So says William E. Odom in a thought provoking article chalk full of myth refuting zingers in Sunday’s Washington Post. It’s unlikely to convince those who see withdrawal from Iraq as the triumph of liberal pansiness but its appeal to common sense is articulated clearly and its points will undoubtedly be raised often in the next year or two.
It’s not about liberal pansiness, Mike. It’s about not returning to a time when tyranny in the middle east was tolerated for the sake of stability, and the only thing we ever did about it was issue UN resolution after ineffective UN resolution.
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:
Mike,
The four myths appear to be part of the problem here.
1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon.
Odom’s conclusion that this situation “already exists” is without adequate support. Why is the current situation no worse than what will follow?
2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran’s influence from growing in Iraq.
Odom’s answer to this dilemma at least seems to have a semblance of logic. But, only concludes #2 is absurd because of Iran’s support for Shiites. That’s it? That is all that is needed to extend Iran’s influence? The concern over Iran’s influence goes well beyond this.
3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Odom then concludes:
“Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.”
That al-Qaeda is in Iraq is not a bad thing if we are killing them there. As we have discussed before, the only thing keeping them there is our presence, and once were gone we can expect to see them on our soil. There is a difference between killing terrorists in Iraq, and Iraq becoming a safe haven and source of revenue and resources.
4) We must continue to fight in order to “support the troops.”
This is a myth alright, but only because it is a straw man. No one is arguing this. We must continue to support the troops because they are fighting on our behalf. We do not fight to support the troops, rather we supports the troops so they might more valiantly fight.
HG, did you notice that our two foremost defeatist liberals posted on this same article today? Puzzle posted it earlier today as well.
I guess there’s nothing like abject pessimism to get these libs excited.
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:
True, nothing gets Liberals more “hot and bothered” than the sheer abject failure of evil conservatives and their horribly bad ideas.
[sarcasm]
No, really! We have 100% atheist orgies celebrating conservative failures (more to come soon with any luck)! When we finish up we smoke Cuban cigars and touch children inappropriately! Then we write in our magical atheist journals conjuring new ways to destroy the status-quo and further the socialist/communist/terrorist/democratic agenda!
[/sarcasm]
Actually, across the board, we have a couple of beers and have a nice celebrative fuck.
How do you guys celebrate Liberal failures? Cower in a Church with a gun praying to Jesus and praising God for all the “stuff” “He” has provided for you so you can absently continue to destroy the world with horrible foreign policy set by nazi organizations like ”The Project for the New American Century”(among other things)?
How do you guys celebrate Liberal failures? Cower in a Church with a gun praying to Jesus and praising God for all the “stuff” “He” has provided for you...
Rob is an atheist you assuming fool.
...nazi organizations like ”The Project for the New American Century”(among other things)?
The left’s attempt to distance themselves from their brethren by claiming that the socialist Nazi party is anywhere near conservatives is transparent and pathetic.
Hey Mo, this gun-toting conservative Republican doesn’t believe in any gods.
And I voted against banning gay marriage in North Dakota.
Maybe you need to quit stereotyping everybody.
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:
lilKidshoe:
Rob is an atheist you assuming fool.
I know this, I can read the main page.
Being an atheist, I’m more concerned about what Obama’s tax policies
I was baiting fools like you. Is it not presumptuous to assume I was limiting my statement to Rob? (btw: way to go Rob)
I was baiting fools like you. Is it not presumptuous to assume I was limiting my statement to Rob?
You’re baiting an agnostic like me by insulting Christianity?
That’s funny.
lilkidshoe:
You bit. I win. Get my point?
You bit. I win. Get my point?
Wait a minute...you say this one minute and this the next?
Oh man. That’s classic!
our two foremost defeatist liberals
Rob.
Thanks for excluding me from that category.
Mo:
I was baiting fools like you
You are such a little child.
The thing I don’t get is why liberals want to lose so badly. I mean, if they spent as much time thinking about how we can win as they do trying to lose, we might actually come up with new creative ideas for dealing with the situation there.
Instead, we have a situation with a bunch of naysayers who mistake their ingrained cynicism for skepticism. As I’ve said before, the two things are very different. Skepticism is a sign of a healthy intellect. Cynicism simply demonstrates a closed mind.
HG, did you notice that our two foremost defeatist liberals posted on this same article today?
