Everybody's sick of debating the Iraq war
Everybody's sick of debating the Iraq war and the positions of each camp have hardened to the point that not much usefully discussion now ensues whenever the subject is raised.
However we should all be able to agree on one thing, that civilian control of the military is paramount and the question of who gets to set national policy and the military mission in Iraq or wherever, does not devolve to the military. Nor do the decisions of a predecessor necessarily bind the discretion of their successor.
Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future.""It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."
Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City
If Obama is elected as President and moves to change the mission in Iraq to one of withdrawal, will there be resistance to this from the military leadership? from the rank and file deployed there?
Thoughts?
[Edit]
Maybe I should have bolded something, now I have.
--
GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Spartacvs's blog
- Login or register to post comments
We have much more advanced field hospitals and technology that makes the loss of life less IMHO. The number of deaths is reduced. Many injuries from the Iraq conflict would have been deaths in Vietnam. So in some respects the numbers are not ergo comparable. Also considering the climate and disease differences between a hot dry climate and a wet humid one. We have better battle field combat logistical support.
As someone who reads more than posts these days it seems that the coin strategy that is working is the awaking. By paying off the Sunni's and supporting the government we have stopped much of the conflict or lowered the grade. In part because much of the killing and displacement had been accomplished. How many are displaced? How much of the educated class has left or been killed? Are women's rights better or worse in the new Iraq? At what point are we to subsidise the country and the government?
If you look at Obama the consistent thing he has said is as careful getting out as getting in. His goal is 16 months like most plans it is a goal. It is not set in stone and not precipitous. No matter what Timmy would have us think. One thing I will say about Obama is that he seems flexible and pragmatic. It remains to be seen if he can lead our country. It is the risk of experience of one sort over another. McCain is not without risk himself. He is just as much a political animal that plays his positions IMHO much more with a feel for how the wind is blowing. I also think it interesting that his view of Iraq is different than others of his generation with military experience in Vietnam. His captivity should give him a certain view that few have. Still his view of conflict from a pilots perspective is different than say Hagel, Kerry, Kerry, and Reed. It reminds me of the scenes from black hawk down. before the mission when the on the ground commander says From 2000 feet up it is different than how unforgiving it is on the ground.
Another question I have is stepping back and looking at total resources and readiness. Iraq is but one piece of our foreign & Security policy. We have many issues that are missed not focused on that moving forward should be getting resources etc...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
)What Timmy would have you think about in this context, is that Obama opposed the surge whereas (when it was really unpopular) McCain supported it, call it judgement if you wish.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Listen closely, pay heed to my voice. We are now paying our enemies and arming them. USA is paying the Sons of Iraq. We have created a far more dangerous enemy than you can possibly imagine. A fed dog will not bite, as any burglar knows. These Sons of Iraq are the Ba'athists reborn, indeed their leaders are old Ba'athists, and they will turn their guns on the Shiites as soon as we are over the horizon.
That is our Surge in a nutshell. More troops changed nothing. More bribes and paying off our enemies did. They don't get paid if we get shot, so they don't shoot. But they do not love us and the Iraqi government will not pay them. The Sons of Iraq now control the west of Iraq, and the only people they trust are their own leaders.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Tribes of Anbar have a Ba'athist heritage, really!
Where the Tribes crtical to the Ba'athist movement or did the Tribes just tolerate it?
Recent history would tell us that the Tribes prefer Federalism.
Do you have a problem with Federalism?
Of note, The Century Foundation isn't gospel.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Comment, commenter -- and please note the relatively glasslike house I occupy while saying this.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What are you trying to say here? That the Sons of Iraq weren't shooting us before we paid them to stop? That the Iraqi government loves these guys?
Now, sounds to me like you're trying to make some point about the Surge stopping the violence, and Obama being against it. I'm against the Surge, too. It was a spectacularly dumb idea. It accomplished almost nothing.
The guys who were shooting us yesterday are on our payroll today. That's what changed, and it was Petraeus who decided he'd rather play ball with the Sunni sheikhs than constantly re-conquer Ramadi and Fallujah every few months. When the British were in Iraq, they did the same thing in the wake of the 1920 rebellion, a lesson not lost on CENTCOM.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )so I will ask it again, were the Suni Tribes of Anbar crtical to the Ba'athist movement of Saddam? It is a simple question.
Obama was against the surge, he rolled out a plain that only a U.S. withdrawal (by March 08) would end the conflict.
If you are still of the opinion that the surge has accomplished nothing, then there really is very little to talk about.
BTW, I beleive it was the Sunni Tribal heads who decided to play ball.
