July 20, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Comment of the day
From Purple, to the last post (which was titled "Tee-hee", and centred around a deadpan post by James Joyner about Glenn Greenwald's sock puppetry):
The war Jane supported so vociferously has turned into a nightmare with no way out. Tee hee!
Apparently, having supported the Iraq war, I may never laugh, at anything, ever again.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 20, 2006 4:29 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksIraq is difficult, but hardly a nightmare, at least not to those who still have some resolve. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of going in there but reasonable people cannot disagree about the prefered outcome now that we are there. Far more unsettling than the problems in Iraq is that there are people like this "Purple" who actively jeer at their own country and root for its defeat (assuming Purple is an American, though I hope to God that isn't so). The removal of Saddam was a noble effort and even those who opposed the war ought to recognize the nobility of the cause--freedom over tyranny.
Isocrates,
With your attitude, I certainly hope you are posting from Iraq--fully engaged in fighting for what you believe in.
If not, allow me to offer to pay your way there, so that you may have the opportunity to put your Self where your mouth is.
Well and good(Irony), more drum beating from "keyboard warriors", secure far from what they pontificating about.
Funny you only mention: "taking Saddam out"--OK, that took 3 Weeks max, why then are our sons & daughters there, 3 Years later?
Mark Hoffer,
I will recommend some logic books if you like. Ad hominem arguments are sophistical. They are especially foolish when you don't know anything about the person you are attacking. In the future, please try to remember that when you attack people rather than their arguments, you show just how weak your own argument is.
Mmmm rehashing the chicken hawk meme. Good times. Good times.
Isocrates,
I believe I was asking for clarification of your position, with this: "With your attitude, I certainly hope you are posting from Iraq--fully engaged in fighting for what you believe in."
Barring affirmative response, then yes, you are, ipso facto, a "keyboard warrior".
Sorry, it isn't an ad hominum attack, it is a simple statement of truth. In fact what you've done, is create a Strawman. Which, in view of Oz, is quite poetic--since you both lack Courage.
Funny that you view the cause as so Noble, yet fail to join. Exactly, how can that be?
And, please do answer this: "taking Saddam out"--OK, that took 3 Weeks max, why then are our sons & daughters there, 3 Years later?"
Sorry, it isn't an ad hominum attack, it is a simple statement of truth. In fact what you've done, is create a Strawman. Which, in view of Oz, is quite poetic--since you both lack Courage
Mark, do you know what ad hominem means? Cause in saying that you weren't making an ad hominem argument, you ... umm... made an ad hominem argument.
(Side note:, the Scarecrow (your strawman) lacked a brain, the Cowardly Lion lacked courage.)
Really sad, Mark.
So, since you started the silly questions, do you actually have a son or daughter there? If not, who is this "our" that you claim to represent?
Second, are you actually claiming that the US found Saddam in April 2003, and then, what, kept him in a spider hole until December? Or did you not bother to read the papers detailing the capture?
Third, are you really not capable of understanding the other ten or twelve reasons that our people are there, and therefore was the "scarecrow" slip a Freudean one on your part?
For example, running away in January would have put the whole country in the hands of Iran - you know, that crazy guy now trying to get nukes, who just opined that liberals are all Zionist stooges?
Instead, they have had free elections with intermittent violence by "insurgents" as various groups vied to be the new strongmen. Over time, they will have a chance to become a peaceful pluralist society, if Iran doesn't blow them up first for daring not to murder Jews or some such.
We are wagering a few thousand lives now against millions later, at pretty favorable odds. Or is that too complicated for your straw man to handle?
Jody,
I'm not sure whether I'd be a brainless strawman or a cowardly lion. The latter, I think, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to be a cowardly strawman.
As for poor Mark, he missed my point. I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of going to war--instead I was claiming that even those who opposed the war ought to be rooting for American success there, given the terrible consequences for the region and the world if America fails and the place erupts in civil war, terrorists take over, etc... So, I just don't understand the mentality of someone like "Purple" who seems to be delighted by America's troubles there. I can't see any possible rational basis for that.
Anyway, I'm thinking of recommending Aristotle's "Organon" to Mark, but I don't think he'll take my advice--since I'm a brainless lion, or whatever.
Mark, this is Knee. Knee, meet Jerk.
And I'm your much-needed Pixie Deity-Matriarch. Now that we're all acquainted, let's go smoke a Valium-Prozac cocktail for fun!
Let's see, I'll lead by example.
Q: "do you actually have a son or daughter there? If not, who is this "our" that you claim to represent?"
A: Myself, personally, No. Cousins? Sons of my Mother's brother? Yes. Two, actively deployed in the Gulf theater. And, the "our" I was referring to is: America(n)'s sons & daughters. You know, living, breathing young people that like most others, dream of, one day, growing older.
Q: "are you actually claiming that the US found Saddam in April 2003, and then, what, kept him in a spider hole until December?"
A: Why would I, or even need to? Right. Direct answer: No, of course not.
from Isoc: "The removal of Saddam was a noble effort "-- says nothing of capture.
Q: "Third, are you really not capable of understanding the other ten or twelve reasons that our people are there, and therefore was the "scarecrow" slip a Freudian one on your part?"
A: I don't think I've ever seen a list of the top 10 or 12 reasons, from the Bush administration, why U.S. Troops are in Iraq. If you have such a list, please do share.
Re: "slip", not sure I follow your supposition.
Q: "We are wagering a few thousand lives now against millions later, at pretty favorable odds. Or is that too complicated for your straw man to handle?"
A: Really, that was the plan in Feb. '03? Do me a favor, tell the next Serviceman, in uniform, that this your idea for him. You ask me if I, personally, have children in the line of fire in Iraq; I'll guarantee, by the evidence of your own statement, you don't even Know anyone serving in that theater.
Where you get off thinking that other's blood is for you to wager is Quite beyond me. It is, truly, beneath contempt.
If you think it's such a good deal--"at pretty favorable odds"-- what are you doing here? and, why aren't you there? leading by example?
So, let me get this straight.
As an American who is not a part of the armed forces I have to root for our troops to lose and fail? Or I just have to root that we pull them out of dangerous places around the world and to hell with the consequesces?
Or is it that I can't root against tyranny? I can't prefer a US win outcome? I honestly don't see what your argument against the first post is regarding. He didn't say you have to think we should have gone; just that it would be better if we win than if we lose... And he wants to promote freedom over tyranny. That requires military participation?
So, I can't support the war without being military, but I can oppose it without being military? I've got a better idea. Votes for Federal Office (Senate, House and President) can ONLY be made by ACITVE military personnel. Can't be fairer than that; right? Then the people who "decide for or against the war" are specifically voted on by the military. Kerry didn't carry a majority of active military though, did he?
As a last aside, as I'm sure you don't approve of any of the above. If you're so against the war you attack people hwo not only supported our going in, but people who simply hope it'll turn out for the best... I hope you're posting from a foxhole doing your all to make sure US forces are routed and return home ASAP.
He didn't ask you to believe that going there was a good plan. He didn't ask you to believe that we went there wiht the purest of motives. He didn't even ask you to believe that we have a good chance of getting the stated objectives (a democracry in the ME being what the current objective seems to be). He asked that reasonable people have a preferred outcome that has the US troops Winning instead of Losing.
This is unacceptable drumbeating of keyboard warriors too? Then you apparantly believe I have to be military to hope we'll win at all, and you have reletives there that you hope will lose?
Baffling, or you're arguing against points he didn't make...
Isoc: "Iraq is difficult, but hardly a nightmare, at least not to those who still have some resolve."
How would he know if he wasn't there?
Isoc: "...but reasonable people cannot disagree about the preferred outcome now that we are there."
The "preferred outcome" is left unsaid. What exactly is it that "reasonable people cannot disagree" with? Bringing our troops home and letting Iraq rule itself? Pouring more troops in to take out Tehran and Damascus? Keeping our troops there to force Iraqis into "Freedom"?
Pray tell, what's the goal (this week)?
Isoc: "The removal of Saddam was a noble effort and even those who opposed the war ought to recognize the nobility of the cause--freedom over tyranny."
As I was asking before: if he thinks it was so Noble, why wasn't/isn't he there? He's not there, why is that? He states: "The removal of Saddam was a noble effort..."-- Fine, we did that in less than three weeks, why are we there three Years later?
Try to transmogrify my Questions into which ever strain of nonsense you care to concoct, they remain, as in the first, what they are: Questions he will not answer, surely because no simple logic will support the positions, unearned, that he has taken.
Isoc, Aristotle's "Organon" is weighty Tome, is there anything, in specific, that you think I should focus on?
MEH:
"As I was asking before: if he thinks it was so Noble, why wasn't/isn't he there?"
Um, because he thinks that there are other things that are also noble?
Or maybe because he doesn't feel the need to justify your vacuous "If you support the war and are not a soldier you are a coward" meme?
For example:
I assume, MEH, that you are pro-choice. Are you an abortion doctor? If not... why not? Why are you not actively aborting babies right now? How can anyone claim to be pro-choice if they're not willing to get in there with a vacuum and scissors and start suctioning? What sort of hypocrite are you?
Hey leave Mark alone, its not easy being coherent when your posting from the Afghani-Pakistan border between bouts of patrolling for Bin Laden.
....oh wait
Without getting into the merits of the vacuity of "If you support the war and are not a soldier you are a coward", there's little to debate in the vacuity of a statement like, "Iraq is difficult, but hardly a nightmare, at least not to those who still have some resolve."
