A couple times over the past few days I’ve had what seems to be a recurring discussion with many of my contemporaries (the gay ones, not the military ones) about Iraq. The usual dialog goes kind of like this:
The Other Fag: Dude, we’re failing miserably in Iraq.
ColoradoPatriot: Oh? How so?
TOF: Are you kidding? All the bombings, all the death and destruction. The insurgency.
CP: You know that, by historical standards, that’s not really true. And also, when you think about it, the war’s only been going on for a few years. It’s probably a little too soon to say we’re “losing”, don’t you think? So if we’re failing, what’s your definition of “victory”?
TOF: Well, we should never have gone in there in the first place. WMD, bla bla bla, Bush LIED!, 9/11, yadda yadda, scare-tactics, etc., etc.
CP: (Silence, and a look of puzzlement.)
What’s going on in my head as I stare blankly is, “If you think we should have never gone there in the first place, why the hell should I give a rat’s ass what you think of our ‘victory’ or ‘failure’? Seems you’d never be satisfied with any outcome, you know, since we’re, um, there and all.”
These folks have no solution for “winning” the war, because their vision of “winning” is so drastically different from reality. As far as they’re concerned, simply our being there is a failure. From their perspective, there can be no winning because their view of victory (us never having been there) is simply unattainable. I call these people Time-Machine Strategists. Their best hope for success in Iraq (as they see it) is to invent a time-machine, go back to 2003, and never have gone in in the first place. This is not a strategy, it’s a science-fiction novel premise. Whatever we may see as victory, they never will.
It’s not that, as some say, they’re seeking our defeat. It’s just that they have a completely different definition of success…one that just so happens to be completely impossible.
We can talk about schools being built and people going to work and hundreds of newspapers and internet cafes. We can talk about progress with infrastructure, politics, and self-policing. All of this falls on deaf ears.
It reminds me of my new favorite online cartoon: “How Superman Should Have Ended“…Basking in the glow of his most recent victory over Lex Luthor, the Man of Steel is chatting it up with his buddy Batman in a coffeeshop. The Caped Crusader is going on about how he‘d have handled the situation, using tools on his ubiquitous utility belt. Not even realizing how outdone he is by Superman, he lays out how he’d have done it just as well. Annoyed, Kal-El quips back, “It’s cool…just, whenever you get a Fly-So-Fast-It-Reverses-Time-Itself gadget on your belt, let me know.”
Not sure if the detractors have anything on their belt to succeed in Iraq. But based on the way they like to frame the debate, I’d just as soon leave it to those who take actually winning in Iraq seriously…criticize their plans all you like (and there certainly is room for criticism); at least they know that they want to win.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
Please, please, please Stay The Course.
The current Administration takes winning elections in the US much more seriously than it does winning in Iraq. And whether Iraq is “winnable” is a fair question, and one that I hope is always asked before, during, and after any time we are engaging in military action.
ATM in Iraq, we seem to be in the middle of a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni, with American troops a convenient side target for blame and hate.
If we left, Iraq would probably descend into chaos. And the US would be blamed for it. But maybe its just not something that can be prevented, at least not by us. They do seem absolutely determined to kill each other over there. And its not as if we aren’t already being blamed anyway, so whats the difference?
#2 – The usual from Gryph: a total crap shot at the the Administration, embedded in other stuff we already know.
The “civil war” in Iraq has been going on for some 35 years; the first 30+ years were called “Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship that killed 30,000 Iraqis per year”. (All dictatorships are civil wars – where one side simply happens to hold all the seals of government.) What we’ve been seeing the last 3 years is a country very slowly rising from its deathbed. A good thing, even if very painful.
Of course we must and should withdraw from Iraq, eventually. And we will. We have begun already, in that troop levels are several tens of thousands lower than in 2005.
The “difference it would make” if we withdrew too precipitously or prematurely, dooming the Iraqis to completely kill each other, is: such a withdrawal would be a huge victory for al Qaeda in its goal to create chaos, and to take over parts of Iraq. It would mark us as permanently unreliable, and would thus mean the collapse of our entire GWOT.
OK, now for what I really came to say: Nick, excellent post!!! Thanks!
You know, I just don’t have any definitive answers on this. I am skeptical that the US military can make Iraq a relatively peaceful and stable place, that the US presence has really mitigated the long-term civil war of which Colorato speaks. I know that there are int I don’t think that skepticism amounts to knee-jerk anti-Bushism or anything like that. And I do know that there are new schools, businesses, internet cafes and other things that have never been there before. I just fear that these are local oases of civilization, like building a sand castle while the ocean pounds and reshapes the rest of the coastline… if your goal is to really make anything out of the sand that is not ephemeral, that’s a battle you are going to lose.
I don’t know if the situation in Iraq is like that, but I think there’s a possibility it is. This is not an attack on those who want to “stay the course,” just an expression of my skepticism about how things will turn out.
Skepticism is one thing, kdogg.
But what we see in terms of Democrats, liberals, and Iraq is completely different.
Unlike ColoradoPatriot, I am less convinced that there isn’t a core of people in there who want a defeat.
However, what I think the vast majority of people are suffering from is a lack of perspective — not their fault, but the fault of the defeat core who have systematically done all in their power to prevent information on what pre-war Iraq really was like.
Think about it. Iraq is a country literally pockmarked with mass graves, so many you can hardly go anywhere without them — but the only graves we hear about being opened are for those who have allegedly been killed by US soldiers, to “prove” how awful we are.
Abu Ghirab under the US? When you’ve watched the video of men having their hands surgically amputated for opposing Saddam Hussein, hoods and nakedness seem rather tame.
Civilian deaths? Saddam Hussein systematically murdered thousands of Marsh Arabs directly — and then, to ensure the others couldn’t survive, deliberately destroyed the environment on which they were completely dependent for food and water.
