Will W meet Cindy Sheehan

[El Blanco]

Find the next flavor of the week to get outraged over?

[mburbank]

Okay, I've been away for a week.

Apportioner, I would have been pleased if her quest was more centered on accountability.

Kevin, I would have and did feel differently about folks that died in Afghanistan up until the moment we opted out of Torah Borah and focused instead on Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and I would have parted ways. This does not mean, however, that I would accept the administrations word or the quality of their intelligence in future cases of who harbored terrorists or to what degree. Afghanistan was a very rare case. I don't have to agree with Sheehan across the board to be glad she put a little of the human cost into the spotlight for a little while. I was very pleased that she equated her suffering with the suffering of arabs, AKA colateral damage.

As for the "Well, we never should have done it but now we have to finish the job" argument, there's an element of truth in int, BUT... it all depends on what you think the 'job' is, and wether it can ever be 'finished'. I think the War on Terrorism or Against Global Extremism, or whatever crap the whitehouse PR department is calling it this week can never be won, which is it's foremost value to people who cannot envision an America without a cold war style villian to define themselves against. Iraq is very likely to become an Islamist, Iran style state with us right there, let alone if we leave. Maybe we should stay so that when we change the next regime we won't have to drive so far. If the job can never be done we are committing ourselves to a permanent presence, which would certainly account for the type of bases we're building.

The operation analogy strikes me this way. As opposed to elective surgery, I think it was a violent crime perpetrated against a nasty thug, but it should be noted just about the weakest thug in the gang. Just because it turns out the person who commited the crime has medical training doesn't make them the ideal guy to stop the internal bleeding.

If I thought our presence was doing more good than bad in Iraq, I'd be all for staying, and even if we started the war for all the wrong reasons, I'd think soldiers were dieing for a reason. I don't. I think our presence is making things worse. I think we make it look on daily basis as if the most bizarre claims of I slamist seperatist fanatics are true. I think we take people who have a strong dislike for the US and create an environment in which they can bloom into full fledged suicidal loonies. I think the best thing we could do for Iraq (and it's not a real good deal) is leave.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

This does not mean, however, that I would accept the administrations word or the quality of their intelligence in future cases of who harbored terrorists or to what degree. Afghanistan was a very rare case. I don't have to agree with Sheehan across the board to be glad she put a little of the human cost into the spotlight for a little while. I was very pleased that she equated her suffering with the suffering of arabs, AKA colateral damage.

I think I agree, and I think it is true that since we have a professional military, coupled with a terribly distant president, there is a degree of disconnect between Iraq the reality, and Iraq the perception. We discussed this in apportioner's conscription thread, whether or not some kind of mandatory service would create greater accountability from the administration (i.e. Vietnam and JFK-- Nixon).

However, I think that lack of investment from the American people goes both ways. It's a fical attitude that makes it easy to both support a war one month and then denounce it a year later. Everyone knew that men and women would die, and I think most knew (particularly the military) that this wouldn't be a conventional war. We all knew the neo-cons were full of shit when they talked about roses and celebrations from Iraqis for their conquering heroes, but there was also a bit of realism from the Pentagon. Everyone knew that pushing democracy in Iraq would mean emancipating a traditionally oppressed majority in Iraq, the Shiites. Knowing this, we knew there'd be opposition from the Sunnis, as well as the Baathist Saddam loyalists. These are things that were predicted, and I don't think it's fair to even President Bush to say that this war is bad because soldiers are dying for a bad reason. Well, most Americans were okay with it at the time, and even though we never found those WMDs, a majority of Americans came out last November and declared that okay, too.

This war has become bad because it won't end fast enough. As we move further and further away from the day we invaded, the public will increasingly turn on the war. Sorry, but for me, it's too little too late. Where were you when thousands of people protested in cities across the country against this war? Now the war has become inconvenient, b/c the Iraqis won't just hurry up and democratize, and AMERICAN SOLDIERS have to die....! Forgive my condescension, but I would fear a country that allowed the whims of its people to entirely dictate foreign policy.