So, whether or not Mark actually meant the former (I don't see where he said anything remotely like it but with regard to the specific case at hand), he's certainly correct in calling bullshit on the latter.
From the safety of my desk - and without any great insight - I find it difficult to dispute that plenty of Iraqis think Iraq is a nightmare. Or that they lack resolve in trying to live through the current situation.
They do count, don't they?
Cheers,
If the reasons for going into Iraq were so noble, why didn't our government adequately prepare to go into Iraq?
Rofe: "From the safety of my desk - and without any great insight - I find it difficult to dispute that plenty of Iraqis think Iraq is a nightmare. Or that they lack resolve in trying to live through the current situation."
Do you believe that most Iraquis want America to leave? The polls conducted in Iraq show that Iraquis want Americans (and British, Australians, etc...) to stay and help stablize the country. That popular sentiment is also reflected in the position of the elected government in Iraq, which has made clear its desire to see American soldiers stay until Iraqui forces are fully capable of maintaining order. It isn't surprising that they want Americans to stay, given the calamity that would befall them if we were to withdraw prematurely. As Bill and Hillary Clinton have recently argued, a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for all the forces of tyranny and sectarian violence--for Al Quaeda, for the Baathists and for the various sectarian death squads. Whether or not it was wise to go in there in the first place, America's continuing presence there is essential to staving off civil war and to preventing the country from falling into the hands of those who would make it a permanent nightmare for Iraquis and a sponsor of terrorism against America. So, I sill believe that America's cause there is a noble one and that we ought to show resolve in the face of difficulty.
rickm: "If the reasons for going into Iraq were so noble, why didn't our government adequately prepare to go into Iraq?"
You should try a good logic text also. That is what's called a non sequitur. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to argue both that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were noble and that our government didn't prepare adequately. Indeed, I believe that is the position of the excellent journal The Economist, which once employed Jane Galt.
"You should try a good logic text also. That is what's called a non sequitur. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to argue both that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were noble and that our government didn't prepare adequately. Indeed, I believe that is the position of the excellent journal The Economist, which once employed Jane Galt."
Isocrates-
You should try reading. My question did not imply that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the occupation of Iraq to be both a noble cause and inadequately prepared for. What it did imply, and I think it is a reasonable issue to raise, is that if the war intentions of those in command in the US were entirely noble and even altruistic, why then, did they barely prepare for this ostensibly noble event? In other words, if the potentialy payoff to a successful operation in Iraq was so large, why didn't they take every available measure to ensure that this payoff was realized?
No shortage of idiotic comments on this thread… let’s see:
“I assume, MEH, that you are pro-choice. Are you an abortion doctor? If not... why not? Why are you not actively aborting babies right now?”
Um, being pro-choice means supporting the right of women to have abortions and doctors to perform them. I’m sure MEH also supports the right of US citizens to join the armed forces, while not being in agreement over the war. Isocrates, however, supports the war and believes the 2,600 US lives lost and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost have been worth it, and believes he has the ‘resolve’ to support additional lives lost by staying there. MEH asks why Isocrates does not put his own ass on the line in Iraq if he believes the war is so noble and worthy of American lives. Quite a valid question, and perhaps I missed it in the thread, but one that no answer has been attempted. Maybe Iso is 45 years old and too old to serve, maybe Iso is 15 years old and is looking forward to his or her 18th birthday to join up and go to Tikrit. Maybe Iso is supporting children and elderly parents and cannot leave them to go to Iraq. We don’t know because Iso hasn’t answered.
“For example, running away in January would have put the whole country in the hands of Iran - you know, that crazy guy now trying to get nukes, who just opined that liberals are all Zionist stooges?
Instead, they have had free elections with intermittent violence by "insurgents" as various groups vied to be the new strongmen. Over time, they will have a chance to become a peaceful pluralist society, if Iran doesn't blow them up first for daring not to murder Jews or some such.”
Intermittent violence? I guess your definition of intermittent violence is that the explosions are not continual, 24-7, there are often breaks of several seconds up to even minutes between insurgent attacks and sectarian violence. And I’m sure the top threat to a peaceful Iraq is Iranian reprisals due to insufficient Iraqi anti-Semitism. Your post is best described as ‘coo-coo bananas’.
Moreover, I believe that what Isocrates boasts is ‘resolve’ in his initial post is actually cowardice. Cowardice that prevents him, and other war supporters, from admitting the obvious fact that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake that has wasted over 2,500 US lives, hundreds of billions of taxpayer money, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and caused a civil war. Having spent the last 3.5 years promoting and supporting this war, Isocrates (as well as the Bush administration) has invested too much to admit mistakes at this point. Therefore, both are willing to waste thousands more lives without considering whether removing our forces may serve the best interests of both the US and Iraq. (that may not be the case at this point, as our troops might be the only thing keeping the current disaster from turning into another Rwanda, but it should be considered).
"MEH asks why Isocrates does not put his own ass on the line in Iraq if he believes the war is so noble and worthy of American lives. "
So how is the weather in Kabul? Have fun passing out USAID packages in Sudan? Rescue many people in New Orleans?
There is no answer because its a stupid question. By your own standards, you care for nothing that you haven't participated in. If you personally have not sacrificed for a noble cause, then by your own definition you care for nothing in this world more than your own comfort.
Perhaps Hoffer will tell us stories from his tours in the war on poverty.
I have tried to give friendly advice to some posters here, pointing them to Aristotle's great work on logic for example. For that I get insults. It's okay, though, I am not deterred. In a spirit of magnanimity I will offer one more piece of advice: You are doing exactly what Republican strategists like Karl Rove hope you will do. You are making it very easy for them to depict you as a disloyal opposition, so filled with hatred of the current President that you are invested in American defeat. Nothing would make Rove more pleased than this sort of stuff:
"The war Jane supported so vociferously has turned into a nightmare with no way out. Tee hee!"
So I suggest you moderate your comments on the war, to avoid giving the impression that you are effectively on the side of the terrorists and thugs in Iraq. If you don't believe me, you can ask President Clinton, who has been campaigning for Joe Lieberman in Conneticut. Clinton realizes that if Democrats look to the American people like they are soft on terrorism and undermining the troops in battle, they will continue losing elections.
Personally, I think a revitalized, centrist Democratic Party would be good for the country, so I hope the more radical elements do not take it over.
I'll try and curb my radical questions, like "why didn't they prepare..."
How would someone who isn't there know it's not a "nightmare", Mark?
Well, he might talk to or read comments from the huge number of people who are there. And using that, combined with copious and widely varying news reports, combined with the human facility called "imagination" (used, in this case, not to create fantasy from whole cloth, but to synthesize actual data into a comprehendable whole), he could come up with a plausible and reasonable judgement of the situation there.
Much as one didn't need to be deployed in any previous war to know how things were going, or how much it sucks to be infantry.
"Put your self where your mouth is" is not a logical or effective argument, unless the person you apply it to was suggesting universal conscription or volunteering. In any other context, it's at best dubiously relevant, and more typically utterly irrelevant. (For the same reason that someone saying the Fire Department should put out fires is under no obligation to be a fireman in order to talk about the FD.)
I'd thought the issue of the "chickenhawk" argument had been run through enough times that everyone had had it explained, but evidently not.
There's something else about this chicken hawk argument that bothers me. It's not the argument itself, but the the self-righteousness that I find so obnoxious. It's hard to refrain from replying to such attacks, but it is wearing on the patience.
And I recognize that this might be a bit of a stretch, but it often comes from fellow travellers of those who used to spit and call returning soldiers "baby killers".
Underlying their attack is a much bigger argument - whether we should have a volunteer army headed by a civilian government which has no pre-requirement to have served in the military. They can't make this argument head-on because it is pretty much settled, so they content themselves by sniping from a distance.
YUK
"Why didn't they prepare?"
They did, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Any operational order is going to have some leeway and any operation is going to find the "unknown unknowns" during the employment phase. (D-Day is an example of an operation where a multitude of problems weren't planned for.)
If the question is, "why wasn't it perfect" the answer is it never is, and as Patton said, a good plan executed right now is better than a perfect plan executed too late. If the question devolves, as it usually does, to "why weren't there more troops" then the onus is on the questioner to prove that the troops were available and not used (what specific divisions, stationed where, and how to get them there) and that you have planned for the multiple problems that the larger force would have created, such as force protection issues, basing in the Gulf States and rotation and maintenence schedules.
So the military plan is no good, whats yours?
so "unknown unknowns" was WHAT TO DO AFTER SADDAM WAS TOPPLED? It's not even a matter of adequate troop levels- they simply did not think it through. On top of having no plan, they did something as stupid as disbanding the Iraqi police, injecting a large number of armed people into the population, who in turn, attacked us. The military itself has performed superbly, and when this skill was combined with planning and leadership from the top (which was what was going on in the actual 'war' phase), everything was going as smooth as a war can go. Then Saddam's government was toppled. When the military looked for leadership and a plan of action, there was none. They were abandoned. WHY?
Ditto to monkeyboy.
Of course, most reasonable people recognize that it is impossible to plan perfectly in the face of uncertainty. After all, isn't that why we are fascinated by sporting contests?
I think this argument provides another example of the sniping from a distance from people who can no longer confront the central arguments in a serious way.
Gazzer-
there is a difference in kind and degree between not be able to plan for uncertainties and not planning adequately at all.
Just noticed that I was being a little self-righteous in my denunciations of the self-righteous.
It feels good!! I can see why they do it!
