November 14, 2004
False Comforts
When it comes to war, there are always two conditions for victory. The ones we set, and the ones we’ll actually have to fulfill. One’s opponents can present hidden challenges and unexpected hazards. But I think the point must be made, in the mode of the old proverb that to err in war is human, to admit your mistakes to yourself and others is divine. Fallujah might be a turning point, but we’d have to be lucky in a way we so far haven’t been. Many conditions were set for victory and attained, and still we fight. Could it be that our president and the Pentagon simply don’t understand the war like they should?
When my president started telling us to go out there and shop and spend as we did before, I sensed something was wrong. Here we are, in a time of crisis, and his solution is for us to go shopping? To conduct business as usual?
When he told us we no longer had to worry about Osama Bin Laden, that he is no longer consequential, Again I was struck by the sense that something was wrong.
Then we start heading for Iraq, again that queasy sense. Easy victories, America always successful.
Now, we quote how much percentage of Fallujah we have conquered, how many dead terrorists we have racked up. I wish I could be optimistic, but it's already been confirmed that many of the terrorists who took over the city escaped, and that the meager forces left behind to block the flight of those terrorists had to put down trouble makers in Mosul instead.
Low expectations are a comfort. We want to believe things are going well. We want to believe that we don't have to sacrifice too much, that we couldn't have done anything to prevent the disasters and the mishaps. We want to believe that the Good was earned and the bad was simply inevitable.
The Bush administration has continually insisted that 9/11 could not be predicted or prevented. They resisted the formation of the Homeland Security Department, a department whose sole role is to facilitate the sharing of information and the coordination of efforts. When The Senate Intelligence Committee investigated 9/11, they found an Administration willfully aiding the F.B.I. in covering for its mistakes, trying to sweep the whole mess, which included embarrassing details about Saudi royal family involvement, under the rug.
They continually fought with this investigation and the next one, the 9/11 commission, and made talking point about the partisan nature of this distinctly bipartisan body. They tried to impugn a policy that Ashcroft signed onto himself as the work of commissioner Jamie Gorelick, when that policy (the so-called wall of separation) was both more complex in its nature and built up over a far longer stretch of time.
When they made their case for war in Iraq, they did their best to hide the thinness of their case from the media. Information was useful to the extent it confirmed their expectations. It was suppressed to the extent that it did not, and those that leaked or revealed otherwise were punished. Ask Valerie Wilson.
When we invaded, the military victory ahead took the priority in planning, not the reconstruction and political stabilization of the country. And it's not as if Secretary of State Powell didn't tell them that the Pottery Barn rules applied to Iraq once we invaded. We went right ahead and broke it, now we own it.
Not once, but three times, Bush has said the end of the violence was just ahead. Before Saddam was captured, it was promised his capture would end the growing insurgency. Before we handed power over to the Iraqis (having not taken the insurgency out of the picture) Bush said that would defeat them. Now it's the elections. Surely it will be the elections. Maybe it could be. Maybe the third time is the charm.
Looking at Fallujah, we see a guerilla campaign that is pulling back in the face of a larger force. Cause for hope? We should wait and see on that, because we didn't get the big confrontation we were looking for, the kind we got in Najaf. The evidence supports a more ominous possibility: That they are pulling back in a strategic withdrawal. They are giving us the city, allowing us to occupy our troop strength with pacifying the city. In the meantime, they will either start attacking the other places we've neglected for Fallujah's sake, or they will take advantage of a force immobilized by the necessities of pacification, and start inflicting the real casualties of the Battle for Fallujah.
We are not facing the Nazis, with conventional forces arrayed to meet ours, with cities taken and retaken by direct force and conventional attack. We are facing guerillas. We are facing soldiers that don't shrink from our forces out of fear, but instead to reassert their strategic advantage. The gloriously simple ideas of military victory that occur between symmetrical forces are not only insufficient to deal with the war we now fight, they are dangerously out of sync with the realities of that kind of war.
The false comfort of large scale military victories will not shield our shores against a WMD attack from the reconstituted al-Qaeda, nor turn the tide as necessary against the insurgents in Iraq. We will not find our true peace by wishful thinking and deceptively easy goals, for the tests our country faces are much graver and more complex than that. We must sharpen our wits with our blades, and be as capable of battling these forces in backstreets as in broad fields of battle.
We should not arrogantly fool ourselves into believing that these deceptive, crafty and altogether brilliant enemies will simply throw themselves on our bayonets until they are all spent, having not done so before then. This is not The Four Feathers with the Mahdi army closing in on all sides in a human wave. These are people who are using their heads, not just their bullets and bombs, in order to kill us. We had better use our heads as well, or else pay the price in American blood.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2004 08:03 PMStephen,
As usual, you express the situation clearly and eloquently. It is refreshing to know that there are at least some Americans with an appreciation of history and and understanding of insurgent psychology. Totally off the point, is your name Daugherty a modification of the Irish name, Doherty? Are you one of us? Even partly? ;-) just wondering!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 14, 2004 09:16 PMStephen:
Im a little surprised that I didnt see the words “boo hoo” typed into your post. Sheesh, you lay out such a continually negative outlook on things.
We take over Fallujah, and you see only the negatives in it. We havent been attacked in the US since 9-11, and you see it as the hammer waiting to strike. We have a President who tells us to live our lives OUR way, and not allow the terrorists to disrupt America, and you see it as “shopping”.
It’s really very easy to complain and whine about all the negatives. The world is full of them. When one sports team wins, another loses. When one company’s market share goes up, another’s typically goes down. When one salesman wins a sale, another has lost one.
Its so easy to look at the negative, because its tempting. But its harmful too, in the long run, because you will always find the negative. Eventually good things will happen, and you won’t even be able to see them, because the negative will cloud it out.
Is Fallujah a turning point? I hope so, but its too soon to know. But its definitely a good thing that we have captured caches of weapons, displaced many terrorist hiding places, and set many terrorists on the run.
When you exterminate a house for rats, you do so in part by breaking up nests and removing food. Doing so doesnt mean the rats are gone—you have to be vigilant. But its a start. And a start is a GOOD thing. You might prefer to look at the number of rats still there, or the possibility that they might simply inhabit a different part of the house.
Every silver lining has a cloud behind it, and you seem very capable of finding it. Its tiresome.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 14, 2004 10:04 PMWar is by nature uncertain. Both side believe they can win their objectives; otherwise they wouldn’t fight. Since war is a negative sum activity, one and maybe both sides are certainly wrong. We look back at what has recently happened and assume that we know the important details and we could have done better. Well, we don’t know all the details and we could have done differently, but maybe not better.
Working to set up an Iraqi authority via reasonable elections is a valid goal. Eliminating insurgent strong areas is a necessary, but not sufficient step in that direction. Coalition forces in Iraq have been adapting to the changing circumstances and our military and civilian leaders are combing over their strategies to find errors. This is what they do. It is acknowledgment of “mistakes” and a way to learn from them. (I attended in a daylong seminar on what went wrong and heard a lot of honest assessments) I don’t expect leaders to make public confessions and certainly not before the issue is decided. There is no benefit from doing it. History judges and sometimes comes to very different conclusions than people in the midst of events.
There is little honor in “predicting” the past. There are plenty of things we should have done and maybe even more things that we should not have done. The question is, “what do we do now?”
Joe, If you don’t see the negitive how will you recognize the positive when you see it?
I don’t think that the powers that be understood that there would be a security problem in Iraq. It would seem that they still don’t see it. Until there are enough boots on the ground to fight the battles and provide for the security of the cities that are liberated, we will continue to have the problems we are facing.
This is going to be a cyclical battle.
Now whether the DOD was unprepared or our leaders on the ground are not telling the truth isn’t the point.
We are there now and it’s high time to quit screwing around and put enough people in there to do the job. This is not a technology problem. We need more bodies in there now.
The longer we wait the more people we are going to lose.
Has anybody actually ever made a logical reasoned explanation for why we need more troops in Iraq? Bremer once said something along those lines, but he then backed off.
It reminds me of the joke that if one man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds, then sixty men would be able to dig a post-hole in one second. More is not necessarily more effective.
From the beginning, we’ve tried to keep a somewhat lower profile than we’re capable of so Iraqis don’t feel that they’re being utterly dominated and to encourage them to take responsibility for their own security and political future.
We have not suffered, as far as I know, a single casualty in Iraq because we were outgunned or facing numerically superior enemy forces. In fact, the casualities we have suffered have mostly been from road-side bombs and individual suicide attacks that even a million troops couldn’t stop.
It seems that the more troops we have rambling around in Humvees or standing on street corners, the more opportunities there would be for launching such attacks.
The present strategy seems to be that additional forces in Iraq should come from Iraqis, who are being heavily recruited and trained.
Having said that, as a Monday-morning quarterback I don’t agree with the present strategy in every respect. Personally, I think the light touch we’re trying for (for diplomatic reasons) is sometimes misguided.
That Al-Sadr is still alive, for instance, seems to me a serious mistake.
Why call for more forces when we haven’t even used the forces we have to their full potential?
Posted by: Martin at November 14, 2004 11:55 PMBombing fuels American hatred, and hatred creates terrorism. This war was never about terrorists.
Posted by: political news at November 15, 2004 01:15 AMMartin,
It’s not just about fighting. We need to hold that which we have gained. Sombody has to be able to provide security when we move on to other cities. Had we gone in there with enough forces, we wouldn’t have to be re-taking Fallouja for instance.
Stephen,
As you can see from some of the comments in this thread, the deep denial and ignorance of the true reality that is Iraq currently, is in full force among members of the Bush Majority.
The Coalition army has been fighting the insurgents for 19 months now, and they’re still ‘adapting to changing circumstances’ and ‘combing their strategies to find errors’?
The American media jumped right in and pumped up the assault on Fallujah like a Jerry Bruckheimer produced decisive battle scene. As I alluded to in my previous post, Fallujah was the invasion at Normandy for Coalition forces, thru the eyes of cable news networks.