As for the "Well, we never should have done it but now we have to finish the job" argument, there's an element of truth in int, BUT... it all depends on what you think the 'job' is, and wether it can ever be 'finished'. I think the War on Terrorism or Against Global Extremism, or whatever crap the whitehouse PR department is calling it this week can never be won, which is it's foremost value to people who cannot envision an America without a cold war style villian to define themselves against. Iraq is very likely to become an Islamist, Iran style state with us right there, let alone if we leave.

I think you raise some very good points, but when did sober realism dictate your beliefs? I too hate hearing the Iraq invasion twisted into a humanitarian action, because we all know damn well that that was a secondary concern to this administration, if that.

BUT, Bush lies aside, this now IS a humanitarian effort. Iraq may never be a democracy that's friendly to the U.S., and yes, all we may do here is enable radical muslims to over-run another nation. But that's the risk in democracy, and that's what makes freedom truly dangerous and amazing at the same time. Look, we broke it, and it's our job to fix it.

If I thought our presence was doing more good than bad in Iraq, I'd be all for staying, and even if we started the war for all the wrong reasons, I'd think soldiers were dieing for a reason. I don't. I think our presence is making things worse. I think we make it look on daily basis as if the most bizarre claims of I slamist seperatist fanatics are true. I think we take people who have a strong dislike for the US and create an environment in which they can bloom into full fledged suicidal loonies. I think the best thing we could do for Iraq (and it's not a real good deal) is leave.

Well, I disagree. I think a terrorist who would kill aid workers and behead human beings relinquishes all rights to complain. I don't think Syrians, Iranians, and Baathists should be defining the argument here. If we pull out, you will see the same thing you're currently seeing in Gaza right now. Organizations like Hamas will take credit for it, and will know that it works to blow up buses with children on it. Kill some of their soldiers, bump off a few foreign ambassadors, behead some innocent people, and the Americans will run away with their tails tucked under their legs.

I think the president was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and the invasion was wrong. But make no mistake, look at the "insurgents" flooding into Iraq from other countries. These aren't "minutemen," these are extremists, and they know damn well that Iraq is important. The war wasn't there, but it is now, and the consequences of not respecting that could be dire.

[mburbank]

Kevin, I agree with much of what you're saying. Here's where I think we may differ:

"we broke it, and it's our job to fix it. "

I felt that way for a while. It's a bad feeling, especially since the very people who did the breaking are in charge of the fixing. My question:

What do we mean by 'fixing'?

What will a 'fixed' Iraq look like? If they democratically intsall majority Sharia law and begin a Taliban style reign of terror, wil we concider it fixed? If the political situation clarifies into a 'legitimate' government fighting a civil war, would that be 'fixed'. or would we need to stay to prop up the government? Do we need to stay until there is both a legitmate democracy and a trustworthy and functional army and police force? That would certainly be 'fixed' to my mind, but I think our very presence will provent that from happening.

I'm not saying this isn't a god awful ugly mess. I'm saying I don't think we can make things anything but worse, and I'm saying I don't think we even have a plan to make things better and there's no possability of that plan forming before the next president takes office. "Stay the course" is not a plan.

I think the loss of lives on all sides is being exaserbated by our presence. I think the money we are spending, not only on the actual war, but on bribes, giveaways and throwaways would be far more realistically spent preparing for the next flu pandemic.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

"we broke it, and it's our job to fix it. "

I felt that way for a while. It's a bad feeling, especially since the very people who did the breaking are in charge of the fixing.

Well, let's not go over board on this one. Yes, we went in and bombed a "stable" nation, but let's not forget that this was a savage dictatorship. He was a petty thug, he was at times our thug, and he was probably not a major threat to our own national security, but Saddam was in fact slime. His people are better off with him gone, no question.