Apologies for the detour
I suggest you read Zinni's book. The problem isn't with the military. The military produced the plan that the administration asked of them. There were no peace keeping duties in the plan because the civilian authorities involved said that the troops would be down to 30,000 by fall. BTW Zinni's own plan for the invasion of Iraq called for 300,000 troops. His plan was not used by Rumsfield.
Please note that numerous military planners said the plan the administration was running with was nuts. Shinseki was one and they forced him to retire. While it's a truism in war that no plan survives the enemy, that's no excuse for poor planning. When I hear people defend the adminstration's war plan with this truism, it's just silly. The military told them it was very likely to spiral out of control
The number of boots on the ground immediately after the invasion sets the tone for the occupation. Take a look at Germany for example at the end of WW2. High troop count at the end of the war that slowly gets lowered so that by just two years after the war we have troop level of 10% of the invasion force (keep in mind that VE day the allie had over 1 million troops in Germany).
The administration has made a huge number of mistaks in this war but the largest was disbanding the Iraqi Army - sending home 400,000 troops who know where the munitions are buried and no paycheck. I would have paid them to do trash removal, secure the border with Iran and Syria or just to do NOTHING but have them show up so we could watch them everyday. Please don't defend the administration's poor planning as though the problems we are now experiencing are simply "unknown unknowns" and couldn't have been planned for. People told them what to expect. They chose not to listen.
CBS Interview with Zinni it's the short version of his book essentially. It paints a picture of absolutely no post war planning by the civilian authorities (namely Donald Rumsfield)
BSD
Brian,
Thanks for correcting me on the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, NOT the police, as I had previously stated.
Ah Rick, you just presented me with a false choice. I would imagine that most reasonable people feel that the true answer falls somewhere in the middle. It wasn't perfectly planned, but neither was it criminal neglect.
You could certainly argue that they might have done a lot better (e.g. by not disbanding the army), but you will have to also concede that they started out "ahead of the game" when they took the entire country without loss of life (if my memory serves me).
Unfortunately, this has been part of a much larger drumbeat of criticism throughout this war, that I believe that the anti-war faction have an obligation to present criticisms in as nuanced and balanced a way as possible.
Otherwise, it gets easier to dismiss such criticisms as carping that is designed to suck the resolve out of the American people.
Actually, this is not so hard to do. For example, we see muslims reflexively mutter something like "the most wise and allseeing" everytime they put Allah in a sentence.
We also see it from liberals who cannot resist plastering their sentences with clauses like "our unelected leader", "taking orders from God", "lied about WMD's", "poisoner of the environment", torturer of prisoners", " betrayer of human rights", "and their rich lobbyist friends", etc everytime they mention GWB or Republicans.
So in this case, one might say the following:
"Even though the administration planned the war superbly, the aftermath was less than perfect".
That way we know it is a sincerely worded question.
interesting thought-experiment for BSD:
Given that the post-war experience in Iraq, it would be intreesting to know whether the troops themselves have faith in the administration or whether they would vote for a government of the left.
We'll never know I guess. However, we do know that Al Gore tried to suppress their vote.....
"Even though the administration planned the war superbly, the aftermath was less than perfect".
Adding... This was partly due to a lack of any real plan by the administration on what to do after the war.
Oh yeah, you also have to euphanize "less than perfect" to mean 100 deaths a day 3 years after the war.
"MEH asks why Isocrates does not put his own ass on the line in Iraq if he believes the war is so noble and worthy of American lives. "
This is the central question. It has nothing to with anything else. His statements go beyond mere advocacy, and, as such, open him to proper questioning of his role.
It's interesting that Isoc is quick to point out the logical fallacies, perceived and otherwise, of those that take issue with his position(s). Yet, leaves unremarked those of his own, and those of his imputable "defenders".
Though, what do we hear from Isoc? references to anonomous "polls", appeals to the sagacity of Pols running for Office, Strawmen created about the "designs" of the "enenemy"(Rove, Domestic/ Iran/"terrorists", Foreign)
If he's not being paid, directly, by the Pro-War/Pro-USA Patriot Act DLC, he is, indeed, a Very "useful idiot".
One other thing - did you notice that Saddam today made a statement that parroted many of the criticisms paraded by our left-wing?
Oh, he forgot to mention the one about the looted museum that we didn't protect quickly enough.
So remember, when you snipe, you are doing more than just participating in a vigorous internal debate. You are indeed giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They read what you say, and they use it to incite their masses. And that leads to American deaths. You might recall the Newsweek article about Korans being flushed down the toilet?
Same thing with your comment about the 100 deaths per day. You need to talk about the deaths before the war, and you also need to talk about the fact that many of those being killed are bad guys.
That is what is behind my gentle suggestion that you try to put some context to your criticisms.
gazzer-
I was going to attack your points, but then I realized you are a parody.
Mark Hoffer:
I don't think it is appropriate for you to label people like Isocrates as "useful idiots" without first recognizing that the term was coined by our enemies to refer to the useful idiots in our own country who snipe away at our country doing their propaganda work for them.
Just in the interest of full disclosure....
Actually we will know. We will still be in Iraq in 2008. It will be interesting to see. Most studies of military voting patterns indicate that the officer corp is pretty strongly Republican (to the tune of 60-70% while the enlisted men tend be more evenly split (which still makes them strongly Republican). I would imagine that in 2004 Bush probably captured between 60%-70% of the military vote. What happens in 2008 will be interesting as many people might be a little tired of being Iraq at that point.
Gazzer - you are obviously trolling. I am not going to respond by talking about Florida voting irregularities or that Supreme Court decision.
The topic was and is the war. I was just outside thinking about this issue. People are often fond of pointing to tactical failures in WW2 as pointing out that wars are complicated things and things go horribly wrong.
Part of the difference is thinking tactically and strategically. In WW2 we had a clear strategic goal - defeat of Nazi Germany and facist Japan. Due to the fog of war mistakes are often made. Due to advances in information technology and the joint force doctrine we have gotten rid of much of the fog that surrounds typical combat. This means tactically we make far fewer mistakes now than in WW2.
Our problem in Iraq is that our strategic and tactical goals might be at odds. What's our strategic goal in Iraq? Well it's been labeled as part of the war on terror so I believe we are trying to build an alternative version of an Arab society - a democracy which will shun terror. So we have chosen democracy building as a weapon in the war in terror. This is commonly known as the Bush Doctrine.
Part of the problem with this strategic doctrine is that in implementation the administration has chosen to focus on elections as sole sign of a democracy. Democratic societies are more complicated and also require an independent judiciary, rule of law, respect of property rights and more importantly a degree of security as part of the compact between the governed and government. If you think a democracy will last if people are randomly being pulled off the street and shot, you are kidding yourself. The secterian violence in Iraq is the biggest stumbling block to succeeding in Iraq.
The US civilian leadership had certain strange notions about post war Iraq - namely that by fall we could pull our troop levels to 30,000 and Chalabi and his other exile could come in and run the place. They must have really believed that otherwise there really isn't any way to explain their decisions such as disbanding the Iraqi Army and invading with the troop strength they did.
Here's the problem with the violence hovering at 75-150 people killed in Baghdad every day - you create a situation where people are craving some form of security. They are not safe in their homes or their work (as evidenced by the kidnapping of the Iraqi Olympic directer and his entire 30 person staff). They are looking for security FIRST . Maslow's hierachy of needs is pretty accurate and without basic security of person you can't do much else.
So people might be willing to trade their freedom for security. A strong man (like Saddam lite - all the strength, 1/2 the madman) might bring peace to Iraqi society. This means our democracy experiement will have failed largely because of the strategic decisions made by the Bush administration (failing to secure Iraqi borders, disbanding the army, failing to protect basic ministries) etc. The failures in Iraq are not tactical - they are failures in strategic implementation.
I remember when it was announced by Bremer that the Iraqi Army was going to be disbanded. I thought "Oh man that's gonna make things a lot more difficult." In Bremer's book he mentioned that decision came directly from the White House.
Brian-
"The topic was and is the war. I was just outside thinking about this issue."
Obviously, this is your biggest problem. Didn't any enlightened soul every tell you that if you think about the issue, you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
joking of course
Ermm...to get back to Jane original post, I'd like to note that the comment she refers to seems to exhibit more than a little moral depravity. If you consider the Iraq War a horrible mistake or a vile policy, its hardly something that merits joking about. On the other hand, if you favor the policy, the comment makes no sense.
I just realized Gazzer - You think I am against the war in Iraq. I am not. I supported the first Gulf war and I support this one. My brother served in Iraq (he was combat engineer) and I have a ton of pictures from his time there so I have a little second hand knowledge. It's apparent that many people conflate criticism of the administration with criticism of the war.
As far as "many of them being bad guys" most of the bodies turning up at the Baghdad city hospital morgue - you have zero idea who they are. The fact they are showing up this late in the occupation points to the strategic failures by the Bush adminstration.
If you are looking for a way to support our troops I suggest donating boots. You only get two pair per deployment and the Iraqi desert is hell on boots.
I have used Soldiersangels.org to help. If you don't have a relative you can have them send it to any soldier who has requested gear.
Agreed, Bill
I think the impulse to say "I told you so" is so strong in such commenters that they forget what it is they are saying.
Brian,
Sorry if my words caused confusion. I have no issue with reasoned argument (as you have been making). I was really referring to the people that glibly make the chickenhawk arguments and look for any excuse to bash the current administration. (Also, I wasn't trying to open up debate on the Florida recount, but trying to give examples of the parenthetical phrases that are often used by the left).
I certainly recognise that no group of people is monolithic. I certainly would expect that there are many sincere antiwar people who have served in combat.
