In my email I got the following two bits, on the same day.
In a timely, but perhaps more important way, I got this, from an officer now in Iraq, training the Iraqi Army - an officer who's boss, LTC Paul Finken, was killed two weeks ago - but there's no lessening of the fight in Dave.
I told him he was channeling Ralph Peters' Arabian Nightmares piece (which wasn't released when Dave sent the note above).
Here's one soldier whose morale is not being ground down by the enemy he faces. If it's being eroded, it's by the people who putatively support him.
The audacity of DARING to speak the truth. I am proud of him and his ability to articulate it so well.
I was going to be snarky, but somehow his post took the mickey out of me to do it, because he is right. Dead on.
posted by
Cricket on November 17, 2006 09:11 AM
His comments fit what I have always felt about the Middle East. They seem to understand the person who has the biggest gun. Go get em fellas and God Bless America
Eric
posted by
Eric Shirley on November 17, 2006 10:42 AM
I just today heard about this site, or at least finally navigated here thanks to another commenter AFSister and I'm really glad I did. Great stuff on here.
That is an awesome post, I love the way he puts everything. I have to say I agree with (I think it's two different people) both letters here, these are great posts, and they're completely right. You need to crack heads, this is not something that is going to be won by being nice. I've said this time and time again on my page, there is only one language that these people (terrorists, insurgents, same thing) understand and that's the language of true force. Keep it up.
God Bless America, and God Bless our Soldiers, in which order sometimes I'm not sure. Because you can't have one without the other.
posted by
Mike Slag on November 17, 2006 11:35 AM
Unfortunately, using the tactics and ROE necessary to win this fight over the insurregents will get you labeled a "war criminal" by the Euros. Unlucky soldiers and politicans could find themselves under extradition by a court claiming universal jurisdiction.
posted by
RPD on November 17, 2006 12:22 PM
I have to tell you I just came back from a second tour of Iraq and we do have the greatest military in the world. Having said that the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake and most of the guys I know don't think it is worth the life of one more American to stay there and the sooner we get out the better.
posted by
Mil82 on November 17, 2006 03:15 PM
Thank you for providing this forum for our front-line soldiers to get the truth out.
There's some amazing correlation between Capt. Baer's points and VDH's column arguing that it's not the number of troops, it's what you do with them (or let them do!).
And, if I may be so bold as to put my own words up next to the exceedingly more qualified individuals above, I dare say that it also reiterates a point that I made about our culture's inability to come to terms with the brutal realities of war--and our inescapable need for warriors.
...oh, and...GO IRISH, beat ARMY!!! LOL.
posted by
WillyShake on November 17, 2006 03:52 PM
Mil82 - I throw the bullshite flag on that comment.
I'm not suggesting you are lying.
But I am suggesting that while you may feel that way, and some people around you may feel that way - there are none, -*none*- of the people, officer or enlisted, that I talk to who express that sentiment. And we're talking E3 to O8 in that group, not just a bubble of career officers and NCOs.
If you're in a line unit just returned, you've got a bigger sample size than I do - but I don't think your opinion matches the majority opinion out in the force.
Just sayin'.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on November 17, 2006 04:18 PM
Mike S - the top quote is Ralph Peters. The two lower quotes are both CPT Baer.
Welcome to Castle Argghhh!
posted by
John of Argghhh! on November 17, 2006 04:20 PM
Oh, and Willyshake - dude, I'm a graduate of a Land Grant College and pounded Army into the dirt when we played 'em in football.
I could give a crap except in December...
posted by
John of Argghhh! on November 17, 2006 04:33 PM
John,
I'm just curious, if the "bulldoze the house" option is so good, how come it's never worked for the Israeli's?
Are the Palestinian crazies a different kind of crazy than the Iraqi version? I think the Sunni's feel about a Shi'a Iraq the same as the Pali's feel about Israel. And, of course, Shi'a Iran knows if the US is forced to leave , Iraq will be two countries, Shi'a and Kurd, and we all know how Turkey feels about a Kurdish nation.
I've really come to my tipping point, put a dozen or so Tomahawk tactical nukes into Iran, and carpet bomb Damascus! Pretty much be Peace in the ME then.
I'm almost serious about this!
posted by
Mike Daley on November 17, 2006 09:00 PM
Why not, it worked in Japan and Germany. The problem with the Israeli practice is that it was inconsistent.
War and rulership (aka politics, today) is and always has been about establishing dominance, so that people will go along with what you want to have happen (whether it’s in their best interests or not; results are all you’re after) because the alternative, as they see it, is to become dead. "This is defeat, avoid it." Mike Daley, you're probably right about the scale of attacks needed; what you fail to see is that when the alternative to a million dead now is a hundred times that in a full on nuclear war with the one billion strong Islamic world, the result would be cheap at twice the price. The Japanese and the Germans were fortunate that their defeat came at the hands of a country that really just wants to be left alone.
I submit that having to walk past a dozen blocks of bombed / burned buildings to get the charity doled out by the ones who did the bombing was a far more powerful motivator for reforming the political system along American lines than the spectacle of us agonizing over waterboarding is for the Islamists.
And despite what Lefties will claim, being left alone is really all that most Americans want. However, if you claim you want to have a war with the Great Satan for 25+ years, we might just give you what you ask for (and really haven’t yet).