What will a 'fixed' Iraq look like? If they democratically intsall majority Sharia law and begin a Taliban style reign of terror, wil we concider it fixed? If the political situation clarifies into a 'legitimate' government fighting a civil war, would that be 'fixed'. or would we need to stay to prop up the government? Do we need to stay until there is both a legitmate democracy and a trustworthy and functional army and police force?

I think we need to stay as long as necessary, because the result of us capitulating will most certainly be worse than right now. I'm fairly confident that the only thing even keeping the Kurds at the negotiating table is us. I think the only thing that can pull the Sunnis and the left-over Baathist-regime types into the process is our presence, because they know we wield the authority, we have the power, so we're the ones they're going to either fight with or negotiate with. I also think us being there will prevent the Shiites from taking pay back for years of oppression.

It took this nation 12 years to ratify the constitution. When it was in fact ratified, you a "nation" which was really just a collection of states, with their own militias, own currencies, own culture, and their own identity. It wasn't an easy process, and we made a LOT of mistakes, many which we would pay for in later decades with civil war and civil unrest.

And, IMO, we had it easier than these Iraqis do! All these people have known, all of their lives, is oppression, corruption, and tyranny. They have multiple outside forces who want to see them fail. They have extremely radical elements permeating throughout the country, trying to sabotage the entire process.

So, will there be a perfect solution anytime soon? Probably not. Sucks, right? However, that doesn't mean we should leave. I think there are some conditions that would help speed the process up: More support militarily from other nations, a greater UN presence in the region, a greater Arab presence in the region, i.e. countries like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon, as well as full border control on the part of some of those nations, not of course forgetting Syria and Iran

I'm saying I don't think we can make things anything but worse, and I'm saying I don't think we even have a plan to make things better and there's no possability of that plan forming before the next president takes office. "Stay the course" is not a plan.

I agree, and I think the prez has been weak on this. But let's be fair, if the prez continued to hammer the war drum, to talk over and over about where we were in Iraq, then the Left would just call it distractionary tactics, and they'd still find a way to criticize him.

We do need a plan. I'm a goals setting sort of guy. I like planners and microsoft outlook. I like setting timelines and objectives, because whether or not you actually meet them, you still know what is clearly expected of you every month, every week , and every day. This is not a good plan. This is "tell the Iraqis to get this done, let them sort it out, and we'll keep serving as moving targets."

But once again, let's be fair. If we were to take a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc., the extreme Left would call us imperialists, and MoveOn.org would probably make a fundraising ad out of it.

I think the loss of lives on all sides is being exaserbated by our presence. I think the money we are spending, not only on the actual war, but on bribes, giveaways and throwaways would be far more realistically spent preparing for the next flu pandemic.

i disagree. I think the only people to blame for the killing of children are the monsters who would target and kill children. You're right, as long as there is an obstacle (that being us) in their way, extremists will do what it takes to get us out of the way. That doesn't mean that we should.

[kellychaos]

It all amounts to a bunch of morons looking for a quick fix to a complex situation which took years in the festering. And now they're looking for a band-aid to make it all better. If the present administration had a reasonably competent state department, they would make peace with the rest of the world, cut their losses and walk away saying that they did the best the could do under the circumstances rather play this out as a continuing "war on terrorism" ... a war that will never be won under the current tact of a continuing occupational presence which builds resentment. How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil ... especially one that is barely over 200 years old?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

If the present administration had a reasonably competent state department, they would make peace with the rest of the world, cut their losses and walk away saying that they did the best the could do under the circumstances rather play this out as a continuing "war on terrorism"

You can't really believe it would be that simple, do you? What would "making peace with the rest of the world" entail? And would that end terrorism? Unlikely.

... a war that will never be won under the current tact of a continuing occupational presence which builds resentment.

The war against terror, or whatever it's called now, isn't simply a war against terrorism ,which is merely a tactic. It's a tactic that is being commonly used by radical muslims, namely Al Qaeda. It is not an exclusively muslim problem, but it certainly is one that's permeating throughout the religion and culture.

