Terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia have led many to question not only the ruling House of Saud's prospects for survival, but also whether the kingdom is fundamentally dysfunctional and destructive. Somehow, it seems, Saudi society has produced a stream of violent fanaticism that draws its inspiration from extreme religious orthodoxy.
The fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were Saudis crystallised a long-held view of the kingdom as a bastion of authoritarianism and intolerance. In some respects, this perception is accurate, but it cannot be applied to the broad Saudi public. On the contrary, it would be a grave mistake to assume that fanatical Islamism fully defines Saudi attitudes toward religion.
Between 2001 and 2003, I was part of a team that undertook an extensive survey of values in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and Jordan. Our results provide a surprisingly nuanced picture of Saudi attitudes. Compared to respondents in the other Middle Eastern countries, Saudis were less religious overall, and their attitudes toward democracy and arranged marriage indicated a moderate undercurrent.
To be sure, in all four countries, religiosity is widespread, with more than 90 per cent of respondents collectively reporting that they believe in God, in life after death, and in heaven and hell. But the Saudis appear to be less religious than their fellow Muslims. Sixty-two percent of Saudis described themselves as religious, compared with 82 per cent of Iranians, 85 per cent of Jordanians, and 98 per cent of Egyptians. Americans also appear to be far more religious than Saudis, with 81 per cent describing themselves that way.
Some of this variation may be explained by cross-national differences regarding what it means to be religious. For example, Americans may define religiosity differently than Middle Easterners, with perhaps a weaker attachment to religious beliefs than is true in Islamic countries. This might also account in part for the differences between Muslim countries.
But the gap in self-defined religiosity between Saudis, on the one hand, and Iranians, Jordanians, and Egyptians, on the other, is so great that it challenges the prevalent perception of Saudi Arabia as a highly conservative and religious society. Indeed, actions speak louder than words: only 28 per cent of Saudis said that they participate in weekly religious services, compared to 27 per cent of Iranians, 44 per cent of Jordanians, 42 per cent of Egyptians, and 45 per cent of Americans.
These findings, while running contrary to popular perceptions of Saudi culture, are less startling than they appear. Sociologists of religion have long argued that in a monolithic religious environment, or when religious institutions are closely tied to the state, the overall religiosity of the public declines.
It makes sense to think that when state authorities enforce strict codes of behaviour, people tend to rebel and move away from officially sanctioned religious institutions. Little wonder, then, that Egyptians and Jordanians, who live in countries where the state does not enforce piety, are more religious than Iranians or Saudis, who must cope with local "virtue" police backed by the state.
Even on marriage, many Saudis expressed surprisingly liberal views. Respondents were nearly evenly split on the question of arranged marriages, with half supporting the idea that marriage should be based on parental consent, while 48 per cent preferred love as the basis of matrimony. Given entrenched gender segregation and paternal dominance, this finding appears to reveal a strong desire for greater individual choice in what has traditionally been a family-driven decision.
Finally, the Saudis turn out to be strong supporters of democracy, once again contradicting a popular image of Saudi conservatism. Of the Saudis polled, 58 per cent considered democracy the best form of government, 23 per cent disagreed, and 18 per cent did not express an opinion.
Majority support for democracy in a country with no prior secular and nationalist history seems counter-intuitive. In fact, support for democracy corresponds with a number of other liberal attitudes that we found in Saudi Arabia. Supporters of democracy tend to be less religious, more secular, more tolerant of others, more critical of public-sector performance, and more concerned with Western cultural invasion.
Beyond the survey data, history has shown that liberal ideas become more popular when a despotic monarch governs people in alliance with a religious establishment. A strong current of liberalism appeared in the late nineteenth century in Ottoman Syria in response to the religious despotism of Sultan Abdulhamid. At the same time, an anti-clerical, secular movement on behalf of constitutionalism appeared in Iran — a reaction to the absolutist alliance between the Quajar Shahs and the religious establishment.
In view of the similarities between those historical precedents and current conditions in Saudi Arabia, we ought not to rule out the possibility of reform. Now survey data, too, suggest that Saudis may well begin demanding a more transparent politics and a less interventionist religion. —DT-PS
Mansoor Moaddel, a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, is the author of the forthcoming book Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse
Posted by: tipper ||
08/22/2004 3:37:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bin Laden used Saudi's as highjackers to drive a wedge between Saudi an U.S relations.My view.
#2
They don't need to modernize Islam. They need to go back to the true teachings of Islam.
They have to stop interpreting Islam by what they think is right, and realize that it is a religion of peace, and a way of life.
#3
I'm just so not in the mood for your bullshit this morning, "Gentle."
The Muslim men have you completely brainwashed and so crazy as to welcome the subjugation and chains of your secondary status as their property.
Islam MUST reform and quit waging jihad...OR ELSE.
#4
They need to go back to the true teachings of Islam. They have to stop interpreting Islam by what they think is right, and realize that it is a religion of peace...
Bullshit. Islam is founded on the concept of military expansionism.
#5
Gentle, here's a brief explanation of Wahhabism from my ARAMCO handbook. You should take note that every phrase in this book regarding customs and religion was approved by the House of Saud. This new religious revival was carried forward with the same conviction which had governed the Prophet Muhmmad and his followers: all coverts were to be welcomed, but those who offered opposition were to be subdued.
Websters on line dictionary defines
Subdue: to conquer and bring into subjection : VANQUISH
And defines Vanquish, a synonym of conquer, thusly:
1 : to overcome in battle : subdue completely
2 : to defeat in a conflict or contest
3 : to gain mastery over
A basic tenet of the Wahhabis is their claim of going back to the true teachings of Muhammed. Teaching and requiring the vanquishing of those who oppose conversion doesn't seem to be the Religion of Peace that you would have us believe, Gentle.
EFL RTWT
Watching the gallant but doomed charge of the British light cavalry brigade against the Russian guns at Balaclava during the Crimean War, French Gen. Pierre Bosquet commented acidly, "It's magnificent, but it isn't war." The same might be said of recent military operations in Iraq. Observing them, Americans might be pardoned for wondering just what we think we're doing. One week our troops are clearing Fallujah of Baathist insurgents. The next week they aren't. A month later they're clearing Najaf of Shiite insurgents. Then, a few days later, they aren't. Meanwhile, casualties and insurgents alike multiply. Somewhere behind all this, there must be some coherent strategic intention, but for most of us it isn't easily visible. As far as we are able to judge, the war in Iraq has become a sort of military perpetual motion machine, producing plenty of activity but not much evidence of progress.
Not long ago, preparing for a history workshop, I found myself rereading U.S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs," widely regarded as among the finest such recollections ever penned by a professional soldier. Reviewing his account of his army's operations in Tennessee and Mississippi, I was struck by the change they gradually wrought in Grant's attitude and that of his troops. Enflamed by widespread popular resistance in the areas occupied by Federal troops, it took on a character few on either side had foreseen. It became what it had to be if the rebellion was to be defeated: a war against Southern society, not just its soldiers.
There are indications that a similar hard realism is beginning to imbue soldiers and leaders in Iraq, but little evidence so far that it has percolated up to their political masters. In an interview earlier this month, multinational corps commander Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz admitted, "As much as I would love the Iraqis to love me, and my doctrine tells me I want to win the hearts and minds, I know I'm not going to do that." Rather, as recent events in Najaf reveal, military operations in Iraq continue to fall between two levels, destructive enough to provoke Iraqi resistance but not ruthless enough to suppress it. Instead, we continue to play at making war, sacrificing both our own and Iraqi lives to the so-far-vain hope that military self-restraint will promote civility among people who historically have evinced little even among themselves.
There's no future in that, no more than there was in the invaded South of 1862. On the contrary, if it proved so difficult then to subdue a society that, however rebellious, at least shared the language and religious heritage of its invaders, why should we expect to succeed more gently in pacifying one even less predisposed by history, culture and religion to be tractable? Nor is it any excuse that operations in Iraq must be framed to avoid antagonizing Muslims elsewhere. They're already antagonized. However much, like Metz, we might wish them to love us, it's far more essential to our own safety that they be compelled to respect us. But respect requires them to believe that we are serious as well as sincere. And, just as it did for Grant, in what clearly also is a conflict of societies, seriousness requires using war's "cruel weight" in a way that makes continued resistance intolerable, not just unpleasant. In Iraq today our leaders are sincere, but on current evidence they're not serious. Our troops and the Iraqis themselves are paying the price. It may or may not be magnificent, but it certainly isn't war.
Richard Hart Sinnreich writes on military affairs for the Lawton (Okla.) Sunday Constitution.
Even though it's the Washington Post, I have to agree. Since April it's seemed like we're just marking time in Iraq, trying not to antagonize. The latest episode with Tater fits that pattern.
A part of it might be that the press has no idea of what the military's objectives are because they aren't asking, or if they did ask, they wouldn't understand. But I think it goes beyond that: the political authority really doesn't want to antagonize the Iraqis, so they're not making the hard decisions that will result in casualties but achieve the objective. Instead of getting a pile of casualties at once, they're ending up with the same number of casualties spread out over weeks or months, but without achieving the objectives. I don't know if it's because of the election, if the Bush team isn't paying attention, or if the balance of power has shifted from Defense to State. But I do know that we're treading water, and that's a bad thing.
The Vietnam analogy was made early on in the war, before the Iraqi military was even defeated. Every time it's been made we've hooted and offered razzberries here, with justification. But the problem with Vietnam was a lack of clear objective and micromanagement by the suits. Now we really are starting to see the same thing. If the the War on Terror is to continue — which it has to — the terror centers have to be clobbered without mercy. We've backed off in Fallujah, and we've backed off in Najaf. Now I'm left wondering what we're going to do next — and for the first time, wondering if it'll work.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/22/2004 8:13:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well hell, that's about the most righteous write-up I've read since Fallujah. Dead on target. Center phreakin' mass.
Wanna do it? Then phreakin' do it. This 47.3% pregnant shit is for the chart-pushers and civilian / politician dipshits.
Given the atrophy of our military due to the tightwards in Congress during the 1990's, we simply do not have enough troops to be able to steamroller this situation like Grant or Sherman.
With 140K troops there, we go too hard and trigger a true revolt.
Thats 140K troops against 20 million pissed Iraqis.
DO THE DAMNED MATH!
SO after that - if you demand a change form the tactics, then you are advocating either suicide or abandoning the Iraqis. The first is pretty obvious - we end up taking massive casualties or else obliterating whole segments of the population. And the latter, the resultant chaos in the middle east and Iran running amok in the region: a true disaster for the west - complete with revolts, terror and $100 a barrel oil).
So what you are advocating simply turning tail and running, or else doing the political tightrope between force and diplomacy.
Friggen armchair generals - they know neither the region/country, nor the limitations to both political and military force.
Folks, there are not simple solutions to this - there is no John Wayne way out.
Grow up and realize that just wishing doesnt make it so. And sometimes reality has really harsh consequences. We are now paying the price for our "Peace Dividend" binge in the 1990's.
#3
pretty much agree with OS. Just want to point out that by the late '90s we were increasing military spending - just not on ground pounders, and this continued under the new admin till 9-11. In fact even today they seem reluctant to increase the number of ground pounders.
But i also disagree that we're treading water. To defend Rummy, who ive implicitly attacked in the above parag, his strat is NOT to win the war with US troops, which makes this place a US dependency. It is to let the IRaqis fight for their own damned country. SO the political steps, and the training of security forces are the big jobs. I would compare the perf of Iraqi forces in April to the last two weeks, after we have more data on the latter.
#4
OS - What a change of tone. You were a happy camper - just like me, when they cleared the entire cemetary and ringed the Old City in one day. It was an awesome performance. And they had the numbers for the job, too, just as the Op Cmdr said. The armor completely pacified everything outside the Old City. They stopped. Apparently on orders. The troopers certainly performed in fantastic fashion. Then apparently went back to base - on the East side of town. Apparently on orders.
The only failure here - or in Fallujah - has been a failure of will at the command level - which includes whatever politicians they're deferring to.
I do not hear hear him saying turn tail, pull out, or anything of the kind. He didn't say it, in fact. He says shit or get off the pot - ala Grant. He's right. This current crap is Nam Think.
#5
... the political authority really doesn't want to antagonize the Iraqis, so they're not making the hard decisions that will result in casualties but achieve the objective. Instead of getting a pile of casualties at once, they're ending up with the same number of casualties spread out over weeks or months, but without achieving the objectives.
I call this "the death of a thousand paper cuts."
Fred, I think you are spot on. It seems beyond the mental capacity of Iraq's current government to make the hard and fast decisions required for them to lead their country out of its current miasma. While Saddam-style brutality is not the answer, some harsh measures need to be taken. Not by the Americans, but by the Iraqis themselves. It is exactly this sort of acquiescence to theological authority that has bought them grief in almost every single Arab country in the entire Middle East. How is it that they cannot realize this? Yes, I know that their religion goes beyond pervasive, but if Iraq ever wants to be more than a festering cesspit, firm action must be taken towards making their religious factions subordinate to the state's need for civil cohesion. Iraq's population is divided between Sunni and Shi'ite sects, the requirement for at least a quasi-secular government is undeniable.
The only alternatives are endless civil war, a replay of their previous outright tyranny or some form of secular leadership. How is it that Iraq's leaders cannot see this and take action to make it so?
#6
Our current leadership is well aware of VN and the loser attitude that lost it. They could write the book!
The WoJ isn't going to be won in Iraq. Saddam had to be dealt with before the next front could be opened. That mosque means nothing. It's a red hearing. Let the pricks bang their heads. It's our job to leave something that can stand up. If they can't, like SVN, they fall. But remember SVN had the US as their bros and they couldn't do it. We can't do it for them, we can't. We can destroy, but that doesn't change much.
Of the lessons learned in VN is that a population that depends on a foreign power to keep its bed made will soon be sleeping in the street.
#7
I think we are achieving several things at the current stage of the operation:
1.Repositioning 70,000 troops that will be in play for the next decade. If there is a possiblity that we will need to occupy Iran, we will be more ready with each four month period we wait.
2.Supporting the election process in two new democracies. I can't see us making a major move into Iran of our own initiative until both of our new allies are solidified.
3.Giving Iran a chance to do something more stupid than what they have done so far that will galvanize European support for military action. AQ is now based in Iran. What if AQ hits Paris? (unlikely but I doubt that AQ intends to allow Zarqawi to continue to upstage them.)
Out of the three I think that the most pressing is number two. Currently, Alawi has told us not to rush the shrine. We need to do what he tells us no matter how tactically stupid and infuriating it is to be his pit bull. Two months ago the percestion was that Alawi would dance to our tune, but the new picture coalescing is one of Allawi being an equal player with his American ally. By election time the perception should be that electing a PM that is not able to act as a partner to the US would be a big mistake.
On another level, is it possible that Iran would be displeased if some particular members of the Madhi surrendered and ended up in Iraqi or US control?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/22/2004 1:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I agree with OS (and I think Lucky...).
We need to keep our eyes on the Big Picture which is winning the whole war;
remember the expression "winning the battle but losing the war?"
We could flatten Fallujah and/or Najaf and everyone in it with a MOAB and a platoon of Marines, but that's not the point.
First of all, we're letting the Iraqis sort it out themselves, if they can.
But secondly, in the bigger picture of the whole WOT, our real enemy that we must face--on the radar and growing bigger all the time--is Iran.
We're fighting Iranian jihadis in Najaf to the west of Iran and we're fighting them in Herat and western Afghanistan (with the help of Afghan warlords) to the east of Iran.
Clearly, the battle won't be won until we regime change the mullahs in Tehran and disarm their nukes because they've taken to openly threatening both US forces in Iraq and Israel with nuke-tipped missiles.
Some of you guys want a decisive and brutal show of force--that may feel good in the short run, but it may not give us ultimate victory.
There is a lot of strategery at work here and rather than second-guessing our military leadership, I trust them to run the war the best way they see fit.
So I counsel patience, prayer and vigilance.
I'm sure in their weaker moments our troops wish they could go in and "kill them all and let God sort them out," so I admire their restraint.
And the WaPo can FOAD--I hate that paper;
they are the biggest enemy this country and President Bush ever had next to AQ.
If terrorists aimed their planes at the WaPo building, I think I might actually cheer (God forgive me!) but they won't because it's the "thinking" Americans' Al-Jazeera and one of their biggest enablers.
#9
I think that Allawi and the Iraqi govt is "walking around" the problem. They are in some ways trying to finesse the problem. We look at Tater and we say "mash him already" and get done, but there is a great difficulty in developing a consensus and understanding in that country yet. Remember that we have hundreds of years of merchant-type haggling, and 35 years of brutal dictatorship in Iraq, so there is alot of disfunction going around. This is going to take time, patience and working around our frustrations to sort out. Remember that Iraq is relatively secular compared to the MK or Iran. The American public needs to realize the magnitude of the problem and the size of the commitment to get things changed.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/22/2004 2:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I agree with .com and with Mrs. Davis. As you all know, I am a traditional conservative and I never wanted us to go into Iraq because I saw this venture as being tanamount to quicksand. But once in that hellhole, I believed should either completely dominate the damn country or get our butts out in a timely fashion and let them fight it out themselves. But this ongoing idiotic business of treading water and wanting to carry on this way for the next 100 years so as to "keep face" is absolute insanity.
OS, if we can't afford to "piss off" 25 million Iraqis because we don't have the military troops, then why the fudge did we go to Iraq in the first place? Was someone asleep at the WH and the Pentagon? What did they think it would take to pacify a nation of wacky Sunni/Shiite religious types? Didn't they see that Saddam had a super large military and paramilitary to do this job? Did our neocon whiz kids think Saddam had all these armed folks cruising around Iraq just to keep Iraqi men gainfully employed? Duh. Oh right, they would throw roses at our troops once we deposed Saddam.
Our current leadership is well aware of VN and the loser attitude that lost it
We should not have gone into Vietnam in the first place and after we got in, we didn't know to get out fast enough once we realized it was an un-winable war. Vietnam was a long war [ 1966-1975]of keeping face at the expense of 58,325 GI lives. How can you say that any lessons from the Vietnam War were learned by this Administration? The neocon pencil pushing architects of the Iraq War never even served a day in Vietnam. Stephen Cambone, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith...what military experience do any of these people have? ZERO. NADA. Have you ever read or heard Wolfowitz or Feith -what a treat- these empty suits are neither articulate or impressive and we put our trust on these bureaucrats to do the "right thing" by our military?? Don't you see any similarity between the Wolfowitz-Feith dynamic duo to "whiz-kid" Robert McNamara?
As for keeping our sights on the Big Picture...what about keeping our eyes open to the peril we have allowed some forgettable bureaucrats to put our GI's in? To say that the WOT will not be won in Iraq is an under statement. No kidding. And if it's no bad enough that we are in a jam in OIraq, some of you have the starry eyed nerve to suggest to go charging off to Iran...say what...to have our marines to install air conditioners or coach an Iranian soccer team. You think maybe, maybe Paul Bremer is ready to spread more State Dept. magic to another Muslim country? Has he had enough of a rest after his bang up job in Iraq?
While we are wasting time putzing in Iraq and trying to embellish news about upcoming elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, like that means so much to anyone but neocon cheerleaders, we are in a mess and no one in the WH can figure out what to do next, because all of this seems to have come as such a shock to folks who have never fired any weapon beyond a water pistol in their entire lives.
We should never go to war unless we want to devastate the enemy and be voctorious. Hearts and minds are not win-able through military means. When are we going to learn?
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 4:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
They could have flattened Fallujah as far as I am concerned, but they have to work 10 times harder to enforce a media blackout beforehand, and they have to blitzkreig the target and end the engagement as quickly as possible.
Overwhelming numbers, no resistance propaganda, and the whole time the military leaders need to be saying over and over, this is to enforce law and order in a lawless zone where terrorists, thieves and x-Baathists run free. Law and order, law and order, law and over, memorize those words and repeat them like a mantra. Even throw the book at the Abu Gharaib soldiers who committed abuse and claim law and order.
Either the coalition helps convince the regular Iraqis that supporting the police and the government will help bring about law and order, or there will be mini and major resistance flare-ups every few months. And each will get larger and larger with the distortions and intense hatred spread by the Arab press.
#12
One other thing I read yesterday, that the Mehidi army and journalists from Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya etc were using cell phones to coordinate attacks and coverage in Najaf?
What is the coalition doing to block cell phone coverage in the area? Aren't there jammers they can use that extend for a long enough distance?
#13
Rex says, "I am a traditional conservative." Yeah riiiiight....and we're all stupid, Rex.
It's a good effort by the WAPO to put a new spin on their quagmire routine, but those who are serious about winning the WOT won't be purchasing WAPO's or NYT's failing stock anytime soon.
I think the Iraqi's are capable of taking control of their country. I read something yesterday (can't remember where, sorry) about how there really isn't much of an Iraqi "resistance", most of it is Iranian backed with a few Sunni dead enders. The Kurds, Shia and even most Suni's are really ready for the war to end and have no desire to fight blood battles.
Most of what's going on over there now, that isn't foreign inspired, is posturing for political power; just like we have here at home.
It seems to me, that even though Najaf and other battles are still ongoing, the Iraq war, is for all practial purposes, over. The deed is done. What's going on now is just mop up. Sadaam is gone, the various politcal factions are meeting and working together. It's no longer a question of whether or not we can win against Sadar and his tots, but the political implications for the new Iraqi politicians, should the Sadar blow the mosque.
#14
And...to finish my thought. It seems to me that Iran is starting to spread itself really thin. They have to fear an internal uprising. Their harboring AQ and pursuing nuclear weapons is making them unpopular with all major powers. At some point, they are going to wake up and realize that it is they who are bleeding money, men and credibility in Iraq, not us.
Anyone who has ever played Risk can understand that Iran has spread their pieces too thin in too many places.
#15
News flash, #14, I am a traditional conservative as opposed to a former-liberal-born-again-chest thumping-wannabe-"hawk" like you. I'm against high taxes, big government, pie in the sky foreign interventions to act like Johnny Apple seed spreading democracy to hellholes. I'm for defending our sovereignity which btw is one of the essential things that federal gov't is supposed to do but which is horrible to open borders neocons like you...
Anyways, you just go on believing that it's only evil Iran doing all the "resistence" to our Iraq occupation and that Sunni/Shiite Iraqis are passive America loving Lambie Pies. Watch out for wooden nickels-you are an easy target to dupe.
As for claiming that Iran is spreading itself "rather thin"...that's a real thigh slapper observation,B...getting all your insight about Iran from playing Risk is the problem, I think, B, no offense...
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
#17
No need to sulk, B. But seriously, do yourself a favor and read an article written by one of the founders of the neocon movement, Dr.Francis Fukuyama, which gives his objective, albeit disillusioned, perspective on the Iraq War. It was quite informative. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,9981001,00.html "Francis Fukuyama: Shattered illusions"29jun04 The Australian
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 8:05 Comments ||
Top||
#18
"I'm against high taxes, big government, pie in the sky foreign interventions to act like Johnny Apple seed spreading democracy to hellholes. I'm for defending our sovereignity which btw is one of the essential things that federal gov't is supposed to do........"
-I agree 100% w/that. I think where I differ w/rex is that I believe Iraq was an inenvitable next step in the WoT. Smashing Saddam & his sons was essential imho for the long run. The timing may have been sooner then I personally wanted, but none the less, I would've went there as well. I'm also not an idealist, so spreading democracy for the sake of enlightening an inferior culture smacks of liberal elitism to me *unless* it has some intrinsic connection to our security, which, I think Iraq did. My main motivation for Iraq would've been their 17 violations of UN sanctions over a 12 yr period, the wmd thing has only been a sidebar to me.
#19
Rantburgers sound too much like the politicians referred to by Buford, commander of the Federal cavalry arriving on the scene at Gettysburg. Go replay the movie 'Gettysburg' and listen to Buford's words carefully. Says far more than I can write. Haste, aways haste.
How long did the consolidation of the West take? Was it done in two years, three years? We're not fighting battles, we're fighting an extended military and cultural war with generational implications and you don't burn up your resources for the small stuff. Time is on our side if we choose to win the war rather than to throw victory away. They, the enemy of our society and culture, have by striking out demonstrated that we are making headway against their medieval world. Slowly, spasmatically, unrelentingly, we are undermining their way of life as we did the natives of North America. Get a grip man! Show some backbone here. Chill. Go read Robert Utley's "Frontier Regulars". We win in the end.
Posted by: Don ||
08/22/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Yes Don, the wot will be slow, tedious, and incremental. Thow the average pepsi-gen American may not have the stomach for that, I think most of the poster here do.
#21
Rantburgers sound too much like the politicians referred to by Buford...
Actually, Rantburgers do not sound too much like anything in their responses to this post. I count 6 agreeing with the article, .com, Fred, Zenster, rex, cog and Mrs. Davis with 8 disagreing, Ols Spook, liberalhawk, Super Hose, GreatestJen, Alaska Paul, B, Jarhead and Don. And each of these has varying degrees of agreement or disagreement. But there is a good balanced debate.
Slowly, spasmatically, unrelentingly, we are undermining their way of life as we did the natives of North America
We didn't undermine the way of life of the Indians, we destroyed it. We engaged in a 300 year effort to ethnically cleanse North America and exterminate the Indians. And too many of those we did not eliminate remain on reservations, utterly unassimilated into the modern world despite real efforts by those who do care to change things. If we failed so miserably with a few milion stone agers under our total control, how are we going to succeed with a half bilion medievalists half a world away? Surely not by turning the devil dogs into McGruff the Crime Dogs®.
If we plan to occupy Iraq for decades, perhaps we need a new paramilitary force to play these politician directed games with low level violence. But we should save the military to fight wars. And when we commit the military to fight a war, it should be to achieve total victory.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/22/2004 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Rex is being honest. He's an old school conservative. BTW we're spending way to much on these damn carriers, battleships are your weapon of choice.
Posted by: Robert Taft ||
08/22/2004 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#23
âWe didn't undermine the way of life of the Indians, we destroyed it. We engaged in a 300 year effort to ethnically cleanse North America and exterminate the Indians..â
Hmmm, my great grandmother squaw was exterminated? My American Indian friend Dan is living on a reservation with his white wife? Thatâs strange. I thought he just got back from a water skiing trip with his kids. I wouldnât even know heâs an Indian if he werenât proud of the fact.
Many American Indians have assimilated just fine. Most donât speak old Indian languages or celebrate tribal ways. Neither do the Italians, Germans, or Chinese that immigrated to the US.
The US has a poor historical record with many Indian tribes. The Trail of Tears was an especially poor treatment of a civilized people. Treaties have been broken when convenient for the local whites.
One the other hand some tribes were savages who ravaged their neighbors long before white men arrived. Many settler families were massacred. These tribes broke treaties and went on raids. Just part of their cultural heritage.
Some people hated Indians, many others didnât. The US certainly didnât âengaged in a 300 year effort to ethnically cleanse North America and exterminate the Indians.â My great grandmother and Dan are evidence to the contrary. That is Multi-culturalist revisionist crap.
#24
Outstanding Sunday thread RBers! The maddening thing is that events play out in their own time, and that usually slowly. That's where keeping ones eyes on the prize comes in and Alaska Paul pretty much spelled that out. But Jarhead points out the danger ...too many soft-heads out there and the MSM has them squarely in their sights. I'm not sure we're winning that battle.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/22/2004 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#25
5032, History is not all black and white, but when you look at broad sweep of what happened between 1620 and 1895, tell me how you would describe it. I'm no multi-culti revisionist, but I don't deny facts just because they are unpleasant.
