Re: hey, amember when The Surge was gonna be done by September?

On Jun 18, 5:08 pm, "Torrey M. Spears" <nwophoe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2:40 pm, "jsla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

<jsla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 1:21 pm, "Torrey M. Spears" <nwophoe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A fair question. I think everyone would agree that it would involve
some combination of heightened security, diplomacy and other foreign
policy, policing, economic efforts, and, if/when necessary, military
action. Reasonable folks could reasonably disagree about what tactics
would and should best be used when.

And I believe with the case of Iraq, you can argue that every single
one of those non-military actions were used.
How many UN sanctions did we give Saddam? 17?? I mean, what's the
magic number?

Is it worth rehashing this? Well yeah, maybe, because as you may
recall, the inspectors were in Iraq and had said there were no WMDs --
Bush said they were wrong, but they were right. Remember Hans Blix
and how the neocons used to scorn him? Oops. As to UN sanctions,
remember Colin Powell humiliating himself in front of the U.N. by
giving what everyone now knows was false info -- we know where the
WMDs are, here they are, look at this picture -- the U.N. not buying
it and the U.S. then invading in part to "enforce U.N. sanctions" when
the U.N. wanted to let the inspections work -- and it turns out they
were working?

In the case of Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban; this isn't an
enemy state like Nazi Germany, North Korea, or old USSR... which a
significant part of the problem in Iraq to begin with. These are
rogue ideology driven everymen who are dressed like citizens, with no
name, rank, serial number - no uniform - and who are Hell bent on our
destruction.

Wait, I thought the Iraqis were going to treat us like liberators
because all they wanted was a western-style democracy after we were so
kind as to topple their leader?

Actually, I doubt very many average Iraqis were "bent on the
destruction" of the U.S. before the war. Saddam was a nut, for sure,
but he wasn't involved in attacks on the U.S. And as bad as his
government was, at least it was secular, and at least it was
counterbalanced in the regional balance of power by Iran.

After the war, however, (i) more Iraqis hate Americans (all those
civilian casualties leave behind bitter friends and relatives); (ii)
the power of the dangerous nutsy Islamic Fundamentalists in Iraq has
been strengthened; (iii) the power of
Iran, within the region, has been strengthened; and (iv) the power of
the U.S. has been weakened, both in terms of our international
credibility and actual military resources (are we really prepared to
attack Iran now?)

And I agree with you on the argument of when to use
when.
Which is all the more reason why those on my side believe that you're
not going to reason diplomatically; or sanction these terrorist
networks; we are going to have to take the fight to them. Now, how we
do that - certainly up to debate and criticism. Do I wish the world
would have gotten more involved??? Absolutely. It's a shame they
don't see this threat like many of us do. But it is what it is. I
agree with you, we can argue merit, tactics, execution, all day long.
But I ask you- do you really think you can reason and co-exist with a
group of people who behead innocent men and women and then broadcast
it on the Internet??

I agree with you that we are not going to solve this problem by
sitting around a table, holding hands, and singing "Kumbayah." The
problem with religious zealots is that they aren't too much into
"compromise." And some of their practical political desires (e.g.,
"death to Israel") are entirely unacceptable.

But again, just randomly sending in the army and guessing that
democracy will blossom thereafter is a dumb strategy too.

Again, there is no simple, one-paragraph answer I or you or anybody
could post on the internet. But I'll say this: in terms of "the rest
of the world" not being involved, well, you really have to look at how
arrogant and incompetent at basic diplomacy the Bush administration
has been. Practically all of our significant allies said, "don't
invade Iraq," Bush said, "F.U."


Except that's not what Obama and Edwards said. Do you really think
that a President Obama or President Edwards would not use military
means if Iran attacked our allies, much less the U.S.?

I doubt it, honestly, brah. *Maybe* they would if they had the
backing of the UN.

It's sad that partisanship has blinded you so much that you could
actually say this. I hope you don't think it.


Plus, you have to address the fact that going in gung-ho to "kick ass
in the Middle East," as Dennis Miller and others put it, was a
horrible strategy.

Here's what I do think. I think we went in there and tried to fight a
PC-war.

Riiiight. Abu-Gharib, Gitmo, renditions to secret prisons, loosening
rules on torture, denying habeus corpus, declarining that most of the
Geneva Conventions don't apply to captured prisoners . . . it's really
just fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.

Remember the 'no attacks on a mosque', no attacks on a
school, etc. ... when these guys were hiding in schools and mosques
and basically exhibiting urban street fighting. I think the
Administrations #1 flaw - Rumsfeld of note: was that the Iraqis would
act like the Kuwaitis post Gulf War, and shower us with roses and
candy. I don't think they anticipated the urban backfire - not to
mention the hoardes of Saddam's troops blending back into the
population; making them impossible to spot. I think their failure to
properly close off the border to Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan - let
the Taliban, Hezzbullah, and all the other rogue terrorist
organizations flood Iraq with weapons; suicide bombers; etc. That was
horrible planning.

Rumsfeld will go down as one of the most tragically incompetent
Secretaries of Defense ever.

I think not getting Saudi Arabia and Pakistan more involved was a bad
idea.

Ah, Saudi Arabia, the place where, you know, most of the 9/11
hijackers actually came from?

So you see, I'm not a "pro-War" Kool-Aid drinker, I think we
made a lot of terrible mistakes in this campaign. But having said
that, I also see that leaving Iraq now with Iran and Syria pumping in
cash, suicide bombers and weapons, and not giving the Iraqi military
and government a chance at getting grounded to take care of itself - I
think that would be disasterous - it will embolden these guys - and
we're going to have to go back there in a decade or so - to fight a
tougher war, with less help, and the threat of a 9/11 style bombing
once a week here like in the Middle East.

Or we leave, they fight a civil war, one side wins, at least it's a
stable state, and we deal with that state.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. What line of reasoning is or
isn't a fallacy?

Sorry - what I meant to say here is, I don't have a problem debating
the pros and cons of the war and I don't think where you're coming
from is without merit.

OK, thanks.


The problem will remain that there are no "good" solutions to Iraq
right now. Nobody sane on my side thinks that if we pull out in the
next Friedman unit or so, that everything will be hunky-dory.--Joe
(n.j.) [mWo]- Hide quoted text -

Fair enough - but I think we can agree that there are plenty of
"worse" solutions - one of which would be a furious and quick
withdrawl.

You slant the question by saying "furious and quick" before
withdrawal. In your mind, assuming Iraq does not become a happy,
peaceful democracy in the short or medium term future, when do we
withdraw? Or do we leave our troops to be semi-sitting ducks or at
best bystanders in an inevitable civil war?--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
It's bad enough you have a Congress holding the military funding
hostage with a timetable. Yeah. That doesn't embolden the
baddies. :)

-- TMS


.

Relevant Pages