[tie]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Well, then, give us a Plan B that doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

Actually, let me revise that: give us a plan that wouldn't violate current international law six ways from Sunday, and doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

Why don't you give us a Plan A that has any reasonable chance of success?

..crickets chirping..

[Face Ache]

The best time to stop a war is before it starts.

[tie]

That's probably also the best time to plan for a war. Ah well, Bush is just human like the rest of us, I forgive him.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by tie 

That's probably also the best time to plan for a war.

I don't think winning this war is half as important to the Bush White House as starting it was. They wanted to break the status quo and they have. Whatever follows... follows. In many ways losing this war will further erode the status quo in the M.E.

Domino theory, anyone?

As the right-wingers here keep stating - you could always turn it to glass.

The main goal now is to make it all the Left's fault.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why don't you give us a Plan A that has any reasonable chance of success?

..crickets chirping..

Plan A; failed economic sanctions only serving to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. We don't have to wonder if that was successful. After 12 years and 13 Resolutions, it was obvious there was no reasonable chance of success.

Plan B; follow through on otherwise idle threat lodged by UN body. Remove Saddam, negotiate an interim constitution, facilitate full sovereignty, hold free national elections, form an elected government, draft a permanent constitution, ratify the constitution, introduce sound currency, gradually restore neglected infrastructure, train and equip Iraqi security forces to manage their own crime.

Knowing we've already gone through Plan A and are now involved in Plan B; notably the most difficult part of Plan B, some are calling for a Plan C.

Allow me to revise Millenium's question and pose it to you again; give us a plan C that wouldn't violate current international law six ways from Sunday, and doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I don't think winning this war is half as important to the Bush White House as starting it was. They wanted to break the status quo and they have. Whatever follows... follows. In many ways losing this war will further erode the status quo in the M.E.

Domino theory, anyone?

As the right-wingers here keep stating - you could always turn it to glass.

The main goal now is to make it all the Left's fault.

This is part of the problem. Everything must be "left" or "right-wingers". It's really not this simple and those who frame the debate in this manner are being dishonest. The reason "right-wingers" keep bringing up "left-wingers" is because they too initially supported the actions against Saddam Hussein. It becomes a left/right thing when it can be viewed in hindsight and the public's pulse can be measured, using both ends against the middle. We're the middle. Until you see both parties as potentially two heads of the same snake, you'll be duped time and again.

I know that our action in Iraq was not a wholly humanitarian effort, but those who oppose it can't illustrate why their position is any more humanitarian. We've watched as the tumors in the ME grow exponentially with every passing decade and do nothing. We watch as governments align resources that threaten our interests here and abroad and we've determined that Iraq is the place to start. We either do nothing or we seek to address the tumor. Where to start? Seems there's some disagreement. For those opposed to "doing nothing", I'd like to see where you would start and why.

A bridge of hostility was being built from one end of the ME to the other and our action was designed to cut the bridge in half, secure an oil future, an ally in the region, strategically position our military in the region, plant democracy for yes... a domino theory, and try to change the face of the ME. I know some of the above seems outright evil, but this is foreign policy and IMO is the best humans can do. It is not unique to this Administration nor is it exclusive to the US. I won't give you the "this world is coming to a head of ideals" talk, but at some point we have to recognize how volatile this globe is. Isolationism is nothing less than burying your head in the sand and pretending everything's going to be alright. It is not effective foreign policy today.

Instead of saying; "those damned Conservatives" you may as well be saying; "those damned humans".

[- - e r i k - -]

Wow. A great post by eBuddy. I must be hallucinating

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know some of the above seems outright evil, but this is foreign policy and IMO is the best humans can do. It is not unique to this Administration nor is it exclusive to the US.

They used to call it colonialism in the beginning of the last century, it ended badly.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We watch as governments align resources that threaten our interests here and abroad and we've determined that Iraq is the place to start.

There, buried neatly in the middle of your response, is really the crux of the issue. "Our" oil supply is threatened, and we'll do whatever it takes to keep the oil flowing, without regard for the consequences. We've never learned that every action has a reaction, and, unfortunately we never will, as we slide to our eventual position as just another country that had its moment in the sun.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Plan A; failed economic sanctions only serving to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. We don't have to wonder if that was successful. After 12 years and 13 Resolutions, it was obvious there was no reasonable chance of success.