If I remember correctly, the British first had problems with the Kurds and their pursuit of self government. I hope you understand that self government is what Iraq is all about.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The fact that you're asking this question shows you're thinking all wrong about this. That's forgivable: all we've been hearing about in the press is "Sunnis this" and "Shiites that" and Kurds and maybe how major cities like Baghdad and Mosul and Basra sorta confuse the issue.
Look, there are dozens of tribes in Iraq, depending on how you count them or how they subdivide. Some are allied and yet feuding with each other, some have inter-tribal feuds, some are intra-tribal feuds. Sunnis are exogamous: they don't marry within their immediate clans. Marriages are often contracted for alliances: it's all quite medieval in nature. In fact, the closest society we can use is comparison is medieval Europe, with countries as small as counties. Yet Charlemagne could theoretically rule these peoples by delegation, and thus Saddam ran Iraq.
Tribes are religiously heterogeneous. Marrying outside a clan can produce mixed marriages, and where they're in the minority, as in Basra, you'll see people switching alliances, since everyone goes to Friday prayers in the company of his friends. Sunni and Shiite were never a big deal until the Americans started tolerating these differences. Saddam never did tolerate factionalism, so there was a lot of pent-up tension there, especially when Shiite clerics started trouble. It was the Shiites who started this, and when the Mosque in Sammara was bombed, the Sunnis were as horrified as anyone.
Were the tribes of Anbar sore at Saddam? Well, yes and no. Yes, because Saddam favored people from Ninawah Province, his own tribe. No, because Saddam rewarded them for their allegiance. But Saddam also rewarded Shiites for their allegiance. There were more nominal Shiites on Saddam's payroll than Sunnis, simply because they are more numerous. That, and Saddam had a network of spies to keep tabs on the Shiites.
When we say The Surge, I read this as "putting more troops in Iraq stabilized things, and Obama was against it". The situation is far more complex, as I hope you'll grant me. Here's what changed: Petraeus moved out of his large bases and into the little towns. He made face-saving gestures to everyone in power at tribal level. He paid the Sons of Iraq to stop shooting at him and putting in IEDs. This certainly brought down the casualty count, but it didn't change the facts on the ground. The Anbaris will only stay quiet as long as the steak lasts. When we pull out, the Anbaris will turn on their Shiite tormentors.
Saddam also bought off his enemies. The other tribes were constantly demanding favors, and in large measure, Saddam doled out those favors. Now the Iraqi government must dole out the same bribes, and usually to the same people. KSA, no different, the Saudis of Riyadh are only one tribe among many, and the Saudis are in a defensive posture inside their own country.
The British didn't care about the Kurds in 1920, the only significant revolt. All they knew was that the Arabs hated them. So they sided with the majority Arabs.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the balance of my comment on the Baath Party have been edited because of the posting rules.
The surge not only incorporated a larger force structure but also a new strategy, so you read incorrectly.
I do agree that the Sunni Tribes were bribed by Saddam, simply reflecting that Saddam controled the flow of funds from the sale of oil.
Again, the Kurds were the original premise for the 1920 uprising. When I have a chance I will look up the name of the Skiek.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Look, I believe Petraeus changed many things when he got control of the situation in theater. He's not a dummy, I've written extensively on him.
But I was also in Operation Provide Comfort as a civilian, in 1991, doing relief work. I've been there, Timmy. I speak Arabic, I know Iraqis. I'm not here to play little games about reading up on the subject: refugees, especially Arab refugees, have been an abiding concern of mine for many years. There are currently four million displaced Iraqis all over the place, about half of them are in Jordan and Syria. I'm not trying to trump you in the Oh I Know Everything department, you can think what you want about putting more troops in Iraq. OPC had a few battalions with air support and cleared the Iraqi Army out of an area the size of the state of Ohio.
Apocalypse is a Greek word, Ἀποκάλυψις , the lifting of the cover or lifting the lid. We brought an end to a world which was completely unsustainable without Saddam Hussein. The problem wasn't a lack of troops. The problem was the same as in the Balkans: the death of Tito should have taught us what we needed to know. Once the last shovelful of dirt was shoveled onto Tito's grave, the old tribal hatreds were given new life. We didn't create this problem, we unleashed it when we overthrew Saddam. Not saying we shouldn't have overthrown him, but we knew Iraq would collapse. Nobody in the know was heard, despite our much screeching. The Neocons had the floor, and we see now they didn't know anything about Iraq.
The revolt of 1920 was a revolt against the British by Sunni and Shiite nationalists. The revolt began in the south, among the Shiites. A British officer had been murdered in Najaf. The subsequent reprisals touched off the whole revolt. Read your own goddamn history, Timmy. I had to read all this in History of the Middle East years and years ago. It was not primarily a Kurdish thing.
