[ShortcutToMoncton]

As some of you know, I'm a big fan of Fareed Zakaria and his writings on democracy and current world situations. He's generally pretty bipartisan and I find his insightful points really clarify the situation at hand.

His latest article is entitled Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward, and examines the current state of the Iraq war and what he thinks should probably happen in order for any definition of "American success" to be achieved. He likens the current war to the stalemate in Korea, and the resulting "not an American defeat, but not an American victory either" end to that conflict:

Something like the close of the Korean War is, frankly, the best we can hope for in Iraq now. One could easily imagine worse outcomes—a bloodbath, political fragmentation, a tumultuous flood of refugees and a surge in global terrorist attacks. But with planning, intelligence, execution and luck, it is possible that the American intervention in Iraq could have a gray ending—one that is unsatisfying to all, but that prevents the worst scenarios from unfolding, secures some real achievements and allows the United States to regain its energies and strategic compass for its broader leadership role in the world.

But in order for that to happen, we have to see Iraq as it is now. Not as it once was. Not as it could have been. Not as we hope it will become, but as it is today. There will be ample time to assign blame and debate "what if"s. The urgent task now is ahead of us.

He also gets into the current state of Iraq, and perhaps some of the reasons behind why it's so unstable.

In point of fact—and it is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless—America is not winning in Iraq, which means that it is losing. Iraq has fallen apart both as a nation and as a state. Its capital and lands containing almost 50 percent of
the population remain deeply insecure and plagued by rising internal divisions. Much of the south, which is somewhat stable, is subject to gangsterish, theocratic and thoroughly corrupt local governments. To recognize this reality does not mean that there is no hope for the years to come. There is—but hope is not a policy.
...
The most revealing statistic about Iraq is not the spiraling death toll but the unemployment rate, which is conservatively estimated to be around 30 to 40 percent, and has not moved much in the past two years. Given that conditions are almost normal in the Kurdish north, that means the rest of the country has an unemployment rate closer to 50 percent. Whatever we have been doing in Iraq, it is not translating into peace, normalcy and jobs. In parts of the Sunni Triangle, reports suggest that unemployment is more than 70 percent. If you think that Iraq's tumult is a product of its culture, religion and history, ask yourself what the United States would look like after three years of 50 percent unemployment. Would there not be civil strife in Manhattan, Detroit, Los Angeles and New Orleans?
...
The most significant new reality in Iraq—in fact, the country's defining feature—is sectarian violence. By any reasonable definition, Iraq is mired in a low-grade civil war between its Sunni and Shia communities. Communal tensions are high, and rising—everywhere. Violence has been mounting in all areas where these communities are mixed. Ethnic cleansing, either forced or voluntary, is increasing rapidly, with 365,000 people having fled or been forced from their homes since last February's bombing of a Shia mosque in Samarra. In Baghdad alone more than 2,600 Iraqis died in September, most of them as a result of communal attacks.

He does call for a smaller, sustainable American force in Iraq, with clear goals:

The core national-security interests of the United States in Iraq are now threefold: first, to prevent Anbar province from being taken over by Qaeda-style jihadist groups that would use it as a base for global terrorism; second, to ensure that the Kurdish region retains its autonomy; third, to prevent or at least contain massive sectarian violence in Iraq, as both a humanitarian and a security issue. Large-scale bloodletting could easily spill over Iraq's borders as traumatized and vengeful refugees flee to countries like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Historically, such population movements have caused trouble for decades to come.

These interests are achievable with fewer forces. President Bush is fond of warning, "If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home." This makes no sense. Qaeda terrorists from Iraq could have made their way to America at any point in the last three years. In fact, Iraq's borders are more porous today than they have ever been. If a terrorist wanted to inflict harm on U.S. civilians, he could drive across Anbar into Syria, then hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Does the president really believe that because we're in Iraq, terrorists have forgotten that we're also in America? Here's what we really need to worry about doing:

He also notes that to complement these troop drawdowns, the number of advisors in the country should be vastly increased to help organize the transition.

Draw down troops and ramp up advisers. To preserve these interests, the United States should begin drawing down its troop levels, starting in January 2007. In one year, we should shrink from the current 144,000 to a total of 60,000 soldiers, some 44,000 of them stationed in four superbases outside Baghdad, Balad, Mosul and Nasi-riya. This would provide a rapid-reaction force that could intervene to secure any of the core interests of the United States when they are threatened. To preserve the basic security of Iraq and prevent anarchy, U.S. troops must also act as the spine of the new Iraqi Army and police force. American advisers should massively expand their current roles in both organizations, going from the current level of 4,000 Americans to at least 16,000, embedding an American platoon (30 to 40 men) in virtually every Iraqi fighting battalion (600 men).

This plan might not work. And if it does not, the United States will confront the more painful question of what to do in the midst of even greater violence and chaos. The Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack is already working on a plan to address just such a worst-case scenario, in which U.S. forces establish "catchment basins" along the borders of Iraq to stop massive refugee flows. But there is also the possibility that Iraq's leaders will begin to face up to their challenges, move the country toward reconciliation and build up the capacities of their state. Civil strife tends not to go on forever. A new nation and a new state might well emerge in Iraq. But its birth will be a slow, gradual process, taking years. The most effective American strategy, at this point, is one that is sustainable for just such a long haul.

Finally, he does note that while invading Iraq had its achievements, they must be consolidated to avoid bringing them to naught. As the current situation – and both Vietnam and Korea before it – shows, something with the current plan is not working. Maintaining such a large occupying force in Iraq is simply not sustainable for America and its leadership, economically and politically. Steps should be taken to try and minimize this damage while continuing to work towards a stable Iraq, and a stable Middle East.

I know the article's fairly long, and I'm sorry to "pull an abe" and show my position by pulling an article off the intarweb. However, this guy is more than just some partisan intarweb author, and the article is well worth the read. Enjoy!

greg

[Kevin]

America isn't losing in Iraq.

That is hyprebole. Waay too soon.

One might have said during our Civil War, that the America experiment failed.

But hundreds of years later we know better.

These same morons would be saying We were losing WWII as well.

These same people claimed we were horribly losing NAM, but if we had stayed course three more days it would have been a victory.

NAM was lost by anti-war rhetoric. The same rhetoric attempting to lose IRaq.

These same people were calling Iraq a loss before it started.

These same people have an agenda.

[Nicko]

At this point I think the US has created such hardened enemies in the region that even if they remain in small numbers, it will still provoke violence. The only solution is a complete withdrawl. 'Super bases' or other such 'targets' will only fuel insurgent's propaganda.

Also too, the longer the US stays in Iraq, the more dependent the so called 'democratically elected' Iraqi government will become on it.

IMO the best solution would be to withdraw all US forces and move in the UN - Using peacekeepers only from muslim countries - like in Lebanon.

And of course begin a dialogue with Syria and Iran --- scrapping the whole 'axis of evil' with an apology would also be a good start here.

Of course, this will never happen

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

America isn't losing in Iraq.

That is hyprebole. Waay too soon.

One might have said during our Civil War, that the America experiment failed.

But hundreds of years later we know better.

These same morons would be saying We were losing WWII as well.

These same people claimed we were horribly losing NAM, but if we had stayed course three more days it would have been a victory.

NAM was lost by anti-war rhetoric. The same rhetoric attempting to lose IRaq.

These same people were calling Iraq a loss before it started.

These same people have an agenda.

I'm doubting you read the article. You certainly don't know anything about Fareed Zakaria, since you make the inaccurate statement "these same people were calling Iraq a loss before it started." Of course, your knee-jerk reactionary comments are typical of you Kevin, but your argument is absolutely hilarious in its inaccuracy and non-relevancy in any case.

You talk about "waaaaaay too soon," and then you give examples of the Civil War and WWII. (I'm going to ignore the painfully obvious differences in these conflicts for the purposes of argument, but I'm going to point out: comparing the Iraq War to WWII is so ridiculous it isn't even funny.) Let me remind you that your Civil War lasted almost exactly 4 years, and most of the final year was merely a matter of Grant "wearing down" Lee as he forced him to retreat (ie. after 3 years, there's no question that the outcome heavily favoured the North). Let me again remind you that America's involvement in WWII lasted for much less than 4 years, and here again the final year or so was mostly a "mopping up" formality. Let me also remind you, of course, that Iraq was invaded well over three and a half years ago. If you've read the article, or if you've kept up on current world events, you would know that things are not entering any sort of recognizable "victory phase" in Iraq – in fact, they seem to be getting worse if anything! If you'd read the article – or perhaps even my post - you would also know that your comments are rebutted in it, because they're very similar to how George W. Bush is quoted:

"We're winning," President Bush said last week, and then explained his reasoning: "My view is that the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done." That circular definition of success resembles so much of the administration's Iraq policy, one that seems almost determined not to look at the country itself. Iraq, in this view, is a state of mind. If we lose faith, we lose. But there is a real country out there. And it is one in which events are increasingly moving beyond our control.

So, Kevin, how long is "soon enough?" By your comparisons with the Civil War and WWII, your implicit definition is that the war will be successful; it's just "too soon" to find this out. This is the exact same circular reasoning Zakaria points out above: the only way to find out how successful the war actually is, is to stay until it ends successfully! It seems obvious that we're already committed to be engaged far beyond the timeframes of both the Civil War and probably even the total length of WWII (not just the shorter American involvement).

And so now, we enter the arena of Vietnam, which your (inaccurate, I might add) claim that "a few more days would've won" belies the fact that the war had dragged on for thirty years. Thirty Years, Kevin. And the North conquered the South a month after the US finally pulled out! Thirty Years, at a cost that's almost unbelievable, and at a cost of US war crimes and rampant racism that's almost shocking when we look back on it. (Of course, the firebombing of Japan and Germany and the atomic bombs are justified as essential to winning WWII and stopping the evil German fascism. How is the complete carpet-bombing of North Vietnam justified, Kevin? How is the chemical warfare against North Vietnam justified, Kevin? How is making North Vietnam look like "the surface of a brown moon" in a losing cause to stop the spread of communism justified, Kevin? You call American protests again these atrocities "anti-war rhetoric." Do you condone these atrocities your country committed to try and stop an ideological conflict in a country half a world away? Your anger at those who did protest these horrendous measures seems to indicate your agreement with the Army's actions.)

Do you think America can afford to maintain 150,000+ troops in Iraq for the next 5 years? How about 15? Can America afford $90 billion a year throughout this timespan? When is it "soon enough" to admit that things aren't going to plan, Kevin?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

America isn't losing in Iraq.

I forgot about this comment. I think Zakaria rebuts it best:

In point of fact—and it is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless—America is not winning in Iraq, which means that it is losing.

Does one side win because "the other side couldn't beat us"? That seems to be how American success in Vietnam is often defined.

What do you call a lack of victory, Kevin?

greg

[Kevin]

20 years or so from now, we will know the consequences of the actions we took in Iraq.

Till then quit the hyperbole.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Does one side win because "the other side couldn't beat us"? That seems to be how American success in Vietnam is often defined.

Shortcut again, had we lasted out 3 more days the NAM war would have been over, and we would have won. A far cry from what the revisionists would like to have us believed. That it was a total out out unwinnable war. The VERY SAME THING they are saying about Iraq.

What do you call a lack of victory, Kevin?

Losing. Something that isn't happening.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

20 years or so from now, we will know the consequences of the actions we took in Iraq.

Till then quit the hyperbole.

You didn't answer my questions.

And: what hyperbole? Point out, please.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You didn't answer my questions.

I believe I did

And: what hyperbole? Point out, please.

The whole "THE US IS TEH LOSING THE WAR!11"

The same hyperbole used in NAM. When the facts were if we lasted 3 more days, we would have won.

Claims rarely match reality.

[Nicko]

"The same hyperbole used in NAM. When the facts were if we lasted 3 more days, we would have won. "

huh???

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Shortcut again, had we lasted out 3 more days the NAM war would have been over, and we would have won. A far cry from what the revisionists would like to have us believed. That it was a total out out unwinnable war. The VERY SAME THING they are saying about Iraq.

Your comments about "lasting three more days" lead me to suspect you don't know a lot about the Vietnam War. "Lasted three more days" of what, Kevin? Carpet-bombing Vietnam? Ground-offensive fighting? Peace talks? Where are you getting this information?

You don't think that the North's immediate destruction of the South after the American pullout seems to rebut your statement? After thirty years of fighting, and after years of facing overwhelming American firepower and total destruction of almost every aspect of their country, and they defeated South Vietnam in a month? And you make the statement that "three more days" would've changed all this. Where's your source, Kevin?

Face it: the Vietnam war was a clear example of American military incompetence, from start right to the very finish (the pullout from Saigon was a disgrace).

Losing. Something that isn't happening.

Ahhhh. So...conditions are improving? Objectives are being met? Stability is being implemented? Your definition of "losing" is solely based on a military perspective: "we aren't being beaten, so we're not losing!" By your perspective, Germany didn't actually lose WWII - after all, the military wasn't beaten! Unfortunately, students of warfare know too well that winning or losing depends on so much more than what is happening on the field.

America will be able to claim victory in Iraq if their goals of invasion are met. You don't win because you killed Sadam Hussein, Kevin. You don't win because your army wasn't defeated, Kevin. You don't win if everything results in a stalemate.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

America will be able to claim victory in Iraq if their goals of invasion are met. You don't win because you killed Sadam

Unless that was your objective.

You don't win if everything results in a stalemate.

Again, give it 20 years.

As far as the NAM comments went. It was said by opposing forces that if we would have kept the bombing going for 3 more days, they would have pulled out, and the war would have been won.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I had to study Vietnam in Officer's School.
We were taught that if the bombing of Hanoi continued for 3 more days, the North Vietnemese would have pulled out.

This isn't up for debate.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as the NAM comments went. It was said by opposing forces that if we would have kept the bombing going for 3 more days, they would have pulled out, and the war would have been won.

This isn't up for debate.

If you don't want to debate, show me the quote. Show me the book. Show me teh evidance so I can make fun of it! And no, I won't take hearsay evidence of some American flight school officer.

And, I lawled anyway. "Pulled out?" To where?

greg

[Kevin]

Pulled out of the war silly. You don't have to believe it. I don't care. This wont effect my life in any way.

Just stating the facts. You can choose to believe or not. No amount of posting urls is going to change your mind.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Pulled out of the war silly. You don't have to believe it. I don't care. This wont effect my life in any way.

Just stating the facts. You can choose to believe or not. No amount of posting urls is going to change your mind.

Well, I have a couple books documenting the Vietnam War on my shelf here. You know, history being my thing and all. None of them seem to think three more days would've magically ended 30 years of ideological warfare – but, then again, they're only well-recognized and respected historians of warfare. What would they know??

If you're "stating the facts," then you have to state facts.. Well, you've stated. Now give me the facts, Kevin. URL, book, or otherwise. Don't pussy out now.

greg

[Kevin]

No one is pussying out. I simply wont play your silly game.

You don't believe it. Great. That doesn't bother me.

Now go pull the heads off of dandelions or something.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhahaha.

Ahhhhh. My day is made by this humour. Oh the pwnage!

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

America will be able to claim victory in Iraq if their goals of invasion are met. You don't win because you killed Sadam

Unless that was your objective.

You don't win if everything results in a stalemate.

Again, give it 20 years.

Um, so we won a year ago, but we won't know if we won or not unless we keep dumping money in the pit for 20 more years? And to think, the voters didn't go for that sales pitch...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhahaha.

Ahhhhh. My day is made by this humour. Oh the pwnage!

greg

Verbal masturbation does not = pwnage.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, so we won a year ago, but we won't know if we won or not unless we keep dumping money in the pit for 20 more years?

That isn't what I said at all.

[SpaceMonkey]

In the book Hard Power, which I am currently reading, Kurt Campbell and Michael O'Hanlon offer a couple of broad suggestions for achieving an "imperfect victory" on the ground in Iraq. They are:

1. Oil revenue needs to be seen as a national asset and allocated on a per capita basis.
2. Further develop a truth-and-reconciliation system for former Baathists.
3. Begin a massive jobs-creation program with a Roosevelt-like pledge that any honest Iraqi who wants a job can have one.
4. Enforce a much stronger penitentiary systm to ensure that Sunni Arabs are not summarily arrested, tortured, and/or killed.

Sounds good to me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Then what did you say? Responding to "You don't win because you killed Saddam" you said "unless that was your objective." What do you mean by this, we'll have won once he's executed?

Then to "you don't win if everything's a stalemate" you said "give it 20 years." I can't see how that means anything other than "we'll find out we've won in 20 years." Is that what it means?

Honestly, unless your "that isn't what I said at all" was sarcasm, you're not making any sense here.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

America isn't losing in Iraq.

That is hyprebole. Waay too soon.

One might have said during our Civil War, that the America experiment failed.

But hundreds of years later we know better.

These same morons would be saying We were losing WWII as well.

These same people claimed we were horribly losing NAM, but if we had stayed course three more days it would have been a victory.

NAM was lost by anti-war rhetoric. The same rhetoric attempting to lose IRaq.

These same people were calling Iraq a loss before it started.

These same people have an agenda.

I think you are conceiving of "losing" in all the wrong ways. It sounds as if you can only conceptualize these conflicts in terms of actual combat, but each of the conflicts you cite was one in which America lost because of a flawed foundation to the ideologies that led us into war in the first place.

The Civil War did represent a failure of the American experiment--one that had been institutionalized at its inception. The America that survived the Civil War was an entirely different country from the one that was split in two to begin with.

America lost Vietnam, not in terms of the body count or the damage inflicted, but because we were fighting for all the wrong reasons. We were fighting to prop up a corrupt government against a popular insurgency--in defiance of all reason and most of our principles as a nation.

And so we are losing in Iraq, not because we have failed to achieve military victory, but because we failed to understand the situation at the inception. Bush and his ilk are still as grossly ignorant of what's really going on in Iraq as they were when they claimed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S.

Oh, and we were losing WWII in 1942, but that changed because we had a plan. I wonder what the world would be like today if Churchill and FDR were simpletons who just kept muttering "stay the course."

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In the book Hard Power, which I am currently reading, Kurt Campbell and Michael O'Hanlon offer a couple of broad suggestions for achieving an "imperfect victory" on the ground in Iraq. They are:

1. Oil revenue needs to be seen as a national asset and allocated on a per capita basis.
2. Further develop a truth-and-reconciliation system for former Baathists.
3. Begin a massive jobs-creation program with a Roosevelt-like pledge that any honest Iraqi who wants a job can have one.
4. Enforce a much stronger penitentiary systm to ensure that Sunni Arabs are not summarily arrested, tortured, and/or killed.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, and #1 is, I think, the critical problem. It is greed that has fueled the US's Iraq policy. All the Bush administration could think about was setting up Iraq's oil wealth for the big oil companies to exploit, and so far, that's all they have done with any success--sorry, not "only," they've also completed destroyed the infrastructure of the country--by writing in grossly imbalanced oil exploration laws into the Iraqi constitution. This document will hardly speak to the ages as a testament to democracy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Verbal masturbation does not = pwnage.

No, but you emphatically stating "facts" and "not debatable" arguments and then running with your tail between your legs when I call you on them does.

So does, you know, you avoiding most of my arguments and questions. But hey. You get an E for Effort.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

running with your tail between your legs

No, that is your imagination.

I wasn't here to "prove" anything. And I care less if you don't believe me.

No matter what I pasted or linked you'd poo poo it. Lets be honest with ourselves.

Like I said, I am not playing that game. You don't believe it. Fine. Move on.

[Kerrigan]

I thought it was a thoughtful post, Shortcut. The thing is though, the centre-left in America has criticized Bush for not sending enough troops into Iraq, which IMHO is the reason that the country is so unstable at the moment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I thought it was a thoughtful post, Shortcut. The thing is though, the centre-left in America has criticized Bush for not sending enough troops into Iraq, which IMHO is the reason that the country is so unstable at the moment.

Now THAT is a valid complaint.

One I share.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, that is your imagination.

I wasn't here to "prove" anything. And I care less if you don't believe me.

No matter what I pasted or linked you'd poo poo it. Lets be honest with ourselves.

Like I said, I am not playing that game. You don't believe it. Fine. Move on.

*snort*

You made an outrageous statement that you apparently can't back up with any validity, but you refuse to admit it. Even better, you'll keep posting defending your statement by accusing me of not believing it even if you could supply proof.

You're a sad man in this thread, Kevin.

greg

[ironknee]

hey kevin, didn't see you around the last 2 days

i'm old enough to remember nam

why were we there again? why are we in iwaq? before you recite the party line, "to fight there instead of here" we should be fighting only in afghanastan.

i'll give you your 3 more days in iraq and then let's be done with it...

or double the troops+ more international support...now that means we would need a draft

[Uncle Skeleton]

No, greg, he's brilliant, he can prove anything.

K: "black is white"
G: "no it's not, what's your evidence"
K: "oh please. no evidence I could post would convince you, let's be honest with each other. therefore, black is white, this is a fact, it's not up for debate"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*snort*

You made an outrageous statement that you apparently can't back up with any validity, but you refuse to admit it. Even better, you'll keep posting defending your statement by accusing me of not believing it even if you could supply proof.

You're a sad man in this thread, Kevin.

greg

Greg, all you are doing is continuing your little ad-hominem verbal-masturbation rant.

I see a private msg from a mod coming your way soon.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I thought it was a thoughtful post, Shortcut. The thing is though, the centre-left in America has criticized Bush for not sending enough troops into Iraq, which IMHO is the reason that the country is so unstable at the moment.

Well I certainly agree, but you can't possibly think that having 200,000+ (as opposed to the current ~140,000) troops in Iraq for the next 3+ years would be economically or politically feasible. As the article notes, at the moment upwards of $90 billion a year is being spent on the current effort. This is of course one factor that Kevin refused to acknowledge – the idea that spending 20 years in Iraq would cost America an enormous fortune that, to be honest, it probably can't afford (so to speak). Similarly, I simply don't think that America can really afford significant troop movements back into Iraq in the current political and economic climate. Could they have been afforded at the beginning? Sure – that's when the money and support was available. Troop numbers probably should've been vastly increased then. But hindsight is useless, because I don't see any way that those same numbers of troops will be supported now.

I think the real argument is that troop deployments should have been far more at the beginning of the war in order to facilitate a better success rate, which would allow for a swifter decrease to manageable levels in the past few years. General Eric Shinseki originally estimated at least 200,000 troops would be necessary to administer Iraq, and that number was not close to being reached even in the invasion stage I believe. In fact, I've read that NATO deployed far more troops per capita in Bosnia and Kosovo, and there wasn't even direct fighting when that took place!

The article deals with some of the reasons why the country is so unstable. The 50%+ unemploynent rate is certainly enlightening, as is the corrupt friction between religious sects. One other interesting aspect deals with a quote Zakaria made in 2003 after the invasion:

The purpose of guerrilla operations is not to defeat the enemy militarily. It is to defeat him politically. (Hence Henry Kissinger’s dictum: the guerrilla wins by not losing. The army loses by not winning.) The hope is that such attacks will force the occupation to become more militarized, then, in turn, America's heavy-handed retaliation will alienate the local population.

This seems almost prophetic in many respects. It also outlines something that Kevin has disagreed with in this thread. Regardless, there were simply not enough troops in the first year to eliminate the major guerrilla presence, and it has only grown since then.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Greg, all you are doing is continuing your little ad-hominem verbal-masturbation rant.

I see a private msg from a mod coming your way soon.

*giggles like a schoolgirl*

Still got nothing to say, I see.

Originally Posted by ironknee

or double the troops+ more international support...now that means we would need a draft

The international support issue is certainly one that probably should've been more relevant 3 years ago. I believe I remember Zakaria writing an article on the US' schoolyard mentality – they couldn't get the partners they wanted for the invasion, but when more started appearing after the invasion they were rebuffed with an "you weren't there before, so too bad" response. Well, however valid a point might be made about others profiteering after the "heavy" work had been done, it seems that this international support should've been heavily encouraged in any case – there simply weren't enough troops on the ground.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*giggles like a schoolgirl*

Still got nothing to say, I see.

Irony

[Doofy]

Hmmm, let's see...

The only way out of this quagmire is to go harder, since a fearsome enemy is the only thing Arab cultures tend to understand.

Yep, I'm talking Vlad III style treatment of captured insurgents. But that ain't gonna go down so well with the sitting-in-a-nice-warm-house-munching-burgers-and-watching-Lost voters back home in the coalition countries. So the whole thing is a no win situation.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

STFU, asshat. I'm the one doing all the talking in here. I've said my piece, and I've responded to everyone who wished to converse. You've made probably a dozen compulsive 3-line posts that involve illustrating your lack of knowledge of the thread topic, blatantly incorrect statements and lame attempts to defend your own inadequacy on the subjects debated.

Now shoo. You're done here. Go splash in the koi pond. Stop trolling.

However, as I am a realistic man...I await the inevitable compulsive one-line post that, once again, defends yourself against this post. As opposed to, you know, adding anything constructive to the thread topic.



greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

sitting-in-a-nice-warm-house-muching-burgers-and-watching-Lost voters back home

I'm current sitting in a warm house with freezing temperatures outside...with a nice burger I just made...about to watch last week's episode of Lost.



greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The only way out of this quagmire is to go harder, since a fearsome enemy is the only thing Arab cultures tend to understand.

Yep, I'm talking Vlad III style treatment of captured insurgents. But that ain't gonna go down so well with the sitting-in-a-nice-warm-house-munching-burgers-and-watching-Lost voters back home in the coalition countries. So the whole thing is a no win situation.

However humorous your post may be, it can be summed up thus: "we can't win the war because civilians won't like us committing war crimes and breaking international laws/conventions."

Blaming military failures on an inability to commit war atrocities is Stupid®. Pass it on.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

However humorous your post may be, it can be summed up thus: "we can't win the war because civilians won't like us committing war crimes and breaking international laws/conventions."

This is precisely the point. Since the introduction of international war conventions, war hasn't been allowed to actually be war. If it was allowed to be what it was, conflicts would be over and done quite quickly instead of dragging on forever.

You have a fight with a bloke, you put him down as soon as is possible using whatever means. You stick to Queensbury rules and it's going to take a lot longer for you to have the job finished with. Sad but true.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's not necessarily a valid analogy. Do you mean you kick below the belt and throw sand in his eyes? Or do you mean you grab his small child and start gouging out her eyes? Or perform unspeakable acts on her? "Anything goes" isn't always "anything goes;" there's always a question of degree.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And to think, the voters didn't go for that sales pitch...

Scan the opinions. Plenty of voters want MORE military bodies in Iraq to better secure the place.

Just because the general gist of voters was to "change course", they don't all want to pull out ASAP. If they did, the term "change course" would not be used. "Pullout ASAP" would have been used.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not necessarily a valid analogy. Do you mean you kick below the belt and throw sand in his eyes? Or do you mean you grab his small child and start gouging out her eyes? Or perform unspeakable acts on her? "Anything goes" isn't always "anything goes;" there's always a question of degree.

Only with those who don't care to win, or those who are blind to the perils of war.

For all of time preceeding the end of WWII, combatants did whatever it took until the enemy stopped shooting.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

For all of time preceeding the end of WWII, combatants did whatever it took until the enemy stopped shooting.

No they didn't.

From Laws of war: - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law abolished privateering
# 1864 First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"
# 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight
# 1899 Hague Convention consisted of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):

* I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
* II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
* III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
* IV - Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
* Declaration I - On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
* Declaration II - On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
* Declaration III - On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body

# 1907 Hague Convention had thirteen sections, of which twelve were ratified and entered into force and two declarations

* I - The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
* II - The Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts
* III - The Opening of Hostilities
* IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land
* V - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
* VI - The Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
* VII - The Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships
* VIII - The Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines
* IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War
* X - Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention
* XI - Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
* XII - The Creation of an International Prize Court [Not Ratified]*
* XIII - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
* Declaration I - extending Declaration II from the 1899 Conference to other types of aircraft
* Declaration II - on the obligatory arbitration

# 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War largely reiterated existing law, although it showed greater regard to the rights of neutral entities. Never went into effect.
# 1922 The Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty (6 February)
# 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare[5]
# 1925 Geneva protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare[6]
# 1927-1930 Greco-German arbitration tribunal
# 1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War"[7]
# 1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War.[8]
# 1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
# 1930 Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (London Naval Treaty 22 April)
# 1936 Second London Naval Treaty (25 March

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Scan the opinions. Plenty of voters want MORE military bodies in Iraq to better secure the place.

Hence the foolishness of the "just give it 20 years and you'll see I'm right" argument.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

For all of time preceeding the end of WWII, combatants did whatever it took until the enemy stopped shooting.

This is a clear example of your complete ignorance of the subject. This statement is most certainly not the case. A quick study on the history of warfare would show that customs, rules and strict guidelines – whether in place formally, or as unwritten laws – governed warfare.

In fact, the reality is almost the complete opposite of what you claim. I'm sure you've heard of "total warfare"? It reached its peak in the World Wars, but most point to the American Civil War, and more specifically the destruction of areas of the South by Sherman, as the beginnings of "total warfare." A study of the European wars of the earlier 19th century will show you that Western warfare at that time was often a civilized, even gentlemanly affair.

It really bothers me when people who obviously have no idea about what they're talking make ignorant statements like this. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or cry.

greg

[DBursey]

Some great posts here, Newf. Keep it up.

I don't have to speak, he reveals me ... drunkard's dream if I ever did read one

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

Some great posts here, Newf. Keep it up.

I don't have to speak, he reveals me ... drunkard's dream if I ever did read one

Thanks. You know, to be honest this thread has left me quite jaded about the political discourse on this board. A thread discussing a seemingly valid method of continuing American involvement in Iraq gets responses from only four noted "conservatives", three of whom don't make anything resembling a valid point: Kevin seems not to have read the article, questions the intent of the author, and talks nonsense about Vietnam needing only three more days for an American victory; spacefreak makes some rather confusing and even completely wrong comments; Doofy argues that winning the Iraq war should be accomplished by committing war crimes if only the voting populace would acquiesce; and only Kerrigan supplies a small but valid rebuttal about the need for increased troops in Iraq (which, I might add, he hasn't replied to. ). It seems guys like Space Monkey and Helmling have contributed more to the discussion on what can be done.

And with this underwhelming commentary comes far more popular and heated debate in threads suggesting the usefulness of Iraq as a launching-pad into Iran, the support of elected Democrats by Al-Qaeda, the war between the West and Islam, and psychoanalysis of Dubya's father-figure inadequacies. It's like the overall issue is the only thing people want to discuss; an actual plan is simply off-limits. I mean, seriously, Iran?! Afghanistan is in shambles and anarchy, Iraq looks as if it could be heading that way if things don't change, and all some people want to do is hop right on to Iran?!? The sheer idiocy of it makes me want to slam my keyboard.

Forgive me if I feel this has been the biggest Republican problem with the Iraq war since day 1: a complete lack of planning, but a firm conviction that the world is made better by America's involvement in Iraq (or, involvement against "radical Islam"), and what that will lead to once success is achieved. The problem, as evidenced in this thread, is Bush's circular reasoning that "My view is that the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done" - or, as I said to Kevin, "the only way to find out how successful the war actually is, is to stay until it ends successfully!" The lack of any sort of coherent, definite strategy, and the seeming unwillingness to debate such a proposed strategy as outlined in this thread, makes me wonder exactly what these people are thinking.

Anyways: out of mild curiosity, what's up the distorted The Band quote? Up On Cripple Creek says (if I remember correctly) "I don't have to speak, and she reveals me / a drunkard's dream if I ever did see one..." Is yours from a different source?

greg

[vmarks]

Up on Cripple Creek, she sends me, If I spring a leak, she mends me. I don't have to speak, she defends me. A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one..

(incidentally, Neil Young also has a Cripple Creek song, called Cripple Creek Ferry.)

Mr. Zakaria's comparison to Truman and Eisenhower, Korea and Iraq, are interesting.

Zakaria studied under Samuel Huntington, famous for his article that began the "Clash of Civilizations" conversation.

What I can find after reading some of Zakaria's work is that he very early on supported the action against Iraq, but then soon after found himself in stark opposition to everything that followed.

That is, he opposed the deBaathification of Iraq. He opposed disbanding Iraq's army. As early as September 2003, he wrote an article for Newsweek entitled "So What's Plan B?" - basically calling the whole enterprise broken as soon as it had begun.

In February 2005, Zakaria wrote that that "no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim."

That last part only really makes sense if we substitute "free society" for "genuine democracy." - and even then, I am not anxious to agree.

His perspective is, and has been, that there can be no success, and that the only result US actions can take now is to staunch the amount of failure.

He falls into the old notion that only Iraqis can create a free society for Iraqis, that no change can be introduced from outside.

These short-sighted remarks were wrong last century, and they're wrong this century.

I believe all people yearn to be free. I believe freedom anywhere makes the world safer everywhere.

I believe the United States can have a successful role in bringing freedom to the rest of the world, that the free world can transform any society on this earth including Iraq.

Zakaria believes no amount of US military can be a part of such a change.

Instead, he sees a loose federation with resources divvied up among them as the only way to cut losses and bail.

But this isn't all that Zakaria has said -- INDCJournal: Zakaria Does the Daily Show

Money quote from Fareed Zakaria to John Stewart:

“What I’m saying is that you and Ted Kennedy need to stop telling us to get out of there (Iraq).”

And Stewart to Zakaria:

“I’ve watched this thing unfold from the start, and, and, here’s the great fear that I have: what if Bush, the President, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my worldview will not sustain itself and I may - and again, I don’t know if I can physically do this - implode.”

Zakaria has gotten some things correct: I agree with Zakaria that religious texts can inspire, counsel, and guide on a personal level, but they cannot provide the specifics for figuring out how to modernize. Zakaria said this in the context of religious documents being used as a blueprint for a society in Iraq.

Again, he gets some things correct: Why Iraq Is Still Worth the Effort

The old order in Iraq was built on fear and terror. One group dominated the land, oppressing the others. Now representatives of all three communities — Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds — are sitting down at the table, trying to construct a workable bargain they can all live with.

These sectarian power struggles can get extremely messy, and violent parties have taken advantage of every crack and cleavage. But this may be inevitable in a country coming to terms with very real divisions and disagreements. Iraq may be stumbling toward nation-building by consent, not brutality. And that is a model for the Middle East.

--- march 22 2006.

And that doesn't mean it's appropriate for the US to back out with a stalemate, cutting losses - I think nation-building by consent, if it arrives at a free society, is something the US and Iraq can both claim as a success.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Thanks. You know, to be honest this thread has left me quite jaded about the political discourse on this board.

That's because you're not actually reading what's there - you're projecting your own idea of what the "opposition" is saying into the replies. As is usual for persons of your political persuasion.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

A thread discussing a seemingly valid method of continuing American involvement in Iraq gets responses from only four noted "conservatives", three of whom don't make anything resembling a valid point: Kevin seems not to have read the article, questions the intent of the author, and talks nonsense about Vietnam needing only three more days for an American victory

Kev is a libertarian, not a conservative.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Doofy argues that winning the Iraq war should be accomplished by committing war crimes if only the voting populace would acquiesce

I'm a libertarian too, not a conservative. And I didn't say that at all. You're one who brought war crimes into it (as is usual for someone of your political persuasion).

No need for discourse either. I'm right. Period. You can engage in "discourse" with like-minded individuals until the next ice age if you like. Maybe it'll even get you a career at the UN eventually... ...but it won't get the job done.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The only way out of this quagmire is to go harder...Yep, I'm talking Vlad III style treatment of captured insurgents. But that ain't gonna go down so well with the...voters back home in the coalition countries.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Doofy argues that winning the Iraq war should be accomplished by committing war crimes if only the voting populace would acquiesce

Originally Posted by Doofy

And I didn't say that at all. You're one who brought war crimes into it (as is usual for someone of your political persuasion).

Riiiiiight.

greg