Say Anything Blog

Ok fine R108, let’s not pay any attention to the ISG. We’ll pay attention to the new SECDEF, ‘we’re not winning” Bob Gates, is that ok?

P: The message of this post is to point out the lack of military expertise and experience among the members of the ISG, which provides a context for the value of their conclusions.
If you want to change the subject to Gates, what he really said was that we are winning militarily, but not in an overall sense, which I took to mean “politically”.  The former is a matter of tactics, strategy and men/materiel, the latter is about propaganda.
You certainly don’t need my approval for your lack of focus on the subject matter.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

P: In addition, I wanted to point out that the guy from ABC(a member of your beloved MSM) was actually doing his job there, which is to “speak truth to power” with the ISG.  He was supporting “the people’s right to know” how qualified the ISG is to speak on the subject.  Nice going, ABC!  That’s one.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I was thinking the exact same thing tonight driving home.

Why the “f” would anyone listen to these lawyers on a matter they know squat about.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Could it be this is what happens when leadership is not up to the task?  You get a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks?

R108,

Kudos!  Yours is the most significant question yet asked about the Iraq Study Group Report.  Whatever else Iraq may be, it is still a military situation to be resolved, ultimately, by military means.

Have a good weekend!

Could it be this is what happens when leadership is not up to the task?  You get a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks?

Sounds like a good description of the winners of the last congressional election, in both cases.  Their leadership is now an issue, and they have been Monday Morning Quarterbacks for six years now, and for three years on the Iraq war alone.  Good point.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Bat: Thanks for the kudos, and they should also go to the ABC News guy who did his job for once.  He asked the tough questions, and upheld the people’s right to know how little the ISG knows about war.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It is good(and unusual) for someone from the MSM to actually ask an important question of these often overpaid blowhards who possess very little actual knowledge.

The military is sweet at winning wars. We have seen that they are extremely sucky at all else… post-war scenarios, security, et cetera. I believe this is an attempt to gain non-military opinions on how to address the political, ethnic, humanitarian, and other considerations that need to be addressed so that we can win the war without just bombing the shit out of everything. We need non-military input in a major way here - whether some of us like it or not, diplomacy now seems to be part of the key to resolving what’s going on here. Whether or not the military is capable of killing every disgruntled duide in Iraq right now should be second to suggestions on how to make these people less disgruntled.
However, I do think that lots of the efforts of the MSM have stigmatized and maginalized military advice that must be kept in mind concurrently with other potential vilence-reducing ideas. ...For the same reason judges keep in ind how many beds are available in prison at any given point in time, the ISG must keep military advice and considerations in mind in an analagous manner in order to know what our military capabilites and limitations are.

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

Sparkie,

Your close.  However, it is not that the military lacks the ability to secure and stabalize Iraq.  Rather, it is the leadership which lacks the will to allow the military to secure and stabalize Iraq.

HG
Nice try. The leadership became involved well after the military’s responsibilities in that vein were neglected. The looting of civil infrastructure significantly hampered the post-invasion efforts to control the situation.
Perhaps what you say is true at this point in time. I was referring to the previous situations that are causal ancestors of the current scenario.

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

Sparkie,

Not that the leadership became involved, rather that the leadership restricted our military efforts.  We got caught in a hide-and-go seek game with terrorists and insurgents where every mosque, cemetary, and risk to a civilian were ‘safe’.  It was a compassionate effort at best.

HG
You totally overlook the fact that those type of attacks (on or in a mosque for example), while potentially successful, can conflagrate ill feelings in a certain area and increase violence.

And your criticism in the first comment is different than the second. Are you talking about after we installed a government in Iraq? Yes. The leaders are now inhibiting the military. If you are talking about immediately post invasion when we still had chances to do some preventative security work then obviously the feelings of the non-existant leaders don’t matter. You are being unclear.

Call it compassionate if you want, but having some ethics on the battlefield can make the difference when we are talking about turning normal Iraqi citizens into insurgents instead of making them feel more secure and earning their trust and aid.

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

Sparkie: Let’s secure the victory first, then turn things over to the politicos.  Duh
The ISG is attempting to cause defeat, which is trespassing on the military’s domain.  Duh again.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Let’s secure the victory first, then turn things over to the politicos.  Duh

This meme is BS - we’ve been over it before. There are political underpinnings of the violence that must be addressed before we can expect it to subside and before we can expect a military victory - Period.