But, more insurgents escaped than the total who were captured or killed. This Mike Lukovich Editorial Cartoon captures what the Coalition is facing, whether they’ve figured it out or not. And, certainly this not the situation this administration (or the pliable media) want the American public to see.
Most Americans will not learn that the Sunnis have pulled out of the interim government and will boycott the election. They will not know that any of the candidates jockeying for position must show no alliance or support for the Coalition, if they want to have a chance at winning. For ordering and supporting the invasion of Fallujah, PM Allawi’s approval rating is hovering near the teens and may have a Dennis Kucinich’s chance (at best) to getting elected to his present post.
The claims and insistence that larger numbers of trained Iraqi security forces are in the works, are laughable in the face of the continued slaughter of recruits and one U.S. Commander’s doubt now of the allegiance of those forces in Samara.
That’s not negative, just reality.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 15, 2004 02:38 AMAdapting and changing tactics is what successful militaries do. To imply failure because we are still adapting and changing our tactics after 19 months misses that point. Is there anyone here who is doing his job exactly the same way they were last year, or that same way they thought they were going to be doing their job two years ago.
Anyway, whether you assessment is negative or positive what do we do now?
Many people in America and around the world seem to be taking pleasure that the U.S. is stuck in an untenable position. First let me say, that I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT, but let’s grant the premise. What are the options?
The U.S. pulls out with some fig-leaf solution. U.S. prestige suffers and the American leadership suffers as it did after Vietnam. If Iraq goes to hell, the people who suffer the most are not Americans, they are Iraqis, probably Sunnis most of all if there is serious civil disruptions. Other sufferers include Arab states nearby and Europeans who are more dependent on oil from the region and who can expect waves of refugees to wash up on their shores. Every country in this world integrated by trade suffers at least indirectly. The U.S. is less dependent on trade than most of the world’s countries, so ironically is less affected than most others. But let’s face it: American failure in Iraq is a failure for everyone except those who thrive on anarchy and destruction.
The political implications might be even worse. Without American leadership, local powers can – and feel the need to – be more assertive and maybe less cooperative. We saw some of this in the late 1970s, but there were fewer options back then because of the bipolar world. Now it could be more chaotic. You can imagine particular cases such as Russia, Iran, Indonesia, Vietnam and India. There is nothing wrong with this in theory with this kind of multipolar world, but it might make some of their neighbors uncomfortable. Smaller states around the world are often more comfortable with power projected from far away America than from the local – hungrier - big dog.
So guys, call your assessments realistic or negative, but pick up both ends of the stick. If it is as bad as you think, maybe you should be looking into property in Idaho.
Good leadership has to be able to see both the cloud and the silver lining. In fanatically adhering to the Cloudless Lining theory, the administration has disserviced Americans and Iraqis. In counting the bodies of terrorists but not those of civilians, the administration has disserviced Americans and Iraqis. In providing the public with only short-term, simplified objectives and offering them as a panacaea, the administration has disserviced you and me.
Jack,
I am in complete agreement that we need to keep fighting. We need to do everything we possibly can to ensure a stable, hopefully democratic, Iraq. But we can’t do that until we start paying attention to what’s really going on down there.
The changes in our strategies in how to fight Iraq are examples of learning what works and what doesnt. To those who want a simpering public apology from the Bush administration, these strategic directions show how our military continually adapts to changing circumstances.
It is valid to recognize that there are political and military implications to everything we do. Were we the Nazis of WWII, crushing Fallujah and the rest of Iraq would have been simple. We hold the military might, as everyone even on the left admits (Well, they admit it now, but before the war they were predicting differently). Without worrying about civilian casualties or political ramifications, we simply carpet bomb any area of insurgency. We wouldnt win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but so what.
The point is that we are NOT the Nazis of WWII. Our plans have included strategies which hurt our military progress, but save the lives of innocent civilians. Yes, of course no such plan can be perfect, and some on the left will dutifully search out the negative, while missing the positive.
So far, in this thread, the “left” posts have been complaints with no solutions. Its really easy to do that. When pressed for solutions, as Jack has been doing, the typical answers are non answers: “We shouldnt have been there in the first place” or “We should have taken Fallujah earlier” or “We let the leaders like OBL and al-Zarqawi get away”.
They forget that to have taken Fallujah earlier would have cost many lives. An attempt at a more peaceful solution was made—-something which the left keeps wanting. Yet when it didnt work, the left stunningly called for more military activity—and damn the losses. Of course, this was only in hindsight, so its really not valid. But the hypocrisy was laughable.
As I stated before, in war there are always clouds and silver linings. There is always loss of life. The reason many on the left wont come up with a valid plan of what to do next is that it might actually happen, and then they’d be caught in a situation they couldnt complain about.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 15, 2004 07:18 AMJoe,
Have you ever played “Risk”?
If you had you would know that it is important to have enough pieces to not only take the country you seek but to leave a few to maintain it when you leave an area to achieve other goals.
If we had the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi’s when we arrived in Iraq, we wouldn’t still have an uphill climb to secure the country.
Mr. Bush was in such a hurry he didn’t plan for the security of the country, and thus the free for all when the government fell.
The “silver lining” is that because of our superior technology we haven’t lost more troops in the last 19 months.
So far, in this thread, the “left” posts have been complaints with no solutions. Its really easy to do that.JBOD, the point of this post was to bring up a complaint about how Iraq was being handled. Just because there’s no solution going along with it doesn’t mean the complaint is invalid. Posted by: Josh at November 15, 2004 03:55 PM
Joe-
The president’s words on consumption alienated me because the last thing I wanted my president to say was, “Go back to what you were doing before.” I wanted a president who would take the opportunity of the death of an old order of things to reforge our country, and give it new purpose. I wanted my president to take the opportunity to inspire people to join our countries defense in law enforcement, homeland security and the armed forces.
I wanted my president to reform what parts of the government were broken, not cover for them. I wanted my president to acknowledge the need for sacrifice now on taxes, not defer that sacrifice to another generation that may not have the werewithal to handle the bills coming due. I wanted my president to engage our limited resources in their best possible employment, not squander them on wild guesses and radical agendas.
I want a president who is not satisfied with his knowledge of our situation, who doesn’t settle for poor, unconvincing intelligence to sell an unecessary, diversionary war.
In short, I wanted a real leader, not a pretentious party hack with an agenda.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2004 04:27 PMJosh:
JBOD, the point of this post was to bring up a complaint about how Iraq was being handled. Just because there’s no solution going along with it doesn’t mean the complaint is invalid.
I learned long ago in business that a complaint without a solution is absolutely worthless. Its very easy to sit back and whine about how bad things are, how unfair they are, how poorly planned they are. But often times, these complaints are just that——idle complaints.
Without offering a better way, there is no way to determine whether the complaint has validity. It leaves open the possibility that the chosen current direction is actually the best possible approach.
For instance, if the driver of a car chooses a route to get from Point A to Point B, and you complain about it while offering no alternate route, have you helped solve your perceived problem?? Nope.
Do you have a better solution? Perhaps, but it remains unstated, and therefore useless.
Would your solution improve the circumstances? Since there is no solution, you cannot be proven wrong—-your route is not up for discussion since you havent given a route.
The hard part is coming up with the better alternative. Whining for whining sake does nothing.
Stephen:
Regardless of what Bush does or has done, you will consider him a party hack with an agenda. For him to try to please you would be the height of idiocy, since I believe that NOTHING he could do would ever please you. You would find something negative in anything he does. You have done so for the past year or so, and I see no change in your plans for the future. I hope I see some change as conditions improve, but I suspect you will simply find something new to complain about.
Im a little surprised that I didnt see the words “boo hoo” typed into your post. Sheesh, you lay out such a continually negative outlook on things.
Outlooks are directed towards the future. What I give you is a relentlessly negative history of a relentlessly messed up war. The good things about this war are undermined because our military, our nation has not been put into a position of strength, vindication, and manpower to take advantage of the successes.
Success in Fallujah will only be a respite from failures if the original targets are intercepted and and defeated successfully elsewhere. Otherwise, the insurgency will simply become a more diffused, more difficult target, which we don’t have the manpower to face.
The problem is one of judgment, and one of follow-through. The title of this essay says it all: False Comforts As in small and/or isolated victories that don’t pan out into success in the long term and the big picture.
On your second comment…
I think Niall Ferguson nailed the reason we suck at these kinds of wars: We are a nation that celebrates its existence as being a separation from a tyrannical government, so we ourselves will never be at peace, as a people, with the means and actions of an empire.
I think in order to win wars like Iraq, we would have to betray the very essence of what makes us Americans. We would have to economically colonialize other nations to support the expansion of our political power and control, we would have to impose laws, punishments, and government that is far harsher than Americans have the stomach for, and we would have to entrench and fortify this country to counter strikes by angry provincials and rivals to such an extent that our Democracy would probably cease to exist.
As for our call for a rough and tough invasion of Fallujah, could you tell me what has changed during the several months that Fallujah was out of our control, that would make it a bloodier target to attack? Are you somehow asserting that during a time in which American casualties have escalated, that somehow Fallujah became less violent? The hypocrisy here is that Bush trumpets the success of clearing Fallujah only after waiting several months to come back after having done the job half-ass the first time.
I think the only thing that’s changed is that high casualties won’t affect Bush’s chances for reelection now. It’s an understandable political manuever that I’m sure the insurgents took advantage of to make new plans, find new targets, and wreak havoc from a place of safe-haven.
Jack-
War is by nature uncertain.
There are different kinds of uncertainty. Some you can’t prepare for, some you can. I blame Bush for not working to deal with the elemental problems we knew we’d have to deal with, that military planners know will come up. Uprisings, humanitarian and infrastructure problems, problems with local government, procedures for dealing with the sectarian and ethnic conflicts they must have known were endemic to Iraq. It is a cop-out to excuse predictable though not certain to occur problems under the rubric of the Fog of War. Understand the Culture, think out what may go wrong, don’t count on every path that’s offered to you in a war being the one of least resistance.
The fact is, that in 19 months of this war, things have gotten worse, and not better. We’ve passed certain milestones on paper, like Sovereignty and soon the elections, but these aren’t things with power in and over themselves. This drumbeat of the sure and steady win over the terrorists is belied by what seems to be a slow and steady loss of our grasp on the situation, as the events seem to be unfolding. Senator Bob Graham compared striking at al-Qaeda to slamming one’s fist on a drop of mercury, the result being a spreading of a lot of smaller drops around. I think we should watch and see if this is the outcome for Fallujah. Have we destroyed them? The leaders, according to even the military, have mostly escaped. Can they recruit new soldiers? The Answer seems to be yes. Can we win a battle of attrition. Take a look at the population of the Middle East (Hell, try just Iraq), and take a guess. There’s nothing conclusive in a guerilla war about the taking of a city. Guerilla armies tend to allow the larger army to invest itself in the territory, only to attack at forces that don’t have the option of cutting and running.
In the long run, does it hurt the insurgents to be flushed out of one city? Well, the questions surrounding this rely on factors that include:
1)The presence of other cities in rebellion.
2)The ability of the forces to recruit or conscript troops to replace the ones lost.
3)The relative strategical advantage of holding the city to letting it go to the Americans.
4)The ability of Americans to prevent insurgents from filtering back in.
5)How much of the underlying infrastructure for the insurgency remains in place
6)Whether civilian casualties in the cities have been substantial enough to produce additional outrage against Americans
And so on. This isn’t a chess game, but a far more complicated playing field. I wish you people would see that, and understand that much of the criticism of the war comes from that sort of analysis, rather than simply partisan hackery.
Martin-
We need more troops so that we can keep the troops sitting on and guarding certain locations in place, rather than present the enemy with new opportunities to catch us literally off-guard.
We are viewed as an occupying army regardless of how low a profile we’re keeping. The fact that we haven’t had the manpower to maintain security in the country has been, in fact, a major source of friction between us and the Iraqis, and has embolden the terrorists who take our sparse presence to indicate that they have better control of the battlefield than we do. Many other different campaigns have demonstrated the chilling effect that a substantial presence on the ground has on insurgencies and rebellions.
Only this president and his cabinet have ignored that important necessity for troop presence in lands we occupy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2004 08:28 PMJoe-
Truth is, we did have a better plan. You know what it is, and you’ve been fighting it every step of the way, even as your president’s plans have hamstrung this country in the War on Terrorism. You think we’re opposing Bush’s handling of the war because we’re not committed enough, or bold enough to do anything but bring down a “great man?”
Good God, you had better think again. At every juncture, they were told what could happen, that their strategies would go wrong, and that certain possibilities had to be acknowledged. There were papers outlining just this kind of scenario resulting in Iraq. We didn’t ask for more troops after the war, we started asking for them long before any American set foot on Iraqi soil. We didn’t start complaining about tenuous case just yesterday, people were beginning to talk about it almost right from the start.
My side has been vindicated on the facts just about every time. Details here and there have been wrong, but in large part, our criticisms have been born out by the evidence.
The problem is, your side doesn’t want to acknowledge that it’s the Republicans who have become the screwups on foreign policy, too devoted to their theories, and their notions of an idealized world. We’ve been telling you our plans all along, and you simply have not chosen to listen.
Bush could have done any number of things to enhance my regard for him. I was willing to reconsider him as a leader in the wake of 9/11.
But I wanted more out of him than just unfounded optimism, excuses, and hateful rhetoric targeted my way. I wanted a leader who recognized that in the wake of 9/11, Americans wanted to be called to greater things, not just the neighborhood Walmart. I mean, what ever happened to “Ask not what your country cand do for you, ask what you can do for your country?”
In the wake of the 9/11 attack, Bush did not call this country to greater things, he merely exploited our regenerated patriotism, he appealed to it as if the only people genuinely affected by the tragedy were Republicans who toed the neocon line. It didn’t matter what kind of hell you were willing to endure for your country, or that you did indeed endure, if you question him, you got targeted. How else do Republicans like John McCain and John Warner, men who willingly served their country, suffered for it, along with Democrats like John Kerry and Max Cleland, get roasted for their dissent by a bunch of Chickenhawks who never showed up for duty when they had their chance?
I am a patriot, and I will not have you gainsay me on this. I know my own heart. I do not see agreement with Bush as a rightful condition for one’s status as a patriot.
I am a optimist, but that only means that I believe the best can come to past. It doesn’t mean I think it always will come to past, nor that I’ll agree that it’s coming to past the way things are going when the signs don’t point to better days ahead. I do not confuse possibility with probability, the convenience of something’s occurence with its certainty.
The Republicans have gotten swelled heads about their claims about defense and patriotism. In the meantime, they’ve gotten lax and behind the times on the real threats that face us, and have overlooked the development of a fairly savvy and fairly hawkish center to the Democratic party. They are underestimating the effects of a generation of new Democrats untouched by the crippling foreign policy doubts and fears that cut such a terrible swath through the foreign policy experts of the Vietnam Era.
You are underestimating many of the Democrats who post on this column. Sooner or later, you’ve got to drop the outdated rhetoric of a cold war long dead.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2004 09:54 PMUpon the announcement this morning of the resignation of Colin Powell, I audibly scoffed when one of the ‘talking heads’ mentioned that Condi Rice could possibly be in line to replace him. ‘Bush would never be that stupid’, I later told a friend.
Rice is a disastrous choice! It signals the administration’s continued stupidity in not realizing how a Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accord would improve their lot in the Middle East. Instead of installing a seasoned foreign policy broker, they have now eliminated the sole voice of reason and experience in the room.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 15, 2004 11:41 PMStephen:
I am a patriot, and I will not have you gainsay me on this. I know my own heart. I do not see agreement with Bush as a rightful condition for one’s status as a patriot.
I will ask you to politely re-read my posts, and show me where I have “gainsay”ed your patriotism. I don’t recall questioning, or for that matter, even mentioning your patriotism.
What I HAVE said is that you are looking at the glass half empty, rather than half full. Where I see headway in a difficult area of Iraq (namely Fallujah), you see only “a more ominous possibility”. Where I see elections in Iraq as a positive step for their country, you see the potential for failure.
In such tenuous times for Iraq, you are willing to jump on every negative bandwagon that has driven past your doorstep. At one point, it was how the US is “occupying” Iraq…..until we turned power over to the Iraqis. Then on to how Allawi is merely a “puppet”, and soon on to how the election will fail or be stolen ( or is that line only good for Florida or Ohio).
Iraq has not been conducted perfectly; neither has any other war. I’ve reminded you of the failures the US and allies endured at Normandy, within the context of a greater success, yet you dismiss any effort to get you to look past your nearest example of failure.
I’ve given you lists of accomplishments in Iraq—you admitted to them briefly before casting them aside for some new negative information.
You’ve now complained in your last post that I somehow have tainted your “patriotism”, yet all I’ve done is show how negative and shrill your tone has gotten. Does this mean you are not patriotic?? Of course not—-but it does mean the you have descended into an ability to find negativity even in positive circumstances.
The taking of Fallujah is a wonderful step—there are more steps to be taken. You see this as a negative somehow—-I think you have lost the ability to see the positive in it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 16, 2004 01:11 AMStephen, excellent, excellent post.
Now, we quote how much percentage of Fallujah we have conquered, how many dead terrorists we have racked up.
I’d like to say that’s just the media misrepresenting our goals, but the military is briefing them in terms of ground taken and insurgents killed. BTW, I almost choked this morning when I read that, despite the 100,000 or so inhabitants who remained in Fallujah, Allawi claimed that NO civilians were killed.
As I argued in another thread, just killing a thousand insurgents here and there doesn’t end the insurgency. We need to take out the leaders and deny them support of the population.
It sounds like Rumsfeld is going with the Vietnam “fortified hamlet” strategy. If that’s the case, we’re going to need far more troops than we already have to hold all the cities and towns we liberate.
So there’s your justification for more troops. You can argue that they’d just provide more targets, but I’d argue they provide greater suppression of insurgents. If there was a Hummer on every corner, it would be much harder to ambush a unit without getting caught or killed by others nearby - and there’s a far higher chance they’d be caught before they could pull off the ambush in the first place.
The sight of a squad of troopers on every corner would also give the civilians a greater sense of security and a feeling that they could pass along information without the insurgents successfully retaliating.
As for what we should be doing, go back and read Kerry’s New York University speech.
Especially with elections looming (though the Iraqi interim govt. seems to think the date is now negotiable), we need to cut whatever deal it takes to get the UN into Iraq in force. Afghanistan’s election dispute was settled peacefully only because the UN had observers there in sufficient numbers to legitimate the vote.
Joe-
You seem to imply throughout your posts that Democrats are of weaker will when it comes to defending this country, when it comes to standing up for it. That is questioning somebody’s patriotism, because that’s what patriotism is: Supporting your country. That’s why the people in your party are hitting on this issue of pessimism, because that ties the dissent on the war into a lack of belief in America’s abilities and virtues. What this obscures is the fact that Democrat criticism primarily target our doubts about individuals and policies, not our country as a whole.
It’s funny that you keep on using the same argument about pessimism. I don’t think the matter of pessimism vs. optimism is the true issue. I think recognition of our errors, and the action that only such recognition can free us to take is the issue. As President Kennedy once said, an error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. Bush cannot correct the problem with manpower until he admits publically that we invaded with too few troops. Otherwise, his refusal to admit the problem will get in the way for political reasons.
This isn’t about a glass half full or half empty, this is about a waitress bringing us the wrong drink and then telling us she didn’t make the mistake herself, so she shouldn’t have to do anything about it. Half full or half empty, it doesn’t matter.
Iraq was not the right war to begin with, but if had been stabilized quickly and neatly taken care of, we could at least say that we left things better than when we got there, regardless of our mistake. That, I think, was the best we could ever hope for. Unfortunately, despite the technical brilliance of the war, whose achievements were truly historic, the omission of certain critical strategies have plunged us into a situation where our greatest military strengths have been turned against us, and we run the danger of making Iraq the threat we intended to keep it from becoming.
You are so focused on critiquing my lack of positivity on the war that you have failed to ask the fundamental question: Is he right? Are they (the Democrats) right? Do they have their facts straight? If we have our facts straight, then there are serious problems that your people needed to address months ago, and for various reasons have failed to do so. If we have our facts right, then we fought this war to face down a phantom threat- if that’s right, then this was a diversion from a war against a true threat, one that has cost much treasure and lives. It seems to me that conservatives have become so beholden to defending this war on ideological grounds, that they have lost the ability to see this war from a disinterested perspective and weigh the implications of the events on the ground soundly.
How can we succeed if we don’t know what we need to make better?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2004 08:02 AMThe problem that keeps on popping up in the right wing is that it seems that It doesn’t matter to the right whether the news coming from Iraq is true or untrue, but whether it’s damaging or helpful to Republican political standing. Hence the focus on negative and positive. If the Republicans were being truly practical on the issue, the negativity and positivity of the news would not be an issue, the truth would be.
In the real world, negative and positive rarely balance. Things are either improving or worsening. Democrats like me are concerned that key conditions for victory are not being met, and if we wait much longer, may never be met. Often times, the symmetry of the situation, like an umbrella balanced on the finger, can only exist for so long before events break it in a certain direction.
If obstacles are in our path, we do well not to blindly stumble over them, hoping optimism will carry us through. We must be realistic about our situation. We cannot win both a fight with the reality of our situation and a war with the insurgents at the same time. We must be aggressively scrupulous and skeptical in our appraisal of our situation, and avoid being carried away on waves of sentiment and vested theory towards an echo-chambered ego-gratifying picture of the conflict we are in.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2004 11:40 AMStephen:
A couple points:
I have not addressed your comments about whether the war is right or not because we have hashed through that in previous threads. You have your reasons for thinking the war is wrong—-I have my reasons for thinking the war is right. We disagree on this. Rehashing will only accomplish yet another rehash of this issue.
I do beleive that BECAUSE you think the war is wrong, you take a negative viewpoint to any and all parts of it. That you cannot see our current efforts in Fallujah as a positive step is indicative of this mindset.
Secondly, as to your patriotism and will, I have no question that you are patriotic. That does NOT mean that I agree with the direction and strategy that you would employ. I believe George Bush and John Kerry are both patriotic and love their country, yet they have very divergent ideas of how to run our country.
I don’t question your patriotism, your will, nor your integrity. I disagree with your ideas of how to make America better, of how to fight this war, and even whether to fight this war.
If you want to perceive these questions as a referendum on your patriotism, I cannot stop you from doing so. But it will be only your perception, and not the reality.
As an example, if you talk to 2 stockbrokers about how to make money in the markety, you might get two absolutely different answers. It would be wrong to assume that one of the two is less committed to making money in the market. They just have different ideas of how to accomplish this goal.
Likewise, when I challenge your strategy, I do not challenge your patriotism. I simply challenge your strategy. The left seems unwilling as a whole to understand or admit that—-it seems it is easier to assume their patriotism is under attack, even when it is clear that it is not.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 16, 2004 02:08 PMJoe, it’s not hard to assume your patriotism is under attack when you are being called a traitor.
Posted by: Rocky at November 16, 2004 03:04 PMRocky:
I can only speak for myself. I have never called anyone a traitor, but those for whom the term is accurate. I heard a speech in San Diego where a young lady stated that she hoped the US “got its ass kicked” in Iraq. I consider her a traitor.
The left often goes to the intellectually lazy point of suggesting that dissent in THEIR opinion consists of calling them traitors. I believe there are correct and incorrect strategies in how to best protect our country. The “left” does not want to employ what I feel are the correct strategies.
Therefore, I am very comfortable stating that in my opinion, Democrats are not going to protect our country well. Their intent is honorable, as is their patriotism. But I believe their strategies to be poor.
Don’t confuse my dislike of Democratic or “leftist” strategy with my thoughts on their patriotism. One can be patriotic yet employ the wrong strategy.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 16, 2004 04:27 PMJoe-
I see the cleansing of Fallujah as a good thing, make no mistake. But it has to be done in the right way to make it effective, in the right context. It might have been much more effective of a strategy had we done it several months ago, and taken our lumps then. This relates to two of the things you have neglected in your analysis.
The first thing you have neglected is time. Things have changed in Fallujah because of the extended occupation there of the insurgents. Things have also changed in the parts of Iraq surrounding Fallujah and that change has developed in unfortunate directions because of the duration of that rebel occupation.
The second thing you neglected relates to your presentation of the two opinions. It’s a favorite tactic of the right to claim a balanced perspective on events by saying we each have our side, and leaving things in the air.
But things do not leave themselves in the air. One of those stockbrokers, one of those opinions, one of those plans will be better than the other, and it takes hard analysis and hard thinking to get which. But regardless, most of the time, one plan, one opinion will be more on target than another, and we must use our critical thinking skills to evaluate that on a constant basis if we want to succeed more than we fail.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2004 04:39 PMJoe, it would seem that you don’t listen to the radio much. For awhile conservitive talk radio hosts were calling anyone that dissagreed with Bush’s policies traitors and accusing them of treason.
Posted by: Rocky at November 16, 2004 06:16 PMjoe
Correct strategies. By what rationale? This administration was warned about the potential pitfalls of this war, and about the unreliability of the information it used. Things came to pass as many experts predicted it would, with our case for invasion discredited, and our soldiers stuck in the middle of a violent insurgency whose leaders we mostly have been unable to catch, whose recruitment efforts we obviously have been unable to stem. (speaking from months of escalating, continual violence despite the attrition from their numbers)
What’s to discuss, to debate? Only whether these dark events, dark trends are overwhelming our effortst to stabilize and prevent the country from sinking into radicalism and chaos. I believe things can be done that aren’t being done, and that is why I am so gravely disappointed and critical about this administration. They are substituting the needs of politics for the needs of policy.
The insurgency is like acid eating away at all our efforts there, and there may come the point, if god forbid it hasn’t come already, that our efforts will be doomed to failure by that corrosion. This is the reason for my insistence, my relentlessness in pressing this point. I do not believe we have the time to screw around trying to resuscitate a failed policy. We must bring in the soldiers necessary. We must adapt our strategies towards rebuilding or constructing from scratch new relationships with the Iraqi people. We must get the presence of law and order back into the country and forever freeze out our real enemies, who have been gleefully taking advantage of the costs and scandals of the war to beat up on a target that can’t hit back enough to win the fight. This is no time to risk stretching our forces to the breaking point. This is no time to push our luck. We must act to secure Iraq, and do whatever it takes to get the job done.
What you don’t seem to observe, but should, is that your party’s solutions have been the only ones applied so far, and so far we’re still in trouble. If we know the quality of a plan by how well it works, then must find the plans so far to be wanting, and come up with something better. You’ve had our options on the table for quite some time. It’s time to use them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2004 07:31 PMStephen:
I find it interesting that you seem to be advocating the US having taken a harsher and fiercer stance in Fallujah months ago. Yet all along, the left has been pushing for more dialog and more negotiation in the war effort. From the beginning, it has been called a “rush to war”.
Yet then when there is an effort at negotiation, you decry it and suggest a harsher more warlike attitude. Seems you want precisely the opposite of whatever the Bush administration does. Interesting, that.
I agree that one of the stockbroker’s plans will work out better, but in the shorter run, its tough to tell which. Let’s assume one suggested buying tech stocks heavily in the late 90’s and saw an upsurge in his portfolio, while the other portfolio slogged along. At that point, Stockbroker A is ahead….but things change, dont they.
I’ve said before that war is not a video game nor a half hour tv show. We have to give strategies ample time to play out. So far, we have turned over power to the Provisional government, as we said we would. And talk of occupation has eased up as a result. We are planning elections, as we said we would do, and they are moving forward.
Reconstruction is ramping up—-slowly to be sure, but moving forward as we make it safer to do so.
I’ve said all along that you are taking a short sighted view, and not allowing things to play out. You see Stockbroker A’s portfolio and declare him the winner, not realizing the game is halfway done with time to go.
Rocky:
You are right—i dont listen to too much talk radio. And I havent heard the comments that you say the conservatives have said, so I dont know if you are accurate or not. But…in THIS forum, I speak for myself in my posts. I do not speak for others, and they do not speak for me. Hold me accountable to what I say, not to what others might say.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 16, 2004 10:11 PMHey, I’ve got nothing personally against you. I think though, that you occasionally spout the conservitive line and take things said generally about conservitives a little too personally.
No offence meant.
Rocky:
Perhaps….perhaps.
What I truly get frustrated over is the arrogance of some on the left. They take a position, and then assume they MUST be correct, and therefore assume everyone who disagrees must just be ignorant or stupid.
There are plenty of Democrats out there now who are saying Kerry lost because there are too many stupid voters, or because the Republicans cheated, or because Republicans created wedge issues or because….
These types sound like the whiners who blame the refs after losing a sporting event. If they continue to do so, it will be a great disservice to the Democratic party, since the Dems will then continue to lose.
I expect to be held accountable for the things I say, but not for the words of others. I’m conservative, but Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me. I am a Christian, but Jerry Falwell does not speak for me. I speak for myself, and you may feel free to take issue with any and all of my words and positions with no offense taken.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 17, 2004 07:40 AMI find it interesting that you seem to be advocating the US having taken a harsher and fiercer stance in Fallujah months ago. Yet all along, the left has been pushing for more dialog and more negotiation in the war effort. From the beginning, it has been called a “rush to war”.
Nice attempt to conflate two completely seperate issues, jbod. Yes, we rushed to war. But once there, it should have been done right.
Democrats were all over Bush for pulling the Marines out of Fallujah because his poll numbers were sliding. I blogged about it at the time on my site (here and here). And I posted a related article here a little while ago.
General Conway took a swing at Bush’s waffling in the face of opinion poll pressure by saying, “When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that,” he said. “Once you commit, you got to stay committed.”
Damned straight. You’re statement is just flat-out untrue. Stephen is absolutely correct. This whole operation is nothing but a political game to many on the right: It doesn’t matter what happens in Iraq, so long as it doesn’t reflect negatively on Bush - anyone who points out a bonehead play on Bush’s part, or suggests an alternative approach must be a traitor. I call bullshit.
AP
No offense, but your opinion has been made up for a long time. Facts matter little in the equation, since if Bush decides something, you are against it.
We all know that politics plays a role in war, and we also all know that there is much behind the scenes that we are not aware of at the time, or perhaps never aware of.
Regarding Fallujah, there has been a lot of tension between trying to guage the relative relationship of Al-Sistani and Al-Sadr. Lean too far toward one side, and you have problems with the other side, and vice versa. Its a tightrope dance, and apparently one that you’ve already decided on. That is your right.
It really must be easy to predict what is going to happen….AFTER it happens. And also very easy to find the negatives and focus on them, since they will always be there.
For instance, had the US gone into Fallujah without warning, our attacks would have been more effective in perhaps capturing Zarqawi. Yet it would have also resulted in more civilian deaths.
From your perspective, you have a gala fest of negativity available to you. If we went in unannounced, you simply rail about the civilian deaths. If we go in announced, you simply rail about Zarqawi getting away. See how easy it is. Doesnt take any thought, doesnt take any understanding of the circumstances—-it just flows. And it too is bullshit.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 17, 2004 09:19 AMJoe-
100,000 deaths by conservative estimates.
There will always be civilian casualties when you invade a country. There will be more if your occupation turns into a fight against an insurgency, and you’re having to engage in near constant urban warfare in populated areas.
You’re treating this war as if it’s a progressive campaign, forgetting that our progressive campaign was the invasion. What we have now is an insurrection, where the resistance is not together in formations and battlefronts, but diffused, and difficult to nail down.
Where before we could concentrate on that front, concentrate on doing those things that would bring down the regime, now we must divide our attention between many separate objectives and geographical locations
This war is more complex than the invasion that got us into it, more unclear and uncertain. This war that we are fighting now could have been prevented by the simplest kinds of preparations, preparations that are no lost art. Unfortunately, academic and business theory got in the way of that, and we went light.
Now the war we face is much more complex. We can’t simply win battles. Our generals said as much. We can’t win military, but we won’t lose militarily. Body counts and battles won won’t win this war. We must destroy their leadership, eliminate their funding (reportedly filtering in from our friends in Saudi Arabia), and defeat the poverty, corruption, and dysfunction in Iraqi society that fuels the insurgency.
To do that, we must put greater troop strength on the ground. This will have the following benefits:
1)Greater diversity in the employment of troops. In Fallujah, many of the terrorist leaders got away. A bad thing, obvious. What if we had had the troops to blockade such escape. That would have multiplied the value of the troops doing the main assault, and would have ensured that the purpose in cleaning out the city would be fulfilled fully, not done half-assed.
2)A more stable occupational presence. Because of the low manpower, we are having to spread troops pretty thing, shuttling them from trouble spot to trouble spot. When our troops leave, trouble starts brewing again. Our low numbers are forcing us to play a game of Whack-a-mole, with predictable results.
The one good difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that we own the entire country, not just one region. If we could seal the borders and take tangible control of the entire country, our problems would have an end in sight. More soldiers would mean more moles would stay whacked.
3)We could return law and order to the country. This is important, because the chaos and violence is corroding everything else we do there. In this complex system, military victory is not enough, is in fact a half-victory. World War II stayed won because we rebuilt what was destroyed, and rehabilitated what was pathological in the cultures. There is a non-linear aspect to this war that I think conservatives are failing to grasp, where the logic of combat is not the only logic at work.
Our lack of troop strength and our failure to deal with certain problems have made a sixteen month insurgency an unfortunate reality. I only advocate that we take steps to change that reality before it’s too late, and events move too powerfully against our interests and goals.
Stephen:
In regard to your 100,000 number, I found varying estimates. In fact, here is a quote from the IBC website that gives a different viewpoint of the 100,000 number. IBC suggests somewhere between 14-17,000 civilian casualties:
“The Lancet study’s headline figure of “100,000” excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website’s front-page headline “100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion”, [link] the authors clearly state that “many” of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.”
Your suggestions seem reasonable, though I dont know if they are militarily realistic. I’m certainly not a military tactician, and I suspect you arent either. I do know that the military is highly engaged in the process of developing plans, and I’m sure is voicing their thoughts, concerns and suggestions about troop deployments etc.
When I have listened to actual soldiers, I’ve heard diverse comments…some good some bad. But as I said, I’ll leave the military decisions to the military experts, rather than to you and me.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 17, 2004 12:09 PMJoe,
as a player of military strategy games I don’t claim to be an expert in military strategy. However, it is still important to go into a battle with overwhelming force.
Training the Iraqis to police themselves is ok as long as they stay trained. If keep having these problems their numbers will remain in a state of flux. They will continue to change sides until we stabilize the country.
We cannot assume a war of attrition as our adversary is not static. We have tried to do this war on the cheap and soon this will come back to bite us.
Civilian casualties are inevitable and not the point.
We got into a body count war in Viet Nam and we all know what happened there.
Joe-
The IBC will miss anybody who does not have definitive proof that they were innocent of guerilla activities.
Also, you miss a frightening implication of your assertion. If even a fifth of those dead are combatants, then the acknowledged number of combatants doubles. If everybody not counted by the IBC is a combatant, then the number of people who have been fighting against us is six times greater than current estimates of combatants.
If you are right about the numbers, then our enemies have greater ability to recover from loses than ever. If you are wrong, then our civilian casualties are in the six figures and the damage that has wrought on Iraqi society will have to be figured into future plans.
The fact we are even having this debate, that these figures are not settled should be disturbing to you. More than anything else in battle, ignorance kills. And if our government is keeping us in the dark and not educating our soldiers properly…
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2004 03:27 PMStephen:
I dont recall having made any assertion, though perhaps it wasnt clear that the paragraph in quotes came from the IBC website and not from me. I was simply calling the 100,000 civilian casualty number into question, because there are varying numbers thrown about.
I did notice, in striking irony, that you found a negative aspect to whether the IBC number is correct, and also found a negative aspect if the IBC number is INcorrect. Thank you for showing that I havent been overstating my thought process from earlier posts.
I doubt that the civilian casualty number will ever be fully resolved. The problem is that the terrorists dress like civilians and even intermingle with civilians. In some cases, they hold civilians hostage in order to take over their homes. When you have a dead body in these circumstances, how do you know if its a civilian or not—-I submit that the numbers will be inherently flawed.
But this really is a digression. ANY civilian death is tragic and regrettable. Unfortunately, these deaths are also unavoidable in war—only the absence of war will make the deaths unavoidable (this perhaps would be your solution).
That our troops have worked so hard to avoid civilian deaths, even in the face of terrorists who target civilians, or randomly set off explosives with no regard to civilian lives. This is the greatest measure of compassion our troops could ever show, and most of it is missed by the anti war left, who will demonize an entire military for the alleged shooting of one captive.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 17, 2004 05:31 PMI dont recall having made any assertion, though perhaps it wasnt clear that the paragraph in quotes came from the IBC website and not from me. I was simply calling the 100,000 civilian casualty number into question, because there are varying numbers thrown about.
The question is, were the methods of the Lancet sound? Many mainstream media sources have confirmed they are. Now your idea of terrorists mingled among the bodies of the innocent sounds really nasty, until you consider that there is an additional marker for those bodies: arms. A soldier can fight without a uniform. Unless they come out of a Kung Fu Fantasy or the Matrix, they can’t fight without a weapon.
I go by the Lancet because I believe the facts there are sound. Which makes me marvel at your approach. You seem to be content to have the facts be a muddled mess, for no conclusion to be drawn from the facts at hand.
It seems to indicate a disinterest or apathy about the facts on the ground, a willingness to be in the dark about the nature of things on the battle field. Perhaps you think that ignorance benefits people, because then they don’t make erroneous judgments about the nature of the war. I don’t think that’s a good reason to let the facts of the war slip into the fog. I think what you do is you educate people about the nature of war and information coming back from there and let people make up their own minds.
I did notice, in striking irony, that you found a negative aspect to whether the IBC number is correct, and also found a negative aspect if the IBC number is INcorrect. Thank you for showing that I havent been overstating my thought process from earlier posts.
Listen, I’m just taking the Joe Friday approach here. You may be fixated on whether I present darker alternatives, but I’m not. I just see no reason to be all sweetness and light about the war at the moment. We are in the middle of an insurgency that has claimed ninety soldiers lives just for November, and this last week alone seen almost five hundred wounded. These are serious times, so I’m pointing out what I consider to be serious facts and serious implications.
You implied, by your words, that many of those killed could have been insurgents. I just wanted to give you an idea of what your claim would mean, if your notions about my data were drawn out to their logical conclusion.
Overall, I think your focus on the relative negativity of my commentary to yours reflects more a political prejudice that you have about the interpretation of such information, and not some conclusion you brought out from critical analysis of actual news brought out from the front. Your relentlessly positive outlook, in short, is a wish your heart makes about this war, rather than a practical approach to the information. I don’t think I could advocate policy based on wishful thinking. America has suffered too much for that.
But this really is a digression. ANY civilian death is tragic and regrettable. Unfortunately, these deaths are also unavoidable in war—only the absence of war will make the deaths unavoidable (this perhaps would be your solution).
Both of us want the absence of war eventually, but believe that the means to that is a continued occupying presence and fight against the insurgents. Our disagreement, despite the conservative tangents about pessimism, negativity, and peacenikery, is one of means. I’ve been simply giving you the evidence that indicates the low efficacy of Bush’s means. Now you continue to insist that Bush should be given a chance to revise his military policies for the better, but the thing is, Bush has had over eighteen months to make those positive changes, and we don’t have all the time in the world to get it right.
I think the facts paint a rather negative picture, but that negative picture doesn’t scare me so much that I go into denial over it, or think that it’s very mention precludes any happy endings. Now, had you read carefully what I wrote last time, you would see under bold headings why I thought larger troop numbers are part of a solution. It puzzles me how you could imply that I was going all dovey on you, when my bold print solution was to put more troops in.
added postscript
As for this:
That our troops have worked so hard to avoid civilian deaths, even in the face of terrorists who target civilians, or randomly set off explosives with no regard to civilian lives. This is the greatest measure of compassion our troops could ever show, and most of it is missed by the anti war left, who will demonize an entire military for the alleged shooting of one captive.
I think you are walking a fine line here. I think there should be some questions raised when American soldiers start shooting Iraqi captives. The Arab media outlets are going to run with this, and in the future, Americans may not get as much mercy from their captors.
Such atrocities worry people because they indicate a dark turn of mind for the soldiers there. It can become an overgeneralization, but for a people looking to avoid the sins of Vietnam, looking not to repeat history, the notion of Americans executing captives brings an altogether unsavory feeling to one’s heart. I really hope things haven’t gotten that dark across the board.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2004 09:04 PMStephen:
You implied, by your words, that many of those killed could have been insurgents.
The following are the ONLY words I wrote on the subject: In regard to your 100,000 number, I found varying estimates. In fact, here is a quote from the IBC website that gives a different viewpoint of the 100,000 number. IBC suggests somewhere between 14-17,000 civilian casualties.
As I explained, the remainder of the comments were IBC’s words. I implied nothing. I stated the fact that there are differing views on the number of casualties. I did a quick google search and the very first site I found questioned the numbers. You stated that “Perhaps you think that ignorance benefits people”, implying my ignorance. What you should understand is that I simply called your number into question, and cited a source that does so as well. I didnt plan an in depth dissertation on the issue.
I stand by my comment: The number of casualties is in question.
As to your negativity, I find it humorously ironic that you continue in a negative vein. Its almost as if you cant see it happening, while its plain to see. You can justify it any way you like, but you’ve given repeated proof that you will search out the negative in any situation, as long as Bush is involved in it.
Finally, you did just what I accuse you of doing. There is an alleged killing of a surrendering terrorist by a Marine—-this is a single incident which is being fully investigated. It is shameful, yet is also an isolated incident.
Yet here are YOUR words making this single shooting appear to be an epidemic:
I think there should be some questions raised when American soldiers start shooting Iraqi captives…Such atrocities worry people because they indicate a dark turn of mind for the soldiers there.
You pluralize it into multiple events, then project it into the minds of the entire military. You stand ready to condemn any US soldier who commits such an atrocity (and of course, if this act was committed, then it should be condemned), yet you remain strangely silent about the brutal murders of innocent people like Margaret Hassan or Danny Pearl. I understand the logic: there is no connection to George Bush, ergo why mention it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 17, 2004 11:17 PMStephen:
An additional comment about the Marine who killed the injured terrorist. There is appearing to be muddled information on this issue. Terrorists have been known to fake death and then booby trap their own bodies, or to have a hidden weapon. The cameraman runs an anti-war site on the internet.
These pieces of information do NOT suggest innocence (nor guilt) for the Marine. They do add some perspective to the issue. As I stated above, this issue will be investigate fully, and a decision will be reached.
While the videotape might suggest one thing, its always best to consider the entire context of the circumstances before reaching conclusions.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 17, 2004 11:25 PMJoe,
throughout Stephen and my posts there has been a continuing theme.
You have danced around the point but never seem to quite get it.
If we are going to win this war we are going to have to more men in there. More men really means less casualties.
I don’t know that I can put it any plainer than that.
Posted by: Rocky at November 17, 2004 11:37 PMJoe-
Look, when I quote something unqualified I intend the quoted’s message to become mine, and if I’m doing that just to muddy the water it’s intellectually dishonest. It may be an honest mistake on your part, but it’s still a mistake.
You stated that “Perhaps you think that ignorance benefits people”, implying my ignorance. What you should understand is that I simply called your number into question, and cited a source that does so as well.
Well, you would rather have people happy about the war, than told negative things, or related pessimistic scenarios. You’re coming down on me, for the most part, because I’m not telling you what you want to hear, rather than because I’m simply wrong.
What about the facts? What does it matter whether I’m negative, if I’m right? The facts should dictate our mood and our plans, not the other way around. I do have my Democratic bias, but the difference between you and I is that I’m more willing to put aside that bias, if I percieved things to be different from what I believe. If the evidence said nothing much was going wrong in Iraq, It would earn Bush points with me. It seems to me that little could happen in Iraq to convince you we’re in trouble there, regardless of how terrible it is.
You’re looking to stick it to me, to defend Bush to the hilt, regardless of what’s happening. Me? I wouldn’t have such a stake in it if I thought the situation wasn’t so bad. I would never have started writing on a site, putting down such a permanent record of my beliefs if I didn’t think the stakes in War on terror were so high. The facts are painting a uneasy and disturbing picture and one must be saturated in the Republican spin not to feel anxiety about Iraq. This is the Prozac presidency- it’s less important to get things right than to make people feel good about it.
As for the executions in the order mentioned:
When somebody shoots a disarmed prisoner, especially an old man as reported, that is strongly indicative of some level of anger, or moral apathy in that person. By itself it would not be so disturbing, but the word coming from Iraq is that troops are on edge, made paranoid by the unpredictability of the guerilla attacks, put under great stress by the extended tours of duty, and disheartened by the situation they encounter with the Iraqi people everyday. This may not be the picture everywhere, nor will it necessarily be the picture for all time and a day, but the tensions our soldiers are under because of administration policy are evidently having a corrosive effect on the personality of the soldiers there, and this could be trouble in the future. If greater numbers of soldiers were over there, we could take that pressure of, reduce the strains on both our society and theirs, and see a quicker end to this war.
I am optimistic that if we take another approach now, we may be able to do something. But I know that history has a way of moving past those who do not take such opportunities, and I fear it may move past us rather quickly.
Do not take my silence on the victims to be sympathy for the victimizers. Simple fact is, I see the disgust with those actions to be so universal in our society that debate about it is unnecessary. Similarly, I do not believe the fight we are in to be unnecessary. It’s the invasion that got us into this fight I disagree with, and the facts so far support that position on the invasion.
There is plenty connected to Bush, like his energy policy, his environmental policy, and other issues that I don’t really write too many posts about. They don’t really concern me so strongly as this war. My ongoing concern about our efforts against terrorism are what drive my postings, mostly. If this war were going more smoothly, you’d hear less out of me.
I believe the Iraq counter-insurgency to be a necessary war, because the alternative creates an unthinkable scenario. But it’s a war made necessary by the negligence and ideological blindness of the Bush administration, not by any real threat.
Because of our invasion, a large portion of our army is locked up in one region. Because of our invasion our credibility and our ability to work with the international community has been diminished. Because of our invasion, al-Qaeda has had time to regroup and recruit, leaving us with an enemy that is rested and recovered from their earlier defeats, and now is attacking at a greater pace than ever. We’re having to fight the war on terror with our hand in a beartrap, and the trap chained to a post.
That is the source of my frustration, as I watch hundreds of young men and women my age dying for a invasion we never should have undertaken in the first place and a counterinsurgency we now are forced to win to even get back where we started on the War on Terror.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2004 08:04 AMStephen:
Here is the problem I have with your viewpoint, and perhaps it is only my perception. You ask
“What does it matter whether I’m negative, if I’m right?” But you also assume that you are right and that others therefore are wrong.
I’m annoyed by your negativity because I dont think your perception of the facts is correct. And I’m sure we agree that one can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions.
I’ll go back to a reference to D-Day that I’ve made. If I look only at the facts (between 6000-9000 dead on 6 June, 1944, equipment malfunctions, incorrect equipment for the job at hand, faulty intelligence etc), I could conclude that D-Day was a horrible failure. Yet it stands as one of America’s finest military achievements.
I believe that you are looking at facts and taking the negative viewpoint. I’m not saying, nor have I ever, that the Iraq war has gone off without a hitch. There have been mistakes and miscalculations, starts and stops, diplomacy used at right and wrong times etc etc.
Yet I see positive movement as well. The transfer of power in the summer was HUGE, and so will be the elections in January, if they come off.
D-Day and all of WWII, given the benefit of time and history, is seen as a monumental success, despite the problems and failures. I believe Iraq can be seen in the same light, though we don’t have the benefit of the time and history through which to view it. You’ve relegated Iraq to a failure (that’s my view of your opinion of it), but I feel you’ve done that far too soon.
Regarding the casualty numbers: my sole point was to not let the 100,000 number be seen as fact. I did not say it was wrong, nor did I say it was right. I said only that there were questions about it, and I cited a source for some of the questions. Too often, someone throws out information as fact, and left unchallenged it becomes accepted as fact whether it is correct or not.
Regarding the death of the allegedly disarmed terrorist: The mindset you described is the mindset of virtually any battleground—-tension, stress, paranoia, unpredictability. I don’t think its fair to jump to any conclusions based on the muddy facts we have about one isolated incident. I feel you have jumped to a conclusion that this one incident is symptomatic of our troops’ general mindset. I dont accept that.
