Why do so many servicemen and women want to go back to a losing battle? Via Gina (remember to vote for her, too): Maybe this is why:
I don’t know if my delicate psyche can take the specter of a Vietnam-like denouement to Iraq or Afghanistan. When I think of Vietnam, I am ashamed. I’m not alone:
U.S. Ambassador Graham Martin futilely pleaded for $700 million in emergency aid, so on April 30, Saigon fell. Left behind were the shameful images of our friends pleading for their lives at the gates of the U.S. embassy as the last helicopter flew from its roof. A few days before, Thieu had resigned, bitterly recalling the failed pledge of “severe retaliatory action” by the U.S. With condemnation on his lips, he said “The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible.”
How memory fades in the face of such a dishonorable betrayal. Now to call it an abandonment or betrayal, as I did in a Chicago Tribune column, incites charges (here and here) that I am re-writing history. To try to make what we did in Vietnam anything other than an abandonment is to dishonestly read history through a clouded ideological lens. The history of our disgrace couldn’t be clearer, but present-day attempts to turn the history of those infamous years into fantasy shouldn’t be surprising in a country that deified men who ran to Canada to betray their obligations of citizenship and denounced those who served honorably.
Will America lie to Iraq? Do old men and women, grandparents all, in suits and only years away from meeting their Maker really believe their shameful recommendations–cloaking cowardice in noble-sounding platitudes? (Not that they, ultimately, make any decisions, but their recommendations, the implications for Israel…..Are they without conscience?) While I don’t believe this President will be a traitor to a mission he started, what loyalty would a Democrat have to a hated President’s mission?
Never mind that this enemy will still want us dead long after GW leaves office. Never mind that our enemy wanted us dead before President Bush took office. Never mind that Iraq is a perfect strategic location to keep, uh, diplomatic pressure on terrorist sponsor states–if we were ever inclined to actually use our fire power to burn or kill something. Is anyone watching Lebanon? Oh, I remember, UN Peace Keepers are there keeping the peace.
Speaking of terror, I’m absolutely terrorized by the emboldened anti-war types (via Anchoress). Will everything now be viewed through the Machiavellian microscope? Will political solutions substitute for doing the right thing? (And for those who view the “right thing” as getting out A.S.A.P., will you be able to live with yourself watching people getting massacred? Or will you be able to absolve your conscience with “it’s Bush’s fault”? Somehow I know the answer to this question.)
Can you imagine how difficult it is being a soldier right now in Iraq, trying to protect a worried population and trying to protect his own hide against emboldened terrorists? Can you imagine being an Israeli and hearing an American leader negotiating with your life and your country?
I remember not voting for President Carter in the mock elections as a elementary student in 1976. And yet, I get the feeling that a Carter-esque leader will be just what these times produce. Rage and disillusionment tend to be fuel for short-sighted electoral outcomes. All America needs now is a disingenuous opposition leader willing to say anything to salve a smarting electorate. We’ve got a year to see who that Democrat ends up being.
Certainly it would be a long term disaster for civilisation if America were to pull out of Iraq leaving a state of anarchy behind.
And the ultimate loss of American lives as a consequence of such a withdrawal would far exceed any military casualties America will suffer by seeing this through.
Afghanistan is perhaps an even greater concern. Even those who argue against the right of military intervention in Iraq can hardly claim that it was wrong to wrest control of Afghanistan away from the Arabs of al Qaeda and reinstate the best form of Afghan government available. But since the initial triumph of Allied arms we have allowed the place to slide downhill like a greased pig.
What is required from NATO is greater commitment, more troops and a clear determination to win.
What is needed by the British forces is a squadron of Chinooks and two squadrons of A 10s.
All contributions gratefully received. Britain finished paying off the World War II Lend-lease debt to the US in August this year. For which relief, much thanks. How about a 2nd mortgage?
I particularly liked this bit from the Byrne piece:
I linked to a WS piece a while back that revealed the sham of the ISG as disinterested or unbiased. And if, heaven forbid, the new Democratic leadership is able to rationalize its way out of Iraq, abandoning the Iraqis (like GH Bush did in ‘91), it will be because they believe they can scapegoat those who took us into this “illegal war,” and that the American people will buy that we lost Iraq and abandoned a fledgling democracy because of Donald Rumsfeld’s blunders.
Already, returning soldiers are being spit on, so for John Kerry, et al., they are getting to relieve their heady days of counterculture heroism—unbothered by the fact that history, when it is taken out of the hands of Hollywood and a fawning progressive press, looks upon them with sadness and disdain.