"Making peace", withdrawing from the world, and feeling satisfied that we gave it the ol' college try, isn't gonna cut it. Al Qaeda declared war a long time ago, we just didn't really pay attention until 9/11.

It also isn't fair to say that our entire strategy consists of occupying Iraq. You're right, you can't win a war against a method of destruction. But you can go after the nation-states who would support these groups, and make sure that terrorists who want to harm innocent people don't have readily available resources.

How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil

Probably a little better than living under a twisted dictatorship.

... especially one that is barely over 200 years old?

I'm sorry, but this is totally irrelevant.

[kellychaos]

I'm not saying tto recoil into isolationism or that a war on terror is necessarily a bad thing when the right tact is taken. To me, well-placed surgical operations in critical locations/targets as they've done with us would be better than conventional warfare especially when you're not willing to pony up the amount of force that such a convenetional war should entail (think 1st Gulf War).

You don't think that it's a slap in the face to a country with about 5,000 years of recorded history, one of the earliest civilizations on Earth, to be occupied by a country with little over 200 years as an established government. I'm thinking in terms of pride in relation to conflict resolution here. Relevant n'est-ce pas?

Probably a little better than living under a twisted dictatorship.

The dictatorship is a known evil; however.

[kellychaos]

Oops!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

You don't think that it's a slap in the face to a country with about 5,000 years of recorded history, one of the earliest civilizations on Earth, to be occupied by a country with little over 200 years as an established government. I'm thinking in terms of pride in relation to conflict resolution here. Relevant n'est-ce pas?

You're talking about a country that was established in the 20th Century, and although they have a long standing history, you're talking about people who consider their national identity secondary (or even less) to their cultural, ethnic, and religious identities.

Look, being occupied sucks, I'll grant that. But I don't think our age has much to do with it. i doubt it was easier to be occupied by the British and French simply cuz they had been around awhile.

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

You don't think that it's a slap in the face to a country with about 5,000 years of recorded history, one of the earliest civilizations on Earth, to be occupied by a country with little over 200 years as an established government. I'm thinking in terms of pride in relation to conflict resolution here. Relevant n'est-ce pas?

i'm sure your average Iraqi is far more concerned about employment, the safety of their families and themselves whenever they leave the house, and having electricity than getting all pissed off about a blow to their obviously weak national pride . All that voting and risking their lives was to show us how pissed they were that some 'n00bie' country was trying to tell a vet like Mesopotamia's current resident Iraq how to do shit?


'How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil'

'Probably a little better than living under a twisted dictatorship. ' -Kevin




Everything else you said too Kevin was dead on.

[mburbank]

Okay, so it took us 12 years to form a somewhat stable democracy. nd we were better positioned for it than maybe anybody on earth. It's hard stuff. So, you figure what for the Iraqis? Twenty four years? Thirty six years? Forever?

I think as long as we're their any form of government that forms that we support militarily looks llike our puppet wether it is or not. Puppets give insurgencies life.

And as thugish as sadaam was, his death toll is starting to look paltry compared to what they've got now. It's all very well for us to sit comfortably in America and say the Iraqis are better off without Sadaam. What do the Iraqis think? What would you think? "I may not have sanitary water or electricity or health care and there's a very good chance every time I walk out the door I won't come back in one piece, but thank God the dictator is gone and I can express myself freely."

I'm not being flip, I don't know. I would think the average Iraqi might well be developing a certain nostaligia for Sadaam.

It seems like a variation on the old "Destroying the vilage to save it".

We got good news and bad news. The good news is, we toppled your dictator and now you are free. The bad news is we failed to stop your country from crumbling in the process and we haven't got any real ideas about how to put it together again.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Okay, so it took us 12 years to form a somewhat stable democracy. nd we were better positioned for it than maybe anybody on earth. It's hard stuff. So, you figure what for the Iraqis? Twenty four years? Thirty six years? Forever?

Funny thing about people, we're kind of unpredictable. This makes setting a hard and fast timetable on this sort of thing not too easy.