Plan B; follow through on otherwise idle threat lodged by UN body. Remove Saddam, negotiate an interim constitution, facilitate full sovereignty, hold free national elections, form an elected government, draft a permanent constitution, ratify the constitution, introduce sound currency, gradually restore neglected infrastructure, train and equip Iraqi security forces to manage their own crime.

Knowing we've already gone through Plan A and are now involved in Plan B; notably the most difficult part of Plan B, some are calling for a Plan C.

Allow me to revise Millenium's question and pose it to you again; give us a plan C that wouldn't violate current international law six ways from Sunday, and doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

I ask for a plan A with a reasonable chance of success. And you can't do it. I was not asking for you to rename plan A.

The sanctions were much more successful than the current plan.

A bridge of hostility was being built from one end of the ME to the other and our action was designed to cut the bridge in half, secure an oil future, an ally in the region, strategically position our military in the region, plant democracy for yes... a domino theory, and try to change the face of the ME.

Seems like you forgot to mention WMD?! And what about 9/11? We all know the terrorists came from Iraq. All your reasons for the war are equally disconnected from reality, and none of them -- except for removing Saddam Hussein -- have been accomplished.

I think we needed a lot more armchair generals at the beginning of this war.

[ironknee]

btw, do we have 300k army guys if we need them?

if a draft, how long would it take for them to be trained before going to war (in iraq or other places)?

[tie]

No, we don't. But unlike any of the conservatives here, at least spindler has formulated a plan that could work. None of this ridiculous, `Just stay the course another five years and see if it doesn't get any better by then -- after all there were suicide bombers in Germany after WW2' stuff.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by tie 

Try reading Railhead's posts. He's still looking for WMD and hasn't yet caught up with the post-war reason for the war.

But that had diddly squat to do with my retort, now did it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Plan B; follow through on otherwise idle threat lodged by UN body. Remove Saddam, negotiate an interim constitution, facilitate full sovereignty, hold free national elections, form an elected government, draft a permanent constitution, ratify the constitution, introduce sound currency, gradually restore neglected infrastructure, train and equip Iraqi security forces to manage their own crime.

Bring 1/10th the number of troops we need.
Keep all our peacetime generals.
Fire the Iraqi Army.
Fire all the civil servants.
Refuse to deal with the Sheiks.
Put bags over their heads and laugh at their willies.
Gradually restore a fully intact infrastructure that we destroyed.
Loose $12 billion down a hidey hole.
Teach an army how to be cops, instead of teaching them to be, say... an army.

Our "plan B" sucks.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bring 1/10th the number of troops we need.
Fire the Iraqi Army.
Fire all the civil servants.
Refuse to deal with the Sheiks
Put bags over their heads and laugh at their willies.
Gradually restore a fully intact infrastructure that we destroyed.
Loose $12 billion down a hidey hole.
Teach an army how to be cops, instead of teaching them to be, say... an army.

Our "plan B" sucks.

You forgot, allow the looting of the country (though they did manage to protect the oil ministry building).

And perhaps most importantly, stick Iran into the Axis O' Evil and give them all the incentive in the world for them to train and fund the so called terrorists/insurgents/jihadist/murder squads/freedom fighter/suiciding /bad guys.

[subego]

I was listening to Lewis Black talk about the war, and as the fool often can, he stripped down the issues into their (literally) base components.

All of this is really because of Bush. All he had to do was lie and manipulate a little better. That's his only job, and he ****ed it up royally.

If the world needed to be told to ****-off, fine. Just don't act like you're telling the whole world to ****-off. K?

For ****'s sake George, WIPE THAT GOD DAMN SMILE OFF YOUR FACE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS!

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is part of the problem. Everything must be "left" or "right-wingers". It's really not this simple and those who frame the debate in this manner are being dishonest. The reason "right-wingers" keep bringing up "left-wingers" is because they too initially supported the actions against Saddam Hussein. It becomes a left/right thing when it can be viewed in hindsight and the public's pulse can be measured, using both ends against the middle. We're the middle. Until you see both parties as potentially two heads of the same snake, you'll be duped time and again.

I'm not the one who's been duped time and again.

edit: BTW, I agree with you about the Left's complicity in this war. I'm just saying, in the end, the joke will be on them because the blame will fall at their feet.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

But that had diddly squat to do with my retort, now did it?

