#Herbert: Hell no, they won't go
1703 Dead
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13herbert.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1118675250-m9LNLXGvXE3YS9iCW0vXew>
They Won't Go
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 13, 2005
George W. Bush is in no danger of being ranked among the nation's
pre-eminent commanders in chief. Not only has he been unable thus far
to win the war in Iraq, but on his watch significant sectors of the
proud U.S. military have been rapidly deteriorating.
The Army reported on Friday that it had fallen short of its
recruitment goals for a fourth consecutive month. The Marines managed
to meet their recruitment target for May, but that was their first
successful month this year.
Scrambling to fill its ranks, the Army is signing up more high school
dropouts and lower-scoring applicants.
With the war in Iraq going badly and allegations of abuse by military
personnel widespread, young men and women are increasingly deciding
that there's no upside to a career choice in which the most important
skills might be ducking bullets and dodging roadside bombs.
The primary reason the U.S. went to an all-volunteer military in 1973
was to ensure that those who did not want to fight wouldn't have to.
That option is now being overwhelmingly exercised, discretion being
the clear choice over valor. Young people and their parents alike are
turning their backs on the military in droves.
The Army is so desperate for even lukewarm bodies that it is reluctant
to release even problem soldiers, troops who are seriously out of
shape, or pregnant, or abusing alcohol or drugs. And it is lowering
standards for admission to the junior officer ranks. For example,
minor criminal offenses that previously would have been prohibitive
can now be overlooked.
At the same time Army recruiters have been chasing high school kids
with such reckless abandon that a backlash is developing among parents
who, in many cases, want the recruiters kept out of their children's
schools.
"To the extent that we think students are threatened by recruiters,
it's our job to intervene," said Amy Hagopian, a co-chair of the
Parent-Teacher-Student Association at Garfield High School in Seattle.
Ms. Hagopian, who has an 18-year-old son, complained that recruiters
too often put the hard sell on impressionable high school youngsters
without informing them of the potential dangers of a life in the
military.
Recruiters with the gift of gab go into the schools with a glamorous
pitch, bags full of goodies for the kids (T-shirts, donuts, key
chains) and a litany of promises they often can't keep. The kids don't
hear much about their chances of being maimed or killed, or the trauma
that often results from killing someone else.
(A soldier's job is to kill. I can still hear the drill sergeants in
basic training screaming at us decades ago: "What are you? What are
you?" And we'd scream back: "Killers! Killers!" And the sergeants
would say, "What is your purpose?" And we would shout: "To kill! To
kill!")
The Army, frantically searching for solutions, is offering enlistments
as short as 15 months and considering bonuses worth up to $40,000. But
it may be facing a problem too difficult for any amount of money to
overcome. Americans are catching on to the hideousness and apparent
futility of the war in Iraq. Five marines were killed in a single bomb
attack in western Iraq on Thursday. On Friday, a front-page Washington
Post headline described the effort to rebuild the Iraqi military as
"Mission Improbable."
A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that nearly
three-quarters of Americans believe the number of casualties in Iraq
is unacceptable, and 60 percent believe the war was not worth
fighting.
There's something frankly embarrassing about a government offering
trinkets to children to persuade them to go off and fight - and
perhaps die - in a war that their nation should never have started in
the first place. It's highly questionable whether most high school
kids are equipped to make an informed decision about joining the
military, which is exactly why they're targeted. The additional
knowledge and maturity gained in the first few years after high school
make it easier for a young man or woman to make a wiser, more
meaningful choice, pro or con.
The parents of the kids being sought by recruiters to fight this
unpopular war are creating a highly vocal and potentially very
effective antiwar movement. In effect, they're saying to their own
children: hell no, you won't go.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Scott Erb
absence (with a couple exceptions) and see the nature of the debate. Nobody
is defending US policy in Iraq! You get the occasional slogans ('we
liberated 25 million Iraqis' or 'bomb Baghdad more' or 'the world is better
off without Saddam') but other than insults and the like, just about
everyone is recognizing that the war did not go as the GOP expected, and
we're in trouble there. This article is indicative of a growing problem.
Even a former member of the Bush administration has a book out where he
notes that asking "isn't the world better off without Saddam" irrelevant,
because it's like asking if a company likes its revenues without questioning
expenses.
So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the "right" (e.g., no
Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question is this: for those
who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps thinking this would
re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be done now? I'll
make the question more difficult (especially for war critics): what should
be done now that is realistic and feasible given the political climate and
the current administration? They certainly recognize it as a mistake, but
they aren't about to say so bluntly.
So, what now?
"1703 Dead" <zepp1703#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:7b8ra1hdkrvenur9e...@4ax.com...
>
>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13herbert.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnn
Martin McPhillips
news:wWkre.948425$w62.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> It is really interesting to stop back in the newsgroup
> after about two years
> absence (with a couple exceptions) and see the nature of
> the debate. Nobody
> is defending US policy in Iraq!
Really, Scott? I see plenty of defenses out there
among the regulars. And then I see the usual
fools cheering on the car bombings and the
beheadings and celebrating the death of every
U.S. soldier.
> You get the occasional slogans ('we
> liberated 25 million Iraqis'
That's actually true, Scott. The people of Iraq
never had a chance against Saddam's killing
machine, with it's ten-layers deep security
apparatus. You would prefer to see them still
suffering under that yoke. Freedom means nothing
to you. When the Iraqis defied threats unto death
to go to the polls and vote, you didn't hear them.
You just sat back and waited for the next car
bomb to explode, so you could say, "See, I, Scott
Erb, was right."
You're a very low creature, Scott. Don't let that
job at the university fool you.
Name Redacted
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:wWkre.948425$w62.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > It is really interesting to stop back in the newsgroup
> > after about two years
> > absence (with a couple exceptions) and see the nature of
> > the debate. Nobody
> > is defending US policy in Iraq!
>
> Really, Scott? I see plenty of defenses out there
> among the regulars. And then I see the usual
> fools cheering on the car bombings
Really? For some odd reason my ISP doesn't allow those posts to appear.
E-mail me a few.
> and the
> beheadings
Same with beheadings. Curious people need to see those cheers...
> and celebrating the death of every
> U.S. soldier.
Do they serve ice cream and cake during those celebrations...or are you
just the typical rightwacko chickenshithawk. Halliburton is still
hiring "contractors". After all, someone has to do it, I nominate you.
Martin McPhillips
news:1118691269.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:wWkre.948425$w62.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > It is really interesting to stop back in the newsgroup
>> > after about two years
>> > absence (with a couple exceptions) and see the nature
>> > of
>> > the debate. Nobody
>> > is defending US policy in Iraq!
>>
>> Really, Scott? I see plenty of defenses out there
>> among the regulars. And then I see the usual
>> fools cheering on the car bombings
>
> Really? For some odd reason my ISP doesn't allow those
> posts to appear.
> E-mail me a few.
Pay better attention.
John LaVoy
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vllre.24356$IX4....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Why don't you point one out. I have been trying to find a Republican that
would openly debate any of the issues involved in attacking Iraq and thus
far there are no takers. The reponse, at best, is generally like yours:
long on straw men and short on facts.
Martin McPhillips
news:d8koo4$fdl2$5...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
> "Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vllre.24356$IX4....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> "Name Redacted" <wny...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118691269.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> >> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:wWkre.948425$w62.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> > It is really interesting to stop back in the
>> >> > newsgroup
>> >> > after about two years
>> >> > absence (with a couple exceptions) and see the
>> >> > nature
>> >> > of
>> >> > the debate. Nobody
>> >> > is defending US policy in Iraq!
>> >>
>> >> Really, Scott? I see plenty of defenses out there
>> >> among the regulars. And then I see the usual
>> >> fools cheering on the car bombings
>> >
>> > Really? For some odd reason my ISP doesn't allow those
>> > posts to appear.
>> > E-mail me a few.
>>
>> Pay better attention.
>
> Why don't you point one out.
Ernst Blofeld, Bonde, me, Soja, Knicklas,
Steve Nichts.
Name Redacted
Translation: I ain't got nothing, I was making it up.
Name Redacted
You deleted Mr. LaVoy saying:
Why don't you point one out. I have been trying to find a Republican
that
would openly debate any of the issues involved in attacking Iraq and
thus
far there are no takers. The reponse, at best, is generally like
yours:
long on straw men and short on facts.
>
> Ernst Blofeld, Bonde, me, Soja, Knicklas,
> Steve Nichts.
Heh, the irony goes right over your head.
Martin McPhillips
Translation: pay better attention.
Martin McPhillips
Yes, I deleted, unread, everything but that,
and then named some of the people who routinely
defend the war. Blofeld and Soja are particularly adept
at understanding the meaning and purpose of the Iraq
war, and so am I, if I may be so bold.
chris.holt
> So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the "right" (e.g., no
> Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question is this: for those
> who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps thinking this would
> re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be done now? I'll
> make the question more difficult (especially for war critics): what should
> be done now that is realistic and feasible given the political climate and
> the current administration? They certainly recognize it as a mistake, but
> they aren't about to say so bluntly.
>
> So, what now?
Well, I'm scarcely on the right. Before the war, I criticized it
on the grounds that it would be very expensive, would cost a lot
of lives, and would be hard to get out of. After the war, I was
asked what I'd do (August 2003 or so), and I said I'd fast-track
a move to a preliminary constitution, have some voting, get them
to produce a real constitution, and vote and get out by the end
of 2003. So what do I know?
Right now, the main priorities are to get foreign troops out,
turn the duties of outside companies over to Iraqis (i.e. let
them start fixing up schools, power plants and so on) while
paying them the money to make the transition work (which is
less than continuing to pay 'our' guys), and offering war
repatriations.
Since it would win hearts and minds, I have as much expectation
that my suggestions would be followed as I did the previous ones.
--
Martin McPhillips
news:d8kqck$k4u$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
>> So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the
>> "right" (e.g., no
>> Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question
>> is this: for those
>> who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps
>> thinking this would
>> re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be
>> done now? I'll
>> make the question more difficult (especially for war
>> critics): what should
>> be done now that is realistic and feasible given the
>> political climate and
>> the current administration? They certainly recognize it
>> as a mistake, but
>> they aren't about to say so bluntly.
>>
>> So, what now?
>
> Well, I'm scarcely on the right. Before the war, I
> criticized it
> on the grounds that it would be very expensive, would cost
> a lot
> of lives, and would be hard to get out of.
My goodness, Chris, you've just described a war.
What a coincidence that you were actually describing
a war, when you described one.
But you conveniently left out the strategic,
civilizational, and, of course, the moral questions.
Those have always been your weak areas.
But damned if you didn't describe a war. That
can't be a coincidence.
Kurt Nicklas
I'm not a Republican but what do you want to "debate"?
I'm often utterly astonished by the monstrous hypocrisy of those who are
trumpeting the successes of terrorists. They were the same guys who, just after
9-11, assured us that 3000 deaths weren't really important, that many more
Americans died on the roads each year, that 10s of millions died in Russia
during the Second World war AND besides America was probably responsible for
those 3000 dead anyway.
Now, after 3 years of mostly spotty conflict in Iraq with numbers of dead far
fewer than we lost in ONE DAY in NYC they proclaim the US war on terror a
failure and Bush a failed president. What utter and complete nonsense!
The people who oppose our policy in Iraq, to my way of thinking, are certainly
far from patriots. They are partisans. They hate the president. They hate the
military. They hate American foreign policy and they're willing to use the
deaths of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as pawns in an effort to
undermine what they hate.
Our actions in Iraq have not been without occasional failures. War is a bitch
and it's required action on the ground, unlike the war from 30,000 ft that Billy
Boy carried out against Serbia. War on the ground brings casualties. But we are
killing terrorists...and allowing them to kill themselves, I might add. We've
overthrown a dictator. We've given a country in the mideast a chance at freedom
and thrown fear into the other opppressive countries in the area.
I support our policies in Iraq and I appreciate the president for staying the
course. I thank all of our men and women in the military for the difficult job
they're doing. Whether the American people will want to continue to stay the
course remains to be seen.
Now, what do you want to "discuss"?
--
Kurt Nicklas
"Why isn't Fallwell(sic) dead anyway?"
---Milton F. Brewster (mil...@sonic.net)
Scott Erb
"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:d8kuf...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <d8koo4$fdl2$5...@netnews.upenn.edu>, John LaVoy says...
> I'm often utterly astonished by the monstrous hypocrisy of those who are
> trumpeting the successes of terrorists. They were the same guys who, just
after
> 9-11, assured us that 3000 deaths weren't really important, that many more
> Americans died on the roads each year, that 10s of millions died in Russia
> during the Second World war AND besides America was probably responsible
for
> those 3000 dead anyway.
Clearly terrorists are doers of evil and should not be praised. I think we
can get bipartisan agreement on that. Objectively, 3000 deaths aren't that
high, but the purpose of terrorism is not to kill large numbers, but to
terrorize, and the sight of buildings falling and a nation's sense of
invulnerability broken is clearly what they wanted to do. Since then, they
haven't had much success in the US, though that could, of course, change
overnight. Terrorism is a very serious problem that we'll have to combat
for the foreseeable future.
> Now, after 3 years of mostly spotty conflict in Iraq with numbers of dead
far
> fewer than we lost in ONE DAY in NYC they proclaim the US war on terror a
> failure and Bush a failed president. What utter and complete nonsense!
Actually, you are mixing issues. Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism,
it is something different, and if anything has created long term benefits
for terrorists for a number of reasons. Most of the public realizes that
the emotion of 9-11 cannot and should not be translated into support for
Iraq, or used to justify the policy mistakes in Iraq, mistakes which are now
obvious to even the GOP. A good read on specifics is:
http://www.juancole.com.
> The people who oppose our policy in Iraq, to my way of thinking, are
certainly
> far from patriots. They are partisans. They hate the president.
That is a false generalization. I know Republicans who oppose our policy in
Iraq, but don't like to be vocal about it since they are also strong
supporters of President Bush. The 60% that want the US to get out of Iraq
are not haters of President Bush. Also, your argument is not rational. You
cannot defend a policy by claiming that those who oppose it "hate." That is
irrelevant at best, and deceptive at worst. Policies have to be defended on
their own grounds, no matter who the President is or is not. Partisanship
is irrelevant. I was as vocal against Clinton in Kosovo as I am against
Bush in Iraq.
>They hate
the
> military. They hate American foreign policy and they're willing to use the
> deaths of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as pawns in an effort to
> undermine what they hate.
Again, I've talked to military people who are against the war and upset
about US policy. Your attempt to claim the other side hates is pure
attempts to move away from rational debate to emotionalism. That is
illogical, and represents an admission that you don't have a solid, rational
argument.
> Our actions in Iraq have not been without occasional failures. War is a
bitch
> and it's required action on the ground, unlike the war from 30,000 ft that
Billy
> Boy carried out against Serbia. War on the ground brings casualties. But
we are
> killing terrorists...and allowing them to kill themselves, I might add.
We've
> overthrown a dictator. We've given a country in the mideast a chance at
freedom
> and thrown fear into the other opppressive countries in the area.
There are many countries with dictators, and we don't go and overthrow them.
The reason is that there are consequences to actions. I cannot see any way
that the US can claim this as a success or worth the cost. If you would
wish to make such an argument, please do. But what you write is "we got rid
of a dictator, and war's a bitch," not much more. That ignores all the
arguments (which I can delinate again if you want) on how the consequences
have been harmful to US security, overstretched the military, aided North
Korea and Iran, aided the cause of our real enemies, the Islamic
fundamentalist movements, and have generally hurt the US standing in the
world, and our credibility. I can go into more detail if you wish.
> I support our policies in Iraq and I appreciate the president for staying
the
> course. I thank all of our men and women in the military for the
difficult job
> they're doing. Whether the American people will want to continue to stay
the
> course remains to be seen.
>
> Now, what do you want to "discuss"?
You haven't defended the policy. You've made accusations (those who
disagree with you allegedly 'hate'), you've given a slogan (a dictator is
gone), but you haven't addressed the problems that have been listed with the
war, or defended the policy on policy grounds. In short, you don't defend
the policy, you don't offer an argument.
Scott Erb
I agree in general, but see some problems.
The danger now of leaving quickly (which I agree we need to do) is that we
are leaving the country in the midst of extreme corruption. In Political
Science corruption is known as the almong the most malignant of a cancer
that can harm a country trying to establish a democracy. It leads to the
temtpation to dictatorship (people support someone trying to bring order),
and makes rule of law impossible. Add that to Sunni violence, supported
from elsewhere in the Arab world, against the new Shi'ite/Kurd dominated
government, and you have the makings for civil war, reversion to
dictatorship, and violence that could fester and spread throughout the
region. Ironically, if we do leave quickly and go more "iraqization," then
the countries most able to bring stability to the region are Iran and Syria.
They have been allies, and one is Sunni, the other Shi'ite. Perhaps in
partnership they could push Iraq in the right direction. If the US ends up
relying on Iran and Syria to fix the mess in Iraq, that would be very ironic
(iranic?), but not necessarily a bad thing. After all, Iran is more
democratic than other states in the region, except Israel.
But overall the corruption, sectarian violence, inability of Iraqi troops to
be trained, and unpopularity of American troops suggest this is a real
quagmire with no easy solution, and probably no "victory" without help from
Iran and Syria!
Kurt Nicklas
Erb says...
I've both defended the policy AND offered an argument.
I don't accuse people of "hating" because they disagree with me, so that is a
straw man. I made my case about why these people do what they do. Go back and
read it.
"I've talked to people" is a case of 'arguing from authority' and is not
rational. Such things may work in your classes but not here.
A "dictator is gone" is not a slogan. It is a fact that I wish to remind people
of. By calling it "a slogan" you hope to minimize it the fact.
You've simply made a series of assertions in response to what I've said, all of
which I've heard and seen before and which I don't find convincing.
1703 Dead
I'm largely in agreement. I feel at this juncture that if the
Americans were to pull out entriely, say over the period of the next
month, that would accelerate the process toward a stable regime in
Iraq, or in the two or three countries that used to be Iraq.
There is no appealing solution. The administration went in,
apparently unaware of the ethnic and cultural division rife in a
county that was cobbled together by the west to begin with. There
will be serious problems: for instance, Turkey will NOT like the idea
of an independent Kurdistan directly south of her borders. Sunnis and
Shi'ite will need to figure out how to divvy things up without
slaughtering one another.
But if the US tries to stay, the situation will only continue to
worsen. And being in Iraq will make America look much weaker --
indeed, IS making America look much weaker -- than pulling out would
do.
___________
Supply citations proving your assertions or admit that you lied.
It's that simple, b1tch.
Scott Erb
Whether or not people hate is irrelevant, that is not an argument about
policy. Furthermore, I know that there are many people who oppose current
foreign policy in Iraq who nonetheless voted for Bush (thus they certainly
do not hate him), and who are in or have served in the military. In fact,
many Republicans are very concerned with how wrong the Iraq war has gone.
Thus your hypothesis about hate has been falsified.
> "I've talked to people" is a case of 'arguing from authority' and is not
> rational. Such things may work in your classes but not here.
It certainly is rational. Now, if you want to think I'm making that up,
fine. But I suggest you know as well as I do -- and all readers do -- that
what I wrote is true. We all know people with diverse views on Iraq. We
know that if 60% say we should leave Iraq, they can't all hate Bush. And,
of course, what do you offer to support your position? Nothing. In fact,
your assertions are not even plausible. That doesn't work anywhere.
Certainly not here!
> A "dictator is gone" is not a slogan. It is a fact that I wish to remind
people
> of. By calling it "a slogan" you hope to minimize it the fact.
As the former Bush administration member Richard Haass notes (cited from
*The Economist*, June 11, 2005, p. 81: "Mr. Haass believes that the world is
indeed better off without Saddam Hussein, bu, as he notes, 'This is not a
terribly useful question. It would be akin to a business setting to looking
only at revenues and ignoring expenses." There are dictators all over the
world. We could "improve" things by getting rid of dictatorships in Cuba,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. Of course, we don't because there is a cost
involved, that you can't use one good consequence to assert an action was
justified or correct. No policy analysis could do that; thus what you offer
IS only a slogan, it isn't relevant UNLESS you tie it to an argument that
this is worth all the consequences. Absent that, it is wholly and
completely irrelevant in terms of any policy assessment. You need more.
> You've simply made a series of assertions in response to what I've said,
all of
> which I've heard and seen before and which I don't find convincing.
You made only assertions, and implausible and silly ones at that. For
readers undecided, I think its clear that you are proving my point: people
are not making a serious effort to defend the war, but instead simply using
emotion. My question, however, can push aside that: what do we do next?
What is the best course of action? It would be honorable for you admit that
you and others misjudged what would happen in Iraq, but if you don't want to
do that, fine. Look forward. What now?
Gary DeWaay
> So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the "right" (e.g., no
> Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question is this: for those
> who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps thinking this would
> re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be done now? I'll
> make the question more difficult (especially for war critics): what should
> be done now that is realistic and feasible given the political climate and
> the current administration? They certainly recognize it as a mistake, but
> they aren't about to say so bluntly.
>
> So, what now?
>
Personally I'd tell Iraq they have two years to get their shit together,
and then we are pulling out NO MATTER WHAT, sink or swim; and will only
contribute monetarily to their strife.
Kinda defangs the insurgents motives, and let's us have an actual exit
strategy while saving billions of dollars, and thousands of our soldiers
lives.
An apology for fucking things up and for all the lies would help too, but
that is laughably unrealistic considering this administrations track
record.
Lying is much easier than apologizing.
The Rove administration reminds me of an abusive, cheating boyfriend...
And we are the enablers.
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
Jeffrey Turner
I also found something naive about Scott mixing "doing something
different" with what is feasible given the current
administration. The presidunce won't even countenance a
timetable for withdrawal, IMO, about the minimum first step.
> I agree in general, but see some problems.
>
> The danger now of leaving quickly (which I agree we need to do) is that we
> are leaving the country in the midst of extreme corruption.
Do you think the Iraqi administrators are MORE corrupt than the
US administrators?
> In Political
> Science corruption is known as the almong the most malignant of a cancer
> that can harm a country trying to establish a democracy.
You mean it outranks foreign military occupation?
"To the people of Baghdad: We come here not as conquerors but
as liberators, to free you from generations of tyranny."
--from a document British General Stanley Maude put up on a wall
in Baghdad, in 1917.
> It leads to the
> temtpation to dictatorship (people support someone trying to bring order),
> and makes rule of law impossible. Add that to Sunni violence, supported
> from elsewhere in the Arab world, against the new Shi'ite/Kurd dominated
> government, and you have the makings for civil war, reversion to
> dictatorship, and violence that could fester and spread throughout the
> region.
"If the British Army leaves Iraq, there will be civil war."
--Lloyd George, in the House of Commons
> Ironically, if we do leave quickly and go more "iraqization," then
> the countries most able to bring stability to the region are Iran and Syria.
> They have been allies, and one is Sunni, the other Shi'ite. Perhaps in
> partnership they could push Iraq in the right direction. If the US ends up
> relying on Iran and Syria to fix the mess in Iraq, that would be very ironic
> (iranic?), but not necessarily a bad thing.
It would be tragic from the administration's perspective.
> After all, Iran is more
> democratic than other states in the region, except Israel.
Israel is quite democratic...if you're Jewish. Twenty years
ago, South Africa was quite democratic, as long as you were
white.
> But overall the corruption, sectarian violence, inability of Iraqi troops to
> be trained, and unpopularity of American troops suggest this is a real
> quagmire with no easy solution, and probably no "victory" without help from
> Iran and Syria!
The Iraqi troops aren't difficult to train, it's just nearly
impossible to get them to fight against their countrymen and
fellow Muslims. Especially alongside the imperialist infidels.
--Jeff
--
Those who do not learn from history are
doomed to repeat it. --George Santayana
Name Redacted
Gary DeWaay wrote:
> Scott Erb's at scot...@worldnet.att.net wisdom:
>
>
> > So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the "right" (e.g., no
> > Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question is this: for those
> > who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps thinking this would
> > re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be done now? I'll
> > make the question more difficult (especially for war critics): what should
> > be done now that is realistic and feasible given the political climate and
> > the current administration? They certainly recognize it as a mistake, but
> > they aren't about to say so bluntly.
> >
> > So, what now?
> >
>
>
>
> Personally I'd tell Iraq they have two years to get their shit together,
> and then we are pulling out NO MATTER WHAT, sink or swim; and will only
> contribute monetarily to their strife.
Perhaps it's a bit odd, but I see a reasonable logic in that argument.
If anything it's no worse than the "we gotta stay the course, therwise
there'll be a blood bath." The only real difference is the how quickly
all the sides kill each other, the quantity of blood shed being
essentially the same.
>
> Kinda defangs the insurgents motives, and let's us have an actual exit
> strategy while saving billions of dollars, and thousands of our soldiers
> lives.
