Article

2005-02-09 Iraq-Jordan

Nice Election. Now Let's Get out of There

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-02-09 09:32|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Derbyshire is a very insightful guy, brilliant in some way; but in others... well I've had household pets that were smarter than him-- and those didn't even breathe air.

What Derb just can't seem to get through his thick skull is that there are plenty of reasons for us to be in Iraq beyond those that have been stated publicly by the administration; and they're not hard to figure out, either.

Democracy is only part of it.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-02-09 10:22:48 AM|| 2005-02-09 10:22:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm not going to argue --- I'm going to wait for a year, and then post this DerbTM again.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-02-09 10:28:07 AM|| 2005-02-09 10:28:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Pardon, but i generally find Derbyshire to be a first class A-hole.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 10:50:19 AM|| 2005-02-09 10:50:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Derbyshire is looking at it from a realpolitik standpoint - it is perhaps to America's advantage if Iraqis kill each other by the hundreds of thousands, and the regional Muslim powers get sucked into a war of Iraqi succession, perhaps killing millions in the process. I have some sympathy with his position as a last ditch solution if we're losing too many men or spending too much money. However, our casualty and funding levels are so low that I disagree with Derbyshire about his eminently sensible proposition - I think at these levels, it makes sense to keep our guys in Iraq.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 11:37:13 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 11:37:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Derb is a crackpot. Remember his "we'll never invade Iraq, ever" column?

Posted by someone 2005-02-09 11:45:41 AM|| 2005-02-09 11:45:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Derb is best when talking about China. Especially his days as a youth when he worked as a round-eye extra for a day in a Bruce Lee movie. Hysterical stuff.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-02-09 11:46:40 AM|| [http://rjschwarz.com] 2005-02-09 11:46:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Ah, found the Bruce Lee Article. Thug uncredited.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-02-09 11:49:08 AM|| [http://rjschwarz.com] 2005-02-09 11:49:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Great stuff. Thanks rjschwarz.

Posted by someone 2005-02-09 12:02:12 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:02:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 someone: Derb is a crackpot. Remember his "we'll never invade Iraq, ever" column?

He was against going for the UN resolution, because he thought it would be rejected. He was for an invasion as a punitive expedition. His mistake was in thinking that GWB would actually abide by the UN's decision - i.e. that GWB actually respected UN initiatives. He was wrong in that regard, but his analysis of the situation in Iraq is pretty sound. Punitive expeditions have always involved casualties and always involved withdrawal after the enemy was suitably chastised, though not necessarily exterminated - that takes too long and goes way beyond the bounds of a punitive expedition.

When Uncle Sam went to war with the Barbary States in the 19th century, the reigning monarchs weren't actually toppled. When the Marines attacked Beijing in retaliation for the atrocities of the Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the 20th Century, they did not remove the reigning ruler of China, let alone completely destroy the Chinese Imperial Army. Derbyshire is quite erudite about the history of various Oriental civilizations and understands the context of the historical references that the Muslim holy warriors use.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 12:31:24 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 12:31:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 What he fails to see is that the Iraq project is not just for Iraq. If it succeeds, it is a torpedo into Iran, syria, Jordan, saudi arabia, etc etc.

They all know very well, what is coming. If the Iraqis actually elect a government, after they write this constitution, then IF that government leaves office once it loses an election, game over.

all the rest of the Arabs will wait to see if about 5 years fro now the first elected Pres of Iraq stpes down after his term or he loses an election.

If he does, then the silly monarchs on Iraqs borders are going to be in hot water.

That is what the Iraq project is about, killing 5 birds with one war.

Posted by Jimbo19 2005-02-09 12:38:55 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:38:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 His assessment of the probability of success of the big Iraq project is much lower than Bush's. I'm hoping he's not right but I think he is and that will have something to do with our bit flipping.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 12:41:06 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:41:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 it is perhaps to America's advantage if Iraqis kill each other by the hundreds of thousands, and the regional Muslim powers get sucked into a war of Iraqi succession, perhaps killing millions in the process.

with all due respect, that sounds like the optimal formula for the Khalifate crowd.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 12:50:19 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:50:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 MD: His assessment of the probability of success of the big Iraq project is much lower than Bush's. I'm hoping he's not right but I think he is and that will have something to do with our bit flipping.

Actually, I think his point is that a punitive expedition is sufficient to cow Muslim regimes into not supporting anti-American terrorists. There is no point in rebuilding Humpty Dumpty, especially if it costs American lives. His attitude is this - the next time, we drop the Bomb.

In the post WWII-era, we have tended to be navel gazers and over-attached to the WWII model of wars - involving unconditional surrender and total victory - a model that was quite exceptional in the history of warfare. Most wars are fought to a ceasefire, with territorial or diplomatic gains on one side). We tend to think about anything less than absolute destruction of the enemy as somewhat less than satisfactory. But this is how the Korean War and the Cold War ended.

And the Muslim states would perhaps be more cowed if we followed the punitive expedition model, since we can do a lot more of those. Smack them hard and leave. Go for unconditional surrender, lose thousands of men and leave is a lot harder for Uncle Sam to do over and over again to recalcitrant potentates. Overstretch becomes a non-issue - have our pilots bomb the crap out of some hostile foreign country a la Libya. Re-apply over and over as long as there is a problem - that is Derbyshire's model. No long-term commitments and no problem with tying down most of ground forces.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 12:54:58 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 12:54:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Chinese as a group werent politically mobilized in 1840. Those who were politicized were not in a position to hop a plane to London, and there wasnt much they could do once theyd gotten there. This AINT the early 19th century. Bashing the wogs till they bow down is NOT going to work.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 12:58:26 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:58:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 LH: with all due respect, that sounds like the optimal formula for the Khalifate crowd.

Actually, no. Tamerland slaughtered the Ottoman armies, but was equally bled white by them. Setting the barbarians against the barbarians works really well, because atrocity gets piled upon atrocity, and they hate each other for generations, if not centuries. The trick is to help whichever side happens to be losing, and rebalancing as required.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 12:58:49 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 12:58:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I think his point is that a punitive expedition is sufficient to cow Muslim regimes into not supporting anti-American terrorists

BS - If wed gotten out of Iraq in say, June of 2003 Saddam would have been back in power in weeks, trumpeting his triumph. AND we've had had far worse problems in the arab street (which DOES matter) and among our allies (who also matter). Ditto, more or less, in afghanistan.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 1:01:47 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:01:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 LH: Chinese as a group werent politically mobilized in 1840. Those who were politicized were not in a position to hop a plane to London, and there wasnt much they could do once theyd gotten there. This AINT the early 19th century. Bashing the wogs till they bow down is NOT going to work.

It worked for the Chinese against the Vietnamese, starting in 1979. Punitive raid after punitive raid eventually wore down the Vietnamese economy. Today, Vietnam kowtows at every opportunity to Chinese officials. And Vietnam is a country that lost 1.2m troops fighting Uncle Sam and its southern brethren.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 1:02:01 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 1:02:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 . Setting the barbarians against the barbarians works really well, because atrocity gets piled upon atrocity, and they hate each other for generations, if not centuries.

Or everyone gets sick of the chaos and turns to the folks who promise to end the killing, reunite the muslim world, and take it back to the West - IE AQ.

Look at Afghanistan - plenty of barbarian on barbarian atrocities as factions battled it out and destroyed Kabul - till the Taliban swept all before them. Now imagine this happening across Iraq, the arabian peninsula, Iran.

Look, if Derby believes what you say he does, hes not just a jerk, hes a complete idiot.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 1:04:53 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:04:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 The Chinese launched an infantry war against VN in '79 which they LOST. And VN is hardly kowtowing to China, its moving toward alignment with the US. Sure they want trade with China, as does EVERYONE else in Asia.

Youre really deep into the fiction dept now, ZF.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 1:07:02 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:07:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 OK, LH, Look at Afghanistan. It's gone back to growing poppies. There could be range wars going on between the warlords, just like before, only for control of the most fertile fields. But it's not the Taliban and it's not a threat to us.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 1:08:12 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:08:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Funny Mrs D, thats the leftwing line - ok your man karzai has beaten the taliban, and nows hes done in the major warlords, but LOOK, theyre still growing poppies - shows the countrys still in chaos. You been following the BBC too close, Mrs. D. Afghanistan has a democratic govt, which for the last 4 years has been gradually extending its control of that country. The poppy growing is the last big public order problem, and the question now is how hard and how fast to come down on it. Afghanistan is the OPPOSITE of the Derbyshire strategy. Its only a case of disorder and chaos if you follow the LLL's who were ready to call it failure if we didnt create Switzerland overnight.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 1:12:24 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:12:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I agree that Afghanistan as done is the opposite of Derbyshire's point. But suppose we had pulled out after the "punitive raid". Would the result really have been that different? Does it make that much difference to the U. S. that the poppies are being grown under a democracy instead of a strongman?

LH, you usually do better than ad hominems about the BBC :-)

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 1:19:48 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:19:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 LH: The Chinese launched an infantry war against VN in '79 which they LOST. And VN is hardly kowtowing to China, its moving toward alignment with the US. Sure they want trade with China, as does EVERYONE else in Asia. Youre really deep into the fiction dept now, ZF.

I think you really need to read up on the current state of Sino-Vietnamese relations before you comment about it. China staged a punitive expedition into Vietnam. It may or may not have lost more men than the Vietnamese. But the point was made. (China lost 20 times more men than the US during the Korean War, but I have yet to hear anyone say that the Chinese were defeated). In the succeeding decade, China and Vietnam conducted artillery duels and raid and counter-raid. At the end of the 1990's, Vietnam sued for peace. It also lost additional territory to the Chinese, culminating in a recent border agreement (heavily criticized by South Vietnamese emigres here in America) that ceded land to China. The point here is that Vietnam was not only deterred from any further incursions into neighboring territory, it was forced to withdraw from Cambodia, and gave up territory to China.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 1:40:15 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 1:40:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 LH: Or everyone gets sick of the chaos and turns to the folks who promise to end the killing, reunite the muslim world, and take it back to the West - IE AQ.

Muslims are not just a bunch of undifferentiated wogs. They have their sectarian national, racial, ethnic and cultural identities. This is why the Acehnese are fighting the Javanese in Indonesia. It is why the Pathans and the Baluchis are fighting the Sindhi and Mohajir Pakistani establishment. It was why the Mongol Tamerlane fought the Turkish Ottomans. This was why the yellow-skinned Mongol Hazara in Afghanistan are despised by Tajiks, Pathans and Uzbeks.

LH: Look at Afghanistan - plenty of barbarian on barbarian atrocities as factions battled it out and destroyed Kabul - till the Taliban swept all before them. Now imagine this happening across Iraq, the arabian peninsula, Iran.

The Taliban became the rulers of Afghanistan because of Pakistani support. The trick is to support the losers (not morally, but with weapons and training). Clinton would have no truck with helping the Taliban's enemies because the Tajiks weren't morally pure. The result was that the Taliban won and al Qaeda obtained a safe haven.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 1:48:35 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 1:48:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 china attacked VN in '79 to get them out of Cambodia. They DID NOT get out the time - they only got out after a protracted guerrilla war that the US supported, as well as China. Im sure South Vietnamese emigres would trash Viet Nam for giving up a few acres to China, even it was insignificant - it would be silly of them not to. Artillery duels across the border are NOT equivalent to air raids to destroy a regime, or to deter them from VALUABLE WMD's. Which is what we were talking about.

Again, VN was pushed out of Cambodia by years of support by China AND the US for a guerilla war. And, in case you havent noticed, thats been followed by nation building in Cambodia.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 1:51:18 PM|| 2005-02-09 1:51:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 LH: china attacked VN in '79 to get them out of Cambodia. They DID NOT get out the time - they only got out after a protracted guerrilla war that the US supported, as well as China. Im sure South Vietnamese emigres would trash Viet Nam for giving up a few acres to China, even it was insignificant - it would be silly of them not to. Artillery duels across the border are NOT equivalent to air raids to destroy a regime, or to deter them from VALUABLE WMD's. Which is what we were talking about. Again, VN was pushed out of Cambodia by years of support by China AND the US for a guerilla war. And, in case you havent noticed, thats been followed by nation building in Cambodia.

The point here is that China accomplished the above without paying the price in blood and treasure to get an unconditional surrender from Vietnam. Uncle Sam could have done better - it could have flogged Iraq bloody, destroying its military in place and turning its weapons factories into rubble, all from the air.

As to Vietnam's territorial concessions, Vietnam conceded 12,000 square kilometers of territorial waters to China. That's a body of water half the size of New Jersey. And according to the AFP, internal debate had to be suppressed: Hanoi has always denied making any territorial concessions to China and has attributed criticism to âreactionary forces and political opportunists,â but the subject has remained taboo in public discourse in the country.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 2:22:32 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 2:22:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 ZF:"Uncle Sam could have done better - it could have flogged Iraq bloody, destroying its military in place and turning its weapons factories into rubble, all from the air."

Yeah, probably, but that would just have left the place a sink of poverty and suffering, the ideal breeding place for more Islamic Nutcasery.

I think what Derbyshire is worried about is exposure of the forces in Iraq to attacks from the surrounding Thugocracies. But that's a given, in my opinion. We're exposed in Iraq, we're exposed everywhere. We will be attacked again, inevitably, and I'd rather it was in Iraq than Manhattan. Best we have the troops and tanks there to go calling on the instigators of the attack.

Yeah, Syria and Iran, I'm lookin' at you...

Posted by mojo 2005-02-09 2:41:31 PM|| 2005-02-09 2:41:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Derbyshire's basic point is that if we had pulverized Iraq into submission, grinding it to dust the way we did Germany and Japan, he would support a long-term occupation. We ruled those countries as protectorates for the better part of a decade, and controlled their foreign policies for longer than that. MacArthur wrote Japan's constitution. What we're getting in Iraq is goulash - not much that is really identifiably American - no constitutional protections in the manner of Japan and Germany, and no control over what the Iraqi government can and cannot do.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 2:42:34 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 2:42:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 mojo: Yeah, probably, but that would just have left the place a sink of poverty and suffering, the ideal breeding place for more Islamic Nutcasery.

Poverty breeds dead Muslims like in Somalia and the Sudan, not Islamic holy warriors. The holy warriors come from the wealthy Muslim states.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 2:44:19 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 2:44:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Note that while I do not support Derbyshire's position, I understand why he holds it. Short-term punitive expeditions can be repeated for effect.

I favor a continued US presence because setting and reaching the objective of crushing the insurgency will show America's enemies that they can't count on mounting a successful guerrilla war against Uncle Sam. In other words, it will show to them that resistance is futile.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 3:15:52 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 3:15:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 And when the insurgency is finally wiped out, the Vietnam/Lebanon/Somalia syndrome will have come to an end, in the minds of our potential opponents. They will seek easier prey or risk being ground to dust like the Iraqi insurgents.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 3:18:28 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 3:18:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Overstretch becomes a non-issue - have our pilots bomb the crap out of some hostile foreign country a la Libya

15 years of punitive bombing raids on Khaddafi produced... more terror from Khaddafi.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein produced... complete capitulation and renunciation of nukes and terror by Khaddafi.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-02-09 4:39:57 PM|| 2005-02-09 4:39:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "Punitive expeditions" in the US lexicon is a synonym for missile strikes or else expeditions aimed at chasing and harrassing bandit-terrormongers. Invariably, unless we actually make full-blown war, we end up punishing the dictator's subjects more than the regime, which is always left in place to wreak more mayhem on us.

US policy in the middle east, Afghanistan and east Africa is littered with futile "punitive expeditions": Reagan's Beirut disaster. Clinton's shambolic strikes in east Africa and Afghanistan. CLinton's Somalian farce. Clinton's sporadic and ineffective strikes against Milosevic prior to getting serious in 1998.

Anything less than overthrowing the terror master is futile.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-02-09 4:49:35 PM|| 2005-02-09 4:49:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 lex: 15 years of punitive bombing raids on Khaddafi produced... more terror from Khaddafi. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein produced... complete capitulation and renunciation of nukes and terror by Khaddafi.

Actually, I think only one air raid was carried out. I'm thinking in terms of the systematic dismantling of the enemy's military apparatus - his ammo dumps, his barracks, his air defenses, his aircraft, his navy, et al. I am referring to the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of enemy personnel. I am thinking of the kind of pummeling that Uncle Sam administered to Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm, with the Highway of Death enacted throughout Iraq, but without the actual occupation of the country.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 5:08:23 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 5:08:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 ZF, Are you devil's advocating here? Cause I don't think you get highway of death from Naval Aviation or without ground pounders. If we use the Air Force, where do we stage them?

I believe that was one of the unstated reasons behind the Iraq operation. As Niall says, we're going to be there a decade. And part of our presence will be to assure the territorial integrity of Iraq. Oh, and by the way we get 8 airbases, one for every compass point, together with mature logistical infrastructure.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 5:29:45 PM|| 2005-02-09 5:29:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 I agree with Zhang and he fails to mention VN lost the oil rich paracel islands to China ceding control of most of the South China Sea (to China). I also agree with him on punitive wars. I have been thinking recently that the Iraq war is mostly an object lesson to the Sunni Arabs everywhere that the USA can rollback your territorial gains so behave yourself. Watch Mosul closely.

Posted by phil_b 2005-02-09 5:31:12 PM|| 2005-02-09 5:31:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 1. no way in hell VN could have held the Paracels. Naval superiority is what mattered, not artillery fire on the border.

2. Of course limited wars are possible. Depends what you want

3. Bomb his WMD factories - which ones? where? what target list? If you recall, the whole problem was that without going in there was no way to get the intell to determine what he had(not much as it turns out) and where. Bombing him was essentially the Clinton approach - it left Saddam in power, thumbing his nose at us, and only made us look bad - it made us BOTH unloved AND unfeared - a bad combo.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 5:44:56 PM|| 2005-02-09 5:44:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Mrs D is right - you got the highway of death cause the Iraqi army was running away and so was exposed - it was running from coalition ground forces. Air is MUCH more effective when combined with ground forces.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 5:46:41 PM|| 2005-02-09 5:46:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 MD: ZF, Are you devil's advocating here? Cause I don't think you get highway of death from Naval Aviation or without ground pounders. If we use the Air Force, where do we stage them?

Our guys are getting killed because they are garrison troops - glorified security guards. During the major combat phase, they swept all before them inflicting huge casualties in return for very few friendly dead. Derbyshire's model works if GI's just do a major combat phase. We lose a few hundred men, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and go home.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 5:50:03 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 5:50:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 and OBL thanks us as we leave.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 5:53:53 PM|| 2005-02-09 5:53:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 LH: Mrs D is right - you got the highway of death cause the Iraqi army was running away and so was exposed - it was running from coalition ground forces. Air is MUCH more effective when combined with ground forces.

Punitive expeditions are not incompatible with ground forces - the ground forces just don't stick around after the major combat phase is done.

LH: If you recall, the whole problem was that without going in there was no way to get the intell to determine what he had(not much as it turns out) and where. Bombing him was essentially the Clinton approach - it left Saddam in power, thumbing his nose at us, and only made us look bad - it made us BOTH unloved AND unfeared - a bad combo.

100 Tomahawks was the Clinton approach. I am talking about unloading 100,000 bombs on Iraq, killing its military personnel, smashing its military equipment and infrastructure and Saddam's palaces.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 5:54:20 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 5:54:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 LH: and OBL thanks us as we leave.

Nah - Somalia and Darfur are basket cases, but they're all trying to steer clear of al Qaeda for fear of American intervention. And this is with the softly-softly approach we used in Iraq. A scorched earth punitive expedition in Iraq would have infused the natives with the fear of Allah.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 5:56:29 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 5:56:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 and what does that do the WMDs, which are your nominal reason for attacking? Or do you just come out and say it had nothing do with finding WMDs, it was all destroying anyone who stood up to us? What does world opinion think of that - oh yeah, i forget, we dont care one iota for world opinion, we can afford to fight 2 billion muslims, and we dont need a single stinking ally either.

Some ground forces - and where do they launch from - think Kuwait is gonna help you if they think youre gonna pull the china shop down and leave? KSA? Jordan? You gonna do everything by sea and air? with no local air or seabases?

Look, nobody at strategy page, or anywhere else anyone actually pays attention to MILITARY affairs agrees with Derbyshire, whos no military expert, just an ideological blowhard.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-09 6:00:26 PM|| 2005-02-09 6:00:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 no way in hell VN could have held the Paracels. China took them as part of its punitive war. Whats your point. You sound suspiciously liked you are annoyed because you are loosing the argument.

Posted by phil_b 2005-02-09 6:01:03 PM|| 2005-02-09 6:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 LH: and what does that do the WMDs, which are your nominal reason for attacking? Or do you just come out and say it had nothing do with finding WMDs, it was all destroying anyone who stood up to us? What does world opinion think of that - oh yeah, i forget, we dont care one iota for world opinion, we can afford to fight 2 billion muslims, and we dont need a single stinking ally either.

Iraq wasn't being attacked being it was standing up to the US - it was being attacked because it was a standing threat to the oil-producing Gulf states, and because it had repeatedly broken the Desert Storm ceasefire terms. The moral would be this - threaten Uncle Sam's oil supply and get the big stick.

As to fighting 2 billion Muslims - they're not interested in a fight. Notice how many Arab states stood up - in other than a rhetorical manner - for Iraq during the recent campaign - just about none. Although they pay some lip service to being part of the ummah by sponsoring terror organizations, they are sectarians at heart. Muslim unity is as likely as Christian unity. (And if 2 billion Muslims want to take us on, we can finish the war in a day with a few button presses, followed up by the mother of all punitive expeditions).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 6:08:42 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 6:08:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 LH: Some ground forces - and where do they launch from - think Kuwait is gonna help you if they think youre gonna pull the china shop down and leave? KSA? Jordan? You gonna do everything by sea and air? with no local air or seabases?

If the damage to be inflicted is big enough, for sure. Kuwait is primarily interested in making sure that Iraq goes down, hard, and stays down. As long as US troops stay in Kuwait, I don't think the Kuwaitis care what it does to neighboring powers.

LH: Look, nobody at strategy page, or anywhere else anyone actually pays attention to MILITARY affairs agrees with Derbyshire, whos no military expert, just an ideological blowhard.

Actually, Derbyshire is an astute student of modern and ancient history. Apropos of nothing, he is also a military (though not combat) veteran - not that being a junior NCO has anything to do with strategic analyses. The guy's a skilled mathematician, and he understands a thing or two about logic.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 6:17:26 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 6:17:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Kuwait is primarily interested in making sure that Iraq goes down, hard, and stays down.

Nobody stays down. Let's suppose we had used the punitive expedition tactic. When would we withdraw? Invasion day plus a month? Till we got Saddam? When we left, would the Baathists be allowed to take over again? Would they host al-Q? Would they make life miserable for Kuwait? When it was time to put them down again, would the Kuwaitis want to host us again?

Do you smack your kid every time he misbehaves?

Punitive raids are an effective tactic for the 19th century. I'm not so sure it works in the 21st or for a country that tries to have higher moral standards than the Europeans in the conduct of it foreign policy (not that it's hard to do).

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 6:32:28 PM|| 2005-02-09 6:32:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 MD: Nobody stays down.

A lot of boxers would disagree. Great powers as well. Turkey, France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Spain - and these are just the European powers. Going down is partially a consequence of having your morale crushed by too many harsh blows delivered competently.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 6:52:38 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 6:52:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 You lost me with Belgium.

Some how I think a foreign policy of "When they act up we whack 'em." with impartial video provided by CNN is not going to do well with the American electorate. Do you really think they will pay, in dollars or blood, for a military that roams the whorld constantly playing whack-a-thug? Or do we hire foreigners and if they survive 20 years of combat, give them citizenship?

What you are really proposing is that we become the world's policeman in the best case and world's bully in the most likely.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 7:04:13 PM|| 2005-02-09 7:04:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 MD: You lost me with Belgium.

All of the European empires lost some of their taste for the rigors of sustaining the cost of empire after WWI. Belgium had extensive holdings in Africa.

MD: Some how I think a foreign policy of "When they act up we whack 'em." with impartial video provided by CNN is not going to do well with the American electorate. Do you really think they will pay, in dollars or blood, for a military that roams the whorld constantly playing whack-a-thug? Or do we hire foreigners and if they survive 20 years of combat, give them citizenship? What you are really proposing is that we become the world's policeman in the best case and world's bully in the most likely.

In dollars and in blood? The expense will be trivial in both cases. If we had left Iraq after major combat was accomplished, the Treasury would have $160B more in the till, and 1300 GI's would be alive today.

As to constantly playing whack-a-thug, that's just unlikely - not the whack-a-thug part, but the constantly part. America's enemies would certainly be much less inclined to pose a threat to our vital interests, given the harshness of the potential response.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 8:56:55 PM|| [http://timirileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 8:56:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 ZF's right imho. This isn't the 19th century as LH puts it, however, is the particular culture we are dealing with at this moment thinking in 21st century terms? I'm not trying to be condescending or insulting by any means, but some of you are falling into the trap (jmo) of thinking like westerners. When fighting w/a culture much different then one's own & one that is clearly more ethnocentric it is prolly wise to treat them in terms that they understand & ultimately respect even begrudingly.

Posted by Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-02-09 10:02:05 PM|| 2005-02-09 10:02:05 PM|| Front Page Top

23:48 .com
23:48 Alaska Paul
23:41 Alaska Paul
23:38 OldSpook
23:33 anonymous2u
23:31 OldSpook
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:24 gromgorru
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:12 Atomic Conspiracy
23:10 Atomic Conspiracy
22:58 OldSpook
22:58 Edward Yee
22:48 2b
22:48 CrazyFool
22:46 Rafael
22:43 Edward Yee
22:33 2b
22:24 2b
22:15 Matt
22:15 2b
22:11 2b
22:10 Mark
22:02 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead