ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Pannonian]

that is a moral position.
it is also a position i broadly agree with, and i say this as someone who supported the iraq war in 2003.
hague would probably call it "the enlightened national interest".

i made two mistakes:
1. in underestimating the colossal mess the occupation would make in not occupying iraq. disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy. rumsfelds light-weight invasion was brilliant, his light-weight occupation was stupid. when castigating the coalitions disgraceful lack of post-war planning, how do we assess the wilful intransigience of Clare Short in preventing her DfID department from contributing to post-war planning?
2. in overestimating the capability to the british army to take part in 2003 while continuing afghan. arguably, in joining in with iraq we prolonged the bloodshed in Afghanistan by five years through neglecting the country at a time when it needed our political and military attention.

i'm not one of those getting my knickers in a twist over illegal wars. as far i am concerned there was legitimate motive for doing so, and parliament said yes, end of. that does not mean however that we should have done it, because it fails your test above, and in so failing likewise failed to make the act in our national interest, let alone enlightened.

Legal or not, it doesn't make the Iraq war any less stupid, which is the barometer I use for judging a government's decision to go to war in this day and age. Back in 2003, I predicted that the country would fall apart due to contesting interests, and our lack of stomach for taking the measures necessary to suppress these interests. As such, I wanted us to stay out and leave it to Saddam to deal with that mess of a country. It's hard to argue that I was wrong in any way.

[HopAlongBunny]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it hard to think that the outcome is other than intended.
Militias allowed to arm, army all but disbanded
Allies of US, Brit and France funding the "insurgents"
Devolving Iraq from regional power to splintered cluster

Mission Accomplished indeed.

[Fisherking]

Guess the figured it was time to raise oil prices.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's easy to believe that Bilderberger or Illuminati is behind US foreign politics, merely because it's unfathomable to believe the US acted in their self interest, heck, even world or human interest at large.

But you know, never believe conspiracy theories, if it can be explained simply by people being absolutely retarded.

[Brenus]

“Allies of US, Brit and France funding the "insurgents"” Worse than that, providing volunteers to go to fight for the Jihad…
This is the result of Assad the Bad against the nice insurgents, all democratic as err… I don’t know.
We had a French President who was ready to in war just like this, so it was ok to fight against Assad and his chemical weapons, indeed. So they went. Of course, they were supporting a totalitarian Islamic utopia, but were compare the International Brigades when they should have been seen as the Waffen-SS.
Media choose to ignore who were the “freedom” fighters and the ideology they serve, all against the tyrant (not the Dune’s one)… There you have the result. F it...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cultures accept the rule of law as paramount to the rule of power or of the individual or they do not.

Invading and winning where the rule of law is accepted can yield a relatively brief occupation followed by the formation of a working state (e.g. Post ww2 West Germany; Post ww2 Italy).

Invading and winning where the rule of law is not accepted likely yields nothing but a delay in the return to violence and warlordism unless you are willing to have the occupation last 35 years and create a new generation with a new culture.


I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

[Pannonian]

Cultures accept the rule of law as paramount to the rule of power or of the individual or they do not.

Invading and winning where the rule of law is accepted can yield a relatively brief occupation followed by the formation of a working state (e.g. Post ww2 West Germany; Post ww2 Italy).

Invading and winning where the rule of law is not accepted likely yields nothing but a delay in the return to violence and warlordism unless you are willing to have the occupation last 35 years and create a new generation with a new culture.


I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

Another way of doing it is to do as the British did after the Indian Mutiny, taking exceptionally harsh measures against the active perpetrators (eg. blowing ringleaders from cannon), before re-adjusting to old pre-British power structures with the British on top, and visibly on top. Imperialism, in other words.

[Beskar]

I am still awed by MacArthur's success with Japan following ww2....though it is fairer to think of it as Japanese success with a dash of help from Dugout Doug.

I thought Japan was very traditional/honour-based which is compatible with rule-of-law, or am I mistaken?

[Kadagar_AV]

Isn't the Iraq "war" won?

My oh my, I seem to recall some half-moronic president stating so.