Rob,
I missed that one. I’m still waiting for Puzzle to admit defeat and retreat like liberals demand America do. After all, if any effort has been a failure, it has been the liberal’s. Not one soldier has come home, not one penny cut, not one time-table accepted, not one effort de-escalated. On the contrary, the effort is ratcheting up, 21,500 more boots on the ground, troops efforts less restrained, and all this in light of the anti-war efforts and last election. Poor, poor libs need to follow their own demand for surrender and go home.
HG,
Not to be tiresome or pedantic, but that should be 43,000 boots on the ground, I believe. Better I do it, than Puzzlefeet.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
I was baiting fools like you
Ah! Ever the master baiter!
For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.
Frederick W. Kagan
...chalk (sic) full of myth refuting zingers…
MikeA,
Please tell me that an article’s “zinger” content is NOT the basis on which you judge the viability of various public policy prescriptions. I know that what most folks consider to be rational thought is much more emotion-based among those of you on the Left, but even still, is this really the impression you wanted to create?
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
I mean, if they spent as much time thinking about how we can win as they do trying to lose, we might actually come up with new creative ideas for dealing with the situation there.
Bingo! Its true. Who knows what they’d come up with.
I think they feel their role, in our representative democracy, is to take the wishes of the masses to heart. If the job wasn’t so horribly botched from the getgo by micromanaging and infighting, I think we would see an entirely different stance from the Dems and many of the moderate citizenry. Obviously the Dems would still seek out details with which to differentiate themselves, such is the nature of the beast, but they would probably be much more, “in it to win it”.
I am curious, just what was Bill Odom’s learned advice for handling this problem when it was tiny, in the ‘70s and ‘80s? Exactly what was his position the hour after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beriut? Was he the man calling for immediate withdrawal, or was he the one pushing to hunt down and kill the terrorist organisation that did it?
In 1991, when the drugrunning thugs who became the Taleban began killing all the moderate, secular leaders in Afghanistan, what was Bill Odom’s professional military intell opinion?
Just curious.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
HG asks
Why is the current situation no worse than what will follow?
I assume it’s because the withdrawal of American troops removes one of the few deterrents to the sectarian violence. You are right that one has to speculate what Iraq will look like after the Americans leave but I don’t think that a state of increased violence is far fetched.
HG
Odom’s answer to this dilemma at least seems to have a semblance of logic. But, only concludes #2 is absurd because of Iran’s support for Shiites. That’s it? That is all that is needed to extend Iran’s influence? The concern over Iran’s influence goes well beyond this.
I’m not sure who else Iran has influence with other than the Shiites. I suppose some non-Shia individuals could support Iran’s interests in Iraq but surely those would be isolated cases.
HG
That al-Qaeda is in Iraq is not a bad thing if we are killing them there. As we have discussed before, the only thing keeping them there is our presence, and once were gone we can expect to see them on our soil.
If al-Qaeda existed only in Iraq then I might concede your point but I think most everyone is satisfied that this is not the case. I won’t deny that the al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq would have more freedom to move around post-withdrawal although I also imagine they’ll be busy fighting Shiites.
HG
We must continue to support the troops because they are fighting on our behalf. We do not fight to support the troops, rather we supports the troops so they might more valiantly fight.
I think you’re right but if the fight is wrong or misplaced then it should be stopped. The decision to fight or not is a political one and the sooner American leadership acknowledges that continued presence in Iraq is misguided then the sooner the larger issues can be addressed.
I appreciate your comments.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. - Madison
This quote from Federalt no. 10 says a lot about the situation in which we find ourselves. However, the quaifier “that where no substantial occasion presents itself” is present today, but yet has not tempered our leaders passions so as to unite around our mutual interest—national security. It seems there is nothing sacred, nothing that will not be sacrificed to achieve and secure pesonal and political interests.
Yesteday, my brother-in-law, father-in-law an myself discussed this and what seems to be the disillusion that follows. While we could recall times when things looked bad, and were bad, this sort of self-serving politics seem measurably greater accross the political spectrum. Both relatives pointed to the culture of thee 60’s and 70’s as the turning point. Personally, I see the trend toward socialism and socialist policies explains much in light of .
“Madison’s words” my apologies.
Rob...I did miss PF’s post and i apologise for boring you. 