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

Sparkie,

I am talking about US leadership post-invasion.  It was US leadership that thought we could win a game of hide-and-go seek with terrorists and insurgents who know the territory and wear civilian camo. 

Ethics in war do not mean that mosques, cemetaries, and civilian casualties make terrorists ‘safe’ from our attacks in time of war.  It is absurd and a late 20th century phenomenon.  It takes a strong hand to reign in violence, not a reluctance to engage for fear of what some might think or do.

There are political underpinnings of the violence That is not the same thing as allowing political propaganda to affect our military effort towards victory. that must be addressed before we can expect it to subside and before we can expect a military victory - Period.  Waiting for something to “subside” is the exact opposite of military victory.  Duh.

Your nonsensical statement is the real BS, Sparkie.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You totally overlook the fact that those type of attacks (on or in a mosque for example), while potentially successful, can conflagrate ill feelings in
a certain area and increase violence.

This is the fear-based thinking that is delaying victory in the war on terrorism.  It is the result of allowing the leftie propaganda to obstruct our ability to defeat the terrorists as quickly as we are capable of doing.
It is one of the “mistakes” of the Iraq war strategy.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

R108,

I whole-heartedly agree.  Well said.

r108
to the first of the above two comments i can only say that i said nothing about waiting for something to subside. i suggested alternative methods to simple war. you pick bullshit out of the air and speak on it. your objections are crap and they only serve to give me hints im going in the right direction.
on the second comment. there is nothing fear based about that. go blow up some mosques and shoot some women human shields and see how fast your jihad ends dumbass. HG shame for agreeing. drones to the popular right wing bs lines. bound to wallow in this quagmire of perpetual war. tools.

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

Sparkie: Your words:

...can conflagrate ill feelings…

...we are talking about turning normal Iraqi citizens into insurgents instead of making them feel more secure…

Fear of causing ill feelings is definitely a fear-based position. It is the ordinary Iraqi citizens who are being killed by the terrorists.  By killing more terrorists and breaking up their networks, we are saving the lives of Iraqi citizens. You may be afraid to win, but our military isn’t.

...before we can expect it to subside…

You can BS, but you can’t hide from the light of truth, Sparkie.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108

Fear of causing ill feelings is definitely a fear-based position.

your new response still says nothing - like the others you tested above. i said nothing about being fearful of causing ill feelings. i was pointing out how some tactics that may be gratifying in the short-term may not aid the longterm goals - let’s keep track of whose fundamental motivator is fear now… it ain’t me. your god-esque ‘you can’t hide from the light of truth’ cockamamie only adds humor. thanks for that.

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

Sparkie: I quoted your words, so you lie.  No surprise here.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

R108
Quote my words in a non-cherry picking manner and don’t infer things I’m not saying and we can discuss. You are being quick, dismissive, vague, and nonsensical. The usual. Crap generalizations for hate or fear induced stances.

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

Ah, poor sparckle baby! Did one of your personallities say stupid shit that you now want to pretend you did not say? WAWAWAWAWAWAWA!!

When fighting a war, the judgement of the Officers and NCOs in theater far outweighs any blathering crap from a bunch of washed up, second rate political hasbeens. Period.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Did one of your personallities say stupid shit

nothing like this:

WAWAWAWAWAWAWA!!

thanks for your input. we can sit over there and fight for as long as y’all want. i’m merely suggesting some thought so the thing can end sometime and hey, maybe we’ll even win. i’m not saying that you and r108 shouldn’t advocate for just shooting people - stubbornness and inability to take anyone’s considerations to mind, even for a minute, is the key to a long and failed war. we’re well on our way. kudos to your type.

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

Sparkie:

This meme is BS - we’ve been over it before. There are political underpinnings of the violence that must be addressed before we can expect it to subside and before we can expect a military victory - Period.

Misunderstanding of the situation on the ground.

Until the security situation is addressed, namely a revitalized Iraqi Army and police force, the real political problems are not addressable.

So in a nutshell, we have to provide security until the Iraqis can do it themselves. There are certain aspects of the security problem that our regular army can’t fix, only the Iraqis can (such as elimination of the militia and ending the insurgency).