This time, however, the media cannot control the entirety of the narrative. And we feckless keyboard warriors and chickenhawks will never let Americans forget, should the Dems and the realists in the foreign policy establishment contrive, for purposes of a short sited powergrab, to affect an abandonment, that the blood of a doomed newborn democratic republic is on their hands—no matter how many George Clooney films get made, or how many Lewis Black monologues we’re forced to endure, each of which will be nothing more than an attempt to gild transparently rationalized cowardice and shame and mold it into a statue of dissenting heroism.
This is an edited version of a piece in The Times yesterday by Matthew Parris. He was Maggie Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary at one time.
Not that big. There is something to be said of the deterrence precedent it sets. We idiotically bumble our way into an invasion of a country of 27 million, and then there is a sort of elegance in fucking up our exit as well.
This way we’re not so much feared because we skillfully, mightilly and willfully target those who threaten us. No. We’re feared because we’re the drunk wife-beater of the world. No-one knows what will set us off, what will cause us to leave everyone broken-nosed and blue eyed. Blue-eyed and listening to us say how much we love our darlings, how we do this to them because we love them.
That’ll make people fear america. Of course, some of us dont want to be wife beaters. So we try to get rid of the idiots in charge.
I wouldn’t be so quick about that. I’d say the iranians do have an interest in Iraqi self-determination and democracy. They know a majority of Iraq wants a government that religios, close to Iran, away from the US, and away from Israel.
actus … that’s the most ignorant crap you’ve ever spewed. Congratulations!
Oh, Jeff, I guess the notion of “feckless keyboard warriors” gives me some small comfort, but it is very small comfort, indeed. I want America to stand tall and proud and endure in the face of a lesser enemy.
What I fear is that the real enemy is within. Apathy and indifference kills just as effectively as a suicide vest.
Thanks Diana. You saved me from writing it.
I agree its an idiotic policy, but thats the best we can get with the idiots in charge. All im saying is that it won’t have been worthless. We still get to be feared like the drunk wife-beater.
Oh, my. It still doesn’t get it, does it.
Yes, that’s called an enlarged Iran.
I know. Thats why Iran isn’t so fearful of Iraqis being able to express their majoritarian desires. They know that Bush isn’t meeting in the white house with the chief of the “secular progressive labor unions of Iraq.” But with the chief of the “supreme council for islamic revolution in iraq”
And never will, Diana. Don’t bother trying; cognitive dissonance and non-sequitors are the hallmarks of that idiot.
Well said, Melissa, by the way. I was a senior in high school when Saigon fell, and I never can forget that.
I also remember the Vietnamese refugees that my parents sponsored a couple years later, and their happiness at being free, and grateful to America for taking them in.
But then, as now, I am ashamed that we ran from Vietnam.
I’d hate to see that happen a second time in my life.
It is rather grotesque that many Americans who enjoy the fruits of freedom given to them by the blood of war waged long ago believe Iraq to be a failure unworthly of liberty.
Outstanding post, Melissa. You could have titled it “Don’t Count on America.” Only a nation of fools would count on such a changeable, frivolous ally who lacks the will to see any difficult task through to completion; whose assurances are only as good as the next public opinion poll; whose commitment can be trashed and discarded with the next Congressional elections.
Osama said when people see both a strong horse and a weak horse, they will side with the strong horse. The Baker report and the last election proves that we are the weak horse.
I think we’ve finally gotten to the bottom of actus’ rhetorical pathology…
Actus – Iran doesn’t fear wife beaters, it celebrates them.
Being a contrarian, I’d like to thank actus for going to more-extended posts. It enormously increases his value to us, which (as always) is as a window on what might generously be termed the “thinking processes” of the pseudoLeft.
If actus’s basic premise were true he would have a significant point. Unfortunately that premise is the same as the one that gives us “Christianist” as a dismissal. actus and his allies see Shi’ia as a monolithic group who can only be addressed via the Iranian hierarchy. It’s a lie, but it’s a lie they have to cling to, because the rise of al-Sadr and driving Iraqi Shi’ia into the arms of the Iranians is their fault almost exclusively—and maintaining the lie allows them to deny that. It’s easy, too. All they have to do is ignore the nuance.
Regards,
Ric
This time, however, the media cannot control the entirety of the narrative. And we feckless keyboard warriors and chickenhawks will never let Americans forget,
You really are a talented writer. The problem is that America will forget, because no one hangs around to read keyboard warriors whose overriding ethos or tone is different from what they already believe. And that seems to be the problem with the blogosphere. Everyone seems content to hang out with people who agree with them, and slander anyone who disagrees, and in this way there is no persuasion, which means the numbers stay the same.
The only entre out of obscurity is a fact-based analysis (e.g., the expose of the fraudulent docs concerning Dubya’s service) and even then it bubbles up via MSM. Expressions of opinion, no matter how finely wrought, or magnanimous (an adjective tha applies almost no blog posts), just aren’t going to bubble up and propagate.