Carrick...I don’t know why conservatives can’t admit when strategic errors have been made and that a point can be reached when losses are cut short. Either Iraq is so important that we should be thinking in terms of a permanent presence or we think of what the Middle East looks like post-Saddam and post-withdrawal and act in our best interests.
Bat One...thanks for the correction. I found this article interesting and am suitable chastened. “Zingers” is a stretch I’ll admit but it’s jazzier than “points” and so I invoke artistic license.
2H9
I am curious, just what was Bill Odom’s learned advice for handling this problem when it was tiny, in the ‘70s and ‘80s?
No idea...I wonder what he thought of Iran-Contra?
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
If al-Qaeda existed only in Iraq then I might concede your point but I think most everyone is satisfied that this is not the case.
Mike A,
True, but the fact Iraq is a “magnet” for al-Qaeda, and the fact that they are not fighting on our soil is one reason not to leave and continue to fight them in Iraq. As long as we are there it is also likely they will not attack America merely for political reasons. Terrorists have waged a successful propoganda campaign and any attack on America while we are in Iraq would likely unravel their words and turn public opinion against their effort—if nowhere else, at least in America.
I appreciate your comments.
You’re welcome, Mike.
Carrick...I don’t know why conservatives can’t admit when strategic errors have been made and that a point can be reached when losses are cut short.
I don’t know why liberals can’t admit that if we leave Iraq there is going to be chaos and bloodshed that makes what is going on now look like a walk in the park. I also don’t know why you liberals can’t recognize what a perceived loss in Iraq (and that’s what it will be if we leave) will do to America’s national security, and the security of the west in general.
Do you really think we can fall back to nothing but UN diplomacy and expect to be protected from the tyranny and terrorism of the middle east?
Honestly, Mike. Get a clue. Nobody is saying the war has gone perfect. What we’re saying is that we should be looking for ways to win in Iraq. Not ways to lose.
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:
Mike, he was involved. Ollie North worked directly for Odom. I believe Colin Powell was on Odom’s staff also.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I wonder what he thought of Iran-Contra?
MikeA,
Of equal interest, since Odom was the Military Assistant to NSA Bzrzinski during the Carter years, would be the General’s take on Jimmy Carter’s abject betrayal of the Shah which resulted in the Mullah-controlled Islamist Republic who ideology and quest for nuclear weapons now troubles the region, and also led to embassy takeover and the Iran-Contra “scandal” you glibly refer to.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Rob
I also don’t know why you liberals can’t recognize what a perceived loss in Iraq (and that’s what it will be if we leave) will do to America’s national security, and the security of the west in general.
If it is so vital then why go through the charade of establishing benchmarks for Iraqi performance if there is no way the troops can leave til victory is achieved?
2H9...it’s a small world after all.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
MikeA: I guess for you, common sense=cowardice. Not for me.
Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
r108...when all else fails there’s nothing like a good personal attack.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
MikeA:
Carrick...I don’t know why conservatives can’t admit when strategic errors have been made and that a point can be reached when losses are cut short. Either Iraq is so important that we should be thinking in terms of a permanent presence or we think of what the Middle East looks like post-Saddam and post-withdrawal and act in our best interests.
Best interests? Who in the world has the US’s best interests at heart? Canada has been sitting on its thumbs and twiddling, so I know you don’t mean them when you say “us”. And what about the best interests of the Iraqi people? We’re to neglect them, just as we (the world) has Sudan and a dozen other countries.
In any case, the problem is not that mistakes have been made. Hell, even Bush has admitted to that by now. Inevitably, though, they happen in a war. I think it could have been handled much better, but the worst thing we can do is precipitously withdraw (like we did in Vietnam due to the duck-and-cover Democrats in 1974).
I dare to say that if we withdrew like you are advocating, then you will get the occasion to see what a full-blown civil war looks like, and will no longer have a problem distinguishing it from the sectarian strife going on right now. I figure minimum 2,000,000 deaths in the full scale conflict repleat with ancillary genocide and ethnic cleansing. Followed naturally by UN peacekeepers headed by the US.
So why are you so gung ho to just give up? What makes you so sure we can’t win?
And long term, what makes you so sure we’re planning on leaving? We’re not really planning on leaving, we just want to turn over the security of Iraq to its people, and get our troops off their streets. I figure even if we “gave up” prematurely, there’d still be a US presence there. (And I figure 98% of the Democrats calling for a “withdrawal” know this too.)
r108...when all else fails there’s nothing like a good personal attack.