My point was that we have a much bigger challenge in the ME than we had with the Indians. We didn't do all that well with the Indians. The Army and Marines are probably not the correct tool to use if we want to drive them out of their medieval culture.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/22/2004 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I'm not a politician, I am a spook, and a soldier. I have to deal with things as they are, not as people want them to be.
And thats what colors my views.
1) we simply do not have the troops to handle global responsibilities and a full-on revolt in Iraq.
2) PERCIEVED excessive violence in Iraq will cause a broad based revolt.
3) PERCIEVED violence against Shia "holy" sites will also trigger a broad based revolt.
So managing the PERCEPTIONS of whats going on in IRaq is *VERY* important.
Now, given the posts above, I guess I do have to point out the huge dangers of a broad based revolt, which noboy here seems to give much credence to.
We could quell it using all force neccesary - which would involved large scale destruction of cities and towns and large numbers of civilian causalties - we dont have the troops to go man-to-man, so artillery and bombs would be the the only way to be assured of an acceptable military outcome. The troop ratios simply do not allow any other way of quelling a large scale result. And allyour dreams about "kill themm all" are just so much vapor - we do not have the nubmers needed to do it right, so MOABs, artillery and bombing woudl be the tools we woudl ahve to use. ANd NOBODY here can deny the large amounts of collateral damage, civilian causalties and destruction of civil infrastructure that woudl result.
The political fallout would be enormous - likely losing our allies in the process (Britain, Poland, etc), further excacerbating the low troop ratio problem.
The economic fallout would shatter the world economy: disruption of of supplies would be immediate and and long term - the infastructure would be nearly impossible to maintain in the face of attacks against it during and after a revolt. Plus, sending all the economies of the world into a dive would further isolate the US as everyone jumps on the "Blame the USA" bandwagon, and we lose all our friendly governments (except possibly Israel).
For Iraq, the damage would be nearly irreperable, both on a social/political level and an economic one.
The risk is fairly high for such a revolt form some of our possible actions, and the consequences are dire.
So the US and its Administration (no matter who is there) has this as the number ONE thing to be avoided. Number One. Period. UNless you are a reckless (all out attack) or feckless (unilateral withdrawal - cut and run) politician who does not have the best interest of the US in mind.
We simply cannot commit any act that would cause a widspread uprising that could develop into a full revolt.
The "bomb them all flat" approach doesnt work in this case. We cannot simply kill them all and let God sort them out. It would cause a revolt.
What we do is kill as many as we can as quickly as we can without inflicting enough damage to cause a revolt. We try to wear them down while providing political end economic alternatives, and get the Iraqi military up to the task of doing its own dirty work.
The Iraqi military is the key to this all - it has far more latitude to act with force in their own nation. Thats where our pre-emptive disbanding of the Iraqi military comes it - it was by far the largest mistake made in the entire campaign.
Fortunately, for Najaf, it appears that we do have a capable Iraqi unit available.
As for Sadr, killing him would have made him a martyr. Jailing him would leave him alive to be a martyr or a rabble-rouser from jail, and would leave open the possiblity that he coudl return and furhter disrupt society. The only way to stop Sadr is to expose his followers as the thugs they are and discredit him for being an Iranian tool and a dishonest power seeker, not a holy man.
After the fig-leaf of negotiation, and the exposure of the Madhi Army and Sadr as the bandits that they are, the political situation will be such that they can send in the Iraqi SF battalion.
The important thing was to discredit Sadr and the Madhi Army - and by giving them the rope, they hav ehung themsleves by failing to act by their word, and continuing to occupy the shrine.
Thats what we have been doing.
I do not see ANYONE proposing any other viable solution.
Withdrawal, a'la Kerry, is an equal disaster with similar results to a revolt excepting that we leave a destabilized and failed nation-state smack in the middle of one of the most critical regions of the world.
So there are NO other plausible alternatives than to take the course we are now taking: politically controlled fighting and violence that is sometimes stopped short.
Getting rid of Sadr should be the number one priority - by destroying his army, and discrediting him politically. "Escaping" from US forces will make him popular for a short time, but his inability to really affect the outocm of anything will soon enough come home to roost - people will realize Sadr is bleeding people out for his personal gain, and he is causign lots of damage - and that he is not a true holy man.
If he is to be killed, it must be with an Iraqi bullet.
But far better than killing him is to fully discredit him, and marginalize him.
#28
âHistory is not all black and white, but when you look at broad sweep of what happened between 1620 and 1895, tell me how you would describe it. I'm no multi-culti revisionist, but I don't deny facts just because they are unpleasant.â
Earlier you posted, âWe didn't undermine the way of life of the Indians, we destroyed it. We engaged in a 300 year effort to ethnically cleanse North America and exterminate the Indians..â
Iâm fairly aware of American and world history and what âhappened between 1620 and 1895â was not an attempt to âethnically cleanse North America and exterminate the Indiansâ. There is a big difference between acknowledging historical mistreatment of some Indian tribes and isolated instances such as the Trail of Tears and claiming three hundred years of genocide. (If the Trail of Tears were representative of US policy over that period I would agree with your characterization. Instead it was an aberration that disgusted many people of that time. A fact that was recognized in my local Indian museum.)
You may not be a multi-culti revisionist but your statement came right from their playbook. Cherry pick US history for all bad events, revise history by applying modern moral standards in interpreting those events, and use terminology to connect it to more recent genocides in an attempt to show that the US is a terrible country. Ignore all the good the US has done in the world, including the fact that most American Indians are integrated into American society and feel so little discrimination that they proudly proclaim their heritage.
#29
Great thread folks. Civil, well-reasoned discourse indeed. Feels like Sunday morning at Rantburg-U.
I'm with TGA. Money I'm saving on not renewing Stratfor, the Financial Times, the Economist and others is going to Fred's tip jar, books and an enrollment in the Cato University home study program.
You flatter yourself, Rex by assuming that you alone hold the keys to conservatism. I too am against big government, excess taxes and open borders. You should be embarrasssed for calling me a "bible thumper" just because I was un-PC enough to claim that the Christian values of chairty and forgiveness are superior to Islam's kill the infidel and remain stuck in the 7th Century.
Thanks to people like you, Rex, the Iraqi's just may succeed. You offer nothing but whines about how stupid everyone is. for not doing it the way you think it should be done.
You are the "divide" in divide in conquer.
Conservatives need to beware of sheeps in wool clothing like you. How can we unite to fight against the left and the Iraqi's when the Rex's of the world are so busily sowing seeds of discontent within our own side. Bush is stupid, the army is stupid, B is stupid. Anyone who disagrees with Rex's idea is stupid.
That you refuse to work or acknowledge those who have the same overall goals as you - as compared to the socialist/anti-American left makes you the most valuable ally of our enemies who wish to make use of the most effective tool available in warfare: Divide and Conquer.
I don't know any two people who agree on every subjet. To win, you need to unite all factions working towards a common goal and to support your leadership. You are a commander's worst nightmare...the little harpie that makes himself feel important by saying how stupid the leaders are and how perfect everything would be if only you were in charge.
Posted by: B ||
08/22/2004 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#32
I've got no transcripts but OldSpook makes a lot of sense. A pity though, what do you do when your own system inherently provides for these weaknesses?
(Remember, senators were supposed to be the "sense and sensibility" of Congress, thus their staggered terms and greater powers over the House of Representatives, but look how far that's reversed ... they're just as vulnerable, if not moreso, to the whims of a flip-flopping constituency. :( )
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
08/22/2004 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#33
What concerns me is that what we have in Najaf is the not atypical Arab bazaar-style haggling between the provisional government and Al-Sadr over the terms of power-sharing. The problem with this is that one of the bargaining partners, the provisional government, does not have to fully bear the brunt of the consequences of the negotiation. It seems that that cost is being borne by the marines whose lives are being nickeled and dimed away. I do not believe that the american people are "nuanced" enough to place this in the larger context that many of the other posters take for granted.
#34
Rex, Think Powell, Rumsfield, and GW don't have the lesons of VN seared, seared into them. Please.
This is not a war on terror. Thats a lie, a damned PC lie to boot. It's a war on Jihad. Jihad that has westrn civilization as it's enemy. Thats us folks. Saddam wasn't part of jihad like Afgan. He was unfinished biz that, stratigically, had(?) to be addressed. He could have been a real thorn in helping jihadies. He had a stake in Jihadies destroying his enemies.
Tater is trying to rally jihadies to his cause. He is our enemy. Iran is trying to rally jihadies to the cause, they are our enemies.
Very tricky on how you fight jihadies. If, as OS predicts, that a full scale attack on the mosque or a destruction of it would cause a jihadie super bowl of shites, not a smart move. In contrast, a big slaughter at faluja, to me, wouldn't of had that effect. In fact that battle could have gone right into syria if we wanted (or could).
No, before you destroy the mosque, better be out of Iraq and take out mecca first, medina next, then the ali shrine and the golden dome. Attacking jihad directly as Jihad attacked the WTC directly. "Know your enemy!"
I know who the enemy is. It is islamic jihad, not terror. Islamic jihad has bases that, to me, are fair targets in this war. Leave the mosque alone until you've decided to go to war with our real enemy. Then do it quickly, and on many fronts. Do not have formations in risky places while you do that.
OS, what I think you mean also is, pick your battle ground carefully, prepare the ground and don't leave your guys hanging. That our unfinnished biz in Iraq is not yet finnished, so don't go opening the new front on our real enemy until this chapter is more nearly complete. And that means no cutting, no running. The time for our pullout will be soon enough and we can support those there who are ready to be supported. But if Iraqies go jihading be ready for that. If the war takes some turn that requires a change of tactics. be ready.
#35
go back and read post 10 classical_liberal. If you can find anything but coulda, would, shoulda in there let me know.
I don't think it's healthy. What's the answer? Elect Kerry? If we are going to elect Bush we should stand behind him. It's fine to discuss and disagree over strategy ...but you tell me what's constructive in that type of rant.
Posted by: B ||
08/22/2004 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#36
You should be embarrasssed for calling me a "bible thumper" just because I was un-PC enough to claim that the Christian values of chairty and forgiveness are superior to Islam's kill the infidel and remain stuck in the 7th Century.
What are you smoking? I never said any of this drivel.
Thanks to people like you, Rex, the Iraqi's just may succeed.
Weird and getting weirder, B.
a) I think the whole point is for Iraqis to succeeed. b) I have had zero input to the Iraq War so I'm not sure what the "people like me" stuff refers to...
You are the "divide" in divide in conquer. Conservatives need to beware of sheeps in wool clothing like you. How can we unite to fight against the left and the Iraqi's when the Rex's of the world are so busily sowing seeds of discontent within our own side. Bush is stupid, the army is stupid, B is stupid
Total meltdown, B. Hope you can still brush your teeth this morning and use a comb.
Get used to these concepts, B.
a) Traditional conservatives do not agree with arrogant former-liberal-turned-hawks-neocons. That's a fact of life. The ultimate unifying force is that we want a Republican Party to control Congress and hopefully the WH, so bottom line is we vote the same way, but we do not think the same way. I did not dream up this situation. It's the way it is. In the Democrat Party, they have similar conflicts between factions in their party but at every election they all vote the same way.
b)RB is a political discussion board. If there were no differing opinions, there would be no reason for a DISCUSSION board. Kapeesh?
c) I never said GWB or the Army were stupid. In fact, I think GWB is smart but naive and has come under the influence of theoreoticians who should be in a classroom and not giving their inexperienced advise to the President. The military is great but they have been put into a battle which they are not allowed to properly fight because empty suits are calling the shots. The empty suits quite frankly are out of their depth of expertise.
how perfect everything would be if only you were in charge.
I never claimed to know everything or seek perfection in foreign policy. I think Afghanistan was a smart venture. I think Iraq was a foolish venture. Bottomline...I am not afraid to say the emperor wears no clothes when the situation is so apparent.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#37
And two other things. One, I wish I would quit misspelling finished and two, that mosque isn't important in the saddam aspect of this campaigns unfinished biz. But it could be in the WoJ.
#38
Post #15 am a traditional conservative as opposed to a former-liberal-born-again-chest thumping-wannabe-"hawk" like you.
I guess someone was posting under your name then rex.
Posted by: B ||
08/22/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#39
If you can find anything but coulda, would, shoulda in there let me know...but you tell me what's constructive in that type of rant.
Stay focused, B. The article under discussion is questioning strategy not re-gurgitating propoganda "everything is coming up roses". Therefore and thusly it follows that posters' responses would either agree or disagree with the points raised in the article...err, you know there was an article under discussion,don't you? Did you read the article?...[B's response: painful silence]
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#40
"It seems beyond the mental capacity of Iraq's current government to make the hard and fast decisions required for them to lead their country out of its current miasma ... if Iraq ever wants to be more than a festering cesspit, firm action must be taken towards making their religious factions subordinate to the state's need for civil cohesion. Iraq's population is divided between Sunni and Shi'ite sects, the requirement for at least a quasi-secular government is undeniable.
The only alternatives are endless civil war, a replay of their previous outright tyranny or some form of secular leadership. How is it that Iraq's leaders cannot see this and take action to make it so?"
Although others have construed me as being in an opposite camp, I fail to see where the above observations are contrary to what OldSpook is posting.
#33The problem with this is that one of the bargaining partners, the provisional government, does not have to fully bear the brunt of the consequences of the negotiation. It seems that that cost is being borne by the marines whose lives are being nickeled and dimed away.
I agree with this completely, A6145. Iraq's politicians are using American troops as their stalking horse while sitting back and enjoying the free ride. At some point they must begin to do more. The Iraqi vice president declaring that there is "No evidence of Iranian support for Sadr" (admittedly from the Tehran Times), only serves to internalize the conflict and make it more difficult to resolve. I do not see where the Iraqi government is shouldering anywhere near their part of the burden in settling this matter. Yes, we disbanded their military. It was a source of massive oppression to the Iraqi people and dismantling it was a strong indication on America's part as regards its determination to protect Iraq from further armed tyranny. It may not have been the wisest of moves, but neither could it have been fully anticipated that we would encounter such divided loyalties when they run entirely counter to all of Iraq's best interests. Much of this bodes ill as America continually seeks to provide military solutions while the Iraqis merely quibble about the usual socio-political and religious conundrums that paralyse all potential progress.
#34"No, before you destroy the mosque, better be out of Iraq and take out mecca first, medina next, then the ali shrine and the golden dome. Attacking jihad directly as Jihad attacked the WTC directly. "Know your enemy!" I know who the enemy is. It is islamic jihad, not terror. Islamic jihad has bases that, to me, are fair targets in this war. Leave the mosque alone until you've decided to go to war with our real enemy. Then do it quickly, and on many fronts."
Lucky, you've got to be kidding. In one breath you mention how, "If, as OS predicts, that a full scale attack on the mosque or a destruction of it would cause a jihadie super bowl of shites, not a smart move." and then go on to say, "No, before you destroy the mosque, better be out of Iraq and take out mecca first, medina next, then the ali shrine and the golden dome. Attacking jihad directly as Jihad attacked the WTC directly."
While I have advocated a policy of deterrance that holds the shrines hostage against further NBC attacks, to simply demolish them outright at this point in time would make your "jihadie superbolw of shites" look like an anthill by comparison to the roiling mass of outraged Muslims such an act would provoke.
#41
all: I do not predict a revolt based on the assault of the Mosque - that (an assault) will happen sooner or later if the thugs hang in there long enough. Its jsut a matter of when.
Its WHO does the assaulting, HOW they do it, and how the US and Iraqi Govt handle the PERCEPTIONS of the assault.
So long as they handle it as "clearing criminals from the Mosque" (a very legitimate use of government power by the Iraqi govt), and use exclusively Iraqi forces to do it (and the more Shia that force is, the better), use minimal force to keep damage and death down, and keep the press at arms length or else embed them, this will result in a very strategic win, militarily and politically for the Iraqi Government (and likewise for the US/Alliance).
But once this stuff in Najaf is cleared up, don't think that this will be the last such challenge - but it will be last one of such magnitude.
As for the Marines and cav-troopers paying the price now for this policy, well, its what we do - they knew as well as I when they signed up, and any officer worth his stuff realizes that sometimes smaller units are given up in order to produce a larger victory.
Either we pay the price now in small amounts of blood or we pay for it later in buckets.
The strategy we now have in Iraq (limited and politically controlled violence) is the only viable one left to us. Its only a matter of degree in how close to the "revolt" side of things we feel is justifiable and worth risking.
Rex, you really need to read Tommy Frank's book to get an up to date view of why and how we got to where we are in Iraq. We went with the "deep thrust" and smaller number of troops because we actually believed that Saddam had WMD, and large concentrations of troops are ideal targets. SO we had to do somethign that won the war FAST and exposed the great majority of our troops minimally to WMD. This in many cases meant maximum exposure to conventional enemy attacks. Read up on the battles of road junctions "Larry Moe and Curly" and the Thunder Run into Baghdad for an illustration of the kinds of big risks we took with our troops in order to avoid even bigger ones.
As for "empty suits", you can hardly call Rumsfeld or Powell an "empty suit" - and those guys ultimately make the decisions on what the president sees and hears, and they have done a fairly good job of achieving the primary objective: ousting Saddam and installing a government that will not stand for terrorism to exist (and that will allow for US forces to operate there for a while).
Iraq was not a foolish venture - had we continued to allow him to delay, delay delay, we woudl have terroists transiting there now, free communication and logistical support between Hamas, etc and thier masters in Iran, and Iran would be pouring tons more into Afghanistan and Pakistan, causing even further destabilization.
Geopolitically speaking Iraq is a hub in the wheel of the middle east. With Saddam in place, sooner or later we would be forced to go in there and take him out. Do you deny that?
Also it is the springboard for directly pressuring Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran (especially the latter, given that we are also in Afghanistan), and indirectly pressuring all of those, as well as Turkey (via the Kurds).
Its a terribly important piece of real estate, even if you disregard the oil there.
I'd like to hear the self-described "conservatives" who are ripping the current strategy propose what should have been done. I'll take great pleasure into analyzing it.
I'm conservative myself, going back to God and Man at Yale, Up From Liberalism, Conscience of a Conservative, and The Road to Serfdom, in addition to the traditional Catholic conservatism that I espouse here from time to time (for example, there are no such things as "pro choice" Catholics despite Mr Kerry's natterings to the contrary).
So Buckley, Goldwater, Hayek, Friedman to some extent, and even Ayn Rand in some ways, have been guideposts - and you would do well to read W.F. Buckley on Religion and its importance in the life of a true conservative before belittling "Bible Thumpers".
As for Bush, he fails on several counts as a true conservative, but on this, the conduct of the war in Iraq, at least for me, informed reality overcomes blind political belief.
From my time here and there in the military and intelligence community, there really was little alternative to what we have done - the "HOW" we did things absolutely could have been better, but the "WHAT" and "WHY" are absolutely solid based on the data available at that time, and historical actions by the parties involved in the region. Only in hindsight can these things be challenged, and to do so now is not helpful at all in solving the problems at hand.
As an intelligence operative (and analyst now that I'm older and behidn a desk) I know that "Questioning the strategy" is a valuable process, but only insofar as it brings forth a solution - I do it professionally every day it seems.
The problem for me about folks in your corner of the marketplace of ideas is that, as yet, I have seen no proposed courses of action that are better than what we are doing right now.
Criticism without improvement is merely carping; questioning without attempting to elicit or put forth viable answers is merely destructive and hurts, not helps, the process (or in the case, the Nation).
Don't get me wrong - I am not telling anyone to "shut up" (other than trolls) - so DO continue to question, but at least propose something as a remedy unless you intend on giving up on the US involvment in any important world events (and the subsequent decline and fall of our nation).
#42
I wish fervently that both presidential candidates would read this particular thread - ten or twelve times. THIS is the debate we need to see between our presidential contenders. Unfortunately, it'll never happen. One side may be willing (possibly), but I can guarantee, the other side really, really doesn't want it aired. It would show them to be the spineless, clueless, "nuanced" idiots they truly are - especially those in the ranks (the media, the "entertainment" industry, etc.).
Like Old Spook, I spent a large part of my life in the Black community - not Racial black, but Intelligence black. I learned lots of things the average person was never exposed to, lots of stuff I can't talk about, lots of things that never make the newspapers or any other form of public disclosure. It shapes how I see the world, just as I'm sure it shapes the way Old Spook sees the world. Don't write it off as a bunch of hog wash or "partisan" bickering - there's a lot of really deep thinking, and thousands of pages of documentation, behind this.
One thing I have to agree with: we really, really need to change the "name" of this war. Whether we call it the War agains Jihadism, or the War against Islamic Terrorism, or whatever, we have to find a way to emphasize that this is a rather unique war, against a unique set of players, many of which are NOT the normal nation-state type of enemy, and who don't play by any previously agreed to set of rules. We, as a nation, and our military in particular, are having to devise new rules, new ways of fighting, new tactics, and new doctrines regarding the use of force, in order to respond to the many levels of warfare directed against us. We're not omnipotent - we're going to make mistakes, and many of those mistakes are going to get people killed. We WILL win, however, because we learn from our mistakes, we are an innovative people, and we can change - at all levels of command, from lowly privates to the Commander in Chief - faster than the Jihadis can. While they may be able to adapt a few technical changes in warfighting, they're still interminally bound to the ideas and ideals first espoused in the 7th Century, and are absolutely FORBIDDEN to change those ideals.
We're currently fighting a war on three fronts - a physical (battleground) front, an ideological front, and a political front. Just as it's a terrible idea to expose your flank in a physical battle, it's a terrible idea to exponse your flank in an idealogical or political battle. This war has to go forward on all three fronts simultaneously, and a setback on any of the three fronts requires a retrenchment on the other two, until the original setback can be overcome.
I've been just as frustrated an angered as the rest by the slow pace, the setbacks, and the two-steps-forward-one-step-back dance of indecisiveness, apparently poor planning, and pure incredible stupidity that has occurred in Iraq over the last year. I think what has happened in Iraq - and what continues to happen - mirrors another battle being fought in Washington, a battle of ideas about what this war really is, about how the war should be waged, and what the outcome should be. I'm not sure the people fighting THAT war have yet reached a consensus - that's one reason I hope they read this entry, if they don't read anything else on this site. This discussion today is the heart of the battle against Islamic Fundamentalistic Jihad. We MUST reach a consensus about what we're doing - why we're fighting, what we hope to achieve, and a basic understanding of how we're going to get there - before we waste too much more time cutting down the trees to get to the forest.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/22/2004 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#43
"(Remember, senators were supposed to be the "sense and sensibility" of Congress, thus their staggered terms and greater powers over the House of Representatives, but look how far that's reversed ... they're just as vulnerable, if not moreso, to the whims of a flip-flopping constituency. :( )"
If you truly believe this then you should become active in your states politics and be lobbying for the repeal of the 19th Ammendment!
#44
I agree (with both). This is, with all respect, what annoys me a bit about President Bush. Everytime Iraq comes up he repeats: Iraq is free, America is safer, the world is off better without Saddam."
Hell right. But he needs to explain somewhat better than that. If Old Spook and Old Patriot can sum up the strategy behind in a few comments, so should the White House.
And Kerry won't get away with his "I was for going into Iraq but I would have gone about differently". This is BS. Even if Kerry had managed to get France and Germany behind, those troups (10000 max) wouldn't have changed anything about the current situation.
The lesson from vietman is simple, do not put a limit on who is your ememy. If North Vietnam had been invaded by the US, early on durring the early 60's, the wars outcome would have been much different. The same was true for the Korean War.
This might have provoked a war with China or even the USSR so the price of victory was always too high. The hotspots fought by the US and USSR for 50 years where always a chess match, each side checking each other under the rule of mutual destruction
This is not the case now. The rule now is who ever wins first is assurred survival of their culture. If the Islamofacist do not win there traditions will die. If the West ends up being the loser, it will enter a second dark age, at least that is their hope.
What is needed in order to win this war is obvious. This time the price of victory must be paid to the likes of Iran, Syria and Suadi Arabia.
#46
Only in my dreams can I imagine that the presidential debates will display the quality and depth of thought that this thread does.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/22/2004 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#47
A5032: Some people hated Indians, many others didnât. The US certainly didnât âengaged in a 300 year effort to ethnically cleanse North America and exterminate the Indians.â My great grandmother and Dan are evidence to the contrary. That is Multi-culturalist revisionist crap.
I really don't understand why perfectly upstanding conservatives subscribe to the theory of Indian genocide. This is BS spread about by America-haters within and without. If you want to read about genocide, grab a book about any other country in the world and feast your eyes - China is a particularly egregious account of a genocidal military expansion dressed up as history. I call it Manifest Destiny not only without the guilt, but with a generous helping of racial arrogance and continuing acquisitiveness. Watch as Chinese borders expand, "barbarians" flee, pushing into Central Asia and the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, even while the Chinese pride themselves on their pacifist tendencies.
#48
Mrs. Davis: 5032, History is not all black and white, but when you look at broad sweep of what happened between 1620 and 1895, tell me how you would describe it. I'm no multi-culti revisionist, but I don't deny facts just because they are unpleasant.
We didn't kill all the Indians - we massacred the ones who were massacring our settlers, along with their families. The rest we married - at least those who weren't too particular about keeping their lineage pure.
#49
The rest we married - at least those who weren't too particular about keeping their lineage pure.
Zhang Fei - yes, and I'm damned proud of that lineage, thank you very much! It's kind of ironic these days that Native American ancestry is so honorable that people will even lie to claim it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/22/2004 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#50
Post #15 am a traditional conservative as opposed to a former-liberal-born-again-chest thumping-wannabe-"hawk" like you.
I guess someone was posting under your name then rex.
Pathetic. Does everything need to be explained bit by bit to you, B?
"Born again" as part of a string of hyphens WITH OTHER INTERCONNECTING WORDS which you fail to read refers to the fact that neocons were all liberals at one time. [Did you not know this bit of basic history about the movement and the "transformation" in the politics of the leading figures?]
After starting out as liberals, some of them extreme left liberals, they woke up one morning and were "re-born" as conservatives.
Get it?
"Born again" referred to the change of politics not to any religion. Never mind. Why bother teaching you how to think in abstract terms. Go play in traffic, B.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 17:46 Comments ||
Top||
#51
rex: I am a traditional conservative as opposed to a former-liberal-born-again-chest thumping-wannabe-"hawk" like you.
Conservatives *are* hawks. (Rex is a sniveling scared-out-of-his-wits afraid-of-the-draft liberal masquerading as a conservative). Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet of battleships around the world to show off American power. Conservatives have never shrunk from defending American interests against its enemies. Americans of all ideological stripes have also never shrunk from wrapping wars for American security interests in lofty rhetoric to obtain support from equally self-interested allies. WWII was said to have been a great Crusade to make the world safe for democracy, but the Soviets got Central European states, and the European powers got their colonial territories back after the war. Desert Storm was said to be part of a quest for a New World Order, and a broad-ranging (and useless) coalition was marshalled using that slogan, implying the UN would legitimate all future conflicts. Post Desert Storm, the US, like every other country out there, has repeatedly ignored the UN, first for frivolous reasons, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, and then in Afghanistan and Iraq, when its critical security interests were at stake.
#52
Conservatives *are* hawks
Conservatives value their military. They don't go off half cocked to spread ideas. Conservatives use military action as a defense. Conservatives are circumspect about the use of force.
Neoconservatives do not value the military. Most neocons have never served in the military but they like to use the force of military-ie. the disparaging term "chickenhawk". Neocons are former liberals. How many times do I have to repeat this truism? Neoconservatives like Krauthammer, Podhoretz, et al were liberals who transformed themselves into "hawks" because they saw how the military could be used [and abused} to promote their ideology.
You are obviously are so muddled that you don't know what's what or what's up or what the neoconservatives are all about or how they differ from conservatives. I think more reading and less emotional tirades would be a good bet for you.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#53
The reason the UN gets ignored is that it is a communal organization, not a meritorious one. Note who the heads of the Human Rights comissions have been, and other such nonsense, while the US and a few other industrialized countries give it all that funding for nothing more than figurative a finger in the eye from the tin-pot dictators and cynical politicians (Chirac) and others who have used the UN to shackle the US and the west and allow islamofascism, bigotry under the guise of "ethnicity", and totalitarianism to flourish.
The UN is useless in its current form. On this one, Rex and his isolationist buddies are right: the US needs to get out of the UN. Found something else, and make sure everyone that joins has some skin in the game and meets the minimal qualifications of being a country that has free speech and are nations of law.
Regarding "Born-Again", I have no problem with that - indeed the most fervent believers in any cause are "converts", going back to St Paul in the Christian realm of things.
"The lesson from vietman is simple, do not put a limit on who is your ememy."
No - thats quite wrong - you multiply "enemies" endlessly and lose focus for your battles if you are to follow that.
The lesson is to clearly identify your enemy, and to fully engage them politically, socially and militarily, and to make sure you do so in a manner supportable and sustainable for the needed duration.
In this case, it was initially the Baathist government - we had to get through them to set the stage for battle with the Islamists/Wahabbis who have since made attempts to disrupt the nascent Iraqi nation.
The error we made was in not dividing their nation by keeping major portions of the Iraqi army intact and using it to secure the borders while we culled from it the best units and retrained them to help us secure the interior.
But since that opportunity is gone, our best hope now is to try to achieve the same thing, an interior Iraqi army trained to support the central government, with a lesser trained Army to secure the borders. And to do that we need to buy time now to improve the infrastructure, establish police, and get their economy back oin its feet so that it can employ the large numbers who are out of work. The "buying time" is what is costing us casualties. But there is no way around it short of bailing out and running, which woudl do nearly irrepreable harm to the US diplomatically, and woudl cause political and economic chaos in the region, and indirectly, around the world.
#54
Rex, I detect in you a desire to bash the "neocons" at the expense of all else, uncluding political vitory this fall, and the lives of our military right now.
Your arguments and tone certainly point in that direction: you are so focused on bashing and namecalling "neocons" that you've lost sight of the important things: winning the war and the peace in Iraq in such a way as to preclude the need for a wider war in the middle east.
And you keep dragging out that tired old "they never served" argument, which I have disposed of before. Not having served is no barrier to being right.
Attack the policies, point out where they are wrong, point out what CAN be done better. Dont jsut got slamming and namecalling the people implementing them. Argue the facts, not the "neocons suck" mantra that you continually harp on.
Otherwise you are no better than the typical muddleheaded leftwingers who do the same things.
#55
Rex: Conservatives value their military. They don't go off half cocked to spread ideas. Conservatives use military action as a defense. Conservatives are circumspect about the use of force.
There is nothing half-cocked about Iraq, except perhaps in rex's mind. It was over a decade in the making.
Wars abroad are perfectly in the American tradition. Conservatives went to war in Mexico to annex Mexican land. They conducted the Indian wars to make the North American landmass one contiguous American territory. They expanded overseas to pre-empt other imperial powers who were hungrily eyeing the Spanish empire. They sent gunboats to patrol the Yangtze river to preserve American interests. They killed Chinese fanatics in Beijing during the Boxer Rebellion.
Conservatives do use military force as a defensive measure - as in the best defense is a good offense. This is why the US has intervened repeatedly in countries around the globe - without being attacked - since its independence. If we wait for the threat to show up next door, it will be too late - doubly so, in an age of atomic weapons and cruise and ballistic missiles. Everyone is circumspect about the use of force - the key questions are always what the benefits are, whether it is winnable and whether the costs are acceptable. The US has so far managed both the Iraq and Afghan campaigns at acceptable costs, and the benefit is the restoration of American deterrence that was in tatters - leading directly to 9/11.
#56
I've been thinking... and it's Sunday, a slow day, so WTF...
[rant] Problems
Most here would agree that, on a military level, there are 2 primary issues. There is Shi'a unrest, primarily fomented by Iran, and there is Sunni unrest, a conglomeration of AlQ elements, Ba'athists, etc... Mostly, it's about power grabs internally and pure mercenary efforts to thwart the Bush Doctrine externally. Move the chairs around, but I believe that's more or less the situation. I'm not really writing to invite criticism of this - read on.
What Went Before
Looking back through the rose-colored mists of time - to a few days ago, we had some excellent military action in Najaf that succeeded in putting Sadr on the spot. Everyone here, and I mean everyone, was hoping that Sadr would be either killed or captured. Clearing him out of the shrine was the putative point of the operation â per Allawi and the Press and US Mil Cmd statements. Capture or kill was the unspoken goal. Certainly no one here voiced diddley-squat to the contrary. Except maybe LH â who sees hundreds of options to every point or issue or question, Gaia bless him, no matter how binary it might seem to most, lol!
The US military had its job and it executed it beautifully. It swept the city and that huge cemetery clear and ringed the Imam Ali shrine and the Old City. There was spirited talk of catacombs and gassing and flattening the shrine. Of course we all knew that there were political and social realities, which prevented some actions, such as flattening the shrine or US troopers having lunch inside, but all the signs and indications were there that Sadr could and should be killed or captured. So, with the US holding the city at bay, the Iraqis were positioned to take the shrine - however they desired to go about it. Even the "press" got it - and talked about how it would be done - interviewing the Iraqi troops and playing up their discomfort about the operation. But not a motherfucking word, here or in the press, said fuck-all about a Sadr escape being an acceptable option.
WaPo Op-Ed Article: Who / What
The piece was an Op-Ed. WaPo published it for the usual reasons - in hopes that it would help frustrate people who favor action and eschew political games and wasted motion. But the author is an Okie - who happens to know whereof he speaks regards military affairs. Retired Col Richard Hart Sinnreich writes for many publications, including the US Army's website. He was an arty officer in Vietnam. Probably stone-cold deaf, as most of my arty friends are.
And Here We Are
Now here we are. Hesitation and prevarication and quibbling and political shenanigans resulted in Sadr being given somewhere between 10 and 6,572 chances to surrender. Uh huh. He played the Baghdad wankers like a violin, and the US military, having swept the city at least 3 different times to pull up and stop at the shrine, including at least one trip well inside the Old City and bombing the building across the phriggin' street â up-close positions and why I posted the pictures. Obviously, the Iraqis never got a "go" signal. Apparently all that wonderful comic-book expertise that was batted about regards the tunnels and catacombs and gasses and EMP and the rest was just fun-time prattle. Apparently the double-cordon was the same, as food and additional asshats obviously came and went. Apparently, the troopers were RTB'd - as is the day's efforts had been a walk in the park - a training exercise. All that time, which was speculated by most here to have been a flypaper tactic and time-buying ploy so the Iraqis could prep for their LAPD SWAT moment, was not accurate. It was just roll 'em out, dig a hole, fill the hole, and RTB â and kill anyone who was dumb enough to interfere.
I love discussion. I love hearing great ideas, crazy ideas, angry ideas, silly ideas. I enjoy the fantasy play of tactics and revealed escape routes - and counter actions, no matter how pie-in-the-sky they may be. It was good fun. But it was about something real. And people were putting it all on the line to create the game board. And, before someone gets snippy - I've done what they were doing - so stow the shit designed to cut off the conversation, not advance it, such as "armchair general". Iâd say we did have the opportunity. Itâs now an obvious fact that it was squandered. Having been one of those grunts, I can tell you that the explanations for why nothing was achieved beyond killing a shitload of dumb stump-jumping Arab hillbillies, don't mean warm spit. And every soldier here knows it -- feels it. They're not idiots or puppets - the soldiers are smart and see far more than what is in the mission brief. If you want them to roll out and execute, they have to be allowed to accomplish something. They have to be allowed to win, at least once in awhile. Every Commander knows this is a fact. You can brief very limited goals - but everyone carrying a rifle knows what you're really tying to do. If you donât do it, you hurt morale in some degree. Taking the same hilltop 4 times in 5 months is not much different than âtakingâ the shrine 3 or 4 times in 4 days, IMO, regards how it feels to the grunt. There is inevitable frustration with Hotshot-6 in the bird circling overhead demanding an advance â then giving an RTB order⦠heâs in the O-Club 40 minutes later â and youâre still loading people into dustoff choppers and policing the site for hours. Yeah, the memory trip is interfering a bit, but the frustration has the same source: command indecision and lack of will. Itâs only a matter of degree. Just my opinion.
Okay, so now Sadr's gone and, of course, any persons of interest went with him. We've got some idiot dregs left to play with. What was accomplished? Hey, they killed a bunch of asshats. Okay. You can do the same anytime you want - just roll out of your base and sweep â or set up some fixed positions and wait. The everything-challenged will come out of the woodwork for a potshot. It's an "my RPG is my dick" mentality - if you build it, they will come.
Spin
Say what you like - I don't have but one factual nit to pick. One of the leading figures involved in one of the 2 major military issues couldâve reached a measure of resolution. It was squandered. Full Stop. Sooner or later, it will have to happen. You want it to be an all-Iraqi operation? Fine. Then WTF did we do this for? Explain the sensitive religious, societal, factional, political, etc. considerations. That's cool. That's important info. The fact that we, here on RB, were completely in-synch a few days ago to kill or capture Sadr, with Allawi's apparent blessing, and for whatever reason it was not achieved (it just went *pffft*) and explaining it away - as if it didn't happen is just silly. We got screwed over and Sadr is on the loose. Did he lose anything by this action? No. These are Arabs, folks. They donât see Sadr diminished unless they are writing for a Western audience. In his world, he won. Have you noted how Saddam is now an object of ridicule? Itâs because heâs in custody, impotent, toothless. Wouldnât it have been infinitely better if the same could now be said of Sadr?
Armchair Generalship - A Final Point Everybody here, with or without actual experience, is effectively an armchair General. Using it as a pejorative to shut off debate or criticsm is rather a Dhimmicrat tactic, no? I, for one, am assuming it was not meant as an insult. But, y'know, some of us have earned the right, having been real Pawns moved around by real Generals. Anyone who even saw an air conditioner overseas should be cool with the opinions of those who didn't. We don't need a concensus, and no one here is The Wizard of Oz - given the track record available for anyone to see - we need information, because we give a shit and recognize the gravity of the situation.
This is all just my unvarnished opinion, but I stand by it.
#57
Rex: Neoconservatives do not value the military.
Talk about a content-free sentence. And liberals do?
Rex: Most neocons have never served in the military but they like to use the force of military-ie. the disparaging term "chickenhawk". Neocons are former liberals.
What is this "likes to use force" all about? Using force is not an indication that someone "likes to use force". What is your indicator of "likes to use force" - that the UN did not approve it? By this measure, practically every single American administration likes to use force. They must all be neo-conservatives.
As to serving in the military, most conservatives and liberals have never served in the military. We live in a society ruled by the people, not a society ruled by a praetorian guard of ex-military people. I don't see how not serving in the military has anything to do with whether political leaders have the right to go to war - they are charged with securing American security interests, regardless of the rhetoric from chickens like rex.
Note also that the two uses of the military in the past decade that were not in the American interest (Bosnia and Kosovo) were carried out by liberals in the Clinton administration. I guess they must have been neo-conservatives too.
Rex: How many times do I have to repeat this truism? Neoconservatives like Krauthammer, Podhoretz, et al were liberals who transformed themselves into "hawks" because they saw how the military could be used [and abused} to promote their ideology.
Now rex is a mind reader. The reality is that rex is so deathly afraid of having to risk his skin through a compulsory draft that he will resist confronting America's enemies abroad even when they have brought their war to America's shores. Bottom line - rex is just a chicken.
#58
rex: You are obviously are so muddled that you don't know what's what or what's up or what the neoconservatives are all about or how they differ from conservatives. I think more reading and less emotional tirades would be a good bet for you.
There's a name for conservatives who get their ideological definitions from the New York Times - liberals. I think less time reading the New York Times and less emotional tirades about neo-conservatives and mud people would be good for rex. It might also be a good idea to read a history of these United States before making comments about a supposed neo-conservative penchant for military force. The US of A, like other great powers before it, is a country made by war.
We got screwed over and Sadr is on the loose. Did he lose anything by this action? No. These are Arabs, folks. They donât see Sadr diminished unless they are writing for a Western audience. In his world, he won. Have you noted how Saddam is now an object of ridicule? Itâs because heâs in custody, impotent, toothless. Wouldnât it have been infinitely better if the same could now be said of Sadr?
Which is why I maintain that the time has come for the Iraqi government to sprout a set. If Coalition forces are obliged to remain so circumspect, then someone else is going to have to pick up the slack. So far, it seems like the only one doing that is Iran. Not good news.
Iraq wants to have their cake and eat it to. No domestic troop losses and no internal strife. Fat chance. If the Shi'ites and Sunnis are going to lay down together, it will be under the proviso of a secular government. Rectal cavities like Sadr who are fighting this with everyone else's last drop of blood need to be brought to account. That Iraq does not seem to have the spine to do this bodes rather ill. They are in effect relinquishing control of their country to the Coalition and designating themselves a puppet government. In light of how many American fatalities have resulted from trying to give the Iraqis any say, I'm just as happy with us taking the reins again. We'll direct the Iraqi troops far more effectively than their own leaders ever will.
Give it time. We can wait, especially now that Tater has slipped the noose. I would think they'd use a full division, not an MEU with cavalry attached - so I'm not surprised the cordon is porous.