It never ceases to amaze me how profoundly wimpy we have become when it comes to WAR. Iraq is not a disaster or a quagmire by any stretch of the imagination. It never was that bad, but when you lose all capacity to discriminate the difference between a "lousy situation" and a "quagmire", this is what we are left with.
In Vietnam, we sent back 40+ caskets per day, not to mention 200+ wounded per day. Some might have called that a "quagmire" (forgetting utterly that in WWII, take those numbers and multiply by 7 and you see what the Greatest Generation endured.) In Iraq, we send back 1 to 2 caskets and maybe 10 wounded, per day. Do the numbers, and you will see it just isn't that bad.
1. Planning for post-military operations depends a lot on what happens during military operations, meaning its hard to do for anyone. We've never done it well, and military forces have stayed for post-hostility operations in every war we've ever fought, with the possible exception of Vietnam.
2. GEN Zinni was not in charge of planning, GEN Franks was CINCCENT for the war (Shinesheki was never in the chain of command), he has no beef with the White House.
3. The military wasn't disbanded, we told them to go home. Maybe that was a mistake, but the alternative was to leave them in place until a formal surrender, which would have meant killing a whole lot of men that just wanted out. The units would have had to have been attacked, which would have caused resentments. I wonder how you would have recommended handling that, as well as your plan for de-baathification. Otherwise you have a situation which would have been equal to the Federal government keeping the confederate army in arms and using them to police the freed slaves until the end of reconstruction.
I heard GEN Zinni speake before the war, a smart man, but I think too concerned with stability and not enough with democracy.
Setting expectations is the problem. What's the end game in Iraq? When will we have succeeded? The administration was pretty sanguine about being greeted as liberators with flowers. It's not the number of dead being sent back. It's the sense that we have no idea what the criteria are for success in Iraq and the admnistration isn't telling us. As far as wars go - this little was has gone on longer than WW2. It's not the number of bodies sent back.
"Iraq is not a disaster or a quagmire by any stretch of the imagination"
Certainly not in objective terms no. But compared to the way the war was sold and what people were told it certainly is. Remember 30,000 troops by fall 2003? That's not setting the proper expectations of sacrifice the American people will have to endure.
Here's a little thought experiment. What are the victory conditions in Iraq? When will we be able to bring the troops home?
It's not the number of dead being sent back. It's the sense that we have no idea what the criteria are for success in Iraq and the admnistration isn't telling us. As far as wars go - this little was has gone on longer than WW2. It's not the number of bodies sent back.
This I would profoundly disagree with. That has not been my experience at all Brian. Every single time I talk to some moonbat who starts lecturing me about Chimpy McHitler's "Blood for Oil" war, they start quoting statistics of the dead GIs. 2563 (if that count is correct, might be off by a few...) Whenever I am confronted with those statistics I confront them with 490,000+ (the number of dead GIs in WWII.) When confronted with those sobering statistics, they will immediate read me the riot act about that war being the "Good War" and this one being "A Pointless Quagmire" so I shouldn't compare the numbers.
Whatever.
Here's a little thought experiment. What are the victory conditions in Iraq?
There are many victory conditions. We haven't achieved all of them, but we have made progress. Here is a list:
1) Over-through previous Iraqi Government (victory)
2) Kill Saddam's rapist sons (victory)
3) Capture of kill Saddam Hussein (victory)
4) Capture of kill Al Zarkawi (victory)
5) Make sure Iraqis can vote (victory)
6) Allow Iraqis to elect an interim Democratically elected government (victory)
7) Allow Iraqis to ratify their own Constitution (I don't know if this has been achieved yet)
8) Train a NEW Iraqi Army and Iraqi Intelligence force so that they may hunt down Islamitists on their own (ongoing, but victory)
I'm sure there are other victories but I'd rather talk about what is left to do...
1) Reduce troop strength to 30,000 mostly as US bases, in an advisory role ONLY
2) Finish construction of the new US Embassy
3) Complete task to get the lights on in every Iraqi home that is wired to the grid
4) Be confident in the Iraqi's ability (and desire) to eliminate all the Fundementalists
When will we be able to bring the troops home?
Never. Not unless their government tells us to leave (and they have been asking, in fact, begging us to stay.) And only when we are CONVINCED that they can take care of these Islamtist problems on their own. We conquered Germany 61 years ago.
We are still there Brian.
Ok Monkeyboy. Here's my answer. Stability is prerequiste for democracy, not the other way around. At the end of WW2 did we immediately try to run elections to bring democracy? No because Hitler was democratically elected. The problem wasn't elections, it was Nazism. We stabilized the country FIRST.
Your comments about Zinni aren't entirely accurate and I think you know it. Zinni was in charge of Centcom from 97 to 2000 so he has a great deal of knowledge in this area.
"Shinesheki was never in the chain of command."
I am not sure what you mean here. You mean he wasn't in charge of the planning of the Iraq war? He was most certainly part of the chain of command - he wasn't a civilian. His comment appeared duing questioning from a Senate panel.
"The military wasn't disbanded, we told them to go home. Maybe that was a mistake, but the alternative was to leave them in place until a formal surrender, which would have meant killing a whole lot of men that just wanted out. The units would have had to have been attacked, which would have caused resentments. I wonder how you would have recommended handling that, as well as your plan for de-baathification. Otherwise you have a situation which would have been equal to the Federal government keeping the confederate army in arms and using them to police the freed slaves until the end of reconstruction."
Why exactly would we have to attack units that had surrendered? I mean that makes no sense at all. The CIA before the war went to various generals and literally bribed them not to not. They didn't. It was fucking brilliant.
And yes the Iraqi Army was disbanded by an executive order of the CPA.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/defense.htm
"On 23 May 2003, the US civilian administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, abolished several ministries and institutions of Saddam Hussein's regime, and disbanded the Iraqi army, declaring them illegal."
Ok.
Your analogy is flawed. Most of the people serving in the Confederate Army had lives to go back to. The career military people under Saddam didn't have that option. Better to keep the army standing and slowly De-Baathify it instead of declaring it illegal one day which is EXACTLY what the administration did.
How would I handle De-Baathication? I can paint a few broad strokes and perhaps that will be enough. I am after all responding to someone nick named Monkeyboy. A full plan would take far longer.
The problem with the zero tolerance of de-baathication is that it ignored a key component of Iraqi society is that to hold any position you needed to be a member of the Baath party. You want to be a school teacher - you must be a member of the Baath party. Want to be a middle manager in the Oil ministry in charge of toilets? You have to be a member of the Baath party.
The Baath party had deeply penetrated Iraqi society. This isn't surprising really. Saddam had control of the country for far longer than Hitler did Germany. (Not to mention Germany had more history of democracy than modern day Iraq).
This means that almost anyone who know anything about the current infrastructure was a Baathist.
First off I would have not had a zero tolerance for Baathists. Secondly I wouldn't have put Chalabi in charge of de-baathication. For Iraqi army I would have used the court martial of those generals who were clearly die hard Saddamists/Baathists such as Chemical Ali. In short start at the top, keep the army standing (and recieving a paycheck) and work your way down. Time consuming? Yes. Cheaper than a Sunni insurgency? You bet.
This is part of the reason why reconstruction has gone so badly. With a zero tolerance for Baathists, anyone who knows something about existing infrastructure is out of a job and largely has no future with the society. If you want more details I can produce them but my posts are longish anyway.
Re: the "chickenhawk" argument, for anyone still too thick to understand why the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, 2+2=4 even if it's a nasty person who says so. If I fail to serve in Iraq, that may say something about my own personal virtue. It says absolutely nothing about the morality or wisdom of the war itself.
Back in the late '90s, I had law professors support the NATO intervention in Kosovo. None of them volunteered. (To be fair, there wasn't really an opportunity, with that campaign consisting of a few weeks of bombing from 25,000 feet, but I highly doubt they would have given up their tenured seats to pull an Orwell-in-Catalonia if things had gone on longer.) That says very little about them, and even less about whether Kosovo was right or wrong.
Look at World War II. At the height of the American effort, we had a few million men under arms -- probably less than 5% of the total population. Guess we should've just let the Axis gangsters have their way, then, since most of the people who supported the war were "chickenhawks," thus rendering the war unsupportable.
Thanx for victory conditions Paul. I never expect our troops to leave Iraq either. At least not for a very long time. You realize of course the very instability created by certain decisions of the Adminstration (not to send enough troops - so wham the borders are insecure and Jihadist pour in from Iran and Syria, declaring the Army "illegal" etc etc)
Paul I was speaking about the American people who actually do the fighting. There is always segment of the population for whom no war is palatable. Their opinion isn't that important because they are not fighting. Anyone you are debating who uses the term, "Chimpy McHitler" you know their position and it's not one where reasoned debate will work. They have made up their minds.
I suspect the American people at large probably would have signed onto a war for democracy in Iraq. While that rationale was used, I think the administration did a poor setting the expectations (also the extended use of the National Guard in Iraq is contributing somewhat to combat fatigue) of how long this would take. Additionally the administration hasn't demonstrated competence in governing - their response to Katrina, the extended cronyism etc. I expect cronyism in poltics but you got to have performance as well.
http://appliedepistemology.com/node/103
BSD
With a zero tolerance for Baathists, anyone who knows something about existing infrastructure is out of a job and largely has no future with the society.
