Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning-This time it's OIL

[Skyhunter]

It's hard to find common ground with people who only want to throw around exagerations, conspiracies, and propaganda. You can't deal with a problem unless you can look at it objectively. Patty and I were getting started on speaking objectively about ideas of what can be done. This got drowned out pretty quickly though by the next wave of exagerations and lashings out. By the time I got back the discussion had degraded once more.

Exaggerations, lashing out. I thought everyone was being quite restrained, when you consider that we are powerless to do anything. A let's face it historicly cooperation with neo-cons is not exactly pleasant, to quote Grover Norquist 'Bipartisanship is another name for date rape'.

Quite frankly I would love to discuss workable solutions to the Iraq situation, and I tried back during the last election. I was called a traitor, a wimp, America hater, and more. Now I am asked to offer solutions because what I and others could plainly see as an historic mistake is starting to play itself out.

Well I am willing, but let's hear some admission from the right that they were wrong first and then I will be more willing to stop bashing Bush and talk more constructively. Until then I will do everything in my power to expose his incompetence to everyone I can!

Here is my idea;

Identify and elect new congressional leaders in 2006.

Have real congressional hearings and rip the veil of secrecy off this White House.

Impeach Bush for the lies he told to justify the war.

Prosecute the rest of his cabinet for complicity.

Then with a credible president (Colin Powell anyone?) we can then go to the rest of the world, and get some cooperation with the Iraq problem.

As long as Bush & Co. is in the WH, there is no solution because they are going to do what they want and screw anybody who disagrees with them!

Wake up!

Why do you think Colin Powell left the Administration?

Because he knew it was a mistake and wouldn't say 'me too'. Oh, I don't forgive him for playing along. I think he took the loyal good soldier thing to far, but that is just my opinion. He is, at this juncture the only person I know of with enough stature and bi-partisan appeal to be accepted by a divided nation.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not sure that the actions of the insurgents will stop if we leave. There have already been those that state the current Iraqi government is illegitimate. How do we know that they won't simply turn their attention towards the "illigitimate" government facilitated by the US once the US is gone?
I'm not saying that the US can't leave or shouldn't but just repeating that I think they need to be careful about it.

I agree -- I'll say it in less uncertain terms. The Iraqi government is a primary target of the insurgents. Whenever I read up on the latest bombings, the bulk of the actions are always against Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military. Yet, some people still seem to think all the conflict over there is Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops. (Fortunately, I haven't noticed this in this thread)

 

[Hurkyl]

Terrorism exists all over the world and it will never be quashed.

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

By the way, it would really help if you would clearly state the point you're trying to make. You certainly seem to be implying that the use force is futile, and that it shouldn't be used... but if you read what you wrote, you'll see never actually said anything along those lines.

Now please let others continue discussion on alternatives. In otherwords... just get out the way.

He can't get out of the way of what isn't there.

The problem is that you staunchly refuse to discuss with one of the biggest problems, so all of your "alternative" "solutions" are moot.

For example, how do hybrid vehicles keep Iraq from collapsing into anarchy? Why do you think this is an "alternative" to using troops to defend the government? As far as I can tell, the two are entirely unrelated.

 

[Skyhunter]

I agree -- I'll say it in less uncertain terms. The Iraqi government is a primary target of the insurgents. Whenever I read up on the latest bombings, the bulk of the actions are always against Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military. Yet, some people still seem to think all the conflict over there is Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops. (Fortunately, I haven't noticed this in this thread)

You are correct. The Iraqi government is the primary target. One of the most dangerous places for an Iraqi to be is in a line to apply for a job with, originally the CPA and now the interim Gov't. I see two reasons for this.

1. They are softer targets than the US military.
2. They are considered traitors by the insurgents.

If we could get the rest of the world to do more than offer some weak words of support, maybe the Iraqi insurgents will start to see a better alternative than to fight a jihad with the "great satan", which is the kind of propaganda they are being fed. Our actions over there are just fueling that propaganda.

Killing them all is not a viable solution. For every one of them we kill, we create ten more. Face it as long as the current administration has control we are powerless to change anything!

 

[alexandra]

I agree -- I'll say it in less uncertain terms. The Iraqi government is a primary target of the insurgents. Whenever I read up on the latest bombings, the bulk of the actions are always against Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military. Yet, some people still seem to think all the conflict over there is Iraqi insurgents against U.S. troops. (Fortunately, I haven't noticed this in this thread)

It seems to me that the targets of the Iraqi insurgents are, as you say, the Iraqi government - Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military - and it seems that this is because they are seen as the servants of a 'puppet government' that has been installed by the US administration and will do its bidding - in other words, they are seen as collaborators who are working against the interests of Iraq. That is just the sense I get from online blogs and articles I have read. Whether or not this perception is accurate is irrelevant - but that seems to be what is happening.

So yes, Iraq's 'civil war', which was predicted by many, is on. I don't see how the US troops either staying or leaving will change that. If US troops leave, the current government will be overthrown (so the Bush administration will not withdraw troops because then they will lose the foothold, however insecure it is, that they have gained in the region). If US troops stay, the insurgents may not be able to overthrow the current government, but will keep on trying and the killing and chaos will continue. This is my reading of the situation, in any case.

 

[Art]

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism. Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests.
That is why in lieu of a rational discussion by some western leaders we have the soundbites such as "they hate our freedom" or they "hate our existence" and other such peurile contentions to justify the lack of dialogue, and the use of force by the west to suppress them.
Churchill once wrote "better jaw jaw than war war" and this is still good advice today

 

[alexandra]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism. Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests.
That is why in lieu of a rational discussion by some western leaders we have the soundbites such as "they hate our freedom" or they "hate our existence" and other such peurile contentions to justify the lack of dialogue, and the use of force by the west to suppress them.
Churchill once wrote "better jaw jaw than war war" and this is still good advice today

I agree with everything you write here, Art - but would lilke to make one modification: you write, "Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests". I would replace the words "national interests" with the words "the interests of the ruling class". Slight modification, but important. There are no 'national interests', in my view. The working class always gets the raw end of the deal, no matter what. Look at what's happening to the price of fuel in the US now - but look at the share values of oil companies for a stark contrast - both prices are going up. Not good for workers; very, very good for owners of oil companies. And this is just one example...

 

[Anttech]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism. Unfortunately this is something many western countries will not do because recognising and addressing valid complaints would conflict with their national interests.

[sarcasim]

Ohh stop with your liberal cr@p.. I mean how could this ever work, with your reasoning talking out greavences (and acting on the outcomes) might acutally quash hatred and violance...


ohh wait, The IRA are dispanding, after deplomacy and action in the context of the NI peace treaty... Imagine that

[/sarcasim]

;-)

 

[pattylou]

I'm not sure that the actions of the insurgents will stop if we leave. There have already been those that state the current Iraqi government is illegitimate. How do we know that they won't simply turn their attention towards the "illigitimate" government facilitated by the US once the US is gone?
I'm not saying that the US can't leave or shouldn't but just repeating that I think they need to be careful about it.

Ya know what just occurred to me ---

Everyone says "We can't leave" because we're afraid that things will get worse...

Why on Earth couldn't we just *return* if that happened? It's not like leaving then returning would be any weirder than invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses to begin with.

 

[1123581321]

You mean like preventing hundreds of deaths due to a "suicide bomber" or the threat of one during a pilgrimage?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=iraq+stampede&btnG=Search+News

and what do you think will happen if we leave now?

 

[pattylou]

and what do you think will happen if we leave now?

Ummmm.. hard to say?

I *guess* we could always... return if leaving didn't work out...

What are you afraid of?

 

[russ_watters]

Whereas "Vote Bush" did?

Certainly! It says "stay the course". Whether or not you believe that Bush has a coherent plan, I assume that when making your decision you figured that a Bush win would mean the troops would be staying for quite some time.

 

[TRCSF]

and what do you think will happen if we leave now?

The same thing that will happen when we leave later.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that the targets of the Iraqi insurgents are, as you say, the Iraqi government - Iraqi civilian police and Iraqi military - and it seems that this is because they are seen as the servants of a 'puppet government' that has been installed by the US administration and will do its bidding - in other words, they are seen as collaborators who are working against the interests of Iraq.

That's the catch-22 discussed earlier. And the solution, as I said, is to reach that "tipping point" where the Iraqi government becomes inherrently stable, then pull out. No, the attacks do not have to stop first, the new government has only to be strong enough to withstand them. Then, if your theory is right (and it may well be), with American forces leaving and the Iraqi people getting more and more control over their government, the "insurgency" should fade away.

Can anyone provide an alternate course of action? As others have said, I see a lot of criticizing of the current course of action, but not a lot of suggestions for an alternate one.

 

[russ_watters]

Ummmm.. hard to say?

I *guess* we could always... return if leaving didn't work out...

What are you afraid of?

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch. Do you consider the chance of success to be worth that risk? Give me a number: if we pull out now, what do you consider the odds of Iraq not slipping into anarchy or reverting to despotism, tribalism, etc?

 

[vanesch]

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch. Do you consider the chance of success to be worth that risk? Give me a number: if we pull out now, what do you consider the odds of Iraq not slipping into anarchy or reverting to despotism, tribalism, etc?

Just a guess: 20%.

And if you stay: also 20%, but it will last longer.

 

[Art]

Can anyone provide an alternate course of action? As others have said, I see a lot of criticizing of the current course of action, but not a lot of suggestions for an alternate one.

Why not provide a time-table for withdrawal as the Sunnis have requested? If this could be agreed it would take a large number of insurgents out of the equation. Perhaps the Iraqi security forces would be strong enough to handle what's left.

 

[SOS2008]

[sarcasim]

Ohh stop with your liberal cr@p.. I mean how could this ever work, with your reasoning talking out greavences (and acting on the outcomes) might acutally quash hatred and violance...


ohh wait, The IRA are dispanding, after deplomacy and action in the context of the NI peace treaty... Imagine that

[/sarcasim]

;-)

So you or I may not agree with a member's ideas for solutions. Then suggest one yourself.

In the meantime, we know what has been done to date has not gone well. The war on drugs is the analogy most often used, in that you can't fight it in a conventional way, i.e. wars against nation states. We can decrease terrorism more effectively by changing our policy of intervention overseas, and in the meantime focus on truly defending our nation with meaningful homeland security measures (NOT a Patriot Act!) but better ID and securing our borders.

That's the catch-22 discussed earlier. And the solution, as I said, is to reach that "tipping point" where the Iraqi government becomes inherrently stable, then pull out. No, the attacks do not have to stop first, the new government has only to be strong enough to withstand them. Then, if your theory is right (and it may well be), with American forces leaving and the Iraqi people getting more and more control over their government, the "insurgency" should fade away.

Can anyone provide an alternate course of action? As others have said, I see a lot of criticizing of the current course of action, but not a lot of suggestions for an alternate one.

The problem is the Iraqis are not showing significant, consistent progress in becoming stable. So if we "stay the course" it will be a very long and costly path...to where? Assuming there would be a time when it is felt there is enough stability (trained military/police, etc.), the chances of civil war and anarchy still exist. It is a no-win situation. Worse, it saps U.S. resources and actually fuels terrorism in the meantime. In looking at the pros and cons, an exist plan is a no-brainer IMO, and as stated above, we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out. Actually Kerry would be a good envoy for this (having grown up in Germany and speaking French, etc.).

Let's face it, Bush supporters don't want to admit the invasion to be a mistake, and sure as heck don't want to concede anything to other countries, and certainly not to leaders in our country who are not in their Republican circle. We will all go down in flames together because of the prideful stupidity.

 

[Art]

The true irony is, based on the draft constitution, if the US does 'stay the course' they will be expending men and equipment at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to eventually create a mirror gov't of Iran which they purport to despise so much.

 

[pattylou]

Certainly! It says "stay the course". Whether or not you believe that Bush has a coherent plan, I assume that when making your decision you figured that a Bush win would mean the troops would be staying for quite some time.

You can't be serious. 'Stay the course' has no meaning when there is no charted course.

Are you claiming that there there has been a coherent strategy in Iraq?

*I* am claiming that Kerry's presidency would have had at least as much guidance as Bush's, wrt Iraq. Would you like me to find the letters from former military commanders that claim time and again that there was no viable exit strategy? How about the ones that claim that the reasons for *invading* were questionable? How about the ones from the pentagon showing global terrorism up 3 fold over last year, which was 2 fold over the year before? Or the ones that state clearly that majorly insufficient troops were thought sufficient, in March 2003?

Are you seriously saying that Bush has any clue as to what we're doing there? If so, please tell me what that reason, and "plan" is.

 

[pattylou]

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch.

No, we wouldn't.

We'd be starting from having residual troops there, and recent history, and relationships with the police forces we're training, and on-the-job know-how of the armed forces that were stationed there, and bases that have been built, and a non-Saddam government in place...

How can you argue that we're making progress and should stay the course, and then turn around and argue that leaving would revert back to square one? Do you recognize the illogic here?

My mind boggles.

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

 

[pattylou]

The true irony is, based on the draft constitution, if the US does 'stay the course' they will be expending men and equipment at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to eventually create a mirror gov't of Iran which they purport to despise so much.

Yes. That is very ironic. I agree competely.

 

[outsider]

Why do you think Colin Powell left the Administration?

Because he knew it was a mistake and wouldn't say 'me too'. Oh, I don't forgive him for playing along. I think he took the loyal good soldier thing to far, but that is just my opinion. He is, at this juncture the only person I know of with enough stature and bi-partisan appeal to be accepted by a divided nation.

Agreed to this... I have personally made this mistake in my life... this is why I know what is up with the Administration. Just that their "jack moves" are on an even larger scale than those I've been involved with. Believe me, I did benefit... I don't think it was right... but it's all said, done and money spent... so there you have it...

 

[outsider]

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

there is more than one way to reduce crime you know... how about feeding people?

By the way, it would really help if you would clearly state the point you're trying to make. You certainly seem to be implying that the use force is futile, and that it shouldn't be used... but if you read what you wrote, you'll see never actually said anything along those lines.

you will only see what you choose to see.

He can't get out of the way of what isn't there.

?

For example, how do hybrid vehicles keep Iraq from collapsing into anarchy? Why do you think this is an "alternative" to using troops to defend the government? As far as I can tell, the two are entirely unrelated.

you don't even realize that there are resources being spent daily that are not "investments" into the future. you are so in a box... i really feel for you.

 

[Hurkyl]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism.

(1) You need police to protect against criminals while you're tackling the causes of crime.
(2) You need police to protect against the remaining criminals after you've tackled the causes of crime.

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

 

[Burnsys]

(1) You need police to protect against criminals while you're tackling the causes of crime.
(2) You need police to protect against the remaining criminals after you've tackled the causes of crime.

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

The problem here hurkyl is that those who control the police are the causes of crime!.

Your government is the cause of terrorism, if Us government didn't supported saddam and osama bin laden and the mujaidin, i am sure you shouldn have such a fierce resistence now in irak, if your government didn't overtrown the democraticaly elected government in iran, now it wouln't be a problem. if your government stop suporting and helping current dictator of ubekistan i am sure tomorrow you will not have to worry about terrorists from ubekistan...

 

[Hurkyl]

Your government is the cause of terrorism

This is a red herring: nothing you've said addresses the question of whether one needs the ability to confront terrorism with force, when necessary.

But, I'll respond to it anyways.

Are gun dealers the cause of shooting murders?

The U.S. government is not the cause of terrorism. You may (or may not) be able to make a compelling argument that the actions of (previous!) U.S. administrations has made the problem worse, but resorting to such gross hyperbole only weakens your argument.

 

[Art]

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

Which perhaps just proves that you are missing the point. If the root causes are addressed there will be little or no terrorism to confront.

 

[Hurkyl]

If the root causes are addressed there will be little or no terrorism to confront.

(1) If there is little terrorism to confront, it is still likely one would need to confront it when it does arise.

(2) This line of reasoning is about what to do in the long-term, and tells us nothing about what to do now to deal with the terrorism that is happening now.

 

[Skyhunter]

(1) If there is little terrorism to confront, it is still likely one would need to confront it when it does arise.

(2) This line of reasoning is about what to do in the long-term, and tells us nothing about what to do now to deal with the terrorism that is happening now.

Addressing terrorism at this juncture is secondary to addressing the the insurgency, although the two are connected. The insurgency is a more immediate problem.

The path Bush chose to fight terror was to follow the PNAC blueprint and establish a strong military presence in the middle east. I don't believe he plans to leave. Under these circumstances I don't think the insurgency will go away until we kill a few million Iraqis.

I don't agree with this solution, I believe we need to abandon this strategy. The strategy that Russ laid out is possibly workable, provided the Iraqi gov't can reach the threshold of being able to fight the insurgents.

As Patty pointed out, we may be able to achieve that sooner if we set a timetable, let the terrorists give it their best shot and deal with them all at once. If we can appease the Sunnis, who are the ones feeding the insurgency we can possibly render the foreign agitators impotent.

This strategy would be easier to implement if we had the rest of the world with us and helping.

The other problem is the guy that Bush had dismantle and privatise FEMA is the same crony who is working the deals in Iraq. And that is the other thing feeding the insurgency. Iraqi's have been watching the New Orleans disaster and gross incompetence in their country for 2 years!

 

[russ_watters]

You can't be serious. 'Stay the course' has no meaning when there is no charted course.

Are you claiming that there there has been a coherent strategy in Iraq?

*I* am claiming that Kerry's presidency would have had at least as much guidance as Bush's, wrt Iraq. Would you like me to find the letters from former military commanders that claim time and again that there was no viable exit strategy? How about the ones that claim that the reasons for *invading* were questionable? How about the ones from the pentagon showing global terrorism up 3 fold over last year, which was 2 fold over the year before? Or the ones that state clearly that majorly insufficient troops were thought sufficient, in March 2003?

Are you seriously saying that Bush has any clue as to what we're doing there? If so, please tell me what that reason, and "plan" is.

Pattylou, could you please reread that post of mine? You didn't respond to it, and from what you wrote, it looks like you completely missed what I said.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is the Iraqis are not showing significant, consistent progress in becoming stable. So if we "stay the course" it will be a very long and costly path...to where? Assuming there would be a time when it is felt there is enough stability (trained military/police, etc.), the chances of civil war and anarchy still exist. It is a no-win situation. Worse, it saps U.S. resources and actually fuels terrorism in the meantime. In looking at the pros and cons, an exist plan is a no-brainer IMO, and as stated above, we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out. Actually Kerry would be a good envoy for this (having grown up in Germany and speaking French, etc.).

Let's face it, Bush supporters don't want to admit the invasion to be a mistake, and sure as heck don't want to concede anything to other countries, and certainly not to leaders in our country who are not in their Republican circle. We will all go down in flames together because of the prideful stupidity.

Excellent example of what I'm talking about: nowhere in there is a course of action suggested, its all about blame and politicking. And maybe that's just it - do you guys just plain consider the situation untenable? Nothing we do will help, so we may as well just pull out?

Edit: Heck, even that would be politicking - it would be a Vietnam-style abandonment and a clear-cut admission of failure for people to point at. It seems like people want it just so they can point at it.

 

[russ_watters]

No, we wouldn't.

We'd be starting from having residual troops there, and recent history, and relationships with the police forces we're training, and on-the-job know-how of the armed forces that were stationed there, and bases that have been built, and a non-Saddam government in place...

How can you argue that we're making progress and should stay the course, and then turn around and argue that leaving would revert back to square one? Do you recognize the illogic here?

My mind boggles.

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

I don't understand why you don't understand. The conditions you describe us going back to would not exist if the country deteriorated into anarchy, which you seem to agree would probably happen if we left!

And about dropping back to square one - did you read and understand my "tipping point" explanation? Regardless, again, you said you agreed that the country would probably decend into anarchy if we left - which is precisely what going back to square one means!

For example, no, the partially trained police force would not remain if anarchy took over, it would dissolve. That's part of what anarchy means. And the corollary: if the police force did remain, they wouldn't be in anarchy, and we wouldn't go back! It doesn't get any more perfectly self-contradictory than to say a police force could function in an anarchy.

 

[Hurkyl]

The strategy that Russ laid out is possibly workable, provided the Iraqi gov't can reach the threshold of being able to fight the insurgents.

And is of what I currently favor too. I guess it always just seemed so obvious to me I never felt the need to articulate it.

As Patty pointed out, we may be able to achieve that sooner if we set a timetable, let the terrorists give it their best shot and deal with them all at once.

As I see it, setting a timetable is a "greedy" thing: doing so would net short-term gains, but risks huge long-term losses if the job takes longer than was allotted.

I don't particularly trust anyone's ability to set the timetable: these sorts of projections are so very frequently underestimated. (Though, I imagine that's partly due to pressure to show off how quickly the job can get done) As such, I view the long-term risk of setting a timetable as being almost certain.

Of course, while I expect in the long run that the long-term losses will outweigh the short-term gains, I guess I don't really have an argument as to why that should be the case.

 

[vanesch]

I have two questions for those advocating the stay (Hurkyl and Russ, not to name them).

1) Do you think that with your current presence you will be able to stop a civil war from develloping ? Or would you need massively more soldiers ?

2) And if your presence is needed to hold back a civil war, how long do you think you will need to do so ? 3 years ? 10 years ? 15 years ?