Why Bush's war has already failed
Joseph Crowe
As many of you know, I have opposed the Bush regime's invasion of
Iraq on principled grounds, and not as a supporter of either wing of the
ruling party in feral politics. One thing that some of you may not
realize, given the woeful incompetence of the current media, is that the
U.S. fortunes in Iraq are bleak indeed. Further, a serious movement is
afoot to reinstitute the draft, e.g. chattel slavery, with all the
loopholes, like the one that Bush II used to avoid service in Viet Nam,
closed. But the point of this post is to direct your attention to an
interesting observation by William Lind, an expert on fourth generation
warfare. With his permission I am posting an excerpt of his article and
a link to the whole article.
Why We Get It Wrong
by William S. Lind
One of the few consistencies of the war in Iraq is Americas ability to
make the wrong choices. From starting the war in the first place through
outlawing the Ba'ath and sending the Iraqi army home to assaulting
Fallujah and declaring war on Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, we
repeatedly get it wrong. Such consistency raises a question: can we
identify a single factor that consistently leads us in the wrong
direction?
I think we can. That is not to say other factors are not also in play.
But one wrong notion does appear to underlie many of our blunders. That
is the belief that in this war, the U.S. military is the strongest
player.
.
.
.
In fact, in Iraq and in Fourth Generation war elsewhere, we are the
weaker party. The most important reason this is so is time.
For every other party, the distinguishing characteristic of the American
intervention force is that it, and it alone, will go away. At some
point, sooner or later, we will go home. Everyone else stays, because
they live there.
For the rest of the article, visit:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind19.html
For a postscript, John Steinbeck wrote a short novella during WWII,
called The Moon is Down. It has a lot to say about the psychological
effect on soldiers being forced to fight on the wrong side of ethics in
war.
Support our troops...bring them home NOW!
--
Joseph Crowe
Faye
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040422...@fnord.io.com...
> Support our troops...bring them home NOW!
AMEN!
Faye
Max O.
¡Estupido!
Yeah, and create the mother of all power vacuums. Unless you mean removing a
goodly amount of Yankee troops and replacing them with UN member troops.
Which is what you meant right? :)
Kent Finnell
news:LoWhc.11300$_o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
ticket. Worked real well in Viet Nam, didn't it?
That rumble you hear is the 50,000 Viet Nam dead spinning in their graves.
The well meaning but ignorant peace at any price lost that war, not the
military. And here they are at work again.
Bush I made the mistake (at the behest of the UN and others) of abandoning
the Kurds 12 years ago, and now the philosophical children of Chamberlain
want to do it again. Way to go, fellas, make sure we're never trusted
again.
Now before Sam'l starts flinging the word "warmonger" around, I'd like to
say that I don't favor war, any war, but once you're in, it must be either
won or the enemy is beaten to an ineffectual pulp. Right now the enemy in
Iraq is striking out at what should be its own people. That's a sign that
they're losing, that they're desperate. We may have lost over 100 this
month, but how many insurgents have died? How many civilians have the
insurgents killed or caused to have been killed by hiding among and behind
the civilians?
So, Children of Chamberlain, if you keep on whining, you serve the enemy.
--
The Second Amendment ...
America's Original Homeland Defense
Kent Finnell
From The Music City USA
Faye
news:7JWhc.7284$e4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ĄEstupido!
No, I am not stupid. The war in Iraq is stupid.
> Yeah, and create the mother of all power vacuums. Unless you mean removing
a
> goodly amount of Yankee troops and replacing them with UN member troops.
>
> Which is what you meant right? :)
No, I mean bring our troops home today at 5:30 p.m. cdt. Iraq is a mess.
Having more of our troops die is not going to make it any less of a mess.
Other countries are cutting their losses and getting out.