I know you think that the “imbalance of power” for the Sunni’s is a big issue.  As I’ve pointed out before, this is mostly based on a misunderstanding on your part of what the constitution says and doesn’t say, as can be easily demonstrated by a simply of reading the constitution. Funny thing is, I’ve heard this before (especially the petroleum revenue meme) from so-called experts on Iraq on NPR.  So I’m guessing you got this criticism from them or from some sycophantic website like Common [Wet-]Dreams.

But the bottom line is on this issue you are guilty of unthinking repetition of somebody else’s viewpoint without the benefit of informing yourself with the actual facts.

Carrick
My views on Iraq are influenced by readings I’ve done in the Harvard and Yale law reviews, numerous texts on the subject, the CIA online world fact book, and (necessarily) from some news sources although not the ones you have listed. See the works cited in my Iraqi Constitution post if you have any questions. I provided full disclosure in that respect.

Until the security situation is addressed, namely a revitalized Iraqi Army and police force, the real political problems are not addressable.

You are right here - your timing is poor though. My complaint in this thread is basicly that we didn’t have iron-fisted security in the appropriate quantities from day one. If we had the situation might be different, but it isn’t. At this point the problems go well beyond providing security when it comes to ‘winning’ in Iraq. If we are to make a serious effort at overall security at this point it has to be concurrent with the efforts of a team of constitutional ‘heart surgeons’ to do some mending and kick start the failing organ. Then our security enforcement can transition to diplomatic options for currently pissed citizens. Security or war without honest political minds hard at work on other problems is a waste of time and effort and money and lives and news coverage and r108s hot air and many other things. Its clear many of the people at SA just want to win with force alone… while it has potential, I feel that option will, ultimately, be more difficult and long term than a concurrent security/military and political/humanitarian effort. I know that many of you feel that being dialecticly sensitive in war is foolish, but just because the unique historical and ethnic variables are too difficult to model on anything besides a case-by-case basis, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take them into consideration. You may all point to historic and ethnic points and say, ‘all the more reasons we need to just crush them’, but there is also a sense in which historic stigmas need to be relieved in order for these groups to move forward in a civil manner. If they are viscious or violent they have no incentive to reform if we aren’t willing to give them credit for doing so. Interestingly, on this blog, there is alot of conflicting comments. Some say, “its going well in Iraq and we are being lied to about the situation there by partisan hacks"… while others vent frustration and say, “let’s just bomb ‘em dead”. We need to be positive about these peoples ability to partake in democracy, something many here would accuse the left of being cynical about. Maybe the left is being cynical about that, but if you feel they are then you are then obliged to offer more than security or military-based solutions.

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

You totally overlook the fact that those type of attacks (on or in a mosque for example), while potentially successful, can conflagrate ill feelings in a certain area and increase violence.

Sparkie,

That is just it, those type of attacks are successful and send the message that insurgency and terrorism has no place to hide and they will be annihilated.

Call it compassionate if you want, but having some ethics on the battlefield can make the difference when we are talking about turning normal Iraqi citizens into insurgents instead of making them feel more secure and earning their trust and aid.

People feel secure when terrorists and insurgents are dead or have given up and subjected themselves to the authority.

They then will trust us to because we will have kept our word.

What you’re talking about is accomodating the Iraqis sense that Islam is more sacred than life. Does this not reinforce their jihad mentality? 

As R108 said, our mentality is slowing and preventing swift, decisive victory needed for Iraq to move forward.  Again, this compassionate effort in Iraq is a late 20th century phenomenon and will not secure the peace in Iraq.

My complaint in this thread is basicly that we didn’t have iron-fisted security in the appropriate quantities from day one.

This is what I’m saying.  We disagree about what iron-fisted security means.
You seem to see a war as a complex balance of politics, opinion, warfare, accomodation, etc.  Securtiy in Iraq is about force.  Our attitude is important but not at the expence of force.

You seem to see a war as a complex balance of politics, opinion, warfare, accomodation, etc.

Yes I do. Any war that has been won is one of those complex balances.

Securtiy in Iraq is about force.

...and other things if we ever want to leave the place. You sound like one of the lefties who has no faith in Iraq and would just prefer a new Saddam. Seriously you do. The only difference is that the lefties don’t think we should pay for it and the righties want to keep the entire country of Iraq on the monetary and military dole for the forseeable future. Hypocrisy = wicked thick.