Stephen, you are an intelligent man, you think things through and you write well. I simply feel you are too willing to see the glass half empty rather than half full. Either position can be logically reached and factually presented, yet you seem to say that since you are correct in your pessimism, that my optimism is blinded by partisanship or ignorance. I don’t accept that your presentation is correct, and you don’t accept that mine is. Reality suggests that the truth lies somewhere in between.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 18, 2004 10:53 AMJoe-
D-Day had a purpose that overrode the simple need to win the battle at Normandy. It had a function, and regardless of the hair raising casualties, that purpose was fulfilled. We gained a beachhead that successfully allowed us to land further troops and further supplies for the subsequent invasions of the rest of France and Eastern Germany.
Take that as opposed to Stalingrad, where the Nazis lost hundreds of thousands of troops with no progress.
No matter how heroically the battles are fought, they have purposes and implications that go further than just winning, or not backing down. Their were Armies in the Revolutionary war that never won a battle, but nonetheless won the war because they stayed in the fight.
The Insurgent purpose is to drain us of resources until such point where its more dangerous to persevere than quit. We are well on our way to that, but it’s not inevitable.
On the point of Casualties, it is not enough to say that the numbers are not the only ones out there, in my mind. If you think about it, the numbers the IBC provided can be regarded (As I regard them) as a subset of the Lancet numbers, so long as the methods used by the Lancet are sound. You though, introduce a rather sensational notion, and think that the Lancet numbers must fall like a house of cards. Your methods are the methods of a conservative movement that is more concerned with pre-emptive emotional appeals than scientific checks and balances. That’s why I tell you that from what I have heard, the methods of the Lancet are considered sound.
As for the emotional problems of war, they are endemic to that kind of situation, but their intensity is not inevitable. When the morality and purpose of the war, as experienced firsthand by those in it, comes into question, it can intensify those problems, worsen the pathology. If we keep that up, and conditions are bad enough, it can become detrimental to the war effort as troops lose discipline, officers lose perspective, and moral restraints and morale break down over all.
Neither these troops, nor the war they fight in can be regarded as mechanical. Sooner or later, the Backdoor drafts, questions about the nature of the war, stresses from guerilla war, and other things will take their toll. In trying to cover for the unprepared nature of their rush to war, the Bush administration has put the lid on a pressure cooker, which left to itself may boil over and make things worse.
Reports coming in say that despite what we did in Fallujah, we are no closer to our goals than we were before. I wish for victories, but I do not wish for the kinds of victories that impoverish the spirit, where no visible improvement comes of the blood and sacrifice. I don’t want us to lose or you to lose hope, I want the Republicans to become serious about doing this right, instead of piling on a bunch of spin and recriminations that don’t improve the situation. We cannot win a war fought with Prozac sensibilities. We must fight with our minds our methods and our corrections focused on a purpose. I give you the negative case, because I don’t think you appreciate just how far off course we are from that necessary approach.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2004 11:40 AMStephen:
D-Day had a purpose that overrode the simple need to win the battle at Normandy.
So too does the battles in Fallujah, and for that matter, in all of Iraq. I feel Iraq has had an overriding purpose in the fight against terrorism and the viewpoint that the US is weak in will and mind, and you disagree. This is the crux of where we disagree.
You though, introduce a rather sensational notion, and think that the Lancet numbers must fall like a house of cards.
I don’t know how to make my position on this any clearer, nor to dispel your false perceptions. I’ve said that there are varying opinions on the number of casualties, and I provided one alternate viewpoint as an example. You seem to want to assert that the number you used is correct—go ahead and do so. It wasnt worth my time originally to investigate deeply into the issue, and it certainly isnt worth it now. I’ll leave it that there are differing opinions….you can feel free to stick with your opinion.
Sooner or later, the Backdoor drafts, questions about the nature of the war, stresses from guerilla war, and other things will take their toll.
Interesting that the soldiers I’ve spoken to, and the articles I’ve read that have been written by soldiers have been mostly positive about the war. They have stated that the war they read about in the American media is far different from the one they are experiencing. Interesting, isnt it, that those in the military are the ones supporting the war, and voted in higher numbers for Bush. Based on your assumptions, the only conclusion one could reach is that the dissatisfaction of those in combat would push them to vote AGAINST Bush, and to speak out against the war in greater numbers. Reality has a way of intruding on your conclusion though.
To give you credit though, you could of course end up being right. If we are in the same position 3 years from now (or pick a date in the future), dissatisfaction could rise to the levels you discuss. But its not happening now, and we are not close to it happening, from what I can see.
Of course, I could read the negative comments from soldiers (there are both positive and negative comments), and choose to believe they are the ones in the majority. But it wouldnt fit the facts. It would however be an easy negative viewpoint to take.
Joe,
“It wasnt worth my time originally to investigate deeply into the issue, and it certainly isnt worth it now.”
So your opinion isn’t based in fact because you didn’t take the time to do the research?
“Interesting that the soldiers I’ve spoken to, and the articles I’ve read that have been written by soldiers have been mostly positive about the war.”
Joe that’s their job. It’s called morale.
Posted by: Rocky at November 18, 2004 01:55 PMRocky:
My opinion was based TOTALLY on fact. I said the casualty numbers for civilians in Iraq are in question, and I provided a source that gave different numbers than Stephen used. I felt Stephen had presented the 100,000 civilian casualty number as a fact, while other people feel that it is incorrect. Ergo, there are differing numbers out there, which was my entire point.
As far as your morale comment, Stephen’s assertion seems to be that morale is lacking. I suggest that morale is NOT lacking, based on the people I’ve spoken to and read about. Morale is NOT the job of soldiers—its a byproduct of their emotional state.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 18, 2004 03:05 PMJoe-
D-Day had a purpose that overrode the simple need to win the battle at Normandy. It had a function, and regardless of the hair raising casualties, that purpose was fulfilled. We gained a beachhead that successfully allowed us to land further troops and further supplies for the subsequent invasions of the rest of France and Eastern Germany.
Practical purpose, not some abstract intention They didn’t storm the beach to raise morale, they did so because one of the pieces of that puzzle we had to solve in order to break Nazi Germany was a beachhead secured close to Britain for supply, force insertion and other practical necessities.
Of course, Fallujah succeeds if what you want is to say we’re winning back cities, and it succeeds in terms of territory, but we didn’t just go there for the glory or the real estate, but in order to remove the terrorist capabilities it presented. In that, according to the news I’ve heard, Fallujah has not succeeded. That is my point.
You seek to dispel a false perception of mine (false in your eyes) without even having a perception of your own. How Am I supposed to believe what you say about my position is true if you haven’t examined and discarded enough alternatives to come to your own conclusions. If you were standing behind the IBC as your numbers, I could see your point, and I’d be forced to argue the relative merits. But you’re not doing that. You’re simply throwing your hands up and saying nobody knows, which to me sounds suspiciously like spin rather than good critical analysis. If you don’t stick to a figure, nobody can prove you wrong. My position is falsifiable (that is, can be proved false), but it’s also provable as right. Your point? Nothing can be proved right or wrong, so we might as well believe your side.
You obviously feel it’s worth your time to reply to me every time I’ve posted. If it’s that important to you that you win this argument, you might as well take the half an hour or so that you spend composing your message, and research those things. Find out what the General media says about the studies, who’s critiquing it, whose standing by it and why. Who knows, you might be able to shut me up on the matter. But certainly aren’t going to be able to shut me up with non-answer like “We don’t know and I don’t care to find out” I have too much pride as a rationalist and skeptic to accept that kind of answer. There is a difference between you believing your opponent a liar or a fool, and you establishing that as fact. If you’re going to say I don’t know what I’m talking about, don’t just inform me of your opinion, demonstrate my ignorance! Otherwise, I’ll trust the information I have.
As for who you’ve spoken too, I know this: Six thousand soldiers have come back with PTSD Reporters who have been there report that while the Soldiers are big believers in their mission and the righteous nature of it, it is nonetheless a difficult battlefield Abu Ghraib and other incidents have demonstrated that the dark feelings the occupation has produced can filter it’s way out as abusive behavior (The National Guard people involved were just transfered to that duty from active combat)
The soldiers, being the dedicated, hardworking, get the job done, loyal, unified force they are, are going to be the last people as a group to give up on Iraq, as well they should. That does not mean they cannot or have not ended up in a war that doesn’t do their persistence, loyalty, and skill credit. Meanwhile, there is reams of evidence that good practical, almost commonsense advice was ignored by politicians and DOD officials looking to revolutionarily change American combat, Foreign policy, and tax policy.
And that’s what matters: evidence. Our feelings on subjects can be wrong, especially if we’re misinformed. Numbers, majorities, negativism and positivism- it doesn’t matter. It’s what’s real that matters. We can’t simply float on a dream of a better Iraq forever. We got to get our hands dirty and our perspectives clean of self-aggrandizing illusions and just look at what we’re doing as a set of tasks that need to be done, need to produce certain results, and need to move the country in a certain direction. We had that at the State Department, but the Defense Department took over the preparations for after the war, and threw out much of it because the people involved, they believed, were not loyal enough to the people the Pentagon wanted in power, or to the Neocon’s agenda for the region.
Maybe I beat up on you, because you can answer back and answer for you actions in a way that so many of your loyalty minded politicians and officials won’t. They’re more concerned they get the right answers on where and when we go to war and with whom, than they are that they get a correct picture. They, like you, are willing to accept a badly deficient picture of events and conditions on the ground, in exchange for absolute loyalty to the cause.
I would love to get some good news. I really would. But I don’t want to be lied to or mislead. We don’t need a second chance to commit the errors of Iraq all over again.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2004 03:40 PMStephen:
I know you are trying (sometimes VERY trying—lol) to be openminded, but you still make the false assumption that I’m some kind of blind loyalist. But if you’ve read my posts over the past year, you would understand that isnt the case.