Sounds like life for educated professionals in the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Anyone who was a true-RED-Communist was out of a job and largely has no future with society. If you were educated with a PhD in Marxist-Economics at the University of Stalingrad, what job can you do in the new Democratic Russia? If you were a steel worker in the Soviet Union who was paid (by the government) to make 3000 pound nails because that little Marxist Economics book written 80 years ago, instructed the government to pay your mill "by the pound" for those nails (that were quickly buried in the Earth the minute they were completed, since they were useless) should you have been kept in a job? What can you do?
Not much.
You are going to have to be re-trained and so was the Iraqi Army. As those soldiers stood in March of 2003 (before we rolled in with the M1-Abrhams tanks), they were completely militarily incompitant in dealing with Islamofacism or fighting as a unit. Basically, those Iraqis who our troops encountered on the battlefield that didn't surrender immediately (which was very few) were immediately killed.
From a functional productivity standpoint, the Iraqi Army was rendered useless in April of 2003. To keep them in jobs and "keep paying them" to do nothing productive, is the Communist way. That is not the right foot in which to start a nation. That is the way to end a nation.
We did right disbanding the entire army. Yes, it sucked for a year for those guys having to scrounge to get by, but they are doing infinately better today. Wars are messy.
So Paul these guys running an insurgency is better than having them fucking standing around?
I don't believe that you can actually claim that and believe it.
Paul - oil production and power are below pre war levels.
Back in the late '90s, I had law professors support the NATO intervention in Kosovo.
That is because, at that time, the Commander in Chief of the United States had a (D) next to his name in the voting booth. That was the only reason why much of Academia supported the NATO intervention in Kosovo.
It was one of their own calling the shots. And there would be NO RISK (and no caskets) on the part of the United States since this war would be conducted exclusively from the air. So those on the "Left" approved it and those on the "Right" didn't much care either way.
"Functional productivity standpoint"? Waving the communist red herring isn't useful. I presented as a cost benefit analysis - it's cheaper to have them pick up trash than it is to fight an insurgency.
Clearly you need to spend more time studying insurgency doctrine. So all the old communists are out of work in Russia? Except of course the old communist who now runs it.
Paul - you are debating straw men that aren't actually posting here. Much of "Academia" didn't support the Kosovo air campaign while large chunks of the "Right" didn't like it either.
Here's the thing about wars Paul. You play to win. Not to run things efficiently - cause sometimes those two are at odds.
For example in supply chain management, just in time delivery is all the rage because it increases inventory turns and minimizes costs. A just in time supply chain with ammo is gonna costs lives. Wars are big "inefficient" affairs. But that "inefficiency" provides you redundancy you may need.
So Paul these guys running an insurgency is better than having them fucking standing around?
That is not what happened.
I don't believe that you can actually claim that and believe it.
I don't believe because that is not what happened. I think you are trying to say that when we "Fired" the Iraqi Army, much of them became Islamofacists.
Wrong.
Those who were closest to Saddam and the Baathist party, might have become insurgents after we disbanded the Army. But that doesn't matter as we were going to have to fight (and kill) those few anyway, as they were the ones who had everything to lose by Iraq gaining true freedom and Democracy. They were going to lose all their power the minute Saddam went into hiding.
What future awaited Saddam's sons if they were captured alive in 2003? Certain death. That was their inevitable "future" the minute Dubya gave the order to roll into Iraq. It was their immediate destiny that could not be avoided. That was their death sentence and it was shared by many in the Army (and the government) who were having a field day in Iraq doing as they would.
They (those upper-ups in teh Baathist Party) were either going to be killed by the United States military or (Allah help them) by their own ANGRY and VICTIMIZED people, who knew what real torture, horror, and genocide was like. It is just rhetoric concepts to us, but not your average Iraqi.
Those who hated Saddam (and were out of a job in his Army?) Did they take up arms against the new government and against the United States? Nopey. They waited as patiently as they could. And now, they are employed in some capacity.
And the oil production will continue to increase. Again, you have to train people who were NOT in the Baathist party to do work. It won't take long Brian.
Actually Paul I am not saying they became " Islamofacists". The insurgency is composed mostly Iraqis and between 5-10% foreign fighters. The terrorists are responsible for many of the most horrific acts of violence. They are after all nihilists of the worst sort.
Paul clearly you and I disaggree. I think declaring the Iraqi illegal and disbanding it was a huge mistake as it fueled the insurgency. Insugencies live and die by their relationship with the populations in which they are embedded. By throwing the entire Iraqi army out of work we created more insurgents and more importantly people supportive of insurgents.
"Did they take up arms against the new government and against the United States? Nopey. They waited as patiently as they could. And now, they are employed in some capacity."
Do you have any facts to support this? You need to read my posts again. Sectarian violence (namely shia v sunni etc) is the real barrier to a future democratic Iraq and employment is a big help. Don't believe me? How about Lt. General Peter Chiarelli?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_General_in_Iraq_Claims_Employment_can_Undermine_Insurgency
Dude - Disbanding the army was a bone headed move. Stop defending it.
Please read this on the composition of the Iraqi Insurgency - it's not primarily Islamofacists.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm
You will also find the current Army field manual on counter insurgency doctrine helpful.
Here's the current working draft.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf
It amazes me that there are so many people so far removed from reality. Someone writes that retreating and abandoning Iraq to the terrorists would show real courage. Someone else claims that letting the terrorists take over will be better for the Iraqis and for us. These posts seem right out of George Orwell's 1984. Then again, many of the posts seem to be coming from people who accept many of the tenets of the totalitarian Marxism Orwell so deplored. It's difficult to say for sure what Orwell himself would have thought about Iraq if he were still alive, but one of his most prominent admirers, Christopher Hitchens, has made his own veiws known.
As he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
"It's becoming more and more plain that the moral high ground is held by those who concluded, from the events of 1991, that it was a mistake to leave Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait. However tough that regime-change might have been, it would have spared the lives of countless Iraqis and begun the process of nation-rebuilding with 12 years' advantage, and before most of the awful damage wrought by the sanctions-plus-Saddam 'solution'...
"I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered 'succor' (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the 'no fly zones' over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original 'Gulf War'? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?"
Saddam's government was a terrible gangster regime that invaded its neighbors, subsidized suicide-bombers, killed many Kurds and Shia and oppressed the rest, consorted with terrorists like Abu Nidal and al Zarqawi, traded weapons with North Korea, refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors or to comply with the terms of the truce (to which it had agreed), corrupted international aid programs, and generally did everything it could to destabilize the region. So there were good reasons to remove Saddam. No rational person could wish he were still in power.
At any rate, now that we are there, it is clearly best that we stay to stabilize the country and do what we can to help it develop into a free and prosperous society. Those who advocate immediate withdrawal are not showing courage or compassion; they are, rather, showing an astounding inability to look at the facts and an appalling lack of concern for the devastation American withdrawal would bring. These people are advocating precisely what Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are: American surrender to tyranny and terrorism.
Fortunately, there were also many comments above that showed prudence and resolve. That was heartening.
This reminds me to offer one more piece of advice to those who say preposterously "surrender is courageous" and "abandoning the Iraqis to the terrorists is compassionate." After you study Aristotle's Organon, read "Politics and the English Language," by George Orwell. There he points out how corrput thinking leads to corrupt language, which in turn leads to further corruption of thought. He gives examples of the cliches (things similar to "No Blood for Oil") used by angry radicals to defend the indefensible. Generally in the arguments of radicals, whether communists or fascists, there is invective rather than any actual intellectual content.
Read it. You need it.
Brian,
I'll defend disbanding the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army was the instrument used to oppress the Shia, Iraqs majority sect. Disbanding the army fed the Sunni insurgency. I believe that maintaining the army would have launched a Shia insurgency (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss). Disbanding the army let the Shia majority know that we were serious about remaking the political structure, and not just looking to put a new hand on the tiller
Of course, we don't know what would have happened if different decisions were made, but disbanding the army is certainly a defensible decision. The thought process was to appeal to the Shia majority and accept that you're going to piss off the Sunni minority.
Given that any way you slice it, Sunni's stood to lose power, they were going to pissed off anyways.
Disbanding the Iraqi army may have added a more fuel to the Sunni insurgency, but it didn't start the fire.
Isoc,
You are, indeed, a gifted Sophist. Your ex post rationalizations are nonpareil.
Why not defend the original "sales" pitch?
You'll remember: Saddam involved in 9/11, Iraq has "WMD". Iraq looking for "Yellowcake" (from Niger) for its "nuclear program". From Powell's glorious presentation to the UN-- Where are those mobile "BioWeapons" labs?
What was "party line"? Iraq will be a "cakewalk".
Done in little time and at even less cost( Financial & Economic). Iraqi assets (oil) will fund the lion's share of the expense.
Right? And now, that more Americans are actually questioning the wisdom of being in Iraq? They're entreated to new symphonies of ex post rationalizations that have nothing to do with the "original" goals. And, yes, it's funny that the conductors, quite willing to pick up the baton, never seem to be anxious to strap on the boots.
Mark
Just curious - did you vote for Al Gore in 2000 when he tried to suppress the votes of the military?
By the way, he also was the person who consoled mothers of dead soldiers with the thought that they died in the service of the United Nations.
Now, THERE's a group that should have no say in any operation that so much as harms one hair on the head of a single one of our soldiers.
Were you out there calling THEM chickenhawks? After all, I hate for you to thought of as, you know, inconsistent.
'Saddam involved in 9/11'. Not directly, but he certainly supported other terrorists - for instance, with cash payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
'Iraq has "WMD".' Yes, it did. Like the hundreds of nerve gas shells that the UN inspectors knew were unaccounted for but couldn't find. We've been slowly finding one at a time mixed in with conventional munitions. And other things were hauled across the border into Syria after UN profiteers persuaded Bush to hold off for a few months while the UN team went in one last time.
'Iraq looking for "Yellowcake" (from Niger) for its "nuclear program".' Yes, it was. Wilson told a carefully phrased half-truth: that he found no evidence that Iraq had purchased yellowcake Uranium ore in Niger, but in Wilson's full report on his trip to Niger, he had talked to people who had received inquiries from Iraq about purchasing yellowcake. They refused to sell it to Saddam, but he certainly had tried to purchase it - and would have kept on trying until his agents found someone willing and able to arrange an under the table deal.
Gazzer,
In the the interest of disclosure, no, I didn't vote for Gore(D) in '00.
markm,
try dealing with the "rest of the story"
Mark Hoffer
That was probably my fault for not being precise in my question. I can think of a number of technical reasons why you perhaps did not vote for him (perhaps under age, or maybe you voted for Ralph Nader, etc).
However, I'm guessing that you cheered him on. More importantly, you did not bring him to task for being "inconsistent" with his original story (i.e. "let every vote count"). The same inconsistency of which you accuse GWB.
One other point - the original sales pitch did not refer to Saddam's involvement in 9-11 (please provide direct references if you can). Also I'm sure you cannot have failed to notice by now (after having it pointed out ad nauseum) that just about everybody else thought he had WMD's.
Gazzer,
Do me a favor, if you have Q's, ask, ok?
Stop guessing, unless, of course, you're just employing a rhetorical device for your own entertainment.
I didn't vote for Nader, nor was I "rooting" Gore on. What world are you on that has an (R) party that is in monolithic support of GWB ? And, what makes you think that Nader was the "only" "third party" candidate in 'oo ?
from the March 14, 2003 edition
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Gazzer,
There are pages of this Garbage found in a simple GOOG search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Saddam+and+9%2F11
keywords: Saddam and 9/11
Mark,
I have to jump in at this point. So many people accuse Bush of trying to tie Saddam into culpability for Sept 11th just because he refers to Saddam and Sept. 11th in the same discussion.
The point is not that Saddam was behind Sept 11, but the point is that Sept 11th proved to millions of Americans, including Bush, that we JUST CAN'T WAIT UNTIL WE ARE ATTACKED TO RESPOND. Is that hard to understand? You may disagree with that idea, but I never once saw Bush claimed Saddam was behind sept 11th.
In fact, but suggesting otherwise, you are making EXACTLY the same mistake you accuse Bush of. You claim Bush mentioned Saddam and Sept 11th over and over again to put in people's minds that Saddam had some kind of invlovement. He never said that. So instead, you've said over and over again (just like you accuse Bush of doing) that Bush is deceitfully exploiting who Americans think is behind Sept. 11th.
Reality, the people who hate Bush, use the same tactics to bring him down that they accuse Bush of using. Irony, Bush isn't nearly has "bad" as they think him to be. Maybe they need to look in the mirror. I love how pertinent the concept of "useful idiots" as explained by gazzer is in this case! It's so good, I have to quote it!
--I don't think it is appropriate for you to label people like Isocrates as "useful idiots" without first recognizing that the term was coined by our enemies to refer to the useful idiots in our own country who snipe away at our country doing their propaganda work for them.--
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
- Farewell Address by George Washington (1796).
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt
And, in further disclosure: I have no hatred for GWB. The equation of dissent or questioning with "hatred" is more than spurious.
Thinker, you're "term origin" game is wholly fallacious. If you don't believe that that term has gained currency, for its usefulness, among the State Dept. and other Gov't allied agencies, I suggest you get out more.
Mark,
I think you're playing a rhetorical game here - one that has been played by Bush critics for 6 years now.
We are are allowed to criticise the president. It is good for the country that we have a vigorous debate about every aspect of government policy.
However, if someone makes an attack on the government that has the affect of giving aid and
comfort to our enemies (e.g the fallacious koran-flushing article in Newsweek that directly lead to DEATHS of innocent people), then that person deserves scorn, criticism, derision for their WORDS. I can tell by now that you are smart enough to tell the difference between:
A) Being criticised for speaking up
B) Being criticised for what you say
Perhaps I was entertaining myself in lumping you in with the Pelosi-Dean crowd, but you must admit that you've been spouting an awful lot of far-left talking points so far.
"spouting an awful lot of far-left talking points so far."
Classic. Please do, make a list of them for me so that I can understand what qualifies as acceptable speech, when in the appropriate zone, no doubt.
Well, I won't enumerate all of them.
But your very first post at the very top carried the chickenhawk theme. Your most recent post carried the theme "if you criticize my words, why - then you must be criticising free speech"
And a whole lot of similar stuff in between...
All from the Pelosi-Dean playbook.
No more debate between me and you. This is getting silly.
Gazzer,
The next time you need a refill, should be pretty soon, of your Tar bucket, let me know. Given your dissociative responses as evidence of your general cluelessness: you are, more than likely, being ripped-off in that marketplace, as well.
SG - When the Iraqi Army was disbanded - there was no insugency in Iraq - at least Iraq was much safer. I agree that the Iraqi army needed to be disbanded but the way it was done was grossly incompentent. I mean literally it was disbanned in a single day by executive fiat. No plan for handling the troops - no step down etc. Like most things this administration does - they have the right idea but execute horribly.
When the Iraqi Army was disbanded - there was no insugency in Iraq - at least Iraq was much safer.
I disagree with this statement utterly. Saddam killed no less than 300,000 of his own people between 1991 and 2003. That is about 25,000 a year, or over 2000 Iraqi souls per month, gone forever. Iraq was not nearly as safe as it is today. Of that, there should be no dispute.
As for the "insurgency" there might well have been Islamic Fundementalists (thousands of them) living and going about their business in Iraq. But fighting Saddam (a person who would think nothing of snuffing out their lives without any legal precident) was not as urgent as it is now to fight the Great Satan. Fact is Brian, an autocracy headed by a Secular Despot (Saddam) is less of a threat to Islamic Fundementalism, than an elected Iraqi Legislature and a government that allows political freedom, freedom of the Press, and independant thought. Sure, it is very hard to be relgious in Iraq and NOT be Muslim, but I would argue that it is easier today than it was under Saddam.
Although Muslim Fundementalists had no love for Saddam, they were able to use him or at the very least, live under his control without turning Bahgdad into Haifa or Tel Aviv-East.
Brian,
My recollection was that in practical terms there was no Iraqi army at the time it was officially disbanded. There were no units conducting organized operations and the chain of command had disintegrated. It had de facto disbanded long before it was disbanded de jure.
Since you agree that it needed to be disbanded, is it your position that the army should have been reconsituted, deserters called back into service (and court-martialed for desertion?) and then been disbanded? That seems pointless and possibly even antagonistic.
Like I said, we don't know how things would have played out if different decisions were made, but that cuts both ways. Even in hindsight, I don't think you can say with any real certainty that some alternative path would clearly have eliminated all (or even much) of the current turmoil. I certainly have a list of things I would have done differently, but my belief is that it would only change the situation at the margins. The core problems would still exist.
In fact, I think that what we're witnessing is just how Middle East power politics is played. (See: Hezbollah in Lebanon/Hamas v. Fatah in the Palestinian Authority.) If you want a seat at the table, you need a loyal militia. Frankly, it's more like organized crime families than a democratic republic.
You know, this may be as good as it gets. What a truly depressing thought, huh?
In fact, I think that what we're witnessing is just how Middle East power politics is played. (See: Hezbollah in Lebanon/Hamas v. Fatah in the Palestinian Authority.) If you want a seat at the table, you need a loyal militia. Frankly, it's more like organized crime families than a democratic republic.
You know, this may be as good as it gets. What a truly depressing thought, huh?
Ann Coulter said it best 3 days after September 11th, 2001:
"We need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Those comments got Coulter nothing but critism and it cost her, her association with National Review Online. But (5 years later) much of her premise still holds true. It appears that "Islam" (in and of itself) is not compatible with Democracy/Republic and 21st Century Free Market Capitalism. According to Ann, Islam is mutually exclusive of Western tradtions of self-rule and self-reliance. So we can go through the motions and pretend that we can have it both ways (a nation can be Muslim, Democratic, and "peaceful" with it's non-Islamic neighbors), but in the end, all we will have is more violence, day after day, until Islam (as a "culture" if not a "religion") is either gone from the Earth or dominates the Earth.
SG I am glad we live in the best of all possible worlds. Truly the administration hasn't made a single mistake. As far as my comment about Iraq being safer - I was speaking about then when the Army was declared illegal (July 2003) and now (BTW a number of Republican Congressmen agree with me). I never discussed Saddam at all. Clearly Iraq under Saddam was a hellhole. But then you couldn't help but put words in my mouth could you. For example, "Since you agree that it needed to be disbanded, is it your position that the army should have been reconsituted, deserters called back into service (and court-martialed for desertion?) and then been disbanded? That seems pointless and possibly even antagonistic."
Where did I call for court martialing the deserters? Oh that's right those are your words. Of course court martialing them is a waste of time especially since we asked them to surrender.
"My recollection was that in practical terms there was no Iraqi army at the time it was officially disbanded"
Sorry your recollection is simply wrong. If you want the evidence, I can send that too you. However it's apparent that you simply believe that the administration cannot make a mistake. Let me reiterate my position, "I believe the war in Iraq will be a net good in the world. The administration has made numerous mistakes which hinder our success in the Iraqi."
"In fact, I think that what we're witnessing is just how Middle East power politics is played. (See: Hezbollah in Lebanon/Hamas v. Fatah in the Palestinian Authority.) If you want a seat at the table, you need a loyal militia. Frankly, it's more like organized crime families than a democratic republic."
Isn't that why we invaded Iraq? To build a democratic modern democracy? You act as though this was out of our hands and just something that happened to us - that we had no hand in it all. We invaded the country to build a democracy. We didn't send enough troops to restore order and we fueled the insurgency by unilaterally by executive fiat, declaring the Iraqi Army illegal and disbanding it. Many of the generals fighting the war in Iraq understand what fuels the insurgency (such as unemployment). Apologists for the administration always say, "Well you just don't know what would have happened if they were more prepared or had done any post war planning."
We don't know? Let's take a look at what happened in a similar case in Yugoslavia - a country that was similarly composed of different ethnic groups and religious groups. Once communism fell, it spiraled apart when a strong armed dictator was no longer there to hold the country together. The minute you remove Saddam the strong centripetal pressure of ethnicity and relgion began pulling the country apart. Let's see what happened in Yugoslavia - oops there is no Yugoslavia.
War is difficult but that doesn't mean you ignore people when they point out that's not gonna be all roses and chocolates. This is called contingency planning and it's apparent that the Administration actually believe things were gonna go swimmingly and US troop strength would be at 30,000 in Fall 2003 (that according Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfield)
In post war operations, law and order after the war is important. It sets the tone for the occupation. As a said in an earlier post, stability is a prerequisite for democracy. The administration believes that democracy is a prerequisite of stability (actually this a fault shared by many Americans. Our relatively moderate political culture means that Americans can't understand why people in other cultures can't sit down and hash things out).
Paul - Not much to say here. You just advocated the extermination of a billion people as a "final solution" to the problem. Another thing what's with all the random capitalizations?
You just advocated the extermination of a billion people as a "final solution" to the problem.
No I did not. I was just quoting Ann Coulter and she didn't advocate exterminating a billion people either. She advocated "converting" a billion people from Islam to Christiantity. She only advocated killing their "leaders" since they could never be converted. Learn how to read Brian.
Another thing what's with all the random capitalizations?
You mean the bolden type? I like to punch a word from time to time when making my point.
"Sure, it is very hard to be relgious in Iraq and NOT be Muslim, but I would argue that it is easier today than it was under Saddam."
Actually this isn't true. Christians (which constitued a sizable minority in Iraq) are leaving in droves. I think basing the constiution on Islamic law has something to do with it. Assyrian Christians constitute 2.5 million people in Iraq.
Let's be clear. Saddam was dictator who killed thousands of people to preserve his own power and any percieved threat to his own power. Monstrous is the word.
SG you mention that Saddam averaged 2000 Iraqis killed in a month. Last month in June 3,000 Iraqi civlians were killed. This number should be greatly troubling to you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In January the number was 1778 - it's going the wrong direct SG.
Got no problems reading Paul.
" . . .until Islam (as a "culture" if not a "religion") is either gone from the Earth or dominates the Earth"
You did say Islam gone from the Earth right? Maybe I misunderstood that - you ought to clear that up
As far as the capitalizations go
"Democracy/Republic and 21st Century Free Market Capitalism"
is what I was refering to. As far as reading, it's clear you didn't read my posts or the external references.
Got no problems reading Paul.
Well then you have a lot of problems with reading comprehension.
" . . .until Islam (as a "culture" if not a "religion") is either gone from the Earth or dominates the Earth"
You did say Islam gone from the Earth right?
You bet I did.
Maybe I misunderstood that - you ought to clear that up..
You did misunderstand so let me clear this up. If you follow Ann Coulter's point (something I understood straight away, something you still don't get after 5 years) is that Islam (as a culture) is incompatible with democracy, religous freedom, freedom of the press, and free market capitalism. One can not have a peaceful government and/or nation, if Islam is the dominant culture or faith in that nation that shares a common border with a nation, that is not predominantly Muslim. What you will have is perpetual warfare (kind of like what Israel has had since the end of WWII.) In Israel's case, much of that warfare has been indirect (by way of suicide bombings) but it has been a constant threat that seems to never go away...
The only way for there to TRULY be peace is for all of us to convert to Islam, or for there to be no Islam. There is no third way Brian, no matter how much we try and bullsh*t ourselves into thinking that there is. And the problem is not with the West and Christianity. We are ready, willing, and able to co-exist peacefully with Islam. But the feelings are not reciprocated.
Now, that doesn't mean that Ann Coulter (or I) are advocating killing a billion Muslims. What she is advocating is converting a billion Muslims to Christianity. Simply put, the Koran commands those Muslims to convert or kill everyone who is not Muslim. That is the main problem, and this problem has existed for "The West" and "Christianity for over 13 centuries. Hell, the United States had to deal with it under Thomas Jefferson's administration over 200 years ago. The Barbary Pirates were attacking our merchants in the Mediteranian Sea. Jefferson asked them why they are doing this and they told him that the Koran commands them to do so. We are infidels and we must either be converted, enslaved, or killed. So, Jefferson created the Marine Corps, and sent them "...to the shores of Tripoli..." (just like the Marine Corps song goes) and went after the Barbary Pirates.
I think Bush is a very good President but I think he might be giving Islam too much credit as far as a faith goes. He is expecting an Eastern Religion to adhere to Western culture and ideals and that just isn't going to happen. It hasn't happened in 1300 years, it isn't going to start happening now.
If you truly want World Peace Brian, then Islam has got to go, but that doesn't mean you kill all the Muslims.
As far as the capitalizations go
"Democracy/Republic and 21st Century Free Market Capitalism"
is what I was refering to. As far as reading, it's clear you didn't read my posts or the external references.
I'll try not to capitalism words that do not require it. But when I see words that demonstrate deep meaning and tremedous ideologies, (such as "democracy, republic, and capitalism) it is difficult for me not to capitalize them.
"(something I understood straight away, something you still don't get after 5 years)" The fact that you are taking geo political advice from Ann Coulter is pretty telling. Her advice would make the problem far worse if actually implemented.
" What she is advocating is converting a billion Muslims to Christianity"
I would like to know what tools and how Ann's little mission would be accomplished.
"If you truly want World Peace Brian, then Islam has got to go, but that doesn't mean you kill all the Muslims."
Ok then exactly how do you propose to do this? I am looking for particulars here. I see no path short of killing most of them but I will certainly entertain any ideas you might have.
Brian,
Since you quoted me, I believe you read what I wrote. Perhaps you missed this: "I certainly have a list of things I would have done differently".
I'm not apologizing for the administration, but I'm not prepared to condemn them for not being omniscient either. To date, decisions making seems to look like pretty standard game-theory. It generally looks they've been doing minimax optimization. And decisions have clearly been revisited in the face of facts. Note that we don't currently have 30,000 troops on the ground, despite the earlier plan.
I observe that a lot of contingencies that were planned for never came true (remember the millions of expected refugees?), and some contingencies weren't planned for. And as things were learned, strategy and tactics have adapted.
The administration was clearly more concerned about the operation being perceived as a conquest rather than a liberation. Given that (by and large) the majority groups in Iraq (Kurds and the Shia) have remained peaceful participants in this experiment, something has been done right. I don't believe that being more solicitous of the Sunnis would make the current situation better. While this may not be the best case scenario, the situation could clearly be much, much worse than it is now.
Now you can choose to believe that there exists some magic wand that, if only Rumsfeld would have been smart enough to wave, today Iraq would be Switzerland. (If you can put words into my mouth, I can do the same to you...)
To be clear: I do not believe the administration has been infallible; I believe infallibility is an unreasonable standard. I believe that mistakes (in theater) have largely been defensible, even in hindsight. And as mistakes have shown themselves, commanders have adapted.
Outside the theater is a very different story. I think the administration has been grossly negligent in setting domestic expectations and keeping the public informed as to the status of the mission. For that matter, I'm of the opinion that setting a functioning democracy as a victory condition was stupid and unnecessary.
BTW, I would like to see info on the operational status of the Iraqi army prior to its disbanding. I recall some "soldiers" rioting for money, but I don't recall any organized units. I do recall the "Fallujah brigade", composed of ex-Iraqi Army commanders. That was a rousing success, wasn't it?
Brian,
You're either reading too quickly or having reading comprehesion troubles. I never made any point (one way or the other) about Saddam-level violence vs. the current situation.
I don't view the US Armed Forces as social workers. While I bear no particular animus against the average Iraqi, my concern is if US citizens are safer. If Iraq devolves into red-on-red fighting that's a second best, but still acceptable, outcome in my opinion.
Ok then exactly how do you propose to do this? I am looking for particulars here. I see no path short of killing most of them but I will certainly entertain any ideas you might have.
An excellent question Brian. Here is my answer.
I don't know.
I don't know how we would convert a billion Muslims to Christianity. I don't know what methods we would use, or how effective these methods would be. I don't know. I only know (definatively) what the problem is. I don't know how to fix it.
Unfortunately, the world of public opinion and political correctness prevents those who are in power, from properly defining what the problem is. We have to get to that point first, before we can begin to fix the problem. We have a long way to go.
-Paul
"Outside the theater is a very different story. I think the administration has been grossly negligent in setting domestic expectations and keeping the public informed as to the status of the mission. For that matter, I'm of the opinion that setting a functioning democracy as a victory condition was stupid and unnecessary."