The problem is that the war has not turned out as it was advertised in late ‘02 and early ‘03. That’s just a fact. As a consequence of that fact, the American people are tired of the war, and just want it over. The polls on this have been solid for some time.
I watched the TV commentators (and their guests) today. They seemed to cover the spectrum fairly well. Most everyone is calling for “one last push”—ok, fine. Do it. But everyone agrees that this “one last push” is a final roll of the dice. And that if it doesn’t work, we gotta get out. That’s the broad carapace of common sense / conventional wisdom / received opinion which keyboard warriors would have to pierce.
Of course, failure in Iraq—we appear to be failing so far—is terrible for the United States and brutally cruel to our men and women in the armed forces of the United States, the dead, and the maimed. We could—in the opinion of those who think the whole project was a mistake—“throw good money after bad”, or “stay the course” for those who think there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. But that approach has to contend with the “you told us sumpin different!” attitude that is now widespread across the land.
_I_ think that at this point it’s a failure of political leadership. If we really want to go balls to the wall in Iraq, we have to go balls to the wall in the whole region, we have to have political leadership that points to the militarization of our culture, the notion of necessary shared sacrifice, but all of this with ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES of individual rights (inc. privacy, freedom of speech), and the notion that we cannot afford to allow a billion Muslims to go batshit, not only because of the oil that fuels the global economy on whose stability our country depends, but also because we cannot afford 1/6th of the population of the world to be unstable, to acquire nuclear weapons and destroy cities in accordance with a nihilist ideology.
However, there’s no way we can do these things with the relatively puny number of people we have in our armed forces. In World War Two, at one point or another, 25% of Germans were in uniform. Our armed forces, including recent veterans, probably is at about 1%. We cannot provide security to the world—our world—under those circumstances.
Nature abhors a vacuum and politics abhors a vacuum of power. There are vacuums of power throughout the Arab/Muslim world, and either we, Americans, fill those vacuums or someone else will. We need to orient our society towards armed service, mobilize the country, re-establish the draft, drastically increase our armed forces (especially ground forces), increase taxes to fund our defense establishment, and then pacify Iraq. Then, we act further on the basis of what the neighbors do. We do not act on the basis of our limited forces, we do not act on the basis of “what we think we can get away with.”
SHORT TERM, I think we are losing and will lose. Too many people have an almost superstitious faith in the efficacy of remote weapons systems. Short term, we cannot possibly put enough people on the ground. But LONG TERM (five years) we can do this. We simply need the political leadership to do it, and we aren’t getting it, and it is unlikely we are going to get it via blog posts here or there. If we don’t get the political leadership to do the things I have outlined, then we will in fact lose, regardless of the imprecations and gnashing of teeth.
NOTE: Although I have been calling for radical increases in the size of the armed forces for a long time, people always accuse me of being a defeatist, because, they say, I am only suggesting these alternatives because I “know” they are unattainable. Rubbish. We can do anything we want to do, we simply need the political leadership to spell out to the American people what’s going on and what needs to be done.
On the other hand, if people continue to insist that these problems can be solved by dropping more bigger bombs, or by killing more people and letting God sort them out, or by insisting we can turn the Iraq fiasco into a triumph by “controlling the narrative”, we will continue to fail. This is not something that can be solved by sending 20 K troops into Baghdad and letting them act like the Wehrmacht in Occupied Russia. We need a lot more people involved, and unless we get that, we will lose, lose, lose, and we are not getting the political leadership to get there.
I’m sure it would fear if it was the beaten one.
Not so monolothic—Sadr is different than SCIRI which is different than the badr corps which is different than Sistani. Just that they have certain interests which they generally, and in different intensities, share. There’s no reason to be totalist about this.
Oh. The nuance where its the fault of ‘actus and his allies’ ? This dolchsstosslegende is quite powerful.
Steve:
What do you think we should be doing in Iraq now that we cannot do because we need more troops?
I can think of a number of things we should do but don’t do out of deference to the wishes of the Iraqi government. But what are we unable to do because of insufficient troops?
Oooh! Fear the actus! He must be smart because he can dribble them furrin’-language terms into the discussion!
Bullshit. You sprinkle facile surface understanding like confetti at the Rose Parade, but it’s just a smoke screen. You and the rest of the Mooreons elevated Muqtada al-Sadr with your own hands, and now use him as an example of failure. I suppose I should congratulate you on the cleverness of your contrivance. It has certainly contributed to the demonization of George W. Bush, which clearly remains your overriding consideration. I just find it a bit unfortunate that you consider genocide, murder, and torture to be valid tools so long as you can concoct Jesuitical denials.
Regards,
Ric
Michael:
The number one thing we could do with more troops would be to clear areas, and keep them clear. It is understood that everytime we clear an area, then we leave, then the place is re-infested. It’s like clearing an infestation of cockroaches in your apartment (I used to live in Manhattan, forgive the analogy) one cupboard at a time. It won’t work.