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

sparckle baby, my “type” keeps pacifist fucks like you living in luxury and freedom.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Sparkie: What I really said was: “Victory first, then diplomacy.” You lie about what I say, as usual.
If you knew anything about negotiation, you would know that one always seeks to negotiate from a position of strength, and what you and the Iraq Surrender Group propose is to negotiate from a position of weakness, i.e., cutting and running.  You want to negotiate our surrender.  The sad thing is, there is no real reason to do it, except for the typical cowardice of the fear-based lefties like yourself.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Thanks for the replies that say nothing related to what I said. I’ll humor you guys anyway.

sparckle baby, my “type” keeps pacifist fucks like you living in luxury and freedom

luxury? follow through on that one tough guy. my beat old car needs some work.

What I really said was: “Victory first, then diplomacy.” You lie about what I say, as usual.

Nice try. I’m not lying about what you said, I’m merely pointing out that your approach is not working to say the least, and it is lodging us further into the mire.

If you knew anything about negotiation, you would know that one always seeks to negotiate from a position of strength

I do know about negotiation and when one party has more strength it is not negotiation as such. It is coersion. I do not want to negotiate our surrender. You can put words in my mouth and trash on me if you want, but that’s just weak. It makes your inability to back up your position in a sound manner painfully evident.

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

R108
Quote my words in a non-cherry picking manner and don’t infer things I’m not saying and we can discuss. You are being quick, dismissive, vague, and nonsensical. The usual. Crap generalizations for hate or fear induced
stances.

Do you ever have any original thoughts, Sparkie?  Or do you just try to restate what I have said about someone else, and try to apply it to me?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I do know about negotiation and when one party has more strength it is not negotiation as such. It is coersion.Wrong.  Coercion isn’t negotiation.  In negotiation, each party tries to get what it wants from the other party, and their success is a matter of their relative strength and their ability to negotiate.  Thus one always seeks to negotiation from a position of strength.  If one has absolute power in the situation, negotiation is unnecessary; that would be coercion.  You obviously don’t know the difference. I do not want to negotiate our surrender.You say that now, but I have never heard you support our victory in Iraq. Since war is binary, in that you either win or lose, your lack of support for us to win is then support for us to lose. Duh. You can put words in my mouth and trash on me if you want, but that’s just weak. It makes your inability to back up your position in a sound manner painfully evident. If you really want us to win in Iraq, please reiterate your winning strategy for us.  I missed it somehow.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

That should be: “Thus, one always seeks to negotiate from a position of strength.”

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108
I know what the difference between negotiation and coersion is.  One of my good friends just wrote a book on consent and coersion for Cambridge Press two years ago. I am familiar with all the technical nuances of coersion… I know the goddamn difference. If consent is not present and bona fide, its coersion. Most ‘negotiation’ is actually coersion. I am not firing waist-level shots like a retarded cowboy (you).
I have long advocated for successful democracy in Iraq and suggested means to correct some of the problems we are seeing now. When Iraq has a functioning democracy we will have won. How then can you say I have never supported victory in Iraq? You lie. I have heard you rant at length about how the demos don’t want democracy there and we must succeed and the lot…

Do you ever have any original thoughts, Sparkie?  Or do you just try to restate what I have said about someone else, and try to apply it to me?

Your ‘projections’ are obviously going to self describe.

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

r108
I know what the difference between negotiation and coersion is.  Apparently you don’t; Coercion, by definition, is the lack of negotiation.  Nothing you say on the subject refutes in any way my point that we should negotiate from a position of strength instead of a position of weakness, btw. One of my good friends just wrote a book on consent and coersion for Cambridge Press two years ago. So what? You didn’t write the book. I am familiar with all the technical nuances of coersion… I know the goddamn difference. If consent is not present and bona fide, its coersion. Most ‘negotiation’ is actually coersion. Once again, coercion is the opposite of negotiation, and I am talking about negotiation; get it? I am not firing waist-level shots like a retarded cowboy (you). I see you still feel the need to indulge in useless personal attack, which is a sign of deficiency in argument.
I have long advocated for successful democracy in Iraq and suggested means to correct some of the problems we are seeing now.That isn’t what I asked; what is your strategy for a US victory?  You do know what a strategy is, don’t you? When Iraq has a
functioning democracy we will have won. How then can you say I have never supported victory in Iraq? You lie. I have heard you rant at length about how the demos don’t want democracy there and we must succeed and the lot… I only say that because it’s true...