Yup.
>
> An apology for fucking things up and for all the lies would help too, but
> that is laughably unrealistic considering this administrations track
> record.
Yup. And yup.
Jeffrey Turner
> Scott Erb's at scot...@worldnet.att.net wisdom:
>
>
>
>>So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the "right" (e.g., no
>>Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question is this: for those
>>who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps thinking this would
>>re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be done now? I'll
>>make the question more difficult (especially for war critics): what should
>>be done now that is realistic and feasible given the political climate and
>>the current administration? They certainly recognize it as a mistake, but
>>they aren't about to say so bluntly.
>>
>>So, what now?
>
> Personally I'd tell Iraq they have two years to get their shit together,
> and then we are pulling out NO MATTER WHAT, sink or swim; and will only
> contribute monetarily to their strife.
Two years? Impossibly long, who'd trust that? Not that anyone
would trust the Bush Admin anyway but.... And that's probably
the biggest problem they're up against. Immediate withdrawal of
50,000 and a six month (year at the outside) timetable for the
rest and there might be real political room. But we're WAY
outside the "realistic" or "feasible" given the current lunatics
in Washington.
Toby
> You made only assertions, and implausible and silly ones at that. For
> readers undecided, I think its clear that you are proving my point: people
> are not making a serious effort to defend the war, but instead simply
> using
> emotion. My question, however, can push aside that: what do we do next?
> What is the best course of action? It would be honorable for you admit
> that
> you and others misjudged what would happen in Iraq, but if you don't want
> to
> do that, fine. Look forward. What now?
Scott has basically made all my points, and done so in a quite exemplary
manner. However I'd just like to add this:
Kurt wrote...
"The people who oppose our policy in Iraq, to my way of thinking, are
certainly
far from patriots. They are partisans. They hate the president. They hate
the
military. They hate American foreign policy and they're willing to use the
deaths of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as pawns in an effort to
undermine what they hate."
Check this guy out. Is he a partisan, president and military hater?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and
outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.
From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central
Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the
same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks
after.
Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration
thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest
diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.
But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now,
in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are
guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to
roll. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.
"There has been poor strategic thinking in this," says Zinni. "There has
been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think
that we are going to 'stay the course,' the course is headed over Niagara
Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold
somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a
failure."
Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and
diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general
with a reputation for candor.
Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called
"Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon
and its conduct of the war in Iraq.
In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and
irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."
"I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the
ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think
there was dereliction in lack of planning," says Zinni. "The president is
owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational
planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. . He got
the latter. He didn't get the first two."
Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong
strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months
leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the
message to Congress: "This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on.
And I don't feel it needs to be done now."
But he wasn't the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft,
former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley
Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their
reservations.
Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want - but it was a war
the civilians wanted.
"I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him," says Zinni.
"Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al
Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60
countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on
and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with
this one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al
Qaeda."
One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to
develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he
subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.
But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with
fewer troops and high-tech weapons.
How many troops did Zinni's plan call for? "We were much in line with Gen.
Shinseki's view," says Zinni. "We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in
that neighborhood."
What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in,
instead of 180,000?
"I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country," says
Zinni.
"The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the
security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the
'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias
that might not have your best interests at heart from growing or
developing."
Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the
level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began.
Should he have been surprised?
"He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people,
before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were
underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in
there," says Zinni. "Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in
the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours
in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he
should have known that."
Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information
about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and
others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable
plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.
"As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the
Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the
major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect
to create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country," says
Zinni.
"I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American
who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and
spirit you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after
mistake."
What mistakes?
"Disbanding the army," says Zinni. "De-Baathifying, down to a level where we
removed people that were competent and didn't have blood on their hands that
you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction - alienating certain elements
of that society."
Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. "I blame the civilian
leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the
responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I
understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there
certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match
their needs, then they should bear the responsibility," he says.
"But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed
up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody
that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what
bothers me most."
Adds Zinni: "If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation
to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the
strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to
go."
Who specifically is he talking about?
"Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and
you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and
that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other
elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and
everything else, then you bear responsibility," says Zinni. "Certainly those
in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly
they ought to be gone and replaced."
Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration
known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to
stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of
Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary
of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle;
National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's
chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American
policy in Iraq.
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody -
everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their
agenda was and what they were trying to do," says Zinni.
"And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe
themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you
know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run
when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't
criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious
backgrounds are. And I'm not interested."
Adds Zinni: "I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a
number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the
secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader,
military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came
from."
Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and
bring it into the 21st century.
"All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go
about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the
take down of Iraq as a priority," adds Zinni. "And what we have become now
in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity
that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern
crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world."
Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?
"I believe that they should accept responsibility for that," says Zinni. "If
I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of
performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I
certainly would expect to be gone."
"You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us
over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set," Kroft asked
Zinni.
"Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should
have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to
sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members,
and find out what it takes," says Zinni.
"What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in
political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If
that's the cost, fine. What they're gonna pay for up front is boots on the
ground and involvement in sharing the burden."
Are there enough troops in Iraq now?
"Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would
cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international
participants? Yes," says Zinni.
"We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road
networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we're looking for
trainers; we're looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can
provide services in there."
But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?
"There is a limit. I think it's important to understand what the limit is.
Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince
the Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long
run," says Zinni.
"Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the
people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where we are going
to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now. And I
wouldn't want to see us fail here."
Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and
Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine
Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war
nearly 40 years ago.
"It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more
than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat,
everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty
rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a
result," says Zinni.
"I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up.
Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's
getting just as many troops killed? It's leading down a path where we're not
succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do."
60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to
Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined.
© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Bulba!
My prediction: Chavez will become a political victim of his own
populism.
There are allegiations of a few $ billions missing in Venezuela.
I think someone high up there has already stashed cash
off shore for a rainy day when for inexplicable reasons
a need for travel worldwide urges that official to take
a few decades worth sightseeing of the world.
---
http://www.vcrisis.com/print.php?content=letters/200312121612
Venezuela Part III: From institutional clientelism to the Chavista
cult of personality
By Francisco Toro, Caracas Chronicles
It happened in the middle of one of his infamous televised harangues.
The president had barely hit his stride when something caught his eye.
His tone changed, he looked towards the scaffolding to the left of the
stage, the one used to put up the lights for the speech. "Hey, come
down from there," he said in a soft, almost fatherly tone, "no, don't
climb to the front, it's hot there because of the lights...that's
right, climb down towards the back. Don't worry, you'll get to talk to
me. I want to hear your problem. I saw you crying earlier, just, just
come down from the scaffolding and come up here."
Soon this 15 years old kid has climbed down and is walking towards the
stage. He's crying. Chavez calls him up to the podium. With the
camera's running, millions of people watching, Chavez takes him, hugs
him hard and holds him for, oh, 45 seconds or a minute, while he the
kid tells him, in between sobs, how his father died and his mother is
sick and he can't afford the medicines to make her better...Chavez
listens at length, pets his hair, assures that he's going to help him.
The crowd is ecstatic, chanting "that, that, that's the way to
govern!"
Welcome to the new era of chavista postclientelism. This sort of stunt
is typical of Chavez's governing style. The president never turns down
a personal plea for help. His weekly TV call in show amounts to a
parade of supplicants - each week, the lucky few who manage to get
their calls through see their wishes for a job or a pair of crutches
or an operation fulfilled. The president works hard to make the entire
audience feel how much he wants to help them all, personally, one by
one.
Obviously, this brand of clientelism is quite a different animal from
the adeco version. Just as obviously, it's still clientelism. Chavez's
peculiar contribution to the concept has been to cut out the middlemen
altogether. In the old system, each client's relationship was with the
patron immediately above him. But the chavista patronage system only
has two levels: the president and everyone else. The old system held
together on the basis of the personal bonds between people in adjacent
levels of the pyramid. These days, the relationships that hold up the
system are imagined rather than personal - the charismatic leader's
bond with each of his followers.
Of course, working one-by-one Chavez can help only a tiny handful of
his supporters in a material sense, which in part explains why his
popularity has frayed so much: only 20% of Venezuelans or so back him
enthusiastically at this point. But the real mystery is not why so few
people support him, but why so many do. After all, Chavez has presided
over the fastest period of mass impoverishment this country has seen
in 160 years. His handouts can't have helped more than a tiny fraction
of the total who support him. So most chavistas are, in a sense,
imagined clients. Yet they remain steadfast in their support.
The explanation, I think, is two-fold. In the first place, Chavez
benefits from a kind of politicized lottery mentality. It's hard for
people to think clearly about very large numbers and very small
probabilities: that's why lotteries exist. If everyone had a realistic
understanding of their actual chances of winning, no one would play
the lottery. The same thing happens with chavistas' notions of their
chances to get at a piece of presidential patronage. The president is
nothing but the latest nationwide lottery show, and people here love
that kind of thing.
But the more important part of the explanation has to do with raw
sentiment, with primary identifications. Your typical chavista feels
deeply, personally, almost mystically wedded to the president - the
intensity of their emotions towards him are very hard to overstate.
I've heard journalists describe meeting chavistas who carry nothing in
their wallets but an ID card, an icon of the virgin mary, and a
picture of El Comandante.
That's another departure. In the old system, the relationship between
patrons and clients was basically a business arrangement, a matter of
mutual interest. Insofar as feelings played into it at all, they
didn't go beyond a certain deference born of respect and fear of the
boss. With Chavez, though, the bond comes from the heart. Chavez's
rhetoric is so powerful he makes people want to see him as a messiah:
they want to cry on his shoulders, they want to redeem themselves
through him.
Said differently, Chavez's bright idea for moving beyond the outdated
system of vertical interpersonal relations is to replace it with a
cult of personality.
It's bad news.
At least in the old system, the state had two whole fully independent
institutions: AD and Copei. It's true, it's terrible that there were
only two real institutions around, that the courts and the elections
authorities and the nationalized companies and every other part of the
state was subjugated to one party or the other. But christ, at least
there were two of them! If nothing else, AD and Copei served to
balance each other off. No truly transcendent decision could be made
without at least a tacit agreement between them.
Moreover, internally, each of the two big parties was a complex
institution in its own right. Their National Executive Committees were
made up of all kinds of factions that had to deliberate with one
another to set the party's position on any given issue. Each faction
would press the interests of a given constituency - the pro-business
faction would haggle with the labor bureau to agree on the party's
minimum wage policy and the peasant representatives would hash out the
party's position on agricultural imports in talks with the technocrat
wing. Each party had its own internal deliberative process. It was
hardly a model of tocquevilian pluralism, granted, but at least some
interest-mediation took place.
In the chavista state, there is only one institution: Hugo Chavez. Not
even the presidency of the republic, just Hugo Chavez the man. When an
important policy decision has to be made, the only deliberations that
matter take place between the little voices inside his head. All
loyalties must be directed at him personally. With the president
locked in a tiny circle of relentlessly sycophantic collaborators, all
dissent is equated with sedition. The one man who makes every relevant
decision personally is never confronted with a view of the world that
differs one iota from his own. The president can't countenance even
the suggestion of reaching minimal agreements with non-chavista
sectors of society. Venezuela's state today is an exercise in turbo
charged personalism at its most debased.
As a social and political model, it's clearly quite different from
what came before, but what has chavismo done to that most enduring
feature of the petrostate, its culture? Chavez is an undoubtedly
gifted and charismatic speaker, and he's slammed the old regime so
much and so often he must have managed to effect some change in the
way people see the state's role in society right?
Think again.
Chavez clearly sees himself as the pre-eminent critic of the post-1958
clientelist state. But his critique is based on ideas that have always
been at the heart of the petrostate's cultural model. Chavez certainly
thinks he's rebuilding Venezuela's political and social structures
from the ground up. But like so many self-described revolutionaries
before him, he's blind to how much his vision has in common with the
old regime.
The giveaway here is his heavy rhetorical emphasis on corruption and
theft as the root causes of poverty. To my mind, perhaps the most
reliable rule of thumb in Venezuelan politics is that those who think
they can fix the problem by rooting out corruption are hopelessly
stuck in the petrostate cultural framework. And sure enough, just
about every speech Chavez has given in the last 4 years has featured
these long, vitriolic, totally over the top tirades against the
soulless oligarchs who stripped and looted the state, used the
National Treasury as a personal plaything, and doomed the majority to
abject poverty.
Chavez doesn't know it, but that kind of rhetoric places him squarely
in the intellectual tradition pioneered by Romulo Betancourt, AD's
founding father, 50 years ago. Because the clear implication of his
line of reasoning is that by stealing so much, the old party bosses
vitiated the state's fundamental mission, which was to distribute the
petrodollars to the people. Ultimately, Chavez is just a particularly
crass purveyor of a very old petrostate line - the old longing to fix
the petrostate, to reform the unprocurable.
What's sad is that, ultimately, that longing, the way he has given
voice to that longing, is the key to his political success. In beating
the old petrostate drum, Chavez tapped into a rich vein in Venezuela's
collective consciousness. Breaking the petrostate's
dominance/submission social system is child's play compared to the
monumental task of breaking the petrostate as an idea, as a collective
understanding of the function of the state. And Chavez never
challenged the dominant understanding on that score, he merely
leveraged it to his own advantage.
In 1998, the voters wanted to hear someone tell them that the country
is rich, that prosperity is their birthright, and that the only reason
they are poor is that their share of the oil money was stolen. They
wanted to hear that because that was what they intimately believed.
And Chavez articulated it brilliantly. With amazing vigor and
charisma, he captured the volcanic anger they felt at the breakdown of
the old model. Chavez became their voice. So they voted for him. What
could be more natural?
There's just one minor inconvenience: the Chavez era has made the
petrostate model even more unworkable than it was 4 years ago, much
more unworkable. Oil production is in free fall. Chavez's catastrophic
mismanagement of the oil industry has left the state in such an
amazing fiscal mess that soon there may not be any petrodollars at all
left to distribute.
Even before the oil strike got under way in December 2002, Chavez had
done huge damage to the state's revenue stream. From the moment he
took office, not only did he alienate, spy on, harass and fire
hundreds of the oil industry's best managers, he also made such
unreasonable demands for cash from PDVSA that the company just didn't
have enough money left in hand to even maintain its old capacity
levels.
That's worth a brief explanation. Those of us who don't work in the
oil industry tend to think of oil wells more or less as water faucets:
you want oil, you just turn the thing on. It doesn't quite work that
way. As oil wells age, their pressure decreases, and increasingly
sophisticated methods are necessary to keep the black stuff flowing.
To keep them working, you need to either re-inject the natural gas you
get out of them, or inject steam into them. All of that costs money,
so, as oil wells get older, you need to invest more and more money
just to stay even in terms of production capacity. Venezuela's rate of
depletion runs at about 20% a year, meaning that, in the absence of
new investment, that's how much our production capacity would fall
each year.
Hugo Chavez either doesn't understand that or doesn't care. Since 1999
his government has pressured PDVSA so hard to hand over more and more
cash that the oil men haven't had enough money on hand to even
maintain capacity. Insufficient investment has sent PDVSA's capacity
tumbling - from 3.8 million barrels per day in 1998, capacity had
fallen to about 3.3 million b/d at the end of last year.
And now, with the oil strike, capacity is falling even faster, much
faster. Nothing is worse for an oil well than to stay idle for weeks
on end. They silt up, harden, lose pressure, get screwed up in all
sorts of ways. The government's pigheaded refusal to sit around the
table with the strikers and reach some sort of deal has led to a
further, calamitous collapse in production capacity - it's down at
least 400,000 b/d from pre-strike levels. The oil people I've talked
to think capacity might settle at no more than 2.6 million b/d when
all is said and done.
Instead of taking emergency steps to stop this disaster, Chavez has
declared a "revolutionary offensive" against the strikers, firing over
12,400 of them - about a third of PDVSA's total payroll. He appears to
have decided he'd rather have a much smaller, less lucrative company
he can control at will than a larger, more lucrative company that ever
places "buts" in the way of his megalomaniac whims.
When the dust settle, the country will be able to produce 1.2 million
b/d less than it could 4 years ago. To give you a notion of scale,
that's about the size of Nigeria's entire industry, and Nigeria is
considered a fairly important player in the world market.
So one of the many, many contradictions and ironies of the chavista
era is that the president hangs on to the petrostate's founding myth
even as he chips away at the oil industry's ability to finance it. If
the state couldn't really afford to bankroll society on 3.8 million
b/d, if its over bloated payroll was non-viable on 3.8 million b/d,
then it's really, really, really unworkable on 2.6 million b/d. The
retrenchment in public spending will necessarily be massive, and the
likely social cost of those cuts will make Argentina's crisis last
year pale in comparison.
---
"The French always place a school of thought, a formula, convention, a
priori arguments, abstraction, and artificiality above reality; they
prefer clarity to truth, words to things, rhetoric to science. ...
They emerge from description only to hurl themselves into precipitate
generalizations. They imagine they understand man in his entirety,
whereas they cannot break the hard shell of their personalities,
and they do not understand a single nation apart from themselves."
- H. F. Amiel
Kurt Nicklas
It is an analysis about why people like *you* oppose our policy in Iraq,
therefore it IS an argument about policy *here*.
>Furthermore, I know
'I know'...
that there are many people who oppose current
>foreign policy in Iraq who nonetheless voted for Bush (thus they certainly
>do not hate him), and who are in or have served in the military. In fact,
>many Republicans
'Many Republicans'...
>are very concerned with how wrong the Iraq war has gone.
>Thus your hypothesis about hate has been falsified.
Not in your case and the case of many, many others. Unlike you, I am prepared to
name names if you want.
>> "I've talked to people" is a case of 'arguing from authority' and is not
>> rational. Such things may work in your classes but not here.
>
>It certainly is rational. Now, if you want to think I'm making that up,
>fine. But I suggest you know as well as I do -- and all readers do -- that
>what I wrote is true. We all know
'We all know'...
> people with diverse views on Iraq. We
>know that if 60% say we should leave Iraq,
I say we should leave Iraq too.
> they can't all hate Bush. And,
>of course, what do you offer to support your position? Nothing. In fact,
>your assertions are not even plausible. That doesn't work anywhere.
>Certainly not here!
All you've said is 'I know people' which, as I've said is nothing more than
arguing from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). You can read about it on the
net. You've made no arguments. Simply restating your fallacies does not make
them more true.
>> A "dictator is gone" is not a slogan. It is a fact that I wish to remind
>people
>> of. By calling it "a slogan" you hope to minimize it the fact.
>
>As the former Bush administration member Richard Haass notes (cited from
>*The Economist*, June 11, 2005, p. 81: "Mr. Haass believes that the world is
>indeed better off without Saddam Hussein, bu, as he notes, 'This is not a
>terribly useful question. It would be akin to a business setting to looking
>only at revenues and ignoring expenses." There are dictators all over the
>world. We could "improve" things by getting rid of dictatorships in Cuba,
>North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. Of course, we don't because there is a cost
>involved, that you can't use one good consequence to assert an action was
>justified or correct. No policy analysis could do that; thus what you offer
>IS only a slogan, it isn't relevant UNLESS you tie it to an argument that
>this is worth all the consequences. Absent that, it is wholly and
>completely irrelevant in terms of any policy assessment. You need more.
Getting rid of Saddam was useful,aside from the inherent benefits, because of
his history of threats to his neighbors, his ties to terrorists and his
determined work to acquire weapons of mass destruction. You say it wasn't worth
getting rid of him. I say it was. So there we are.
>> You've simply made a series of assertions in response to what I've said,
>all of
>> which I've heard and seen before and which I don't find convincing.
>
>You made only assertions, and implausible and silly ones at that. For
>readers undecided, I think its clear that you are proving my point: people
>are not making a serious effort to defend the war, but instead simply using
>emotion.
What needs to be defended exactly?
As I've already said, you've simply set up a straw man here and proceed to turn
it over and over.
What is not a straw man, however, is that people like you attempt to minimize
the actions of terrorists and, in fact, to blame their actions on the United
States itself.
>My question, however, can push aside that: what do we do next?
>What is the best course of action? It would be honorable for you admit that
>you and others misjudged what would happen in Iraq, but if you don't want to
>do that, fine. Look forward. What now?
Kill more terrorists. Give Iraq a shot at a better government than they've had
before and it's people a better life. Withdraw most US troops when it's safe,
but who knows when that will be...we still have troops in Germany, Japan and
Korea.
Steven Canyon
<LOL> Greywolf, the werewolf, *feels* that it would be best to pull
out of Iraq....
....like he wants us to believe that he knows anything about foreign
policy...
....Greywolf can't even get his U.S.citizenship papers.
--
"I have the right to vote against him in the next
election."
--Zepp Jamieson, 1996
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4l6trj%24iq4%40news.snowcrest.net
"I will throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate."
--Zepp Jamieson,2000/02/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38a8c8d3.16637502%40news.snowcrest.net
"You just doubled the value of my vote."
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3905050c.66719349%40news.snowcrest.net
"I -can- vote"
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000/04/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4lmnit%24eiv%40news.snowcrest.net
[...] if we decide elections by square miles, my vote is worth
200 Los Angeles votes.
--Zepp Jamieson, 2000-12-18
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=tbit3tc60l1a6c1mj89b4o285anpe11kqa%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8
"Legal resident alien Zepp Jamieson, a Canadian who has lived
in the United States for more than 30 years, said his status
changed dramatically with the Patriot Act."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/June/04-1695-news11.txt
Legal resident aliens aren't allowed to vote, Jamieson.
Why were you lying and pretending to be a citizen?
Jeffrey Turner
> My prediction: Chavez will become a political victim of his own
> populism.
Yeah, six elections, sixty percent of the vote...
> There are allegiations of a few $ billions missing in Venezuela.
There are allegations that your wife sleeps with buffalo.
> I think someone high up there has already stashed cash
> off shore for a rainy day when for inexplicable reasons
> a need for travel worldwide urges that official to take
> a few decades worth sightseeing of the world.
Well, as long as you think that.
> ---
> http://www.vcrisis.com/print.php?content=letters/200312121612
>
> Venezuela Part III: From institutional clientelism to the Chavista
> cult of personality
> By Francisco Toro, Caracas Chronicles
You just advertising how far off these year and a half old
predictions were?
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
Martin McPhillips
>
>
> Clearly terrorists are doers of evil and should not be
> praised.
Yet you throw them your support every day, Scott.
This is just like your "I hate central
government/I love the EU" double-talk.
You've been cheering on terrorists since 9/11,
offering justifications for their acts (like
American foreign policy, which you oddly know
almost nothing about, given that you "teach this
stuff") while counseling a "do nothing" strategy
for the U.S.
Martin McPhillips
news:4hqre.57030$nG6.7069@attbi_s22...
Read the newsgroup, asshole.
Martin McPhillips
news:d8lk7g$q4l$1...@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp...
He's been against the policy from the beginning, and
he sees anything that didn't go right as confirmation
of his original position, which was that a much larger
force was needed.
But the plan from the beginning was to use a smaller
force, creating a much smaller force and logistical
footprint and hand the reins to a new Iraqi government
and military as soon as possible. We're just over two
years into that process, and the net achievement of
the Saddam loyalists/al Qaeda gang is blowing up
car bombs and killing Iraqis. It looks much uglier
than it is, but then the insurgents have the help
of the Left and the Western media, which counsel
defeat at any opportunity.
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>You made only assertions, and implausible and silly ones at that.
For the record, your assertions were incoherent and emotional,
based purely on wishful-thinking, not on facts and needs.
>For
>readers undecided, I think its clear that you are proving my point: people
>are not making a serious effort to defend the war, but instead simply using
>emotion. My question, however, can push aside that: what do we do next?
>What is the best course of action? It would be honorable for you admit that
>you and others misjudged what would happen in Iraq, but if you don't want to
>do that, fine. Look forward. What now?
Wait till all the Middle East is swept by revolt against the
cleptocracies and tyrannies in the region. Lebanon was
only the start.
Bombs exploding in Iran and Turkey recently are a symptom.
Bulba!
>Scott has basically made all my points, and done so in a quite exemplary
>manner.
He's wrong.
>Check this guy out. Is he a partisan, president and military hater?
No, he's mistaken about _policy_.
His job is not to settle down the policy and he clearly doesn't
understand that:
>Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want - but it was a war
>the civilians wanted.
>"I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
>situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
>no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him," says Zinni.
God Almighty protect us against generals who think that THEY
should decide what wars are wanted and which are not wanted!!!
Are generals supposed to serve and tell society to which wars
we go and to which we don't or the other way around?!
The military is not in the business of working out policy
objectives!
It's job is to shut up and implement what it is TOLD,
ORDERED to do, in the process merely reporting what is
possible or impossible and what is needed to meet the
goal!
There is no civilized country without civilian control
of the military and civilians working out what is it that
military is supposed to do, leaving up to military only
working out HOW to do it and what will be the costs!