Because we don’t have the people to PRACTICALLY do this, NOW, I have long advocated pulling our troops out to a remote camp system along the Iran-Iraq border. I get upset every day when I hear about our boys an girls getting blown up like sitting fucking ducks by IED’s.
As to the wishes of the Iraqi government—I assume you mean Moqtada al Sadr’s militia, and staying out of Sadr city, etc. I don’t think we have any choice but to accept that at the present time, because, if we challenge that, we will have to fill the vacuum caused by disarming the various Shi’ite groups. I don’t think we have the manpower for that, yet. But we should be aiming at getting there.
Steve, honestly, this crap is getting old. Allow me to translate this segment for the group:
WHAAAAAAHHHH Nobody listens to me!
Come on steve there has been some very good debate in here the last few days. If cleverly crafted insults intertwined in an argument bothers you,my best advice would be to put your purse down and deal with it. Anytime you walk into the room and piss in the punch bowl it s going to start something. You should know that going in, so stop whining about it all the time. Its getting to be cumbersome. If its just the fact that you have been summarily dismissed by some fo the folks here and most refuse to buy in to that liberal in sheeps clothing bit, then I would recommend another forum for you to peddle your thoughts.
“WINNING†IS NOT THE GOAL IN IRAQ, ANYWAY! I am stunned that the blogosphere has been so easily duped by the MSM into framing Iraq within the context of “winning†and “losingâ€Â. Let’s think for a minute. The objectives of the Iraq war were to topple Saddam for good, and replace him with a form of democracy that most Iraqis wanted. You’re done! Not surprisingly, the Iraqis, after having lived for almost all of their more than 5000 year history under tyranny, are stumbling a bit, but not much, as democracies go. It took the US about 200 years to truly free blacks (or perhaps, you’re not even done yet – where are the black-white love scenes in the popular media?). Canada was not even remotely a democracy until the 1920’s (Universal Suffrage – except for Indians, no Bill of Rights until 1950’s-60’s). France returned to an Emperor in the 1880’s, and democracy there still looks shaky to me. Every democracy developed very slowly, but Iraq is rocket fast. At this point, few Iraqi fighters are directly attacking the Allies – they have mainly accepted their presence, and are now attacking each other (a bit). The way to know you have WON in Iraq is when the withdrawal is ragged, loose, and ad hoc. Good parents withdraw from control of their growing children’s lives in a way that is quite ragged, loose, and ad hoc. The parent encourages self-sufficiency and independence, but freely permits back-sliding if it seems appropriate. Parents always worry about their kids, and they are always there to help until the end. The US still has troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea (why, by the way?). The US could probably achieve their goal of not being attacked at home by Iraq-based terrorists, if they withdrew tomorrow. Iraq is not, and probably will not become a failed state. If it did, re-intervention is completely possible, and history is full of such events. Britain has re-stabilized Iraq before, and in Basra, in some cases they re-occupied buildings that they left from last time. Strangely to me, the MSM has convinced even the blogosphere that the Iraq war has to be punctuated at the end by some type of “Clear Winâ€Â. Why? What, exactly would that be, anyway?
LOLSteve/actus 2008
I dunno, John. Given the tenor of Steve’s previous comments, I’m getting a distinct whiff of tar baby here.
What Steve is advocating today is precisely what the pseudoLeft has been accusing us of for the past half century. Shut ‘em down. Take control. Put in enough troops to provide security. Make ‘em take us seriously.
Imperialism, the original pure quill.
The United States has been imperialist in the past, and it may be in the future—but not with my acquiescence (not that my opinion matters a whole lot.) Our experience during the Twentieth Century culminates with our last imperial possession, Puerto Rico, which costs us a Hell of a lot, returns no benefit, and which we apparently can’t get rid of for love or money. More important, our observations, primarily watching the Europeans destroy one another and themselves playing out imperial fantasies and coping with the Japanese determination that it was their turn, have left us—at least, our leadership—with a distaste for the concept.
That is particularly true among the military, especially over the past quarter century. From Staff College down to AIT, the training and policy of the U.S. military is determinedly non- or anti-imperialist. Sure, there are officers who could be relied upon to exercise an imperial policy, but it would require, at minimum, a Stalinesque purge and re-education campaign to develop enough of them to be effective.
In the meantime the pseudoLeft would discover, with a shock, that all the bullshit they’ve been spouting for fifty years has suddenly become true. It might be that they’d be too shell-shocked to react, at least right away, but I wouldn’t count on it. At the very minimum it would result in a violent, and likely quite effective, reaction against conscription.
So I think it’s a trap. Don’t go in there, stupid!