We could have brought troops home from Viet Nam, let's say, in '68. What
good did it do to have one more soldier die there, much less the thousands
who did? Enough is enough. We shouldn't be there at all. Bring 'em home
now. Saddam is gone. Let Iraqis control Iraq. I have stated here before
that the US has no more right to cram democracy down the throats of other
countries than the USSR had to force communism upon sovereign nations.
Meanwhile back home, let's put a *Manhattan Project* type effort into
developing viable energy that is not dependent on oil. Please don't bore me
with reasons this can't be done.
Faye
Faye
news:3iXhc.68783$951....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Cut and run to assure that those young men died in vain. Yeah, that's the
> ticket. Worked real well in Viet Nam, didn't it?
58,000 dead Americans say what we did didn't work. If not so totally sad,
it would be humorous to hear people still defend our involvement in Viet
Nam. I saw what it did to my cousin, one young man. Multiply that by all
those who served and you have a national travesty.
> That rumble you hear is the 50,000 Viet Nam dead spinning in their graves.
> The well meaning but ignorant peace at any price lost that war, not the
> military. And here they are at work again.
>
> Bush I made the mistake (at the behest of the UN and others) of abandoning
> the Kurds 12 years ago, and now the philosophical children of Chamberlain
> want to do it again. Way to go, fellas, make sure we're never trusted
> again.
You think the rest of the world trusts us *now*? We just INVADED a country
with malice aforethought that had not directed aggression at us. Repeat
after me: Iraq is not Afghanistan. You *just gotta* have a war? Might I
suggest Saudi Arabia?
> Now before Sam'l starts flinging the word "warmonger" around, I'd like to
> say that I don't favor war, any war, but once you're in, it must be either
> won or the enemy is beaten to an ineffectual pulp. Right now the enemy in
> Iraq is striking out at what should be its own people. That's a sign that
> they're losing, that they're desperate. We may have lost over 100 this
> month, but how many insurgents have died? How many civilians have the
> insurgents killed or caused to have been killed by hiding among and behind
> the civilians?
Does it ever occur to you that all those innocents would not be in the
middle of all this had the US not INVADED? Is it so difficult to understand
that there are peoples/nations throughout the world whose cultures mix with
democracy like oil mixes with water?
> So, Children of Chamberlain, if you keep on whining, you serve the enemy.
If I put any credence into what you think or say, it would make me wretch.
Faye
Ktreemn
>in this war, the U.S. military is the strongest
>player.
Because this is not a war, it's a "friendly" war.
One doesn't go to a 'measured' war to occupy, unless the entire world
community, The UN, is the occupying power.
Can anyone tell me of a previous successful friendly war?
Has it ever occured?
VietNam was a friendly war.
Unless the object is to destroy the enemy, it will fail.
The pride of any people will preclude a docile military occupation. Regardless
of the bush new and improved justification of this war and his claims of "do
gooder," they will never take kindly to it.
Am I wrong? : ) Lala
Richard Thomas
>The pride of any people will preclude a docile military occupation. Regardless
>of the bush new and improved justification of this war and his claims of "do
>gooder," they will never take kindly to it.
>
>Am I wrong? : ) Lala
No.
(Ouch)
Rich
Richard Thomas
wrote:
> Too bad we have a monkey king in as commander in chimp.
Nah, I still prefer "Chimperor"
> Jim
Rich
Kent Finnell
news:cv4h801nd1l91v91u...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:00:24 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
> <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:LoWhc.11300$_o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> "Joseph Crowe" <jcr...@io.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040422...@fnord.io.com...
> >> > Support our troops...bring them home NOW!
> >>
> >>
> >> AMEN!
> >>
> >> Faye
> >>
> >>
> >Cut and run to assure that those young men died in vain. Yeah, that's
the
> >ticket. Worked real well in Viet Nam, didn't it?
>
> conflict is justified in the first place. I, and many others, would
> argue that putting men and women at risk in a nation that we once
> propped up with our wealth and miltary spending is terribly bad
> foreign policy. We can't get Osama, so we'll get the runner up.