As for the victory conditions, how about this one: We leave behind a government that tells Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Osama that no, it won’t help in that war on the Great Satan because it likes its’ *ss right where it is, not up between its’ shoulder blades. And that it would rather go to war against THEM instead if they don’t leave it alone.
posted by
SDN on November 18, 2006 04:57 AM
I don't agree with this man. Hidden right down the bottom is the core attitude he has.
"No Iraqi is worth the life of one American soldier"
I guess some of or maybe even most of you agree. I don't and I know the jump to 'No Australian is worth the life of one American soldier' is but an easy step away.
Secondly the effort was done as it is not as it might be. Saying how things should have been done would only reflect a failure of your chain of command if you are right which is just as much a failure of the military. If you want to command the military then you do what is needed to achieve that.
posted by
Trias on November 18, 2006 07:57 AM
Trias - I see why you say what you say. And therein lies the crux of the problem with being a soldier of a democracy.
If we're fighting this as a war, even the much-touted Geneva Conventions allow for the fact that non-combatants in a combat zone are going to get killed. You may not target them specifically, but if the enemy intersperses himself among them, it is not illegal (nor, I submit, immoral) to kill them incident to killing the enemy. The Conventions place the burden on combatants to not use non-combatants as a shield, and allow combatants to defend themselves when the enemy does just that.
That, in a sense, is what Captain Baer is talking about. He's not willing to keep exposing our soldiers to unreturned fire in order to protect non-combatants.
It's part of the dilemma with dealing with the mid-east combatants. The western press and elites harp harp harp on the non-combatant issue, oft times excoriating our forces for legal self-defense (proportional response is a legitimate criticism that can be made at times) and expends seemingly no ink on the fact that the bad guys use non-combatants to their advantage. In other words, it's evil for us to shoot at bad guys hiding behind non-combatants if we hit or hurt the non-combatants, and heaven help us if we were to ever use them as a shield ourselves (a pointless exercise, since we know the enemy *loves* non-combatant casualties, given the rate at which they produce them), yet, no one really seems to give a flying flip that THE BAD GUYS ARE THE ONES VIOLATING THE CONVENTION. This has the effect of almost literally tying one hand behind our back.
You also do Captain Baer a disservice. He quite obviously is willing to risk death for Iraqis - he does so every day. He just wants a more even playing field, and believes that if we're hardass now, things will improve over time.
And I suspect we'd bleed ourselves severely for Australians. We have in the past. Hopefully we'll not need to in the future. But yeah, if we're fighting our way house-to-house trying to secure Darwin, we might rather not expend a whole lot of soldiers trying to not hurt every Australian caught in the field of fire of an enemy hiding among them.
And the same thing would be true if it was Leavenworth, Kansas.
The big difference between us and them, Trias - is we wouldn't target them *directly*, as our opponents in Iraq do.
posted by
John of Argghhh! on November 18, 2006 08:21 AM
Gentlemen,
I totally agree with the idea of directed, but overwhelming, violence to win this war. And I totally agree that it can be won.
However, the sad truth is that those who lead the U.S. and its allies are afraid to "take the gloves off" in this manner. They are afraid of "world reaction"; of losing the moral high ground. They are afraid of the cultural and psychological frailty of the "world community", and also of the post-war psychology of U.S. politics. They fear that, even in the event of victory, recriminations for high-handed tactics could result in prison sentences and condemnation.
Europe, having experienced war after war in previous centuries, has evolved a view of war which is profoundly aware of its evils, but profoundly dismissive of the possibility of its justice or of the future benefit, or possibility, of victory. They believe it's never just, never winnable, and never produces any good which is superior to the alternative. They don't believe this as the outcome of a practical analysis (else the defeat of fascism would serve as counter-example), but as a matter of faith and philosophy. (It is perhaps the only near-universal creed in Europe -- especially the political and diplomatic class -- following the collapse of Christianity there.)
Why does this matter?
Well, were the good guys to do as suggested above when an IED exploded in front of someone's house (raze the house, sow the ground with salt), the soldiers involved, and their commanders, and theirs, all the way up until someone claimed plausible deniability, would be tried for war crimes. Certainly in Europe. Possibly even by a left-leaning government in the U.S., were it in power at the time.
Now, I myself am not certain this matters much: In fifty years it is nearly as likely that courts meeting in Europe will be run by bearded mullahs handing down sharia sentences as by clean-shaven socialists handing out "crimes against humanity" sentences in the old European tradition.
But it is enough to give our leaders pause; to make them hedge; to make them "tweak and nudge" the rules of engagement in a safer direction. Because everyone likes to believe that they can have their cake, and eat it too.
So, unless (and it's possible) some horrific terrorist attack or other culture-shaking event reverses the demographic and cultural trends of Europe, or else compels even the left in the U.S. to finally disregard notions of "international consensus" as a moral standard, the things we need to do in Iraq are simply not going to get done.
And for that, as a U.S. citizen and civilian, I apologize. 'Cause I keep trying to vote for all the right folks, and to write them letters encouraging strength of will. But it never seems to make a difference in the halls of power.
posted by
R.C.Hamrick on November 18, 2006 10:14 AM
"Massive firepower ... is the answer."
- You still haven't got it! (Seems, you never will) Firepower is the problem, not the solution! In the modern asymmetric wars (not army vs. army, but army vs. insurgents) the defeat of the armies was never caused by the lack of firepower (cf. the French army in Vietnam and Algeria, the US-Army in Vietnam, the British army in Northern Ireland). The more firepower the more support for the insurgents! - Or do you want to terminate the Iraqui population in order to 'liberate' it?
"Sometimes you need to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut if you want people to pay attention and learn the correct lessons in life. If an IED blows up outside someones house and the homeowners tell you that they don't know anything about, bulldoze the house and salt the ground."
- These people didn't ask you to come to their country! Wouldn't you use IEDs if Iranian tanks roared in the streets of Houston to bring you "freedom"?
posted by
he on November 18, 2006 10:20 AM
I rest my case (see the above posting from "he").
posted by
R.C.Hamrick on November 18, 2006 10:41 AM
I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/11/re-another-direction.html
posted by
Consul-At-Arms on November 18, 2006 06:02 PM
What people like "he" don't understand is this:
They moan about the violence we are using in Iraq now, but it is NOTHING compared to the violence we could be using. In fact, what we are seeing is the use of very restrained "tough love" being exercised in Iraq, wherein we are indeed using a "carrot" instead of a big, nasty "stick" to try to change the dynamics in the region to promote freedom and democracy in the region, and bring a medieval culture into the 21st century so that we can co-exist.
To do this, we have made the conscious decision to invade and "occupy" Iraq to help it (and the region) through this transition - investing American and coalition lives and treasure to do so.
If we were as brutal, violent, and murderous as people like "he" believe, we would have already nuked most of Islam into a glass wasteland - in our anger and outrage after 9/11.
The ONLY hope of "co-existing" with Islam is to make sure that the so-called "moderate" and "secular" Muslims win the current inter-Islam conflict that they are waging with the radical jihadis.
People like "he" would argue that we are creating more terrorists and exacerbating the problem by fighting an "unnecessary" war in Iraq. They conveniently forget the fact that an estimated 20,000 jihadis flocked to Afghanistan to train to fight America and the West during the 1990's, at the height of the faux Pax Clintonia, and that Osama bin Laden used the pretext of American forces stationed in Saudia Arabia (to "contain" Saddam) as a pretext for his fatwa calling for jihad against the US.
Muslims have been fed a steady diet of anti-American, anti-western, and anti-semitic hatred for generations. It will take many years of reverse programming to change their mindsets, if it's possible at all. However, we must try .... or the consequences are indeed frightening.
If people like "he" are successful in forcing the US to withdraw from Iraq and in reducing the ability of the US and our allies to change the malignant culture that is today's Islam, they will make it much MORE likely that more extreme violence will be used by the US to protect ourselves. They will make it more likely that we will have to resort to nukes, when we learn that the radicals have come to dominate Islam, and that there is no chance of appeasing or negotiating with them.
posted by
fdcol63 on November 18, 2006 06:23 PM
I think the reason why the Europeans dislike war is NOT because of their direct or indirect involvement in same. It is because there is a generation of Europeans who were born shortly before the war and have no memories to associate with it. They have had a relatively peaceful existence in a nuclear playing field, building their economies and isolating themselves from the big picture (that would be de Gaulle's doing).
Now that we are pulling out, and leaving them to take care of their own security, they have neither the inclination nor the knowledge on how to proceed. They are finding out that politically correct solutions aren't working, that socialism has failed and they are slowly waking up to the fact that they might have to put it on the line to preserve what they have.
Iraq is an interesting choice for a battleground, as it is pulling insurgents from other countries.
To see this through in a manner reminiscent of Ataturk or Carthage would be a good thing.
The lesson of Japan still has not been lost. They surrendered unconditionally, and are now
starting to look around and see that for all their pacifism, there are still threats to their security and are not afraid to step up to the plate.
posted by
Cricket on November 18, 2006 06:40 PM
I dunno John. Iraq seems to be a mish mash and a study of contrasts. There's instances where The Hammer has gotten the job done; and those where it was bass ackwards and made things worse(the 4th ID experience highlighted by Ricks). There's instances where 'culture centric warfare' or 'Mudhuts, chai, and villages with no name' has gotten the job done; and those where it totally sucked and made things worse(like the Brit piece you sent me a few months ago).
What miffs me is that people are reaching for a panacea. There isn't one, in my no-sh1t opinion. Where I do agree with Peters and our Good Captain is that the option to fight in the absence of the Marquis de Queensbury rules has to be on the table(and I don't mean in utter disregard for the GC, but without the touchy feely s$!t) when appropriate. There is no panacea. There isn't some penicilin that cures Iraq. It's more like the pharmacuetical cocktail for AIDS. You need the whole toolkit to get the job done right.
Trias, you're pretty good with the maths, no? Think of what the graph of suffering looks like. What's it like if we leave? What's it like if we never went? What's it like if we leave it in chaos for an extended period of time? Integrate over some interval for each.
Think a bit. The human body nearly kills itself to survive the flu by running a fever. It's a counter-intuitive. By killing more, by being ruthless, in the long run you save more lives. Like the body killing brain cells when you run a fever saves more brain cells than not.
I've got a buddy over there, sounds a lot like Mil82 in his opinion and says he could give a rats @$$ about Iraqis 'cause none of them are worth a single Marine, but he still shows up. He could've gotten out last year. He re-upped instead. He ain't naturally contrary like me. He risks his life because he, abscent a college education(he was in gifted classes when we were both in grade school), gets that counter intuitive.
