A question for discussion: Are we on the same side as ISF?
Also: Is ISF on the same side as ISF?
Printable View
A question for discussion: Are we on the same side as ISF?
Also: Is ISF on the same side as ISF?
Defeat, militarily, is an impossibility. Our success or failure rests in the political will of our leaders. And that is it.
The Dems want America to fail in Iraq and will undermine the military effort in every way possible in order to secure a political failure which will lead to a military withdrawal. Failure in Iraq, characterized by early withdrawal and a resulting collapsed failed state in civil war, would prove to be a political victory of lasting consequence for the American left as well as a disastrous defeat in the war against terror with even longer lasting, albeit dire, consequences for western security.
House Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, said to the Washington Post that a positive report from Iraq would be "a real big problem for us". :dizzy2:
You make it sound as though victory or defeat depends on the will and nerve of the politicians to stick it out for long enough. That is, as I've shown on numerous occasions, not the case. It's not the political will that's going to decide the fate of Iraq, but the political direction. At the moment, it's going in the same wrong direction as always, adjusting for wind (coming from the helmsman's backside). You're not circumnavigating the globe, where if you keep going in the wrong direction for long enough you'll eventually end up where you started. There's only so long you can keep going before your boat falls apart, and if you insist on aiming for the wrong goal, your destination is going to be the bottom of the sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
True military failure is a virtual impossibility, this will come down to a political solution. However a proper military solution will give the leverage in the political arena. I would say your failure is in the hands of the political will of your leaders. Success however is in the hands of their political leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
It is when the Iraqi government can sit down and have peace talks with the insurgents that a victory can be achieved. That is not something the political leaders can rush on any of the sides. Until it becomes a situation like Northern Ireland where Sinn Fein had the political will and authourity to rein in a large percentage of the IRA... peace in Iraq will be very hard to achieve until the political side is addressed and those in charge of the politics have the actual ability to control the military... compare the PLO with Hamas for instance... Hamas if anything has a nastier terrorist and military arm then the PLO, however the political side of Hamas seems to have more control over their military brethren and more coordination overall... so although they are 'worse' terrorists a lasting peace might be easier to achieve as the political arm can and will get things done given a large enough carrot.
Of course while carrots have to be given out to political concessions, the entire time a large stick has to hover over any violent outbursts... but the military counter strikes have to be proportionate and seen to be just... otherwise they erode the goodwill that is trying to be formed by the political process.
=][=
Of course a cheap energy source like say the mythical 'cold fusion' and wham, the middle east loses all economic leverage and then the ability to buy and supply arms there would be minimal... they would have to have economies based on knowledge or have their economies dwindle into dust... those same knowledgeable workers make it hard to be a dictator/monarch and would encourage democracy to rise from the grass roots... which is really the only proven way that democracies have risen... a top down approach works for dictatorships, while democracies require a larger base of informed citizens.
I don't think a democracy is possible to install when people are more concerned about survival and getting their needs looked after. It is less important to stay knowledgeable and informed when you are trying to stay alive and supply yourself with clean water, food and shelter that doesn't explode.
At least with our soldiers out there, would-be terrorists are going out there to bomb people rather than bombing people at home... they have (sometimes) protective armour for that kind of behaviour.
Did I mention that we screwed the country over, and should fix it before we leave? Or that it'd simply be inhumane to leave them to slaughter each other? (Whilst we're at it, there's a fair few African states that need intervention as well... but they have no oil, and they're black, so people don't seem to care).
Who knew the Dems were planning a Dolchstosslegende? Are they plotting this with the Freemasons and the Jews?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
DA, if there are signs of improvement, our country will adjust to the new reality. There's nothing the Dems can do about that except carp from the sidelines. If, on the other hand, we're still refereeing a 20-way civil war, our country can't be demagogued into believing it's the birth pangs of a Jeffersonian democracy.
The American people are not infinitely stupid. You know the old adage about fooling people, involving the variables "time" and "all." Your dystopian vision of an emasculated America rotted from within by leftists and the intelligentsia, welcoming jihadis with open arms in the name of multi-culturalism ... well, let's just say that I'm rather more worried about octosquids and zombies.
America may veer from left to right and back again, but it's a fundamentally sane nation, with a good head on its collective shoulders. Excesses will be corrected over time. I don't believe in the leftie pinko takeover any more than I believe in the fascist right-wingnut takeover.
Just chill, man.
-edit-
Oh, and to answer Xiahou's question, the main index of the Saban archives is here.