I certianly agree here. I feel that operationally Iraqi freedom is an incredible example of tactical success. The commanders on the ground have done a fantastic job adjusting to the situation. As I have pointed out in all my posts, I believe that most of the "failures" in Iraq are really failures of the Administration.
A large part of the current problem is that because the Administration was talking about how easy it would be etc (I am talking about Wolfeweitz, Doug Feith, Dick Cheney) spouting off about how easy it was gonna be - they painted themselves into a corner. More importantly they improperly set the expectations with the American public on the type of sacrifice needed.
"Now you can choose to believe that there exists some magic wand that, if only Rumsfeld would have been smart enough to wave, today Iraq would be Switzerland. (If you can put words into my mouth, I can do the same to you...)"
I guess my sarcasm was uncalled for - sorry about that. But once again you make an argument from false choices. The choices aren't the following
1. The administration's plan
2. The magic fairy dust(magic wand) plan
There are a broad spectrum of policy choices that were IGNORED by the administration because it didn't fit into their view on what would happen in Iraq.
I just don't think many people in the Administration took the Yugoslavia lesson to heart.
My big problem I think is the at heart of it George W. Bush is a very lazy president. He doesn't dig into the core of issues, makes too many decisions based on the confidence of the presenter (That's from Snow's book and the Suskind's new book) and as a result decisions don't get reconsidered very often.
I have never set infallibility as the standard. My standard is - If I see it coming, someone in the Administration should as well. The very day that CPA order came down I knew it wasn't going to help the situation at all. I sat down and said this is going to make life much rougher in Iraq.
You can still argue that we would have had the insurgency without disbanding the army. That's plausible argument. But to argue that putting 400,000 military age males out of work had ZERO effect on the insurgency is silly. As the video and summary from the Wikinews article noted, Lt. General Peter Chiarelli, as saying,
"by creating jobs and opportunity, the Iraqi government would take away a major source of support for violent movements -- aimless, underemployed, young men who would otherwise rather be gainfully employed and supporting their families, but are laying IEDs, shooting RPGs and fighting Iraqi security forces and the coalition because they lack alternatives…. In areas where unemployment is the highest, as I go out and talk to people in those areas, and they tell me the one thing that you can do to lower the number of insurgencies is find jobs for the people. And we're committed to help both the Iraqi government and the PRTs as they go about the business of doing exactly that."
Ok Got that - putting people to work helps diffuse the insurgency. It doesn't automatically follow that putting people out of work helps fuel the insurgency but it seems a reasonable enough proposition.
The Iraqi Army stuff will take a while SG. I will post it as soon as I get primary source material.
You are right SG - I conflated your post with Paul's (whom I am gonna nickname Saul now since he wants to convert a billon Muslims). So I was wrong (Here comes my deflection though). That's one problems with the way Movable Type handles discussions. - They are flat and you cannot thread them by poster. (See it's actually MT's fault ;-)
Brian,
Now you're arguiong from false choices. I didn't argue that disbanding the army had no effect on the insurgency. I said: "Disbanding the Iraqi army may have added a more fuel to the Sunni insurgency, but it didn't start the fire."
My argument is that without disbanding the army the Sunni insurgency would be slightly smaller, but there would now be an active Shia insurgency. And that a Shia insurgency would be a much larger problem than a Sunni insurgency which, to some degree, was inevitable anyways.
Put it this way: If the Iraqi army was left in tact and Sistani had called on Shias to resist the occupation on the grounds that the US was just a new opresser of the Shia, there would be strong grounds to argue that it was incompetent planning in not disbanding Saddam's army.
Does that alternate scenario strike you as highly unlikely? Would the US position be improved if the Iraqi Army were left intact (depriving the Sunni insurgency of some manpower), but the Shia were in rebellion?
BTW, I have no inside knowledge whatsoever, but my guess is that is exactly how the decision to disband the Iraqi Army came down. My recollection is that that decision happened rather abrubtly during the period where Sistani was making some rather loud grumbles about the pace of remaking the Iraqi power structure.
But that's just a vague recollection, so I may be mistaken.
Food for thought:
http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2006/20060302_4370.html
The team’s motto is “Engage,” and Flowers and others work with more than 250 bloggers to try to disseminate news about the good work being done by U.S. forces in the global war on terror. The effort, officials here said, has reached more than 17 million online readers.
“We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement,” Flowers said. “The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience.”,
and a comment that was posted to the thread of the story above: "I live in San Diego and about 2yrs. ago Microsoft had an XP SP3 update hoopla at the convention center. People from around the world were here, but this one guy I meet when we went out one night had the endless credit card, bought all our drinks and food and we all had a great time. Well as the night went on he was getting wasted of course and let the cat out of the bag, this dude said he was from Virginia and he and 100+ others were full time internet devils advocate for the govt. and they were to go to all of the forums and message sites. There job was to be pro govt. belittle any who countered the argument of the govt. being wrong, there would be at any one time from 1-12 people against one person debating any subject. They would according to him just rip people to shreds in the forums, then it hit me all at once why I could never come up with a good counter argument sometimes when I talked to individuals in the forums, it was because of these people were working in groups against us. I played dumb to this guy, (Karma will get him) and never really said anything on this subject, but trust me on this that they are out there and this does go on. I just want to someday kick there ass on dslreports.com, you will find them there in the forums, it’s pretty obvious who they are.
If one accepts the veracity of post, at least some Are getting Paid to smear those engaging in honest questioning.
"Put it this way: If the Iraqi army was left in tact and Sistani had called on Shias to resist the occupation on the grounds that the US was just a new opresser of the Shia, there would be strong grounds to argue that it was incompetent planning in not disbanding Saddam's army."
Dude - No where do I say,"Run the Army like fucking Saddam did." I was more concerned with knowing where they are and putting them on fucking garbage duty. I said you need disband the army IN AN ORDERLY fashion.
Transition the Army into some form of civilian workforce (notice they are getting paid) doing everything from garbage collection to re-building fences etc. This way they are working (collecting a paycheck) etc.. Could they join the insurgency? Sure. Are they less likely too? Perhaps.
Let's see what the Coalition Provisional Authority did. They just declared the Iraqi Army illegal and disbanded it. See any transition there?
Part of the problem of the CPA is that posts in it were handed out like candy to people who worked on campaigns for the Republican party. Like the 24 year old copier salesman who got put in charge of re-building the Iraqi stock exchange. Only credential - He volunteered for president's re-election campaign.
Geez. nowhere did I say "Run the Army like fucking Saddam did" either. My point is the Iraqi Army was historically an instrument of oppression. Declaring it illegal and disbanding it sent a message. Leaving it intact and using it (even peacably) would have sent a different message.
As I said, my recollection was that when that decision was made the Shia were starting to get restless that the only thing that had changed was the name on the mailbox in front of the presidential palace.
Is it possible that keeping the army intact would have had a better outcome? Sure. But you imply there's no potential downside to that decision, and I believe there was. In fact, I believe the potential downside from that decision is far greater than the potential downside from disbanding the army. Given the uncertainty, That would make disbanding the army the correct decision in a game theoretic sense.
I don't know the case with the Iraqi stock exchange you refer to, but let suggest that he had a second qualification. He was willing to take the job. Were the a raft of better qualified people asking for the position? If so, then I would share your belief that it was almost criminally negligent. But if he was the only guy available then it's a different scenario.
I do agree that the civil affairs aspect has been disappointing. But my understanding (and I invite correction) is that the govermemnt can't assign civilians into Iraq without there consent. Union rules, and all that. So the miltiary's been stuck with doing a job they're ill-prepared to do.
So the copier guy was the only one willing to take the job? Man you will find any excuse for the administration. I mean political cronyism without perfomance is their one of their key features, as demonstrated by Mike Brown. Keep in mind the CPA was before the insurgency really got started in full swing and Baghdad was relatively safe. "Union rules?" So labor unions were the problem? Come on - people need to take responsibility for their decisions and not find every excuse for it. I am willing to bet that any number of level economists would have been willing to take the job - if you asked them. On the other hand if you a less concerned with being effective and more concerned with rewarding your supporters his actions make complete sense.
There is a Naomi Klein article from Harpers which covers the some of the screw ups of the CPA. They filled it with people with political connections.
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Which of course makes complete sense with this Administration where loyalty to President Bush is the most important part of a persons resume. Why don't you get the best and the brightest ala Roosevelt (who had 2 Republicans in his cabinet)? Because GWB isn't really interested in appointing the best people. That's evident from the appointment of Mike Brown and a whole host of other crony appointments.
SG I you will be happy to know t primary material search I tend to I agree with you about the army. The Army had fallen so far a part after the war that declaring it "illegal" probably only had a minor effect on the insurgency. The shock and awe campaign was more effective than I thought.
BTW I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend reading this Joint Force Command report.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf
It's about 230 pages but is based on interviews with Iraqi generals and original documentation captured but what a picture of dysfunctional leadership. Saddam literally had no idea about how bad things were going (cause no one wanted to die). He never thought that we would invade.
I printed the report out last night and gave it a read. I suggest if you want to learn quite about the Iraq war you can do the same. They cover WMD and why Saddam thought he still had some (Another case of people telling Saddam the things he wanted to hear). Great great report.
I conflated your post with Paul's (whom I am gonna nickname Saul now since he wants to convert a billon Muslims).
Brian don't be a smart ass. I can play that game too. Hey, maybe we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi Army (just like you said) and we could have used them to force a billion Muslims to be Christian? That would have been worth keeping 400,000 working men on payroll.
;-P
I