No, it doesn't always work in this counter intuitive manner. But it does often enough that you should at least give the people advocating such a plan the benefit of the doubt. There's historical backing for it as well as logic behind it. Not animus. Not rancor. Not stupidity. Not immorality But a rational mind that's done some inductive logic about this problem and come up with an ethical sol'n.
posted by
ry on November 18, 2006 06:57 PM
And the 'American Way of War' thing? People ought to look at how we fought in cities way back when. TNT made short work of houses the enemy used as hiding places/strong points. Blowing down walls and destroying centuries old villages of Europe was how we fought the 'last good war'.
The American Way of War is to win. To remember that people are more important than property(since that can be either rebuilt or otherwise compensated for). That it is unethical to fight with one hand tied behind the back because that leads to more death, destruction, and destitution than results from bringing The Hammer. There's no panacea, but we've got all the tools---if we'd allow our men to use the tool box.
I would say screw world opinion. Their sense of morality is farked in my opinion anyway. I could give a flamming fart if some Parisian found me odious. He'll find a new reason to find me so tomorrow anyway. Screw it. Go for real morality. Not the bs that's tossed up. Win. Create a better world. Get it over with so that the integral of death and suffering over 50 year interval is minimized instead of maximized(so we can say that the Europeans thought we fought honorably). Win and come home knowing we did it right despite what the naysayers scream. They're wrong.
posted by
ry on November 18, 2006 07:08 PM
Maybe the Europeans dislike war so much because modern Europeans are mostly the descendants of those who avoided the wars in Europe for the past 500 years.
I mean, something like 25% of the military-age men in France were killed in 1914-18. Probably among the 75% who were not killed was a higher-than-normal percentage of men who avoided combat, or who avoided service entirely. Those are the ancestors of the persent French.
posted by
SpongeBob on November 19, 2006 04:01 AM
"What people like "he" don't understand is this:
They moan about the violence we are using in Iraq now, but it is NOTHING compared to the violence we could be using." (fdcol63)
- You mean, a bad strategy has to be replaced by a worse strategy?
"... we are indeed using a "carrot" instead of a big, nasty "stick" to try to change the dynamics in the region to promote freedom and democracy in the region, and bring a medieval culture into the 21st century so that we can co-exist.
To do this, we have made the conscious decision to invade and "occupy" Iraq to help it (and the region) through this transition ..." (fdcol63)
- Quite a bunch of euphemisms and cultural arrogance! What has come out? Even Tony Blair, your staunchest ally, had to admit yesterday that the results of the war in Iraque are a "disaster". Tens of thousands killed, the region destabilized, a new frontline for the terrorists, more danger for Israel, room to move for Iran and N.Korea - is that what you call "... to change the dynamics in the region ..."? - And your government had been warned by the 'weasels' who had predicted the outcome of this adventure. But instead of considering the serious arguments of friends they turned to childish reactions (Are you still eating "Freedom Fries"??).
"The ONLY hope of 'co-existing' with Islam is to make sure that the so-called 'moderate' and 'secular' Muslims win the current inter-Islam conflict ..." (fdcol63)
- With the American invasion in Iraque under the pretext of fighting terrorism you have removed Saddam, not a moderate, but certainly secular leader. Brilliant move on the chessboard!
Of course Saddam was a tyrant and is a murderer, but he had been this for more than 20 years. And the US didn't mind him being a tyrant when he was attacking Iran and when Rumsfeld shook hands with him.
posted by
he on November 19, 2006 11:12 AM
I've a real problem with the analysis someone is offering up here. The critics have been screaming 'quagmire' since before a sandstorm caused an operational pause. You can't, at every turn, predict disaster, only to be shown wrong for several years, and then claim you were right at every turn when something breaks your way.
THe 'weasels' predicted this? No. The weasels claimed 10K US casualties and a need for body bag factories to be built. The 'weasels' claimed the "Arab Street" would rise and turn the entire region into a camp of terrorists attacking the US/Europe. THe data shows a less than 10% increase in actual terrorist attacks across the globe and ergo that's a busted prediction. The 'weasels' claimed Abu Ghraib and Haditha would cause a major uprising in Iraq focused at the Coalition Forces(um, if you've been paying attention the attacks have inreasingly shifted away from Coalition forces to Iraqi civilians and back again, that doesn't support that prediction at all.). The 'weasels' have said everything was crap from day one, been wrong on the specifics just about every time, and now that Blair is waffling they're claiming to be genuises? Un-farkin-believable.
Let's not forget that the Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians were all plotting to stab each other(and every other nation in the region) in the back. Taking out any one of them shifts the equation in the favor of the non-taken down. Taking down Iran would've helped Saddam you know. That's obvious to anyone who has done even the most cursory of research on the region. BUt somehow that fact now means that any change has to avoided since it actually helps someone we don't like? Un-farkin-believable. So maybe we should've just sat some wars out because the end results helped people we absolutely detested(WW1 and WW2 helped the Sovs immensely, defeating Germany helped our arch-enemy, the Communists, out immensely. Shouldn't have gone then.). This is pretty shallow thinking on the subject. In the short term, and let's not forget that this has been billed as a generational fight, taking out someone's enemy for them always helps them but in the long run the change we started continues to reverberate(how many east Germans defected/fled leading to the building of the Berlin Wall? China has to enlist the aid of yahoo/Google to wall off 'wrong ideas' ont he internet for what reasons?).