Regards,
Ric
I know people around here like saying that they’re idealists, but that doesn’t mean that just because you have an idea it is true. What elevated Sadr is his, among other things, the holy position he inherited, his guns, his electoral victories, and his ability to deliver what people want in Sadr city.
I don’t thnk he exemplifies much failure—only if your goal was to turn iraq into something its not. Rather I think he’s an example of the success of iraqi democracy. I’ve always known that iraqis were significantly more fundamentalist and tribal than we’d been led to believe. Fundamentalist and tribal such that people like sadr would be result of free elections.
Don’t forget Guantanamo. Or, if you just look at home rule colonial status and revolutionary slogans (taxation without representation) DC.
Of course, it’s not going to nearly as neat as Vietnam. Consider Afghanistan, everything was solved when the Soviets pulled out? Wrong, there
was a protracted civil war, between the puppet
forces of Najibullah, and the Mujahadeen
coalition, then a ‘civil war’ among those forces
between the more indigenous NIA faction presided
by Massoud, Rabbani, Dostum et al; and the Afghan
Arabs of Abdul SAyaf, Hekmatyar, Khalis, etc; out
the latter patchwork would Osama create Al Queda.
Within a year of that conflict irrupting, there
was the 1st WTC bombing, and more importantly the
other plot, which targeted Mubarak, D’Amato, the
Diamond District, the FBI Headquarters, and the
Holland Tunnel. Interestingly, the Clinton admin.
always responded to the wrong target, in that period. It gave short shrift to Somalia,a project
that collapsed with the assistance of two of Osama’s lieutenants, Mohammed Atef (deceased) and
Seif Al Adel; aka Egyptian col. Mohammed Mokkawi
(presumably in Iran) it virtually ignored Afghanistan, it directed it’s attention almost entirely to the Balkans, where it piggy backed on the proxy war against the Serbs, with the Croats and Muslims. the legendary Peter Galbraith,(well in his own mind, at least) gave the Iranians a back door into Western Europe. Such was the myopic
focus, that there is no reference to Bin Laden, in
Halberstam’s magnus opus; War in the Time of Peace. Or take Beirut, after the 1st Am. embassy
bombing,(on the Corniche) and the Marine barracks bombing,(at the now famous Beirut Airport) there
were two other attacks against consular facilities
there; at Auk and Yarze. There were attacks at the
Torrejon, Rhein Main AB, in Europe. There was TWA 847, which ended up there, from Athens, then there was the whole raft of hostages from Anderson, to Lt. Colonels Buckley and Higgins; yet we took this as a isolated event; when it was all a product of Mugniyeh’s Iranian sponsored Hezbollag network, under the false flag of the
IJO organization as Robert Baer would later discover. Mugniyeh, would go on to impart his
shaheed delivery services to Hamas, the Al Aqsa
Martyr’s Brigade, and ultimately Bin Laden himself. Interestingly, one of the higher ups
in these plans, was Feridoun Mehdi-Nezhad, a
Revolutionary Guardsmen, later tied to the
Buenos Aires jewish embassy and AIA bombings, who
was one of Oliver North’s go-between in Iran
Contra. As an added bombings, the first subway bombings were occurring in France, right around that period. In short, the pullout from Iraq
will be much worse, for the jihadists in Saudi,Syria, Iran et al; will employ the IED, the
shaheed, and the car bomb, to every other soft target we can think of.
Wow actus, I’m impressed. No, really.
This is the best comment I’ve ever seen from you. Even the “wife-beater” comment was an improvement over your one line snarks. At least you are reveaing a position, and expounding on it.
Sadrs continued existence is by just what you say, he has an elected place in the government. Same reason Hezlollah is still in Lebanon. If we are going to promote democracy in the ME, we have to respect it in action.
There <idoes</i> have to be an adherence to rule of law however.
Well, there is also that people follow him, and he has guns. I don’t think we would want to do to Sadr City what we did to fallujah. I don’t think we could, politically.
That’s hardly a reason the coilition leaves him alone. Think of Saddams arrest.
You don’t really think the army couldn’t take down Sadr if they decided to, do you?
sure, we could do lots to sadr city. we have the capability to level the place. but that means we lose in iraq.
I agree with lee—this is the first time you’ve demonstrated even a superficial awareness, actus.
Of course it remains superficial. Muslims aren’t supposed to “inherit” holy positions—in fact, it’s a direct violation of doctrine. Of course, as in any business, if Daddy is significant and well-known, Sonnyboy will always have a leg up, but Muslims require a demonstration of ability before allowing anybody to take up the position, and that goes double for Shi’ia. Mookie failed abysmally in that effort.