There was no one Kurdish sheikh: as in present times, the Kurds are not united by anything but a language. The Kurds put up more resistance and in the north did form up several kingdoms, but the British would bomb them with phosphorus, and the Kurds came out of the 1920s thoroughly beaten down and humiliated, with Arab help. But the Arabs in western suits within the Iraq of the late 1920s and 1930s were of little importance: the reality of Iraqi existence in those days was tribal and remains so today.
Like the British before us, we have left behind an Iraqi army hardly worthy of the name, its only use being to serve as a force for repression. The Arabs were always worthless fighters. They could be bought off or set against each other. The Ottomans had little trouble controlling the north. Basra was another story: the Ottomans solved that problem by detaching Basra into its own vilayet and singling it out for special attention.
This problem had been brewing since the British in the 1920s, the Ba'ath Party stomped all over tribal identity, calling it backward. Saddam had no use for the religious authorities either: he was a secularist. But when the Iran / Iraq War came along, they needed tribal leaders, they tolerated both. Saddam changed his flag, adding Allah-u-akhbar to it.
Saddam did favor certain tribes, and now those tribes are on the outs with the SCIRI/Dawa factions now in power. It's hardly surprising they'd turn to the Americans. And Bush and Petraeus are just stupid enough to re-arm the very sort of people who under Saddam put an end to this ridiculous jimcrack thing called a Democratic Iraq.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ground forces in Iraq, from one para down in your ABC link:
It's pretty hard to take issue with that, I think. And to repeat, this is the guy in charge of the whole show, not some underling claiming to speak for everyone.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)and are entirely reasonable, Hammond not so much. And Hammond may be a mere 'underling' right now, but where is he headed?
This guy commanded the same div. from 2001 thro. 2004 ie. during the Iraq invasion and initial occupation. Now he's slated to take over from Petraeus when he moves on to CENTCOM.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )was "listen to the generals". Apparantly, that eternal wisdom solely depends on who the civilians are.
I would expect some resignations in the senior ranks. Who will then go public with their general opinion pertaining to the strategy. Maybe we will end up having a repeat of the 1864 election.
Of this I sure, if things go badly in Iraq afer Obama pursues his "cut and run" strategy. He will be badly damaged as will his party.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The slow evolution to a Republican military is proceeding apace. I guess this whole Commander in Chief thing only applies to guys who have the right letter after their names.
Well, if anyone can handle it, it'll be Obama. But I'm kind of terrified.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)...that's what you get asking for volunteers, maybe we should reinstate the draft?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's difficult for me, since I have felt for years that conscription or other forced service is morally questionable at best. But it seems to me now that an all-volunteer military is a bad thing for our nation.
It's bad for the military, encouraging a dangerous political monoculture among the ranks. It's bad for the electorate who become more and more isolated from the concerns and realities of military personnel. It's bad for our foreign policy to see the military as a tool to be used to advance our agenda instead of a group of citizens who have banded together to defend our nation.
Obviously, we've had similar problems in the past, even when we've had a draft, but I think that the all-volunteer military has made them worse. I think that the course of the Iraq war would have been much different if a lot more Americans had some skin in the game. If, instead of lowering standards and accepting more marginal recruits to boost the ranks, the military could just draft as many soldiers as it felt it needed, people would be looking at the war in a whole new light.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that only those who have no other options pursue the military.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How did you get that out of what I wrote? Do you have some magic GOP Ouija board you use to tells you what comments mean without resorting to actually reading and processing the words on the screen?
BTW, Kerry never said that either, so you're 0-2. Actually, you're like 0-1,247,462. Keep it up. Wouldn't want to break your streak, dude.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I believe it started with "But it seems to me now that an all-volunteer military is a bad thing for our nation" and then you continued.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Kerry's meaning was extremely clear from context -- he was mocking the President's decision to engage in poor policy. This was clearly established at the time.
Seriously, there are sites for this sort of thing; I like to think that this one is different from them.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Based on my recollection, it was only "extremely clear" to partisans on his side and to partisans on the other side who aren't able to keep their respective biases in check (or to even be aware of them). I think either interpretation can be reasonably argued, and I don't think it's "extremely clear" which reflects what Kerry meant. I don't recall in which direction (toward which interpretation) I leaned at the time, but I recall that it wasn't "extremely clear".
As for Chuchundra's general argument, I agree. Although I would want to be sure that such a change would not somehow weaken our military, I generally think that:
- too much is being asked of too few (the troops and their families), even though they did volunteer.
- while I think studies have found recruits to NOT be generally poor, I doubt that there is anything close to proportionate number of recruits from upper middle class and higher.
- there is the detachment of which Chuchundra speaks, between those deciding policy (the public via their political support and even the politicians themselves) and those who are asked to sacrifice. And every time I hear someone say "Hey, they volunteered" in response to an argument that a war is unnecessary and our troops are suffering unnecessarily, I feel like whacking that person with a 2X4 (if we assume that patriotism played at least some role for a significant number of them, then if anything we should be LESS inclined to make them sacrifice in a possibly unnecessary war).
- just to sort of recap: If a war is worth fighting, it's worth all of us fighting it (or at least us or a loved one facing the POSSIBILITY of fighting it), and if a war isn't worth all of us fighting it (or at least...[ditto]), then it isn't worth fighting and we shouldn't send anyone off to war to possibly come home in a body bag or missing a limb.
The above may make me sound to some like a pacifist or something to that effect. Not so. I'm not commenting above on whether or not I think some particular war is worth fighting. Just take the above at face value. I'm just arguing for shared sacrifice, not disproportionate sacrifice, and for avoidance of any sacrifice if most of us don't consider the war worth sacrificing ourselves.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I wouldn't dream of drafting my police or fire departments, my mail man or teachers either. I see no pay off at all in drafting the military. Without exception (absolutely none) I haven't met a person who's service straddled the draft/volunteer military who was of the opinion that the military wasn't tremendously better off with the volunteer force.
See my reply to Chuchundra, we got Vietnam with a draft military and it took 11 years, and 56k US dead to bring an end to that war. With a volunteer military we have less than 10% of the KIAs in half the time with a greater national interest at stake and it's nearly destroyed the party in power at the onset of the war. There simply is zero evidence that a draft military would have the beneficial effect you think it will.
--It's not only redundant, it's also repetitive
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, if my recollection (from history) is correct, the political shift leading to our withdrawal from Vietnam was greatly accelerated once college deferments (etc.) were no longer allowed -- meaning that upper middle class and rich kids became vulnerable to the draft. Which, if I'm correct, seems to support my point.
Anyone have more info on that?
As for possible negative impact on military effectiveness of bringing back the draft, as I said, I would want to consider that factor. I just don't know enough about it to know the net effect.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Below (in italics) from Wikipedia (I don't have time right now to check the footnoted original sources). Bolding mine (and footnote for bolded part is: Ambrose, Stephen (1989). Nixon, Volume Two: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972. Simon & Schuster. pp. 264–266.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Vietnam_W...
During the 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon campaigned on a promise to end the draft.[45] He had first become interested in the idea of an all-volunteer army during his time out of office, based upon a paper by Professor Martin Anderson of Columbia University.[46] Nixon also saw ending the draft as an effective way to undermine the anti-Vietnam war movement, since he believed affluent youths would stop protesting the war once their own possibility of having to fight in it was gone.[47] There was opposition to the all-volunteer notion from both the Department of Defense and Congress, so Nixon took no immediate action towards ending the draft early in his presidency.[46]
Instead, the Gates Commission was formed, headed by Thomas S. Gates, Jr., a former Secretary of Defense in the Eisenhower administration.[46] Gates initially opposed the all-volunteer army idea, but changed his mind during the course of the fifteen-member commission's work.[46] The Gates Commission issued its report in February 1970, describing how adequate military strength could be maintained without having conscription.[45][48] The existing draft law was expiring at the end of June 1971, but the Department of Defense and Nixon administration decided the draft needed to continue for at least some time.[48] In February 1971, the administration requested of Congress a two-year extension of the draft, to June 1973.[49][50]
Senatorial opponents of the war wanted to reduce this to a one-year extension, or eliminate the draft altogether, or tie the draft renewal to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Vietnam;[51] Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska took the most forceful approach, trying to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, shut down conscription, and directly force an end to the war.[52] Senators supporting Nixon's war efforts supported the bill, even though some had qualms about the ending the draft.[50] After a prolonged battle in the Senate, in September 1971 cloture was achieved over the filibuster and the draft renewal bill was approved.[53] Meanwhile, military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and television advertising for the U.S. Army began.[45] With the end of active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who reported for duty in June 1973.[45]
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but LBJ and the Congress certainly made some changes along the way which caused some problems.