I’ve excoriated the US over Abu Ghraib, but i havent concluded that the US or our armed forces are evil as a whole because of Abu Ghraib.
I’ve said plainly that mistakes and miscalculations have been made, yet I also recognize that mistakes and miscalculations are a part of war, and a part of EVERY war, so I don’t conclude that the Bush administration is full of idiots as a result.
I’ve said that I’d have thought we’d be further along in Iraq by now, and its been a tougher slog than I thought it would be, but that doesnt blind me from seeing the progress that’s being made. I even gave you a site a while back showing all the progress that was going on—you wont see THAT from the media.
I’ve blamed the Bush administration for exaggerating the WMD issue and for overstating what they thought and presenting it as fact. But that doesn’t alter my opinion that we needed to hold Saddam accountable for his repeated lies. With the Oil for Food scandal becoming a bit clearer, we now see that while Saddam may not have had the WMD’s we thought he had, he certainly was on the path to ending sanctions and getting back on track.
The Iraq war, in my opinion, is as much about showing the world that we will not tolerate hostile actions against us as it is about anything. Saddam was playing a game, and Bush ended the game. He first gave Saddam the choice: Live up to the committments you have made, or face the consequences. After 12 years of hearing relatively empty threats, Saddam might have figured he had wiggle room—he was wrong!
Stephen, I understand your disagreement with my assessments. I dont have a problem with you disagreeing. Hell, I don’t even mind that history will be the truer judge of whether you or I are correct. Remember that in his time, Neville Chamberlain was lauded as a hero, but history proved him to be a dupe. History as well will show which of us is correct.
Regarding the numbers, I’ll take some time to find additional information. Its NOT that important to me—as I said, my intent was simply to show that the 100,000 number was not undisputed fact, and I did that.
As far as Fallujah is concerned, you say “…we didn’t just go there for the glory or the real estate, but in order to remove the terrorist capabilities it presented. In that, according to the news I’ve heard, Fallujah has not succeeded.”
This proves a point I’ve been trying to make. You jump on the negative and say how Fallujah has not succeeded but our troops are still THERE. The battle is still engaged. We’ve moved many terrorists from their safe houses, and we’ve blown up many weapons caches. We’ve disrupted their operations and forced them to flee. That you don’t consider that an element of removing “terrorist capabilities”, then I have no idea of what you would consider a success.
Is the fight for Fallujah over? Does this mean the backbone of the terrorists is broken? Of course not—but for you to suggest that the operation has not been successful before its even fully over, just shows where your viewpoint is.
Stephen, I cannot fathom your viewpoint totally—its just too dark for me to do. Maybe mine is too bright for you to fathom. I understand the genesis of your anger and frustration, but not its depth. Perhaps you understand the genesis of my optimism and my steadfast belief that we are doing the right thing by being in Iraq, though I’m sure you don’t agree with the breadth of my viewpoint. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 18, 2004 04:58 PMJoe-
I know mistakes and miscalculation are part of any war. It’s the nature of the mistakes, as I understand them that has me so turned against Bush and his people.
First, many of the people who run the foreign policy, like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Richard Perle were already decided on the issue of Iraq long before we invaded. I already knew that before 9/11. I think it was 98 or 97, about three to four years prior to the attack that they wrote a letter, under the heading of the Project for a New American Century, a group very vested in Neocon ideas of power. So, when these fellas come along and say 9/11s the reason, There is cause to be suspicious. Especially with Wolfowitz, who wrote the Bush Doctrine eight or nine years before Bush Junior took office.
The fact that they used shoddy evidence should ring alarm bells, then, because that means they are trying to rationalize a pretext for their actions, rather than make a sound decision on the facts. The habits of those who seek a decision on the facts would have them factchecking everything, not dumping so much crap into the case that your spokesman (in private of course) tosses some of it over the table and calls it shit.
I didn’t know much about the shoddiness of the case, although there were inklings of that weakness elsewhere. When we plowed into Iraq, I expected us to find weapons, wanted us to find weapons. But they weren’t there.
To me, the idea that we would invade with the existence of those weapons uncertain, unchecked by even one human CIA agent seems altogether moronic. If you’re making a historic gamble like this, It’s all for the best if your dice are loaded and all the right cards are up our sleeves. I know people love Bush for being ostentatious in his defense of America, but in this case, his persistent belligerence denied us the choice of whether to go to war. By the time we had our case, we had already invested so much time and effort into the invasion, that to draw back would have been to lose face. We did not need Bush officials up in front of mics and Cameras setting our foreign policy in front of the world. We needed people who would play close to the chest. That way, there would be less pressure to prove invasion the right measure to take, and more inclination to simply call things for what they are, and work from that.
We really didn’t need to fight a war with Saddam until he gave us a reason. We could have continually reminded him, by one set of means or another that he was in for a serious ass kicking if he so much as looked at us funny. I believe in using the military to take care of present threats, and other means to make sure that other potential threats don’t come to pass.
You know how you say that War and things like that are tremendously uncertain? That’s why I don’t like the idea of Bush Doctrine pre-emption. It sounds like a better way to defend American, but it really isn’t. It demands the kind of perfect intelligence we rarely have, and our Military forces typically lack the agility to move that fast in response to a threat.
In thinking about that point, I’d like you to keep in mind how long we were stuck feeding soldiers into Kuwait for this war. What police and Diplomatic forces lack in absolute force, they make up for in speed and surprise. If we find out about a threat ahead of time, and are sure it exists, then we can send in our lighter, faster deployable assets. But often to find that particular kind of threat, we will need information that won’t be gotten easily by military sources.
Much as I liked Saddam getting his comeuppance, I don’t think this aftermath is worth it. There is more than one way to castrate a dictator, more than one way to goad him into making foolish decisions we could take advantage of.
As for history? We’ll both be proved wrong! The trick is, which of our sides is guided by the facts, and which side is simply trying to fight them?
There is a game I’ve played on a computer called Car Jam. Essentially, you have a grid of different length autos that you have to move around in order to get a certain car from one side to another. The trick to doing it, is that you have to move any number of different cars not directly in the way so you can move the cars that are in the way. Sometimes, you even have to move back cars that you already moved out of the way. Point is, sometimes to get progress on a simple principle you got to be able to make a lot of complex moves. That’s just the way the world is.
It’s not enough to attack Fallujah, or continue the war, you also have to move other pieces on the board to reach the right conclusion. I think as long as our numbers are low there, certain problems will be posed.
For example, military strategists are saying that we must sit on Fallujah for the near term if we want to permanently deny it as a terrorist sanctuary. We also need to get police trained there well enough and in enough numbers that when we leave it won’t be followed by the city’s implosion.
The challenge of this, and the problem I’ve been trying to pose to you is that the troop numbers are hobbling us in a very important way. Do you remember me talking about whack-a-mole? That’s important now, because the terrorists will make attacks on cities around Fallujah to put us in the uncomfortable position of having to sacrifice one piece of territory or another for Fallujah. If we had more soldiers to spread around such tactics would be of less use. The underlying liberating factor for the insurgents has been a presence which is too light too mobile for its own good- able to rush hither and yon effectively engaging the insurgents, but not so able to sit on an area and discourage guerilla actions.
If my view seems dark it’s because I don’t think Bush is taking care of all things that need taking care of. I don’t want things to fail, I hope we can pull off some kind of miracle, but as you yourself might agree, we haven’t always had the best of luck.
I think you should take the example of Thomas Friedman. Here’s a guy who believes wholeheartedly in the viral democracy idea, but who also recognizes the difficulties associated with the war. If you are right, you’re not going to convince dour skeptics like me by telling use we’re being too negative or too pessimistic, because as we see it, we’re simply seeing things clearly. If you want to throw a monkey wrench in our Jeremiads, do it by full-blooded means. Research well, find good sources, not beholden to ideology, and explore the facts. Then come back with an intuitive picture of what you’ve discovered.
In short, report.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2004 08:51 PMStephen:
Much as I liked Saddam getting his comeuppance, I don’t think this aftermath is worth it. There is more than one way to castrate a dictator, more than one way to goad him into making foolish decisions we could take advantage of.
Its really easy to make this kind of statement now, especially when you’ve said the war that gave Saddam his comeuppance is wrongwrongwrong.
What methods of castration would you favor? Perhaps the CIA goading Iraqis to engage in a coup? The left has talked about this by damning the CIA for meddling
How about prodding Saddam into attacking Kuwait so we could fight him militarily? The left has been jumping on this non issue for years, damning the Bush 41 administration for this (doesnt matter that its not true—they damn anyway).
How about having sanctions? Well, when the sanctions were in place, the left howled about how 5000 Iraqi children were dying each month as a result, and was fighting to end the sanctions. They really seem to have hurt Saddam anyway, what with the estimated billions that he stole from the Oil for Food endeavor.
How bout resolutions condemning Iraqi actions? The environmentalists could have saved a swath of clear cut forest by eliminating this worthless use of paper, which was backed up by…….yep, you guessed it….NOTHING.
When the US has moved behind the scenes to affect world politics, the left condemns the US for meddling. Yet here you are suggesting that the US do just that. Of course, had the US done just that, I’m sure you would have found a negative stance to take.
On a different issue, perhaps you can explain the root cause of our military situation, which seems to be having a lack of personnel. We used to be able to fight on two separate fronts with the manpower in the military. We now have essentially one front (Iraq) and a relatively small number of special forces troops in Afghanistan. How did our military change so dramatically? Was it Clinton? Was it Bush 43 or 41? Was it Congress?
Stephen, if we truly dont have the manpower to facilitate this war properly (this seems to be your opinion), then would you be in favor of reinstating a draft in order to get the necessary manpower? Or would you stand on the side saying the war is unjust, and therefore we should discontinue prosecuting it? To stand and say its being done wrong without giving rational proposals to fix it certainly wouldnt be your style, so lets hear it.