That general clearly has poor grasp on political reality.
He may be fine soldier (I don't know that), but his job
is not telling us which war is wanted from the POV
of military!
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Terrorism is a very serious problem that we'll have to combat
>for the foreseeable future.
It's not about terrorism. Terrorism has been here since beginning
of time, it is a TACTIC, not a POLICY.
This is about the goals of those maniacs, whether they
fight using terrorist means or military means or other
means.
The link between terrorism and Iraq is the link between Taliban
and the oil in Iraq on which the Muslims sit.
The only role that Hussein played in this link was to
be a target of hostility of both real sides in this
conflict.
Sooner or later Hussein would be done over by either
party, either by Americans or by jihadis.
Hussein is almost entirely irrelevant in this picture. He
was merely an obstacle that had to be removed.
>> Now, after 3 years of mostly spotty conflict in Iraq with numbers of dead
>far
>> fewer than we lost in ONE DAY in NYC they proclaim the US war on terror a
>> failure and Bush a failed president. What utter and complete nonsense!
>
>Actually, you are mixing issues. Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism,
It is. In this particular situation Islam in its radical mutation is
terrorism and terrorism is Islam.
>> The people who oppose our policy in Iraq, to my way of thinking, are
>certainly
>> far from patriots. They are partisans. They hate the president.
>
>That is a false generalization. I know Republicans who oppose our policy in
>Iraq, but don't like to be vocal about it since they are also strong
>supporters of President Bush. The 60% that want the US to get out of Iraq
>are not haters of President Bush.
And 80% of those hate Bush. True, the remaining 20% may see this
simply as a mistake, without hating Bush and wanting Iraq to blow
up into bloody mess.
That doesn't change where the main opposition to this whole thing
comes from: the left, intrusive collectivists - who don't mind Islam
in spite of its inherent intolerance against everyone, esp. gays
and women, because Islam is COLLECTIVIST.
For that crowd "anything but America!" is a viable option.
So they don't mind kidnapping and beheading innocent civilians,
because those jihadis are on their side and US Army is their
enemy.
Instead, Abu Ghraib is a "horrible" offense, because for that
crowd AMERICAN SOCIAL ORDER IS THE ENEMY.
It's a bit like in this joke about young Air Force officer ending up
his lecture with words "..and that is how we could defeat the enemy",
while his old, superior commander shook wearily his head and said:
"Son, that side is our opponent. Our enemy is the Navy!"
It's the same with antiwar movement. Look at their composition: the
most vocal opposition comes almost entirely from dinosaur lefties and
anticapitalist maniacs. Just type "antiwar" in google and look
at domain names - it's almost always "progressive" or "socialist
this or that", and even if not, if only you explore the site, sooner
or later it turns out to be some looney left organization.
The religion of Islam may be their opponent. But the enemy they
viscerally hate is classical-liberal democracy, liberty, and (however
imperfect) implementation of those ideas in the form of USA as it
really is.
Which is why they want (admittedly risky) venture
of attempting to democratize Middle East the American
way to fail.
>Also, your argument is not rational. You
>cannot defend a policy by claiming that those who oppose it "hate." That is
>irrelevant at best, and deceptive at worst. Policies have to be defended on
>their own grounds, no matter who the President is or is not. Partisanship
>is irrelevant. I was as vocal against Clinton in Kosovo as I am against
>Bush in Iraq.
That may be you. That doesn't have to pertain the rest of the anti-war
crowd.
>>They hate
>the
>> military. They hate American foreign policy and they're willing to use the
>> deaths of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as pawns in an effort to
>> undermine what they hate.
>Again, I've talked to military people who are against the war and upset
>about US policy. Your attempt to claim the other side hates is pure
>attempts to move away from rational debate to emotionalism.
Or it may be a simple diagnosis, which does not apply to everyone
in that crowd, e.g. not to you, but certainly to the majority of
the opponents.
> That is
>illogical, and represents an admission that you don't have a solid, rational
>argument.
As if anybody wanted that.
Most people don't want any solid, rational argument, they just want
their aching desire and belief that they're right all along to be
proved.
>> Our actions in Iraq have not been without occasional failures. War is a
>bitch
>> and it's required action on the ground, unlike the war from 30,000 ft that
>Billy
>> Boy carried out against Serbia. War on the ground brings casualties. But
>we are
>> killing terrorists...and allowing them to kill themselves, I might add.
>We've
>> overthrown a dictator. We've given a country in the mideast a chance at
>freedom
>> and thrown fear into the other opppressive countries in the area.
>There are many countries with dictators, and we don't go and overthrow them.
True, but there are few countries in the world that have had a
dictator ruling over the country containing both theocracy-crazed
societies AND oil to fund this madness.
>The reason is that there are consequences to actions. I cannot see any way
>that the US can claim this as a success or worth the cost. If you would
>wish to make such an argument, please do. But what you write is "we got rid
>of a dictator, and war's a bitch," not much more. That ignores all the
>arguments (which I can delinate again if you want) on how the consequences
>have been harmful to US security,
It got it one huge benefit: now USA has a big base in the Middle East
that is independent of whims of Saudi Arabia.
This alone is a huge leverage.
>overstretched the military,
Perhaps the military should be increased and/or restructured
if it is to meet the security needs that are there to prevent
more carnage like 9/11 from becoming.
>aided North
>Korea and Iran, aided the cause of our real enemies, the Islamic
>fundamentalist movements, and have generally hurt the US standing in the
>world, and our credibility. I can go into more detail if you wish.
You have overblown costs and ignored threats.
Clinton slept on his watch while Islamic threat was on the rise. He
is the real one guilty of allowing 9/11 to happen. He did nothing
about the problem.
You should be happy that Bush IS doing whatever he can to clean
up this milk that was already spilled by Clinton.
Sure, there are botches, costs and risks to it.
But have you asked yourself what would be the cost of NOT
doing it?
Bulba!
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>But the plan from the beginning was to use a smaller
>force, creating a much smaller force and logistical
>footprint and hand the reins to a new Iraqi government
>and military as soon as possible. We're just over two
>years into that process, and the net achievement of
>the Saddam loyalists/al Qaeda gang is blowing up
>car bombs and killing Iraqis. It looks much uglier
>than it is, but then the insurgents have the help
>of the Left and the Western media, which counsel
>defeat at any opportunity.
This is internationale of collectivist, both in the Islamic
world and in the Western world vs classical-liberal
democrats crowd, in USA, Europeand Middle East.
This is the global conflict of political camps, not
"war against terror".
Bulba!
Anti-Globalism = Anti-Americanism
By Jean-Francois Revel
How to understand this war against globalization, which has grown in
scope and virulence over the past five years? First, we must realize
that it is a war in the real, not the figurative, sense of the word.
It is a physical struggle being fought in the streets, not just
theoretically. The demonstrators who are its shock troops are
organized by activist organizations, many of them subsidized by
governments, and they sack cities and lay siege to international
meetings during their battles.
What motivates this extraordinary resistance? Globalization simply
means freedom of movement for goods and people, and it is hard to be
violently hostile to that. But behind this fight lies an older and
more fundamental struggle?against economic liberalization, and against
the chief representative thereof, which is the United States.
Anti-globalism carnivals often feature an Uncle Sam in a
Stars-and-Stripes costume as their supreme scapegoat. In this way, the
new movement taps into an old socialist tradition, where opposition to
economic freedom and opposition to America are impossible to separate.
The simplistic article of Marxist faith that capitalism is absolute
evil, and that it is incarnated in and directed by the United States,
may be the most important principle shared by the current crop of
anti-globalizers. America is the object of their loathing because for
a half century or more it has been the most prosperous and creative
capitalist society on earth. But ultimately it is something even
bigger that the anti-globalizers want to destroy: liberal democracy
and free-market economics. Or quite simply liberty itself.
According to the anti-globalists, the global marketplace will breed
ever-increasing poverty for the profit of an ever-richer minority.
This is of course the outcome Karl Marx predicted in the middle of the
nineteenth century for the industrialized nations of Western Europe
and North America. But we all know how history has confirmed that
brilliant prophecy. So the old prediction has been transferred to a
new locale, new time, and new active agency. Ah, the genius of
?scientific socialism.?
But today?s anti-globalists are much more than false prophets. Their
violence has gone far beyond legitimate protest into real savagery.
They have killed people through charming acts like bombing McDonald?s
restaurants. In Seattle, Nice, Genoa, and other cities, rioters
destroyed millions of dollars worth of property and attacked officials
and police.
Anti-globalists have tried to replace democracy with a despotism of
the mob, advancing the brutal proposition that street demonstrators
are more legitimate than elected governments. Wherever they have been
active, their goal has been to prevent elected heads of state or
appointed officials of international organizations from meeting. Like
other totalitarians, they treat the mere expression of ideas contrary
to their slogans as a crime.
Anti-globalizers have no ambition to advance a program by democratic
means, for the simple reason that they don?t have a program, or
coherent ideas, or facts on their side. So instead they beat
relentlessly on the archaic anti-capitalist and anti-American drum. In
Genoa we saw red flags adorned with hammer and sickle, effigies of Che
Guevara, and the acronym for the Red Brigades.
The anti-globalists are often incoherent. They brought mayhem to
Seattle in the name of combating a ?savage? globalism that ?profits
only the rich.? Yet which groups met in Seattle? The World Trade
Organization (WTO), whose role is precisely to monitor international
economic transactions so as to prevent them from being ?savage.? There
has not been a country in the world that hasn?t been eager to be
admitted into the WTO, and the poorest are the most eager.
At Genoa, the hooligans who smashed the facades of banks before the
conference even began said they objected to rich countries that didn?t
care about the poor countries of the world. Actually, the goal of the
international summit they were warring against was specifically to
help poor countries. The eight leading industrial countries present
were meeting to target aid for economic development in the Southern
Hemisphere, and for creation of a global fund to finance the medical
campaigns against AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, especially in
sub-Saharan Africa.
If you ask the developing countries what they want, they will tell you
they want more globalization, not less. What they desire most of all
is freer access to the world?s best markets for their products. So
when well-heeled young radical protestors try to subvert meetings
whose goal is to extend free trade and strengthen poor countries?
ability to export goods, they actually act as enemies of the world?s
poor. The 2001 conference meeting in Quebec City that was invaded and
wrecked by protestors, for example, had been organized to lay out the
basis for a single American market that would open the rich northern
countries of U.S. and Canada to the products of the poorer South
American countries.
So it is astonishing when European leaders declare themselves
?impressed? by the rioters, and convinced of the necessity to
?dialogue? with them. It is grotesque to see the leftist press and
political stratum, seemingly having learned nothing from the socialist
catastrophes and absurdities of the last generation, now greet this
new crusade against capitalism with open arms. The president of the
French republic, Jacques Chirac, paid tribute to a ?global social
consciousness? and pleaded before his peers in favor of ?normal and
permanent dialogue? with the demonstrators.
Governments discredit themselves when they give in to violent
demonstrators, because violence paralyzes democracy itself. Democrats
worthy of the name should not forget that power is conferred by
ballots, not by bricks hurled through windows. It is disturbing that
the Left too often ignores this principle.
It?s important to recall that it is only market globalization that the
Left rejects. In fact, the Left has always hoped for globalization
without the market?an ideologically correct world government. Soviet
and Maoist communists always felt the vocational urge to impose their
models on the whole of humanity, if need be by armed subversion, which
they did not hesitate to use on five continents. Although they lack
the means to undertake bellicose operations on such a scale, today?s
anti-globalizers are no less internationalist in their ambitions.
But history shows that only capitalism can deliver a form of globalism
whose balance sheet, while not without liabilities, is on the whole
positive. The beneficial effects of widening commerce were evident as
far back as the Middle Ages and ancient Rome. But it was not until
after the great explorations of the late fifteenth century and the
growth of transatlantic trade that globalization in the modern sense
of the term began. Merchant capitalism developed in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries; the industrial revolution spread throughout
Europe and North America from about 1840 to 1914.
It was Europe that created the first world markets, as her capital,
technologies, languages, and people spread over every continent. She
was the driving force of an international circulation of commodities,
scientific knowledge, ideas, and techniques. After the catastrophe of
World War I, Europe drew back and turned in on herself. Her supremacy
became a thing of the past. She even became divided within as her
countries erected barriers against each other.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States, Argentina, and
Brazil, whose immense territories were traditionally open to
immigrants and foreign products, barricaded themselves in turn.
International trade plummeted, capital could no longer circulate,
exchange controls were instituted and there were efforts to fix
currencies by decree. All over the world, economic life stagnated and
came to resemble what today?s enemies of globalism desire for us. The
result was not long in coming: the stock market crash of 1929,
followed by the Great Depression, with tens of millions unemployed.
(France would not return to her 1914 per capita income level until the
beginning of the 1950s.)
After World War II, the United States became a powerful advocate in
favor of free world commerce. If world economic activity at the turn
of the millennium is now thoroughly global, capitalist, and U.S.-led,
this has nothing to do with ?arrogance.? The enfeebling of the
Europeans? position in the world is self-caused: They alone are
responsible for their own heaped-up aberrations and follies over the
first half of the past century. This weakening entailed the
corresponding and virtually automatic rise of the United States.
Strikingly, Americans continue to increase their lead, even since the
consolidation of the European Union. That a united Europe hasn?t yet
risen to the challenge is obviously not for lack of material and human
resources, but rather for lack of understanding of how to use them.
Inhibited by ideological prejudices, Europe, despite her successes,
continues to live overshadowed by America. Witness the fact that the
health of her economy is dependent on the state of America?s economy:
Whenever the latter goes into recession, as in the beginning of 2001,
Europe falters.
Elsewhere, American-style market capitalism is equally successful and
dominant. Third World countries have developed at sharply different
rates basically according to the degree to which they have respected
free markets, and left economic activity to private enterprise rather
than to undertakings of the state. Even in nations like China where
political communism has artificially prolonged its existence, it has
done so only by thoroughly expunging economic socialism through
privatization, appeals to foreign investors, deregulation of commerce,
and establishment of cross-border trade agreements. Only Cuba and
North Korea have clung to economic collectivism, with utterly
disastrous results.
Will jealous activists from Europe and some other nations treat
globalism as poisonous merely by virtue of its association with
America? In July 2001, when the ?Network of French Cultural
Cooperation? gathered at France?s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, French
foreign minister Lionel Jospin called upon the participants to fight
liberalizing, American-style globalization with their brand of
globalization, which Jospin said would be based on the ?affirmation of
states against the unbridled laws of the market.? In the process,
France would replace America as the global leader.
This crusade has deep roots. Back in May 1944, Hubert Beuve-Méry, the
future founder and editor of Le Monde, the most influential journal in
France today, was able to write that ?The Americans constitute a real
danger for France?. They cling to a veritable cult of the idea of
liberty [and] don?t feel the need to liberate themselves from the
servitudes that their capitalism entails.? The fact that an important
Frenchman was able to argue this even while France was occupied by the
Nazis, with the possibility of American liberation being their only
hope for a different future, indicates the depth of both the hatred
for economic liberty and the anti-American obsession in France.
Resentments that lead to the rejection of every idea that comes from
America simply because it is American can only weaken countries. To
follow such a course is to let phobias become guiding principles. Does
anyone really believe today that nations which substitute government
edicts for economic markets are likelier to prosper? Must we close our
eyes to the achievements of the last 50 years of increasing economic
liberty, when worldwide production grew by a factor of six and the
volume of exports by a factor of 17? Must investment capitalism
abroad, the engine of extraordinary, racing progress for many
previously poor countries, be banned just because it often brings
links to America?
We French have had little to say against Saddam Hussein, Muammar
Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the imams of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, or the bosses of China and Vietnam. We
reserve our admonitions and our contempt and our attacks for the U.S.,
for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and for Europeans like Margaret
Thatcher, Silvio Berlusconi, and Tony Blair, because they are
insufficiently hostile to capitalism. Our enemy is not the dictator
but the free market economy.
Anti-globalizers make the same mistake. What?s important to them is
not the eradication of poverty. Rather, it is the propaganda value
they gain from linking poverty to the spreading market economy. But
this puts them on the wrong side of all evidence, of reality, of
history.
Life expectancy in Third World countries has more than doubled during
the free-market dominated second half of the twentieth century. In
India, food production has grown by a factor of ten, leading to the
elimination of massive famines. In Latin America, per capita income
doubled between 1950 and 1985. Over the past 50 years, Latin America
on the whole has experienced an annual growth of 5 percent. No
European country can boast an equivalent rate. These figures show to
what an extent the mantras about ever-increasing poverty spring from
ignorance or simple dishonesty. Where poverty continues to exist today
it is almost wholly due to ruinously inefficient public sectors.
This is most obvious in Africa, the only Third World continent to have
actually declined. Impoverishment there has political, not economic,
causes. It is statism, not the market, and socialism, not capitalism,
that has destroyed the African economies. After independence, the
African elites who formed the political leadership generally adopted
the Soviet and Chinese systems. Thus they were able to assume absolute
power with access to the levers of personal enrichment. And from
communism they borrowed an infallible recipe for agricultural ruin:
collectivizing the land, from Algeria to Tanzania, setting up
?cooperatives? that quickly became unproductive.
In these fatal mistakes the Third World has had false friends. In
particular, the privileged pseudo-revolutionaries of Seattle and
Göteborg have encouraged them down the primrose path of
anti-capitalism. Lacking any real knowledge about the African
cataclysm, and careless about finding remedies, the anti-globalist
agitators prefer hurling brickbats at their perennial hobgoblin to the
moral imperative of saving and improving lives.
This just licenses Africa?s socialist dictators to commit their
robberies. In Madagascar, the anti-American radical Didier Ratsiraka
received a fortune in francs, but the starving Madagascan people never
had the slightest whiff of it. An investigative journalist could do
well to search for traces in Switzerland or elsewhere of the billions
of dollars stolen by the late Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha. And
what?s the point (other than irritating America) of defending Robert
Mugabe, a typical dictator who has rigged every election in Zimbabwe
and managed in 20 years to transform one of the most fertile lands of
Africa into one of the most desolate? Between 1960 and 2000, Africa
received four times as much funding and aid per capita as Latin
America or Asia. How was it that these last two continents took off,
and not Africa? By practicing capitalism and establishing world trade.
But it is pointless to set forth facts like these to anti-globalizers;
they simply howl in indignation. In spreading the lie that
globalization impoverishes the most needy, the protestors simply act
upon their twin enthusiasms: anti-American and anti-capitalism. Their
floating mass of some hundreds of thousands of demonstrators is their
compensation for the frustration of having seen all the socialisms and
all the revolutions fail. At a time when they have no positive
alternative, yelling slogans and trashing cities and blocking
international gatherings provide them with the illusion of moral
action
Bulba!
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> My prediction: Chavez will become a political victim of his own
>> http://www.vcrisis.com/print.php?content=letters/200312121612
>>
>> Venezuela Part III: From institutional clientelism to the Chavista
>> cult of personality
>> By Francisco Toro, Caracas Chronicles
>You just advertising how far off these year and a half old
>predictions were?
Cuba did not collapse in a day either. :-P
Seriously, it took Soviet Union seventy years to collapse.
Interestingly, Mossadeq in Iran after nationalizing oil
industry saw the fall in output of production of oil, too.
Now, I bet you didn't even read the article itself and
just dismissed it off hand - that's what the dinasours,
ageing left-liberal hippie douchebags, and Clinton
cocksuckers do increasingly nowadays, but maybe you
will be able to parse the following paragraph without
your head exploding:
-----
So one of the many, many contradictions and ironies of the chavista
era is that the president hangs on to the petrostate's founding myth
even as he chips away at the oil industry's ability to finance it. If
the state couldn't really afford to bankroll society on 3.8 million
b/d, if its over bloated payroll was non-viable on 3.8 million b/d,
then it's really, really, really unworkable on 2.6 million b/d. The
retrenchment in public spending will necessarily be massive, and the
likely social cost of those cuts will make Argentina's crisis last
year pale in comparison.
---
Note: Mexico underwent the crisis of the same nature.
Scott Erb
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17f8852...@news.midco.net...
> > So, what now?
> Personally I'd tell Iraq they have two years to get their shit together,
> and then we are pulling out NO MATTER WHAT, sink or swim; and will only
> contribute monetarily to their strife.
>
> Kinda defangs the insurgents motives, and let's us have an actual exit
> strategy while saving billions of dollars, and thousands of our soldiers
> lives.
But...the insurgency is morphing into a Sunni movement bent on preventing
Shi'ite control of Iraq, especially the oil regions. If we say "in two
years we'll be out," we'll be setting up a civil war. That said, your idea
may be the best amongst a lot of bad alternatives out there. It could also
hurt troop morale if they know they're going, and they aren't accomplishing
anything. I see your point, but I am leaning towards a quicker withdrawal,
but that has its problems. I once thought that Saudi Arabia and Islamic
countries could provide some stability, but they are likely to side with
Sunnis in a civil war, and that could expand the problem. So maybe your
approach is best...
> An apology for fucking things up and for all the lies would help too, but
> that is laughably unrealistic considering this administrations track
> record.
>
> Lying is much easier than apologizing.
There is a personality type which thinks that admitting error somehow
weakens one, and as long as you keep the illusion of not doubting yourself,
you'll be more powerful. That strikes me as a psychological pathology, but
a lot of people in politics think that way.
> The Rove administration reminds me of an abusive, cheating boyfriend...
> And we are the enablers.
...which also fits with that personality type.. :-)
Scott Erb
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:11asfo2...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>So, what now?
> >>
> >>Well, I'm scarcely on the right. Before the war, I criticized it
> >>on the grounds that it would be very expensive, would cost a lot
> >>of lives, and would be hard to get out of. After the war, I was
> >>asked what I'd do (August 2003 or so), and I said I'd fast-track
> >>a move to a preliminary constitution, have some voting, get them
> >>to produce a real constitution, and vote and get out by the end
> >>of 2003. So what do I know?
> >>
> >>Right now, the main priorities are to get foreign troops out,
> >>turn the duties of outside companies over to Iraqis (i.e. let
> >>them start fixing up schools, power plants and so on) while
> >>paying them the money to make the transition work (which is
> >>less than continuing to pay 'our' guys), and offering war
> >>repatriations.
> >>
> >>Since it would win hearts and minds, I have as much expectation
> >>that my suggestions would be followed as I did the previous ones.
>
> I also found something naive about Scott mixing "doing something
> different" with what is feasible given the current
> administration. The presidunce won't even countenance a
> timetable for withdrawal, IMO, about the minimum first step.
You're probably right. But reality bites, and I can't imagine they look at
the state of military recruitment, problems in North Korea, uncertainties
about China, low public approval and aren't able to recognize that they
screwed up. They won't admit it, but I suspect they are seeking a face
saving way to get out from the quagmire yet not have to admit defeat.
> > I agree in general, but see some problems.
> >
> > The danger now of leaving quickly (which I agree we need to do) is that
we
> > are leaving the country in the midst of extreme corruption.
>
> Do you think the Iraqi administrators are MORE corrupt than the
> US administrators?
Actually, I think they probably are. I think corruption is a part of the
political culture there, rivaling Nigeria's and Russia's. I hope I'm
wrong.
> > In Political
> > Science corruption is known as the almong the most malignant of a cancer
> > that can harm a country trying to establish a democracy.
>
> You mean it outranks foreign military occupation?
I don't know if it outranks THAT! I wrote "among" the most malignant (well,
I had a typo and wrote 'almong'), clearly foreign intervention is in a
class all its own. You violate the prime directive and you screw things up!
> "To the people of Baghdad: We come here not as conquerors but
> as liberators, to free you from generations of tyranny."
> --from a document British General Stanley Maude put up on a wall
> in Baghdad, in 1917.
The parallels between the British efforts then and America now are pretty
powerful.
> > After all, Iran is more
> > democratic than other states in the region, except Israel.
>
> Israel is quite democratic...if you're Jewish. Twenty years
> ago, South Africa was quite democratic, as long as you were
> white.
Actually, it's less that than the fact they are occupying territory that is
not theirs, and denying the people there political rights. Arabs living in
Israel have democratic rights.
Scott Erb
> >Whether or not people hate is irrelevant, that is not an argument about
> >policy.
>
> It is an analysis about why people like *you* oppose our policy in Iraq,
> therefore it IS an argument about policy *here*.
No it isn't. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and nothing you
presented had any relation to me or my opinion.
In short, you had nothing. When one can't defend ones' view, one simply
attacks the other side personally. That is an admission of defeat on your
part. Can you defend the policy itself?
-snip-
This is getting closer:
> Getting rid of Saddam was useful,aside from the inherent benefits, because
of
> his history of threats to his neighbors,
Yet by 2003 he was far weaker than in 1991, under sanctions, not even in
control of all his territory, with no fly zones imposed. It was utterly
impossible for him to attack Iran again, and the US was on the Kuwait
border. He was defanged, he was no longer a threat.