Sorry, you're right. Looking at the last page, I see that you yourself called for public executions without trials of anybody the army picks up as suspicious.

No doubt that's all part of ebuddy's domino theory, how we're going to transform the Middle East.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I ask for a plan A with a reasonable chance of success. And you can't do it. I was not asking for you to rename plan A.

A plan B was asked of you and apparently you couldn't do it. The best you could do was ask for a plan A. Have you gotten any ideas yet?

The sanctions were much more successful than the current plan.

No they weren't.

Seems like you forgot to mention WMD?! And what about 9/11? We all know the terrorists came from Iraq. All your reasons for the war are equally disconnected from reality, and none of them -- except for removing Saddam Hussein -- have been accomplished.

As if removing Saddam was a small accomplishment. According to many, this was to be the beginning of the quagmire. His elite guard was going to cause problems, etc... I didn't forget WMD. You'll notice that "oil" was not in the "sell" to the American people either. I wasn't referring to why they claim we acted as much as why we acted. If we averted a nuclear programs sale to another entity, we barely avoided it by invading when we did. I mean, at least per David Kay. Again, we have to frame this in some neat "neo-con" agenda, then claim I'm somehow disconnected from reality. That is, unless you consider Clinton part of the neo-con agenda. Have you read any of Clinton's speeches prior to lobbing missiles at Iraq? Did you read any of the speeches he gave in Germany for example, prior to actions in Yugoslavia? The call against Saddam and the dangers he posed were long-standing and shared by those of both sides of the aisle. You want to see this as a right-wing/left-wing issue when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I think we needed a lot more armchair generals at the beginning of this war.

maybe so, but then... they're still just armchair generals.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I'm not the one who's been duped time and again.

Truth be told, the only way to not have been duped by the political scheme in this country is to not follow an ounce of it. If you've believed anything you've been told at all, it is quite possible you've been duped.

edit: BTW, I agree with you about the Left's complicity in this war. I'm just saying, in the end, the joke will be on them because the blame will fall at their feet.

I'm not entirely sure of that, but it really doesn't matter to me. We're not seeing anything much different now that the Dems have control of the House and Senate other than an augmentation of troop levels. Here's to hoping. (and I certainly was) If the American people's mandate was to pull out of Iraq or to find a solution to Iraq, they're not going to be happy with how little progress we've attained regardless of who is "representing" us.

What I can't stand about this administration is the ongoing, woeful lack of ability to communicate to the American people. When Bush does communicate to the American people, it is defensive, pleaful, and mind-numbingly repetitive. His Administration's inability to overcome criticism and in accurately representing the issue is to a degree suspicious, but mostly just pathetic.

I'm no party-line guy, but when I see this "right-wing" nonsense, it makes my blood boil. There is absolutely nothing to suggest another party or another administration/elected representative would've handled this any differently. Nothing at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bring 1/10th the number of troops we need.

Really a hindsight observation. I'm not impressed.

Keep all our peacetime generals.

Questionable, I agree.

Fire the Iraqi Army.

Was it possible that this element was unmanagable or do neo-cons just like firing people?

Fire all the civil servants.

I'm seeing "all" here. Is this so or is this some adversarial absolute?

Refuse to deal with the Sheiks.

You mean there are examples of us refusing to deal with Sheiks or this is somehow official policy?

Put bags over their heads and laugh at their willies.

Of course, this is rampant and representative of the entire US military complex. This is to suggest that we really can control all aspects of our actions with regard to human stress behaviors. C'mon man. Anyone can throw digs in for the sake of it. You mean to tell me your older brother hasn't done this to you? Cry me a river.

Gradually restore a fully intact infrastructure that we destroyed.

Fully intact infrastructure? Are you getting paid per post by Moveon.org?

Loose $12 billion down a hidey hole.

This is deplorable and only the tip of the "missing-money" iceberg. This is mismanagement and incompetence at the very least, and likely wholly corrupted behavior at the worst I agree. Is there anything to suggest some human entity has more integrity? I'll let you chew on that for a minute. I suspect you'll try to qualify that "the left" is somehow more virtuous with money than "the right", but who knows, you could surprise.

Teach an army how to be cops, instead of teaching them to be, say... an army.

You can understand why this is just a smidgen more complex than you're letting on right? I mean, I hope I don't have to explain this to you.

