From the Corner, General David Petraeus’s message upon taking command in Iraq:
To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:
We serve in iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher.
Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us.
The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.
Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail.
The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear.
In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together we will face down the terrorirsts, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative  qualities that you have in abundance.
I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission.
It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.
Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor.
David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding
Reading through this—Mona Charen calls it “brave, realistic, and uplifting”—I was struck by one particular line, which to me sums up the entire effort as it has so far unfolded: “[The enemies of Iraq] will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed.”
Now, surely I can’t be the only one who recognizes that this simple description indicts more than just the insurgency. And, in the wake of a non-binding House resolution that acts as a no confidence vote on the military, as well as the public maneuvering by many Democrats concerning how legally to hamstring the President—all while avoiding the political consequences of cutting off funding to the troops directly— that makes me far more sad than it does angry.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can express her outrage with General Petraeus as she did before with VP Dick Cheney. Because they are, in effect, reiterating the same point.
The difference being, of course, that the Democrats have pretended to accept Petraeus—even as they talk quite openly about how best to cut him off at the knees without being saddled with the responsibility for having done so.
(h/t IP)
Alas, Nancy supports the troops, so she really can’t express her outrage to General Petraeus.
Cheney may be second choice for her, but I’m sure that the nutroots will be supportive in either case.
“that makes me far more sad than it does angry.”
I alternate between both emotions. I made quite a few Iraqi friends during my time there, at least one of whom has since died a violent death. I dread the possibility of what could very well happen to the rest if we leave suddenly. People can debate the merits and mistakes of OIF all day long, but there is a huge and very real human price that will be paid if Pelosi, et al have their way, and it sickens me. A friend of mine recently told me that he doesn’t feel it could be worse over there. It can always be worse.
“Mr. alfie, white courtesy phone please….”
CJD: Major props, I didn’t know you were a vet from over there.
— I don’t think the Dems are trying to make Iraq fail. In 2004, for example, I was surprised at how restrained the Dems were in criticizing the war effort to that point. I think they know that a _perceived_ failure in Iraq will be very bad four OUR country. (I say “perceived” because obviously that’s the money issue here: if we leave and feel that we have won or did all we could, that’s on thing; if we leave with copters on the roof, that’s something else.)
— I DO think the Dems are expressing the real anger of their constituents. In that respect I think it’s important to keep in mind that when 30% or 40% (or whatever it is) people say that they are upset with the conduct of this war, that’s a fucking lot of people, and a lot of anger, too. So in that respect I think, first of all, that the Dems are expressing their constituents.
On the other hand, I don’t put it past the Dems to use this for political advantage. But I don’t think they’ve really gotten into that much, yet.
It seems to me that the non-binding resolution is a way for the Dems (and GOP’ers who are on board), to say to their constituents, see, you do have a voice, we listen. But the resolution has no teeth. If I were an angry anti-war constituent, I am not sure I would be mollified.
As for Petraeus’ Order of the Day: it’s a genre piece.
No, Jeff, they are aiming a little higher with the long knives.
Steve,
Thanks. Was in the Army as an Arabic linguist. Got out in ‘03, and was in Iraq as a contractor.
What part of the definition of “leadership” includes polling data? If the founding fathers wanted public opinion to determine policy, they would have given us a democracy.
As an aside, since well over 60% of americans believe the Bible is the literal truth, i.e. Noah’s flood actually occurred, are you willing to admit that those events really happened?
(obviously, my opinion of polls are that they are all garbage and should be militantly ignored.)
Ever notice how the news always reports that two soldiers died or four were killed today with no context? It’s as if we have 150,000 (or how ever many it is) soldiers in Iraq just standing around, some suitable distance from each other, waiting for a bullet, a mortar round, a bomb. Some get killed, and for those nearby, it’s perhaps collateral damage, maiming, life-changing wounds. For most tho’, every day is just stand around waiting for something bad to happen.
No info about hunting terrorists, training Iraqi soldiers/policemen, building schools, rebuilding schools, being frustrated with Iraqis, the brass, the media, being happy with the Iraqis, the brass, the media, nothing.