Sorry, Mike, but what I said wasn’t about you; it was just eimple logic. It’s not my job to protect your feelings. When you submit an article entitled: “Victory is Not an Option” and call running away “common sense”, it’s not a hard call. Sorry if you took it personally. I meant it would be cowardice for us to run away from Iraq. I don’t confuse that with common sense.
Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
r108...no harm done. I really don’t take it personally but rather I’m gently mocking those who equate negative assessments of their opinions with personal attacks. You’re certainly entitled to say that “I guess for you, common sense=cowardice.” just as I’m entitled to say that for you, finishing the fight=hubris.
Carrick...I’m working from the position that the problem of terrorism is global rather than exclusively American. Canada is serving in Afghanistan and simply because it declined to involve itself in the Iraqi boondoggle doesn’t mean it is twiddling its thumbs. I do feel badly for the people in Iraq and I feel that America and its partners do have an obligation to make things right but on the other hand the horses have escaped the barn and I’m not sure what use there is in closing the door now. I’m afraid that a long term American presence in Iraq only serves the terrorist cause or I’d be more inclined to urge America to stay.
You ask why I don’t think you can win...how could anyone win when the game keeps changing? This isn’t 2003 anymore.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Mike, is Canada going to supply the peacekeepers to replace American troops when we withdraw? Does Canada have 250,000 troops, the number the UN says it will take to “pacify” the Kurds and Shi’a so that Sunnis can regain control of the region. For you know that all belongs to the Sunnis, the Shi’a and Kurds are inconsequential minorities, too lazy and stupid to actually run their own lives.
Is Canada ready to step up?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Of course not. The best course would seem to be Middle Eastern states reining in their Iraqi clients followed up by some sort of Middle Eastern force to maintain order. I don’t know if its doable and we may be forced to witness the mayhem many predict.
It’s just too bad that we’ve reached this point and hopefully a new Administration can come to grips with reality and the world won’t have to worry about future misadventures.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
The bottom line is, withdrawal from Iraq is not a meaningful option.
If you do the calculus properly, the threat that is posed by US troop presence in Iraq due to creation of new terrorists is actually very minor. We can see this by looking at the number of foreign fighters in the insurgency. By most accounts they amount to about 5% of the total. Iraq for all the talk of the fanatics isn’t that big a draw for terrorists. Joining al Qaeda in Iraq is a bit like joining the Suicide Club (it was a great idea, but the membership kept dropping off).
Of the Iraqis in the insurgency, most of them would go join the ethnic militias if we left. Many of them are former Ba’athists, and we can be assured they have no interest in a stable multiethnic governmetn.
So leaving doesn’t fix much of anything with respect to the insurgency. As anybody whose actually researched insurgencies in the past, most of them, even with funding have about a 10-year life cycle. That’s a while to wait, but I’ll point out that the pattern of insurgent violence is much more regionalized now than it was in 2004 (the point where the insurgency really started being effective at killing unarmed civilians, and gave up on resisting the US troops directly). Factually things have improved with respect to the insurgency, while the real threat to Iraqi and regional stability, sectarian violence, has gotten worse.
Your arguments that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorist is simply wrong. To be more precise, it’s a dying ground for them. And even then, it’s not even a significant piece of the strategic puzzle.
Secondly, the sectarian violence in Iraq (the largest component of violence in Iraq now) is not there because of US troop presence by in spite of it. As you have argued in the past (unknowingly undercutting your own position), the sectarian violence is rooted in the repression of non -Sunni ethnic groups during the Saddam regime.
So we aren’t causing the sectarian strife, but we are acting as a stabilizing force. Arguing that leaving would reduce the ethnic violence is just foolish.
Iraq would descend into a civil war and there would be wide spread anarchy. We got where we are in 2001 from ignoring the terrorist breeding grounds in Afghanistan.
Your proposal for withdrawal frankly is to replace a marginal threat from terrorism generated by US presence in Iraq, and replacing it with another fertile terrorist training ground. It is to give a legitimacy to al Qaeda in Iraq that they lack now. It is to replace a stable government with ethnic factions and infighting. It is to replace an Iraq where all of the problems are internal, to where most of them threaten regional stability.
In other words, your solution amounts to the Talibanization of Iraq.
And that frankly is crackers.
Carrick said
If you do the calculus properly, the threat that is posed by US troop presence in Iraq due to creation of new terrorists is actually very minor. We can see this by looking at the number of foreign fighters in the insurgency. By most accounts they amount to about 5% of the total.
I agree that relatively few Iraqis have much interest in global jihad these days as those that might be so disposed are likely busy slugging it out in sectarian fighting. It kind of makes me wonder why the “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” argument still carries the weight it does.
Factually things have improved with respect to the insurgency, while the real threat to Iraqi and regional stability, sectarian violence, has gotten worse.
I think you’re right.
Your arguments that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorist is simply wrong.
I don’t think that Iraq is so much a breeding ground for terrorists as it is a situation for discontented Arabs to rally around. The potential terrorist recruit in Jordan or Yemen or wherever sees America seemingly stuck in Iraq and buys into the jihadist story that America is ultimately impotent in the face of jihadist resistance.
the sectarian violence in Iraq (the largest component of violence in Iraq now) is not there because of US troop presence by in spite of it.
The sectarian violence was largely suppressed under Saddam...with the exception of his own brutality of course. The present violence was foreseen as a possibility with the toppling of Saddam and virtually assured through the lack of post-Saddam planning on the part of the occupiers.
Arguing that leaving would reduce the ethnic violence is just foolish.
Yup...and if you can find someone that disagrees then I’ll tell him that too.
Your proposal for withdrawal frankly is to replace a marginal threat from terrorism generated by US presence in Iraq, and replacing it with another fertile terrorist training ground.
My proposal for withdrawal is based on the premises that WMD is no longer an issue, that a democratic government has been elected and that continued presence can at best maintain the status quo. If that is acceptable to Americans then stay by all means but I don’t believe that the present course will resolve the problems that Iraqis face nor does it do anything to combat global jihadism.
I have the distinct feeling that you’re arguing against points that I’m not making.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Mike:
The sectarian violence was largely suppressed under Saddam...with the exception of his own brutality of course.
Iraq had no history of sectarian strife before Saddam. Before the Ba’athists, Iraq was a multiethnic country with a high degree of tolerance of the various groups that had literally been living harmoniously together for thousands of years. It’s very Staliinistic of you to say it was “largely suppressed”. The entire problem was created by his brutality, and by the willingness of the rest of the world to tolerate his illegitimate regime.
The present violence was foreseen as a possibility with the toppling of Saddam and virtually assured through the lack of post-Saddam planning on the part of the occupiers.
Your finger must get sore.... you use it to point at others to blame so often.
Actually the blunders in the post-occupation had nothing to do with it. And technically there was good planning. Rumsfeld and crew just tossed out all o the detailed work, and did things ad hoc.l
The sectarian violence was destined to occur, once Saddam’s regime crumbled, regardless of why it crumbled. There is very little we could have done to in terms of planning to have stopped the sectarian violence: This is entirely an Iraqi problem. The best we can do is continue to provide security, and hope the sides can learn to live with each other again. The problem is that the totalitarian regime had been in place so long, than many people weren’t born in more tolerant times.
Finally, I’m arguing towards the point that withdrawal from Iraq would be even a worse blunder than invading it was. I’m pretty sure that’s addressing your points.
As I said, we withdraw, we get another Afghanistan-styled terrorist breeding ground. I’m pretty sure that addresses the question of global jihadism, which as I said, gained its momentum by allowing the anarchical situation in Afghanistan to exist during the ‘90s.
Your proposal is very narrow sighted and fails to address the very much worse ramifications of a precipitous withdrawal, compared to the less significant problems associated with our continued presence there.
Global jihdaism isn’t the only problem in the Middle East, but even in that narrow scope, your proposed withdrawal would be an unmitigated disaster.
The entire problem was created by his brutality, and by the willingness of the rest of the world to tolerate his illegitimate regime.
Then how does one explain Sunni/Shiite violence and/or tension in other Arab states? If bad feelings between the two sides were limited to Iraq then you might have something but it’s a fundamental source of tension throughout the region.
There is very little we could have done to in terms of planning to have stopped the sectarian violence: This is entirely an Iraqi problem.
I’m sorry but if you topple a regime and occupy a country then you have responsibility for maintaining order. Not that the Iraqis shouldn’t step up but to claim this as an entirely Iraqi problem is pointing your finger at others to blame them.