But I believe it was the 68 Tet Offensive which was the crowning blow.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I realize that the 68 Tet offensive was a P.R. disaster for the war, but considering that Nixon continued the war for several more years, it seems not to have marked a collapse of political support for the war.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As best I can recall (and, being in college during the Vietnam draft era, my recollections were honed pretty sharply) - the student deferments continued in force until the expiration of the SSA (it had to be re-authorized every two years) in 1973; the 1971 re-authorization of he draft having just barely passed, IIRC - due to increasing disgust over Vietnam. Two years later, the war having pretty much wound down, no one wanted to have anything to do with a draft, and it became the political anathema it's remained. But I believe the deferment classifications remained the same until the end.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the marked collapse of political support for the war is when the Dems cut funding to the SVA, er after the full withdrawal of American ground troops.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it is insane to think that the two possible interpretations have equal probability.
Interpretation 1: A man running against President Bush with a history of making lousy speeches drops a single word from a joke meant to mock the a policy against which he is running.
Interpretation 2: A decorated veteran running for President chose to characterize persons who choose to serve as uneducated and ignorant.
How is is possible that any thinking person would view interpretation 2 as conceivably correct?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it is insane to think that the two possible interpretations have equal probability.
WIM Foul! (People put words in the mouths of others so often, I decided just now to come up with that shorter version of "You are putting words in my mouth"). I didn't way anything about "equal probability". I said it was not "extremely clear" either way. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
How is is possible that any thinking person would view interpretation 2 as conceivably correct?
It is indeed conceivable. Most notably, he could have been making the point that relatively affluent, well-educated kids aren't the ones making unnecessary sacrifices due to Bush's mistakes and/or "lies" -- i.e., pointing to a matter of unfairness and exploitation by the Bush Administration.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If war is worth winning, then we should take the necessary steps to win it and understand that the conflict maybe for an extended duration.
As long as "civilian control" remains the policy of this nation, those deciding policy (strategy if you wish) and those engaged in the tactics and engagement of the conflict will always be different parties.
If you are going to have an activists foreign policy, you need to have a skilled military. If your arguement is, the military isn't large enough. I wouldn't disagree. What is the correct size, well that all depends.
Armed conflict is an imperfect science, as each situation calls for skill sets which are more than likely in short supply. That is, you will never find a situation where all of the ducks are in row; it is just a part of life.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As long as "civilian control" remains the policy of this nation, those deciding policy (strategy if you wish) and those engaged in the tactics and engagement of the conflict will always be different parties.
That's a weird argument in response to my comment. I'm saying that the population (and leaders) that decide on going to war should share in the sacrifice, or at least the risk of sacrifice. The relevancy of your argument to my point escapes me.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm simply stating the current situation which is unlikely to change. You roll out "shared sacrifrice" or the risk of "shared sacrifrice" and provide no background.
So a simple question is the risk of "shared sacrifice" the key driver for the decision to enter into "armed conflict"? I believe that would carveout the concept of "premptive action" and more than likely make "isolation" the resulting concept.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You lost me, bro. I don't even think I can correctly deconstruct what you just said and make any sense out of it, let alone see the relevance to what we're discussing. To be able to respond I would need you to state it all much more clearly.
I still don't see your point re: your "civilian" comment upthread.
And is your point in this subsequent comment that if everyone has to sacrifice or at least risk sacrifice, we'll end up isolationist?
Please spell it out for me in clear terms if you'd like a response.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is the risk of shared sacrifice a requirement for entering into an armed conflict?
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm saying it probably SHOULD be a requirement (unless a system producing that situation would somehow make our military less effective).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and isolation (a mitigant to the risk) may very well be the prefereed pathway.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you want to discuss this with me with any degree of efficiency, you're gonna need to be a little clearer and spell things out a bit. Is your argument that most people are not willing to put themselves at risk (insofar and in whatever manner a draft would present such a risk to them or to their loved ones) for preemptive war, and so the practical effect of a draft would be to preclude preemptive war? And IF so -- emphasis on "if", just for the sake of argument -- are you saying that would be a bad thing? And if that's what you're saying, please explain why that would be a bad thing. (those are the kinds of things that would be nice if you could make clear without my having to ask)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I am simply pointing out where your metric would lead. Each pathway has it advantages and disadvantages.
To put oneself at risk one has to identify the risk, human nature, more often than not, leads to ignoring the risk altogether, until that critical moment when it (the risk) bites you in the a$$.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It may be that preemptive war would become less likely and less common if we had a draft, since the justifiability/desirability of such a war is often (1) a closer call in the view of presumably highly informed and responsible folks, and (2) less apparent to the public, rightly or wrongly.
And it may be that in such a scenario, some preemptive wars will be forgone that should have been fought, for the reason you state (risk aversiveness) and general reluctance to make major sacrifices absent a crisis or obvious need (not obvious to the public, that is. Heck, if we want to see an example of such sacrifice avoidance, just look at the fiscal hole we keep digging ourselves in as we keep taxing too little and spending too much. How about a preemptive war against our nation going down the sh*tter in a couple of decades due to debt burden?).