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I see you still feel the need to indulge in useless personal attack

au contraire.
you use crap logic and makeup definitions to shove into your binary ontology of the world. its not something i can take seriously at all.

I only say that because it’s true…

then we agree.

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

I said:  I see you still feel the need to indulge in useless personal attack

Then you said:  au contraire.
you use crap logic and makeup definitions to shove into your binary ontology of the world. its not something i can take seriously at all.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

...and other things if we ever want to leave the place. You sound like one of the lefties who has no faith in Iraq and would just prefer a new Saddam.

I have my reservations about the willingness of the Iraqi people to accept the responsibility of freedom and democracy after so many years of servitude under Sadaam.  I have little confidence in Maliki to take charge and lead—maybe a little more if al-Sadr is removed.  Another Sadaam is not the answer, but a strong hand is necessary to establish order, and visionary leadership is necessary to rally the Iraqis to the cause of liberty.  Without these things it is going to be a long haul in Iraq.

Sparkie,

I can think of 2 wars complicated by the complexities you wish to balance, Vietnam and Iraq. 

The first was lost and the second isn’t going as well as it otherwise would if these complexities had never been injected.  It wasn’t the enemy that infused politics and accomodation into the war, it was our own elected officials and global citizens in the press.  Any military conflict that has been won has been done through overwhelming force.

But more importantly, I said the security in Iraq could be won swiftly through the same decisive use of overwhelming force.  We may be able to redefine security in Iraq to a period of time without violence, but it will be temoporary if ‘security’ is ‘won’ through the complexities you believe essential.  Victory is not easy but simple.  Getting out of Iraq under the guise of victory is complex.

After talking with Sparkie it seems clear.  The objective of some Americans is to get out of Iraq without admitting defeat—not necessarily victorious.

I hope this thinking doesn’t prevail.

Sparkie:

My views on Iraq are influenced by readings I’ve done in the Harvard and Yale law reviews, numerous texts on the subject, the CIA online world fact book, and (necessarily) from some news sources although not the ones you have listed. See the works cited in my Iraqi Constitution post if you have any questions. I provided full disclosure in that respect.

Regardless of what your sources are, much of what you have categorically stated as fact about Iraq’s constitution has been erroneous. 

This includes your prior comment about a Kurd veto (not present in the constitution, but it was present in the Translational Authority Law), and your misunderstanding of revenue sharing from the petroleum industry, as well as your argument that the Sunnis are under-represented.

If either of these ideas came from the Harvard Law Review, I’d like to know where.  I looked through your reference and found no place where there were complaints of this nature.  If anything, the HLR article merely affirms what I have already said, namely that the Sunni bloc has been very effective in gaining concession after concession.  Quite the opposite end of the spectrum from your claims.

The only other link you have that post-dates the constitutional approval is Jonathan Sparrow’s from the Institute for Peace, who as far as I can tell gets more wrong than he does right (for example his claims about loss of power by women is not borne out a reading of the constitution nor its application in society).  Plenty of people out there with agendas, he appears to me to be one…

You are right here - your timing is poor though.

I didn’t choose the timing.  It should have been immediate.

If it had been up to me, we would not have disbanded the Iraqi Army, the police or the original government.  Keeping them were you can find them, and purge them over time, would have been much more effective.  But regardless, that was then.  We have to deal with the now, not the could have beens.

Most of the current problems can either be traced to a lack of security, or the inability to fix them to the lack of security.  Security must come first, and must come from within.  I don’t expect, for example, the problems and threats associated with regional militias to disappear until the Iraqi Army is powerful enough to control them.

After talking with Sparkie it seems clear.  The objective of some Americans
is to get out of Iraq without admitting defeat—not necessarily
victorious.

I hope this thinking doesn’t prevail.

It’s a verbal delusion; if we run away, the terrorists will celebrate a “win”, and then be encouraged to go on with their murdering.  Why should they stop, if they can get us to back down?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Exactly R108, The current calls for getting out of Iraq without admitting defeat is nothing less than accommodating the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.  The temporary calm which would follow this new definition of victory will not stop the violence or the war.  Eventually our children will have to fight this war with an emboldened and more powerful enemy in the future.

Eventually our children will have to fight this war with an emboldened and more powerful enemy in the future.

Exactly.  We need to convince them to stop now.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.