Question to anyone still believing Iraq is a just "war": Explain how the war could be won, or how you have had steps towards an actuall win?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Another way of doing it is to do as the British did after the Indian Mutiny, taking exceptionally harsh measures against the active perpetrators (eg. blowing ringleaders from cannon), before re-adjusting to old pre-British power structures with the British on top, and visibly on top. Imperialism, in other words.

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isn't the Iraq "war" won?

My oh my, I seem to recall some half-moronic president stating so.



Question to anyone still believing Iraq is a just "war": Explain how the war could be won, or how you have had steps towards an actuall win?

Why do you still fall for the media-fueled all U.S. conservatives are morons all U.S. liberals are intelligent crap? You are fully aware of morons on both sides of Sweden's political spectrum. You don't succumb to Sweden's media view that all anti-immigration reactionaries must be morons. Why do you presume a U.S. President saying things is anything OTHER than political posturing. You can excoriate EVERY U.S. President of the last half century....or more....for statements they made that were subsequently proved wrong/innacurate/short-sighted. I daresay you could do so with virtually any executive branch the world over.

Try this radical thought on for size....NONE of our world leaders are stupid. NONE of them are omniscient either. Almost all of them grandstand a bit. Put it in perspective please.

[Kadagar_AV]

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

BS.

It wasn't the caste system who started WWII, nor developed atomic bombs. Heck, they don't even do international terrorism.

If that doesn't sell the argument: They have had nothing to do with bank structures nor the IMF.











It seems like a VERY ************************************* cultural shift comparing to that, no?

Or do I read something wrong here?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Question to anyone still believing Iraq is a just "war": Explain how the war could be won, or how you have had steps towards an actuall win?

Invasion and conquest more or less as conducted.

Presume 1-2% of Iraqi population will go active insurgent.

a. Commit troops sufficient to generate a 7.5-1 ratio of garrison forces to insurgents so as to suppress the insurgency.
1. Efforts must be made to minimize collateral damage among civilians, but human shields cannot be allowed to deter counterstrikes.
2. Insurgents captured should be screened and categorized: low levels/redeemables to be put in reeducation camps, interrogated using interviews of a benign nature; leaders/hardliners & foreign volunteers shot.

b. Commit Army Corps of Engineers, Medical services, etc. to start hearts and minds efforts.

c. Rebuild and enhance the infrastructure of the area

d. Train all youth in schools to begin changing framework of thinking.


Steps a-d must continue for 10-40 years, with a draw-down of troops as insurgency withers.



The USA does not have enough of a dark side to do those steps very well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BS.

It wasn't the caste system who started WWII, nor developed atomic bombs. Heck, they don't even do international terrorism.

If that doesn't sell the argument: They have had nothing to do with bank structures nor the IMF.











It seems like a VERY ************************************* cultural shift comparing to that, no?

Or do I read something wrong here?

Pan was commenting on the policies and efforts of the British raj, post-mutiny. My comment referred to that. While far from flawless, modern India is a state that emphasizes the rule of law, gives some scope for self determination, etc. India had nothing to do with starting WW2 save as a member of the Empire. Their atomic weapons were developed as a means to counter potential Chinese and Pakistani aggression. I don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India at all.

I think you went off on a tangent here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought Japan was very traditional/honour-based which is compatible with rule-of-law, or am I mistaken?

Pre WW2 it was a military junta wrapped around a cult of the Emperor.

Their military used beatings as normal discipline and an officer could kill a private soldier for a mistake....and risk a reprimand for leaving the regiment short a soldier til the replacement came.

Imperial Japan had the trappings of parliamentarianism, but not the substance.

[Kadagar_AV]

Pan was commenting on the policies and efforts of the British raj, post-mutiny. My comment referred to that. While far from flawless, modern India is a state that emphasizes the rule of law, gives some scope for self determination, etc. India had nothing to do with starting WW2 save as a member of the Empire. Their atomic weapons were developed as a means to counter potential Chinese and Pakistani aggression. I don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India at all.

I think you went off on a tangent here.