What got him the position, and the influence he has now, was “…what people want in Sadr city…” Specifically, he was the only voice the poor Shi’ia perceived as calling for sanctions against the Ba’athists who had been killing and torturing them for so long. The Americans were calling for “inclusion” (and still are), and even Sistani was urging them to let bygones be bygones; and the American Democrats and international pseudoLeft were ennobling and lionizing their oppressors, and denying that their suffering ever existed or (when forced to acknowledge it) that it was of any importance. There on the teevee was Moore, or Galloway, or Fisk, delivering encomiums to the Stalwart Defenders; there on the couch was Uncle Abdul, who couldn’t watch because the Minute Men had gouged his eyes out, and Cousin Mahmoud, whose dick got burned off by the Noble Defenders of Truth, Justice, and the Iraqi Way. In all the world, only Muqtada al-Sadr would even acknowledge their injuries, let alone propose any payback whatever for them.
In the absence of the Mooreons, it is possible—not certain, perhaps not even likely, but possible—that the notion of reconciliation and, if not forgiveness, at least a willingness to start over, might have gained some traction. But the pseudoLeft never let up, and eventually even the most conciliatory got pushed into al-Sadr’s arms. And Mookie, who is (as you should recall) actually quite stupid, saw no way to gain the resources he needed except to appeal to the Iranians.
That’s why I’m suspicious of Steve. We have lots of problems in Iraq, but all of the most intractable ones can be traced back, either causally or as a contributory factor, to Bush Derangement Syndrome and and the inability, or intransigent refusal, of the pseudoLeft to accept any explanation for the whole business except American Imperialism. Anybody proposing that we ought to specifically adopt imperialism as an official policy, with or without actually attaching the word to it, is either a provocateur trying to lure people into an easily-demolished false position or too ignorant to pound sand.
Regards,
Ric
You’re fighting your domestic war here, using what iraqis do there in their lives as ammo here. They like Sadr because of events in Iraq. Not here. get over yourself.
Here is your imperialism, where you use Iraq as the battlefield for your domestic rhetorical struggle. Face it, the people who aren’t in charge here are not the ones that fucked up.
I’d chime in, but I am enjoying actus usual fall-face-first-dwon-the-stairs effort vis-a-vis Ric.
I really like watching actus weave between the “its all our fault” and “we have nothing to do with internal Iraqi decisions” cones.
Carry on. I am going back to finish a paper for ILE. Nobody is going to hand me those silver LTC clusters on a platter ya know.
…and never, never, never allow himself to even approach the penumbras of the emanations of the “some of it might be our fault” zone. Entertaining, as you say, in a Modern Times sort of way.
So you’re gonna get to bleach your leaves, John? Congratulations! As the clerk told Thorby, I predict you will find it looser but not always more comfortable. Will you buy a white suit? Can we call you “Kuhnel”?
Regards,
Ric
Actus, your cynicism is breeding ignorance.
With regards to taking out Sadr, destroying a city is not the only option. We have a precision strike military now.
You honestly believe that evolving political factions there are not influenced by political shifts here?
Can you please try this one again, I’m unsure what I need to face.
What Sadr has done is collectivize the losers of Iraqi society, and getting rid of Sadr will not necessarily undo that. Sadr’s followers will persist as a dependent class, because they lack the skills and work ethic to contribute to a larger Iraqi society. There is simply no more powerful weapon against Sadr than education and increased economic mobility.
One of the most persistent and vocal defenders of the former regime has been Ramsey Clark, who has done so from within a courtroom in Baghdad. Iraqis may understand that he’s a Democrat, but they also understand that Democrats may one day set policy for the United States. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to posit that the consistency offered by the Iranian theocracy might look more reliable set against a United States in which a large percentage of people are seen as regarding the deposition of Saddam as having been a mistake.
“The people who aren’t in charge here” just won an election with a campaign in which they stated that articulating an Iraq policy was not in their best interest, but they were delighted to point at violence in Iraq as evidence that their policy-to-be-named-later was preferable to the status quo. Is it a coincidence that casualties among both US troops and Iraqis spiked tremendously in October? The Democrats’ inarticulateness notwithstanding, it seems inarguable that Democrats and their media allies have relied heavily on “the battlefield” in Iraq in their “domestic rhetorical struggle,” “using what iraqis do there in their lives as ammo here.”
How then is it inconceivable that domestic poiltical arguments in the US might have resonance in Iraqi politics?
Ring-a-ding-ding. That’s good diplomacy, baby.
It’s true Mr. Sinatra, the great ones never die!
Don’t forget Guantanamo. Or, if you just look at home rule colonial status and revolutionary slogans (taxation without representation) DC.
It’s rented. No Cubans except by invitation only.
Maj. John is right.
I don’t know why this is so hard for you: some people in america CAN affect what happens in Iraq. You know, the people who run a lot of firepower and money there. And of course, besides all that, there is Iraqis making decisions. Some people here decide to invade and make an election in Iraq, with Iraqis deciding who to vote for. All together, that adds up to: al Sadr.
But Sadr is just the head of a movement. You take him out, you don’t take out what he does for Sadr city, what Sadr city wants done for it. He represents the largest bloc in the government coalition. That doesn’t go away with him going away.
I think that people there vote for Sadr and fight with him and listen to him. And that it really has not much to do with what page-fucker is bringing down which party in congress, or how high disaprovval with our regime is.
And again a couple of days ago?
There’s plenty that happens in Iraq that people in america are responsible for. Iraqi’s choosing to support Sadr? Thats not one of them.
Duck and weave, actus, duck and weave. It’s so funny to watch.
What you don’t understand is that we know what’s up, and that watching you carefully place your feet in the minefield is amusing and infuriating by turns.
We also know that this is the position you’re required to take by your Doctrine. After all, you’ve made your arguments and posted your blather with complete disregard of the benefit, welfare, or even existence of real, live Iraqis; the only thing “Iraq” means to you is a source of material to bash Bush and Republicans with. In the process you’ve done a good deal of real, permanent, irrevocable damage, including getting a goodly number of people killed, and admitting that your political potshots managed to wound people other than the ones they were aimed at would be admitting that you fucked up. You can’t do that. You’re the Smart Party, the Ineffable Oracle.
The rise of Muqtada al-Sadr and the consequent increasing influence Iran has in Iraqi affairs is a direct consequence of the Michael Moore “Minute Men” doctrine espoused by Democrats and the Left and subsequent elaborations. That’s a fact, a truth, a physical reality, and wobbling and weaving and going on about internal Iraqi politics and “what Sadr City wants” without reference to why they want it and what choices they were offered just exposes you as a prevaricator. That turd is yours, it’s out in the open for all to see, and calling the smell “violets” doesn’t help. Got matches?
Regards,
Ric
What if he doesn’t go away, but finds himself arrested and charged with ordering terrorist activities, or consiracy to commit murder, or any serious charge that requires a public reading of charges and accusations, for all the ‘moderate’ muslims to hear? Sometimes people need to hear exactly what is unacceptable behaviour to a civilized society.
lee,
Sorry. Won’t work. The Mooreons have closed off that avenue, too.
It’s the reason why nobody’s “taken out Sadr.” It’s the reason we don’t, and didn’t, send troops—even Iraqi troops—to slap the Mahdi Army down.
Because at this point, anything we do that damages or even seriously inconveniences Muqtada al-Sadr and his merry band of vigilantes will confirm, in their minds, that we’re in league with the Noble Defenders of Iraqi Liberty, a.k.a. the Ba’athist goons who have been torturing and murdering Shi’ia for a middle-aged person’s entire lifetime. We can’t even offer the Sunni a square deal on the oil revenue, because the Shi’ia see that as a prequel to handing the whole megilla over to their oppressors and short-circuit any attempt to do that. And Moore, Steve, and actus go right on eulogizing the “Minute Men”, and every word out of their mouths makes the Shi’ia more certain that they’re about to be betrayed. Which they are, if the Democrats get their way.
So they’re doing what they think they have to do: they form death squads and go around killing people. If the Sunni are going to be back in charge, at the very least there will be fewer of them to make Shi’ia lives miserable. The Marsh Arabs, a little farther away and a little less directly exposed, support the Shi’ia a little, but mainly they fort up and collect weapons. And the Kurds, better organized from half a century of resistance against the Turks (and very probably smarter), build de facto borders and make very, very sure they know who passes them. The American army and political advisers talk about reconciliation, about “diversity”, and all the Shi’ia hear is demands that they yield to their torturers. So they shoot and bomb American soldiers because they think they’re damaging actus.
Pretty, ain’t it?
Regards,
Ric
For example, I don’t advocate ‘taking out’ sadr, because I know that ‘taking out’ sadr means doing to sadr city what we did to fallujah. And that will kill alot of iraqis, and probably lose us iraq for good. People who say that we should take out sadr are nuts.
What? You’ve got to be kidding me. Whats the link? whats the causal relationship? You don’t think the causal relationship is that Sadr is fighting for people and running Sadr city and teaching them and carrying on the legacy of his father? You’re fucking nuts.
This is a minefield indeed. Lunacy.
Why they want it? They want car bombs to stop because they’re just like you and me. They want sunnis to pay because they’re just like you and me. They want a government that delivers for them just like you and me. They give a shit what michael moore said.
Yes, those darn iraqi proles refuse to get civilized, and the way we’re gonna do it is by arresting their biggest leader. Like i said, you want sadr city to turn into fallujah, do it.
actus, if you turn those awesome powers of reading comprehension you’re currently displaying on the reading of briefs and legal papers when you get a job… you’re gonna be needing another job pretty soon after that.