#1: “Stay The Course”
That slogan is no longer operative. Indeed, it was NEVER operative – http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/
I guess you didn’t get the memo. 😉
Amazingly, for a post discussing “winning” in Iraq, Colorado Patriot doesn’t even define what that term might even mean at this point. Even his “progress” link is to a Bushco press release from last January. Talk about time machines!
When Colorado Patriot suggests that only the ideas of those who supported attacking Iraq should be considered in planning for what should be done, he is 180 degrees off. We should be quite skeptical of the ideas and plans of those who were the cheerleaders for the war even if they now see it for the grave mistake it was. As for those reality-challenged folks who continue to deny the disaster unfolding in Iraq, they should be pretty much ignored as they have a proven track record of breathtaking incompetence.
Well, another misguided and vacant post from CP. Before you start pointing your finger at your gay/non-military friends and demanding answers on Iraq from them, how about asking the administration why they allowed this winnable war to fail utterly. Oh, what’s that? They won’t answer that question…big surprise. How about you crack open either COBRA II or FIASCO? This war WAS winnable, for some reason the administration didn’t want success. I wonder why?
Correction, Real in #9, thiis war still is winnable. And we will win it.
#10. YEAH!! Show them the evidence and prove them wrong, GPW!
Stay The Course!!! Please Stay the Course!!!
This war was winnable, but the window of opportunity is shut I’m afraid. The only hope outside of the Green Zone is to allow the country to divide itself and provide security and reinforcment to the Iraqi military/police. The Kurds have pretty well locked down their area so that’s one less problem to have to worry about. GPW, how would you define a “win” in this situation? The American forces have already made inroads with the insurgency groups trying to broker some form of peace…is this a win? If so, what have we (and the Iraqi people) gained? I’ve already lost friends and family to the Baghdad meat-grinder, I don’t want to lose any more.
Actually, RealColoradoConservative, why don’t you define a win for us?
That’s the whole point of CP’s post — that those who are antiwar have to define what a “win” is.
I never said, Stay the Course, Jimmy, for I do believe we need a course correcion, new tactics. And it seems the president and his advisors are considering such corrections.
We are not preventing the Iraqis (more specifically the Sunni and Shia) from “completely killing each other” right now. You are also blindingly stating an asssumption as a fact, which it is not. You do not know that the violence in Iraq would be any worse if we left. It might be better, although it might not take the shape of an Iraq we want.
Its a fair question to ask whether there is a military solution to the problem. Its also a fair question to ask whether we are prepared to pay for it. Or whether we even have the ability to pay for it.
Oh and “as usual” I see that Caralato is continuing to practice his own immature brand of rhetorical bullying.
Hm.
Well, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
To “Real” “Colorado” “Conservative” (none of the three do I see any evidence of), Anon1, and their fellow We’ve-Got-No-Chance-Of-Winning travellers, all I can say is Thank God you’re not responsible for winning it, then! All we can do is vote and hope to keep it that way.
I mean seriously, I wonder if things got bad enough for the Broncos this season Pat Bowlen would consider replacing Mike Shanahan with someone who makes it a point to say there’s no way they can make it to the SuperBowl.
And they wonder why they don’t win. Hm.
It seems to me that codifying progress would be a simple exercise.
1. Continually lower and lower deaths due to sectarian violence.
2. Evidenced cooperation within the new government establishing further alliances between feuding factions that promote political solutions to the problems facing the country instead of military solutions.
3. An expansion of areas considered safe from sectarian violence.
4. Further governmental resolutions and action to guard against violence to United States and other coalition troops.
5. Continued establishment of an Iraqi military dedicated to protecting the country with established action against those that would do American military harm.
6. Continued free and fair elections.
7. A resolution and action against insurgent terrorism.
8. Continued action to control borders to stop non-national terrorist from entering the country.
etc.
What’s so hard about actually establishing some benchmarks, some milestones, except in that it holds this administration accountable for when it doesn’t reach them?
Could you imagine a CEO, for example, who promised his shareholders a new product that would revolutionize the market that continually failed to deliver? A product with no release date? A product that the shareholders were expected to continually pour money into with no guarantee of a release? People like that are usually prosecuted for fraud. What should we do in this circumstance?
#15 – The truth hurts, eh Gryph? Let the record show that I addressed myself to your content – and as usual, you can’t stand it.
I think when people debate the war at the beginning, and take this whole time machine approach, have a purpose. The reason for why you go to war plays a role in how you shape the terms of victory. We have already had several victories in Iraq depending on what reason you like for why we went in. We did take out Saddam, so thats a victory, we helped them set up a government, thats a victory, but that still isn’t enough. The American victory isn’t the important part, we need an Iraq victory for this to come together. The people need to get their act together at some point, I am not sure we can seal that country with military strength. They have religious and social issues they need to come together on to really form their country, but I have heard they might split into three different parts.
America had a civil war and we became a stronger country after it, maybe Iraq has to go through this on their own. How strong can a country be if they don’t fight their own battles and work their own struggles?
I wonder how much time our liberal friends would give the “war on poverty” to achieve success. A trillion dollars spent over the past 42, yes FORTY TWO years. And according to liberals, we’ve not achieved victory in that war as of yet. Time to “cut and run” there too? Had a conversation with my sister last night about how her discussions with leftists quickey degrade into name calling and Bush lied slogans. We agreed that the root of a lot of these left /right fights is liberals truely think America is a force for evil in the world and not a beacon of rightousness. America pollutes, corporations pillage, our military occupies, and our people don’t pay attention and elected a moron. Twice. If you believe your country is bad mean and evil, there’s not much room for thoughtful debate about the future. God Bless America.
#10: “thiis war still is winnable. And we will win it.”
Well, Dan, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of “win” is. So far, neither you nor Colorado Patriot has told us what you mean. My definition would be exactly what we were told around the time of those heady days of “Mission Accomplished”: a stable intact democratic peaceful Iraq. Considering the current situation, that is an impossible pipedream at least for any foreseeable future. Settling now for anything less than than those four adjectives doesn’t constitute winning, rather some varying degree of losing.
Ian (#21):
Good point.
On a similar note, I was baking a cake this evening. The box described the finished product as “light, fluffy, moist, and delicious”. I got about 10 minutes into making it, and it was none of these things, so I threw it out.
After all, I’m an American. Why should I have to wait or do any work for what I was ‘promised’? Right?
Thanks to you, too, for not having any role in the success of this war.
…oh, and by “Thanks”, I mean thanks to Providence, not you.
#20 – Gene, I never thought of that. The comparison to WOP.
If Iraq is a war where our simply being there is a failure, to liberals – then the War On Poverty would be one where having an endless quagmire / failure is the very sign of liberal victory. Making America’s successful / productive pay and pay, forever – while simultaneously making the poor and dependent stay poor and dependent (on liberals) forever. Killing two birds with one stone, LOL 🙂
#22 Damn CP, what a good illustration. Bravo.
For the record: President Bush has said MANY times now that his goal is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself.
I think that’s within reach. Was 2006 as great a year (in terms of milestones / successes hit) as 2003, 2004 and 2005? Probably not. So what? There has been a ton of progress, and not every year can be the new best-year-ever.
We (America collectively) would be fools – dangerous, dangerous fools – to throw all that progress away now. But, as a Pakistani general once said: “Americans are dangerous allies – you just never know when they are going to stab themselves in the back.”
So keep it up, Ian!
How the hell can we even tell if we are winning or losing?? Freedom of the Press has been plummeting in the United States during the Bush Regime http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388 we have dropped to the 53rd most free nation in the world…the only people being kept in the dark about the failure in Iraq are Americans.
Colorado Patriot #22
I think our “light, fluffy, moist, and delicious” cake is well past the 10 minutes and the batter refuses to mix. How long do we wait staring into the oven for it to rise while it just turns all black and crusty? This was a cake that was promised to be Duncan Hines quick and easy and now it’s just a $300 billion inedible mess.
As my partner constantly says, “you can’t polish a turd.”
#22: “On a similar note, I was baking a cake this evening.”
Yeah, really similar note. Incidentally, when you bake a cake, you can’t simply leave out half the milk and water called for in the recipe. When you do so, it doesn’t matter how long you “stay the course” or “adjust to win” in baking it, it won’t EVER turn out moist and fluffy. In fact the more you “stay the course” in baking it, the worse it gets.
Just(#28) and Ian(#29):
I may have been out of touch over the past couple months, true. But you guys should probably read more than DailyKos before you bury yourself in the usual (and now out-of-date) talking points.
Don’t worry, I’m sure your DU daily mailing will hit your inbox soon.
#26: “President Bush has said MANY times now that his goal is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself.”
If that’s all you wanted, you could have left Saddam in power. But that’s not what Bushco told us we could look forward to in May of 2003 – you remember, Dear Leader resplendent in codpiece-fitted flight suit with the aircraft carrier positioned just right so we wouldn’t see the San Diego skyline in the background. No, Bushco and its Republican toadies promised us a free and democratic Iraq, stable and at peace with its neighbors. THAT was how winning was defined. If you’re now setting your sights lower, then that’s no longer winning, it’s LOSING. If you’re into silly analogies, then the moist and fluffy cake is now a blackened hockey puck. The only question up for debate is how to extricate the USA from this mess with the minimum damage to our security.
#30: Hey, I gave you my definition of “winning” in Iraq. What’s yours?
This is the first time I’ve posted on your little astroturf site CP, I don’t think you have quite enough ammo to question my conservatism yet…and please, no more analogies to cakes and football. You do nothing but belittle your position by dodging the issues with cute little inanities. The war and the lives of American soldiers are much more important than your narrow view of politics, it does no one any good to toe the party line when lives are at stake. From here on out let us stick to the issues, since you were the one who posted and invited us to respond. I promise not to question your conservatism (no matter how suspect your logic) so I’d be pleased if your didn’t question mine. If you feel the need to resort to personal attacks you might as well do it in person…I’m at the Wrangler every Sunday, sweetie.
I think our “light, fluffy, moist, and delicious” cake is well past the 10 minutes and the batter refuses to mix. How long do we wait staring into the oven for it to rise while it just turns all black and crusty?
Of course, what needs to be kept in mind is the example of what leftists like Just A Question and Ian considered to be a beautiful, perfect cake.
And that really is the point; Iraq as it is now should be compared to Iraq as it was under Saddam, and people like Ian and Just A Question should explain why they preferred those examples that I just pointed out.
You do nothing but belittle your position by dodging the issues with cute little inanities.
And I seem to recall asking you to tell us what a “win” would be, rather than sitting on the sidelines and sniping.
#34: “Iraq as it is now should be compared to Iraq as it was under Saddam”
Your little shell games are so tiresome. Bushco set the bar for “winning” in Iraq in 2003. If you’re going to lower the bar so far that you’re reduced to seriously considering whether or not Iraq was better off under Saddam, then you pretty much prove my point that by you neocons’ own yardstick, we clearly are not “winning” in “Iraq.”
And you, Ian, set the bar for “winning” in Iraq to be perpetuation of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
You lost.
And, like the spiteful loser you are, you continue trying to tear the Bush administration down for getting rid of a dictator who systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered millions of people while you stood helplessly by, trying to pander, beg, and plead for him to not do that — and, in the process, setting Iraq on the road to being a free and democratic country, stable and at peace with its neighbors.
That was never going to happen under Saddam Hussein.
#33: “I don’t think you have quite enough ammo to question my conservatism yet”
Ah, a newbie. Please understand that by not demonstrating your slavish devotion to whatever the Bushco Iraq slogan de jour happens to be, you will be permanently identified here as a liberal moonbat defeat-o-crat. Enjoy.
#27
How the hell can we even tell if we are winning or losing??
Well the liberal media keeps telling us that we’re losing and refuse to show anything good out of Iraq because it doesn’t fit their agenda of forming public opposition.
Freedom of the Press has been plummeting in the United States during the Bush Regime
Now I know you’re pathologically insane. Where else can you publish classified information on the front pages and be lauded and rewarded as a hero? Where else can Muhammed Cooper show U.S. soldiers killed by a sniper, but don’t have the balls to show terrorists killed by Americans, and be lauded as a hero?
“These folks have no solution for “winning” the war,” \
Based on experience of the past few years, I would have thought he was talking about the Bush administration.
I really enjoyed reading this post because it hammers the nail on the head so hard that it is burried deep in the lumber.
I am confident that the majority of Americans see thing clearly and that defeating Islamofacists is very high on the list, not cutting & running.
VOTE REPUBLICAN!
I agree with NDT. The single most astounding thing about this whole Iraq business (in terms of U.S. politics), would be U.S. liberals’ astonishing indifference to the human monstrosity that was Saddam’s regime… and their callous willingness to have had Saddam in power forever, while the sanctions on him collapsed (but liberals steadfastly pretended otherwise) as Saddam systematically bribed the U.N. officials who were supposed to be monitoring him.
P.S. Not that there haven’t been many astounding things. “BUSH LIED!”, a.k.a. Liberals’ hateful eagerness to smear their President in time of war… Liberals’ open salivating and glee / hope (as we see in this thread) that their own country COULD be defeated and taken down by people who want to kill the liberals… One could go on and on.
America is truly a country where 20% of the population (the liberal 20%) wishes, secretly but sometimes almost openly, that it were dead.
Yet another one of those damn cut and run liberals:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/
Can’t wait for Caralato, et al to tear him to shreds.
Colorado Patriot, the Left’s definition of victory in Iraq is the defeat of America. The 60’s retreads who run the Democrat party, most of academia, and make up about 60% of Kos’s readership regard Vietnam as their greatest victory… because America lost and the left won.
That’s why Ian, JAQ, and the rest of the lefties can’t tell you what victory in Iraq would mean because they don’t want it. They would rather see America defeated than Bush succeed.
As for what ‘victory’ in Iraq would mean to me, I think we have to look at realities on the ground. It’s unrealistic to think that Iraq could turn into Norway in terms of democracy and Human Rights overnight. And it’s especially challenging when Iran and Syria are actively undermining the Iraqi government and supplying the “insurgents” with weapons.
But what can be accomplished is leaving Iraq with a democratic government — however imperfect — and the means to defend itself with no more US assistance than Germany, Japan, and Korea required after World War II, the Korean War, and through the Cold War.
Tactically, it might make sense to move our presence into the background more, and accept a relatively harsh and autocratic government in Iraq, just as we did in Korea and Taiwan until they became more open and democratic. One arrangement might be we provide technological and logistics support, while Iraq provides the bulk of the ground forces to root out and destroy the “insurgency.” (And I put “insurgency” in scare quotes because much of it consists of forces backed by Iraq and Syria).
I had the privilege of attending the Army convention in DC the week before last and got to hear from a lot of officers who are actually leading the fight. In contrast to the image conveyed by the MSM and the left, our military is smart and adaptive and they are learning to deal with the “insurgents.” They have a clear sense of mission and purpose and they understand the stakes. It’s just too bad their message and their heroism is being hidden from the majority of Americans.
#44 – Gryph, are you asking me? Because people have to phrase requests nicely, before I say yes.
But hey, at least you’re stuck on me… that’s sort of a compliment… I guess.
What the left really wants from Iraq is the opportunity to gloat and be smug, which is exactly how they behaved after Vietnam while 3,000,000 people were being slaughtered by their communist heroes.
Calarato, you can have the Gryphster. More power to you.
#46: “And I put “insurgency” in scare quotes because much of it consists of forces backed by Iraq and Syria”
Freudian slip?
Obviously, I meant Iran and Syria. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Do you have anything substantive to add, or just nit-picking?
“(And I put “insurgency” in scare quotes because much of it consists of forces backed by Iraq(n) and Syria).”
If you are going to put it “insurgency” in quotes, put it in for the right reason. There is not a cohesive insurgency in Iraq. Instead its primarily a sectarian war fueled by repercussion killings and perceived grievances. This sectarian war has/is blossomed/ing into a civil war.
Keeping US troops in the middle of such an environment is futile.
To claim that this war can be won by building schools and bridges is crazy and shows that you are living in the past. That would have been useful in 2003 not 2006. The situation has deteriorated since the fist day of this mess…yet people like CP still try to use cute analogies like baking cakes and football…
We went in, created a power vacuum, had no workable strategy to stabilize the place and then the civilian leadership messed the place up even more.
The only workable solution is to now break it into threes…or a new dictatorship like V&K suggested
And that will be just as messy.
Yuck
To claim that this war can be won by building schools and bridges is crazy and shows that you are living in the past
I never said that. You must have copy-pasted your talking points from somewhere else without editing again.
But, that’s okay, we all know you’re a very silly person.
I wasn’t refering to you.
I was refering to the actual post.
Jeez.
#49 – Matt, I trust my doubt and disgust came across in #47 – LOL 🙂
VdaK, I don’t know. I think keogh is on to something there… if you can be open to tweaking his comments just a tad and get comfortable enough to suspend logic.
For instance, by “no cohesive insurgency” he means that you have to ignore the killing of al Zarqawai meant anything and the documents found in his lair that clearly demonstrate al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam are coordinating with local insurgents in Iraq… right, no terrorist link in Iraq. But there is no cohesive insurgency operating because they don’t have a website, a TV station, or a PR operative like Baghdad Bob or Terry Aziz to deliver spin… oh wait, that’s the role of the DNC.