> his ties to terrorists and his
The only terrorists operating openly in Iraq had ties to Iran and were in
Kurdish controlled areas, outside Saddam's reach. Bin Laden wanted to
depose Saddam himself back in the nineties, and Saddam's arch-enemies in the
Arab world are Islamic fundamentalists. No one has shown any ties to
terrorists, and when "meetings" are suggested (with no known content),
usually it comes out later that the information was wrong. So he had no
real ties to terrorists, and definitely Iran, Syria, North Korea and many
other countries are very involved with terrorists.
> determined work to acquire weapons of mass destruction. You say it wasn't
worth
> getting rid of him. I say it was. So there we are.
Actually, we now know that he was in no position to get weapons of mass
destruction. The intelligence, we now find out, suggested as much in 2002,
but was not accurately conveyed. Your assertions have no basis in fact.
> >You made only assertions, and implausible and silly ones at that. For
> >readers undecided, I think its clear that you are proving my point:
people
> >are not making a serious effort to defend the war, but instead simply
using
> >emotion.
>
> What needs to be defended exactly?
At this point I'm willing to let history judge our intervention -- it is
already being considered a major fiasco, and I'm positive history will
record accurately the causes and consequences of this poor decision. The
scholars now are writing and researching. So I don't really worry so much
about anyone defending that decision, I don't think you can. I'm more
concerned about saying, "OK, right or wrong, we're stuck in Iraq now. What
next? Where do we go from here?"
Your answer at this point:
> Kill more terrorists.
That's pretty vague. Terrorism is a strategy, so no one is a terrorist
until they adopt that strategy. It's not like an ethnic group or national
army where people have that as part of their identity. Killing more people
in an effort to kill more terrorists often has the opposite effect, it leads
more people to anger against the outside power, and to join the insurgency.
Also, you can't gibly call insurgents all 'terrorists' without making the
word 'terrorist' meaningless.
>Give Iraq a shot at a better government than they've
had
> before and it's people a better life.
Well, gee, everyone wants that. But what is happening now is making many
Iraqis worse off than under Saddam. We obviously need to do something
different.
>Withdraw most US troops when it's
safe,
> but who knows when that will be...we still have troops in Germany, Japan
and
> Korea.
Then Iraq will continue to suck the military dry, lower recruitment, spread
anger and dissent within the US (it's starting already, polls are moving
strongly against the war, and there is nascent activism on college
campuses), and most dangerously weaken the ability of the US to deal with
other problems. With a military shown not as powerful as people thought,
North Korea and Iran are less deterred than ever. This is a very difficult
position for American foreign policy, and vague, "stay until it's safe, kill
terrorists, make Iraq a better place" is just silly talk, devoid of
substance.
Scott Erb
"1703 Dead" <zepp#221117...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:658sa1dmfja61vg6g...@4ax.com...
This is the definition of a fiasco. Anyone in the future looking back while
ask "how could they not have known?" Especially given all the warnings that
experts gave (routinely dismissed as being pessimism), historians will be
asking how could a major power have blundered so badly, even as the world
made clear this was a dangerous act (lack of UN approval, etc.)
I think it also will mark a turning point in American politics, much like
Vietnam did. Will we have what some will call an "Iraq syndrome," like the
so-called Vietnam syndrome, which really represented a sense of reality
about the dangers of using force.
> will be serious problems: for instance, Turkey will NOT like the idea
> of an independent Kurdistan directly south of her borders. Sunnis and
> Shi'ite will need to figure out how to divvy things up without
> slaughtering one another.
Yes, and given oil and corruption, the fights will likely be brutal and not
based on high ideals. Iran and Syria really could play a stabilizing role.
If they can agree, then they might push the Shi'ite and Sunni groups to some
kind of co-existence. But it's not likely to be 'fixed' any time soon.
> But if the US tries to stay, the situation will only continue to
> worsen. And being in Iraq will make America look much weaker --
> indeed, IS making America look much weaker -- than pulling out would
> do.
Yes, the cost of staying in an Iraq that isn't and won't soon stabilize is
immense, and just creates more problems for us, and opportunities for
extremists.
-scott
Scott Erb
> manner. However I'd just like to add this:
>
> Kurt wrote...
>
> "The people who oppose our policy in Iraq, to my way of thinking, are
> certainly
> far from patriots. They are partisans. They hate the president. They hate
> the
> military. They hate American foreign policy and they're willing to use the
> deaths of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as pawns in an effort to
> undermine what they hate."
>
> Check this guy out. Is he a partisan, president and military hater?
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
Excellent article, thanks for posting it. I want to cut to a very important
part, so I'll snip away most of the article:
> (CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and
> outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.
> Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong
> strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months
> leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the
> message to Congress: "This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on.
> And I don't feel it needs to be done now."
>
> But he wasn't the only former military leader with doubts about the
invasion
> of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft,
> former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley
> Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their
> reservations.
>
> Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want - but it was a war
> the civilians wanted.
There is a lot of good material in the article, but this point -- that this
was a war driven by the civilians (so called 'chickenhawks') and not by
military leaders -- is one of the biggest reasons for the errors that led to
what will be known as a mistake perhaps greater than Vietnam. You had
intellectual think tank types so enamoured with power and influence, that
they looked at the military as simply an object with which one accomplishes
ends. They didn't listen to the military people who know the real meaning
of war, and the dangers and uncertainties it entails. They ignored those
generals who were saying even a decade ago that America is not ready for the
new kind of war that terrorists and such groups can provide.
In short, we had over-confident civilians dismissing the ideas of
experienced military leaders, and the result...well, we see it.
Scott Erb
"Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:dgmta1p0ted03f2ca...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:23:43 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >You made only assertions, and implausible and silly ones at that.
>
> For the record, your assertions were incoherent and emotional,
> based purely on wishful-thinking, not on facts and needs.
>
> >For
> >readers undecided, I think its clear that you are proving my point:
people
> >are not making a serious effort to defend the war, but instead simply
using
> >emotion. My question, however, can push aside that: what do we do next?
> >What is the best course of action? It would be honorable for you admit
that
> >you and others misjudged what would happen in Iraq, but if you don't want
to
> >do that, fine. Look forward. What now?
>
> Wait till all the Middle East is swept by revolt against the
> cleptocracies and tyrannies in the region. Lebanon was
> only the start.
>
> Bombs exploding in Iran and Turkey recently are a symptom.
OK...so we leave and just wait for the internal dynamics of the region to
settle down, or do we stay involved while all this happens? Do you think
our presence in Iraq makes a good result more or less likely?
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yet by 2003 he was far weaker than in 1991, under sanctions, not even in
>control of all his territory, with no fly zones imposed.
Which is precisely why had to be removed.
>It was utterly
>impossible for him to attack Iran again, and the US was on the Kuwait
>border. He was defanged, he was no longer a threat.
Guess who wanted to take out toothless Hussein as well?
Again: screw Hussein, it's IRAQ that matters, not Hussein.
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Wait till all the Middle East is swept by revolt against the
>> cleptocracies and tyrannies in the region. Lebanon was
>> only the start.
>> Bombs exploding in Iran and Turkey recently are a symptom.
>OK...so we leave and just wait for the internal dynamics of the region to
>settle down, or do we stay involved while all this happens?
Some call it "democratic domino theory" and claim it is simplistic.
There is some truth to such argument I think. This doesn't
have to work.
>Do you think
>our presence in Iraq makes a good result more or less likely?
Definitely more likely.
From Iraq USA can dominate any particular area of
entire Middle East IF IT NEEDS TO. Iraq has become
sort of unsinkable aircraft carrier for USA. Or, if you
will, the police station in the middle of the town.
This alone ties the tyrants' hands in many ways.
My SPECULATION is that the administration attempted
to put the tyrants between the rocks hanging from the
pylons of American aircrafts and a hard place of their own
oppositions, for whatever rag-tag crew they are. Sort
of make it impossible for dictators to go with it the
military way while their own opposition disables them
politically. Leave them as little room to maneuver
and hope for the best.
Now, the question if the opposition wins or not remains
to be seen.
It MAY happen that it will fail. It is not guaranteed
by any means. It MAY happen that what we will
see will be only an explosion of Middle East in violence
while the democratic opposition would not get the
upper hand and provide their countries with viable
political alternatives. I do not deny this is a scary
ride.
But hey, what is guaranteed for sure in politics at all?
Scott Erb
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:54:35 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Terrorism is a very serious problem that we'll have to combat
> >for the foreseeable future.
>
> It's not about terrorism. Terrorism has been here since beginning
> of time, it is a TACTIC, not a POLICY.
Yes, it is a tactic, or even a strategy. The US needs a counter-terrorism
strategy (which would mix political, diplomatic, and military aspects).
> This is about the goals of those maniacs, whether they
> fight using terrorist means or military means or other
> means.
They clearly use whatever strategy they think most effective. Their goals
are: a) to expand their support. That is important to them, since in
reality, most people in the Mideast are enticed by modernism and even
western ideas. They need to somehow demonize the West and western
influence. b) to weaken the US and West in general. Oil is potentially
their most powerful weapon, if they can disrupt Saudi Arabian oil, or
destabilize the region (and thus destabilize the world economy). Bin Laden
himself said that the western economy was the target of 9-11. Militarily
they can't accomplish much, so they will likely use terrorist and other
kinds of unconventional tactics.
> The link between terrorism and Iraq is the link between Taliban
> and the oil in Iraq on which the Muslims sit.
I don't understand that sentence. Can you explain what you mean?
> The only role that Hussein played in this link was to
> be a target of hostility of both real sides in this
> conflict.
>
> Sooner or later Hussein would be done over by either
> party, either by Americans or by jihadis.
Actually, he probably could have kept the jihadists at bay given the nature
of the system. His biggest threat (other than America) remained an internal
coup or ill health.
> Hussein is almost entirely irrelevant in this picture. He
> was merely an obstacle that had to be removed.
I think he was irrelevant by 2003, and with a weakened Saddam in power,
strong enough to keep the "Jihadists" at bay but not strong enough to
threaten his neighbors, the US could have worked to undercut support for the
extremists (which again, absent anger at the US isn't all that intense) and
help set up a post-Saddam era. We could have contained him, waited him out,
and then dealt with a more stable situation. Now Iraq is likely to veer off
into civil war, and at this point the "jihadists" as you call them have
benefited from the events.
> >Actually, you are mixing issues. Iraq is not part of the war on
terrorism,
>
> It is. In this particular situation Islam in its radical mutation is
> terrorism and terrorism is Islam.
Islamic extremists are a minority of Muslims, and in Iraq they were a vast
minority (though they are growing). Fundamentalists like Sistani and even
Sadr are not about attacking the West, but about creating their own little
Islamic worlds. By intervening, we are being an ally to the extremists, we
are helping them recruit, helping them inspire hatred of America, and in so
doing spreading our military thin and weakening our economy. We are
fighting their battle for them, by making lousy decisions. In this case, we
are our own worst enemies (we as in our government).
> That doesn't change where the main opposition to this whole thing
> comes from: the left, intrusive collectivists - who don't mind Islam
> in spite of its inherent intolerance against everyone, esp. gays
> and women, because Islam is COLLECTIVIST.
Most religions are collectivist. I don't like organized religion of any
kind (here are my views: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm) As
for collectivism...well, most political ideologies have some kind of
collectivist aspect, since we're talking about communities. Clearly
American conservatives worried about the family and television content, or
drug abuse, are being collectivist in their approach. That seems too broad
a concept to be of much use, unless more clearly defined. Oh, here are my
thoughts on governance, you'll see I have an anti-collectivist bias in my
approach (like with spirit, these are works in progress):
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/govern.htm
> For that crowd "anything but America!" is a viable option.
>
> So they don't mind kidnapping and beheading innocent civilians,
> because those jihadis are on their side and US Army is their
> enemy.
>
> Instead, Abu Ghraib is a "horrible" offense, because for that
> crowd AMERICAN SOCIAL ORDER IS THE ENEMY.
I just have certain values -- primary among them are individual rights --
and when you violate human rights, whether as an evil terrorist, or an
American soldier disobeying the rules of war, I'll condemn that. It's
principle, and principles are applied to individuals equally (which you have
to agree with, since you don't like collectivism).
-snip bits about anti-war movement, etc. I'm really not concerned with all
that, I don't go to protests or anything.
> Most people don't want any solid, rational argument, they just want
> their aching desire and belief that they're right all along to be
> proved.
Well, yeah, but thinking that way is sort of like living in a prison.
> >> Our actions in Iraq have not been without occasional failures. War is a
> >bitch
> >> and it's required action on the ground, unlike the war from 30,000 ft
that
> >Billy
> >> Boy carried out against Serbia. War on the ground brings casualties.
But
> >we are
> >> killing terrorists...and allowing them to kill themselves, I might add.
> >We've
> >> overthrown a dictator. We've given a country in the mideast a chance at
> >freedom
> >> and thrown fear into the other opppressive countries in the area.
>
> >There are many countries with dictators, and we don't go and overthrow
them.
>
> True, but there are few countries in the world that have had a
> dictator ruling over the country containing both theocracy-crazed
> societies AND oil to fund this madness.
But we did have him defanged, confined and contained. I think that option
was safer, this option is proving very costly, and may affect US political
stability if it lingers on (much like how Vietnam was popular early on, and
communism then seemed as dangerous to people as Islamic extremism does now).
> >The reason is that there are consequences to actions. I cannot see any
way
> >that the US can claim this as a success or worth the cost. If you would
> >wish to make such an argument, please do. But what you write is "we got
rid
> >of a dictator, and war's a bitch," not much more. That ignores all the
> >arguments (which I can delinate again if you want) on how the
consequences
> >have been harmful to US security,
>
> It got it one huge benefit: now USA has a big base in the Middle East
> that is independent of whims of Saudi Arabia.
I think that's actually not a benefit, since the "base" is even too small to
control Iraq, and we'll probably have to leave as soon as Iraq is somewhat
stable. And our continued presence might actually aid terrorists in
stirring up anti-American hatred. The best path is defeat the terrorists by
winning over the people. That's still very do-able because so few Muslims
really believe the extremist creed. But when we show military intervention,
violence, violation of human rights, etc., it arouses anger and benefits
those jihadists who really do want to destroy the West, or at least
eliminate us from the region. We agree on the threat, I just think the
tactics we're using actually increase the threat level, rather than decrease
it.
> This alone is a huge leverage.
>
> >overstretched the military,
>
> Perhaps the military should be increased and/or restructured
> if it is to meet the security needs that are there to prevent
> more carnage like 9/11 from becoming.
But recruitment is done, support for US efforts is lagging. Remember,
foreign policy in a democracy requires maintaining support. Otherwise,
policies become untenable from within.
> >aided North
> >Korea and Iran, aided the cause of our real enemies, the Islamic
> >fundamentalist movements, and have generally hurt the US standing in the
> >world, and our credibility. I can go into more detail if you wish.
>
> You have overblown costs and ignored threats.
>
> Clinton slept on his watch while Islamic threat was on the rise. He
> is the real one guilty of allowing 9/11 to happen. He did nothing
> about the problem.
>
> You should be happy that Bush IS doing whatever he can to clean
> up this milk that was already spilled by Clinton.
>
> Sure, there are botches, costs and risks to it.
>
> But have you asked yourself what would be the cost of NOT
> doing it?
I think not going to Iraq would have had few costs, and other policies could
have had many more benefits. I am absolutely convinced we are watching a
fiasco unfold, and from what I read, that is becoming the conventional
wisdom in Washington too. I think terrorism will be easier to defang, and
Islamic extremism easier to marginalize and ultimately render impotent, when
military conflict and American military presence in the region ceases.
But thanks for a thoughtful response, and I'll mull over what you wrote.
-scott
1703 Dead
I note that one of the leading anti-war voices in Congress now is the
very same Congressman who, in 2003, elected to punish the French for
not supporting Putsch's rush to war by having the House cafeteria
change the name of the French fries to "Freedom fries". He may not
necessarily be any smarter than he was, but he may be a tad wiser.
>
>I think it also will mark a turning point in American politics, much like
>Vietnam did. Will we have what some will call an "Iraq syndrome," like the
>so-called Vietnam syndrome, which really represented a sense of reality
>about the dangers of using force.
I think so. For one thing, the far right will need someone to blame
bitterly for their fiasco, and if they run true to form, they'll blame
the very people who told them it was a bad idea in the first place.
>
>> will be serious problems: for instance, Turkey will NOT like the idea
>> of an independent Kurdistan directly south of her borders. Sunnis and
>> Shi'ite will need to figure out how to divvy things up without
>> slaughtering one another.
>
>Yes, and given oil and corruption, the fights will likely be brutal and not
>based on high ideals. Iran and Syria really could play a stabilizing role.
>If they can agree, then they might push the Shi'ite and Sunni groups to some
>kind of co-existence. But it's not likely to be 'fixed' any time soon.
It doesn't help that a unified Iraq is not in the best interests of
Iran or Kuwait, but IS in the best interests of Isreal and Turkey. And
given it's critical, central location in the middle east, I suspect
Iraq's ongoing and future problems will extend well beyond her borders
(whereever they may be) even after the Americans and British have
left.
Scott Erb
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:53:21 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Do you think
> >our presence in Iraq makes a good result more or less likely?
>
> Definitely more likely.
>
> From Iraq USA can dominate any particular area of
> entire Middle East IF IT NEEDS TO.
I doubt it. We don't even have Iraq under control, and the military is
already over-stretched and support at home is crumbling. Iraq was EASY
compared to other countries. I don't think the American people will support
expanding this, nor do I think we have the capacity to do so; in fact, I
think Iran is coming out ahead in Iraq by cleverly manipulating the
political situation.
>Iraq has become
> sort of unsinkable aircraft carrier for USA. Or, if you
> will, the police station in the middle of the town.
Well, only an aircraft carrier on fire, unable to launch planes, and in
danger of running aground. If some kind of government is formed, it will
both likely fall into civil war, and order the US out of the country.
> This alone ties the tyrants' hands in many ways.
>
> My SPECULATION is that the administration attempted
> to put the tyrants between the rocks hanging from the
> pylons of American aircrafts and a hard place of their own
> oppositions, for whatever rag-tag crew they are. Sort
> of make it impossible for dictators to go with it the
> military way while their own opposition disables them
> politically. Leave them as little room to maneuver
> and hope for the best.
>
> Now, the question if the opposition wins or not remains
> to be seen.
>
> It MAY happen that it will fail. It is not guaranteed
> by any means. It MAY happen that what we will
> see will be only an explosion of Middle East in violence
> while the democratic opposition would not get the
> upper hand and provide their countries with viable
> political alternatives. I do not deny this is a scary
> ride.
>
> But hey, what is guaranteed for sure in politics at all?
I think the evidence is that this is not working at all, and that the US
does not have the capacity to use the situation in the manner you suggest.
Perhaps if there was an entire world wide effort with western agreement and
shared responsibility the chances would improve, but the US is in a
precarious position, probably weaker than any time since the seventies
(since the limitations of our military power are shown -- even Iraq is
stretching the military, and it is not under control).
Of course, I hope democracy suddenly takes hold, and reforms spread. But
frankly, looking at Saudi Arabia (that's an anachronistic regime doomed to
fail in the not too distant future), Iran, unrest in Egypt, Syria...I don't
know if our presence does any good, and could infact (as is often the case
when foreign powers intervene) actually help the extremists by giving them a
convenient enemy upon whom to blame problems (thereby distracting people
from blaming their own corrupt governments). We'll see...and I do
appreciate that you developed a coherent argument allowing strong
disagreement without personal animosity (rare on the usenet). And I agree
on one thing: there is no guarantee.
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There is a lot of good material in the article, but this point -- that this
>was a war driven by the civilians (so called 'chickenhawks') and not by
>military leaders -- is one of the biggest reasons for the errors that led to
>what will be known as a mistake perhaps greater than Vietnam.
That's not true.
In Vietnam USA has failed to provide political solution to the South
Vietnamese that they would see as legitimate.
It was not a military failure. It was political failure, and indeed
without viable policy military alone can't work.
>In short, we had over-confident civilians dismissing the ideas of
>experienced military leaders, and the result...well, we see it.
War is too important to leave it up to generals. It's primarily
about political goals of society. That means civilians.
Naturally, military and war do not establish political goals. They
serve them. Dismissing that fundamental distinction to
produce sophisms about 'chickenhawks' is dishonest and
misses the point.
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There is a lot of good material in the article, but this point -- that this
>was a war driven by the civilians (so called 'chickenhawks') and not by
>military leaders
Hey, I have a great expression for the civilians who want to do
nothing but what military types tell them to do -- I will call
them slave-doves from now on.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
> You're probably right. But reality bites,
When was the last time you were in touch
with reality, Scott? I'd say that someone
who longs for chaos, cherishes murder, and
reflects the view that "Saddam is just all
right with me," has a little bit more
of that Old Timey Stalinist religion than
any person in touch with reality would.
> and I can't imagine they look at
> the state of military recruitment, problems in North
> Korea, uncertainties
> about China, low public approval and aren't able to
> recognize that they
> screwed up.
I just love a list of non-sequiturs.
In order: you don't support the military in the
first place, but suddenly you're worried about
recruitment goals, you think that North
Korea is entitled to have nuclear weapons
because it feels "threatened" by the U.S.,
you've long supported China (still Marxist
enough for you, I guess), and you jump after
polls like they were principle -- indicating
that your relationship with principle is
less stable than your relationship with
reality, but don't worry, the latter has
a habit of catching up with the former.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
> This is the definition of a fiasco. Anyone in the future
> looking back while
> ask "how could they not have known?" Especially given all
> the warnings that
> experts gave (routinely dismissed as being pessimism),
> historians will be
> asking how could a major power have blundered so badly,
> even as the world
> made clear this was a dangerous act (lack of UN approval,
> etc.)
Placed anywhere in the context of military history,
Iraq is so far from being a fiasco that in
relationship to a real fiasco it's already
a success. Yes, we want a stable functioning
reasonably democratic civil society in Iraq.
Scott wants to look away from the progress
made in that direction and focus on the
car bombers. That's how much Scott hates
the U.S. and by extension the people of
Iraq. He demands failure and a return to...
what? Ten times as much death at the hands
of murderers, all to satisfy an ego so small
that if you look at it long enough it
disappears.
Kurt Nicklas
>
>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Scott Erb"
><scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>There is a lot of good material in the article, but this point -- that this
>>was a war driven by the civilians (so called 'chickenhawks') and not by
>>military leaders -- is one of the biggest reasons for the errors that led to
>>what will be known as a mistake perhaps greater than Vietnam.
>
>That's not true.
>
>In Vietnam USA has failed to provide political solution to the South
>Vietnamese that they would see as legitimate.
>
>It was not a military failure. It was political failure, and indeed
>without viable policy military alone can't work.
>
>>In short, we had over-confident civilians dismissing the ideas of
>>experienced military leaders, and the result...well, we see it.
>
>War is too important to leave it up to generals. It's primarily
>about political goals of society. That means civilians.
>
>Naturally, military and war do not establish political goals. They
>serve them. Dismissing that fundamental distinction to
>produce sophisms about 'chickenhawks' is dishonest and
>misses the point.
Check out 'A Better War' by Lewis Sorley
--
Kurt Nicklas
"Why isn't Fallwell(sic) dead anyway?"
---Milton F. Brewster (mil...@sonic.net)
Martin McPhillips
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:48:10 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>But the plan from the beginning was to use a smaller
>>force, creating a much smaller force and logistical
>>footprint and hand the reins to a new Iraqi government
>>and military as soon as possible. We're just over two
>>years into that process, and the net achievement of
>>the Saddam loyalists/al Qaeda gang is blowing up
>>car bombs and killing Iraqis. It looks much uglier
>>than it is, but then the insurgents have the help
>>of the Left and the Western media, which counsel
>>defeat at any opportunity.
>
> This is internationale of collectivist, both in the
> Islamic
> world and in the Western world vs classical-liberal
> democrats crowd, in USA, Europeand Middle East.
That's exactly what it is. The big joke of course
is that the Islamists would be perfectly happy
to kill each and every Leftist now helping them
when they are no longer of any use. The Left
has long had a death wish that inhabits the
"light" of its utopian ideals. Death is just
all right with them, as long as it prevents the
ascendency of the classical-liberal capitalist
world view.
> This is the global conflict of political camps, not
> "war against terror".
It's both. It's a two-front war, with multiple
battlefields.
Kurt Nicklas
Erb says...
>
>
>"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
>news:d8mb6...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <zkqre.950035$w62.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Scott
>> Erb says...
>
>> >Whether or not people hate is irrelevant, that is not an argument about
>> >policy.
>>
>> It is an analysis about why people like *you* oppose our policy in Iraq,
>> therefore it IS an argument about policy *here*.
>
>No it isn't. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and nothing you
>presented had any relation to me or my opinion.
As someone who has blamed the US for terrorism it is very much about you and
your beliefs about our policy.
>In short, you had nothing. When one can't defend ones' view, one simply
>attacks the other side personally. That is an admission of defeat on your
>part. Can you defend the policy itself?
I've been defending the policy. You pathetic attempt to create a straw man and
try to knock it down may work in your classrooms but you'll get called on it
here.
>-snip-
>At this point I'm willing to let history judge our intervention -- it is
>already being considered a major fiasco, and I'm positive history will
>record accurately the causes and consequences of this poor decision. The
>scholars now are writing and researching. So I don't really worry so much
>about anyone defending that decision, I don't think you can. I'm more
>concerned about saying, "OK, right or wrong, we're stuck in Iraq now. What
>next? Where do we go from here?"
>
>Your answer at this point:
>
>> Kill more terrorists.
>
>That's pretty vague.
No, death is pretty specific, actually.
>Terrorism is a strategy, so no one is a terrorist
>until they adopt that strategy. It's not like an ethnic group or national
>army where people have that as part of their identity. Killing more people
>in an effort to kill more terrorists often has the opposite effect, it leads
>more people to anger against the outside power, and to join the insurgency.
Not necessarily.
>>Give Iraq a shot at a better government than they've
>had
>> before and it's people a better life.
>
>Well, gee, everyone wants that. But what is happening now is making many
>Iraqis worse off than under Saddam. We obviously need to do something
>different.
No, it's only "obvious" to Chamberlainesque people like you. You simply say that
without any support whatever. You've been against attacking terrorists from the
beginning and even now you can't really defend your position with anything but
'I know some people who...'.
>>Withdraw most US troops when it's
>safe,
>> but who knows when that will be...we still have troops in Germany, Japan
>and
>> Korea.
-snip-
>This is a very difficult
>position for American foreign policy, and vague, "stay until it's safe, kill
>terrorists, make Iraq a better place" is just silly talk, devoid of
>substance.
In fact, staying the course worked quite well in Europe.
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> From Iraq USA can dominate any particular area of
>> entire Middle East IF IT NEEDS TO.
>I doubt it. We don't even have Iraq under control, and the military is
>already over-stretched and support at home is crumbling.
US Army has pulled out of Germany. Maybe more restructurization
should be done, and it is pretty normal in every big organization
that nothing is done until it is absolutelly unavoidable that smth
has to be done about a problem.
Military in Vietnam was not "overstretched". It dumped more
ammunition on enemy than during the entire WWII.
The military in Vietnam was mis-handled, by Johnson and
Co. telling the generals HOW to run the war, which obviously
backfired.
They should have told them WHAT to achieve, not how. That
on top of viable political strategy has failed the war.
I would say about war-weariness rather than overstretching
military - overstretching to what? Deal with IEDs exploding
and killing Wolf Brigade members?
War weariness is a problem, true.
>Iraq was EASY
>compared to other countries. I don't think the American people will support
>expanding this, nor do I think we have the capacity to do so; in fact, I
>think Iran is coming out ahead in Iraq by cleverly manipulating the
>political situation.
Now think how easy would it be for Iran to manipulate the situation
had US Army NOT been present in Iraq.
>>Iraq has become
>> sort of unsinkable aircraft carrier for USA. Or, if you
>> will, the police station in the middle of the town.
>Well, only an aircraft carrier on fire, unable to launch planes, and in
>danger of running aground.
Oh come on, that is just emotional.
Sure, US Army may not be able to protect all 18 million soft
targets in Iraq.
That doesn't mean it's unable to strike anywhere it
wants from Iraq. That is all that is necessary to play
its usual role of the cop. The cop doesn't have to
have the arrest cells numerous enough to fit the
population of the whole town.
>If some kind of government is formed, it will
>both likely fall into civil war, and order the US out of the country.
Excuse me? US Army has trounced organized army of Hussein
without even breathing hard, and Hussein's army however
poor, was at least organized -- so US Army is supposed to
have trouble with ad-hoc organized units that would be even
weaker than everything Hussein could let loose?
Now if you mean terrorists exploding IEDs, that's another story.
Democracy in Iraq will be restarted until it works, so long
as US Marines are breathing on the necks of everyone there.
Sunnis are troublemakers because they are afraid of what
Shia-dominated govt could bring them, not of US Army
directly.
Unlike in Vietnam, there is a workable political potential
there. It's not true there is no 'exit strategy' from Iraq.
There is one: nobody there wants to start civil war
for serious, because they would be instantly squashed
by Americans and they know that. There probably
is room for compromise, too, so as long as Americans
keep inflicting pressure, it can eventually be made to
work.
This is precisely why bombs keep exploding in Iraq:
not to let it happen.
The terrorists - not freedom fighters, there are no people
fighting for freedom there - try to delay that and undermine
deals, because they can't win in an open confrontation. In
Fallujah they learned what trying that means.
>> But hey, what is guaranteed for sure in politics at all?
>I think the evidence is that this is not working at all, and that the US
>does not have the capacity to use the situation in the manner you suggest.
Excuse me? Even some leftists admit that:
http://b00mb0x.org/blog/001352.html
Shortly: Cedar Revolution, elections in Iraq, Saudis loosening it
up, Palestinian elections after the demise of this wretched
power addict Arafat.
Sure, it ain't Grand Democratic Revolution. But the trend of
tyrannies growing and democracies receding has been reversed.
>Perhaps if there was an entire world wide effort with western agreement and
>shared responsibility the chances would improve, but the US is in a
>precarious position, probably weaker than any time since the seventies
>(since the limitations of our military power are shown -- even Iraq is
>stretching the military, and it is not under control).
You deal with what you have.
If the Western Europe chooses to self-destructively ally itself with
militant Islam in order to buy some fictional peace - we the
Europeans really lost our collective marbles in this regard - that is
a problem US can do nothing about, so Bush has to deal with it
almost alone, with help of Blair basically and a rag-tag
coalition of small countries like mine, which are political fig-leaf
rather than real military help, however glad we are to contribute
what we can.
The soldiers from my country died in Iraq, too. It's not over
a thousand soldiers like those of Americans, as our contingent
is much smaller. But we lost some of our men there as well. You
think this did not dent the support for our involvement in Iraq?
You bet it did.
A few Europeans here and there are in disagreement, but
most have become cowardly, selfish and nihilistic bastards,
while hypocritically preaching they are good, because they're
for "peace" after all.
Our foreign minister before WWII has said - "Peace? We
are for peace, but not for peace at any cost". Read this:
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html
I am ashamed for hollowness and petty-mindedness of my continent.
>Of course, I hope democracy suddenly takes hold, and reforms spread. But
>frankly, looking at Saudi Arabia (that's an anachronistic regime doomed to
>fail in the not too distant future), Iran, unrest in Egypt, Syria...I don't
>know if our presence does any good, and could infact (as is often the case
>when foreign powers intervene) actually help the extremists by giving them a
>convenient enemy upon whom to blame problems (thereby distracting people
>from blaming their own corrupt governments).
They hate USA and liberal democracy in general anyway.
So why bother? You can't bribe the enemy to love you. If you can't
get them on your side, you have to kill them - Machiavelli. Don't
leave a wounded enemy behind your backs. Clinton did that
and look what results that brought.
>We'll see...and I do
>appreciate that you developed a coherent argument allowing strong
>disagreement without personal animosity (rare on the usenet). And I agree
>on one thing: there is no guarantee.
I'm happy to have some interesting exchange, too.
Martin McPhillips
>
> OK...so we leave and just wait for the internal dynamics
> of the region to
> settle down, or do we stay involved while all this
> happens? Do you think
> our presence in Iraq makes a good result more or less
> likely?
Gosh, Scott, that's such a tough one. You must
be a professor, or something. Let's see: Do you
think our presence in Germany after WWII made
a good result more or less likely?
Take your time before answering.
Martin McPhillips
>
> But...the insurgency is morphing into a Sunni movement
> bent on preventing
> Shi'ite control of Iraq, especially the oil regions.
Scott, the Shi'a represent the vast majority of
Iraqis; they have already entered into a governing
coalition with the Kurds (who are Sunnis, by the
way). So you are left with an Arab Sunni minority that
has the choice of joining the government or
joining the insurgents. One gets them a place
at the table; the other gets them an al fresco
luncheon with death.
You've never prayed for anything but the
luncheon with death, on the simple premise
that your girly-man "policy recommendations"
were never paid attention to.
Don't kid yourself, Scott: you want disaster
here because...
> There is a personality type which thinks that admitting
> error somehow
> weakens one, and as long as you keep the illusion of not
> doubting yourself,
> you'll be more powerful.
You'll be much more "powerful," Scott, with every
passing car bomb. Chaos and death, as long as
it keeps up, will keep you from "admitting error"
that "somehow weakens" you.
Scott Erb
> >No it isn't. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and nothing you
> >presented had any relation to me or my opinion.
>
> As someone who has blamed the US for terrorism it is very much about you
and
> your beliefs about our policy.
You have lost all pretense of rational discourse, you are simply stating
lies and trying to use emotionalism.
You are admitting defeat.
> >In short, you had nothing. When one can't defend ones' view, one simply
> >attacks the other side personally. That is an admission of defeat on
your
> >part. Can you defend the policy itself?
>
> I've been defending the policy. You pathetic attempt to create a straw man
and
> try to knock it down may work in your classrooms but you'll get called on
it
> here.
Here you don't have any substance, you just make a little insult. Again,
nothing.
> >-snip-
>
> >At this point I'm willing to let history judge our intervention -- it is
> >already being considered a major fiasco, and I'm positive history will
> >record accurately the causes and consequences of this poor decision. The
> >scholars now are writing and researching. So I don't really worry so
much
> >about anyone defending that decision, I don't think you can. I'm more
> >concerned about saying, "OK, right or wrong, we're stuck in Iraq now.
What
> >next? Where do we go from here?"
> >
> >Your answer at this point:
> >
> >> Kill more terrorists.
> >
> >That's pretty vague.
>
> No, death is pretty specific, actually.
Saying to kill terrorists is vague without defining what you mean by
terrorists (who precisely -- you need to know how to determine who to kill),
and what methods would be used.
> >Terrorism is a strategy, so no one is a terrorist
> >until they adopt that strategy. It's not like an ethnic group or
national
> >army where people have that as part of their identity. Killing more
people
> >in an effort to kill more terrorists often has the opposite effect, it
leads
> >more people to anger against the outside power, and to join the
insurgency.
>
> Not necessarily.
Historically it is likely.
> >>Give Iraq a shot at a better government than they've
> >had
> >> before and it's people a better life.
> >
> >Well, gee, everyone wants that. But what is happening now is making many
> >Iraqis worse off than under Saddam. We obviously need to do something
> >different.
>
> No, it's only "obvious" to Chamberlainesque people like you. You simply
say that
> without any support whatever.
I've made a strong case. And its a case being made by people all over the
political spectrum, very few seem to think the war is going well, or that it
was worthwhile. You seem to, but you don't give any reason for your view,
and you feel compelled to call me names when I disagree. Perhaps I touch a
nerve in pointing out the problems in the current policy? Does making
insults give you satisfaction?
> >This is a very difficult
> >position for American foreign policy, and vague, "stay until it's safe,
kill
> >terrorists, make Iraq a better place" is just silly talk, devoid of
> >substance.
>
> In fact, staying the course worked quite well in Europe.
Trying to compare Iraq to Europe is funny. But you can't defend the policy
on its own terms, you are simply grasping at straws. Time will tell, but
so far my predictions have been coming true, and those who favored the war
are being proven wrong. Reality bites.
Martin McPhillips
>
> I've made a strong case.
You've made a strong case that you should be
removed from the classroom, but that was
settled years ago.
You've been the batting practice pitcher
since then.
Bulba!
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
>news:1smta19vqovq5aucp...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:54:35 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Terrorism is a very serious problem that we'll have to combat
>> >for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> It's not about terrorism. Terrorism has been here since beginning
>> of time, it is a TACTIC, not a POLICY.
>
>Yes, it is a tactic, or even a strategy. The US needs a counter-terrorism
>strategy (which would mix political, diplomatic, and military aspects).
In the technical sense, perhaps; I'm not disagreeing with it.
Nevertheless, I think you have missed the political point: terrorists
have purely political goals, too. They don't kill at random. They kill
to achieve goals. And those political goals are the main thing to be
defeated.
>> This is about the goals of those maniacs, whether they
>> fight using terrorist means or military means or other
>> means.
>They clearly use whatever strategy they think most effective. Their goals
>are: a) to expand their support. That is important to them, since in
>reality, most people in the Mideast are enticed by modernism and even
>western ideas. They need to somehow demonize the West and western
>influence. b) to weaken the US and West in general. Oil is potentially
>their most powerful weapon, if they can disrupt Saudi Arabian oil, or
>destabilize the region (and thus destabilize the world economy). Bin Laden
>himself said that the western economy was the target of 9-11. Militarily
>they can't accomplish much, so they will likely use terrorist and other
>kinds of unconventional tactics.
Absolutely. I'm in full agreement on this.
>> The link between terrorism and Iraq is the link between Taliban
>> and the oil in Iraq on which the Muslims sit.
>I don't understand that sentence. Can you explain what you mean?
Sorry, I did not write it very clearly: what I meant was that
Iraq contains the economic means that Taliban needed
and the Islamic population to support the cause.
Saying "there is no link between Iraq / Hussein and Al Qaeda"
is false. There may have been no support of Hussein for
Al Qaeda. But that is missing the point of political goals
of Al Qaeda: it needs Iraq, with its Islam and its oil, even
more than it needed Afghanistan.
>> The only role that Hussein played in this link was to
>> be a target of hostility of both real sides in this
>> conflict.
>>
>> Sooner or later Hussein would be done over by either
>> party, either by Americans or by jihadis.
>Actually, he probably could have kept the jihadists at bay given the nature
>of the system. His biggest threat (other than America) remained an internal
>coup or ill health.
He was supposedly losing his grip on power. Close to kicking the
bucket politically. Whether somebody would "help" him on the
way out or not is not really relevant, as again, Hussein himself
was not very important - Iraq was.
He maybe would be able to hold on for several years more. But
then what? Iraq would be up for grabs for anyone around.
>> Hussein is almost entirely irrelevant in this picture. He
>> was merely an obstacle that had to be removed.
>I think he was irrelevant by 2003, and with a weakened Saddam in power,
>strong enough to keep the "Jihadists" at bay but not strong enough to
>threaten his neighbors, the US could have worked to undercut support for the
>extremists (which again, absent anger at the US isn't all that intense) and
>help set up a post-Saddam era. We could have contained him, waited him out,
>and then dealt with a more stable situation.
USA was waiting for the situation to "stabilize" for last 50 years.
It seems like this is the road to nowhere.
Bush's speechwriters clearly got the instructions from their
superiors to signal the change in course:
---
Bush introduced his new policy of exporting democracy with a stinging
critique of past American policy: "Decades of excusing and
accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to
injustice and tragedy."
---
http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/20/aussenpolitik_englisch
For some time after the WWII, the stability doctrine,
of waiting it out, might have seemed to work: the
post-WWII was bascially frozen in two big opposed
blocks, gathered around Soviet Union and USA/NATO.
But that's over. Your approach looks nice, but does
it really work?
>Now Iraq is likely to veer off
>into civil war, and at this point the "jihadists" as you call them have
>benefited from the events.
The dynamic situation is harder to handle, true. It requires
rapid reactions and no easy solutions are there.
Nevertheless, if sitting there and waiting makes things
only worse, maybe there is no option but that to try it.
>> >Actually, you are mixing issues. Iraq is not part of the war on
>terrorism,
>>
>> It is. In this particular situation Islam in its radical mutation is
>> terrorism and terrorism is Islam.
>Islamic extremists are a minority of Muslims, and in Iraq they were a vast
>minority (though they are growing).
Islamic extremists are the active core of Islam. The rest of people
who are nominally Muslims are simply passive or not very involved.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy guarantees that no more than 5% of
society at all times calls the shots. In Islam that 5% is precisely
the fanatic one. The rest are merely sheep that follow.
>Fundamentalists like Sistani and even
>Sadr are not about attacking the West, but about creating their own little
>Islamic worlds.
Which is antithetical to the Western way of life and Western ideas.
The conflict has to spill out. There's no way around it. The two
can't coexist in the world, as people from either camp will
start moving into the other one, most likely the Arabs start
leaving their culture, because the Western way of life is simply
more attractive.
That means that the former camp simply has to react with
violence. They won't even close themselves up peacefully
into autarky, as this merely restarts the degradation process of
their culture - check the Iranian dissidents and young people
shouting anti-Islamic obscenities and burning Korans.
This is unstable situation. So the theocrats HAVE TO create
unrest. Nothing else could chill the population into obedience.
They have to keep them threatened by something, whatever
it is.
This means continuing acts of terror.
>By intervening, we are being an ally to the extremists, we
>are helping them recruit, helping them inspire hatred of America, and in so
>doing spreading our military thin and weakening our economy.
Initially, it does mobilize the extremists.
Thankfully. Now this 5% needs to be drawn into Iraq and killed.
Over 40% of suicide bombers in Iraq are found to be Saudis.
This allows us to erode the hard-core of theocracy supporters and
keeping them occupied, while simultaneously keeping pressure on
the theocratic govts to allow their populations to be mutinous
and ever more demanding.
Hey, here we managed to subvert the Soviet Union. We have
experience with such jobs. Don't fuck with us or else we'll make
your system collapse from within. ;-)
>We are
>fighting their battle for them, by making lousy decisions. In this case, we
>are our own worst enemies (we as in our government).
I disagree - those maniacs would be occupied and recruited elsewhere.
To stage more Madrids and more twin towers.
If they want to be recruited, they will be recruited. If you want to
be a rebel, you'll find the cause. All that Iraq could have done
to them was passing the 'threshold' for action sooner. Potential
terrorists were activated earlier and went elsewhere they would
otherwise go - that's all.
And so, it's either them having the initiative or it's us.
>> That doesn't change where the main opposition to this whole thing
>> comes from: the left, intrusive collectivists - who don't mind Islam
>> in spite of its inherent intolerance against everyone, esp. gays
>> and women, because Islam is COLLECTIVIST.
>Most religions are collectivist.
But few put the emphasis on total submission to God in every
possible way:
http://www.opendemocracy.org/democracy-turkey/article_679.jsp
>I don't like organized religion of any
>kind (here are my views: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm)
Interesting, I'm reading it.
>As
>for collectivism...well, most political ideologies have some kind of
>collectivist aspect, since we're talking about communities. Clearly
>American conservatives worried about the family and television content, or
>drug abuse, are being collectivist in their approach.
Oh absolutely! This is the paranoia of human mind. I don't know
if it's rational or not. It's obvious that extrapolating such
tendencies into culture carries great risk of turning it all
into nonsensical cargo-cultism, there's a great risk of error.
Nevertheless, we can't really afford not doing it... We have
to adopt SOME view on it.
>But we did have him defanged, confined and contained. I think that option
>was safer, this option is proving very costly, and may affect US political
>stability if it lingers on (much like how Vietnam was popular early on, and
>communism then seemed as dangerous to people as Islamic extremism does now).
It's dealing with a different sort of enemy. Islam is not organized
like communism was after all.
>> It got it one huge benefit: now USA has a big base in the Middle East
>> that is independent of whims of Saudi Arabia.
>I think that's actually not a benefit, since the "base" is even too small to
>control Iraq, and we'll probably have to leave as soon as Iraq is somewhat
>stable. And our continued presence might actually aid terrorists in
>stirring up anti-American hatred.
If Americans do not behave politically like elephant in china store
there by taking away freedom of speech for instance, I don't see
why that should create resentment in general population.
Now, maniacs are another matter: activating them is a bug,
not feature. There is no neat, Hollywood-style way of dealing
with them. This will be messy. But it's better to kill them
than allow them to form their traditional 'heart of darkness' that
feeds theocracy.
Kill that core without alienating the population, you kill theocracy.
>The best path is defeat the terrorists by
>winning over the people.
That won't work.
Keynes: little but ideas control practical men. And Muslims
have no other organizing principle but adhering to God,
as Roger Scruton observed.
You have to give them other organizing principles while
not allowing theocracy to arise. The rest will be done
by simple selfishness, hedonism and attractiveness
of secularist lifestyle.
They can't allow it to happen. That is why gangs of
Muslim teenagers in Paris rape or burn alive the
Arab girls that decided to dress European style. They
can't allow defections from their culture.
>That's still very do-able because so few Muslims
>really believe the extremist creed.
That is completely irrelevant.
In any society at all times at least 95% of people are
completely passive. They are sheep.
Sheep are irrelevant in this picture. Sheep do nothing.
>But when we show military intervention,
>violence, violation of human rights, etc., it arouses anger and benefits
>those jihadists who really do want to destroy the West, or at least
>eliminate us from the region.
Good - draw them out from their holes and kill them.
The truly sheepish ones will be passive. With time, some
of the sheep will become followers of other principles
than those of Islam.
>We agree on the threat, I just think the
>tactics we're using actually increase the threat level, rather than decrease
>it.
I am not absolutely sure what I think works actually works. But I am
reasonably certain that what you propose can't work.
Appeasement gets you nowhere with maniacs. You have to
be careful not to hurt the truly moderate people, though.
>> Perhaps the military should be increased and/or restructured
>> if it is to meet the security needs that are there to prevent
>> more carnage like 9/11 from becoming.
>But recruitment is done, support for US efforts is lagging. Remember,
>foreign policy in a democracy requires maintaining support. Otherwise,
>policies become untenable from within.
True. This is a risk. However, I don't think Bush has any other
option really.
>> But have you asked yourself what would be the cost of NOT
>> doing it?
>I think not going to Iraq would have had few costs, and other policies could
>have had many more benefits.
Yeah - police state in USA!
NO THANKS!
The people want to be safe at all costs. If you can't finish the
terrorists off, they will de facto authorize sacrificing all of
the civil liberties for sake of feeling safe, even if that safety
were entirely illusional!
I am so happy to see pictures like this:
http://img254.echo.cx/img254/7098/faasposter0hw.jpg
This means more people are getting sick with infringement
on civil liberties. The more we see stuff like that, the
less the people support the police state. This indirectly
helps support for war, because there isn't any other option.
The Bush administration would do good to actually highlight
more the need for respecting the civil liberties at home.
This would both kill the carefully designed outrage
of the Dems - notice how they became Constitution
thumpers recently? - it's comical! - as well as support
long term objectives of war.
Yes, it would get a bit in the way of Homeland Security
and stuff, but hey, it's a tradeoff.
>I am absolutely convinced we are watching a
>fiasco unfold, and from what I read, that is becoming the conventional
>wisdom in Washington too.
This has happened before. The conventional wisdom is often
very dimwitted. This may be crisis of intelligence in Washington
more than that of military in Iraq.
Have you seen "Team America: World Police"?
The computer called INTELLIGENCE was blown up along
with HQ.
The Team America reports: "We've lost Intelligence! I
repeat: we have no Inteligence!"
>I think terrorism will be easier to defang, and
>Islamic extremism easier to marginalize and ultimately render impotent, when
>military conflict and American military presence in the region ceases.
It would be first bombing of WTC and then them finishing the
job and Madrid all over.
Huntington may have a point.
Gary DeWaay
> Gary DeWaay wrote:
> > Scott Erb's at scot...@worldnet.att.net wisdom:
> >
> >
> >
> >>So, in an effort to engage the thoughtful side of the "right" (e.g., no
> >>Danas, funny pages characters and the like), my question is this: for those
> >>who both supported the decision to go to war, perhaps thinking this would
> >>re-shape the region, and those opposed it, what should be done now? I'll
> >>make the question more difficult (especially for war critics): what should
> >>be done now that is realistic and feasible given the political climate and
> >>the current administration? They certainly recognize it as a mistake, but
> >>they aren't about to say so bluntly.
> >>
> >>So, what now?
> >
> > Personally I'd tell Iraq they have two years to get their shit together,
> > and then we are pulling out NO MATTER WHAT, sink or swim; and will only
> > contribute monetarily to their strife.
>
> Two years? Impossibly long, who'd trust that? Not that anyone
> would trust the Bush Admin anyway but....
Exactly, so what difference does it make? At least that way if we do pull
out in the two year timeline, we could save some face.
And that's probably
> the biggest problem they're up against. Immediate withdrawal of
> 50,000 and a six month (year at the outside) timetable for the
> rest and there might be real political room.
Withdrawing immediately while the Iraqi's aren't anywhere near ready to
control and secure their country would be a disaster. With a set timeline,
the Iraqi's at least have something to shoot for, and can shoulder part of
the responsibility of how it ends up. Right now, it's just us occupying
their country and calling all the shots. We look like bully's stealing
their oil. It's why half the world hates us.