But there could also be cases in which the public -- and our leaders -- would simply view preemptive war and justifiable/desirable if someone else (or someone else's kids or grandkids) would be doing the dying but NOT if they themselves (or their kids or grandkids) faced the risk of having to go fight. It may be that in some such cases, preemptive war is the wise thing to do, and that if the public were only better informed and more responsible or more mature or less cowardly or whatever, the public would favor launching the preemptive war. But in other cases our leaders and most of the public may simply be thinking "It's worth fighting this war if someone else will die, but not if I might die."
So there is some potential harm (war not launched that should be) that could come in that a draft would make preemptive war less likely and less common. In other words, sometimes the public just doesn't know what's good for 'em. But that gets to a broader question of representative government, democracy, etc. Sometimes people are insufficiently informed to know what's best for them, sometimes people are too immature to accept sacrifice when it's actually in their best interest, etc. But there are also value judgments involved -- e.g., Is this war worth Americans dying for and paying for? -- and that's the part of the decision process in which I'd like everyone's thinking to be reasonably fair, rather than having a double standard because someone else will do the dying. Yes, there may be cases in which a better informed or more mature public would be willing to launch a preemptive war -- i.e., it does fit with their values and priorities -- but should we throw out the "baby" of forcing everone to be reasonably fair in making this judgment (i.e., everyone at risk, not just the other guy) with the bathwater of potentially forgone preemptive wars that the people were too ignorant or immature to support? I say no. Hence my preference for the draft.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and the type of conflict we currently face would be another arguement against it.
I'm of the opinion that "sacrifice avoidance" would lead to isolation, until the risk was so great that we had no other option. In general, this type of scenario leads to much larger and pricely wars, which does necessitate a draft.
In genereal, the public gets tired of war when a war is going on; political and media games usually follow.
I don't believe a draft gets you where you want to go but I could be wrong.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There certainly are times when the public either doesn't know what's best for them, or lacks the maturity/courage/whatever to do what's best for them when it requires sacrifice upfront. For example, if my history is correct, FDR wanted us to take on Hitler earlier than we did (and only did after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on us). But again, that has to be weighed against the other considerations I've mentioned. And by the way, I'm not talking about decisions of going to war or staying at war being subject to referenda; our leaders would still make the decisions, but would have to face the public at re-election time, and the question is, do they face a public that shares broadly in the required risks/sacrifices and is judging, correctly or incorrectly -- but probably more FAIRLY -- whether or not the war is worth the cost in lives, or do they face a public that is only asking if it's worth the cost in lives of OTHERS.
Re: "Well the history of the draft wouldn't support your position" and "I don't believe a draft gets you where you want to go", I'm not sure what you mean and what you're supporting arguments are.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )he made ever effort to manipulate the U.S. into the conflict with the Axis but only after getting reelected in 1940.
If he (along with the British and French) had taken Hitler on in the early 30s, would the conflict have been smaller? Would the option have been available if we has a material volunteer army (a pure hypothetical btw)?
With respect to your last question, the draft provided no cover in Korea of Vietnam or for that matter during the Civil War.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Re: your Hitler questions: (1) Probably, which was my point (although early 30s is not the time I would use for the point, since Hitler came to power in 1933. I would say after his aggressive moves started re: the Ruhr, militarization in general, etc. (I don't have the dates handy), and (2) Quite possibly FDR could have taken us to war sooner had we had an all volunteer military (particularly if he thought he could keep it that way throughout the war and could reassure the public of that), which again was my point.
As for your points re: Korea and Vietnam, combined with your prior points that I think you were (I assume) seeking to clarify per my request, it's still unclear to me what your point is. Is it that a draft doesn't guarantee we won't go to war? If so, it's a bit of a leap to offer that argument as a refutation of my argument that a draft would make some wars less likely.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Kerry's prepared remarks were provided to reporters. The statement was:
The intended meaning was written in black and white before the speech -- Kerry tripped and dropped the "us."
This is an excellent example of why people with little interest in the truth repeat baseless smears; folks who aren't paying close attention hear something and have better things to do than check on every random thing they hear.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I DID remember that part of the story and considered it in making my comment.
First, it is my recollection -- correct me if you have evidence to the contrary -- that the text of the speech was provided by the Kerry campaign to reporters AFTER the whole mess began, leaving open the question of whether or not it was authentically his "prepared" text prior to giving the speech.
Second, even if that was his prepared speech, he could have stated a different thought, perhaps incorrectly remembering that as the planned line of the speech.