Your proposal is very narrow sighted and fails to address the very much worse ramifications of a precipitous withdrawal, compared to the less significant problems associated with our continued presence there.
Maybe...choosing from bad options is never pleasant but I can’t help but feel that the sooner America is out the better for everyone.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Mike:
Then how does one explain Sunni/Shiite violence and/or tension in other Arab states? If bad feelings between the two sides were limited to Iraq then you might have something but it’s a fundamental source of tension throughout the region.
With all due respect, we’re talking about Iraq, not other states. The historical record of Iraq and tolerance of multiple ethnic groups is clear. It was Saddam and the ethnic intolerance inherent in Ba’athism that has flamed the fuel here.
But if you want to know, long term for the region, the problem with ethnic strife in the region has to do with the way the boundaries were drawn up by Britain as ratified in the 1922 Treaty of Cairo. See A Peace to end all peace for how that contributed. Briefly the problem is that the modern boundaries were drawn up to encompass at least three different ethnic groups.
The thought was if you did it this way, the groups would squabble with each other, and you’d never have to worry about them bothering you. The analogy that is usually given is king of the hill. If you have two people playing, the bigger person aways wins. But with three, unless you have a 200-lb gorilla, any two can always topple whoever is on top. Tripartate systems, such as implemented in the Middle East and in Africa, are guaranteed to create long-term strife.
I’m sorry but if you topple a regime and occupy a country then you have responsibility for maintaining order.
That’s an argument for staying… and one I agree with.
Not that the Iraqis shouldn’t step up but to claim this as an entirely Iraqi problem is pointing your finger at others to blame them.
Well, you’re the resident expert on finger pointing. You like to blame all of the world’s problems on the United States and George Bush.
In this case, the blame quite clearly belongs with the previous regime, and with the immoral stance of the world that we will stand by and tolerate illegitimate regimes, just like we did during the Rwanda ethnic cleansings.
On the one hand, yes the United States has a role to play here, and they are. On the other, your logic is entirely circular here. You start by first admitting that there are established ethnic problems in Iraq (which in the past you’ve gone to the extent of arguing that Iraqis are incapable of self-governing), then blaming the United State’s post-war planning for that ethnic strife.
Pray tell, how are we to stop people from fighting each other? It’s like trying to break up a fight, you end up becoming a target for both sides (which is what is happening here to an extent).
Maybe...choosing from bad options is never pleasant but I can’t help but feel that the sooner America is out the better for everyone.
Well, you’ve yet to make a case for it, that comes close to addressing any of the obvious problems with an immediate withdrawal.
Like I said, your solution is the Talibanization of Iraq. Not much of a solution to anything in my book, but great fodder for future finger pointing at the US, I’m sure.
Carrick
It was Saddam and the ethnic intolerance inherent in Ba’athism that has flamed the fuel here.
Which is different than
“The entire problem was created by his brutality, and by the willingness of the rest of the world to tolerate his illegitimate regime.”
Similarly, I don’t find America responsible for the entire Middle Eastern situation but some policies have exacerbated the troubles there...just as some UN dithering has no doubt exacerbated others.
I hope the recent Saudi moderation of the Hamas/Fatah dispute proves a successful model for future regionally based initiatives for Middle Eastern problems...I’m not terribly optimistic but until America regains some legitimacy in the area then it may be what we have to pin our hopes on.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
The first sentence is a more explanatory version of “his brutality”. I thought it was obvious from the context.
In my opinion, there really is absolutely zero hope for a resolution of the Palestinian problem, until Syria and Iran quit funding the extremist groups. With all of the funding in the hands of the extremists, moderates have very little chance to effect any change in that society.
MikeA: I’m sure that the rest of the world thought it would be “common sense” to ignore what Adolf Hitler wrote in “Mein Kampf” when he started to acquire political power, and no doubt the German Jews thought it would be “common sense” to quietly comply when Hitler took their weapons and their property and herded them into ghettos. It was common sense, to be sure, when Jimmy Carter withdrew support from the Shah and handed Iran over to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and it was also thought to be common sense when Carter didn’t immediately use military force to rescue the hostages. It was also common sense when the Dem Congress threatened to cut off funding for taking out Saddam in 1991, and for Clinton to ignore all the acts of Islamic terrorism and the rise of OBL and Al Qaeda during the Nineties. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with common sense; I just don’t think appeasement, retreat and cowardice in the face of evil is anything resembling “common sense”. That’s the long version of what I wrote before.