Our "plan B" sucks.

Plan A sucked too. Plan C would likely suck as well. Sucky plans are not exclusive to one side of the aisle. Normally, I'd accept your critique as just that... a critique. However, the absolutes you've chosen in your rhetoric and the manner in which you launch these indictments to me shows you're toeing a party line here. Personally, I'm not pleased with what either party has done surrounding this issue, but I feel that isolationism, idle threats, and economic sanctions were not more humanitarian or more brilliant, but represent the failed policies of our past. You may believe this action in Iraq is failed policy of today and you have many things to point to in making that point. I'm a little surprised at the particular issues you've seized upon, but oh well. At the end of the day failed policies are what human do best. Right-wing, left-wing... it doesn't matter because they're still human after all. There's nothing to suggest any other group of humans would've reacted any differently.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by tie 

77 killed and 127 wounded in double suicide bomb attack

We were discussing about underground activities in the post WW2-Germany of 1946-1949...

PB.

[Nicko]

ebuddy, you write alot, but you aren't saying much of substance.

Why not just admit you're an apologist for the overwhelming failure/tragedy that is Iraq?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

ebuddy, you write alot, but you aren't saying much of substance.

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd be compelled to respond. Oh... the below;

Why not just admit you're an apologist for the overwhelming failure/tragedy that is Iraq?

You mean by;

- voicing opposition to keeping peacetime generals
- indicting this action for mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption
- claiming I'm not pleased with what either party has done surrounding this issue

I'm not sure they'd be pleased with my endorsement.

Why not just admit you have the attention span of a gibbon?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

We were discussing about underground activities in the post WW2-Germany of 1946-1949...

PB.

salivating over dead people for the party line is apparently more appealing.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A plan B was asked of you and apparently you couldn't do it. The best you could do was ask for a plan A. Have you gotten any ideas yet?

Nope, can't think of any. Apparently you can't either. And neither can Bush. So we'll wander on without a plan for another four years.

As if removing Saddam was a small accomplishment. According to many, this was to be the beginning of the quagmire. His elite guard was going to cause problems, etc... I didn't forget WMD. You'll notice that "oil" was not in the "sell" to the American people either. I wasn't referring to why they claim we acted as much as why we acted. If we averted a nuclear programs sale to another entity, we barely avoided it by invading when we did. I mean, at least per David Kay. Again, we have to frame this in some neat "neo-con" agenda, then claim I'm somehow disconnected from reality. That is, unless you consider Clinton part of the neo-con agenda. Have you read any of Clinton's speeches prior to lobbing missiles at Iraq? Did you read any of the speeches he gave in Germany for example, prior to actions in Yugoslavia? The call against Saddam and the dangers he posed were long-standing and shared by those of both sides of the aisle. You want to see this as a right-wing/left-wing issue when that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Of course it is. It is Bush who lied and started the war. Clinton didn't. How is this not a right-wing/left-wing issue?

And yes, the sanctions were more successful than the current plan. They stopped Iraq from getting WMD, and resulted in a comparable number of innocent deaths. All at minimal cost to the US.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

salivating over dead people for the party line is apparently more appealing.

I was trying to help smacintush and Millennium out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Nope, can't think of any. Apparently you can't either. And neither can Bush. So we'll wander on without a plan for another four years.

I've already given one. You were asked by another poster what your plan was. You should have just admitted you didn't have one in the first place.

Of course it is. It is Bush who lied and started the war. Clinton didn't.

Clinton didn't lie about WMD? Where did they go?

How is this not a right-wing/left-wing issue?

Because you can be provided with quote after quote after ever-loving quote of those of the "left-wing" who believed Saddam was a threat and possessed both WMDs and WMD programs. This must be one of the deals where you tell yourself a lie long enough to truly believe it. It has been affirmed that there was indeed a nuclear weapons program and it was up for sale. This as testified by the same man many of you were quick to quote when it came to not finding WMDs. It is not a right or left-wing issue because they have both been on record as saying the exact same things. Clinton said these things while bombing Iraq during his presidency.

And yes, the sanctions were more successful than the current plan. They stopped Iraq from getting WMD, and resulted in a comparable number of innocent deaths. All at minimal cost to the US.

No they weren't. They resulted in exponentially more innocent deaths and the US is now reaping the benefits of them and prior inaction.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

However, the absolutes you've chosen in your rhetoric and the manner in which you launch these indictments to me shows you're toeing a party line here.

This is ridiculous.

The manner in which I launch my indictments?

They were bullet points ebuddy. Bullet. Points. I chose to launch them as bullet points because you launched your argument as bullet points.

I mimicked the form of your argument and you accuse me of being partisan?




Look. If I haven't earned the microscopic amount of respect that it takes to be merely wrong, rather than toeing someone's line, fine. You win. Hang subego's head as a trophy on your wall and I'll never bother you again. You would have given me a brain aneurism anyways.

Otherwise, I still look forward to (and have researched) responding to each of your points.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Look. If I haven't earned the microscopic amount of respect that it takes to be merely wrong, rather than toeing someone's line, fine. You win. Hang subego's head as a trophy on your wall and I'll never bother you again. You would have given me a brain aneurism anyways.

I'm not looking to hang anyone's head on a wall nor win any trophies subego. I've been wrong and have "lost" my fair share of arguments on MacNN before. It's all part of the experience here.

Otherwise, I still look forward to (and have researched) responding to each of your points.

I wasn't critiquing the way you formatted your reply, I'm was critiquing the specific points you raised. You lost me with the whole "bullet". "points".

When someone gauges the entire US military by Abu Ghraib stating "put bags over their faces and laugh at their willies" or says things like "firing ALL the civil servants" or "refusing to deal with sheiks"; this does not seem like someone who is carefully weighing the facts and coming to a sober conclusion. This seems more like parroting bumper stickers in the typical vitriolic, non-productive partisan way. Too often people are more bent on chest-pounding partisan viewpoints for the quick high-five rather than addressing the real issues.

I have no problem with disagreement, I'm critiquing the predictable rhetoric and delivery styles I see here.

BTW; this is the second time someone has accused me of being partisan. Why? Because I support action over inaction regarding Iraq. Of course, to the simpletons here, that is all that is required. You're not labeled by what you happen to agree with them on, you're labeled by what you disagree with them on. For example;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What I can't stand about this administration is the ongoing, woeful lack of ability to communicate to the American people. When Bush does communicate to the American people, it is defensive, pleaful, and mind-numbingly repetitive. His Administration's inability to overcome criticism and in accurately representing the issue is to a degree suspicious, but mostly just pathetic.

What party am I supporting here?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

- voicing opposition to keeping peacetime generals
- indicting this action for mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption
- claiming I'm not pleased with what either party has done surrounding this issue

I was called an apologist for contents of this post. It just never ends. I'm still trying to figure out which party this supports and who exactly I'm endorsing with it.

Drop the party line folks. You're being duped.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've already given one. You were asked by another poster what your plan was. You should have just admitted you didn't have one in the first place.

You do not have a plan which has any chance of being successful. You should have just admitted it in the first place. "Stay the course" is not a plan.

Actually, I do have a plan. We should leave now.

It is not a right or left-wing issue because they have both been on record as saying the exact same things.

And doing exactly different things. The comparison does not stand up to any scrutiny.

No they weren't. They resulted in exponentially more innocent deaths and the US is now reaping the benefits of them and prior inaction.

Somehow I guess you don't know what exponentially means. In any case, with 150,000 deaths per year prior to invasion versus 200,000 per year after, "comparable" seems like a generous assessment (link).

The US is "reaping the benefits of them and prior inaction"?! Not at all. The US's current troubles are entirely due to this idiotic war, which a certain president didn't was worth planning for. It's hard to spread the blame any further. In particular, if we had bothered to plan for this war, we could have won it by now. How then could it be Clinton's fault?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW; this is the second time someone has accused me of being partisan. Why? Because I support action over inaction regarding Iraq. Of course, to the simpletons here, that is all that is required. You're not labeled by what you happen to agree with them on, you're labeled by what you disagree with them on. For example;

What party am I supporting here?

Drop the party line folks. You're being duped.

Well, I don' t get the whole 'partisan' thing either, must be an American thing

I just don't see how someone can continue justify a pre-emptive war that was clearly based on lies, is an utter failure, has no chance of success, and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Ok...so you support action over inaction. Since when is a pre-emptive war EVER justified?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I just don't see how someone can continue justify a preemptive war that was clearly based on lies, is an utter failure, has no chance of success, and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Because the "humanitarian" approach we were using via failed economic sanctions was killing hundreds of thousands of people, facilitated corruption and lies, was an utter failure, and had no chance of success.

Ok...so you support action over inaction. Since when is a preemptive war EVER justified?

Your broadband company employs aggressive preventative maintenance. Auto mechanics suggest preventative maintenance and the health industry recommends preventative health care. Why? Because waiting for problems to grow out of control is irresponsible. You may feel this war is irresponsible and the manner in which some aspects of it have been handled I'd be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, this is the best we've got. Whether we bury our head in the sand and pretend we don't live on a volatile globe or not, It doesn't matter. This world is coming to a head of ideals. I'd rather deal with the issues on our time as opposed to waiting for the problem to grow out of control and hand it off to our kids. Preemptive has become an evil word for something we'd recommend in all other facets of life.

I don't believe we've created more terrorists, I believe terrorists created more of us. If you're not growing, you're dying. N. Korea knows this. China knows this. Syria knows this. Russia knows this. Europe knows this. Iran knows this. Castro knows it. Saddam knew it. OBL knew it. Some refuse to admit it. Most cannot stomach it, but it is so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You do not have a plan which has any chance of being successful. You should have just admitted it in the first place. "Stay the course" is not a plan.

I know you are, but what am I.

Actually, I do have a plan. We should leave now.

Stay the stupid is not a plan.

And doing exactly different things. The comparison does not stand up to any scrutiny.

How so? Dems have the House and Senate and we're sending more troops. They said the same things, they did the same things, and they will continue to do the same things.

Somehow I guess you don't know what exponentially means. In any case, with 150,000 deaths per year prior to invasion versus 200,000 per year after, "comparable" seems like a generous assessment (link).

I won't be registering a username and password with the Lancet to view this nonsense, but thanx.

The US is "reaping the benefits of them and prior inaction"?! Not at all. The US's current troubles are entirely due to this idiotic war, which a certain president didn't was worth planning for. It's hard to spread the blame any further. In particular, if we had bothered to plan for this war, we could have won it by now. How then could it be Clinton's fault?

Got any other ideas? The plans have always been idiotic, that's what humans do. Idiotic things. Then they dupe those who can't see right or wrong, only left or right into believing their "same" is somehow different.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW; this is the second time someone has accused me of being partisan. Why? Because I support action over inaction regarding Iraq. Of course, to the simpletons here, that is all that is required. You're not labeled by what you happen to agree with them on, you're labeled by what you disagree with them on. For example;

I absolutely, positively did not accuse you of being partisan. I apologize that's how it came off. If I thought you were genuinely partisan I wouldn't be interested in conversing with you in such detail.

I accused you of unfairly judging my motives.

Upon reading your response here, mea culpa. This isn't the first time my sarcasm with regards to this issue has been (fairly) misinterpreted as partisanship.

I took great offense at your accusations of partisanship because of the enormous lengths to which I go not to be partisan. My sarcasm isn't helping that, so I need to knock it off.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When someone gauges the entire US military by Abu Ghraib stating "put bags over their faces and laugh at their willies"...

Allow me to present my (less sarcastic) critique of the conduct of the war by starting with what I'm not criticizing.

Donald Rumsfeld entered the Pentagon with the expressed goal of "transforming" the military. While I have some issues with the foreign policy implications of this (I'm a big fan of deterrence), from a practical standpoint, the proof is in the pudding. The man is a friggin' genius. We rolled Afghanistan and Iraq like they were tin shacks, and we did it with a deployment that would have made a Cold War General quake in their boots.

And quake in their boots they did. Rumsfeld, through sheer force of will (and some help from Tommy Franks) beat the Pentagon into line. His status as a bureaucratic in-fighter is the stuff of legend. He didn't let anything get in the way of what he wanted, and what he wanted was speed.

The entire core of the Rumsfeld doctrine is speed. The key reason we used a small troop deployment was so we could get into the action as fast as possible, thus leaving the enemy as little time as possible to prepare. It was essential to Rumsfeld that we begin the invasion before the deployment had reached full strength. Part and parcel with this was the intent of an equally speedy withdrawal. To the great consternation of most of his Generals, he insisted they actually plan to withdraw before the initial deployment had reached full strength.