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

[Lemur]

I keep thinking about the western heritage, things like the Thirty Years War, which was a bloodbath of Rwandan proportions. We went through this. We did this to ourselves, long before cable news and cell phones. Then I stumbled across this depressing nugget of wisdom:

It took the Thirty Years war to finally purge the enthusiasm of sectarianism from the cultural DNA of Europeans (and even then, religious minorities were second class citizens for centuries). There will be no calm reasoning with Iraqis of any stripe because the march of history continues, and only sadness can convince all parties that moderation is necessary for the existence of modern nation-states. Intervention in some fashion may be inevitable in the world, but our goal should be to prevent hell, not to create heaven on earth. The former is possible, the latter is not.

Remember, the Enlightenment, which was the essential component of the birth of the USA, was a direct result of exhaustion from the Religious Wars. If Europe hadn't shredded itself like an emo self-cutting girl on meth, there would never have been modern liberalism, ecumenicalism, rationalism, all of that enlightenment stuff.

[Pannonian]

A variation on my second choice. You stayed long enough to change the culture substantially. Caste system largely broken; significant respect for rule of law developed; some belief in democratic institutions. Still too much graft, but not a bad culture shift for roughly one century.

We could have stayed longer still, but for that at least one Indian cottoned on to the fact that they no longer had cause to fear us. The Japanese then highlighted this fact, and the Americans left us no choice whatsoever, but our empire was still based on fear of us. Once we lost our stomach for enforcing that fear, it was only a matter of time before the colonies started challenging us. It's not such a bad thing to lose that, but it's a matter of political fact. No-one fears the Americans, as everyone knows that they'll never have the political will or the desire to be a country feared by others. For the kind of nation-building envisaged by PVC, you need to have that basis of fear. For all the cotton candy nicey-nicey nation-building in Germany and Japan that the history books like to talk about, that was after you'd destroyed them as nations and left them with no identity but whatever you saw fit to impose.

[ICantSpellDawg]

When do you think Susan Rice and her panel of advisors will resign is disgrace for failing to react to the situation in Syria which has directly led to a new police action in Iraq?

[Husar]

When do you think Susan Rice and her panel of advisors will resign is disgrace for failing to react to the situation in Syria which has directly led to a new police action in Iraq?

As soon as the entire Bush admin resigns for passing the patriot act.

I don't even see how that was a failure? Why would someone resign because the country is "forced" into a police action (which it isn't) because it did not perform a police action earlier? That's like saying you're angry at her for her not having sent your soldiers to theirs deaths sooner.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As soon as the entire Bush admin resigns for passing the patriot act.

I don't even see how that was a failure? Why would someone resign because the country is "forced" into a police action (which it isn't) because it did not perform a police action earlier? That's like saying you're angry at her for her not having sent your soldiers to theirs deaths sooner.

If more soldiers and civilians die from the negligent inaction- yes you can.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We could have stayed longer still, but for that at least one Indian cottoned on to the fact that they no longer had cause to fear us. The Japanese then highlighted this fact, and the Americans left us no choice whatsoever, but our empire was still based on fear of us. Once we lost our stomach for enforcing that fear, it was only a matter of time before the colonies started challenging us. It's not such a bad thing to lose that, but it's a matter of political fact. No-one fears the Americans, as everyone knows that they'll never have the political will or the desire to be a country feared by others. For the kind of nation-building envisaged by PVC, you need to have that basis of fear. For all the cotton candy nicey-nicey nation-building in Germany and Japan that the history books like to talk about, that was after you'd destroyed them as nations and left them with no identity but whatever you saw fit to impose.

First off, the allusion in your opening sentence was "cloth of gold" in quality. Kudos.

Of course we smashed Germany and Japan. The fact is we did not do so in Iraq. The only way to nation build with a goodly chance to success involves a level of suppression of the previous culture that is intolerable to modern sensibility. We have and continue to have this capability, we lack the will to be that imperialistic.

Lacking the will to do it properly, the USA should retire from the field.

Quite a bit of my thinking leads me to suggest that we:

Fold NATO; adopt isolationism in international affairs; offer separate defensive alliances to England (likely accepted) and France (likely rejected); end the special relationship with Israel; drop our military to a size no more than half of current levels and preferably smaller -- after all, they will only be deployed at home, in the New World with the request of local authorities, and in England; repeal about 75% of the Patriot Act; Adopt a national language (I would prefer English, but Spanish might be more acceptable); legalize drugs, prostitution, and gambling (regulate and tax -- prohibition fails); cut government functions by about half reverting those functions to the several states; increase NASA funding by an order of magnitude or so with objectives to match.

Ain't gonna happen -- but that's where I think we would trend best.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're assuming an independent Scotland, then?

Anyway, while you're doing that the Balance of Power shifts to a catastrophic degree towards China in asia and Russia in Europe.

Without American backing Israel looks like a soft target and a new and bloody war breaks out between Israel and the non-genocidal Levantine States on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Without American leadership military co-operation in Europe unravels into smaller blocks, the UK likely withdraws from the EU as a result, Germany either becomes the axis on which everyone turns, or abdicates responsibility - lots of nasty ways for this to go, including opportunistic Russian Invasion.

China begins to threaten Japan openly - lacking American backing Japan aggressively re-militarise....

All HELL breaks loose.

I sympathise with your desire to downsize your military commitment, but isolationism just ends up dragging the US into the war late, rather than keeping you out.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We're assuming an independent Scotland, then?

Anyway, while you're doing that the Balance of Power shifts to a catastrophic degree towards China in asia and Russia in Europe.

Without American backing Israel looks like a soft target and a new and bloody war breaks out between Israel and the non-genocidal Levantine States on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Without American leadership military co-operation in Europe unravels into smaller blocks, the UK likely withdraws from the EU as a result, Germany either becomes the axis on which everyone turns, or abdicates responsibility - lots of nasty ways for this to go, including opportunistic Russian Invasion.

China begins to threaten Japan openly - lacking American backing Japan aggressively re-militarise....

All HELL breaks loose.

I sympathise with your desire to downsize your military commitment, but isolationism just ends up dragging the US into the war late, rather than keeping you out.

It is not the downsizing of the military commitment per se which is the issue. Yes, it is expensive but if it is used effectively than it justifies its cost. My objections are to the half-***ed way it gets done. Either commit with the intent to use the requisite force to win, or don't. ALL of our allies -- including the best of the lot which is you folks in the UK -- want to commit the military to various interventions without committing them to win. I'm staunchly in favor of a lot less in the way of interventions while using an Almighty-huge malfing hammer when we DO intervene. Absent that option, isolationism kills fewer yanks.

Dragged in to something bigger later? Quite possibly, but then we might take it seriously enough to resolve it as thoroughly as we did in WW2. Efforts to curtail victory always seem to backfire even worse.

[Kadagar_AV]

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

You answer my post like if it wasn't just a random (and somewhat offensive) drunken rant... What's up with that?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bogus. What led to a new police action in Iraq is the hawks' inability to take "We should sit this one out" for an answer.

They also thought that they could sandwich Iran between two friendly-to-the-West successor states and thereby neutralize it. Strategically sound if the resources to actually do it had been made available -- but that would have required a 10+ year commitment of forces at suppression levels and was never politically viable.

So, Gelcube, did you ever meet one of the well-meaning idiots who blithely thought that Iraqis would greet you with flowers and cheers while they held spontaneous free elections the moment Sadam was toppled? Talk about your blindered thinking about the aftermath of a war that we fought at the wrong time and for a reason which turned out to be fallacious.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nobody thought that who was actually in the Army.

I have little doubt of that. I was wondering if one of the "suits" with those views took a tour of your post while you were deployed....and if they would have let one of the troops "discuss" things with them.

[HopAlongBunny]

I did run into such types here in Canada. A service club I belonged to, with connections to the military, had individuals with that viewpoint. Iraq was going to be over almost as soon as it began; the people would flock to the occupiers with joy and gratitude not seen since the liberation of the lowlands in Europe. Among this group, the point was a matter of faith and unshakable; no argument could undermine this belief; as well, it was deeply resented that Canada had decided to sit out (largely) the war in Iraq.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, what are all of you "non-hawks" suggesting our policy should be? Same think as the suggestion is Syria: "sit this one out"?