If you think we either can’t or shouldn’t win in Iraq, that is your right, but please don’t call it “common sense”, OK?
Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
Carrick...I understand what you’re saying and I agree that the extremist groups have to removed as options available to those discontented with the current regimes in the Middle East...how to accomplish that is really the line that divides us. I appreciate your comments as you always keep me on my toes.
r108...common sense tells me when I’m playing euchre that I either go big or go home and the same is true in war. If America wanted to overthrow Saddam and establish a democratic beach head in the Arab world then it should have gone big and not sent a force too undermanned for the job. Common sense tells me that Americans do not like spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to keep sectarian factions from killing each other off in a country half way around the world and I doubt that they’ll rally behind an effort to dedicate the resources required to achieve the goals now or in the future.
You’ve conflated the war on terror with the occupation of Iraq and with the apparent failure of the latter you’ve set us farther back on the former. I feel badly for the people of Iraq but the point comes when we have to forget about the mistakes your Administration has made and get back on track. We have to get the terrorists AND we have to get the people of the Middle East on the side of moderation and freedom. Your approach won’t get it done...unless you go big and remove the current regimes, establish governments friendly to the west and enforce that friendliness through occupation and patron/client relationships.
Do you think the people of America will go for that? Common sense tells me they won’t which means you’re stuck with solving the problem using the complete array of political instruments available, including military action where appropriate. You call it cowardice and appeasement, I call it common sense.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
r108...common sense tells me when I’m playing euchre that I either go big or go home and the same is true in war.
Actually, superior force and perseverance are the key to winning a war(Battle of the Bulge, for instance). If we had cut and run from France after the D-Day disasters and the Battle of the Bulge disaster, the world would look and sound different today. Your recitation of the leftie talking points about mistakes just isn’t relevant to today’s situation. Mistakes were made; let’s move on, to quote the Clinton administration. No matter what has gone before, if we retreat, we lose, and you don’t want to live in that world, even though you are in the dreamworld that says the terrorists really aren’t that bad, that all they want is _____(fill in the blank) and they will be satisfied.(Neville Chamberlain). Won’t happen, dude.
If the lefties in this country would stop using the war for political gain and pull together for America to win, you wouldn’t have those political talking points. The Dems should be ashamed of themselves.
Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
No matter what has gone before, if we retreat, we lose, and you don’t want to live in that world, even though you are in the dreamworld that says the terrorists really aren’t that bad, that all they want is ____(fill in the blank) and they will be satisfied.(Neville Chamberlain).
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think the terrorists aren’t all that bad...that is a point that we obviously agree on. Where we disagree is whether or not the world ends when America withdraws from Iraq and whether non-military approaches constitute appeasement. We have other differences of course but that’s my broad distillation from where I sit.
If the lefties in this country would stop using the war for political gain and pull together for America to win, you wouldn’t have those political talking points.
If the righties in your country would recognise that the Iraqi campaign demonstrates a gross misallocation of time and resources then we could get down to the business of addressing terrorism’s menace.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think the terrorists aren’t all that bad...that is a point that we obviously agree on. Not really; you have stated that you think terrorism can be dealt with by law enforcement and negotiation; quite a bit different from my view, therefore, no agreement at all. Where we disagree is whether or not the world ends when America withdraws from Iraq… Of course, I never said any such thing; what I said was that you wouldn’t want to live in that world, not that it would end. Hyperbole from you.
...the Iraqi campaign demonstrates a gross misallocation of time and resources then we could get down to the business of addressing terrorism’s menace.
This is so wrong, I scarcely know where to start; perhaps this evening. I’m starting a new business, and my days in front of the computer are quite limited. Bye for now.
Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:
It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
Not really; you have stated that you think terrorism can be dealt with by law enforcement and negotiation; quite a bit different from my view, therefore, no agreement at all.
This will come as little surprise to the faithful observer of our discussions but the fact is that I’ve never stated that...you’re confusing my recognition of the need to use law enforcement and negotiation among other instruments and strategies with limiting our strategies to just those two things. It’s a common theme in your comments.
I also note that I say we’re in agreement that the terrorists are bad and you respond with a misstatement of what approaches I think we need to take. If we’re not in agreement that the terrorists are bad then you must think they are good...are you sure that’s what you think?
Good luck with the new business.
Hyperbole from you.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