The fact of the matter is, the media treats the soldiers the exact same way they treat them as civilians. As uninteresting, dim-witted residents of fly-over country who should just shut-up and let the Elites “take care” of them like the cattle they are.
And the sooner the voters in general can be convinced how evil the Republicans are so as to put the Democrats back in their rightful positions of power, the sooner the nation can get back to Job #1, preventing the Republicans from gaining power again.
He wrote ‘the enemies’ and he did not specify the enemies. Clearly said, in plain language.
I think that those who hope for and promote a failure here are enemies. Do you work for freedom, do you support freedom’s task? Or do you not?
Where do you stand?
I think Patraeus is too busy wrestling with the Iraqi military and the ghost of Creighton Abrams to care what’s happening in Congress.
I found that an encouraging and perceptive rallying call.
The principal message I came away with, however, was not the reference to the enemies of success, but this:
That is a proper soldier’s view.
Well, the whole enemy question and what was intended by it is interesting. The Oath of Service does indicate “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.”
An older version of the oath adopted in 1862 did include the clause:
It might be absolutely silly to suggest, but perhaps that language could be included in the oaths of elected officials, at the very least.
BRD
TomB: There are three elements of leadership, as I was taught.
1. Be a man.
2. Know your stuff.
3. Look out for your people.
The Dems got the House and Senate, and I think it’s a no brainer they got them because of the war. They have a responsibility to address the attitudes of their constituents. It’s that simple. In this context, leadership does not mean ignoring your constituents.
It’s precisely because the congress has to reflect the thinking of their constituents that the terms for the House are so short – 2 years. If a congressman fails to do that, they’re out.
Senators get six years—they get to be more “statesmanlike.” But many senators on both sides of the aisle feel that the war has been hopelessly botched.
If I were a politician and 60% of my constituents believed that story of Noah’s flood, I would at least put in a respectful mention of the Ark on an occasional basis.
Personally, I don’t believe most of the Bible is accurate history, but, no one elected me to be their voice, either.
If you want to ignore polls, you can, but no one else does. Sometimes they are majorly wrong, but most of the time, a pretty good picture.
cjd,
While I haven’t been there, I have made some friends there, and I couldn’t say it any better than that.
Thank you.
steve,
Then you’re not paying attention.
Look, I think there’s an artificiality in the distinctions being made here.
This is not like a revolt in congress in 1943 trying to argue that we have no beef with the Japanese.
This is not a declared war. There is no established benchmark, not even “Unconditional Surrender” for declaring an end to hostilities, either in Iraq or anywhere else. The way some people think, this is a front in the GWOT, and therefore, we can and should be in Iraq forever. But, clearly, that perception is not a “fact”, it is an interpretation of many facts.
Another fact is that millions, even tens of millions, of our fellow Americans do not accept this. They believe, variously, that the war was a mistake, that the war has already been lost, that this adminstration is totally incompetent, that authorizations of force should be withdrawn,
that the GWOT is being fought improperly, that sending more troops is throwing good money after bad, etc. etc. Probably half the country holds at least some of these views, and they aren’t traitors for holding them. Nor are politicians being treasonous for taking those sentiments and attempting to craft them into law.
I don’t believe—yet—that the Dems and their Republican “fellow travelers” are exploiting the war for political gain. But if you are going to start implying that Americans who oppose this war (or more accurately, the handling of it) are enemies, you are in dire need of a nap.
IOW, you worship at the feet of the polls. You give absolutely no thought to the fact that they may be wrong.
Public opinion changes like the weather, especially when the national media has taken it upon itself to push a certain point of view.
If your idea of leadership is looking to polling data, I thank you for not running for office, although I’m sure the Dems have a spot for you.
Yeah, why should a MACOM CinC worry about Congress cutting off his funds, restricting his troops, dictating who he can or cannot engage, ordering him to flee…?
No CGSOC/ILE/CCC credit for you! Back to the BOLC.
And you base definitive assertion on what?
Petraeus isn’t there to win a war, Maj. John.
He’s there to get the Iraqis to fight for their country.