Taking Saddam down is a good move on the strategic chessboard. The man was in league with terrorists(Abu Nidal 'commited suicide' in Iraq by shooting himself multiple times in the head, Palestinian terrorists recieved money from Saddam.) THe country was seeking to subvert 'smart sanctions' on many fronts(French and Russian equipment they shouldn't have been able to buy was found there, and the documents taken down last week because it divulged nuclear secrets found in Iraq).
This 'And the US didn't mind him being a tyrant when he was attacking Iran and when Rumsfeld shook hands with him.' shows the juvenile level of thinking here. So, mobsters shouldn't get reduced sentences for turning states evidence then? You know, helping a bad guy out to achieve a long term goal just makes a mockery of ideals, right? Balls. We shook hands with both of them and thereby messed them both over(overt aid to IRaq(Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand if you will) and IRan-Contra(selling stinger SAM to Iran and using that money to fund the Contras---Ollie North shaking hands with the IRC). We used two countries to thwart the aims of four(Iran, Iraq, the USSR, and the Sandanistas of Nicaragua). How stupid was that? Adults accept that in some situations that a minor stain on one's honor is the cost of attaining something on the large stage and often there are no total victories.
posted by
ry on November 19, 2006 11:58 AM
ry: "THe 'weasels' predicted this? No. ..."
- Yes they did. This is what a report says about Fischer's (German foreign minister) speech at a conference in Feb. 2003 (in presence of D. Rumsfeld):
"Regarding the conflict in Iraq, Mr. Fischer kept emphasizing the German position, stating that diplomacy had "by no means [been] exhausted". The weapons inspectors needed to be given more time. The threat level produced by Iraq did not yet justify a war. "Why now?", Mr. Fischer wanted to know, affirming again: "I am not convinced!""
(see: http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/2003/index.php?menu_2004=&menu_2002=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&jahr=2003&
and in 2004 Fischer said:
"... This jihadist terrorism is not strong enough to achieve its political aims. i.e. the destabilisation of the Middle East, by a direct route. It is therefore attempting to embroil the West and above all the United States, in a clash of civilisations - the West versus Islam - and to provoke it into overreacting or making the wrong decisions, thereby bringing about the destabilisation of the entire Middle East. To this end, terrorism and asymmetric warfare are pursued with two aims: firstly, to wear down the forces deployed in the region, not to mention the general public in the West, and secondly to drag the region down into chaos. ..."
see: http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2004=&menu_2002=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=123&
ry: "You know, helping a bad guy out to achieve a long term goal just makes a mockery of ideals, right? Balls. We shook hands with both of them and thereby messed them both over(overt aid to IRaq(Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand if you will) and IRan-Contra(selling stinger SAM to Iran and using that money to fund the Contras---Ollie North shaking hands with the IRC). We used two countries to thwart the aims of four(Iran, Iraq, the USSR, and the Sandanistas of Nicaragua). How stupid was that?"
- Thank for the lesson in American values and moral standards!
Now I understand what it means "... to ... bring a medieval culture into the 21st century ..." (fdcol63)
You forgot the stingers you sold to Bin Laden (when he fought the Soviets in Afganistan), your support for Somoza, Pinochet, and other torturers and mass murderers who helped to keep the Commies (mostly poor peasants, or Catholic priests asking for justice) down in Central and South America.
Now I understand why a true patriot (Bob Owens)in a letter to his president these days said that intensifying war was "... what God set us upon this Earth to do. I firmly believe that you, a man of great Christian faith and conviction, were elected not to serve just the United States, but God’s will in spreading to the dark corners of the world both hope and freedom." - see above!
posted by
he on November 19, 2006 02:58 PM
Sigh.
ANd how does this blurb you've quoted refute my argument? I'm not seeing it. It just looks like you're running through the motions. How does 'but the German Prime Minister said that not all diplomatic options had been exhausted' translate into a refutation of critics being wrong on the particulars more than 90% of the time? It quite frankly doesn't. So *zing* right back at you(adopts affected 'superior pose').
How does the new prime minister of Germany offering up her opinion(Jesche Fischer) refute that the US endeavor has moved the pile? Bait and switch rhetorical tactics does not grant one the right to adopt sanctimonious tones.
The 'weasels' did not predict a 5 year insurgency. THey predicted Rodney King riots. Where are those riots? They predicted Stalingrad? ANyone seen aything remotely like that(anyone?)? Is Iran in chaos, and that's why we're worried about them? How about Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, etc? There's no chaos in the region right now, no moderate regime has been hauled down and replaced by something like the Iranian Revolution. There's chaos in Iraq, period. The 'weasels' were wrong, are wrong, and will likely be wrong in the future. Somehow they think saying 'we don't want to be involved' or 'we aren't convinced we should get involved' means they predicted what's going on Iraq. Vague statements about things does not constitute a prediction---unless you think fortune tellers and horoscopes in the local paper really predict much of anything. And that's all the 'weasels' have. They're wrong on just about every particular(physical wmd being the only issue they were right on, but they were wrong, boy were they wrong, about the intentions and level of advancement) and now they claim to predicted this? That's crap. If a student walked into my lab with a fundementally wrong retro-synthetic analysis but somehow still managed to produce the desired molecule I'd still give him a failing grade. That's all the 'weasels' have. They were right that it would be 'hard' but were wrong on nearly every reason for why and every actual incident. So we should think they know what's going on for what reasons now?(*zing* back at you, internet moral gunslinger)
The last bit is just silly. I'm a bit familiar with 'liberation theology'(being CAtholic myself and all), but that the Sandanistas were 'Catholic priests just out for justice' is utterly spin and showing not the mind of a serious student of history or serious analyst but instead an internet partisan drinking the cool-aid of socialism(wasn't Che cool? Communism really has never been tried.). Seeing as how I grew up amoungst the Vietnamese and Cambodians who fled SE Asia from these same 'justice seekers' I highly doubt they were simply peasants and priests, but really were gun toting jagoffs seeking to make people do what they, the righteous, wanted the people to do(regardless of what the people wanted or what was truly just---see Lysenko-ism or the actions of the Khemer Rouge, or the record of the Sandanista death squads). Particularly when the historical record shows murder squads under the command of the Sandanistas(that surely wasn't taught in any CCD class or seminary school I ever heard of).
So, I'm still waiting for a substantive refutation of my previous arguments.
posted by
ry on November 19, 2006 06:58 PM
Ry, just to the key-aspects of your vehement reaction:
"the 'weasels' ... were right that it would be 'hard' but were wrong on nearly every reason for why and every actual incident." - Isn't it silly to expect that? They are no fortune-tellers. At least they had warned the Bush-Administration about possible chaos in Iraque (which we certainly have now) and a destabilization of the region (See the rising tensions between pro-American governments and anti-American populations in the region, especially in Egypt and Pakistan). Therefore Bush's pushing to a war on Iraque was a wrong move in the "war on terror": Iraque was no imminent threat to the US nor was it behind 9/11. - All these arguments were not only ignored, but ridiculed.
A few weeks before the "Coalition of the Willing" (What is left of them?) invaded Iraque there was an opinion-poll in the US: People were asked, where most of the 9/11 terrorists had come from. More than 60% said: Iraque - The truth is, there was not a single Iraqui among them! - This was the result of deliberate misinformation and pro-war propaganda by the administration, Fox-News & Co. at a time when the "Freedom Fries" were invented.
"... that the Sandanistas were 'Catholic priests just out for justice' is utterly spin ..." (Ry)
- I didn't say that. You've twistet the argument. You won't deny that in the 70s the US supported military juntas in Central and South America which - under the pretext of fighting Communism - arrested, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people (Now, finally we have the trials in Chile, Argentina ...). It cannot be this when Americans say, they take pride in "... spreading to the dark corners of the world both hope and freedom."
posted by
he on November 19, 2006 09:18 PM
"I didn't say that. You've twistet the argument" Really? Than what is one to take this to mean:
"You forgot the stingers you sold to Bin Laden (when he fought the Soviets in Afganistan), your support for Somoza, Pinochet, and other torturers and mass murderers who helped to keep the Commies (mostly poor peasants, or Catholic priests asking for justice) down in Central and South America."
Allende had a KGB advisor and tons of KGB cash---that being from a former KGB archivist's own mouth(pen actually). I think it's pretty clear what you meant(that opposing Communism in S. America was a 'scare') and I nailed you for it. I didn't twist anything. I just used a bit of rhetorical aikido. Che, acting from Cuba(which had lots of Soviet connections and was a funnel point for money and advisors from the SU), went to S. America fomenting rebellion and war. Soviet backed war. They used proxies. We used proxies. They couldn't afford to be caught directly involved or risk galvanizing NATO and world oppinion against them, and the US couldn't afford to send forces directly to fight them(lack of men to do so and lack of political will sans something major). Sure, often times the little guy was lied to, which is why half the Contras were former Sandanista(while the Sandanistas promised freedom and essentially a meritocracy what they delivered was Marxist-Lenninism, as would have Allende and all the others) grunts, but the movements were directed from Moscow(okay, more like KGB head quarters, but the policy of wars of national liberation was one decided on by the politburo in the Kremlin). I didn't twist anything. I just nailed you for trying to pull a fast one.(Here have a rootbeer and have a seat at the Castle Bar).
""the 'weasels' ... were right that it would be 'hard' but were wrong on nearly every reason for why and every actual incident." - Isn't it silly to expect that"
no, it's very rational to expect that they be at least in the ballpark with their predictions. That's why they pay their intelligence and foriegn affairs depts the big bucks. Basically you're saying that because they were slightly right(while being wrong on all the particulars) we should listen to them. Wrong. They have as much of a clue as we do about what's going on based on how predictions worked out.
"See the rising tensions between pro-American governments and anti-American populations in the region, especially in Egypt and Pakistan"
They aren't new. The Muslim Brotherhood, the main group in Egyptian opposition to the US, has been around since the 60s. They were opposed to the US/USSR mission to Sinai back in the 80s. Opposition to the US in Egypt is old----even if we give them $2B a year in aid(Israel gets $3B). Syria? You need to do some homework. Syria is Baathist. Baathism has as one of its tennets a requirement for constant revolution against what amounts to capitalism. They've been Baathist for 40 years. Resentment of the US in Syria is older than I am(30+). You're wrong on the particulars. You're seeing an issue and going, 'Aha, this proves me right,' while I can trace that issue back to its genesis and show you that it doesn't work the way you claim since the pattern, when looked at in entirety, doesn't lead to where it does when you only glance at it(in a quad libet demonstratum manner---it is the internet after all. I can't put my notes from 10 years of reading and my library online easily or fully.). And have we stepped in and stopped trials of Pinochet? We supported Noriega too, and took him out ourselves. Real life isn't fair all the time, but the reason men like Pinochet are able to be tried is because men like Allende were opposed(and deposed). If not men who performed the same actions would be national heros and saying otherwise would be an appostasy that would find you in serious trouble(try being anti-Che in Cuba or pro-Trotsky in Stalin's USSR). Again, not all victories can be total. That doesn't mean that the battles shouldn't be fought or that those who wage them are evil, cynical men who don't really believe in spreading democracy, real democracy, in the world.
Fine. Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11(9/11 commission said as much, and nobody around here really believed that, whatever poll you throw up, we didn't believe that.). But Hussein was hip dip in aid to terrorist forces(see above). GWOT isn't about just getting al Queda any more than the FBIs war on the mob or the KKK was only about the Gambino family or a particular chapter of the KKK in Alabama. It's about making Islamic transnational terrorism a footnote in the historical record.
Worse, you aren't looking at the nature of trans national terrorism(which isn't the same as say the IRA or ETA or even the Palestinian suicide brigades since they're tied solely to a region and operate only in that region for limited goals). Islamic trans-national terrorism isn't about something so small as a nation-state. It's about bringing about something more like an empire ranging from al-Andalusa to Indonesia and the southern tip of India up into Central Asia and Central Europe. It's a collection of groups and not a single foe. There's no central control. no one charismatic figure who fuels it. Making the GWOT simply a punitive expedition to go after bin Laden doesn't feed the bulldog by either a) eliminating the conditions that gave rise to the groups and fuels their recruitment, or b) eliminate the panopoly of groups who conduct terrorist operations. It would leave us with a 'Yay! We got bin Laden! Wait, why's London burning?' type situation. Which is why miss the strategic importance of Iraq as a transformative part of GWOT. Nor. Korea, China, Iran, and a host of other nations deny access to the internet because it's a pipeline to ideas that destabliize their state. China doesn't want a re-united Korea that operates under a liberal bemocracy because of the bleedover, the ability of pro-democracy groups to point just over the border to what exists. Same thing with Iraq(if we can get the place stabilized) and Afghanistan. We set up liberal minded democracies, with all that they provide, many will want why they have. There'll be friction because of the women's rights issues, but history shows that economic populism is an easy sell. You don't see that because you aren't looking strategically. You're only going so far as to find things that support your point of view and then blazing away with condemnation. If you actually sat down and spent 72 hours looking at it all in context it becomes obvious. Just glancing at it doesn't do that.
posted by
ry on November 20, 2006 11:42 AM
"Syria? You need to do some homework. Syria is Baathist. ..." (and so on) This is just one example that you are overshooting a bit: I didn't say a word about Syria.
And even if you fought a "proxy-war" against communism in Central and S.America - most of the "communists" that became the victims of the death squads were poor peasants/Indians/workers who were in the way of big landowners, mining companies, ...
To come back to the origin of my stepping into this discussion: Looking at the things said in this blog, I think it is sad that, just to get out of the mess in Iraque, people of your great nation suggest/accept measures ( the "... put a dozen or so Tomahawk tactical nukes into Iran, and carpet bomb Damascus!..."-type) for which you took others to court 60 years ago (War-Criminal-Trial in Nuremberg 1946). You should stick to your own standards! By the way - preparing and waging a war not for self-defence was one of the main charges in that trial!
And it is sad that, on the eve of OIF, warnings of friends were met with so much ignorance and arrogance as it was done by the Bush-Administration and the political Right in the US. This is what one of your most experienced politicians, Robert Byrd, who has been in the Senate for decades, said: "There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11." http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003february/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_1.html
"What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might?"
http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_4.html
posted by
he on November 20, 2006 03:36 PM
"And even if you fought a "proxy-war" against communism in Central and S.America - most of the "communists" that became the victims of the death squads were poor peasants/Indians/workers who were in the way of big landowners, mining companies, ..."
Again, you stop well short. those poor peasants/indigenous people/workers were in the way of the valorous Communist revolutionaries too. There's more than equal blood on those jokers hands down there as well. But you seem to only want to see that it exists on one side. That colours your entire analysis.
For example, the Sandanistas promised land reform. A rather populist move. But when the revolution was over the land reform they delivered wasn't the land reform they promised.
Let's look at FARC(Columbia) and Shining Path in Peru. Socialist and commited to 'the cause'. Who the hell is terrorizing people down there now? It isn't the Federated Fruit company.
Look at the whole picture, the mosaic, and not just the tiny square that re-affirms your world view.
Basically, like I said several responses ago, your whole point is to say that going to Iraq was wrong. You could've saved a ton of 'trons by simply saying that and calling it a day.
The 'weasels', I don't know why we're still using this term but oh well, were wrong on how OIF and the aftermath would go down. THeir predictions were not realized. THe only thing that's come to be is complicated and hard, but in none of the ways the French, the Germans, the British nay-sayers, or even what Juan Cole claimed it would. You provide a link where some naysayer, pre-2004, came forward and said that there would be sectarian violence, a Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iranian influence un-anticipated(surprising given how hard the Iraqi Shia fought against their Shia brethren from Iran) and I'll agree that someone had it right(but most of them obviously did not).
The allusions to the Nazis is weak, trite, and so over the top as to ruin your attempt at a moral case that preventitive war is immoral. In every instance the places where the US invaded after the Civil War has been returned to control by the indigenous; without them paying us some form of tax, fealty, what have you. That is unlike Nazi Germany in the extreme who waged war to annihilate the indigenous, and 'lesser', people to make way for their Grand 1000 Empire. The US wars of the 20th and 21st centuries have been about instilling or protecting ideas---not eliminating people and creating an empire. I don't know about you, but when i was learning to write in both college and secondary school we were told to keep analogies in parrallel. Don't take short cuts by going for the worst thing in the world(the Nazis) when that isn't even remotely parrallel. It hurts your case more than it helps.
Largely, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Even Just War theorists hold that pre-emptive war has a place in a just and moral world(you can check out what Just War theorists say themselves here.).
And if you're going to bring up Nuremburg you should get the details right. Nazi and Wehrmacht leaders were up for crimes against humanity----not firing artillery into a town. And, in case you didn't notice, fdcol63, though a respected member around here, doesn't speak for all of us regulars nor is he a policy maker(heck if you check some older threads you'll see he and I had some cross words not more than ten days ago--there's no monolith here). He's a retired soldier who is pissed off seeing his Brothers die for no palpable gain. If you can't understand why that would make someone angry and adopt his attitude(instead of going the 'this war sucks' we never should've gon, and now I hate W route, which is a valid response most times) you might want to check your bias meter since you seem to be saying that that's okay for Iraqis to do but not for someone else to feel that kind of anger(a real lapse in empathy and humanity, I'd say.).
You got me on 'war of aggression'. Though I would say we might want to check and see how that was defined by the Nuremberg trial. 'Cause, you know legalese never translates into the vernacular well. Okay, glad I decided to look.
"Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace" This evidence was presented by the British prosecutors and was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."" From here. (There's more to be had at wikipedia, and I do suggest you follow many of the internal links therein. Still more here at Answers, though I highlight the Legal Dictionary entry which is very illuminative on how it was defined at Nuremberg(which yet again doesn't support your cursory interpreatation of the term: 'Following World War II, for example, the Allies prosecuted a number of leading Nazi officials at the Nuremberg trials for crimes against peace. During the war, the Nazis had invaded and occupied a series of sovereign states, including France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria. Because those invasions were made in an effort to accumulate wealth, power, and territory for the Third Reich, Nazi officials could not claim to be acting in self-defense. Thus, those officials who participated in the planning, initiation, or execution of those invasions were guilty of crimes against peace.'). You may not like what the US did, you may not agree with the legal reasoning(there's lots of decisions and interpretations I don't agree with but have to admitt are still valid) but the cease-fire agreement does provide a legal and moral case for the US being within rights to resume a state of war(as well as several UN resolutions, including one that carried the term 'grave consequences' or some such.). As one of the principals to that agreement it was unsatisfied with how the agreement was being breached. The US had the right, both legally and morally, to resume war with the state of Iraq.
You might want to be careful citing Sen. Byrd. A Klansman and political oppurtunist is not the best source for grabing the moral high ground. But more to the point: we see how committed our allies are, just look at Afghanistan which is a fight supposedly everyone agreed with. Canada is punching above its weight, as is usual for them, in honoring their NATO agreement. Britain is there. BUt many of our other allies are surprisingly absent and parsiminous in their contributions(we'll train cops, with a meager contingent to do that with, but that's all). At which point you have to ask is it that they have moral objections or just no longer have the stomach for morally justified war at all---the latter has major ramifications when analyzing their positions of resuming war with Iraq.
We are being consistent with our standards. Wars of aggression get met with a hammer that reshapes the nation. Trans-national terrorism, and their state supporters, are learning that just as Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the wagers of so called 'wars of liberation' which were little more than an oligarchy telling everyone else what to do at the point of a gun(okay, so I'm abusing Mao's Book here, so shoot me John---that's a figure of speech!).
You're right. You did say Pakistan instead of Syria, my appologies for the goof. A similar case exists there on a different set of particulars. How popular was Mushariff in '01? How solid was his rule? How popular were fundementalist Islamists there(and in Turkey for that matter) in '01? You aren't seeing the full trend. You're not looking far enough back to see how and when this uptic started---it predates the 1990s.
Sigh, at this rate I'm never going to get that piece written for you John. It's partially done. I'm being careful with it because it is something I really care about instead of only sorta care about. So I'll be asking 'editorial advice' on it when it's done. Maybe we can shop it out to some of the people you wanted to send that one email to for criticism and advice?
posted by
ry on November 20, 2006 10:32 PM
"... those poor peasants/indigenous people/workers were in the way of the valorous Communist revolutionaries too. There's more than equal blood on those jokers hands down there as well."
- Ok. And the people caught in the crossfire always are the ones who suffer most. But the revolutionaries didn't fall out of the sky (Except
