentagon officials.

The irony of real life, a military man is relieved because he refuses to follow orders, and a civilian replaces him, because he knows how.

Move Zig...I did not know the Muslims were into that kind of sadistic stuff. I can’t imagine why it has become so popular either??? BUT that does explain alot about why Radical Islam is so full of hate. It is almost like that spirit of hate is catchy in that part of the world? I keep thinking we need to conjure up a batch of antdepressants in the water or something to make them happier??? It must be pretty miserable to be that way?

As I understand events Garner was relieved of duty over exactly this.  Bremer pretty much acted like a “yes man” to senior Pentagon officials.

Yea. Feith and Wolfowitz made a big push for the purge of the military.
Garner thought, ‘their all nuts. what do they know from their office in the pentagon? all hell will break loose.’
Bremer became their ‘yes man’ but only for a while until it became unclear whether he should be listening to Rummy or Rice, at which point he kind of just did whatever he wanted until it was resolved and then he began reporting more to Rice.
I think Feith and Wolfowitz, whose families were both dessimated by the holocaust, drew a little to close an analogy between the Nazis and the Ba’athists. While Saddam admired the Nazi party’s control, I’m not sure the analogue should have been taken as far. Its now clear (ah retrospect) that retaining some of the Iraqi military would have been a good thing to do.
Its also remains to be determined if the new Iraqi military, comprised mostly of Shi’ites, is capable of being neutral in the way it needs to be. I personally think it could use a little diversity (more Sunnis and Kurds). Time will tell.

Zsa Zsa wrote:

Move Zig...I did not know the Muslims were into that kind of sadistic stuff. I can’t imagine why it has become so popular either??? BUT that does explain alot about why Radical Islam is so full of hate. It is almost like that spirit of hate is catchy in that part of the world?

My dear, I am sorry, but I cannot answer as to the reason why.  Perhaps it is more important to those in the West—who have grown up in a protected, pink fuzzy bunny world that it exists.

I’ve looked but cannot find the thread I started [Now that they have their own country Iranians say Yanks are fair game], responding to Iranian threats to abduct, torture and decapitate Americans worldwide by giving a nutshell history of the Middle East’s murderous ways, dating back to the days of ancient Persia, through to the present.  It seems that the religion was suited to a pre-existing mindset.  Their methods of taking hostages, decapitation and torture are something they have done as long as there has been recorded history.

Who knows, maybe its something in the water.

I can’t vouch for all these links.  Many seem to have an agenda.  But any agenda stopping the practices complained of, is okay by me.

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC CONDEMNS A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL TO STONING

What is stoning and how it is carried out?

Sharia: Militant “Islamic” Justice

RAJM(STONING) FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN SHARIAH

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM

Wikipedia

FGM in Sudan

Manya Mabika: more than 100 million women in Africa and Asia have been subject to female genital mutilation, and the United States has recognized fear of this practice as a ground for asylum

...for great justice

Point of order:

Notice Puzzle hasn’t responded with a plan for victory in Iraq.  I guess Puzz’s only plan is for defeat.

Sparkie: yes, we DO have Conservative Decoder Whistlerings.  If you weren’t such a hippe (even if you do like TRANCE), you’d have one too.

Reason enough to come in from the Cold, hey?

...for great justice