Steve,
Look at this from a slightly different perspective – you assert that the Democrats aren’t trying to ‘lose’ the war, per se. They are, however, adopting positions that are indistinguishable from those whom we are fighting, whose clearly stated objective is our defeat.
It reminds me of the notion ‘I’m not saying you’re objectively pro-terrorist, it’s just that I’m saying I can’t figure out what you would do differently if you were pro-terrorist.’
BRD
I was going to respond to Alphie, you know, the usual, ‘What the hell are you on about?!’ laced with the traditional comments about logical reasoning, and links to information that will never be responded to in any sort of a serious fashion.
Then for some reason, an anti-war slogan popped into my head. One I wanted to share with you all.
[url=”http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/02/war-may-not-be-healthy-for-children.html” target=”_blank”]
Alphie is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things.[/url]
This got me to wondering if, really:
[url=”www.warisnottheanswer.net/” target=”_blank”]
Alphie is Not the Answer.[/url]
Pablo,
Thanks, I appreciate that. Sometimes it really is that simple, and I wonder why some people don’t think about it. Back here, whenever I listen to people debating about the subject, I try to tell them that, look, the reasons we went over there, whether you like this or not, are irrelevant. The fact is, we’re there, we’re committed, and there are people depending on a positive outcome; our troops, the Iraqis, others.
I wasn’t for us going into Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. But once we went in, I felt we had to at least get behind the mission to make it work. Even there, though nobody hears much bad news, the outcome is far from certain.
But even when I make that argument, people are so infected with hatred for Bush that it doesn’t matter to them. They don’t understand that if we leave Iraq soon, it will make Yugoslavia look like a day in the park. They don’t understand, and more to the point, they don’t give a shit. That’s what makes me sick.
Quick, someone mark the calender! Alphie made an astute observation!
I was going to respond to Alphie, you know, the usual, ‘What the hell are you on about?!’ laced with the traditional comments about logical reasoning, and links to information that will never be responded to in any sort of a serious fashion.
Then for some reason, an anti-war slogan popped into my head. One I wanted to share with you all.
Alphie is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things.</a>
This got me to wondering if, really:
Alphie is Not the Answer.
BRD: Okay, now if I got you right, you are saying, that, since the Dems (actually Dems and several GOP) are pursuing a goal (getting us out of Iraq) that is identical to an interest of “those we are fighting”, then it follows that the “Dems” are allied with our enemies.
But you could just as easily say that Bush’s strategy in Iraq, which is to support a Shi’ite dominated state, is in the interests of Iran. However, that doesn’t make Bush an ally of Iran.
I think at this point “defeat” is what you make it out to be. I mean, we did win the war, and we did accomplish our objectives. We are in Iraq now either to
a) shape the postwar Iraq into something that we want it to be (although that is still very vague)
b) or shape the postwar Iraq as a step in the larger GWOT (also vague, and also not even necessarily true, depends on how you buy into the GWOT concept)
I would argue that a)—what we are doing now—is not really a military mission as such. It is a police mission. I’m not sure we are up to it, not least in terms of manpower. And I am not sure we should be doing it. I have never called for retreat, and I am not calling for an end to the Surge, but it seems clear to me that some line has to be drawn in the sand, and if the administration or the Congress fails to do so under circumstances that are favorable to our country, then I am afraid that the people might become so sick of this conflict as to compel us to do so under circumstances much less favorable.
We have had about 150 K people in Iraq for almost four years now, and few major military engagements in that time. People have a right to ask, how much longer? When will we leave? What are we waiting for? The responses I get are:
1. We’re there as long as it takes. (which is meaningless, really)
2. This is part of the GWOT, and we’ll be there for decades. (well, that’s possible, and enough for me to not call for withdrawal, but, I don’t think it will work in 2008 given the rhetorical leadership we are getting in this country)
3. We can be there forever, so what are you worried about. (As we have discussed elsewhere, I am concerned about the status of the armed forces, and I am very concerned about the constant US casualties)
4. We can’t say when we’ll leave or under what circumstances we’ll leave, because, otherwise our enemies will hide until we leave. (Which essentially means, we’ll be there forever, See #2, above.)