*I* am not the one advocating attacking al-Sadr. There are some people whose opinions I otherwise tend to respect who are; I’m trying hard to explain to them why it’s a bad idea—which has absolutely nothing to do with what you’re spouting. In fact, I’m the one who proposed that, if we leave, we divide up all the smallarms into two piles and give one of them to Muqtada.
As for “what’s the link”—learn to read. It’ll be useful to you in your future career.
So far, fine.
Bullshit.
Because what they hear from Michael Moore—and you, and Steve, and every Press outlet in the world, from al-Jazeera to the BBC—is that none of the things they want are ever going to happen, because the Ba’athists are Noble Freedom Fighters With The Best Interests Of All Iraq At Heart, Defending The Homeland Against Heartless Invaders. What that means, to a poor Shi’ia, is that he’s not even going to get a new boss, same as the old—he’s going to get the old boss back. Complete with red-hot irons and flensing knives.
And every time you or your allies launch into encomiums for the “Minute Men”, or demand punishment for outrages against Ba’athists and their Waha’abbi allies while ignoring Shi’ia suffering—or claiming it didn’t happen—you reinforce that impression. Oh, your personal contribution is minimal to zero, but the people you’re taking your cues from, the ones who do get to use the pulpits they gained elsewhere to spread the word, are the direct identifiable source of the attitude. You joined up. Wear the uniform with pride.
Regards,
Ric
I think they pay more attention to the death and destruction that what michael moore says. Of course, whats to stop them from seeing themselves as the minutemen? You know, they are a militia, fighting for their vision of the country.
Actus, for future referance, shadow boxing is usually used to hone one skills, not let the shadow beat you mercilessly.
They kill innocent civilians. Democrats used to frown on that sort of thing. I think there are human rights issues involved and stuff. Sorry – I don’t have a link.
Oh. Just because they’re a militia fighting for something doesn’t make them shiny happy people. But htey might see themselves as minutemen.
They’re also theocratic nutcases. Also frownworthy.
No, they see themselves as Alla’s warriors, eagerly running for their 72 virgins.
You don’t have a clue how “they” see themselves. Perhaps you have empathy confused with projection.
Sadr’s people? Really? I don’t see them doing so much of the suicide stuff. More just plain olde militia stuff. I haven’t seen any 72 virgins sort of rhetoric coming out of Sadr.
Really? Minutemen? Don’t you think minutemen has certain connotations of what they are fighing for and what they hope to achieve with their victory?
Yes, it does.
If I can just try to drag things back to where this particular thread began,there are two points that were raised which have not in my view been addressed.
1. What Matthew Parris said was that the James Baker report asserted that it was not in the interests of Iraq’s neighbours to have Iraq in a state of anarchy. Parris does not agree with this finding, neither do I, and I haven’t seen a coherent rebuttal of this starting point.
2.
They have a much greater interest in Iraqi anarchy. Their memories are longer than yours.
3. Why use a post WWI German expression when English is the language of this particular debate?
Quite correct, Ric. I am one of those who wouldn’t mind Mookie meeting up with a 7.62mm slug in the forehead.
I understand your position, and it’s well stated. Sadly, it’s wasted on actus, who once again displays his prowess with non-sequitors and cognitive dissoance to the amazement of all (well, all those with an IQ of 90 or less).
And having said that I understand and respect your position, it’s my firm belief al-Sadr is a murderous bastard thug who is better off dead, for the good of humanity. Give him any degree of control of Iraq, and you have another Saddam Hussein in the making. For all the right reasons (from his perspective, amyway, certainly not mine), since Mookie has religion (or says he does).
I’d prefer a civil war in Iraq versus a semi-real religious fanatic pushing buttons. The outcome is less damaging than some form of semi-stability with Mookie alive. Leaving him alive solves problems for now, but I am less certain about down the road.
All in all, it’s a good thing that I would never be in the decision loop for killing him. We’ll just have to ride this one out.
actus is attempting to establish his credentials as a genuine intellectual, furriskey.
That he is a day late and a couple million bucks short in the attempt is proof that he remains the Talking Telephone Pole™.
TW: thing. Heh! In a post about actus. The AI is recovering, methinks.
Like dubya is rumomred to have said, the problem with the french is they don’t have a word for entrepreneur.
That does help to show that invasion by america sucks for your people. But they must like some expression of majoritarianism in Iraq, knowing that the majority has some of the same enemies they do: baathist sunnis.
Dude, it was in Harpers. Not so intellectual.
woof. woof.
No, no. This isn’t the proper approach. The proper approach is to praise actus for taking the time to use capitalization and punctuation, and for expressing nearly complete ideas.
Good actus! You get a cookie!
Actus = St. Mary’s 5th grade CYO basketball team
Ric Locke = 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
It’s really NOT very fair. Is it?
tw: result
The result is not very favorable for actus.