For instance, keogh says a “workable solution” is to split the country into three and requires you to suspend any notion that each segment has the capacity to manage its borders, won’t be a target for Turkey or Iran or Syria in a near-term strengthening invasion after US forces “cut & run”. But it’s workable… cause keogh and the nutcases on the Left in Congress say it is! Skip over the fact that th Left contends the Iraqi govt is broke and ain’t working now but if we separate them, it’ll all be ok. I would have expected something that stupid from Albright… but I thought keogh was smarter than that.
You gotta cut the guy some slack, VdaK. He’s working overtime just to keep from losing the ride on that Democrat Tsunami in November… which seems now to be slipping away from them. No wind, no wave, no way.
Can’t wait for Caralato, et al to tear him to shreds.
I’ll simply point out that his allying with terrorist supporter Cindy Sheehan, who ironically sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for those IEDs that are supposedly killing his friends, speaks for itself. 🙂
If he wants the military to be more effective, he ought to think twice before lending his voice and past service as a shield for the party that wants US troops to suffer “a million Mogadishus”.
And if he wants to be respected for his service, he should explain why he supports a party that spit on his brethren who served in Vietnam and nominated as their leader a former soldier who deliberately lied and smeared his former comrades before Congress.
keogh says a “workable solution” is to split the country into three…
Which also begs the issue, what about all the towns and areas that are not ethnically pure? Do we do a forced resettlementor do we just allow ethnic cleansing take care of the ‘problem?’
Not to mention, Iraqis don’t want to be split in three. But, hey, it makes you sound all smart and stuff when you parrot Joe Biden on the lefty blogs.
I’d like to see the detractors list goals for Iraq that don’t include “let it go to hell”… if they don’t want to use the term “victory” fine. But what outcome is desired and what actions are needed to reach that goal? Is that really so hard?
Or is it actually, for real, just about getting to be “right” and say “I told you so” while the toll in human suffering goes through the roof (over there somewhere, and just brown people, huh?)
What goal and what actions to reach that goal?
I think that one loss would be breaking the country into three regions. Kurdistan seems to be doing very well, but it would be better to eventually reintigrate, a better “win” in the long run because of the issues with Kurds in Turkey. A non-Iraq Kurdistan is a bad precident in several ways. Still, it’s not the worst result and the area does show that people in that region can work a functional democracy.
It would be worse yet if Arab Sunnis and Shia can’t form a united country. Sadr wants to be the next Saddam, but not all Shia want or do have anything to do with Sadr. Our soldiers travel through Shia and Sunni towns and they see the results of being favored by the dictator or unfavored by the dictator. The Shia suffered.
This is a classically liberal social-justice issue. Equality under the law. Tolerance and integration. We win nothing at all by the replacement of one injustice with another, one strongman with another.
This is old US policy, supporting a tyrant for the myth of “stability” just so long as he’s *our* tyrant. It’s evil. It’s bad. We should not do this ever again. We NEED social justice and the concept of equality under the law to work out in Iraq. Not just because it’s good for them, but because injustice bleeds out, particularly in the global, technological world that exists today.
It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just needs to be sustainable movement in the proper direction.
As our soldiers work directly with Iraqi forces they teach leadership principles such as leading from the front, impartiality, and the way we respect the ability and specialized knowledge of even the lowest ranking person in a unit. These are radical concepts to the culture.
People say that our soldiers shouldn’t have to take on this role. Well, who’s going to do it if they don’t?
What should be the goal, the liberal goal, in Iraq? What actions are necessary to reach that goal? If you can’t get on board because you don’t believe that the cess-pool that is the middle east actually constitutes a threat to the West, then get on board because you care about the children and social justice and tolerance and women and the equality of all human beings.
And if you think that there is something sacred involved that makes it necessary to tolerate injustice, tyranny, mutilation and murder, to tolerate the ownership of human beings or the death penalty for homosexuality or religious conversion, or something sacred in the right of one quaint 3rd world sect to oppress and rule another quaint 3rd world sect through terror and who cares how many people die horribly (a la Cambodia) before the next strongman is secure in power. Then you’re a a**hole multi-culturalist racist, not a liberal, and should exuse yourself from membership with humanity.
(For the libertarian minded… my own opinion is that social justice is the ultimate self-interest.)
The proponents of the war in Iraq have not been particularly clear-minded and consistent on what their goals in Iraq are either. As Kevin Tillman (brother to Pat) point out.
#58 – NDT – Way, way too real… relevant… accurate. Gryph can’t stand stuff like that.
#60 – Synova – exactly. What is the Democrats’ alternative plan for Iraq? That’s the $64,000 question they never answer.
Oh, they’ll send out the occasional trial balloon for ‘retreat to Okinawa’, ‘split it in 3’, ‘give it to al Qaeda / Iran / Syria’, ‘try Mark Foley in place of Saddam’, etc. – that’s it.
And, social justice is absolutely the top libertarian value. Social justice is precisely why I’m a low-tax, small-government guy. Unfortunately, the language-destroying left-liberals took over the term and perverted it to its exact opposite – the great social INjustice of socialism – as they have done with “liberal” itself.
One last thing:
“The proponents of the war in Iraq have not been particularly clear-minded and consistent on what their goals in Iraq are either.”
Only for people who haven’t been paying attention. People who have their heads fairly hard up their asses to begin with. See comment #26 again. Or better yet, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov and work your way through 3 years of President Bush’s many speeches where he spelled out his consistent goals for Iraq.
The simple fact of the matter is: There were so many good reasons to remove Saddam! But, in twisted liberal-land, the fact that there are a multiplicity of truly excellent reasons for something somehow means you (the doer) are then Hitler and a liar, have ulterior motives even when you go to the bathroom, etc.
P.S. In other words: as regards Kevin Tillman specifically, EVERY ONE of his quoted reasons is true and applicable, for why we are in Iraq. And it’s his loss, if it turns out he’s bought the liberal propaganda and can no longer see clearly.
(and, unfortunately, America’s loss)
The simple fact of the matter is: There were so many good reasons to remove Saddam!
The simple fact of the matter is, if we hadn’t gone in and taken out Saddam, libs like Gryph would be shrieking with outrage because Bush “left that madman in power,” “failed to enforce 17 (or by now, 21, or 35) UN resolutions,” or “leaving Saddam in power showed the terrorists we weren’t serious and made America less safe.”
Oops, some technical corrections now, because I know otherwise some jerks will try to pounce on this.
(a) Iraq did only attempt to buy weapons-grade uranium from Niger. They never got a shipment there. At no time has any Bush Administration official claim or suggest otherwise. Kevin Tillman, if quoted accurately, was wrong to suggest otherwise.
(b) While direct involvement of Iraqi Intelligence in the day of 9-11 has never been disproven, despite certain suggestive evidence (such as Uday Hussein apparently having specific foreknowledge of the attacks), neither has it ever been proven. Again, at no time has any Bush Administration official suggested otherwise. Kevin Tillman, if quoted accurately, was wrong to suggest otherwise.
What WERE, and what REMAIN, valid reasons for us being in Iraq, that the Kevin Tillman quote touches on – that:
(1) That Iraq was a gathering threat to the American people and the world. (But note: only Democrat leaders ever tried to term it “imminent”.)
(2) That Iraq did harbor terrorists, througout the 1990s and up to the day we invaded in 2003. It’s been extremely well proven.
(3) That Iraq did attempt to buy weapons-grade uranium from both Congo and Niger.
(4) That Iraq did have bioweapons research and development programs, and yes, unreported chemical WMD stockpiles have been found (but not widely reported in media – gee, I wonder why?).
(5) That, for purposes of combatting evil Islamo-fascist ideology over the long term, we do need to establish a democracy in Iraq and stop an insurgency – or stop a 30+ year civil war, if that’s your preferred language.
The quote attributed to Kevin Tillman gets all of that right. Again: it’s his loss, and America’s, if the quote is accurate and he has now bought liberal propaganda to the point where he no longer sees.
NDT in 58 says:
Hey NDT, I’ve just called the police, they should be at your door soon. Since if I use your “logic” which is basically guilt by association, then it follows that since you and Foley are both Republicans, you must also be a wanna-be pedophile. Had sex with any 17year olds lately?
Its not surprising that someone of such low rhetorical character as Caralato supports your “logic” as “too real and relevant”. He also practices his own usual deception in that he responds to my post by addressing a statement that I never made. He implies that I said that the reasons given for invading Iraq were false. Which of course, neither I nor Kevin Tillman do. He also accuses me of not supporting the War, which is a position I have never taken. I have always said we did the right thing by going in. And I have and do fully support and endorse Bush on that decision. He did the right thing.
Now, since thanks to Caralato and NDT, we have a serious dearth of facts in this thread, I’ll add one.
NDT and Caralato are both demagogic liars.
And before you start crying about personal attacks, I’ll just say that I’m simply returning the favor in response to the personal attacks you have made on me above. I’m just doing it in a more direct and honest way than yourselves. You know, like a real man would. Although actually, I guess you wouldn’t really know what thats like at all.
Hey NDT, I’ve just called the police, they should be at your door soon. Since if I use your “logic” which is basically guilt by association, then it follows that since you and Foley are both Republicans, you must also be a wanna-be pedophile. Had sex with any 17year olds lately?
Nope, not a one.
If the police want to confirm and verify that, they’re welcome to do so — and they will get a thank you from me when they are finished, just as the screeners at the TSA who ask for extra checks when I fly on a one-way ticket, the guards at the courthouse when I bring in my briefcase, and our night security when I need back into the building late.
I have nothing to hide, and because of that, I don’t mind extra scrutiny. Like it or not, I happen to be of a gender, size, and sexual orientation that, according to people like yourself, results in more suspicion of my motives and actions, especially around children. It may not be particularly fair, but if it makes people feel better, I’m all for it.
But I notice how you and Tillman throw a hissy fit the instant anyone questions why you associate yourself with people who give terrorists money for IEDs, or want US soldiers to suffer a “million Mogadishus”, or support a leader who lied and smeared his comrades in front of Congress in order to placate and please the people who were spitting on his comrades and calling them “baby-killers”.
The reason you’re upset, Gryph, is because Tillman’s veteran status didn’t cow me out of asking tough questions, and neither you or he is used to that. The latest Democratic tactic, as we saw with Cleland, Kerry, and now Tammy Whatsherface is to parade the veteran or the cripple (ideally both) out in front of the audience and claim that anyone who questions them is denigrating their status and making personal attacks.
I always put it this way: Benedict Arnold was a decorated war hero. That earned him respect, but it didn’t excuse his being a traitor or supporting our country’s enemies.
#68 – Gryph claims I responded to him “…by addressing a statement that [Gryph] never made. He implies that I said that the reasons given for invading Iraq were false. Which of course, neither I nor Kevin Tillman do. He also accuses me of not supporting the War, which is a position I have never taken.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer! So wrong, ROTFLMAO! 🙂
Show me where I attribute an anti-war position to you, Gryph. Answer: *****NOWHERE*****.
In #63, I make a very general remark about possible views of “people” (in general) who haven’t been paying attention. How very interesting, Gryph, that with no prompting from me, ***YOU DECIDED*** to put yourself with them.
Again – I DID NOT.
Hmmm – that Gryph egocentricity? guilt? or both? You decide. LOL
As for Kevin Tillman: Gryph, in the quote you provided and attributed to him, Kevin does indeed APPEAR to imply that the reasons given for invading Iraq were bogus. Either that, or you can’t read.
I now lean toward the latter idea (i.e., that you can’t read), both for reasons already given, and because over and over in #67 I wrote words of doubt about whether Kevin had been quoted accurately, or whether I had been given (by you) his true view. Over and over, #67 says “IF the quote attributed to Kevin is right”, etc.
Now let’s look at your closing shot: “NDT and Caralato are both demagogic liars.”
Folks – Truly, in this thread, we have seen Gryph’s usual crap and nothing else. In #68 alone, we see:
– The Gryph misdirection, or stuffing words into the mouths of others: in this case, Gryph stuffing false words into my mouth.
– The Gryph projection: in this case, his IMAGINING I had been doing it to him and ACCUSING me of his (Gryph’s) actions.
– The Gryph personal attack, when he is cornered and desperate. Note that I have made ***ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS ON GRYPH WHATSOEVER*** – I mean, up to the ending of this new post that you are about to read.
Far from whining, I am laughing here as I simply recite what anyone can see for themselves, in black-and-white in this thread.
Bye now, Gryph, ya dumb jerk! 😉
(p.s., THAT is what a personal attack looks like)
To the leftists in this thread. I wonder if you could list for me some of the positive and righteous things you like about America. I’m curious.
Caralato, I’ve seen people like you hanging out at gay bars for the last 30 years. You are really nothing special in any way. Just another tired, old and bitter queen. The only difference is that you hang out on a blog instead of a bar.
All you really want from any “discussion” you join in is to prove that you have the bigger rhetorical Dick. It never matters one whit what the actual topic is about, your only intent here is provoke a reaction. Its apparently what you use to feel good about yourself. Its pathetic. So spew all the venom all you want, but it still won’t ever mean that you are a better person than me or any of the others that you love to harass here. It doesn’t make you a big man. You are just an everyday boring asshole, and its not like the world has any shortage of those.
NDT says:
NDT, what you wrote above is a perfect example of the reason you are always so full of shit. You are not “questioning” a goddamn thing. You are just trying steamroll over opinions you don’t like by associating myself and Tillman or anyone else that doesn’t toe the GOP Party Line with nasty things. I don’t associate with Sheehan or the like. I doubt Tillman does either, but unlike you, I don’t presume to know either way. I simply liked what Tillman wrote. You didn’t, And since Tillman has credibility as a former soldier and OEF veteran, you deliberately lie and smear the both of us as traitors. You try to tear down the person making the point in hopes of making the issue go away. It wont.
So let me clear something up for you, you pathetic little punk. I have just as much right to the American Flag as you do. Contrary to the shit you put out, its not the flag of the GOP. It belongs to me too. And if Tillman or I or any other American for that matter want to criticize Bush or the GOP its does not make us Benedict Arnold. How dare you, you don’t know me, who the fuck do you think you are?
Like Caralato above, you are just another stupid little bully that likes to shove people around. Well you wouldn’t have the fucking guts to say those things in person to my face you little coward. So just piss off and go post some more nude webcam photos of yourself around the internet again in hopes of getting someone to jerk your weenie. And after seeing your photos last time, I would suggest you look for someone with a good magnifying glass, they are going to need it.
#73 – Guys – Considering Gryph’s normal discombobulations / lying when cornered, as in #68, I’m disappointed he didn’t change my text. I wrote him expecting / hoping him to try another fast one.
And Gryph – Way to take responsibility for your lies in #68! Keep raving in that mirror, bud – accusing others of what you create! Glad I could be your reflective surface, once again – LOL 🙂
And if Tillman or I or any other American for that matter want to criticize Bush or the GOP its does not make us Benedict Arnold.
Quite right.
Benedict Arnold actually made a rational plan and decision to be a traitor.
I don’t think either you or Tillman can be ascribed that much rationality, or even a conscious motivation to be traitorous.
What I think is that both of you are irrational Bush-haters who are so obsessed with striking out at and hurting Bush that you don’t even realize how traitorous you’re being.
Criticism is one thing, Gryph. But intelligent dissent involves recognizing when someone is right as well as when someone is wrong, and neither you or Tillman have demonstrated the capacity to do so. It’s all anti-Bush, all the time.
And that lines you up nicely with Sheehan and her crew.
Like Caralato above, you are just another stupid little bully that likes to shove people around. Well you wouldn’t have the fucking guts to say those things in person to my face you little coward.
Feel free to test that hypothesis. We Southern boys are consummate gentlemen when people deserve it — and blunt when they don’t.
So just piss off and go post some more nude webcam photos of yourself around the internet again in hopes of getting someone to jerk your weenie. And after seeing your photos last time, I would suggest you look for someone with a good magnifying glass, they are going to need it.
Oh — an insult about my cock size and photograph. How original. Who’d have ever thought a gay man would be catty? 🙂
NDT, it’s convenient for Gryph to screech we’re “bullies” or whatever – because he never manages to win the argument. We don’t punk him (though I did try this time, in the end) so much as he dynamites his own position.
“Intelligent dissent involves recognizing when someone is right as well as when someone is wrong” – perfect!
pat is the bully….much fouler!
Calarato, the Gryphster is suffering under the weight of watching his political saviors –the Democrats– appear to be losing ground in race after race and now guys like ChuckieSchummer offering tidbits like “I think our candidates will be able to reduce the margin, the spread of percentage points, over a generic Democrat candidate by the GOP….”
Meaning, they aren’t taking the Senate “back” (LOL) and now they’ll try to keep the Democrat base content by arguing the Dem Sen Campaign didn’t lose as badly to the GOP as they usually lose.
And even CNN, the bastion of the radical Left, apologist for all things Democrat and aide to the anti-Bush MSM (with stories like “Broken Borders, Broken Bush”) is saying that the House may now be a toss up… retreating from their own analyst’s statement of Oct 3rd that the House was going to end up a 45-60 seat Democrat MAJORITY.
Gryphster is just suffering from the burden of watching “the last, best hope” for feeding his anti-Bush, anti-GOP hatefilled appetite disappear faster than a dozen of KrispyKremes in front of Rosie.
From a mental health stand point, I think we need to let him be. His rantings here help release anger inside him that could find an untoward target in general society if not discharged here.
Besides, no one is STILL reading his blog and posting here and identifying with the other GayLeftBorg loons helps drive traffic to his site. It’s a good public service this blog performs for the GayLeft… helping them seemingly strike out and yell irrationally at those they feel have harmed them. It’s a good service.
Matt, I agree 100% – and more.
Remember,
– Gryph was also trying to bully people on GP, in days when the Democrats were flying higher.
– A bully projects his traits onto his victims, if they fight back.
In that light, anon got it – Gryph’s “rant” is a classic bully’s cry, “NDT and Calarato won’t lay down to me – they keep dishing my crap back – Waah! WaaaaaaaaaH!”
But I will say this: Gryph’s new story in #73 does at least promote me from Hitler incarnate (a “demogogic liar”) up to neutral (“nothing special”). We must, in the end, be ever so grateful for the small advances.
I’m feeling left out. 🙁
Oh, you’ll find your way into the crosshairs soon, I’m sure! 🙂
What is the Democrats’ alternative plan for Iraq? That’s the $64,000 question they never answer.
As a non-Democrat, I don’t need to answer that. 🙂 But I would like to pose a different question.
What is the GOP/pro-war plan for after Iraq? Even if the war in Iraq turns out well, it is not going to get to the heart of the matter. Islamic fascists are not rational people — they have a death wish, after all — and they aren’t going to be dissuaded by any example that is set in Iraq.
I just want to know if those who are pro-Iraq-War are contemplating a series of Iraq-like wars in other countries. I do not condemn anyone who believes this is in fact the solution to the problem — I don’t really have a better one to offer, just some embryonic thoughts. But the point is, the American voting majority is just not going to tolerate many years or even decades of continuous warfare. Given that, what is the plan for after Iraq?
kdogg, you scare me again by sounding kind of like me.
It’s been a while since I’ve looked at one of President Bush’s speeches on the subject, so I can’t answer you very specifically. I know he looks at the situation globally and long-term.
Here is an informal talk he just gave on it – Interesting to hear him think on his feet among friends:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/061025/an_interview_wi_1.htm#more
He seems to see a large picture where terrorism (as a hate-ideology or as actual people / bases) is nourished in many countries… each of which must be dealt with a little differently. What’s on his mind the most (it sounds like) is Iraq, Iran, Palestine / Israel, North Korea – probably in that order.
I’ll just give you some personal speculation now.
“Getting to the heart of the matter” consists of (1) confronting WMD proliferation, (2) confronting terrorist-host countries so they turn against terrorists, and (3) promoting democracy and countries that work for their citizens, so more and more of the people won’t want death.
If you look at what the U.S. did in the wake of 9-11 – There was a series of Mideast terrorist- (and/or WMD-) sponsoring countries that we have been dealing with situationally, or as a regional chessboard:
a) Afghanistan – invade to replace Taliban with democracy and kill terrorists.
b) Iran – Too big to invade right away; isolate / contain slowly.
c) Iraq – invade to replace Saddam with democracy and kill terrorists.
d) Libya – Pressure to stop their WMD programs.
e) Pakistan – Pressure to stop their support for terrorists.
f) Saudi Arabia – Pressure to stop their support for terrorists.
g) Syria – Too small to invade right away; isolate / contain slowly.
That hasn’t been a bad policy, up to now. The pieces have inter-connected. Invading Iraq in 2003 led DIRECTLY to Libya’s capitulation on its WMD programs, for example, and to Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
The problem now (in 2006) is that our enemies are regrouping and the strategy is catching some reverses. Iraq is dragging on, and Pakistan recently switched sides – back to tacitly supporting the terrorists.
Personally, I think Pakistan’s switch is a much bigger (though unheralded) problem than Iraq. Among other dangers, it’s the reason for the resurgent Taliban, who enjoy tribal recruits and safe bases in Pakistan’s territory. Bill Roggio talks about it alot; see http://www.billroggio.com
At a very general level, I think the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the GWOT is that Republicans want a “forward” or “offensive” strategy where we carry the War on Terror to the terrorists’ home countries… and the Democrats just say, BushitlerHalliCheneyBurton!!! and try to deal with terrorism as a passive, let’s-wait-to-see-who-attacks-us, law-enforcement type of issue.
Needless to say, I agree with the general Republican approach. I am not convinced that their execution and strategy are perfect – only that they are a little closer to what we should be doing than the Democrats are.
For the record, I am a recovering ex-Democrat, now a registered Independent. (Never been a Republican.)
Colorato:
Thank you for your detailed answer. I hope I do not insult you buy saying that it doesn’t totally answer my questions, but I do honestly appreciate the fact that you clearly took some time to give comprehensible answers. This is probably the third time I’ve asked this question on this site, and the umpteenth time I’ve asked it in general, and this is the most careful answer I’ve received.
For the record, I am a recovering ex-Democrat, now a registered Independent. (Never been a Republican.)
Just the opposite here! 🙂
kdogg
“..the American voting majority is just not going to tolerate many years or even decades of continuous warfare.”
Then surrender is our only option. Because there is no sign at all that the people we are at war with are going to stop.
“Then surrender is our only option. Because there is no sign at all that the people we are at war with are going to stop.”
I don’t have good answers, but I do know that there is a lot of territory between surrender on the one end, and decades of continuous war on the other. The Cold War provides a conceptual model, but I readily admit that I don’t see how the tactics used then could be applied directly to the war on terrorism.