I'm not quite sure how you perceive this, since this is usually tied into the "Mission Accomplished" debate, but I am personally crushed under the weight of the evidence that the plan from the beginning was for the bulk of our deployment to be short. Our plan for the reconstruction was to have the Iraqi Army do the heavy lifting, our own army remaining there only in an oversight capacity. The most recent example of this was the tape that they dragged out of the General predicting that we would only have 5,000 troops in-theatre by 2007. It's not like he was lying or something. That was the plan.

So then they fire the Iraqi Army.

Okay. I don't have a problem with that. There are a billion reasons the Iraqi Army would need to be gacked. A plan never survives an encounter with the enemy.

However the fact remained that the lynchpin of the reconstruction plan, which (somewhat by necessity) was pretty hazy to begin with, had been shorn off in totality.

Other factors (which I alluded to in my OP), exacerbated this situation. Unlike firing the army, de-Baathification of the government was planned from the outset. While perhaps I spoke too stridently in my OP, the situation is that most of the people who were skilled in the important areas of the civil service were Saddam's people and hence barred from participating. "Important areas" specifically means the areas that are required to keep a country together. Command and control. This also happened to be the part of the infrastructure that was fully intact, the part that let Saddam keep his death grip on everything. We had to destroy it to break Saddam's hold, at the cost of making the job of putting things back together exponentially more difficult.

None of these things are failures in the strict sense, they're contingencies that necessitated a complete overhaul of the plan. It's telling that this is the point where a heretofore flawless execution starts piling up mistakes. The "why" is an enormously complicated and tangled mess of overlapping agendas, but the nature of the mistakes point towards a singular "how".

The original plan was never properly reconciled with the expansion of the mission. We never fully committed the resources needed to address the increased difficulties of the reconstruction after we gacked the army.

This is what Abu Ghraib is an example of (and again, forgive me for phrasing it the way I did). The plan was not adjusted to suit the changing nature of the mission. The kind of thing that went on there is a thoroughly documented phenomenon. Without some form of intervention, it is essentially guaranteed to happen in any guard/prisoner relationship. Abu Ghraib was never intended to be for long-term internment so it wasn't equipped (with the proper oversight) to act as such. Once the mission changed it wasn't re-equipped, it was made to make-do with what it had. Willie-pointing followed.

This is the overall character of the problems we have faced along the way. The whole operation has been hamstrung by "making-do". These are good people, and they go above and beyond the call to make progress, but that progress is consistently being railroaded by the effort expended merely to stay in place. The largest and most important thing that has remained beyond their grasp is being able to stop the slow yet constant deterioration of the security situation.

As I said, the seeming cause of this is a failure to commit, and as I said, the "why" is enormously complicated (ultimately subject only to conjecture). However, one has to note that the situation after the firing of the Iraqi Army was diametrically opposed to the strengths of the Rumsfeld doctrine. This was (ironically) probably made far worse by Rumsfeld's unprecedented string of successes. It no doubt gave him much leeway with the president to screw things up, as well as giving everyone overconfidence in Rumsfeld's abilities, himself included.

I would be pretty surprised if in the final wash, this didn't bear much responsiblity for our failure to make the proper commitment.



That's (almost) enough for one post, however I want to briefly touch on the issue of the current disposition of the Iraqi Army. I stated that they are being used as cops rather than as an army, to which you offered that the situation may be more complicated. All I can say is that I hope so.

I would like to point you to this thread, which outlines a PowerPoint presentation created by a (deceased) Captain who was stationed in Al Anbar. However, unlike most military Power Point presentations this is (to use the parlance) a No Bullshit Assessment of this precise problem.

I'm baffled at the lack of understanding of basic military principles this presentation is meant to correct... up the chain of command.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know you are, but what am I.

Nice job boiling your argument down to its essence.

How so? Dems have the House and Senate and we're sending more troops. They said the same things, they did the same things, and they will continue to do the same things.

I think you are confused. I was referring to your comparison to Clinton.

I won't be registering a username and password with the Lancet to view this nonsense, but thanx.

I gave a source, and you are unable to refute it. Who's speaking nonsense? (A: You.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Nice job boiling your argument down to its essence.

I reserve my best just for you tie.

I gave a source, and you are unable to refute it. Who's speaking nonsense? (A: You.)

Are you new here? You don't post links requiring subscriptions. It's impolite. Either way, you're wrong. Here's proof;

12 years of death vs five