>
> >So, Children of Chamberlain, if you keep on whining, you serve the enemy.
>
> line and sinker.
Swallow whose stuff, Cyrus? I haven't heard the phrase elsewhere.
--
I am the NRA and I vote!
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
Max O.
> No, I mean bring our troops home today at 5:30 p.m. cdt. Iraq is a mess.
> Having more of our troops die is not going to make it any less of a mess.
> Other countries are cutting their losses and getting out.
>
> We could have brought troops home from Viet Nam, let's say, in '68. What
> good did it do to have one more soldier die there, much less the thousands
> who did? Enough is enough. We shouldn't be there at all. Bring 'em home
> now. Saddam is gone. Let Iraqis control Iraq. I have stated here before
> that the US has no more right to cram democracy down the throats of other
> countries than the USSR had to force communism upon sovereign nations.
If we pull out, then the blood of potentially millions of victims is on our
hands. Iraq will not sort itself out peacefully. Another tyrant will take
Saddams place. A thousand soldiers with many times more seriously injured
is a lot of humans, but the lives we save by pulling out will be multiplied
by the thousands in Iraqi lives lost because of the resulting instability.
Is the life of a US soldier worth 100x more than that of an Iraqi civilian?
That's what it appears that people that are calling for an immediate
pullout are saying, that western lives are worth more. Disgusting.
I agree about not forcing western style democracy on those folks, they might
be better off under a "benevolent" dictatorship for all we know. I want
this to no longer be a US occupation, but an international one. Somebody
needs to keep the peace and let Iraqis figure it out. If they reject
democracy, then they should be allowed to do so.
Now, pulling out a goodly number of troops and replacing them with
international soldiers, plus forfeiting the "leadership" position to the UN
sounds like a good deal. Fat chance the Chimperor will let that happen.
Colin Powel was right about the "Pottery Barn Rule"
jakdedert
I heard that 'ouch' all the way up here in Hillsboro Village.
jak
rayrat
wrote:
Faye, you are right on. There is nothing to be gained by staying in
that quagmire in Iraq. Nothing.
We also need an alternative to oil. NOW!
Ray
Joseph Crowe
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Max O. wrote:
>
> If we pull out, then the blood of potentially millions of victims is on our
> hands.
First of all, let's agree to adopt some semantic rigor here. If the
U.S. feral government led coalition pulls out, then the three dominant
forces in Iraq will fight among themselves and in all probability, the
English created country will divide into three countries. I'm at a loss
to understand why the "potentially millions of victims" would really
care if U.S. armed forces killed or maimed them or if they fought for
the real freedom to make their own choices. It's also worth noting,
that in addition to the U.S. casualties and those of other "coalition"
forces, thousands of civilian Iraqis have lost their lives. Add this to
the 500,000 or so children that were starved to death as result of the
embargo, and the U.S. is directly responsible for an order of magnitude
more civilian deaths than the Hussein regime. Examination of statistics
does not bode well for the supporters of hegemon.
> Iraq will not sort itself out peacefully. Another tyrant will take
> Saddams place. A thousand soldiers with many times more seriously injured
> is a lot of humans, but the lives we save by pulling out will be multiplied
> by the thousands in Iraqi lives lost because of the resulting instability.
> Is the life of a US soldier worth 100x more than that of an Iraqi civilian?
> That's what it appears that people that are calling for an immediate
> pullout are saying, that western lives are worth more. Disgusting.
No, the ones saying that western lives are more important are the
ones who started this war. People who make statements about 50,000
American soldiers spinning in their graves (Viet Nam reference) never
seem to grok that U.S. military killed between 1 and 3 million Viet
Namese, both civilians and armed combatants. It's the nature of this
kind of invasion that a huge civilian casualty figure always occurs.
So, I have to ask you Max and Kent, why don't you value the lives of
those who you wish to subjegate?
> I agree about not forcing western style democracy on those folks, they might
> be better off under a "benevolent" dictatorship for all we know. I want
> this to no longer be a US occupation, but an international one. Somebody
> needs to keep the peace and let Iraqis figure it out. If they reject
> democracy, then they should be allowed to do so.
So, even if they accept democracy and the majority opines that
outside influences should leave, you still favor occupation? Your
position has no logical consistency. And Kent's position seems like
support of the "kill them all for their own good" position.
> Now, pulling out a goodly number of troops and replacing them with
> international soldiers, plus forfeiting the "leadership" position to the UN
> sounds like a good deal. Fat chance the Chimperor will let that happen.
The U.N. is just a wannabe, larger version of the U.S. feral
government. I guess it's out of the question that anybody in the
current administration or any possible future administration could just
admit that they made a mistake, pull out and let businesses and
individuals efficiently and profitably clean up the incredible mess.
>
> Colin Powel was right about the "Pottery Barn Rule"
Powell and Armitage were wrong about the wrongly named "Pottery Barn
Rule". First off, the Pottery Barn does not have a "if you break it you
pay for it" rule. Second, it was the Bush administration who committed
this atrocity and it should rightly be the Bush administration and all
the cowards in Congress that did not challenge this unconstitutional
action to personally take responsibility. In a really free country, the
whole lot of them would be impeached and removed from office and then
prosecuted for their illegal actions. >
--
Joseph Crowe
Max O.
> Faye, you are right on. There is nothing to be gained by staying in
> that quagmire in Iraq. Nothing.
>
> We also need an alternative to oil. NOW!
>
> Ray
Look, I marched against this war and wrote tons of letters, just like
democracy requires of you. But to believe that an immediate and total
pullout would be the best option is to truly have one's head in the sand.
I'd love for you and Faye to give me a timeline of what you think would
happen if we pulled out. Do you also think we should pull out all monies
going to Iraq? We broke the country, and should pay to fix it. Even if we
do pull out in the next couple of months (fat chance), a good number of US
troops will simply be replaced by mercenaries, who don't answer directly to
the US or anybody but the bottom line. They'll be funded by the US
government whether you like it or not, and they'll cost more and behave
without regard to ethics. Ohhh, la la! Pullout sure sounds good. What's
y'all's next catchphrase? Perhaps something sane like, "US must relinquish
control to the UN!!!" Ah, something realistic at last. Very good. Cookies
for both of you!
Asking for an immediate withdrawal is the kind of insane reasoning that you
often hear from the same wackos that think politcal rallies are a place to
sell hemp crafts and play bongos. Sheesh.
"We need an alternative to oil. NOW!" And the little magic energy fairy will
leave it under your pillow tonight, so just be patient. Guess what? I want
a ham sandwich, NOW! Guess I'll just have to go make one...:)
Max O.
> So, I have to ask you Max and Kent, why don't you value the lives of
> those who you wish to subjegate?
Have you read any of my previous posts, asshole? If you'd been paying
attention than perhaps you wouldn't equate me with Kent.
Staying in Iraq with hopefully UN control does not equate to "wishing to
subjegate"
If you're mad, go yell at your dog, don't make unbased accusations.
Stupid fuck.
Max O.
> So, even if they accept democracy and the majority opines that
> outside influences should leave, you still favor occupation? Your
> position has no logical consistency
How do you "accept" democracy? Is it like Jesus? Do you do it in a river?
How do we know what the majority wants? When do we have elections? Who
qualifies to be on the ballot...
I don't favor "occupation", but I guess that's what it is more or less, I
favor staying as a moderating force (peacekeeping force is too ironic of a
phrase for me) and gradually reducing the Americans and replacing them with
whatever UN members asses we can kiss the best. When a reasonable temporary
local governing group has gelled and says "split" then split.
Max O.
> So, I have to ask you Max and Kent, why don't you value the lives of
> those who you wish to subjegate?
Have you read any of my previous posts, asshole? If you'd been paying
Joseph Crowe
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Jim Garrett wrote:
> I don't think so, but I think a big part of the reason are the vast
> differences in cultures and religions between us and them. One might
> easily argue that the post-war occupation of Germany was successful,
> but except for the language, nearly everyone involved vis-à-vis
> Germany were WASPs or a close approximation thereof. And WWII wasn't
> what anyone would call a friendly war.
There's are significant differences between WWII and the Iraq war.
In WW II, the Germany/Italy/Japan alliance were the agressors...they
attacked first. In the Iraq war, the U.S. attacked first. In WW II the
U.S. became involved through a constitutionally mandated declaration of
war by the legislative branch, after an attack (provoked as it was) on a
U.S. military base. In Iraq, the involvement was by executive branch
fiat based on a fabric of falsehoods. The occupation of Germany did
not, to my knowledge, involved killing thousands of civilians by the
military, though a lot starved in the English, French and Russian
sectors.
One lesson that one could learn from the Balkan experience relates to
the fact that outsider cultures can never hope to easily understand the
whole backdrop of longterm conflicts that are local or regional in
nature. In the Balkans, the U.S. and the European nations involved
chose to side with one group whose atrocities were as bad as those of
the "other side". The lesson to be learned...simply Washington's
farewell advice....free trade with all, entangling alliances with
none. The proper role of feral government is not to dictate moral codes
to sovereign nations around the world. In any case, the feral
government's application of power is logically inconsistent.
>
> Despite some idiots' notions to the contrary, the Muslim world will
> never tolerate our occupation anymore than Kent would quietly
> acquiesce to the military occupation of Madison by a Muslim army. One
> idea is as absurd as the other.
This is true, though simply pointing out the error of their position
would carry more weight than ad hominum.
>
>
> One other thought: When the purpose of any war becomes about
> proving how powerful we are or about "assur(ing) that those young men
> (didn't) die in vain" then if it wasn't before, it has certainly
> become an immoral war. Trying to force our political system down the
> throats of another nation is on the same list.
Bingo....precisely the point. Frankly, all non-defensive wars strike
me as "immoral". Reduced to the individual level, I rather think that
Kent would object if I came into his house and told him that he had to
give up his guns, not contribute to Usenet, submit to searches every
time he left his home, not go out between 9PM and 7AM and fear for his
life 24x7. And yet, that's the exact situation he's defending in Iraq.
>
> Jim
>
--
Joseph Crowe
Richard Thomas
>If we pull out, then the blood of potentially millions of victims is on our
>hands. Iraq will not sort itself out peacefully. Another tyrant will take
>Saddams place. A thousand soldiers with many times more seriously injured
>is a lot of humans, but the lives we save by pulling out will be multiplied
>by the thousands in Iraqi lives lost because of the resulting instability.
>Is the life of a US soldier worth 100x more than that of an Iraqi civilian?
>That's what it appears that people that are calling for an immediate
>pullout are saying, that western lives are worth more. Disgusting.
>
Just a thought though Max, perhaps we do need to pull out and perhaps
Iraq does need to become unstable and descend into blood and war. And
then perhaps the Iraqis can sort it out for themselves and produce
themselves a stable government. Because I have very grave misgivings
about whatever we're going to be leaving them with. I think it's
entirely possible that the Iraqi people will not settle for a
government which they feel has been imposed on them from outsiders.
Particularly outsiders who they regard as infidels and servants of
satan.
The desire of the Americas for independence was not resolved over tea
and crumpets at suppertime after all.
Rich
Richard Thomas
wrote:
> In a really free country, the
>whole lot of them would be impeached and removed from office and then
>prosecuted for their illegal actions. >
Finally I can find a point to disagree with you on, Joseph.
In a really free country, these dufuses wouldn't have had the power to
do what they did anyway.
Rich
>Joseph Crowe
Boston Blackie
news...@bellsouth.net (Richard Thomas) wrote:
\> Just a thought though Max, perhaps we do need to pull out and perhaps
> Iraq does need to become unstable and descend into blood and war. And
> then perhaps the Iraqis can sort it out for themselves and produce
> themselves a stable government.
Here's where I (again) show my ignorance, but if civil war does erupt in
Iraq, and if new political boundaries result, which of the groups (Kurd,
Sunni, Shiite) lands on the oil?
Richard Thomas
wrote:
>I truly, honestly believe Iraq was a diversionary tactic, meant to
>convince Americans that they were truly safer by that intervention,
>when in fact it in all likelihood has no impact. As someone else
>pointed out, if we were really pro-humanitarian, we wouldn't have
>pushed for contination of sanctions at the expense of innocent people.
Quite possibly, Cyrus. I've never really been convinced by the "go get
their oil" theory. It truly would have been cheaper to buy it. I can
see it as a move to destabilise Opec or an attempt to create a Western
friendly state (with hopefully a little more acceptance than Israel)
in the Middle East but certainly a "We still need to give someone else
the smackdown after Afghanistan and Iraq is already demonised in the
American public's eye and we already have half an excuse" seems a
reasonable explanation too.
Though it still seems most likely that Bush has been Jonesing for Iraq
since his daddy got voted out and 9/11 just provided a usable pretext.
Rich
jakdedert
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:18:05 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
> <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> "Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
>> news:cv4h801nd1l91v91u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:00:24 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
>
>>>> that's the ticket. Worked real well in Viet Nam, didn't it?
>>>
>>> Whether or not a person dies in vain has a lot to do with whether
>>> the conflict is justified in the first place. I, and many others,
>>> would argue that putting men and women at risk in a nation that we
>>> once propped up with our wealth and miltary spending is terribly bad
>>> foreign policy. We can't get Osama, so we'll get the runner up.
>>>
>>>> So, Children of Chamberlain, if you keep on whining, you serve the
>>>> enemy.
>>>
>>> Children of Chamberlain? Good grief, you swallow their stuff hook,
>>> line and sinker.
>>
>> Swallow whose stuff, Cyrus? I haven't heard the phrase elsewhere.
>
> consider an enemy to be a government we once had a direct hand in
> propping up? It's like the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a
> right.
>
> I truly, honestly believe Iraq was a diversionary tactic, meant to
> convince Americans that they were truly safer by that intervention,
> when in fact it in all likelihood has no impact. As someone else
> pointed out, if we were really pro-humanitarian, we wouldn't have
> pushed for contination of sanctions at the expense of innocent people.
>
> know he's responsible for the death of Americans, which is more than
> we can say for Saddam's tie to 9/11, etc. Meanwhile, Afghanistan's in
> shambles from a leadership point of view, Iraq's going to cost us
> billions, make a few Republican-connected businesses wealthy, and
> leave taxpayers with the tab.
$111,701,586,093 and counting.....
jak
Joseph Crowe
> Joseph Crowe wrote:
>
> > So, I have to ask you Max and Kent, why don't you value the lives of
> > those who you wish to subjegate?
>
> Have you read any of my previous posts, asshole? If you'd been paying
> attention than perhaps you wouldn't equate me with Kent.
Try some decaf, Max. You have, in this case, chosen to totally take
out of context the point I made....e.g. that both you and Kent believe
that withdrawing U.S. military force from Iraq is wrong. The only way
that the U.S. can stay in Iraq is to subjegate the people there, quod
erat demonstrandum..... >
> Staying in Iraq with hopefully UN control does not equate to "wishing to
> subjegate"
Here's a novel idea...why not let them decide their own fate....?
>
> If you're mad, go yell at your dog, don't make unbased accusations.
I'm not mad, don't have a dog and merely pointed out the position you
held in common with Kent...no reason to invoke ad hominum in lieu of a
reasoned response.
--
Joseph Crowe