I'm not saying either of the above is definitely or even probably the case. I'm just saying those are real possibilities, so it was not "extremely clear" that he was referring to Bush as indicated in the (supposedly) prepared speech.
On the other hand, since it's possible that the "prepared" speech really was authentic and that Kerry simply did screw up the line, it's not clear that what he said literally should be taken as his intention, either.
It's not "extremely clear" either way. But I'll go way out on a limb and assume that your level of skepticism one way or another in such cases correlates strongly with which side's foot the shoe is on (i.e., strong partisan bias).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )See, when Bush said:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
...I thought it was a funny slip, not that the President and his advisors never stopped thinking about new ways to harm our country as such.
It's called intellectual consistency.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That is an absurd argument. If such an obvious case is the best example you can come up with to prove that you're not extremely biased, you are actually confirming my suspicion.
Anyone who could think that Bush actaully meant that he and his advisors never stop thinking about ways to harm our country would not only be alarmingly biased, but downright nuts.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Anyone who could think that Kerry, a Yale graduate who served for four years in wartime and earned multiple decorations, could view the military as a dumping ground for the uneducated and untalented -- and would announce this view offhandedly during a Presidential campaign speech -- is not only alarmingly biased, but downright nuts. I tried to find an interpretation which was roughly the same kind of crazy.
Along the same lines, I didn't think that McCain was actually advocating genocide with his implication that killing all Iranians sooner via a cigarette-induced public health problem was a net positive. I think he was making a joke in poor taste about the citizens of a country with which we are having an ongoing conflict.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )given the other comments by Kerry on exactly the same topic, it certainly within his mindset.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )vs. a nut who so-interprets.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But he used it to describe anyone who held a position you stated bluntly you don't hold, whereas you used it to describe anyone who held a position he at least finds credible, if not necessarily the actual truth. The former is not a violation of the "comment, not the commenter" rule. The latter is--although I would have elaborated as above in addition to Catchy's request and made a humorous comment about deceptively asymmetrical tit-for-tats to leaven the moment, since the violation invoved is a minor one and not a huge problem unless it leads to escalation.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you think like I do, have the patience to spell things out + bring an extra-added leaven-suggestion to spice up the mod recipe.
What a fantastic chef, I mean mod, you'd make!!!!
... deceptively asymmetrical tit-for-tats ... you've practically got my vote!!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and our geopolitical relationships. If you believe that 9-11 was an inside job, harm has an absolutely different meaning.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My Lai, tag your it.
--"So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A moniker poking fun at another commenter's moniker is against the Posting Rules. Please find a way to engage Timmy on the content, using a different handle. Thanks.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Look, I'm nowhere near Timmy's biggest fan, but we gotta not have monikers which are explicitly mocking other folks.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... from someone with your moniker ;^D
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but the balance of your statement is incorrect.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not to be Sir Rules Lawyer, but "be reasonably civil" has to involve not doubling-down the smear after being called on a factually false statement.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's leave the falsehoods for Redstate.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .a lot of people would have been suspended over it by now, with no monopoly on either side of the political aisle. The one time such a standard (alleged factual inaccuracy as grounds for suspension) was asserted and enforced by a troika member back at Tacitus, the reaction from the commenters as a whole was overwhelmingly negative, and after the ill-advised suspension ended, the exercise has not been repeated, either at Tacitus or here. I would view the willingness of any troika candidate to enforce such a subjective and abusable standard as a black mark against that candidate.
But that's just me, I suppose.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that is, he has called American Soldiers far worse names.
With respect to factually false, did he make the statement or not?
a little more to chew on
“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just sort of curious. I had other options, I enlisted while there was still a draft on, but I knew plenty of people who didn't have many options and enlisted once the draft ended.
They were pretty good troops, too. I had a contempt for the draftees I knew: they were terrible soldiers. They wouldn't fight. They were insubordinate. They got people killed.
For some countries, a short stint through basic training and advanced individual training is all that's required, with periodic retraining and refresher courses. Switzerland keeps everyone in the service until they're too old to stand up. But here in the USA, a draft is a terrible idea. The training is too expensive, the requirements too rigorous, the level of motivation too high for any draftee to cut it in today's military.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )something about material damage to the left eye (probably the two blown orbits and related damage, baseball can be a very dangerous game). There was a draft but I had a really high number.
Now I would suggest that you read the comment that I responded to (which advocates the draft for a variety of reasons). You should get the general drift, if you care to read it.
BTW, three generations of my family have been involved with the military (the "Greatest Generation" British, er Canadian and American) none were drafted. Some have made a career of it.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Iraq doesn't hold a candle to Vietnam in the number of US lives lost and Vietnam doesn't hold a candle to Iraq in terms of national interests.
Also, hold off on judgement regarding dropping standards for recruitment. Six months ago I thought that dropping the standards was a bad idea but I find myself standing corrected. IIRC, promotions for those with waivers is occuring faster than for those who didn't need them. FYI, the only guy to have won 2 silver stars in the last decade required a waiver to be recruited.
Edit. The Soldier I mentioned above is Cpl Angelo Vaccaro.
--It's not only redundant, it's also repetitive
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Any institution staffed mainly by conservatives likely is fundamentally incapable of holding itself to a standard of professionalism and commitment to democratic, civilian rule.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Perfectly ironic
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd think that no matter the ideological or partisan background of men and women who serve, they would adhere to the centuries-old tradition of civilian command, no matter the ideology or Party of the civilian commander. I was disappointed, personally. You weren't. So, apparently, that's the difference -- you don't hold the conservatives/Republicans currently making up a supermajority of the officer corps to the same expectations.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...both that someone had failed to adhere to civilian command, and that I failed to be disappointed by your imaginary boogey man.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in any reasonable sense, the military is going to trend conservative. If conservative philosophy is fundamentally the maintenance of the status quo, then people who hold those views are going to be attracted to jobs which support that status quo. Police, firefighters, military -- their duties are not to produce, but to conserve that which others have produced. Logically, if liberal philosophy is experimentation and the perfection of humans, then people who hold those views are going to be attracted to jobs which allow for experimentation and human improvement. Teachers, counselors, researchers, nonprofit employees and founders -- their duties are to challenge the status quo or to improve their fellow persons in some fashion.
The problem comes when someone imputes some kind of moral value to this. Any society needs both sets of people in order to be successful for any length of time. Therefore, both sides have to accept the necessity of (well governed) institutions more comfortable to the other side.
What I'm frustrated by is conservatism's shift from respect for traditional successes into outright authoritarianism. The first is a set of ideas which I see as a very important check on my personal outlook. The second is a betrayal of both philosophies.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Marshalland MacArthur, Europe and Japan, respectively, then there is always Ike.
BTW "outright authoritarianism" squarely resides with the left.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There will be resistance at all levels to any missions or strategies perceived as "liberal" within the armed forces. For various reasons the culture today is GOP-friendly.
Also if Obama tries any kind of accounting of the no-bid contractor relationships, expect deafening squeals from the lobby industry. With an equal number of enlisted troops and paid mercenaries in country, you'd think someone would consult a history book about the effects maintaining very large professional armies can have on a republic.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)relationship pertaining Obama's record on public housing.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes. That's why I generally don't discuss it. Bad war in every imaginable way. Nuff said.
- Login or register to post comments
)ABC asked him for his opinion on whether it would be safe in his view to withdraw US troops from Iraq according to an unconditional timetable; he said that would be very dangerous. His opinion in that regard is far more valid and credible than those of ten politicians combined, Obama included.
His summary of what he would say to a new CIC is also based on knowledge of actual conditions on the ground, including those within the last 900 days. If he feels that way, he would be derelict in not saying so to his new CIC.
When you ask about "resistance" to an unconditional withdrawal order from Obama, are you talking about the troops thinking commands from politicians are stupid (generally the case), or a refusal to follow those orders (never the case)?
If Obama is elected and he gives the brass orders to withdraw in a manner that they know will subject their soldiers to extreme risk of injury or death, what is your expectation regarding what the military commanders should do? Will do?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)It seems obvious to me that the danger to which the officer refers isn't the physical danger to US troops you mention but rather danger to the current mission in Iraq as he sees it.
I have no doubt Obama is aware that his plan would be prejudicial to the mission established by Bush and the mission likely to be perpetuated under McCain.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it's not written on. Which doesn't change the fact as stated above that whewn the order comes, the military will follow it, regardless of what they think of it or the person making it.
Obama's running in part on a promise to take steps in Iraq prejudicial to the mission established by Bush, so it's hard to argue over whether he'll do that if elected. It's essentially too late now for him to change his mind even if he decided to travel the road to Damascus (whoops, meant next door) and actually encountered Iraqis and US military personnel that made him feel he had made a mistake by promising a timed pullout. Maybe that's why he's so reluctant to actually go there.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But as with any expert field, it's easy enough to find dissent. My biggest problem with this statement is that he presumes to speak for the entire coalition forces. That would be presumptuous even if he had 2 more stars on his shoulder.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and if you talk to three different returning Iraq vets you likely will get three different opinions of the war, and of the politicians that ordered it and who oppose it. (Which I think reflects really well on the type of people we're lucky to have serving on our military.) But I think there's a difference between a general saying "my people want