As I have noted many times, I am critical of this campaign but I am not calling for withdrawal. However, I know a lot of people whose opposition to the war is far more vociferous than mine. And these people will vote next year.
cjd,
Bush Derangement Syndrome. Which also sickens me.
No, steve. A democratic state. That Iraq has a Shiite majority is incidental, and the fact that Iran is also Shiite does not necessarily place it on a path to alliance with the Iranian regime.
These people know totalitarianism, and to suggest that they’re dying to reembrace it does not logically follow.
Not sure about that. We’ll see.
Petraeus has got a hard job: stomping some brotherhood into the Iraqis. He’d better succeed, or Iran is going to roll us up, diplomatically.
I was just at a Lenten soup supper and the priest quoted G.K. Chesterton, to the effect that “Some have tried Christianity and found it wanting; I have tried Christianity and found it difficult.” A difference in outlook, don’t you know: stabilizing and moderating Iraq, like a Christian life, can be seen as impossible to achieve and therefore not worth starting on, or as a difficult but worthwhile task that can only be judged accurately in retrospect.
(P.S. No link intended between Christianity and our efforts in the Middle East. It’s just a useful quote for this circumstance, when you change a couple of words.)
steve, I don’t know why you’d believe that “shap[ing] the postwar Iraq as a step in the larger GWOT” might not be the aim of the Bush Doctrine… It’s been repeatedly stated to be a part, a front, of the GWOT since Bush started up with the whole “freedom on the march” thing. Stable, moderate, democratic governments in the Middle East, the Bush Doctrine (or gamble – but one I dearly hope we win) says, are a bastion against extremism, because when people can participate in choosing their destinies peaceably, when people can expect that transfer of power will happen without bloodshed and chaos, when people see that an economy can do more than provide cover for kleptocrats – they won’t feel the real (as opposed to Hollywood/Florida) disenfranchisement that leads some to desperate and barbaric acts. Bush’s great Hail-Mary is to assume that the people of the Middle East are far-sighted enough to embrace an Enlightenment that their own culture hasn’t experienced. IMHO.
Steve,
Being Shia doesn’t make an alliance between Arab and Persian any more than being Catholic makes an alliance between Spain and France automatic.
I understand your position. I haven’t tackled it head on because the time you’ve taken in your posts merits a serious response.
I wonder, however, not about your position, but rather the position of the people who are advocating withdrawal.
The mechanics really are that simple. The objective of the ‘bad guys’ is to simply erode the will to fight. When we lose our will to fight and withdraw, they win, we lose, and that’s that.
There is absolutely no difference, distinction, or relevance between giving up and, essentially, giving up. You can dress this up however you want in terms of force levels, long war, popularity contests, rhetoric and whatnot, but simply quitting is simply quitting, no matter how you slice it.
BRD
Jamie: With all respect, I think that the Bush doctrine is seriously flawed as a doctine, because it assumes political democracy (voting) is something other than just a characteristic of democracy, for the effective achievement of which one needs social, economic, ideological and cultural precursors. Still, it might be “true” but is still, after all, just an intepretation of how things work.
Sanity: I was going to wait for Jeff to bring it up, but, yes, I did hear the news that we are going to start talking to both Syria and Iran, in some form.
BRD:
I haven’t gotten into the Iraqi Shia v. Iranian Shia thing either, really, but I have read in several sources that the current government is tight with Iran. And of course, Al Sadr goes back and forth frequently, as I understand it.
I can’t help but thinking you are setting your sights too high, and that you will be disappointed. I mean, this isn’t like we are kids in a vacant lot and we’re not going to go home until the other side “quits the field.” If that’s our benchmark, we might as well go ahead and annex Iraq as a protectorate of the US government.
We simply must establish some reasonable benchmarks or timetables for withdrawal. I’m not getting anything.
Then you say, “giving up”—giving up on what exactly? Exactly what? We have to know when we can say “mission accomplished”. You don’t come up with a SMEAC where the second term is, “Go out there and fight”
Jamie:
The quote goes, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”
That’s what we’re trying to instill, steve, under the Bush doctrine. That’s ostensibly how the Middle east gets out of the Stone Age under that doctrine.
Exactly why I said it was a “gamble,” steve… because we came to our present state via the Enlightenment, and the Muslim world hasn’t experienced that whole deal personally. (Culturally. Multi- or meta-culturally. Whatever you say about a whole lot of people who share one basic common denominator.) What Iraq, and every other nation in the world that didn’t have the advantage – or head start – of being part of the Anglosphere or its near neighbors, have is the benefit of history.
When the American Constitution was written, it had precursor ideas, but no significant precursor document. (Constitution of Virginia?) Since that time, every aspiring republic has had, at minimum, the American document to look to, the American historical record (however brief, as in the French Revolution) to observe, the American present-day situation to evaluate.
So the question is, is it possible for Iraq and others to gain, in essence, what we have in a political sense – with the appropriate cultural overlays – without first undergoing their own Enlightenment? As with kids, do they have to make their own mistakes, all of them, or can they learn from others’ mistakes? And, if it’s not possible to make the jump all at once, is it at least possible to shorten the learning curve dramatically through the dual aids of smart people paying attention to historical precedents and lots of big-brothering (in the good sense)?
It’s a huge gamble. But what’s the alternative? If successful, the outcome would be so very worth it… If unsuccessful, what ought we to have been doing instead, especially under the circumstances as they were in 2001, 2002, and 2003? (Not that we have that choice now – moot point. So perhaps the better question is, is there another fork in this road that I’m not seeing, that might provide a similarly good outcome with less risk of failure along the way?)
Thanks, Sanity! I was recreating a quote that apparently the priest was also recreating. And here with Google only clicks away…
Steve,
In a previous thread, I seem to recall that we did establish what ‘finished’ would look like. It was something along the lines of an Iraq in which the Iraqi military and police are able to establish and enforce the rule of law within their borders, without requiring persistent direct ground combat support.
I’m fine with that. And once that’s been achieved, withdraw, invade Syria, annex the Yukon – it doesn’t matter to me.
But…
But… once even the concept of timetable is introduced, jihadis should be jumping with joy. It means that the US, in its heart, has already lost, and is just trying to rationalize a way to throw in the towel and knuckle under. Because once ‘timetable’ even becomes an option, the metric for stay, leave, or go in Iraq is decoupled from any discussion of the actual status of Iraq. It could be run under the grip of totalitarian space aliens from the planet Kabaah and it wouldn’t matter.
In other words, when ‘reasonable benchmarks’ and ‘timetables’ become the issue of debate, you’ve already lost the damn game.
It may be tempting to assert “this isn’t like we are kids in a vacant lot and we’re not going to go home until the other side “quits the field.” But that’s exactly, exactly, exactly all warfare is. Warfare, as has been preached a million times, politics by other means. The reason that it involves the use of force is that if the other guy won’t accede to your demands, then removing the capability for them to resist is a mighty good second place.
Since, owing to the incredibly short-sighted, instant gratification, shallowness that seems to have become the primary analytical lens through which we see strategic issues, any jerk who fires off a few rounds at a US soldier somewhere and happens to capture a sufficiently romantic air is automatically going to be ‘capable’ of making any ANY situation in which the US has deployed troops a ‘quagmire’. Conversely, the US has the material capability to keep a presence, of some variety, anywhere on the planet for any length of time.
So, it really does come down to a question of will. The jihadi folk, while maliciously insane, aren’t stupid, and calibrate their staying power, in part, on a cost-benefit analysis which figures in the willingness of Americans to dig in for the long haul. And, per copious amounts of observable data, the American media has, in the last half-century, have become one of the world’s leading suppliers of Self-Indulgent Lack of Nerve.
So, really, the way that Iraq is working out, is that Joe Jihadi has only to figure out a way to plug themselves into the narrative such that the left or media find some sort of redeeming heroism about their activities, at which point, the media will start the long and gradual process of undermining the effort, to the point that the question ceases to have a frame of reference, and we start beginning to find ways to throw in the towel. Thereafter, we generally do give up the ghost, and voila!
You may or may not be right about your observations of the non-binding resolution, but I think more seriously what it means that the jihadis really only have to hold on a couple of years and then the question becomes only one of what specific disastrous outcome we get, and how soon the recriminations of ‘abandoning Iraq’ to chaos become the new and improved Reason That All of Everybody’s Political Opponents are Feckless Idiots Who Really are Racists Bent on Endangering National Security.
So, even at most charitable, the actions of those who advocate withdrawal perhaps only establish their victory conditions and just simply provide an enabling mechanism for the bad guys to win.
I mean when a guy blowing himself up becomes prima facie evidence of disaster and failure, all they need to do is scrounge up some sort mentally deficient kid, and wrap him a Semtex Suit and all the sudden civilization is unable to muster its own defense.
BRd
Jamie,
This kind of gamble is still being played out in Asia. So, maybe the gamble isn’t completely insane.
BRD
Jamie, I don’t want to get into this huge thing again because I have already laid it out recently, but, I think you put too much emphasis on plain ideas than substructure.
Independence for US was relatively easy, because we had Magna Carta, our “tribal” roots in Britain had pretty much been wrecked by the War of the Roses and the English Civil War, the vast majority of colonists owned property, both land and manufacturies, trade was varied, brisk, and could only grow, there was a vast wilderness in which to plant the surplus population, and on and on and on.
Iraq has virtually none of that. First, they are still tribal, i.e., family relations in terms of rank and power in Iraq are almost as important as in a Shakespeare play. Their foundational documents—the Koran and hundreds of years of essentially feudal commentaries thereon—have in no way matured to allow for devolved power, or even the concept of free individuals who have the right to stand apart from power structures, either state, mosque, or family. Large numbers of Iraqis, and esp large numbers of Shi’a, essentially live on welfare in huge ghettoes (Sadr City), and have no meaningful ownership and therefore no meaningful economic leverage, an essential in a true democracy. Most Iraqis just suck the teat of the national oil wealth. The country—as in most of the Arab world—has had a 4-fold increase in population since 1960 and there’s nowhere to go.
Certainly Iraq will work itself out. And I do believe we should try to midwife and manage the ongoing transformation of the Arab world. It benefits us and it is the right thing to do. However, I don’t think perpetual occupation of Iraq is not the answer. Again, we’ll see.
Let’s not paint with too broad of a brush.
There are parts of the Middle East that make most of America look like Gaza by comparison.
That, in part, is precisely how he is going to win the war which he is there to win.
alphie, mistaking a MACOM CO worrying about Congress #$%&ing up his ability to do anything with “winning a war” as opposed to “making someone else win a war/stand on their own two feet” makes me wonder if you’ve suffered a concussion. If you find that you cannot remember things from a short time ago, feel disoriented and hurt in the noggin’ – call a doc.
Oh, and lay off posting here until you get an MRI or such.
Steve,
The other thing that I think may be worth noting about ‘democracy’ in this sense, is that it need not be full-blown, fully-evolved, but if they can manage, let’s say, to achieve a level roughly equivalent to a reasonably democratic state of a century ago, that should be enough for all of Democratic Peace theory stuff to kick in.
BRD
Very vague, very nebulous, and see below. In general, I agree. But as I also said, we don’t have much more time to make this work.
Then, #1, pacification of Iraq should have been our job from the beginning, and, #2, as long as one Jihadi can explode a car bomb, we’re staying. Which means they get to dictate our conduct, as you rightly note farther on:
In the first part, you make my point for me. The second part, of course, deals with our different take concerning how long the USA can maintain 150 K troops in Iraq. My conclusion is different from yours, of course. I think that we cannot maintain that force level for long, either militarily or politically.
I know one thing for certain: I can’t do this until the wee hours of the morning every night. I thank all my disputants for airing their views, oftentimes very well, and cordially invite you to take a shot at me in the next threads. Except for a couple of possible wrap comments, best wishes to all.
Oh, I’m completely behind this gamble, BRD (from my comfy kitchen, in awe of and with gratitude toward all of you who have served and are serving to improve the odds). I believe that intelligence can trump culture whenever it so decides. The challenge is to get it so to decide.
The Cold War, they say, was won with Coke and Levis; this long war may be won with schools, small businesses, and streetlights. I don’t know what the vehicle will ultimately be seen to be. I do believe, very strongly and based on the smallness of the world today, that there’s only one way for the Muslim world to go now: out of the dark, into the light. The question is whether the United States will come out of this struggle still ascendant. All my chips are on that number.
4. Know when to do the right thing.
As I recall, that goes with #1.
steve, it appears that you really didn’t accept or comprehend what was discussed in this thread, although you did give the appearance of listening.
Makes me wonder just how serious you are about an honest discussion over this. You didn’t really agree to the GWOT doctrine here, I know, but in that thread you were concerned about “security” and the “drip-drip-drip” of casualties.
Now, it’s all about Congress taking care of their constituents through polls, and not looking out for the country. In your eyes, the Bush doctrine is “flawed”, an attitude that you didn’t express earlier…..even though what many people commented on that thread was directly derived from that doctrine.
So I’m a trifle curious about something: Did you have an epiphany concerning the Bush doctrine, you didn’t realize that the earlier threat was about that doctrine, or are you simply moving the goal posts?
From Major John, concerning little “a”.
More like a lobotomy.
Maj, John,
If all you’ve got is a $600,000,000,000 a year hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
The U.S. military had their chance, time to try something new.
Good night, steve, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think we probably agree more than we disagree about what’s typically behind a working democratic government… Where we seem to differ is in considering whether the typical is also the necessary, the sine qua non, when all relevant information about the typical is available to those who don’t have it all.
I also disagree that we’d have to stay in Iraq as long as any nut wanted to strap a bomb to himself. The whole crux of the plan in Iraq is to support and train up Iraqi forces, including significant “indoctrination” in those socio-political norms we take for granted, so that not only can they minimize and, when necessary, respond to those situations, but also that they want to. Not impossible. Just difficult.
Jeff_S: No, the three principles are as I stated them.
If we interpret the Bush Doctrine in a larger sense, i.e., our need to midwife the Arab transformation, then we are in agreement. The implementation of the Bush Doctrine is based however on the notion that ideas determine reality. I think that gives short shrift to structural realities, and I have discussed this in detail in several posts. In that sense, the law to share oil revenue is more important than the elections.
By the same token, while I can (grudgingly) accept continued presence in Iraq, I have discussed with BRD many times by now how I fear that our armed forces are over-stressed. Furthermore, I don’t think the American Electorate is going to accept the idea of a permanent occupation in Iraq. Therefore, to avoid the negative consequences of copters in the Green Zone, we have to figure out a way to draw down in a strategically powerful position. Look, just because I said I am reconciled to being in Iraq, does not mean, as a matter of practical politics, that we can stay there forever.
Catch me in another thread.
Steve,
Take it easy, have a good evening. Perhaps this weekend I get dig up some casualty metrics, appropriate figures of merit, and some historical comparisons. I don’t remember with any high degree of fidelity which posts you hashed that out in, and I would appreciate it if you either post or email me the links so I can look at the points you were making in more detail and address what you said (rather than I what I seem to remember that you said).
BRD
Steve,
Just before you jet, I think that your formulation:
”
And turn it around, and I don’t think that we’re saying anything that far apart from each other.
I don’t support staying in Iraq forever, but as a practical matter, I don’t think we should be planning on how and when we quit the field.
I’m pretty certain those are logically equivalent, and we’re not in disagreement on the fundamentals. The only distinction is one of intonation and emphasis. And there is no good way to focus on the mechanics of “cutting and running” before the job is done. There are, however, many useful and productive discussions to be had about how getting the job done most quickly and effectively.
BRD
Substructure apparently meaning ‘silly brown peoples’.
I agree, Steve, they are wogs, but we’re trying to help enough to avoid a post-Soviet Afghanistan thing while also avoiding a ‘Puerto Rico’ thing….
Although, I agree, there is a ‘substructure problem’ in all those places in that they are roughly the same color.
Is it your theory that brown people seek tyranny?
I’ve never seen a better example of the liberal ‘noblesse oblige’ than in your posts on this thread.
God dammit it’s patronizing….
Your a bunch of sick twisted people aren’t you. writing about how our vice pres should’ve been killed. you’re lucky you get to hide behind the internet you faggots.<b>
With all due respect, you’re ass-deep in a river in Egypt.
What?
alfi’s been breeding.
If they don’t, then why aren’t they free yet? Are they too stupid to git R dun like we did in America? I mean, if they really wanted to be free, they wouldn’t be accepting help from the surrounding Islamofascist states to kill Americans.
Simple-minded thoughts are fun and easy, ain’t they?
Just so, BRD.
steve, maybe you read this, maybe you don’t. But I’ll say it anyway: nothing is forever. I would *never* promise something “forever”. Until my death, maybe. And I don’t think anyone here said “forever”, until you brought it up.
We’ve been saying “a long time”, perhaps two generations. That’s not unreasonable, in comparison to our other historical committments.
I’m trying to avoid hyperbole here; I’d appreciate if you would do the same.
When expressed by a simple minded person, yes.
Yep, thanks for making my point for me.
Do you have a ‘substructure’ problem, or are you one of the annointed elite liberals carrying the White Man’s Burden?
You are not making the point you think you are.
If culture is not an issue, then what is preventing Iraqis from being free?
Nothing. Lack of freedom is not their problem
You.
Then you haven’t been listening to Rahm Emmanuel…
People who act like Islamofascists and, of course, their dhimmis. Eh, what?
I’m not sure the current crop of Americans could cobble together a democracy.
I’m not even sure we could manage a banana republic.
It’s easy to be smug when you’re living off your inheritance.
But enough about yourself, dear alphie.
It is always a high point in my day when heet or alfi tries to explain to someone else what they are really thinking.
Supposing one of them bred with Michelle?
XXSteve does that, too. Regular bunch of mind-readers, the lot of them.
That is some deep thinking right there. Top notch. I say, if it feels good, it must be right.
Here’s another thought experiment:
Follow the logic – If anti-war types can be linked with our enemies in Iraq b/c they both desire a US pullout AND one of OBL’s stated desires is to incite the US into a protracted war in the ME, why isn’t GWB an enemy of the US for giving OBL what he desires?
Heet,
The protracted war desire is something you’ve inferred, rather than something ObL has stated. ObL wants above and beyond all else, to win.
Care to source that, heet? Everything bin Laden has said indicates that he wants to run us out of the ME.
Here’s Zawahiri:
And Binny himself:
They want to win, not fight forever.
And, of course, that’s because they can’t fight forever. They lose every combat contact with American forces decisively. They don’t have the horses to match us in battle.
That’s why their primary tactic is murdering civilians.
So, did bin Laden tell you that, heet, or did you just pull that out of your ass?
Wait a minute—is heet hiding Osama bin Laden in his ass?
I realize that I’m about 12 hours behind on this, but I can’t leave it unmentioned. Gray, quoting steve:
It does not mean “brown people,” and any reasonable debater would not make this assumption. This is the textbook description of a straw man argument, and steve deserves better than that. I realize that he’s not the most popular commenter around here, but his arguments have merit and are made in good faith. He doesn’t lob rhetorical bombs just to rile us up, and he’s respectful of dissenting commenters.
In short, he’s exactly what blogs on both sides of the aisle need more of: a thoughtful, honest debate partner. We should be encouraging him to stay, not trying to drive him away. Treat the man with the respect he’s earned.
I was overly broad with that: I meant ‘arabs’.
His argument is that ideas of democracy or freedom are pointless in Iraq because we are dealing with ‘arabs’. ‘Brown people’ is a rhetorical flourish, but overly vague.
Thanks for helping me correct this.
Occasionally….
Why, he looks positively reasonable compared to alpee and Steve XX!
You might even get a reach-around….