Although, there is precedcent to help them along.

I think as long as we're their any form of government that forms that we support militarily looks llike our puppet wether it is or not. Puppets give insurgencies life.

And you're solution is.....

And as thugish as sadaam was, his death toll is starting to look paltry compared to what they've got now.

Don't suppose you have an actual survey to back that up. Some real numbers. Because we know Saddam killed millions.

It's all very well for us to sit comfortably in America and say the Iraqis are better off without Sadaam. What do the Iraqis think? What would you think? "I may not have sanitary water or electricity or health care and there's a very good chance every time I walk out the door I won't come back in one piece, but thank God the dictator is gone and I can express myself freely."

I'll try to find the document, but I saw some proof a while back that 95% of hospitals had full electricity and utilities and 80% had electricity and water was about the same..

I'm not being flip, I don't know. I would think the average Iraqi might well be developing a certain nostaligia for Sadaam.

Ya, right.

We got good news and bad news. The good news is, we toppled your dictator and now you are free. The bad news is we failed to stop your country from crumbling in the process and we haven't got any real ideas about how to put it together again.

So, there isn't a stable interim government? There isn't a constitution being written as we speak? There aren't free elections happening?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

But once again, let's be fair. If we were to take a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc., the extreme Left would call us imperialists, and MoveOn.org would probably make a fundraising ad out of it.

Oh no! If we make moves to get our shit together some people might say some bad things?!!? Curse you partisan politics! Curse you!!

[Ant10708]

I think he was trying to make the point people would be bitching no matter what.

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

So, there isn't a stable interim government? There isn't a constitution being written as we speak? There aren't free elections happening?

Its pure chaos! We should leave immediatly! We can't win this battle! All those Iraqis going out to vote was really just their way of saying we want saddam back in power.


The average Iraqi Shitte and Kurd would probaly rather have America occupy Iraq and pour menstration blood all over their holy relics for the rest of time than have Saddam back in power. So maybe its just your average Sunni minority that is wishing for the good ol' days of Saddam.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Ant10708

I think he was trying to make the point people would be bitching no matter what.

Shh! Leave Ziggy alone, Ant! He isn't responsible for following the conversation!

But yes, that was essentially my point. I'm actually all in favor of a more intrusive role in the development of this constitution.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

We got good news and bad news. The good news is, we toppled your dictator and now you are free. The bad news is we failed to stop your country from crumbling in the process and we haven't got any real ideas about how to put it together again.

Isn't this a tad bit condescending? I mean, are these children we're dealing with, or are they full-grown doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, and scientists? Don't the Iraqi people have at least a tiny stake in fighting against terorism and insurgents who want to damage their future?

The biggest obstacle, in my mind, is that for the first time in their lives, the Iraqi people are being asked to make their future what they want of it. You can say what you want about puppets and such, but these differing tribes and sects of islam are being asked to compromise and make a pact.

It's hard because it should be hard. We can place as many troops over there as we like, but until the Iraqi PEOPLE decide that they all have a collective stake in ending terrorism, curbing extremism, and building a functional government, then we will always be the "imperialists."

[mburbank]

You make my argument for us leaving. They don't have a tiny stake, they have the ONLY legitimate stake. IF we could set up an actual international coalition with us doing some funding but no killing, the insurgents would loose the steady stream of recruits we provide them with.

Blanc, I'll dig up the numbers after I meet my next deadline, but the stats I read were Sadaam, approx 250 violent deaths a month, current state of near civil war upwards of a thousand a month.

I AM NOT PRO-SADAAM.

But I also think it is Republican dogma which a lot of people have swallowed that nothing no matter how awful woould be worse for the people of Iraq than Sadaam was. What would it take to even concider the possability we've made things worse? Would an all out civil war be worse? Would total anarchy be worse? Would an Iraqi version of the Taliban be worse?

I also reject the idea that just because it's concieveable things are worse this is somehow an endorsement of Baathism.

If someone comes into the dentist needing a root canal and the dentists rips every tooth out of his head, the patient may feel cheated and STILL not join the rotten tooth fan club.

And Blanco, this stable government with the full support of the worlds only remaining super power cannot secure the road from the airport to the capitol. I think those swallowing the whole "It took our nation twelve years" line would be hard pressed to see a paralell there.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Shh! Leave Ziggy alone, Ant! He isn't responsible for following the conversation!

But yes, that was essentially my point. I'm actually all in favor of a more intrusive role in the development of this constitution.

Fuck you Kevin. My point was this administration "does not care about polls" so liberals bitching should the last excuse they have for not getting something done.

The reason we haven't taken "a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc.," is because that is not the administration's goal.

[mburbank]

The adminsitration has a goal?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

You make my argument for us leaving. They don't have a tiny stake, they have the ONLY legitimate stake. IF we could set up an actual international coalition with us doing some funding but no killing, the insurgents would loose the steady stream of recruits we provide them with.

The insurgents are going to keep getting recruits because there will always be a minority of people who want to fuck things up and push their extremist agenda.

Whether it's us there, the UN there, or a bunch of other nations there, there will be "insurgents." it isn't a give and take, IMO. They need to be defeated, regardless of who is there. So then the question is who is best able to get it done, us, or the UN? Us, or the untrained Iraqi army? We want full involvement from these bodies, but we can't assume that they could currently replace our presence there.

Originally Posted by Ziggy

My point was this administration "does not care about polls" so liberals bitching should the last excuse they have for not getting something done.

So you then would support us if we were to tell the folks writing this constitution that it must exclude Islamic law from it?

The reason we haven't taken "a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc.," is because that is not the administration's goal.

Writing the constitution, getting an army trained, isn't the goal? Then what is?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

BTW, you can read an abstract text version of the constitution being proposed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...tion-Text.html

[kellychaos]

Two big problems that I have always had with this war that probably would have lessened the problems that they have now:

1) If they had been clear on why they had originally occupied the country rather than muddy it with tales of WMD and being opportunistic in jumping in shortly after the 9/11 mania and trying to draw connections to Iraq, I might have been more supportive. Many people, to this day, think that 9/11 is the reason we invaded Iraq simply because it was easier for the administration to get everybody on the bandwagon by blurring the lines. Did the Bush administration believe that Iraq had WMD's? The previous administration certainly did, as is evident by their own Hillary Clinton signing off on the occupation as the majority of the Senate did. I don't think that it's a partisan thing so much as it is a weakness in intelligence organization. That was and still is the problem that needs to be addressed.

2) If they had made the troop commitment from the beginning, then the borders wouldn't have become the seive it ultimately became and perhaps we would have been able to not only secure the borders but also some of the in-country weapons stockpiles.

That's all spilled milk now, though, and what we are left with is a country whom we keep promising autonomy to yet extending the deadline ... unfair to them and our own soldiers. Are the demographics of those that oppose us going to change because we are there? Are the borders going to become any more secure even with the low commitment of troops which have not proven sufficiently capable? Not their fault, of course. They simply don't have adequate numbers of soldiers. Their police, or any position of authority for that matter, are going to remain targets after we leave no matter how long we stay. And just how much training do they need?

What kind of timetable are you guys talking about ... keeping in mind that we've been in South Korea for over 50 years and their northern border consists of a DMZ, guarded 24-7 with only a signed armistice.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

So you then would support us if we were to tell the folks writing this constitution that it must exclude Islamic law from it?

Who the fuck gives a fuck what I think. I voted for Kerry.

Writing the constitution, getting an army trained, isn't the goal? Then what is?

1. Take out Saddam.
2. Make USA think we sure done good.
3. Oh shit oh shit oh shit, damage control, spin, spin, thank God *I'm* not actually over there in harm's way!
4. Check the polls. Announce that we "don't pay attention to polls".
5. Shell the fuck out of insurgent controlled areas.
6. Duck and cover.

something like that... only designed by committee.