But if we abandon them now, it will be worse because the chaos that would
result from it would be all on OUR shoulders. Giving them a two year drop
dead date at least let's the blame be shared.
But we're WAY
> outside the "realistic" or "feasible" given the current lunatics
> in Washington.
This is really a discussion for what the NEXT President should do, because
there is no fucking way in hell Bush is leaving while there is a chance
for civil war (which is inevitable... but he is too far into denial to
figure it out.)
He's not leaving until he's the hero. It aint happening.
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
Bulba!
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> This is internationale of collectivist, both in the
>> Islamic
>> world and in the Western world vs classical-liberal
>> democrats crowd, in USA, Europeand Middle East.
>That's exactly what it is. The big joke of course
>is that the Islamists would be perfectly happy
>to kill each and every Leftist now helping them
>when they are no longer of any use.
Heard of Marla 'Cuba is the greatest place' Ruzicka
being blown up in Iraq? And her links with Global
Exchange?
She got blown up by the very same people she
supported. :-) And that bullshit about her caring
for civilian victims of war - yeah right!!! She was
on the mission of Spin Doctoring the killed
people into the victims of Atrocities of Enemy
Army of USA(tm)!
I think the bitch roasts in hell or at least
in purgatory for being classical Leninist Useful
Idiot.
>The Left
>has long had a death wish that inhabits the
>"light" of its utopian ideals. Death is just
>all right with them, as long as it prevents the
>ascendency of the classical-liberal capitalist
>world view.
Somebody horrified called that gloating about
deaths in Iraq serving the sole purpose of
undermining Bush as "jackals' morality".
It's a Heart of Darkness, I tell you...
>> This is the global conflict of political camps, not
>> "war against terror".
>It's both. It's a two-front war, with multiple
>battlefields.
Well, yeah, in the technical sense we're definitely
dealing with terrorists.
What matters to me is the underlying political
conflict that powers it all, not this or that
tactics. This point has to be more stressed
IMHO, as all that we see in media is mindless
journalists focusing on symptoms - terror,
bomb, kidnapping, bomb - instead of looking
at the forces that power it all.
Gary DeWaay
> >
> > Kinda defangs the insurgents motives, and let's us have an actual exit
> > strategy while saving billions of dollars, and thousands of our soldiers
> > lives.
>
> But...the insurgency is morphing into a Sunni movement bent on preventing
> Shi'ite control of Iraq, especially the oil regions. If we say "in two
> years we'll be out," we'll be setting up a civil war.
Civil war has always been inevitable, but at least they would be partly
responsible for it... and plus, if they don't think they are ready, a
negotiated extended timeline would make us look more like the good guys.
That said, your idea
> may be the best amongst a lot of bad alternatives out there. It could also
> hurt troop morale if they know they're going, and they aren't accomplishing
> anything.
The troops have been lied to for so long, I'd think a reasonable exit date
and a reasonable explanation why we are leaving ("there was no reason to
occupy Germany after we helped rebuild it.. your job is done" fer
instance) would be cherished.
I see your point, but I am leaning towards a quicker withdrawal,
> but that has its problems. I once thought that Saudi Arabia and Islamic
> countries could provide some stability, but they are likely to side with
> Sunnis in a civil war, and that could expand the problem. So maybe your
> approach is best...
Bulba!
wrote:
>Check out 'A Better War' by Lewis Sorley
Thanks, it looks interesting.
Toby
>
> Some call it "democratic domino theory" and claim it is simplistic.
>
> There is some truth to such argument I think. This doesn't
> have to work.
It is probably as ridiculous as the "Communist Domino Theory" was in SE Asia
that led to the US involvement there.
Funny, we left Vietnam, but I don't notice that Thailand and Malaysia and
Indonesia and the the Philippines went commie...
Toby
Toby
> The military in Vietnam was mis-handled, by Johnson and
> Co. telling the generals HOW to run the war, which obviously
> backfired.
Read Neil Sheehan's "A Bright and Shining Lie" to see how the top military
brass actually misled the President and the Pentagon as to the progress of
the war and the popular sentiment in Vietnam itself--very similar to what is
happening now.
Toby
Toby
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:48:10 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>But the plan from the beginning was to use a smaller
>>force, creating a much smaller force and logistical
>>footprint and hand the reins to a new Iraqi government
>>and military as soon as possible. We're just over two
>>years into that process, and the net achievement of
>>the Saddam loyalists/al Qaeda gang is blowing up
>>car bombs and killing Iraqis. It looks much uglier
>>than it is, but then the insurgents have the help
>>of the Left and the Western media, which counsel
>>defeat at any opportunity.
I think it must be pretty ugly to the common Iraqi. For you it is not so
ugly--you need only turn the other way. This is the same tired excuse used
during Vietnam: any domestic dissent is helping the enemy. So you obviously
don't believe in freedom of speech?
>
> This is internationale of collectivist, both in the Islamic
> world and in the Western world vs classical-liberal
> democrats crowd, in USA, Europeand Middle East.
>
> This is the global conflict of political camps, not
> "war against terror".
It is about control of scarce resources.
Toby
Bulba!
>Read Neil Sheehan's "A Bright and Shining Lie" to see how the top military
>brass actually misled the President and the Pentagon as to the progress of
>the war and the popular sentiment in Vietnam itself--very similar to what is
>happening now.
Bad brass! Bad!
Yes, we know that you have usual knee-jerk reflex, Toby.
The President Johnson himself actually lied about gunboats
supposedly attacking the American Navy ships in the Tonkin
bay - that didn't happen. I read that in "Liberty", can't remember
the issue no.
I realize all that perfectly, Toby, but you see, I am entirely
cynical about words of politicians and even generals - what
matters to me are the actual interests, the causes, and
naturally, effects of this thing on liberty.
So, no, I am not outraged at all by this lie or by current
Downinng St. memos you lefties so crazily scream about
now thinking than anybody but you gives a shit. Interests,
actions and effects matter, not words.
Frankly, with you leftists around no word of truth can be
even squeaked by politicians in public. It's like trying
to explain to a kid that, sorry, you can't have that toy.
Rational arguments that Dad can't afford it are not going
to work, so Dad must be a little bit "diplomatic" with
the truth. It's ugly, but necessary I think.
Bulba!
>It is probably as ridiculous as the "Communist Domino Theory" was in SE Asia
>that led to the US involvement there.
Are you going to beat the Hitchens' parrot here?
Toby
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:50:23 +0900, "Toby" <zdft...@gool.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott has basically made all my points, and done so in a quite exemplary
>>manner.
>
> He's wrong.
In your view. If had to choose between the expert advice of the former
commander of all ME forces and some minor system analysis in Poland do you
know which one I would listen to?
>
>>Check this guy out. Is he a partisan, president and military hater?
>
> No, he's mistaken about _policy_.
Ditto to the above.
>
> His job is not to settle down the policy and he clearly doesn't
> understand that:
That's why Bush sent him to the ME in the first place.
>
>>Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want - but it was a war
>>the civilians wanted.
>
>>"I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
>>situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
>>no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him," says Zinni.
>
> God Almighty protect us against generals who think that THEY
> should decide what wars are wanted and which are not wanted!!!
No, in fact--in case you have forgotten--only Congress can declare war.
>
> Are generals supposed to serve and tell society to which wars
> we go and to which we don't or the other way around?!
>
> The military is not in the business of working out policy
> objectives!
>
> It's job is to shut up and implement what it is TOLD,
> ORDERED to do, in the process merely reporting what is
> possible or impossible and what is needed to meet the
> goal!
Which is what he and Shinseki were trying to do.
Toby
Toby
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:50:47 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>There is a lot of good material in the article, but this point -- that
>>this
>>was a war driven by the civilians (so called 'chickenhawks') and not by
>>military leaders -- is one of the biggest reasons for the errors that led
>>to
>>what will be known as a mistake perhaps greater than Vietnam.
>
> That's not true.
>
> In Vietnam USA has failed to provide political solution to the South
> Vietnamese that they would see as legitimate.
>
> It was not a military failure. It was political failure, and indeed
> without viable policy military alone can't work.
Then you do not see the present situation in Iraq as a political failure? It
is certainly not a military failure.
Toby
Toby
>
> Naturally, military and war do not establish political goals. They
> serve them. Dismissing that fundamental distinction to
> produce sophisms about 'chickenhawks' is dishonest and
> misses the point.
You should have a look at Philip Bobbitt's "The Shield of Achilles: War,
Peace and the Course of History." His thesis is the exact opposite, that
fundamentally the State evolves as a response to changes in military
capability, strategy and tactic. Since he is a professor of constitutional
law, history, as well as a senior director of the NSA, I tend to find his
agruments a bit more persuasive and well-founded than yours.
Toby
Bulba!
>I think it must be pretty ugly to the common Iraqi. For you it is not so
>ugly--you need only turn the other way.
Unless you've lived under the tyranny, I think I have better
room for comparison in this regard.
>This is the same tired excuse used
>during Vietnam: any domestic dissent is helping the enemy. So you obviously
>don't believe in freedom of speech?
That paragraph to which you respond was not written
by me actually.
Re freedom of speech, anyway: there's this piece
by Metallica, "Free Speech For The Dumb", which
says it all. In general and for some people it is worth
a lot, but some people unable to accept ugly facts
of life actually waste it.
>> This is internationale of collectivist, both in the Islamic
>> world and in the Western world vs classical-liberal
>> democrats crowd, in USA, Europeand Middle East.
>> This is the global conflict of political camps, not
>> "war against terror".
>It is about control of scarce resources.
More conspiracy theories, Toby?
The scarce resources are there as well in Nigeria
and Venezuela for instance. They would be much
easier to snatch and keep for Bush than the
volatile Middle East country.
You may not have noticed, but the two countries
Bush invaded recently ave this sort of, well,
religion in there that somehow is prone to establishing
itself as a system of government.
What kind of scarce resources do you find in
Afghanistan, Toby?
Again: the only consideration for oil in Iraq
Bush probably had was not allowing it to fall
into Al Qaeda's hands. Which is a pretty good
objective.
Bulba!
>>>Scott has basically made all my points, and done so in a quite exemplary
>>>manner.
>>
>> He's wrong.
>
>In your view.
Toby always running away to dreamworld I see. It's all just
an opinion. We can hold all sorts of them, facts and logic
be damned.
> If had to choose between the expert advice of the former
>commander of all ME forces and some minor system analysis in Poland do you
>know which one I would listen to?
I explained to you why: because he's a soldier and he has a soldier's
perspective. Not that of a politician or a citizen.
He certainly is worth listening to on the issue of HOW to run
the war. But not on the issue of WHY to run the war.
I thought I explained that clearly. Yet in futile hope of changing
the conclusion you abuse that principle.
>>>Check this guy out. Is he a partisan, president and military hater?
>> No, he's mistaken about _policy_.
>Ditto to the above.
You have not answered to the challenge: IS HE A POLITICIAN?
He is a military commander - I don't negate that. But that
is not the point here.
>> His job is not to settle down the policy and he clearly doesn't
>> understand that:
>That's why Bush sent him to the ME in the first place.
No, Bush sent him there to IMPLEMENT policy.
Not to ESTABLISH THE POLITICAL GOALS of this whole thing.
>>>Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want - but it was a war
>>>the civilians wanted.
>>
>>>"I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
>>>situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
>>>no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him," says Zinni.
>>
>> God Almighty protect us against generals who think that THEY
>> should decide what wars are wanted and which are not wanted!!!
>No, in fact--in case you have forgotten--only Congress can declare war.
You again miss the point: it's not just about who declares the war,
but why it is and what is the politics behind it.
You obviously lie so you could use that general's words in order
to achieve the rhetorical effect that is preconceived by you.
That is not analysis, that is begging the question, Toby.
>> It's job is to shut up and implement what it is TOLD,
>> ORDERED to do, in the process merely reporting what is
>> possible or impossible and what is needed to meet the
>> goal!
>Which is what he and Shinseki were trying to do.
So WTF is he talking about the war he WANTED?
If he criticizes it from the position: this or that is possible,
in my experience this can work and that can't, we can achieve
this with those means or others, this action could cost that
many soldiers' lives, etc., now - that is his job.
But you quote a MILITARY guy talking about POLITICAL
MATTERS - what wars were wanted by generals?!
That plain doesn't make sense, Toby.
Toby
> could
> fiasco unfold, and from what I read, that is becoming the conventional
> Islamic extremism easier to marginalize and ultimately render impotent,
> when
> military conflict and American military presence in the region ceases.
I think the case of East Timor is instructive in how the resistance of the
people can be effective in defeating policies and politics imposed from the
outside, even in the presence of ovewhelming force; one could make a similar
case for the Philippine "People Power" revolution of 1986. I've spent time
on the ground in Kashmir and I can tell you that the presence of an
overwhelming number of Indian troops has done nothing but strengthen the
resolve of the Kashmiris to be out from under their thumb. It's been almost
20 years and the levels of guerrilla violence have not subsided a whit.
Afghanistan is hardly a democracy: there is a government whose limits of
jurisdiction apparently do not extend past the city limits of Kabul. For the
rest of the country it is business as usual.
It is not true that once you have them by the balls their hearts and minds
will follow.
Toby
Bulba!
>> It was not a military failure. It was political failure, and indeed
>> without viable policy military alone can't work.
>
>Then you do not see the present situation in Iraq as a political failure?
No. Because at least so far it doesn't look like political failure.
I understand you are ALWAYS begging the question for
preconceived answers, Toby, but look at this:
1. Iraqi elections have been pretty successful.
2. What I would call a medium wave of democratization
and protest against tyranny swept the Middle East.
3. It's not guaranteed to work, but it seems like it might
actually work.
4. The ME tyrants' military balls are held in a tight
place thanks to US forces sitting tight on unsinkable
aircraft carrier of Iraq.
5. Politically, they certainly they have less room of
maneuver than before.
The last piece that is needed to make sure they would fall
is still not in place - low price of gas, which should have
decimated their budgets, God damn it. It would be the
end of the world as they know it for them.
That part of plan didn't work out - yet.
China with its huge demand for oil and that idiot Chavez
sabotaging his own oil production got in the way. Bush
seemeed to get in bed with Saudi princes for some gay
luv recently might have had some purpose.
Well, you can't condemn the whole program because of a
minor slip-up (remember "Dr Strangelove"?). ;->
I think Bush was planning to be long done by now, by
counting precisely on increasing output of oil high so its
price would fall which would have starved the tyrants.
And I think Muslim terrorists understand it as well - they
have been very busy blowing up Iraqi oil facilities and
pipelines.
Anyway, prices of oil are not in their 30 years' high. Most
producers busily expand their capacity, so the prices of oil
might fall soon. I hope. Occasional recession in China might
help, too.
And then the tyrants' balls will be squashed:
http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/oiltoday.html
>It is certainly not a military failure.
OK, so how it is a political failure then?
GEM
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:42af5b18$0$16216$bb4e...@newscene.com...
To be quite honest, I think few; if any, military and political plans have
ever gone as smoothly and as perfectly as the 9/11 War on Terror - in all of
human history.
Every step of the way the Bush Admin has done exactly as the plan described
and has succeeded in every aspect of that plan to date.
While some of the scheduling had to be stretched at times, overall, they
have succeeded in doing precisely what they had planned within the suggested
timeframe and have avoided all legal hassles and responsibility for every
criminal act they have so far perpetrated, without exception.
In every case of their "apparent failures", the persons in charge of that
failure have been promoted.
I don't know how they made Americans so damned mentally lethargic and
physically apathetic about lsoing the American Dream altogether like this,
but I undrstand completely how a news blackout and total propaganda media
work to keep the fooled fooled. Can't simply be the chlorine in the drinking
water...
The Bush Family Heist of the US, Iraqi and Afghani Treasuries in broad
daylight would certainly go down in history as the most perfect crime of the
century, were the NeoCons not intending to do away with
history-for-the-massess altogether in the very near future.
GEM
Toby
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uzDre.9934$jU5.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Typical ad hom diversion.
Toby
Bulba!
>> Naturally, military and war do not establish political goals. They
>> serve them. Dismissing that fundamental distinction to
>> produce sophisms about 'chickenhawks' is dishonest and
>> misses the point.
>You should have a look at Philip Bobbitt's "The Shield of Achilles: War,
>Peace and the Course of History." His thesis is the exact opposite, that
>fundamentally the State evolves as a response to changes in military
>capability, strategy and tactic.
I don't have a book, all I can read at the moment are reviews
and editorials on Amazon. But let's look here:
"The world is at a pivotal point, argues Bobbitt, as the nation-state,
developed over six centuries as the optimal institution for waging war
and organizing peace, gives way to the market-state. Nation-states
derive legitimacy from promising to improve the material welfare of
their citizens, specifically by providing security and order.
Market-states offer to maximize the opportunity of their people.
Nation-states use force and law to bring about desired results."
That overview doesn't look to me precisely like what you
argue he supposedly argues.
And your summary is pretty effect free: the state evolves
in response to changes in military capabilities. Duh.
Of course it does!
That, however, doesn't have to change its interests.
It is again about HOW to fight the war and political
objectives are affected by that strategy only insofar
as military limits what is and what is not possible to
achieve.
That change in military capability doesn't change the
basic ideology and outlook on the world and economic
interests.
When commies Tuchachevski and Budionny on their
way to Germany attacked my country in 1920 using
mostly traditional cavalry and infantry, I don't think that
the Marxian mentality and Soviet Union's fundamental
interests and ideology were all that different than 60
years later when commies were zapping around in
MiG-25 Foxbats. The military doctrine and subsequently
the state certainly evolved in many ways. But evolution
comes in many kinds and shapes - organization of
Soviet Union certainly has changed. Many goals certainly
evolved, too.
But did the basic economic and ideological interests
of SU really change? Doesn't look like that to me.
By your reasoning the switch to the jet interceptors
from horses should have resulted in the change of
outlook of the commies on the profit as unpaid
portion of the working day.
If you do the synthesis that is overgeneralized,
you can prove whatever you want, Toby. That's
again not the reasonable way to try to acquire
insight into issues.
>Since he is a professor of constitutional
>law, history, as well as a senior director of the NSA, I tend to find his
>agruments a bit more persuasive and well-founded than yours.
Provided that Bobbitt actually argues what you attribute to him.
Which I don't find probable here.
And again, Toby: you time and again try the trick of appealing
to authority. Sure, that guy may be 10 times better informed
than I am.
That still doesn't change the actual detailed argument. It might
be that on particular point he is wrong, and you or I are
correct. That depends on the actual claim (which statistically
he probably he has it much better than you or I do), while you
are trying to basically kick those disagreeing with you into
basically shutting up about conclusion you don't like by
showing that the monument of this guy is higher than me.
Stop it. It's silly.
Toby
.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> OK...so we leave and just wait for the internal dynamics of the region to
>> settle down, or do we stay involved while all this happens? Do you think
>> our presence in Iraq makes a good result more or less likely?
>
> Gosh, Scott, that's such a tough one. You must
> be a professor, or something. Let's see: Do you
> think our presence in Germany after WWII made
> a good result more or less likely?
>
> Take your time before answering.
The cases are hardly analogous. Both Germany and Japan were defeated nations
with their infrastructres largely destroyed--as a result of wars of
aggression that they had initiated. There was broad support among the
general populace for reform, which served as an effective counterforce
against whatever insurgencies were potentially present. Essentially there
was peace from the get-go and conditions of cooperation that allowed the
effective restructuring of their respective governing systems, and even then
it was a long process. Go study a history of the allied Occupation of
Germany and Japan and tell me how similar the conditions were on the ground
then compared to what's happening in Iraq today.
Toby
Bulba!
>I've spent time
>on the ground in Kashmir and I can tell you that the presence of an
>overwhelming number of Indian troops has done nothing but strengthen the
>resolve of the Kashmiris to be out from under their thumb. It's been almost
>20 years and the levels of guerrilla violence have not subsided a whit.
OK: but was it massive, "national liberation" thing? Or political
outlook, democracy vs theocracy thing, with passive majority
and small groups with different outlooks fighting?
Re truly massive "national liberation" thing, it's difficult
to stop it, that's true. At least that was the case with
Vietnam for instance, or former Warsaw Pact countries.
Eventually, the will of the people tends to erode even
most persistent power.
>Afghanistan is hardly a democracy: there is a government whose limits of
>jurisdiction apparently do not extend past the city limits of Kabul. For the
>rest of the country it is business as usual.
So? Are you going to see another, competing and stronger regime
in Afghanistan with actual capital city elsewhere?
The point was to behead the old regime and give a chance
to a new order. Not to acquire examplary democracy overnight,
complete with universal healthcare and icecream for everyone.
What may still be missing in Afghanistan is security. But
people are freer by now and like everyone else they will
want the same things as people elsewhere: freedom, security,
jobs and no dumb clerics telling them how to eat and how
to walk. That change will take time.
>It is not true that once you have them by the balls their hearts and minds
>will follow.
Of course. But I don't remember anybody claiming that was the
objective.
Bulba!
>The cases are hardly analogous. Both Germany and Japan were defeated nations
>with their infrastructres largely destroyed--as a result of wars of
>aggression that they had initiated. There was broad support among the
>general populace for reform, which served as an effective counterforce
>against whatever insurgencies were potentially present. Essentially there
>was peace from the get-go and conditions of cooperation that allowed the
>effective restructuring of their respective governing systems, and even then
>it was a long process. Go study a history of the allied Occupation of
>Germany and Japan and tell me how similar the conditions were on the ground
>then compared to what's happening in Iraq today.
True - some people have argued that Iraq was not defeated ENOUGH,
like German and Japanese doctrines were basically completely
annihilated after the war, which was not the case with radical Islam.
Nevertheless, you're again missing the point: suppose that after
wasting German high command and Japanese militarists the
leftovers of Nazis and military fanatics would be allowed to roam
free in their respective countries. Would they have more or
less of the chance coming back to power if Allies were not sitting
tight on their countries?
Even if Muslim radicals were not almost annihilated like enemies
in Germany and Japan were, leaving the country free up to them
would be handing over the government on the silver platter to
them, don't you think?
I would argue that it is PRECISELY because Muslim radicals
have not been annihilated is why Iraq has to be held tight
today. This seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?
You do NOT leave wounded enemy around, Toby, you finish
him off decisively - this who hits hard but not lethal, places
himself in mortal danger. Machiavelli sez so.
Bulba!
wrote:
>Every step of the way the Bush Admin has done exactly as the plan described
>and has succeeded in every aspect of that plan to date.
Although as the joke in this notorious cartoon has it - everything
Bush admnistration tried, went down - except for price of gas.
This factor is still not there. Which is what is causing that damn
delay IMHO.
Oh well. Next time we'll get it right, they always say...
Kurt Nicklas
Erb says...
>
>
>"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
>news:d8mun...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <D5Cre.955720$w62.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Scott
>> Erb says...
>
>> >No it isn't. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and nothing you
>> >presented had any relation to me or my opinion.
>>
>> As someone who has blamed the US for terrorism it is very much about you
>and
>> your beliefs about our policy.
>
>You have lost all pretense of rational discourse, you are simply stating
>lies and trying to use emotionalism.
I am simply stating the truth about the motivations, beliefs and statements of
people like you and you don't like it.
>You are admitting defeat.
I'm admitting nothing of the sort.
>> >In short, you had nothing. When one can't defend ones' view, one simply
>> >attacks the other side personally. That is an admission of defeat on
>your
>> >part. Can you defend the policy itself?
>>
>> I've been defending the policy. You pathetic attempt to create a straw man
>and
>> try to knock it down may work in your classrooms but you'll get called on
>it
>> here.
>
>Here you don't have any substance, you just make a little insult. Again,
>nothing.
I tell you what I see in your statements. I'm responsible for my words but I'm
not responsible for your feelings. If my words make you feel insulted then I
guess that's your problem.
-snip-
>I've made a strong case. Perhaps I touch a
>nerve in pointing out the problems in the current policy? Does making
>insults give you satisfaction?
You've made NO case whatever. You started out by leaning entirely on 'people I
know' and now you've even given up that pretense. All you can do now is announce
that you've won, I've lost and feign insult when I throw your words back at you.
That may work in your classroom but it won't here.
>> >This is a very difficult
>> >position for American foreign policy, and vague, "stay until it's safe,
>kill
>> >terrorists, make Iraq a better place" is just silly talk, devoid of
>> >substance.
>>
>> In fact, staying the course worked quite well in Europe.
>
>Trying to compare Iraq to Europe is funny.
'Funny'? A steady policy which avoided war and ultimately defeated communism is
'funny' to you?
> But you can't defend the policy
>on its own terms, you are simply grasping at straws.
I'll throw that back in your face and say you're doing precisely that.
>Time will tell, but
>so far my predictions have been coming true,
Your predictions aren't worth shit.
You predicted back in the Fall of 02 that 3(Three) of the following would happen
in Iraq after a US victory:
a) Iran expanding into the south
b) Turkey or Syria trying to expand into the Kurdish regions
c) An uprising in Pakistan in anger that overthrows Musharraf and puts
extremists in control -- with nuclear weapons
d) An uprising in Saudi Arabia that brings an extremist government to power
e) terrorist acts that close the Persian gulf and create long term high oil
prices
f) an Iraq so riddled with ethnic tensions that it devolves into civil war,
with Americans being the targets of a lot of ire
g) Saddam about to fall manages to shift assets to terrorist organizations
he otherwise would not have helped, making it more likely WMD will be used
h) Saddam deciding with nothing to lose, he'd hit Israel hard, Israel
retaliates, and the until now subdued Arab street finally erupts
i) an already weak economy goes into deep recession, globally
j) more terrorist attacks on the US, with the US less able to respond to the
real terrorists since so much effort is being used in Iraq
So far, nothing. Not a one, not even f.
>and those who favored the war
>are being proven wrong. Reality bites.
It certainly bit Mr. Chamberlain and seems to be biting you as well.
--
Kurt Nicklas
"Why isn't Fallwell(sic) dead anyway?"
---Milton F. Brewster (mil...@sonic.net)
James A. Donald
> > Some call it "democratic domino theory" and claim it
> > is simplistic.
> >
> > There is some truth to such argument I think. This
> > doesn't have to work.
"Toby"
> It is probably as ridiculous as the "Communist Domino
> Theory" was in SE Asia that led to the US involvement
> there.
But dominoes did fall in South East Asia.
And they are wobbling now in the Middle East.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
JPH8DKwb6scoF+XGduSa8sIfSwSlOhdrBTJDa1sO
4AoD9Ov362847ArLHFQjXhuWel/QtjvVuBcGGok6L
Scott Erb
key fundamental point of disagreement we have.
I want to think of the last intervention, Kosovo in 1999. I noted at the
time that the US had made a severe policy error by overestimating its
ability to force a political outcome with military force. The Serbs, you
recall, were bombed to get them to sign the Ramboillet agreement on Kosovo.
In response to the bombing, the Serbs created a refugee crisis 900,000
strong (most people seem to think NATO got involved because of the refugees,
but chronologically that is impossible), and what was thought to be a few
days of bombing to force them to sign a deal turned out to nearly eighty
days of bombing, with no direct help given to those suffering, and a final
deal that left Milosevic in power (until his own people forced him out) and
threatened the region with more violence. Oh, and the US was supporting the
KLA, a terrorist organization (labeled as such by the US at one point in the
late nineties).
Madeline Albright wanted to prove that NATO could be a world cop, and the
use of force could create stable political results. I was at a conference
in 2000, and was surprised by how Kosovo was seen as a success. People
forgot to compare what happened to the initial goals, and the fact that
ultimately we "won" made it seem worthwhile (with no American lives lost, to
be sure -- but that meant no ability to help the Albanians for those 77
days). To me it was proof that we were in danger of overestimating what
military power can do, we couldn't bring little Serbia to its knees, and
ultimately they gave in when it became clear Russia would not help. They
could have held off longer. Kosovo was a warning, but one that went
unheeded because the Clinton PR machine turned it into a success.
Bush in Iraq wants the same. No one can see this as a success compared to
initial claims and goals. But if a "good enough" result can finally be
achieved, then it can post-hoc be defended. But so far, that kind of
solution is hard to find, and I think this will compare more to Vietnam than
Kosovo. Our fundamental disagreement is in the ability of America to use
its massive military power to create political outcomes. I don't think we
can do that -- I think such interventions usually do more harm than good,
and get us enmeshed in situations that harm our position in the world, and
perhaps even our republic. You seem to believe that American power is
capable of shaping such results, or exercising positive influence with
minimal disadvantages. I doubt either of us can convince the other to
change their opinion, but it's good to be clear on what the basic points of
disagreement are.
In general, I lean more towards a kind of neo-isolationism -- not
anti-globalization or anti-economic interaction, I'm all for that. I just
find military interventions to be costly, and put us at more risk (make
enemies, etc.) than do us good. For instance, I was arguing we should pull
out of NATO in 1982, and believe that our 'move to empire' endangers what
makes America special at home. I think it makes us more of a target of
outsiders, and creates a risk that big government will find reason to deny
our freedom. OK, on to your post.
"Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:iruta1d6n1ao84hcb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:27:50 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> From Iraq USA can dominate any particular area of
> >> entire Middle East IF IT NEEDS TO.
>
> >I doubt it. We don't even have Iraq under control, and the military is
> >already over-stretched and support at home is crumbling.
>
> US Army has pulled out of Germany. Maybe more restructurization
> should be done, and it is pretty normal in every big organization
> that nothing is done until it is absolutelly unavoidable that smth
> has to be done about a problem.
Clearly there is no reason to be in Europe any more. But without the bases
there, the US isn't as mobile, and in any event, Iraq is according to
military officials and experts really draining the military and making it
hard to contemplate another battle.
> Military in Vietnam was not "overstretched". It dumped more
> ammunition on enemy than during the entire WWII.
> The military in Vietnam was mis-handled, by Johnson and
> Co. telling the generals HOW to run the war, which obviously
> backfired.
I don't think that's really the case. Westmoreland chose the strategy
(against the Joint Chiefs of
Staff recommendation), and Johnson kept giving Westmoreland more and more
troops, he was determined to win. He refused to consider nukes, but Vietnam
clearly wasn't worth nuclear war! The war itself could not be won in the
long term, and ultimately US involvement helped get the Khmer Rouge to power
(spreading angry anti-Americanism to Cambodia) and killed a lot of people.
It was a stupid, evil war, totally unnecessary and counter productive to US
interests and the interests of the region.
> They should have told them WHAT to achieve, not how. That
> on top of viable political strategy has failed the war.
It was an unwinnable war, in part because it really wasn't important to
American national interest.
> I would say about war-weariness rather than overstretching
> military - overstretching to what? Deal with IEDs exploding
> and killing Wolf Brigade members?
>
> War weariness is a problem, true.
And a war without a clear purpose, that does not seem important to the
national interest, that is the bigger problem.
> >Iraq was EASY
> >compared to other countries. I don't think the American people will
support
> >expanding this, nor do I think we have the capacity to do so; in fact, I
> >think Iran is coming out ahead in Iraq by cleverly manipulating the
> >political situation.
>
> Now think how easy would it be for Iran to manipulate the situation
> had US Army NOT been present in Iraq.
I don't think it would have been easier. Also, the US had a more credible
military threat before this, this has proven our weakness, and Iran is
benefiting from that, knowing that the US can't really pressure it (and they
could rachet up pressure on the US by signalling to the Shi'ites if they
thought that in their interest). Iran benefited from the US attack on Iraq
both times.
> >>Iraq has become
> >> sort of unsinkable aircraft carrier for USA. Or, if you
> >> will, the police station in the middle of the town.
>
> >Well, only an aircraft carrier on fire, unable to launch planes, and in
> >danger of running aground.
>
> Oh come on, that is just emotional.
No more than yours -- I just expanded your metaphor :-)
> Sure, US Army may not be able to protect all 18 million soft
> targets in Iraq.
>
> That doesn't mean it's unable to strike anywhere it
> wants from Iraq. That is all that is necessary to play
> its usual role of the cop. The cop doesn't have to
> have the arrest cells numerous enough to fit the
> population of the whole town.
I don't think the US is capable of striking effectively from Iraq. I think
Iraq has shown the limits of our ability to project power, making us appear
somewhat a paper tiger.
> >If some kind of government is formed, it will
> >both likely fall into civil war, and order the US out of the country.
>
> Excuse me? US Army has trounced organized army of Hussein
> without even breathing hard, and Hussein's army however
> poor, was at least organized -- so US Army is supposed to
> have trouble with ad-hoc organized units that would be even
> weaker than everything Hussein could let loose?
Exactly. That's the dilemma. The military is great against major military
forces, but has real trouble against unconventional insurgencies,
terrorists, and the like. And, of course, the US has promised it would
leave Iraq if ordered to do so by a legitimate political power. I rather
think now the administration would welcome that!
> Now if you mean terrorists exploding IEDs, that's another story.
>
> Democracy in Iraq will be restarted until it works, so long
> as US Marines are breathing on the necks of everyone there.
I don't think they have enough force there to 'breath on the necks" of
people there. We're not at all in control.
> Sunnis are troublemakers because they are afraid of what
> Shia-dominated govt could bring them, not of US Army
> directly.
Yes, they are setting up for a long term battle for their own ethnic group,
aided by Kuwaitis, Saudis, and other Sunnis who, with Saddam gone, now fear
Shi'ites more than Iraqi Baathists. Again, the hope is Syria and Iran, they
potentially could help stabilize Iraq. Iran at least is rather democratic,
at least compared to most other states in the region, including Egypt.
> Unlike in Vietnam, there is a workable political potential
> there. It's not true there is no 'exit strategy' from Iraq.
Vietnam had a more stable government (in the South), it just wasn't popular.
Ho was more popular. But in Iraq you have different ethnic groups,
competing for power, for oil, and enmeshed in corruption. I don't see that
working out well anytime soon, even with double the US presence.
> There is one: nobody there wants to start civil war
> for serious, because they would be instantly squashed
> by Americans and they know that.
The insurgency is fighting a civil war already, really. They have altered
their strategy in order to deal with America's military abilities, and the
weak spots of America's force in Iraq (both militarily and politically).
>There probably
> is room for compromise, too, so as long as Americans
> keep inflicting pressure, it can eventually be made to
> work.
I guess I have to hope you are right here, but I suspect that American
presence also creates more animosity and ease in extremist recruitment.
> This is precisely why bombs keep exploding in Iraq:
> not to let it happen.
True. But it seems to be working.
> The terrorists - not freedom fighters, there are no people
> fighting for freedom there - try to delay that and undermine
> deals, because they can't win in an open confrontation. In
> Fallujah they learned what trying that means.
Well, they escaped from Fallujah, hid in underground facilities, and sent
pictures of how the Americans "destroyed a city to save it" all over the
Arab world. This has bred intense animosity, increased the appeal of the
insurgency among Sunnis (who have heard the stories of innocents dying in
Fallujah, the city destroyed, etc.), and didn't really harm the insurgency.
Politically it was a success for the insurgency, even if it was a military
defeat (and that is OK for guerrilla movements, they accept military defeats
if it brings political benefits).
> >> But hey, what is guaranteed for sure in politics at all?
>
> >I think the evidence is that this is not working at all, and that the US
> >does not have the capacity to use the situation in the manner you
suggest.
>
> Excuse me? Even some leftists admit that:
>
> http://b00mb0x.org/blog/001352.html
>
> Shortly: Cedar Revolution, elections in Iraq, Saudis loosening it
> up, Palestinian elections after the demise of this wretched
> power addict Arafat.
Well, look at Lebanon, with Hizbollah gaining massive strength, and Syria
still influencing, and it doesn't appear there have been true moves to
democracy there; in fact, the extremists and Hizbollah look stronger! I do
not see the Saudis loosening up at all, and if they did, their regime might
start coming apart. Palestinian elections are good, but that was due to
Arafat's death more than anything in Iraq.
> Sure, it ain't Grand Democratic Revolution. But the trend of
> tyrannies growing and democracies receding has been reversed.
I don't think the US in Iraq helps this; I think it probably creates more
opportunities for the extremists, because they can focus on the US as some
kind of evil colonial outsider. Outsiders, even with good intentions, tend
to be distrusted.
> >Perhaps if there was an entire world wide effort with western agreement
and
> >shared responsibility the chances would improve, but the US is in a
> >precarious position, probably weaker than any time since the seventies
> >(since the limitations of our military power are shown -- even Iraq is
> >stretching the military, and it is not under control).
>
> You deal with what you have.
>
> If the Western Europe chooses to self-destructively ally itself with
> militant Islam in order to buy some fictional peace - we the
> Europeans really lost our collective marbles in this regard - that is
> a problem US can do nothing about, so Bush has to deal with it
> almost alone, with help of Blair basically and a rag-tag
> coalition of small countries like mine, which are political fig-leaf
> rather than real military help, however glad we are to contribute
> what we can.
I think the European approach would have been more effective; they didn't
deny the need for a military option (Chirac was clear, despite some claims
to the contrary, that military force against Iraq could be necessary -- he's
hardly a peacenik leftist, afterall!) Right now I still think the facts
suggest this as not working.
> The soldiers from my country died in Iraq, too. It's not over
> a thousand soldiers like those of Americans, as our contingent
> is much smaller. But we lost some of our men there as well. You
> think this did not dent the support for our involvement in Iraq?
> You bet it did.
Where are you from? I just got back from Italy a couple weeks ago (along
with three other faculty we took a group of forty students for two weeks
there on a travel course).
> A few Europeans here and there are in disagreement, but
> most have become cowardly, selfish and nihilistic bastards,
> while hypocritically preaching they are good, because they're
> for "peace" after all.
>
> Our foreign minister before WWII has said - "Peace? We
> are for peace, but not for peace at any cost". Read this:
>
> http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html
>
> I am ashamed for hollowness and petty-mindedness of my continent.
I think overall the approach in Europe has been wiser than that of the US.
But I have one big disagreement, both with you and critics of the US.
I don't think Europeans are 'hollow or petty-minded,' or 'selfish and
nihilistic.' Nor do I think Americans who support the war are 'arrogant and
militarist' or 'inhumane and aggressive.' Rather, I think both sides have
different conceptions of how best to achieve proper results, and those
perspectives lead to different choices. Sure, there are some on each side
who fit the caricatures, but overall I think most people do want to do what
is right, but there is no clear way to know for sure what the right path is.
> >Of course, I hope democracy suddenly takes hold, and reforms spread. But
> >frankly, looking at Saudi Arabia (that's an anachronistic regime doomed
to
> >fail in the not too distant future), Iran, unrest in Egypt, Syria...I
don't
> >know if our presence does any good, and could infact (as is often the
case
> >when foreign powers intervene) actually help the extremists by giving
them a
> >convenient enemy upon whom to blame problems (thereby distracting people
> >from blaming their own corrupt governments).
>
> They hate USA and liberal democracy in general anyway.
>
> So why bother? You can't bribe the enemy to love you. If you can't
> get them on your side, you have to kill them - Machiavelli. Don't
> leave a wounded enemy behind your backs. Clinton did that
> and look what results that brought.
Machiavelli was a bit more complex than that. You don't have to get them on
your side, necessarily, as long as you can keep them from actively going
against you.
> >We'll see...and I do
> >appreciate that you developed a coherent argument allowing strong
> >disagreement without personal animosity (rare on the usenet). And I
agree
> >on one thing: there is no guarantee.
>
> I'm happy to have some interesting exchange, too.
Scott Erb
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:14:58 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:54:35 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> >> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >Terrorism is a very serious problem that we'll have to combat
> >> >for the foreseeable future.
> >>
> >> It's not about terrorism. Terrorism has been here since beginning
> >> of time, it is a TACTIC, not a POLICY.
> >
> >Yes, it is a tactic, or even a strategy. The US needs a
counter-terrorism
> >strategy (which would mix political, diplomatic, and military aspects).
>
> In the technical sense, perhaps; I'm not disagreeing with it.
>
> Nevertheless, I think you have missed the political point: terrorists
> have purely political goals, too. They don't kill at random. They kill
> to achieve goals. And those political goals are the main thing to be
> defeated.
I think that was something we agreed upon. The means of doing so is where
we disagree.
> >> This is about the goals of those maniacs, whether they
> >> fight using terrorist means or military means or other
> >> means.
>
> >They clearly use whatever strategy they think most effective. Their
goals
> >are: a) to expand their support. That is important to them, since in
> >reality, most people in the Mideast are enticed by modernism and even
> >western ideas. They need to somehow demonize the West and western
> >influence. b) to weaken the US and West in general. Oil is potentially
> >their most powerful weapon, if they can disrupt Saudi Arabian oil, or
> >destabilize the region (and thus destabilize the world economy). Bin
Laden
> >himself said that the western economy was the target of 9-11. Militarily
> >they can't accomplish much, so they will likely use terrorist and other
> >kinds of unconventional tactics.
>
> Absolutely. I'm in full agreement on this.
>
>
> >> The link between terrorism and Iraq is the link between Taliban
> >> and the oil in Iraq on which the Muslims sit.
>
> >I don't understand that sentence. Can you explain what you mean?
>
> Sorry, I did not write it very clearly: what I meant was that
> Iraq contains the economic means that Taliban needed
> and the Islamic population to support the cause.
I just don't think that was available to them at all in Iraq. Even a
weakened Saddam kept the fundamentalists at bay, and Bin Laden and al qaeda
are hardly close to the Shi'ites (the Taliban almost went to war with Iran).
I don't think Iraq was an option for the extremists, at least not until now.
Now they think they have a chance because of the breakdown of order in the
region.
> Saying "there is no link between Iraq / Hussein and Al Qaeda"
> is false. There may have been no support of Hussein for
> Al Qaeda. But that is missing the point of political goals
> of Al Qaeda: it needs Iraq, with its Islam and its oil, even
> more than it needed Afghanistan.
But they weren't in any position to get it. Saudi Arabia is probably their
prime target in that regard.
> >> The only role that Hussein played in this link was to
> >> be a target of hostility of both real sides in this
> >> conflict.
> >>
> >> Sooner or later Hussein would be done over by either
> >> party, either by Americans or by jihadis.
>
> >Actually, he probably could have kept the jihadists at bay given the
nature
> >of the system. His biggest threat (other than America) remained an
internal
> >coup or ill health.
>
> He was supposedly losing his grip on power. Close to kicking the
> bucket politically. Whether somebody would "help" him on the
> way out or not is not really relevant, as again, Hussein himself
> was not very important - Iraq was.
If Hussein was gone, the power structure was still there, and the
unpopularity of Islamic extremism was profound. It would have been easier
for the US to influence the region without the military intervention,
because that would have undercut the primary 'motivation' for joining an
extremist group. There still would have been difficulties, but overall I
doubt see any scenario where extremists would have Iraqi oil.
> He maybe would be able to hold on for several years more. But
> then what? Iraq would be up for grabs for anyone around.
Not exactly 'anyone around.' It's hard to control another country, as we're
now seeing! And the internal groups in Iraq are not supportive of those who
are really a threat to the US. Or at least they weren't, our intervention
has stirred the pot.
> >> Hussein is almost entirely irrelevant in this picture. He
> >> was merely an obstacle that had to be removed.
>
> >I think he was irrelevant by 2003, and with a weakened Saddam in power,
> >strong enough to keep the "Jihadists" at bay but not strong enough to
> >threaten his neighbors, the US could have worked to undercut support for
the
> >extremists (which again, absent anger at the US isn't all that intense)
and
> >help set up a post-Saddam era. We could have contained him, waited him
out,
> >and then dealt with a more stable situation.
>
> USA was waiting for the situation to "stabilize" for last 50 years.
>
> It seems like this is the road to nowhere.
I think the road we're on is even more dangerous and farther from the
destination. I hope I'm wrong.
> Bush's speechwriters clearly got the instructions from their
> superiors to signal the change in course:
> ---
> Bush introduced his new policy of exporting democracy with a stinging
> critique of past American policy: "Decades of excusing and
> accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to
> injustice and tragedy."
> ---
>
> http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/20/aussenpolitik_englisch
I just am skeptical of the ability of states to 'export democracy' or
otherwise shape politics in other states. And, while I believe in
democracy, I'm reluctant in saying we should or can force other states to
share that belief and organize their political systems that way. In
politics I tend not to like imposing my perspective, either domestically or
internationally, on others. Politics is too often people trying to force
others to do what they think best or proper. That's a bias on my part, I
admit.
> For some time after the WWII, the stability doctrine,
> of waiting it out, might have seemed to work: the
> post-WWII was bascially frozen in two big opposed
> blocks, gathered around Soviet Union and USA/NATO.
>
> But that's over. Your approach looks nice, but does
> it really work?
It obviously worked for the Cold War, though I suspect Kennan was right that
militarizing NATO was a mistake, and that a carrot and stick approach to the
Soviets might led to quicker reform than an arms race. In any event, a lot
of people suffered under communism, but trying to end it sooner with the
risk of nuclear war would not have been worth it, and ultimately societies
may better self-correct when change isn't forced upon them.
Now, of course, the challenges are different. The Soviets were never a huge
threat because they turned into a conservative regime wanting to maintain an
empire doomed to fall due to the unworkability of their style of governance
(especially in economics). The extremists now have a real desire for
change, and see the West as out to destroy their identity. If the area
didn't have oil, I'd say everyone would be willing to just get out and let
the cultures there work through things on their own. I think if we did
that, we'd undercut the strength of the extremists, but would it be enough
to truly stymie them? I'm not sure. We'd also have to deal with the fact
that the Saudi regime can't last forever -- I'd give it a generation at
ost -- and that with Chinese and Indian oil demand rising, oil concerns
will become ever larger. China is building a closer partnership with Iran
over oil (Iran gave them a good deal, which was smart for them since that
will almost assure a Chinese veto of any action against Iran over its
nuclear ambitions.)
> >Now Iraq is likely to veer off
> >into civil war, and at this point the "jihadists" as you call them have
> >benefited from the events.
>
> The dynamic situation is harder to handle, true. It requires
> rapid reactions and no easy solutions are there.
>
> Nevertheless, if sitting there and waiting makes things
> only worse, maybe there is no option but that to try it.
It is hard to know what the best option is at this point.
> >Islamic extremists are a minority of Muslims, and in Iraq they were a
vast
> >minority (though they are growing).
>
> Islamic extremists are the active core of Islam. The rest of people
> who are nominally Muslims are simply passive or not very involved.
I disagree completely. I've actually incorporated Islamic politics into
some of my courses so people can learn about the Islamic world and
understand it. There are Islamic modernists, Islamic fundamentalists (who
eschew the kind of extremist violence of the jihadists), and there are
extremists. For the most part, "good Muslims" are more devout than "good
Christians," but essentially disagree with the theology of radical Islam,
and see no inherent contradiction between change and Islamic values. Islam
is going through what Christianity went through four or five hundred years
ago -- modernization and removal from its position as head of both the
material (political) and spiritual world. Christianity had trouble doing
this, and it took a long time. Islam not only doesn't have the time, but
the technology and outside influences make the shift more difficult. Yet I
think the extremists should be easy to marginalize, most Muslims see their
values as outside Islam.
> The Iron Law of Oligarchy guarantees that no more than 5% of
> society at all times calls the shots. In Islam that 5% is precisely
> the fanatic one. The rest are merely sheep that follow.
But that's not true! Not only aren't they calling the shots, but they were
on the margins before the past few years. After Afghanistan and the scourge
of 'evil communism' was gone, the hard core extremists were increasingly on
the edges. Afghanistan, some schools in Saudi Arabia. But while the
Islamic world remained conservative and still slow to modernize, it wasn't
extreme or violent -- nor is it today. Islam as a force cannot be defeated
(and an attempt to do so would be suicidal). Rather, we have to assist the
traditionalists, conservatives, and modernists work through issues and avoid
giving the minority extremists fodder.
> >Fundamentalists like Sistani and even
> >Sadr are not about attacking the West, but about creating their own
little
> >Islamic worlds.
>
> Which is antithetical to the Western way of life and Western ideas.
Well, they can do what they want over there. I don't see it as my position
or my country's position to tell other people how they should live.
> The conflict has to spill out. There's no way around it. The two
> can't coexist in the world, as people from either camp will
> start moving into the other one, most likely the Arabs start
> leaving their culture, because the Western way of life is simply
> more attractive.
They (the extremists and moderates in the Islamic world) will have
conflicts, they already are having conflicts. But the extremists are a
recent phenomenon, and again, on the margins. The conservatives are
stronger, but they are not inherently violent, and can potentially change
gradually -- so long as we don't threaten their values or try to impose our
own.
> That means that the former camp simply has to react with
> violence. They won't even close themselves up peacefully
> into autarky, as this merely restarts the degradation process of
> their culture - check the Iranian dissidents and young people
> shouting anti-Islamic obscenities and burning Korans.
Even Iran is changing slowly, and probably will continue to do so. And they
are not calling for violent acts against the West, they consider terrorism
un-Islamic.
> This is unstable situation. So the theocrats HAVE TO create
> unrest. Nothing else could chill the population into obedience.
Actually, Iran is an example that this is not the case; as long as the
situation isn't made dangerous by outside intervention, I suspect the
theocrats will continue a slow loss of power, as society changes. The
problem is current governments are corrupt, and that creates fodder for
those wanting to overthrow them. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I
don't think 'theocrats' or 'Islam' can be defeated militarily, that would be
a venture doomed to fail.
> They have to keep them threatened by something, whatever
> it is.
>
> This means continuing acts of terror.
Well, if we get involved in that, we make ourselves a target, and get
embroiled in the same thing. It's not worth it. Just like what Bismarck
said about the Balkans not being worth one Pomeranian Granadier, the Mideast
isn't worth one American life.
> >By intervening, we are being an ally to the extremists, we
> >are helping them recruit, helping them inspire hatred of America, and in
so
> >doing spreading our military thin and weakening our economy.
>
> Initially, it does mobilize the extremists.
>
> Thankfully. Now this 5% needs to be drawn into Iraq and killed.
Can't happen. Most in Iraq are Iraqis fighting, most of them were not
extremists or likely to fight America before we got involved. The "5%" that
matter aren't going to go to Iraq, the leaders don't fight. They may send
in some kids they brainwash, but the supply of potential fighters can last
decades. They can easily outlast us.
> Over 40% of suicide bombers in Iraq are found to be Saudis.
I have heard conflicting information on that. But I'm sure they'll have
enough recruits for that to go on for years.
> This allows us to erode the hard-core of theocracy supporters and
> keeping them occupied, while simultaneously keeping pressure on
> the theocratic govts to allow their populations to be mutinous
> and ever more demanding.
Can't happen. They're playing a game of long term pacing, realizing they
have a vast array of potential followers, but themselves are staying out of
the fray and using the PR to organize elsewhere. They are growing because
of Iraq, not shrinking. They can't be defeated through military means,
military means used against them affirms their position and strengthens
them. That is the dilemma.
> Hey, here we managed to subvert the Soviet Union. We have
> experience with such jobs. Don't fuck with us or else we'll make
> your system collapse from within. ;-)
The Soviets subverted their own system. It was clear even to the KGB by the
mid-seventies that they faced economic collapse in the eighties. Brezhnev
was just so hung up on his medals and his fantasies of being a world power
that he ignored that. Then Andropov was given power, since he had been part
of the warnings (he had been KGB head) and people thought a change was
needed. But he got sick, the minor changes he initiated were scary to the
old bureaucrats, and they chose Chernenko, who was as bad as Brezhnev. For
a decade while the system collapsed from within, the leadership of sick old
men did nothing. By the time Gorbachev came, it was too late. Luckily
Reagan recognized that Gorbi meant business and the US stopped its military
spending increases and altered policy to allow Gorbachev to undercut the
military argument long enough to stay in power. The Soviet Union's collapse
was inevitable. Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to keep it peaceful.
It didn't have to be.
> >We are
> >fighting their battle for them, by making lousy decisions. In this case,
we
> >are our own worst enemies (we as in our government).
>
> I disagree - those maniacs would be occupied and recruited elsewhere.
> To stage more Madrids and more twin towers.
No, you are making a fundamental error of caricaturing others. They are not
maniacs, but like all people in certain conditions (such as having a hated
intervention from an outside power) people can more easily be manipulated.
Most Muslims are not extremists, there is nothing wrong with Islam and
clearly it is a world religion that will be with us as long as Judaism and
Christianity. Rather extremists are a small element, a fringe, made
stronger by the Iraq war, but ulimately not in line with the religion or
culture. Their only chance is if we stay hostile and violent.
> If they want to be recruited, they will be recruited. If you want to
> be a rebel, you'll find the cause. All that Iraq could have done
> to them was passing the 'threshold' for action sooner. Potential
> terrorists were activated earlier and went elsewhere they would
> otherwise go - that's all.
Most don't want to be recruited, and would choose another path if one was
available, and if the emotion of having an outside aggressor close by wasn't
so intense. We've helped make them 'want to be recruited.'
> >Most religions are collectivist.
>
> But few put the emphasis on total submission to God in every
> possible way:
Christianity does -- though it's been modernized so that this isn't taken as
seriously. Islam will go through that too, ultimately.
> http://www.opendemocracy.org/democracy-turkey/article_679.jsp
>
>
> >I don't like organized religion of any
> >kind (here are my views: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm)
>
> Interesting, I'm reading it.
>
> >As
> >for collectivism...well, most political ideologies have some kind of
> >collectivist aspect, since we're talking about communities. Clearly
> >American conservatives worried about the family and television content,
or
> >drug abuse, are being collectivist in their approach.
>
> Oh absolutely! This is the paranoia of human mind. I don't know
> if it's rational or not. It's obvious that extrapolating such
> tendencies into culture carries great risk of turning it all
> into nonsensical cargo-cultism, there's a great risk of error.
>
> Nevertheless, we can't really afford not doing it... We have
> to adopt SOME view on it.
> >But we did have him defanged, confined and contained. I think that
option
> >was safer, this option is proving very costly, and may affect US
political
> >stability if it lingers on (much like how Vietnam was popular early on,
and
> >communism then seemed as dangerous to people as Islamic extremism does
now).
>
> It's dealing with a different sort of enemy. Islam is not organized
> like communism was after all.
Islam is not the enemy. We can never 'defeat' Islam, it would be suicide to
engage in that kind of battle! We'd push the hundreds of millions in the
religion towards the extremists. A small group of extremists are the
danger, and they can be best marginalized by avoiding making ourselves seem
like external imperialist invaders. That is how we are seen by far too many
in that part of the world, and that just inspires rebellion against the
outside. That potentially will strengthen al qaeda and groups like it,
especially in five to ten years.
> >> It got it one huge benefit: now USA has a big base in the Middle East
> >> that is independent of whims of Saudi Arabia.
>
> >I think that's actually not a benefit, since the "base" is even too small
to
> >control Iraq, and we'll probably have to leave as soon as Iraq is
somewhat
> >stable. And our continued presence might actually aid terrorists in
> >stirring up anti-American hatred.
>
> If Americans do not behave politically like elephant in china store
> there by taking away freedom of speech for instance, I don't see
> why that should create resentment in general population.
They already have! Polls in Iraq have shown this, the people there are
angry at the US and want America out, for the most part. Even Shi'ites.
For details on what's going on there a good source is:
http://www.juancole.com.
> Now, maniacs are another matter: activating them is a bug,
> not feature. There is no neat, Hollywood-style way of dealing
> with them. This will be messy. But it's better to kill them
> than allow them to form their traditional 'heart of darkness' that
> feeds theocracy.
But killing people often means mixing in innocents with real insurgents, and
that just feeds anger and turns more people against the US, not just in Iraq
but throughout the Muslim world as scenes and stories are carried instantly
on cable news and the internet.
> Kill that core without alienating the population, you kill theocracy.
You can't do it. That's my point.
> >The best path is defeat the terrorists by
> >winning over the people.
>
> That won't work.
It's the only thing that can work. And the population is not prone to
support the extremists, they are a minority, a small minority, in the
Islamic world.
> Keynes: little but ideas control practical men. And Muslims
> have no other organizing principle but adhering to God,
> as Roger Scruton observed.
No more so than most religions. And most Muslims define terrorist acts as
anti-Islamic. I think you need to look at the religion more closely, and
read Muslim scholars as well. You have a very caricatured view of their
religion.
> You have to give them other organizing principles while
> not allowing theocracy to arise. The rest will be done
> by simple selfishness, hedonism and attractiveness
> of secularist lifestyle.
Already there are many modernist movements in the Islamic world, and even
conservative Islam is not violent. Sure, they may not create societies that
adhere to our standards. But we had slaves until a century and a half ago,
women couldn't vote, etc. Change came here sooner than there, but change
will come. If we try to force it on them, we will create a violent reaction
and in an age of terrorism and WMD, that is a risk that we can't afford --
nor do we need to force a change. It's their part of the world, they can
work through it. It's not worth America's money, lives, or prestige.
> They can't allow it to happen. That is why gangs of
> Muslim teenagers in Paris rape or burn alive the
> Arab girls that decided to dress European style. They
> can't allow defections from their culture.
But most do defect from their culture. You are noticing the extremists that
make the paper by evil deeds, but the average folk are the ones who dress in
European style, or who simply live a normal life. Most Muslims couldn't
believe al qaeda was behind 9-11 because they found it hard to believe a
Muslim could do something like that. You are really being very unfair to
about a billion people with such a view of their religion.
> >That's still very do-able because so few Muslims
> >really believe the extremist creed.
>
> That is completely irrelevant.
>
> In any society at all times at least 95% of people are
> completely passive. They are sheep.
Hardly. Societies are not made up of sheep, but are complex, and studies of
the politics of the Islamic world show that. You really need to investigate
that, look at each country, it's history, the political situation. It's
complex, and almost everywhere there are a variety of political movements
and actors, with extremists in almost all cases a small minority.
Conservative groups that dislike western ideals are more common, but their
focus is almost always on their society, not attacking the outside.
> >But when we show military intervention,
> >violence, violation of human rights, etc., it arouses anger and benefits
> >those jihadists who really do want to destroy the West, or at least
> >eliminate us from the region.
>
> Good - draw them out from their holes and kill them.
They have time and tactics on their side. We can't kill all of them; it is
impossible, the more we kill, the more anger we create, the more recruits
they get. And all it takes is a couple lucky terrorist strikes and oil goes
to $100 a galloon, or the Saudi government falls, or major pipelines are
disrupted. If we try to destroy them with a military 'war,' we will most
likely lose.
> I am not absolutely sure what I think works actually works. But I am
> reasonably certain that what you propose can't work.
Well, my view is obviously the reverse.
> Appeasement gets you nowhere with maniacs. You have to
> be careful not to hurt the truly moderate people, though.
No one wants to "appease" the extremists.
> >> Perhaps the military should be increased and/or restructured
> >> if it is to meet the security needs that are there to prevent
> >> more carnage like 9/11 from becoming.
>
> >But recruitment is done, support for US efforts is lagging. Remember,
> >foreign policy in a democracy requires maintaining support. Otherwise,
> >policies become untenable from within.
>
> True. This is a risk. However, I don't think Bush has any other
> option really.
I think he's already looking for a way out, given recent press reports.
> >> But have you asked yourself what would be the cost of NOT
> >> doing it?
>
> >I think not going to Iraq would have had few costs, and other policies
could
> >have had many more benefits.
>
> Yeah - police state in USA!
>
> NO THANKS!
>
> The people want to be safe at all costs. If you can't finish the
> terrorists off, they will de facto authorize sacrificing all of
> the civil liberties for sake of feeling safe, even if that safety
> were entirely illusional!
>
> I am so happy to see pictures like this:
>
> http://img254.echo.cx/img254/7098/faasposter0hw.jpg
>
> This means more people are getting sick with infringement
> on civil liberties. The more we see stuff like that, the
> less the people support the police state. This indirectly
> helps support for war, because there isn't any other option.
Yet the people most in favor of strong government controls are the most
supportive of the war; those opposed to the Patriot Act and civil liberties
infringements are also those most opposed to the war. Again, I think you're
misreading culture and how publics view this and respond.
> The Bush administration would do good to actually highlight
> more the need for respecting the civil liberties at home.
>
> This would both kill the carefully designed outrage
> of the Dems - notice how they became Constitution
> thumpers recently? - it's comical! - as well as support
> long term objectives of war.
>
> Yes, it would get a bit in the way of Homeland Security
> and stuff, but hey, it's a tradeoff.
>
> >I am absolutely convinced we are watching a
> >fiasco unfold, and from what I read, that is becoming the conventional
> >wisdom in Washington too.
>
> This has happened before. The conventional wisdom is often
> very dimwitted. This may be crisis of intelligence in Washington
> more than that of military in Iraq.
>
> Have you seen "Team America: World Police"?
>
> The computer called INTELLIGENCE was blown up along
> with HQ.
>
> The Team America reports: "We've lost Intelligence! I
> repeat: we have no Inteligence!"
>
> >I think terrorism will be easier to defang, and
> >Islamic extremism easier to marginalize and ultimately render impotent,
when
> >military conflict and American military presence in the region ceases.
>
> It would be first bombing of WTC and then them finishing the
> job and Madrid all over.
>
> Huntington may have a point.
Huntington's perspective on this is interesting, by the way. He doesn't
think we have a clash of civilizations yet, but warns it could become one if
we're not careful. We could, in fact, provoke one.
Well, we obviously have very different perspectives. The bottom line is
that I don't think yours will work and in fact create real dangers; you
think that of my approach. Whichever ultimately is chosen for the long run
will, I hope, work.
Scott Erb
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
>
> The cases are hardly analogous. Both Germany and Japan were defeated
nations
> with their infrastructres largely destroyed--as a result of wars of
> aggression that they had initiated. There was broad support among the
> general populace for reform, which served as an effective counterforce
> against whatever insurgencies were potentially present. Essentially there
> was peace from the get-go and conditions of cooperation that allowed the
> effective restructuring of their respective governing systems, and even
then
> it was a long process. Go study a history of the allied Occupation of
> Germany and Japan and tell me how similar the conditions were on the
ground
> then compared to what's happening in Iraq today.
>
> Toby
If anyone even tries to compare Iraq with post-World War II they have earned
the right to simply be laughed at. The cases are indeed so different that
I can't believe anyone would seriously try that kind of argument, unless
they really have trouble letting go of their illusions that Iraq would be a
success.
Scott Erb
-snip-
> I tell you what I see in your statements.
In other words, you have nothing. My statements speak for themselves. If
you have an argument about policy or about a position I take, make it.
Otherwise, all you are doing is trash talking, and in the usenet that's
pretty impotent at this point.
-snip-
> You predicted back in the Fall of 02 that 3(Three) of the following would
happen
> in Iraq after a US victory:
I don't recall any of this, but Iran has extended considerable influence in
the south, the Kurdish situation is "in play," there are fears of Pakistan,
the Saudi government is anachronistic and the chance of it falling is real,
Iraq already is in a nascent civil war and Americans are indeed the targets
of ire. A lot of people on the right claim Saddam moved WMD assetts to
Syria or terrorist groups...we don't know for sure. Saddam luckily did not
hit Israel. More terrorist attacks in the US are still likely, according to
the Bush administration.
So if I did make those predictions, I think we're a lot closer to those than
any sort of 'victory' in Iraq. But I note you still try the personal ad
hominem approach, rather than defending the policy or explaining what best
to do. You are very much avoiding real arguments, facts, or analytical
opinion. That's because you know, deep down, that I'm right, and this war
is *not* working out. Also, you can certainly tell public opinion is
swinging strongly to the same view. I'm sure that is frustrating, so you
can have the last word. Unless you shift and make a real argument, I'll
simply let you have one more personal attack and I'll smile and move on.
Toby
>
> If anyone even tries to compare Iraq with post-World War II they have
> earned
> the right to simply be laughed at. The cases are indeed so different
> that
> I can't believe anyone would seriously try that kind of argument, unless
> they really have trouble letting go of their illusions that Iraq would be
> a
> success.
You apparently haven't met Bulba. He has made denial a high art.
Toby
Toby
>
> True - some people have argued that Iraq was not defeated ENOUGH,
> like German and Japanese doctrines were basically completely
> annihilated after the war, which was not the case with radical Islam.
Well this was Zinni's point vis-a-vis an Iraq war. However radical Islam is
trans-national, unlike Nazism and Japanese militarism. It's a fundamental
difference.
>
> Nevertheless, you're again missing the point: suppose that after
> wasting German high command and Japanese militarists the
> leftovers of Nazis and military fanatics would be allowed to roam
> free in their respective countries. Would they have more or
> less of the chance coming back to power if Allies were not sitting
> tight on their countries?
I can't speak for Germany, but the military fanatics are still roaming
around Japan, and instead of hanging the Emperor and reforming the
industrial structure the militarists were all put back into power--the
Emperor remanied on the throne and the heads of the zaibatsu were all
reinstated as captains of industry. The difference is that the Japanese
militarist philosophy was not shared by other Asian countries. The Japanese
occupation was totally peaceful from the get-go because of the cooperation
of the Japanese people--very different from what we are seeing in Iraq. And
Radical Islam is quite a different matter: in fact Sunni Iraq was a
moderating influence before we did what we did. There were no kindred
spirits in Europe angry at the treatment of the Germans, no kindred Asian
spirits whose cause could be furthered by opposing the US occupation. It's
a different world.
Toby
Toby
> On 14 Jun 2005 17:08:02 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>I think it must be pretty ugly to the common Iraqi. For you it is not so
>>ugly--you need only turn the other way.
>
> Unless you've lived under the tyranny, I think I have better
> room for comparison in this regard.
I wonder why it is then that so many are saying that life was better under
Saddam.
>
>>It is about control of scarce resources.
>
> More conspiracy theories, Toby?
>
> The scarce resources are there as well in Nigeria
> and Venezuela for instance. They would be much
> easier to snatch and keep for Bush than the
> volatile Middle East country.
Indeed this is not the case. The only easily available reserves that will
last any length of time are in the Middle East. I highly recommend "The End
of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World" by Paul Roberts. I will be very
busy for the next couple of weeks and I don't have time to discuss it.
>
> You may not have noticed, but the two countries
> Bush invaded recently ave this sort of, well,
> religion in there that somehow is prone to establishing
> itself as a system of government.
LOL! and that's exactly what's happening in the US too.
>
> What kind of scarce resources do you find in
> Afghanistan, Toby?
Not much aside from Opium, which is renewable. However I'm speaking about
the decision to go to into Iraq.
>
> Again: the only consideration for oil in Iraq
> Bush probably had was not allowing it to fall
> into Al Qaeda's hands. Which is a pretty good
> objective.
Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil that is already financing Al Qaeda; they
don't need Iraqi oil.
Toby
1703 Dead
Had MacArthur had his way and the emperor abolished, Japan might have
become another Iraq. As it was, the Emperor was what got the
Japanese, particularly the army, to accept the conquerers.
In Germany, I think the horrors of the Nazi regime, brought to full
light at last, pretty much eliminated any real resistance in Germany.
I remember that in the first few months of the occupation, various
Bush Cultists were smugly assuring us that the situation in Iraq was
no different from that of Germany, where a resistance of Nazi
loyalists killed some twenty Germans and injured a couple of Americans
over a few months.
>
>Toby
>
>
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Toby
> On 14 Jun 2005 17:32:01 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>>>Scott has basically made all my points, and done so in a quite exemplary
>>>>manner.
>>>
>>> He's wrong.
>>
>>In your view.
>
> Toby always running away to dreamworld I see. It's all just
> an opinion. We can hold all sorts of them, facts and logic
> be damned.
Ho hum. Just more ad hom personal attacks. Substantiate your position
>
>> If had to choose between the expert advice of the former
>>commander of all ME forces and some minor system analysis in Poland do you
>>know which one I would listen to?
>
> I explained to you why: because he's a soldier and he has a soldier's
> perspective. Not that of a politician or a citizen.
>
> He certainly is worth listening to on the issue of HOW to run
> the war. But not on the issue of WHY to run the war.
So you don't subscribe to the principle that the guys with on-the-ground
experience should have an input in policy decisions? That's the attitude
that lost Vietnam. Bob McNamara running it like he was still managing Ford.
>
> I thought I explained that clearly. Yet in futile hope of changing
> the conclusion you abuse that principle.
>
>>>>Check this guy out. Is he a partisan, president and military hater?
>
>>> No, he's mistaken about _policy_.
>
>>Ditto to the above.
>
> You have not answered to the challenge: IS HE A POLITICIAN?
See my above answer. Any smart politician knows that the military leaders
should be consulted in matters of strategy as well as tactics.
>
> He is a military commander - I don't negate that. But that
> is not the point here.
>
>>> His job is not to settle down the policy and he clearly doesn't
>>> understand that:
>
>>That's why Bush sent him to the ME in the first place.
>
> No, Bush sent him there to IMPLEMENT policy.
>
> Not to ESTABLISH THE POLITICAL GOALS of this whole thing.
>
>>>>Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want - but it was a
>>>>war
>>>>the civilians wanted.
>>>
>>>>"I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
>>>>situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
>>>>no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him," says Zinni.
>>>
>>> God Almighty protect us against generals who think that THEY
>>> should decide what wars are wanted and which are not wanted!!!
>
>>No, in fact--in case you have forgotten--only Congress can declare war.
>
> You again miss the point: it's not just about who declares the war,
> but why it is and what is the politics behind it.
You again miss the point too. The last war the US fought in that was
properly declared was WW II. All military actions since have been engineered
in such a way as to circumvent the checks and balances against executive
preemption.
>
> You obviously lie so you could use that general's words in order
> to achieve the rhetorical effect that is preconceived by you.
>
> That is not analysis, that is begging the question, Toby.
If you want analysis you should go to those who know the situation best.
Zinni certainly qualifies.
>
>>> It's job is to shut up and implement what it is TOLD,
>>> ORDERED to do, in the process merely reporting what is
>>> possible or impossible and what is needed to meet the
>>> goal!
>
>>Which is what he and Shinseki were trying to do.
>
> So WTF is he talking about the war he WANTED?
AFAIK his first recommendation, based on his own experience and
understanding of the policy objectives, was not to invade. Failing that, he
had specific recommendations regarding troop strength and other practical
considerations which were ignored.
>
> If he criticizes it from the position: this or that is possible,
> in my experience this can work and that can't, we can achieve
> this with those means or others, this action could cost that
> many soldiers' lives, etc., now - that is his job.
You'd better read the article, because that is exactly what he discusses.
For the cirticisms--those were expressed after his retirement and are his
right as a private citizen with informed views.
Toby
Toby
> On 14 Jun 2005 17:39:02 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>> Naturally, military and war do not establish political goals. They
>>> serve them. Dismissing that fundamental distinction to
>>> produce sophisms about 'chickenhawks' is dishonest and
>>> misses the point.
>
>>You should have a look at Philip Bobbitt's "The Shield of Achilles: War,
>>Peace and the Course of History." His thesis is the exact opposite, that
>>fundamentally the State evolves as a response to changes in military
>>capability, strategy and tactic.
>
> I don't have a book, all I can read at the moment are reviews
> and editorials on Amazon. But let's look here:
>
> "The world is at a pivotal point, argues Bobbitt, as the nation-state,
> developed over six centuries as the optimal institution for waging war
> and organizing peace, gives way to the market-state. Nation-states
> derive legitimacy from promising to improve the material welfare of
> their citizens, specifically by providing security and order.
> Market-states offer to maximize the opportunity of their people.
> Nation-states use force and law to bring about desired results."
>
> That overview doesn't look to me precisely like what you
> argue he supposedly argues.
The book is 919 pages long. It contains a lot more than your little blurb.
>
> And your summary is pretty effect free: the state evolves
> in response to changes in military capabilities. Duh.
>
> Of course it does!
>
> That, however, doesn't have to change its interests.
> It is again about HOW to fight the war and political
> objectives are affected by that strategy only insofar
> as military limits what is and what is not possible to
> achieve.
>
> That change in military capability doesn't change the
> basic ideology and outlook on the world and economic
> interests.
It doesn't change the fact that everybody wants everything for their group
and to deny it to all other groups, but it does change both strategy and
tactics.
You're putting words in my mouth and then telling me it's silly. that's
typical. I'll be travelling for the next week and so wont have time to try
to unravel your bullshit.
Toby
Toby
>
> Rational arguments that Dad can't afford it are not going
> to work, so Dad must be a little bit "diplomatic" with
> the truth. It's ugly, but necessary I think.
And there goes democracy....
Toby
Toby
>>
>>The cases are hardly analogous. Both Germany and Japan were defeated
>>nations
>>with their infrastructres largely destroyed--as a result of wars of
>>aggression that they had initiated. There was broad support among the
>>general populace for reform, which served as an effective counterforce
>>against whatever insurgencies were potentially present. Essentially there
>>was peace from the get-go and conditions of cooperation that allowed the
>>effective restructuring of their respective governing systems, and even
>>then
>>it was a long process. Go study a history of the allied Occupation of
>>Germany and Japan and tell me how similar the conditions were on the
>>ground
>>then compared to what's happening in Iraq today.
>
> Had MacArthur had his way and the emperor abolished, Japan might have
> become another Iraq. As it was, the Emperor was what got the
> Japanese, particularly the army, to accept the conquerers.
Actually there was a strong call for the Emperor to hang along with Tojo
among the Japanese. Herbert Bix makes a rather compelling case that the
"accepted wisdom" you cite about Japan dissolving into chaos was totally
cooked up by MacArthur. There was no way the former army could have done
anything about it. Bix says that letting the Emperor off the hook has
immeasurably impeded democratic process and kept militarism alive in Japan,
albeit underground. It showed the Japanese that actually it was business as
usual--they only had to change the facade. As it was although the Emperor
was supposedly stripped of political power, he secretly controlled the party
in power-the LDP-well into the 80s.
Toby
Toby
>> Toby always running away to dreamworld I see. It's all just
>> an opinion. We can hold all sorts of them, facts and logic
>> be damned.
Who was it said that the Iraqi would welcome us with open arms as
liberators? They were in dreamworld...
Toby