I agree with some of what you say, especially regarding frustration for grunts. Having seen Saddams' guys killing people right acorss the river from us and we couldnt do a f**king thing because the ROE prohibited us from it unless they turned their weapons on us. I've seen a little girl get a through-and-through in her thigh and watch her mother crawl over top of her to shield her, dragging toward us because she knew they wouldn't turn their weapons our way. And I've had to give orders to my guys to NOT fire until they did turn their weapons our way whiel they take a heavy machine gun and rake buildings that we know have women and children in them. I still get nightmares about that, and I still hodl it against Bush I for stopping too soon and then selling out those people in the south (unlike the Kurds in the north). Once in a while they would forget and point one weapon in our diection, and we'd re-introduce the to Ma Deuce and the 25mm Bushmaster and its effects on human flesh.
But it still makes me innately distrust diplomats setting the rules while soldiers see the end results and carry crap like that in their heads for the rest of our lives.
But I differ from you in one respect: I was in the JSOC (SOCOM) part of the world for a very short time, and have been in the dark side of things for a while, so I know there are political realities that require seemingly non-sensical things like the run-up and run-back that we keep doing in Najaf and Fallujah.
Experience tells me that, unfortunately, a lot of the good stuff tends to be very sensitive in terms of sources and methods, so it cannot be disclosed.
I extrapolate a lot given my background, from open sources. But I have to be careful, because just having the experience that I do I may be hitting close to the truth, and might jeopardize a source.
And in this circumstance, I have a feeling I'm skating on the thin edge of synthesizing some things that may be best left non-disclosed at this time - I may have said too much (I'll find out if I get a request for a polygraph). But suffice to say I think there are probably some very good tacit reasons for the actions, in addition to the usual political infighting that is typically the source of command decision churn.
Look at all the facts, look where the "gaps" are and figure it out. If you know the country of Iraq, the history, the persons involved, Shia and Sunni Islam and the personalities there, and you take the time to get all the unclass stuff you can get your hands on, I think you will see there are likely very good reasons for us not to push things and to allow the Iraqis to come to this in their own time.
#61
And you keep dragging out that tired old "they never served" argument, which I have disposed of before
I do no such thing. I responded to ZF's comments about the def'n of conservatives[in his mind] being hawks. ZF did not see any difference between neocons and conservatives and there is a big difference. Conservatives value the military. Neocons use and abuse the military. Military service is a pertinent fact, because the whole neocon thing is a recent development and most of them never served in the military and being liberals in their former "political" lives they likely looked down at the military until such time as it suited their purposes.
Dont jsut got slamming and namecalling the people implementing them. Argue the facts, not the "neocons suck" mantra
I spend alot of time putting good thought and information in my posts. Because I don't tow the neocon cheerleading line, it would appear you don't read my posts. Transposing character assassination empty posts on me instead of the guilty parties doesn't pass the smell test.
As for slamming the neocons, I am damn mad at them. They have dragged us into a mess in Iraq whose reasons were nebulous at best, selfish at worst, and all the while they had no strategy for the post war exit. These impetuous "intellectuals" may well ruin the chances of the Republican Party to hold the WH and the majority in Congress. You damn rights I am mad. I am furious with these little boys playing with GI's lives. How dare you accuse me of not caring about soldiers' lives.
The reason I am seething with rage at the neocon Iraq War architects is that these empty suits have no respect for the military or soldiers' lives-none whatsoever. Soldiers are viewed as chess pieces in the great neocon scheme of democracizing the world in their airy fairy image.
Here's why we elected George Bush. He is a conservative. He valued the military and knew what war involves and that the military should not be abused by giving them incompatible/ mixed messages by asking them to do what they are not trained to do.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war."
âGeorge W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Then a group of liberal wonks who can't hold a water pistol without squirting themselves in the eye waltzed into the WH dressed as macho men thumping their hairless chests and caused GWB to go off the conservative reservation into nation building and leaving his principles about the respect for military behind.
"We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us ... Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." (italics added)
âGeorge W. Bush, February 26, 2003
GWB went from the concept of only using soldiers to fight and win wars to having them act like social workers building nations into democracies in hellholes populated by savages who'd love to slit their throats in a heartbeat. In 3 short years the wonks convinced our President to order our brave fighting soldiers to "negotiate" deals with thugs dressed in dirty night shirts so as to cajole these lunatics to participate in the "political process."
And you don't think these neocon "professors" deserve my outrage and contempt? How can you mock the "loser" Democrats for their failings with Vietnam, trusting whizkid mcNamara to run the war, when you have got the very same thing happening today with so-called "conservative" whizkids planning and directing the Iraq War? How hypocritical.
And I've got news for you, OS, I'm not the one who is putting our soldiers at risk. The neocon whizkids are putting our soldiers at risk 24/7 because of the undeserved power and authority they wield with our President. Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone should be fired for their gross negligence and incompetence. Let them get in the bean line with other failed "executives" who were not up to the job they applied for.
Read what the neocons think of soldiers' lives before you accuse me of taking soldiers lives lightly: âI think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties, but losing.â
- Michael Ledeen, March, 2003, in a lecture at the American Enterprise Institute
War is an intellectual exercise to neocons. That's all it is. Lives of soldiers mean nothing to them. Soldiers are pawns in the game of "ideas." And now these same empty suits [McNamaras by another name]are planning a war against Iran. You don't think this is worrisome?
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#63
OldSpook, first and foremost, thank you for all the great input. Without wishing to be argumentative, how do we best avoid further Coalition casualties while waiting for the Iraqi government to purchase a clue? I clearly understand the need for Iraq's politicians to not only have a say in what happens, but for them to "own" the results. I'm just sick of seeing our troops take it in the shorts while the Iraqis sit back and laugh at all our idealism. So far, they come across as some seriously spineless and manipulative weasles. How are articles like the following doing us or the Iraqis any good?
No evidence of Iranian support for Sadr: Iraqi vice president DUBAI (AFP) -- Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim al-Jafari said Saturday he had no evidence of any Iranian support for radical Shiite militia leader Moqtada Sadr.
#64
Hmmmmm.... McNamara sure doesn't sound neo.
And you don't sound like you can follow the complexities of a grocery list, never mind debate.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#65
OS - Absolutely: I accept there there are many things and games afoot that I am unaware of - and only guess at. That sucks, but it's OpSec and I accept it. Doesn't stop me from wanting to know! Hell, just so I don't miss it by a mile and spout like an idiot - but even more because I believe in what we're doing. And I agree about Bush41 100%. Hell, he needed Maggie to come over and give him a spinal transplant, IMHO. These people deserve a shot at getting the Real Deal. If they muck it up, well, at least they had their shot - and we deserve honor and respect for our efforts, not the usual multiculti crowd sneering - the VAST majority of whom have never faced anything more threatening than someone dissin' their threads.
Seeing civilians hit does bend your mind - and stays with you forever. I empathize and am sorry the ROE was so strict - in such a clear-cut moral situation. If he's "carrying" I feel nothing but satisfaction watching it drop like a box of rocks - even 35 yrs on.
IMO, heh, I know the Arabs well from 4 yrs in Saudi but , as LH loves to point out, I knew Wahhabis, mainly, so my view is often skewed - but only a little, for these were the privileged Saudis working at Aramco, not the typical disenfranchised Friday cannon fodder. So in most respects I believe I "get it" enough to flap jaw. Where I'm wrong, no sweat - I can take it, heh.
The 2 issues I mentioned the Iraqis face are a bitch. Personally, I've always thought partition - without or without a loose but formal confederation now or later - makes the most sense. Iraq is a synthetic confab invented during tea time (Sykes-Picot). Nothing sacred about the territorial integrity of it, IMO. The Kurds deserve better than to be held back by the short-bus Arabs. But that's another rant and topic.
You also feel the pain of letting Tater and his VIP Tots get away, I'm sure. Killing his dregs will do little except get a few RPG's and AK's off the street. I certainly believe the Iraqis will regret this - and I know we will, since we are playing the role of iron fist for people who don't know whether they can use it or not. I wonder about our casualties during this operation... I do not think there will be any general Shia uprising if Tater's waxed, but I could certainly be wrong and, as you point out so diplomatically (lol - thx!) I sure as hell don't know everything involved. I guess it's easy to be pissed off - and remember very well indeed that it's hard to be pissed on - and just take it. Okay... I'll assume that the current Mil Cmd isn't the same as what I described. We're re-synched - thanx for your response.
#66
How many times do I have to repeat this truism? Neoconservatives like Krauthammer, Podhoretz, et al were liberals who transformed themselves into "hawks" because they saw how the military could be used [and abused} to promote their ideology.
You can repeat it all you like. That doesn't mean it's true.
In reality, the "neocons" -- the half dozen guys who really fit the label -- turned against the left when the left turned against the US and for the dictator-of-the-month. They didn't become "hawks" so much as they realized that the US is, in fact, a good thing.
I spend alot of time putting good thought and information in my posts.
Odd that it's so hard to find, then.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/22/2004 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#67
Rex: War is an intellectual exercise to neocons. That's all it is. Lives of soldiers mean nothing to them. Soldiers are pawns in the game of "ideas." And now these same empty suits [McNamaras by another name]are planning a war against Iran. You don't think this is worrisome?
How does this show that war is merely "an intellectual exercise" to neocons? Ledeen is simply recounting American history, much of which appears to be foreign to rex. These United States *are* a political entity made by war. You don't get to be the fourth largest country in the world with possessions spanning oceans without going to war. American administrations have repeatedly gone to war to prevent war from coming to America's shores, to secure its vital interests, which include access to critical raw materials, or to deny access to land and resources from America's potential geopolitical rivals, as happened during the Sino-Japanese war, when elements of the US Army Air Corps were attached to the Chinese military.
The reality is that to people like rex, the dead Americans on 9/11 or from various other terrorist attacks are merely "an intellectual exercise", as long as there's no risk of his cowardly butt being drafted unwillingly for combat operations overseas.
#68
The reality is that to people like rex, the dead Americans on 9/11 or from various other terrorist attacks are merely "an intellectual exercise", as long as there's no risk of his cowardly butt being drafted unwillingly for combat operations overseas.
A. I'm way past draft age, #67. Heck, I can be one of the tyrants of the majority, just like a bellicose chickenhawk like you. Yippee! Foreign wars, did I hear you say foreign wars...wowie, I can hardly wait to send the young teen males at my neighborhood's high school to risk their lives and be Johnny Appleseeds. ZF, you can count on me, ZF, err...I mean you can count on my neighborhood's young males. Close enough. I'm your man, ZF. Let's do it. I mean like Ledeen told us...casualities are secondary. We are a warlike people and we love war. You and me, bud, together, forever, in front of the boob tube with a case of beer and popcorn watching FOX News, CNN, MSNBC all at once -instant battle coverage-heck we can buy 3 TV's so we miss nothing. War is fun to watch, isn't it, ZF?
B. And as I've told you before I don't need a wild eyed, frothing at the mouth half wit like yourself interpreting what I mean or telling me what my under lying motives are for my stands on issues. Stick to the topic at hand instead of sitting in judgement of cyberspace people you know nothing about. And btw, genius, the Iraq War has less connection to what happened on 9/11 than its connection to the square root of minus one. Go play in traffic.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#69
rex: Heck, I can be one of the tyrants of the majority, just like a bellicose chickenhawk like you.
Nice try, but no cigar. But you revealed that you were well within the draft age in an earlier post, months ago. Am I a chickenhawk? Only in the sense that rex is a chickenjihadi, plain old chicken or perhaps a traitor. The reality is that I don't volunteer to fight fires or to combat mafiosi, but I want them dealt with. And it's the same with threats to my security. Am I a chickenhawk? Perhaps to chickens or traitors like rex.
I was under the World Trade Center when the first plane hit. I know people who were killed in the attack. I hope never to have to deal with that again. I don't have a problem with a universal draft as long as people like rex are drafted alongside me. Rex doesn't even have to carry a rifle - as long as traitors/chickens like him are in front of other draftees like me, I'm a happy camper. That way I can shoot him in the back as he is deserting or going over to the other side.
#70
rex: I mean you can count on my neighborhood's young males. Close enough. I'm your man, ZF. Let's do it. I mean like Ledeen told us...casualities are secondary. We are a warlike people and we love war. You and me, bud, together, forever, in front of the boob tube with a case of beer and popcorn watching FOX News, CNN, MSNBC all at once -instant battle coverage-heck we can buy 3 TV's so we miss nothing. War is fun to watch, isn't it, ZF?
No - it's actually more fun to watch people jumping from the top floors of skyscrapers, and buildings in flames collapsing before your very eyes. It's great to breathe in the choking dust from thousands of tons of debris combined with the ashes of people burnt to death in airplanes and within skyscrapers. It is just marvelous to come across hundreds of flyers with large photographs of people missing in the conflagration, requesting any information about them. It is simply thrilling to have to go to a dozen funerals within the space of a few days, funerals where no remains have been located.
Even I, frequently referred to as the âgodfatherâ of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s...one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy...Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the âAmerican grain.â It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan...AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention...Finally, for a great power, the ânational interestâ is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-Ã -vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination...And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you....
Neocons are former liberals. They have shopped their ideas to the Democrat Party and when they found no takers, they turned to the Republicans. They found a taker in GWB.
Neoconservativism is an IDEOLOGY and they view our country as a concept, a democracy, not a nation defined by history and peopled by individuals. They see our strong military as a tool to spread their ideology. They view traditional conservatives as unwilling allies who must be CONVERTED even if it means this must be done against their will and principles. To say neocons turned into "hawks" because they like what America is in no way is accurate. Neocons became hawks because they like what their ideology is.
They see our nation as something without borders as an idea in their mind's eye that they want to spread around using the boots on the ground as their tools, soldiers help take advantage of "opportunities." Soldiers are not people to neocons.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#73
I don't have a problem with a universal draft as long as people like rex are drafted alongside me. Rex doesn't even have to carry a rifle - as long as traitors/chickens like him are in front of other draftees like me, I'm a happy camper. That way I can shoot him in the back as he is deserting or going over to the other side.
Good grief, ZF, you have "issues" and you need the type of help that a political discussion board cannot remedy.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#74
"Here we are, late in the third quarter, with the score still tied at 7-all, and both sides with major players out for the rest of the game..."
That could sum up our situation in Iraq just as well as 90% of the debate here today. Let me make a few quick points:
1. Too many people here today are hung up on labels. All labels do is obscure the guilty on both sides. Cut the crap, and start dealing with facts. PEOPLE do things, not labels. Not all repuglycons are slavering Neanderthals, and not all dummycrips are Ted Kennedy. Individuals make speeches, take action, institute policy, and fight wars, not social groups or political parties.
2. There are times when you have to take tiny steps, even crawl in the mud, when you really want to throw caution to the wind and sprint. You still do what you have to do. Crawling in the mud is very enlightening - it can even be thereputic, especially if people are shooting at you.
3. Some people still don't get it. We are at WAR. There are a group of people out there that want to kill us. and to force us to give up our current form of government and impose their will upon us by force. They do not necessarily belong to, nor are they necessarily a part of, any recognized nation-state. This does not mean that some nation-states do not support them, share information with them, give aid to them, or fund and arm them. It also does not mean that we will ignore those nation-states that support those that wish to cause us harm, or that we won't attack those states. To do otherwise would be asbolutely stupid.
We attacked Afghanistan because that's where the training camps of al-Qaida were set up in the open, and where there was open support to Bin Laden and his people. We destroyed those camps, killed a valley-full of jihadis, and severely disrupted the training of their replacements. Today, we're trying to build a government in Afghanistan that will provide the people of that nation a choice other than supporting jihad.
We attacked Iraq because Iraq supported terrorists, funded terrorism, and had the means to provide terrorists with both a place to train and equipment beyond what was readily available anywhere else in the Middle East. Iraq also had a leader who would gladly support any kind of attack on the United States, including the use of WMD, and would gladly provide both the funding and the weapons. We crushed his armies, disrupted his support of terrorism, but are now having a hard time establishing a government that will be both stable and non-threatening in its place. It will take time and patience, but it CAN be done.
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq will be the last battle against those that wish to destroy us and our way of life. These are but individual battles in a long and protracted war that reaches to every nation of the world, to all the continents and all the seas. It may take ten year, fifty, even a hundred, BUT IT MUST BE WON, or government based on individual liberty will cease to exist.
The big problem is, there are far too many people uncomfortable with facing the truth we have to face today. They'd much rather continue in the fantasy world pre-9/11. Unfortunately for them, that world is dead, and the reality of today is quite different than what they desire. No amount of whining, no amount of backward-glancing, no amount of denial, however, will change for one second that harsh reality.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/22/2004 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#75
Hey, Mike, I really like what you wrote, and want to reproduce it on my 'blog.
I expect Rex to ignore it, as it disrupts his fantasy world that the current stage of the war sprang fully-grown from Irving Kristol's head, and doesn't have a connection with the rest of conservatism.
(One of the questions that comes to mind is... back when Reagan was President, how prevalent was the idea that he wasn't a "real" conservative, because he was an interventionist abroad?)
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/22/2004 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
#76
rex: Good grief, ZF, you have "issues" and you need the type of help that a political discussion board cannot remedy.
Rex has a backbone problem that no amount of medical care will remedy. And I will be glad to serve right behind rex.
#77
rex: Neoconservativism is an IDEOLOGY and they view our country as a concept, a democracy, not a nation defined by history and peopled by individuals. They see our strong military as a tool to spread their ideology. They view traditional conservatives as unwilling allies who must be CONVERTED even if it means this must be done against their will and principles. To say neocons turned into "hawks" because they like what America is in no way is accurate. Neocons became hawks because they like what their ideology is.
Rex's ideas are personal cowardice dressed up as "neo"-conservative ideology. In his worldview, American interests and security don't matter, as long he doesn't run the risk of being drafted. Previous administrations have carried out wars in the American interest but according to rex, GWB's invasion of Iraq is somehow a neo-conservative position. History has no meaning for rex, even though he calls himself a conservative. Rex is a conservative like an Ayatollah is Catholic.
Rex: They see our nation as something without borders as an idea in their mind's eye that they want to spread around using the boots on the ground as their tools, soldiers help take advantage of "opportunities." Soldiers are not people to neocons.
Rex sees making misleading remarks about neo-conservative statements as a way to avoid tough questions about his positions and to remove all historical context from American actions, while still calling himself a conservative. If rex is a conservative, bin Laden is a pacifist.
#78
it disrupts his fantasy world that the current stage of the war sprang fully-grown from Irving Kristol's head,and doesn't have a connection with the rest of conservatism
Nation building and using military to spread ideology are guiding principles of the neocons. Irving makes no bones about taking advantage of "opportunities" as they come up. His words not mine. He goes on to say in the article you can't be bothered to read: ...what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion,"one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect...
Neoconservativism can be shopped to either political party as the need arises, and that's why it's a "persuation" and appears "erratically" through time. Kristol sees himself and fellow neocons as quite separate from conservatives, the latter who need to be unwillingly "converted." Don't kill the messenger just because you don't like the message.
back when Reagan was President, how prevalent was the idea that he wasn't a "real" conservative, because he was an interventionist abroad?
Hey, Kristol sees both FDR and Reagan as heroes. Neocons are former liberals so they can go with the flow with either a Republican or Democrat President. The political party means nothing to neocons. Neocons can straddle the party differences because they view themselves above party allegiance. It's which ever party that will promote their IDEALOGY that they will work with. Read Kristol's words instead of trying to make him stand for something he does not but which is more palatable to you.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 22:35 Comments ||
Top||
#79
rex: Nation building and using military to spread ideology are guiding principles of the neocons. Irving makes no bones about taking advantage of "opportunities" as they come up. His words not mine.
Rex is quoting these things as if nation-building is new to the American enterprise. The US has been conquering nations and nation building since the founding of the Republic. What part of American history doesn't he understand? Every one of these things is a revelation to rex, and yet he claims to be making intellectual arguments. Where has he gotten his education from? The funny pages?
#80
I'm sorry,b ut the more I read of Rex, the more he sounds like someone who reads Chomsky instead of Buckley. He's more concerned with twisting words and distorting views than with addressing the true issues at hand, more interested in labeling and then attacking those he labels than in seeing what the truth and dealing with complexity that the real world causes.
"Neocons became hawks because they like what their ideology is."
Sophistry. And Rex, you swallowed it willingly.
Rex, you uncritically accept the mis-stated premises and then gobble the badly drawn conclusions.
I am now starting to pity you, being taken in by common fallacies, you must not be that bright, thus your need to constantly "appeal to authority" by generating out of context quotes and slanted speech from opinion columnists and presenting it as fact.
And then you ignore the facts placed in front of you , declare that you won, and ignore all posts to the contrary, and rush into namecalling and other ad hominem methods.
Sad. Just sad.
Rex, just answer the question:
What solution do you propose to Iraq?
Thats all that matters, unless you have a time machine and can go back and change our original invasion.
#81
Rex, I don't need to read Kristol's work; you're the one who's saying everything _I_ believe is derived from them. I have lots of other books on my to-read list already, thank you very much.
And it seems to me that by your definition ("Nation-building and using military to spread ideology are guiding principles of the neocons") Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and Reagan were all neocons. I'm becoming more and more convinced of ZF's thesis that it's just a term you want to use to shut down debate, rather than have it.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/22/2004 22:42 Comments ||
Top||
#82
Oldspook it is funny you mentioned a time machine.
I just asked Rex's mother what she would do with 3 wishes. She said she was unsure about the 3rd wish, but immediately knew exactly what she wanted for the first 2 wishes:
#83
I do not mean to mischaracterize views but it seems to me that Rex's views are found within a fairly established tradition of American politics now called paleo-conservativism. The most recent venerable proponent of the paleo worldview was Robert Taft - often referred to as Mr. Conservative. In many respects, Barry Goldwater was a paleo. He would definitely have supported the .com and zenster point of view in this thread. Reagan united both paleos and neos in a fruitful if not always harmonious alliance. The alliance fractured during the tenure of Bush I. Pat Buchanan basically is now the standard-bearer of the paleos. I think Rex does have a serious viewpoint, one that I don't happen to agree with.
#84
It doesnt matter so much how we got here as to where do we go from here.
All this blathering about "Neocon" doesnt mean a damned thing to the Iraqi people, or the US troops there trying to liberate them.
That is the point I keep trying to drive across.
W.F. Buckley is far more eloquent than I. And Rex, I dare you to call that man a Neocon. So here comes youre "appeal to authority" right back at you.
Fair use excerpt follows from National Review.
===
We are at war, nothing less â with radical Islamic individuals and aggregations. We are contending with them most forthrightly in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they fester everywhere in the Islamic world and we have, Podhoretz warns, no alternative but to persevere in the war. Wage it we must, but there is always the possibility of losing it.
Our undertaking, as outlined by President Bush in his September 20, 2001, speech to a joint session of Congress and elucidated in following months in three major speeches, including the State of the Union address, confronted more than the orthodox and relatively simple military challenge. Wars have a more contracted shelf life in the public patience than was so in years gone by. Nobody expected that the war against Hitler would quickly be over, and there was no lesion of public support for it. Podhoretz reminds us that even the Vietnam war met with overwhelming approval for three years. But this time the twitchiness began less than a year or so after our offensive launch in Iraq. The critics began not merely to carp, but to question the legitimacy of our aims â and, even, the motives of the president...
Where do we go from here? Podhoretz tells why the reelection of Bush is enduringly important if we are to persevere in the war that has been declared against ideals with which we were associated in the three preceding world wars. Podhoretz himself has had profound insights in the past thirty years, speaking wisely and prophetically. He has grounds now to sound the tocsin, but also to express hope. Radical Islam is not going to renounce what we take to be its ways. But there is a "very good chance that a clearing of the ground, and a sowing of the seeds out of which new political, economic, and social conditions could grow [in the Mideast], would gradually give rise to correlative religious pressures from within.
Such pressures would take the form of an ultimately irresistible demand on theologians and clerics to find warrants in the Quran and the sharia under which it would be possible to remain a good Muslim while enjoying the blessings of decent government, and even of political and economic liberty."
====
So, Rex, what say you now that W.F. Buckley, the father of modern conservatism, the political scion of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, has now come down on the side of the "Neocons" whom you despize?
Does it not point out to you that you may be WRONG on this?
#85
Rex's ideas are personal cowardice dressed up as "neo"-conservative ideology. In his worldview, American interests and security don't matter, as long he doesn't run the risk of being drafted...Rex sees making misleading remarks about neo-conservative statements as a way to avoid tough questions about his positions and to remove all historical context from American actions, while still calling himself a conservative. If rex is a conservative, bin Laden is a pacifist.
What have you actually posted in this thread from your own readings and research, ZF? Do you read anything? Or can you only react with ad hominems?
Rex is quoting these things as if nation-building is new to the American enterprise. The US has been conquering nations and nation building since the founding of the Republic. What part of American history doesn't he understand?
America is a republic. We are not expansionist empire builders like the USSR was and we rejected colonialism when we challenged England during the Boston Tea Party. Get a clue or at least get help, ZF.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 22:58 Comments ||
Top||
#86
OS; but didn't Buckley recently say something to the effect that knowing then what he knows now, He would have been against going into Iraq?
#87
We are not expansionist empire builders like the USSR and we rejected colonialism when we challenged England during the Boston Tea Party. Get a clue or at least get help.
You have a funny definition of republic, however; we've been in lots of wars since the nation started, but in many of the major ones, we tried to democratize many of the countries we conquered or liberated. (Examples that spring to mind: Reconstruction (which was very flawed), Germany, Japan, and S. Korea.)
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/22/2004 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
#88
The hallmark of conservatism is a hard-headed rational approach to things - and I think Rex has left the realm in his obvious dislike for "neocons" and has let this overwhelm his common sense in what the real issues are now.
The question is not "how did this go wrong" or *was* this wrong - its "where do we go from here"?
We have no choice: the old isolationist ways are ineffective. We MUST be engaged in the world, and the best thing for us is to have the rest of the world become representative secular democracies or republics of law. The best way we can do this now is by nationbuilding, which is an anethema to those like Rex.
Its slow, ugly and costly. But the alternative is far worse: to let the world stagnate until we have to fight another large sharp and deadly world war.
The problem for people like Rex is they have the naive belief that if we draw back into our shores and bristle at people, the world will leave us alone, and we will be jsut fine.
The problem for them is thats a lie. We are so dependant upon ohter nations now for vital parts of our economy that we cannot draw into an isolationsist shell anymore without crippling the US. This doenst mean we shoudl throw open the borders, nor that we fight every battle in every corner of the globe;
But we do need to fight, and strategically speaking, to establish proper economic and social systems in key areas.
Iran is the big one - Iran infulences the middle east and SW Asia, so its the key objective in that region. To achieve that objective you need leverage: Iraq is a key geopolitical country for this, as is Afghanistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan have the bonus of influencing important neighbors in their regions as well as Iran. A secular Iraq places a large load on Iran, and not only interrupts terrorist lines from Iran and Saudi into Lebanon and Syria, but it provides a base from which the US military can move throguhout the region and ultimately pressures Saudi Arabia and Syria (the bankroll and training base for Sunni/Wahabbi terrorism in the region now).
The facts are stark, but there they are. And none of the "paloe-conservative" arguements address this - they simply snipe at the current adminstration, and keep putting their head in the sand when it comes to consequences of their criticism.
And as for "H.G.Wells" - thats FUNNY, but out of place.
#90
rex: America is a republic. We are not expansionist empire builders like the USSR was and we rejected colonialism when we challenged England during the Boston Tea Party. Get a clue or at least get help, ZF.
Actually, rex needs to read some actual American history instead of tossing off comments about the how the Boston Tea Party showed that America hasn't staged pre-emptive wars in the national interest. The reality is that throughout its history, America has expanded its territory and kept itself and its interests safe by deposing unfriendly rulers and fighting numerous wars. Just ask the Indians, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the French and much of Latin America about these campaigns. I understand why rex wants to protect his sorry butt from a draft by avoiding the wars that have characterized American history, but it's not clear why we should base our foreign policy on that slender reed. As to issues, I think rex needs medical attention to determine why he continues to call himself a conservative when his views ranging from national security to personal honor appear to be liberal in nature - cognitive dissonance is a real issue here.
#91
#86 true about WFB sayig he woudl not go if he knew then what we know now.
But as a TRUE conservative, Buckley is concerned with were we are going now, not just dwelling in the past.
This whole hindsight thing is destructive insofar as it is not an attempt to bring a solution, but to cast blame and play political power games. And thats what has me angry with Rex and other thick paleo-cons like the rabble-rouser Buchannon. Their continued sniping and games playing is causing MORE blood of the troops to be shed, and these asshats seem almost gleeful about it because it lets them falsely claim hindsight as foresight and gloat about the current problems.
Me - I've carried a rifle, I've been on the end of crappy ROE and political policies in the field, and at my desk.
I dont care about ideaology as uch as I do maintaining our troops, and making the nation greater and safer.
and NOTHING these rex-ites have said even comes close to proposing a solution.
Stop carping and contribute to a solution: if you arent willing to help with the solution, then get out of the way, or you will become a part of the problem simply by your destructive obstructionism.
#92
OS; well stated. While I'm not a neo, I have been lead to the inescapable logic that we can no longer defend our interests as "fortress america" as traditional conservativism would prescribe. Basically, the best defensive is a good offense that's the card that we have no choice to play. I do feel nostalgic over the days past when I did feel much like Rex still does. I do think that one Rex is worth about ten thousand of the Democratic Underground ilk. I pains me to see the degree of ad hominem attacks that his views have engendered.
#93
Zenster, Thx for noticing! I'll try and clarify. While our troops are spread out in Iraq. It's not good to have the host population rise up and destroy the troops. Therefore leave the property 91101 east Bagdad alone. Allways remember that the troops need a place to sleep tonight.
Please understand Zen, that I know who the enemy is, I know were he lives, I know were his bases are. I know that he believes things that are stupid to me. But while we've got buddies living in his trailer park. I'm all about big ol toothy smiles and a live and let live attitude.
But! That evil thing that is islamic jihad must be detroyed. The best place to destroy that evil shit is the destruction of their myth. Not a respect of that myth, but an end to it. But you do not attempt to do that with your best in the field among it, at risk by it or any action that would put that force in an impossible position. No, when the time is right, when PC allows, the war that we are in must be taken to it's logical "final solution" (can I get a few Vs for valour on that)
We will never be able to stop the ideas that are being preached about jihad without destroying the pillars that prop it up. I fully understand that a destruction of mecca et al. will seriously piss of a billion muslims. Until they realise they are free! Until that kill them by the wholesale if need be, But don't do it until the time is right. BTW thats what Aq and friends are planning right know.
And Dot, I can't even think how tater gat away, truly bad. Our shiite friends missed something.
OS, may I add that what needs to happen in Iraq is whats going on. Lets not get our guys killed needlessly, lets make Allawi responsible, lets let Iraqies see the problem, and lets not forget why we went to Iraq. To defeat islamic jihad!
#94
Rex: What have you actually posted in this thread from your own readings and research, ZF? Do you read anything? Or can you only react with ad hominems?
Everything I have posted here is from my own readings. Rex appears to read only pre-digested views from the press. I have read historical accounts of the clash of empires and interests that have occurred at various points in American history. All rex can offer up is pre-digested viewpoints from various newspapers and magazines. Rex needs to stop leeching off these accounts and read the original material so he can develop his own viewpoints and knock these sources when they misrepresent the facts.
#96
muck4doo: hmmm. ima realist so thisn thread is confusing. ima head back to page 2.
So am I. We're in Iraq to install a friendly government and demonstrate to Arab and Muslim governments that we are not to be trifled with, and that their plausibly deniable fomenting and support for terrorists is dangerous to their continued existence. The best way to ensure the continued friendliness of the Iraqi government is to ensure that it becomes and stays democratic by pulling the strings behind the scenes. We'll dress this up with flowery language about freedom and democracy, but the reality is that American interests were the primary determinants of the campaign in Iraq - instilling the fear of Allah in the region's regimes combined with obtaining a foothold for future operations if that becomes necessary.
Radical Islamism and Jihad are the main enemies. This *is* a world war, and its for the survival of our Western ideaology and ideals. We need to leverage everything we have - and the most convincing counterpoint to the Mullah-ocracies in that region would be a successful, free-market secular representative republic-of-laws in Iraq.
Thats our objective - and whatever-conservative you are, you have to agree that must be our goal. For in the long run it makes the US safer, and the world a more stable place for the US economy to operate in. And it makes for liberty for the Iraqi people - liberty being an essential conservative value that seems to be getting lost in the paleo-con attack on the neo-cons. Maybe if all sides would back off, recheck the conservative virtues and values, and realize what damage their arguments are doing, this might not be such a big brouhaha.
Hindsight and all this carping based on it is is destructive - and wrong. "If I had only known" is the credo of losers and whiners. We have lost our focus if that has beome the matra.
We need to be looking at the right thing: not how good hindsight is, but how to best get the nation's business done in Iraq, and here at home.
#98
zf im probly have to read this thread entirely tomorow as ima head to slep now. it is look like purdy intrasting but very long. im just kinda glancing difrent posts. itn give me something to do tomorow. :)
#99
A. The problem for people like Rex is they have the naive belief that if we draw back into our shores and bristle at people, the world will leave us alone, and we will be jsut fine.
I have no problem with military action, Madame Old Spook know it all who works for the slam dunk department of we couldn't find a pink elephant in a bathroom. Stick to analyzing your own "problems." I'm sure there are many.
In fact I have no problem with the Afghanistan intervention. I've always said that was a necessary thing to do. I think most conservatives are on board with Afghanistan.
But the Iraq War, I have a major problem, as do many conservatives, the least of which is that it's being overseen by a bunch of intellectual wonks who probably haven't held a real gun in their entire lives and whose exposure to zealot Sunni/Shiite Iraqis has been gained from watching National Geographic videos with their college students in the classroom.
B. I'm sorry,but the more I read of Rex, the more he sounds like someone who reads Chomsky instead of Buckley
Do tell? You don't read, you react hormonally, OS, because you don't like what I'm saying because I'm rubbing your nose in the fact that neocons could care less whether they align themselves with Democrats or Republicans.
C. As for your "challenge," OS[chuckle, chuckle]: All this blathering about "Neocon" doesnt mean a damned thing to the Iraqi people, or the US troops there trying to liberate them. That is the point I keep trying to drive across. W.F. Buckley is far more eloquent than I. And Rex, I dare you to call that man a Neocon. So here comes youre "appeal to authority" right back at you. Fair use excerpt follows from National Review...So, Rex, what say you now that W.F. Buckley, the father of modern conservatism, the political scion of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, has now come down on the side of the "Neocons" whom you despize? Does it not point out to you that you may be WRONG on this?
Word of advice, OS, your "sleuthing" skills need some upgrades. Actually #86 wins the prize. You get the piece of coal, OS. Before Brinkley retired this summer he had an interview with a reporter from the NYT and Brinkley distanced himself from the neocons, whom you adore. In fact, Brinkley said in retrospect he would not have done the Iraq War thingie. Alas. The icon of conservativism bites the Liberals in Rambo clothing [ie. the neocons]. I love it. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/politics/29buckley.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=3bb45eaa1ff9f60d&hp&ex=1093320000 "National Review Founder to Leave Stage"
By David D. Kirkpatrick June 29, 2004 NYT ...In explaining his decision, Mr. Buckley said he had taken some satisfaction in the triumph of conservatism since then, though he expressed some complaints about President Bush's unconservative spending and some retrospective doubts about the wisdom of invading Iraq...
As for conservatism today, Mr. Buckley said there was a growing debate on the right about how the war in Iraq squared with the traditional conservative conviction that American foreign policy should seek only to protect its vital interests. EAT YOUR HEARTs OUT, OS, ZF, AND B
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war." Asked whether the growth of the federal government over the last four years diminished his enthusiasm for Mr. Bush, he reluctantly acknowledged that it did. "It bothers me enormously," he said. "Should I growl?"...Oh yes, I know the NYT only prints lies but when they put words in quotation marks, and WFB does not demand a retraction, I suggest to you that the reporter quoted him directly.
Sigh. Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Neocons are not traditional conservatives, and there is an ongoing debate as we speak within conservative circles, [unbeknowns to neocon cheerleaders like the usual suspects on this thread] so it's not just "evil" Rexy who thinks Wolfowitz et al blew it big time. They should be fired post haste. They are incompetent.
D. As for your comment about neocons' affection for Goldwater, wrong again, OS. In Kristol's own words, which you cannot bear to read of course because it would shake your blind faith about your Republican "specialness" to neocons: ...Its[neoconservativism's] 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism...
Sad, really, that many of you had no idea that neocons look down at Republicans and traditional conservatives.
E. And another thing, conservatives could care 2 figs about putting our soldiers at risk to "liberate" a bunch of ungrateful heathens across the globe. If that's important to you, do it on your own dime and hire some mercenaries to go "liberate" Muslims around the world. But wars of liberation are not the kind of "feel good" ventures that the majority of Americans want our military to pursue.
Posted by: rex ||
08/23/2004 0:12 Comments ||
Top||
#100
Rex, I get the feeling that in your universe, most republicans or conservatives don't count as "real" conservatives or traditional conservatives.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/23/2004 0:23 Comments ||
Top||
#101
give it up, rex. All that time and energy, yet you've convinced no one. Maybe if you went to the dimmy underground you could get some positive stokes.
Lots of other great stuff here, though. Enjoyed it!
#102
Rex, I get the feeling that in your universe, most republicans or conservatives don't count as "real" conservatives or traditional conservatives
Earth to Phil, instead of relying on "feelings" and nuances, read Kristol's definition of neo conservatives as opposed to Republicans/traditional conservatives. Kristol is very clear about the differences. In fact, he almost gloats.
But hey neo conservatives are not bad people. It's just they have no particular expertise in running wars. But don't pretend you are a conservative if you are a neocon deep down inside. There are lots of perks for being a neocon. You get to be very arrogant and look down your nose at Republicans [ie. traditional conservatives] who have no "vision" like your giant brained group of "intellectuals". And best of all, you get to ditch the tweeds and coke bottle glasses [day wear]and dress up as Rambo at neocon cocktail parties. Yippee.
Posted by: rex ||
08/23/2004 0:38 Comments ||
Top||
#103
Earth to Phil, instead of relying on "feelings" and nuances, read Kristol's definition of neo conservatives as opposed to Republicans/traditional conservatives. Kristol is very clear about the differences. In fact, he almost gloats. But hey neo conservatives are not bad people. It's just they have no particular expertise in running wars. But don't pretend you are a conservative if you are a neocon deep down inside. There are lots of perks for being a neocon. You get to be very arrogant and look down your nose at Republicans [ie. traditional conservatives] who have no "vision" like your giant brained group of "intellectuals". And best of all, you get to ditch the tweeds and coke bottle glasses [day wear]and dress up as Rambo at neocon cocktail parties. Yippee.
Rex, I'm not a neocon deep down inside. I've always thought of myself as a conservative deep down inside.
Your debating strategy thus far seems to be to insult the people who disagree with your worldview (by the definition of which any Republicans or conservatives who support the war aren't real Republicans or Conservatives) and claim victory if anyone gets upset, repeat the cycle of lies if anyone doesn't, and claim victory in either case.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/23/2004 8:02 Comments ||
Top||
#104
rexie boy, first of all, we're not gonna have a draft!
Not unless something really changes for the worse.
Enlistment numbers are good and we can handle the war with the troops we have, no matter how timid you deem our attack on Najaf right now.
Secondly, you are full of SHIT--are you so like Pat Buchanan that you hate Jews, too, and that the real reason you don't want us fighting this wars is because it's "for the Jews and Israel?"
Because I stated earlier, calling people "neocons" in a derogatory way is code for "Jews."
Thirdly, you need to read *real* thinkers on this like TechCentralStation's Lee Harris, who just put out a book a few months ago.
His writings on 9/11 and the AQ's "fantasy ideology" are a must read.
Also, Steven Den Beste has some terrific reading on Jacksonian Americans and that's what we really are, not "neocons."
Fourthly, when Steve singled some of us out for lengthy arguments and postings here at RB, he forget to mention YOU--your posts are lonnnnnnnnggggggg, verbose and aimless.
(Why are liberals always so long-winded?)
You have been arguing all day and into the night with your betters with their better arguments and you look pathetic.
Old Spook, Zhang Fei, Phil F. and Robert C., Thank you!
You were doing the Lord's work over there...LOL...God Bless you!
You have a choice in November to vote for the man who will successfully continue to prosecute this war--Bush--or for the coward who'll pull our troops home, try to appease Al Queda and just have us sit here and wait for the next attack--Kerry (and Nader).
So you make your choice, but I'm with the poster who told you to take your crap over to DUH.com where you'll be right at home with your fellow Chomsky and Tom Freidman lovers.
#105
How could I forget The Man when I talked about readings and by that I mean
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, who is without peer on the War.
And Mark Steyn is next if you like a lot of humor mixed in with common sense and clear thinking.
And both men have books and columns--Read them all.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