I'm no fool who sees a conspiracy of the left alone. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that both parties are willing to engage in nearly any level of politics, to the detriment of the nation, in order to gain or retain power.
I am simply making the observation that this is an instance of Democratic party sabotage of this military campaign in order to gain political advantage.
The Republicans are doing the same thing with Global Warming, with consequences of similar ruin.
While that may be considered pessimism, I see it as realism.
Actually, it wasn't. (Well, not mainly, but firing for effect on the tubes of the internet means miscommunication)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Good point. Apparently, we didn't do enough about Rwanda, and here we've caused a great mess and we're supposed to run out and let them kill each other off. Wander what they would've said if we had gone to Rwanda and our soldiers had died...Quote:
Did I mention that we screwed the country over, and should fix it before we leave? Or that it'd simply be inhumane to leave them to slaughter each other? (Whilst we're at it, there's a fair few African states that need intervention as well... but they have no oil, and they're black, so people don't seem to care).
CR
Surely the Republicans had the upper hand and the early start with regards to sending the required amount of troops to deal with an insurgency... blaming it on the Democrats a couple of years after the fact is a little bit rich IMDHO... more troops should have been sent earlier, the Republicans dropped the ball on this one.
I would say the Republicans were too optimistic and the Democrats too pessimistic... I have to agree that both sets are doing so to pander to voters... it would have been best if the politicians had set out the goal of the war (which would include either an exit time or exit goal point), a budget and then let the military decide how many boots it required... and allow the military to give an honest opinion on whether it could be achieved with a boy scout troop or a million hardened veterans.
Yeah, this is a major cognitive disconnect for some Democrats. They'll rail on and on about Rwanda (in retrospect) and Darfur (in anticipation), but I never get the sense that they've thought it through. How will the Darfur Dems justify leaving Iraq to its own little genocide? Have any of them tried to address this, or have they been out of power too long to think about cause and effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Personally, I don't think Darfur is our business, and I don't think it's worth seeing our kids in harm's way. Mercenaries are always an option, and maybe one of these decade Africa will decide to police its own.
Likewise, I don't think it's in the U.S.'s national interest to referee the civil war in Iraq. If the world wants us to behave as a mass-scale world policeman, we have a lot to discuss, and everybody had better be on board.
It's even less in America's interest in leave behind an unstable Iraq. The goal should be to reconcile the need for a stable Iraq with the desire to leave. IMHO there's still a chance of pulling it off, just about, but the die hard stick-it-outers won't contemplate it until it's too late for it to be workable any longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
We broke it, we need to fix it. If we pull out, the prevailing wisdom is that the current violence could look like a cake-walk compared to what will happen. Worse still, Iraq would become an Al Qaeda safe haven and would also be trumpeted as a major victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Did anyone take the time to read the John Burns interview I linked earlier? It's quite informative.
Quote:
HH: No, I was asking when al Qaeda was in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, they obviously developed potential and capabilities and operational abilities that resulted in 9/11. If they anchored themselves in a lawless Iraq, would their lethality towards the United States be even greater or lesser than it was when they were in Taliban Afghanistan?
JB: I would say it would probably be greater, and for these reasons. Let’s remember that the Afghanistan, that was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and bin Laden, is a very, very underdeveloped, I dare say primitive country. Iraq is not. Iraq is a country that had and potentially still has a major industrial base, it has among Middle Eastern countries one of the most highly educated corps of scientists and engineers, people who were on their way, certainly in the early 1990’s, to developing nuclear weapons, even if that program, as we now know, fell by the wayside after the first Gulf War. Many of these people have left, but would some of them come back? You would then have to add to that the fact that this is an oil country, which even in the situation of a civil war, is exporting billions of dollars of oil to the world, and could potentially export much more. So I would say add to that the question of geography. We’re a thousand miles closer here in Baghdad to Western Europe and the United States than Mr. bin Laden and his followers were when they were in Afghanistan. So I think yes, it could be a serious problem. Whether that problem can be overcome in any foreseeable or acceptable period of time here, I don’t know. If we knew the answer to that, we’d be well on our way to deciding whether or not it’s worth staying here. But I think to deny that there is such a problem, or even simply to blame it on the Bush administration…
I agree with Xiahou on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If you borrow something you should always return it to its owner in equal to or better condition to which you borrowed it.
The world, bar a couple of nations (that being the coalition which Australia is part of) was very much against the US of A going in and being a policeman and the ones that did follow used some very dodgy data supplied primarily by the USA and UK to go in and lend a hand. End of the day this is a mess made by the coalition and has to be fixed by the coalition, it is a bit cheeky to turn around and say to the world that told you not to go in, to now fix it.
If the US wasn't willing to listen before why should it conveniently want the world to rubberstamp its actions in Iraq now. Seems like a way to pass the blame to someone else. Personally that is not a very mature thing for an individual or a country to do, in the end of the day you knocked up Iraq and you can't abort it now... so the coalition will have to see it through until it can look after itself independently.
US Deaths in July lowest in 8 Months
I see definite improvement.
I guess my perspective is skewed on this one, since I was opposed to this misadventure from the start. So the Backroom's collective wisdom is that the U.S. will have to look after and pay for Iraq in blood and gold until ... well, until whenever? Ye gods, Bush/Cheney have really done a number on us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You do realize that counterinsurgency is a pointless exercise without political reconciliation? And that for the last few years, none of the parties on the ground have seen a need for any compromise? You do realize that this means we are in for an indefinite stay?
Yeap, so suck it up. Part of being in a democracy is that you sometimes get a head of state you didn't vote for. It doesn't however absolve you from the ethics of leaving Iraq in a worse state then before involvement by the prior administration when a new one comes along.
Sure you can drop the ethics and walk away, but it will be the administration that walks away that gets the blame (much like current administrations get the glory for economic booms that were started by prior administrations)... so whoever is next on line is really going to be in a lose-lose situation.
How much leverage is a US administration going to get if they fail in Iraq? And how long will the damage last?
yes...that is the situation the US is in right now....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
it´s one of those "I don´t wanna say I told you so...but I told you so" situations...as far as I see the US has no choice now but to suck it up and hang on for the duration......as long as that might be....the fallout that would occur if the American administration appeared to "run away" from this problem would be a nightmare.
then again, Victory, militarily, is also an impossiblity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard, spouted directly from pundits at Fox Noise machine. Iraq had nothing to do with alqaeda before the war, and AQIZ or alqaeda in mesopotamia, or the islamic state of Iraq, have nothing to do with binladen's alqaeda. Alqaeda, for that matter, isnt even a real organization. Aside from that fact, the 100,000 insurgents in iraq are 90% local resistance fighters from the disaffected sunni AND shia tribes in the area, not terrorists. They have no intrest in attacking American soil. They just dont like invading soldiers in their country. and neither would we. while there are hardliners out there who want to die for allah, its a much smaller percentage than the warmongers at Fox would have you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
The worst problem is that the British-American policy in Iraq is now not only a meaningless slaughter of Iraqi citizens, but also causing big problems that threaten European countries and their cultural richness. The murder and destruction in Iraq is making Europe drown under a wave of refugees - WE have to pay for the expenses and destruction caused by the USA and Great Britain. The consequences of a British-American policy is tremendous suffering for European countries that were previously friends and passive allies of the USA and Britain. Perhaps USA and Great Britain might wish to pay a huge sum of money to all countries economically burdened by these waves unless they wish to make the passive allies turn into passive enemies? To treat allies and friends in such a careless manner as has been done now, is not honorable. USA and Israel depends fully on the passive to active support of western Europe to be able to carry out any policies at all in the Middle East. A separation between USA-Britain and the rest of Europe also opens the field for Russian imperialism, which in the long run is a great threat to USA and Britain, as well as Chinese and Iranian imperialist policies. The separation and mutual carelessness between the democratic countries is now making the anti-democratic countries stronger. While we fight internally, the imperialists and dictatorships grow stronger and we'll soon be back at a early 20th century scenario. The greatest threat to peace is now a dirty, small-scale, meaningless war in Iraq, the schism it causes between the western countries, and the withdrawal of more and more democratic rights in the western countries, officially in the name of "anti-terrorism". The best way to lose in Iraq is to stay. The longer you stay, the more waves of refugees come to Europe and the more disliking towards USA and Britain grows in these countries. The longer you stay, the more innocent Iraqi civilians are murdered by undisciplined maniacs who somehow slipped through the controls and ended up in the army, and the more scandals and hatred from the local Iraqis - indeed the sunnis have now left the puppet government: the support among sunnis is so low that it's impossible to even find a single self-serving puppet among them. The longer you stay, the more the regular citizens - those who aren't capitalist trade partners of the occupants - will suffer social injustice under the reppressive rule of right wing occupants cooperating with right wing locals and quislings, and the more the terrorism will grow. The longer you stay, the greater impression you will give of weakness by inability to know when to retreat and regroup. Etc. etc. Surely you will lose a lot if you retreat, but if you stay you will only lose more. It's not rational to be so desperate of making things right fast, that you end up making them worse.
Fox?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Nor am I in any way referring to Iraq before the war. The 90% of local fighters you mention are indeed from the sunni and shia tribes, and they're slaughtering each other wholesale. If you think that I think that all of the killing is due to some kind of mass Islamic jihad against our soldiers, you're sorely mistaken. They're killing each other because people, the world over, are self-serving gits, and in the power-vacuum that we made the mistake of creating, local warlords &c. have free reign to exert these tendencies.
Where did I mention al-Quaida by the way? If you're referring to my somewhat light-hearted comment about terrorists going to blow themselves up over there, rather than here... You yourself say that a proportion of the insurgents are not local. Therefore they've travelled there from somewhere else. Seems to me, that someone who's so inclined to travel somewhere to take part in such a struggle will do so. The sandpit just happens to be a conveniently obvious place to go.
My point was, and still is, that the place is a mess. We can help, therefore we should help.
Oh, and American soil, Iraqi soil... it's all just dirt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Indeed. Meaningless slaughter of civilians means more money for Haliburton and Coca-Cola.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
:inquisitive:
Those are just conspiracy theories from nutcases. I thought you knew better than listening to liberal conspiracy theories, Div.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Leggo-XXX-Dominatrix: No Sunnis are cooperating with Coalition objectives? What about the anti-terrorist tribal coalition in Al-Anbar? Just to pick on one point. In general-- your knowledge on this topic is sorely lacking.
Del Arroyo (as you can see I spell your name better than you spell mine), the major sunni party has left the puppet government. Have you not heard this? Therefore, the sunnis have no political representation any more. I have stated my point out of pity and helpfulness, but if you wish your country to pursue a self-destructive and ignorant policy I will not stand any further in your way. However when such a policy threatens to destroy others than yourself, I tend to have difficulties in refraining from stating my opinion and explaining the dangers. Why is it that suicidals so often wish to drag others with them into their destruction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Anyhow, let me again repeat my point about what the danger is: floods of muslim USA and Israel haters are coming to European countries as a result of the Iraq war. They have many more children on average than the local populations in these countries. Europeans elect their governments by majority voting. Soon muslims will be a majority in all European countries as well due to the clumsy interventions in the Middle East by the USA. How will the armies and navies of the European coutnries be used when that happens? Most European countries have their very own muslim party already. The muslims will also hold significant numbers in USA itself due to these refugee waves. The muslims in Europe will hate USA for obvious reasons, while the whites in Europe will hate the USA for causing a muslim hijacking of all European countries, due to the warfare that caused refugee waves to Europe. Is that what USA needs for it's security? I think not. A long American involvement in Iraq, or a war in Iran, will contribute to this flood of west-hating refugees. No matter what the military actions achieve, USA and Britain can only lose more if they continue their involvement in Iraq.
This argumentation should be perfectly easy to understand for anyone. I would say that if you really disagree with withdrawing Iraqi troops after thinking about this danger, your agenda is more likely to damage the USA than to help it.
What happens in the Iraqi parliament is linked only loosely with what actually happens in the real Iraq, and that link is getting looser every day. The fact is there are plenty of Sunnis who are willing to work with us, even if it is only because they fear sectarian Shia maneuvering. And though you call the current Iraqi government a "puppet" of the US, I would say that this is a very inaccurate characterization.
Dependent parasite would be a better description. It feeds off the host, and cannot live without it, and once the host goes, it must follow or die. Unfortunately for it, the host can't stay forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
So do you contend that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
...despite the publicized votes by the Iraqi population in favor of a new government and constitution;
despite the military successes of the "surge" (admittedly somewhat limited);
despite the increasing number of trained Iraqi forces working for the central government;
despite recent decreases in sectarian violence;
etc....
That the Iraqi government has little or no real credibility in the eyes of Iraqis and that upon the withdrawal of US/coalition forces the situation must devolve into warlordism regardless?
I had always thought that the term length for the Iraqi government was a tad long- certainly for their first election. I would guess a lot of Iraqis are feeling some buyers remorse on some of the selections. IIRC, they're stuck with the current yahoos until almost 2010. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo