Is failure and its author so hard to recognize?
Phil Carter over at the Intel Dump reviews a book, or more correctly, reviews a review of a book.
Clint Douglas penned a brilliant review essay of David Bellavia's new combat memoir "House to House." -We finally have a general in command in Iraq, David Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency. American strategy has changed at last. The extra troops in the “surge” have provided security for many Iraqis and forestalled at least some sectarian killings. Progress has been made in recruiting Baathist insurgents to fight al-Qaeda. Al-Anbar Province, once the heart of the insurgency, is increasingly quiet, in part because we are now arming the very insurgents who were shooting at us. Our armed forces have learned from the mistakes of the past. But is it all too late? The American public is tired of the war in Iraq, and the Bush administration no longer has any credibility. There is broad agreement that the additional troop levels cannot be maintained for long. The overall Sunni-Shiite divide has never been deeper, and ethnic cleansing continues. We are finding ourselves backing both sides in a civil war. A political compromise between the factions remains as elusive as ever, and the Shiite-led government is only marginally better than dysfunctional. And as I write this, the Iraqi parliament is on vacation, while American soldiers continue to fight and die.
Petraeus may have a military strategy but does he have sufficient resources and can they be sustained long enough for the strategy to make a significant difference to the outcome in Iraq? Does he have the broad political backing at home necessary to complete the mission? does he have effective support from all elements of the governments of the US and Iraq, working in a co-ordinated effort to achieve a common goal? And critically, can any military strategy alone succeed, absent significant developments toward political reconciliation which would appear to remain as elusive today as they have ever been? the sideshow of AQI's change in fortunes amongst the Sunni notwithstanding?
If you can answer yes to any of the above then we are perhaps talking about a different war, on another planet, with an entirely different concept of the time-space continuum. To get a grasp of the scale of the problem, assume every No will add at least a year to the task, then plot the next general election on the resulting timescale to reveal the true strategy in place.
A commenter, Bruce Wilder nails it!
--
GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Spartacvs's blog
- Login or register to post comments
office.
How do you like them apples?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_OHOL-?SITE=WBNSTV&SECTION...
--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
)Very principled of them, I'm sure. :^)
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--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 )from either side...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It'd be more effective if it weren't used exclusively to excuse Repubs and excoriate Dems, you know.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )on the people and the programs. That, I believe in the case of people, is due to the fact that most of the big name Democrats seem to me to be unduly pompous and not terribly smart. Shrewd, yes, smart, no. That and the Republicans keep losing their twits to corruption charges. :)
On the programs, I make no bones about the fact that I very much distrust most social engineering for the deleterious effect on the same people they're supposed to help.
I have no problem what so ever with helping those who need it but I'm very firmly convinced that the European Social Democrat model is bad. We can do better but will not as long as those politically easy and vote buying schemes are pursued.
And BTW, not a strategic deployment, simply a true statement in that case. Both parties sandbag the troops constantly.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )prolonged just so the Dems will have to deal with it if one of them wins in November '08?
If so, here's another one for you: the Dems actually don't want the Iraq War to end before they can win the presidency. Why? Well, because they have a secret plan to win the war, and don't want it to happen on Bush's watch and have him get all the credit. If you study their half-hearted attempts at mandated troop pullouts, ineffectual leadership and their uncaring attitudes when they lose repeatedly on the pullout issue, the true strategy in place will be revealed.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)Yes, of course the war is being prolonged so it's Someone Else's Problem. There is debate over this?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Guess everyone in the military from the top down has been fooled again by that idiot Bush - he's so dumb that he's smart.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So I went by a military surplus store today, and I was amazed by the sheer quantity of Clinton-loathing. Fake $3 bills, bumper stickers everywhere, political cartoons taped up -- and both Bill and Hillary were up for excoriation.
I don't get it; it's been six years, DADT is going to fall obsolete shortly, etc. etc. and it doesn't matter. Clinton was just flat-out loathed. There's no evidence required. He had a "D" after his name.
Folks who want to be fooled are trivial to fool. I have a couple of enlisted friends who are pretty clear on why we're still in Iraq ("So Bush doesn't have to say he lost.") I have a couple of enlisted family members and acquaintences who also back the President to the hilt, but they all have different reasons why we're in Iraq.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the comment above or this one LINK?
Doesn't seem like both can be correct... :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )-0-
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Keep in mind that the President is extremely stupid.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but I disagree that he's nearly as stupid as a lot of folks like to think. Stupid enough that he usually gets most of what he wants and his opponents frequently dangle on the rope he leaves out for them...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He's a good bully in that respect -- but you saw how badly he got spanked by Ahmedinajad, who is pretty powerless but is in fact capable of calling a bluff when he sees it.
Every Bush victory needs a * after it -- "Media Aided." Because the first thing he figured out is that our press corps is comprised of the worst sorts of people for reporters, people who fear for their jobs and desperately want to be liked. And he successfully charmed and bullied them into writing what he needed them to write.
Doesn't mean he's particularly smart. Just means the folks working against him are particularly weak.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )comity, I'll pass... :)
I did miss Bush getting spanked by Ahmadinejad.
I agree pretty much with your assessment of reporters but I think its stupidity rather than fear.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You cannot have more disgust for the Democratic Party as an institution and its leadership (DNC excluded) as I do. Fascists are terrible, but Quislings . . . man.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Are all of their compromises unacceptable, even if they honestly thought compromise was necessary to win, and it was better to win and get part of their programs accomplished than lose and get none at all done?
You're a tough audience, PM. I feel the same way about people who I thought were committed conservatives, but at some level I've accepted that some amount of compromise is inevitable. This isn't well put, but the line between compromising on what's achievable from a practical standpoint vs. compromising core principles is the blurry one for most people in Washington IMO, regardless of party.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd think differently.
I don't think they're compromising to get things done, I think they're weak and have gotten used to losing.
Separately, you don't compromise with Fascists. You expose them and beat them. Maybe someday we'll have a non-Democratic Party composed of people who are merely foolish, wrongheaded, and selfish, and they'll even be right once in a while, because even the most foolish people are. But right now, there is the Democratic Party and the Fascists, and every compromise that Bush won't even sign, every bill passed in the dead of the night unread, every authorization to invade yet another country, every assault on the concept of free political speech, every budget that denies basic health services to our poor kids, and every Bush official who is allowed to lie without consequences -- every single one is a betrayal with no possible gain to be had from it.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Pretty strongly worded but true, I think. Let's hope this is reversible.
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )call for you on line one.
I don't for one minute believe that the President is prolonging the war so the next Administration has to deal with it. He has not the 1st clue how to end it, or bring the occupation to a satisfactory conclusion, but has realized that his legacy will depend on him not getting stuck with the blame for it and is neatly packaging the handover as best he can with that sole thought in mind.
You will never penetrate the liberal mind by assuming them to be that Machiavellian or indeed that well organized to be capable of pulling off such a stunt, aim lower. That takes the kind of top down authoritarian devotion to service in a greater cause (while taking a cut for yourself in the process, naturally) only found in current day Republican politics.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...So I read all the 46 Erudite posts, and everyone is STILL missing the simplest and correct solution.
War is hell, there is not winning in any war, only degrees of losing. American Self Interest, Talents, and Abilities dictates the following war plan, for all wars:
Go in, kick butt, kill lots of people in a furious fury of combat operations, topple and destroy whatever Regime is in place....
And simply leave...
With a smile and a backward shrug of the shoulders, saying, "Be good, or we'll be back."
Because the initial cost was so low, going back to repeat and rinse again is not a problem or even a political concern.
This is not an effort to be popular...but to further American interests.
It is not in America's interest to bleed our military and treasury dry.
Duh!
The simplest answers are always the best answers.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
)But as Ken says, they got sidetracked.
My bet, the relative ease of deposing Saddam which should have spooked them, lulled them into a misplaced sense of manifest destiny for the US amongst the Arab peoples. Karl whispering in GW's ear about the electoral benefits of showcasing the military in furtherance of American ideals (to be specified later) on the world stage probably had an effect too.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )only one.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...Manifest Destiny that gets you every time. The Greeks called it Hubris, and its effects can be a Bitch!
Hey, next time.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )do great damage and leave smoldering ruins -- which we really do very well -- then come home and send the UN a check and say "send in the clean up crew."
Unfortunately, Trav, you and I are not in charge... :(
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Kick down the ant-hill and let the ants make another one. Check level of offensiveness of said hill. Lather, rinse, repeat.
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The new Republican Majority.
--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 )Or, more correctly, your perceptions of Iraq.
There are many other places, other times and other situations. What I said, taken in context is "Do what you do well." All that's required is some thought about what one wants to achieve; something this nation historically has not ever done at all well.
You do tend to take things in a political context and ascribe base motives when neither is meant or implied...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )....and, secondarily, does this engender more Terrorism?
Or, is Terrorism really only a police problem? I'm thinking of the long history of the Troubles in Ireland, lots and lots of Terrorism, ongoing all over the world, The Tamil Tigers, Southern Thailand, the Bader-Meinhof gang of the 80's in Germany...
It's just around, there, with us, and you can either live in fear or just deal with it as best as possible because, nothing we do will ever make it go away.
Terrorism is and will be a permanent fixture on our political and mental landscape for as long as any of us will live.
And that's in part why the GWOT is such a fraud...there is no winning of this thing...there is only surviving and doing the best we can with as little damage to United States interests as possible.
But winning?
Don't fool yourself.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Depends on the situation. :)
As for the rest, don't disagree; the military aspect in the form of targeted SOF strikes where appropriate should be a part of it but major force commitment is unlikely. and sholud remain so.
You're right on 'winning' -- wasn't ever going to happen.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )....a tactic, exactly. But I don't think this has ever been a huge bone of contention. It rolls off the tongue better than "War Against Nasty Guys Pushing Islam As A Political Ideology", though.
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Don't you know there's a war on, moron?"
--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 )Unfortunately.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- 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 )...continues to reign supreme.
I'd shoot the Bastards, really I would, as did Lincoln (?)
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd make them all door to door bible salesmen, on the streets of Bagdhad.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )(1) Maybe.
(2) Maybe. Petraeus bought himself at a least Friedman unit with his and Crocker's testimony.
(3) Right now? No. Down the road? Unclear.
(4) No.
(5) The awakenings are both military and political advancements, but not a magic bullet.
I think your adding a year to every "no" is a stretch. In a few days, you're going to see vastly improved numbers in the month of September, and that's going to be beneficial for economy, the infrastructure and the refugee situation. My take is that if that trend continues, al Maliki, the Shiites and the Sunnis are going to be feeling increasing pressure from the U.S. and international community to hammer out political compromises. Whether it happens, I dunno.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)That's 3 straight no's and 2 maybe's, at say a Friedman each, making 4 years in total.
You claim my adding a year is a stretch. Ok, then lets count each 'no' as a Friedman unit instead. New result using your answers, 2 years. The next Administration and Congress will start their terms in less than 16 months from today. Is the Administrations strategy any clearer to you now?
I'm sure the vastly improved numbers for September will be forthcoming, if that is what it takes to continue the charade. In fact, I'm absolutely convinced of it.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, if it is important that they not be recognized.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)that they were hiding, or in some form of disguise, and not being totally honest about the impressions and appearance they intend to convey?
Quick, someone alert the electorate.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In more charitable moments, I sometimes think that our President only really lies to one person.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Barney.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and yes I feel I'm being generous in saying that. Can COIN bring Iraq to an acceptable quasi-peace? Probably, since eventually things have to settle & life go on. In a time frame America will stick around for? Probably not. The next President is going to inherit this train wreck, and the current bunch of boobs is going to skate.
--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
)in my opinion.
I think the COIN program and Petraeus were dictated by hands being forced by events having lost the initiative, and were adopted by the Bush Administration as a flag of convenience for the real strategy of evading the consequences of failure in Iraq by dumping the whole mess on the next Administration and Congress.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )progression from the abject failure of the Army in the first 18 months to accept (many knew, the leadership did not want to accept) the facts on the ground. They wanted, yet again, to fight a land war in Europe. It then took another 18 months to get the bureaucratic elephant turned around and another 12 months to really get it implemented.
I also think Bush had laid the groundwork to force the US government, regardless of administration to continue on the path he'd set. I'm aware that current punditocracy mutterings indicate he's now trying to do this; as always, they're a day late and a dollar short. Too many things were embedded in the budget three years ago for that not to have been planned.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They wanted, yet again, to fight a land war in Europe sounds like code for blaming a Powell-like approach. Which we didn't use in Iraq.
The facts on the ground, as I see them, indicate that a "land war in Europe" approach would have been far preferable, in that more boots on the ground would arguable have prevented the insurgency from developing by preventing the rapid slide into chaos and instability.
We've been around on this before and I guess I'm just missing something here.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in Ken's mission to preserve the original sin as virtue, best illustrated perhaps by the musings of Michael Leeden: Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show that we mean business, and witnessing the first stirrings of Dolchstoßlegende.
Tom Friedman said something similar I believe, and here it is:
GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your entire comment above is just silly and that you quote two dipwad pundits proves that to be correct.
You almost certainly cannot be as opposed to War as I am; you mistake acceptance of its inevitability for support of it. Wrong.
You can do better.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )about the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
I would not try to put Leeden or Friedman's exact words in your mouth, but I must confess I see little daylight between their statements and your oft repeated mantra that someone had to do something about the mounting provocations from the ME, and your approval of the fact that GW Bush did the necessary something.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I did and do say that eventually someone was going to have to act to counter the failures of Carter, Reagan,Bush 41 and Clinton in the ME.
I have said that I don't agree with what Bush did or the way he did it and the timing -- but that at least he did something. And you seem to conveniently forget the first part of that.
If you cannot see the difference between that and the babbling of pundit brooks over the rocks of ignorance, I can't help you.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You say
but you are still ok with what he did because he did 'something'. What 'something' did Bush do that rises to merit your approval?
Anything?
I'm assuming that the 'something' had to involve the US military in some significant offensive action against the ME as a given, and that a strongly worded demarche or lobbing a few cruise missiles just wouldn't have cut it. So somewhere between picking up some small crappy little country and throwing it against the wall or taking out a very big state right in the heart of that world and bursting that bubble, but below the level of turning Mecca or somewhere into a glass parking lot, then?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yep -- and Iraq was the obvious strategic choice for many reasons; easy target (and it's still easy on a relative basis, regardless of what you and some others think), geographic centrality, gives the Saudis some slack, discomfits Iran (and it still does that regardless of what you and others think).
Not that Bush picked it, CentCom had done that years ago. Bush just said "Go" to their recommendation partly, as he has said, because he feared his successor would not do so.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of the electorate as each day passes, thankfully.
Though I would concede it was enough to elect Bush to his 1st legitimate term in 2004, amongst the fear mongering that followed the events of 9/11. A stain that will remain on the Republic for some time to come and won't easily wash away.
Two stains, no three, but no blue dress.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )along with his Administration, 'someone' else provided the answer and the answer was Iraq. Bush was merely following his constitutional duty to grant the 'someone' their desire to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall or take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and bursting that bubble?
In which case, what was the question? and who was asking? and who in your mind is the 'someone'?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )yet you lob criticisms that make you look silly.
Bush was the instigator of doing something. He asked his gurus "What to do?" By some consensus we don't fully know but can logically suspect was Cheney and the Neocon idiots, they came up with attack back. Really, a good answer. Where? Iraq! Can we do that? Then and only then does CentCom dust off its contingency Plan for invading Iraq, a plan that had been sitting on the shelf like a hundred others just in case.
Y'see, the way it works, the geographic commands are responsible for maintaining contingency plans for the areas of responsibility. They've been doing this since the 1950s. There are literally hundreds of them. They're updated sporadically and, if an area heats up, they are more thoroughly updated. They can execute them whenever the President says to do so.
CentCom briefs the plan, Bush say "Go." It thus is Bush's war based on CentCom's plan.
You really need to know more and read better before posting.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the CENTCOM plan would have had Shinseki and Zinni's numbers not the pared down bare minimum dictated by Rumsfeld, because to claim otherwise would mean the plan was re-evaluated to discount the much larger troop requirements in the Zinni plan dictated by knowledge of the potential for civil unrest to destabilize the country. Re-evaluated by the very people who carried out the mission with the latest intelligence and agreed to by the civilian leadership. Can't have it both ways Ken, the correct answer would have been we can't do it with the resources you are willing to provide. Either restore the resources of the Zinni plan or don't do it. Looks to me that they got the answer, if they ever posed the question, that you will do it with the resources we provide or we will find someone else who will and they will get the Medal of Freedom and not you. Franks went along with that.
Why Iraq when the attack was instigated by AQ in Afghanistan without the knowledge or active participation of anyone in any kind of a leadership position in Iraq? This is a central question, no dodging, I'm trying for a feel of the bottom here.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )two different people that Franks wanted 300K, Rumsfeld insisted on 90K and it went to Bush for resolution and he settled on 250K.
I do not disagree with your statement "the correct answer would have been we can't do it with the resources you are willing to provide." That's what should have happened -- but almost certainly did not. You misunderestimate the reluctance of the Armed forces to say they cannot do something. if they think there's the slightest prayer, they'll say "Yes, Sir" and drive on. Thus the last sentence in your lead paragraph is, regrettably, totally correct -- and that's why I have consistently slammed Franks; that and his "I'll take Baghdad for you but then I want to immediately retire." He knew what was coming...
As for why Iraq; as I've said elsewhere in this thread, Afghanistan was understood as 'do not attack the US on its soil' an added message of "do not attack US interests anywhere in the world" was needed in the view of many who have served in the ME; the folks over there are quite xenophobic and territory is almost sacred to them; you or your stuff outside your territory are a lesser category and subject to attack and looting -- unless you REALLY object. We really objected...
Also:
""Bush was the recipient of an unprovoked and unexpected attack with ME provenance. He responded with an unprovoked and unexpected attack in the ME."" (emphasis added / kw)
""Yep -- and Iraq was the obvious strategic choice for many reasons; easy target (and it's still easy on a relative basis, regardless of what you and some others think), geographic centrality [very important], gives the Saudis some slack, discomfits Iran (and it still does that regardless of what you and others think)."" [bracketed text added]
I'll add that it all had to be done with minimum disruption to the world (not US, world) oil supply. That knocked out Saudi Arabia as a target. Pakistan is not in the ME, that would have muddled the message so they were likely not considered on that basis.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And since Barack Rodman Edwards also agrees that we cannot leave before 2013, maybe longer, looks like most everyone agrees.
Of course Dennis Richards Bidendodd do disagree.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A man was having a heart attack, I gave him a tracheotomy. At least I did something.
My car was out of gas, so I egged it. At least I did something.
I accidentally burned the toast. Then I washed it. At least I did something.
The dentist says I need to floss or I'll lose my teeth. I think I'll get a tattoo. At least I'll be doing something.
This is fun! Try a few!
--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 )effete. Since I know you are not one of those, I'll accept that as a poor attempt at humor; you usually do better but then, we all have bad days... :)
Bush was the recipient of an unprovoked and unexpected attack with ME provenance. He responded with an unprovoked and unexpected attack in the ME.
You may recall, that's the "An eye for an eye..." part of the world. They understood even if you don't.
IOW, his action was appropriate just as none of yours are. Enjoy your soggy toast
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I doubt there are many in the ME who understand or even think they understand what we're doing there. If you have any proof other than billion-man-mindreading I'd like to see it. I doubt we understand what we're doing there either. Most of us judging by the polls and the rhetoric and the policy decisions do not. I also don't think true believers on either side, and this probably includes you, think that either attack was "unprovoked."
Anyway I think it's pretty clear that removing an Arab government and killing up to a million subjects of that government hasn't won us much respect over there. Judging by the ongoing probing attacks you say are symptomatic of the ME problem. Again if you have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it. When does your theory start kicking in, exactly?
--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 )led by the rants of their nominal leaders but hose leaders understood perfectly what was being done. That's why they were unanimous in opposition to it. The fact that you, many here and many in Europe did not understand that and also obnjected is merely coincidental.
Re: the true believers and 'provoked.' Probably true but the provocations were quite different.
Killing up to a million? Wild figures. You're also wrong on the results; it hasn't won us any friends over there, that's for sure -- but it has earned a grudging respect.
You're going to have to amplify your last three sentences, I don't understand the allusion or the question.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which I'd do, if your word didn't contradict everything I'm seeing in the ME. If as you say the overarching problem is ME probing attacks have shown us to be weak in the past, hence provoking yet more attacks, then now four years after a major "Suck. On. This." we should see what exactly? A reduction in probing attacks? Not happening. A newfound willingness to bargain? Not happening. I'm asking for your help here, because I don't see any tangible evidence that we've earned respect, grudging or otherwise. It looks more like we opened a multifront war and we don't much know what's going on.
So if you have anything that shows how we've earned respect, I'd like to see it.
My theory, which I'll just outline here quickly, is that your Arab Street theory is flawed from the get go, because few of the hostiles you're lumping together into one mega enemy are allied with one another. The "probing attacks" you're talking about are terrorist acts by extremists whose entire game plan is to get us to attack ME countries and kill people who aren't them. Occasional examples of states taking advantage/using extremists as proxy (nearly always Iran) are more the exception than the rule. I'll try to spell this out later if I have time. Meanwhile, it'd be great to have some evidence from you that contradicts what I see in the news & hear through scuttlebutt.
[typos cleaned up]
--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 )What are you seeing in the ME?
Seriously. What are you seeing, how are you seeing it and what do you think it means?
However, to answer your question. The ME has been doing its thing for 7,000 years; time has a totally different meaning there. Recall that those probing attacks took place from 1982 (The embassy takeover in 1979 was a precursor, even a catalyst but was not one of those attacks) up through 9/11/01. Only two were on US Soil, the WTC Bombing by an Egyptian crowd and the Fly In by a predominately Saudi crowd. The others ranged from Hezbollah and its forebears to the PLO and a couple of odd ones. They emanated from the ME and even though from separate sources; each succeeding attack drew no real response. Each thus encouraged the next. Add to that OBL (who is dead) has stated on several occasions that the US has no stomach for a fight as evidenced by withdrawal from Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia and so forth. Still none of those groups were related by much other than coming from the ME. that is the only common thread.
You say there is no reduction in probing attacks of that nature. Obviously not counting Afghanistan or Iraq where there is combat and speaking strictly of US interests, where has a probing attack occurred since 9/11?
I have no idea where a willingness to bargain comes from. The US government has for a great many years as a matter of policy refused to bargain with terrorists so that's not even an issue. We may do an under the table deal but there will be no bargaining. Nor should there be.
As for the respect, the only thing open source thing I can suggest is that you read the ME blogs and news sources and pay careful attention to what they DON'T say. They are no longer predicting our disappearance or demise. You could also review Zawahiri's tapes, they make no bones of the fact that our departure is imminent and thus they win -- yet, the entire ME knows we're still there and they know we aren't leaving. If you insist on relying on the US media, stick to John Burns and Dexter Filkins. They're among the few that know what's going on. I'd also suggest Michael Totten and Michael Yon both are objective and honest and they are not cheerleaders.
Fighting international Islamist terrorism was always by definition a multi front war. We're having a lot of success on the financial and law enforcement effort picking off funding sources and conduits, world wide and recently and notably, particularly in South America in the triangle.
The political and military effort in SE Asia is going very well indeed. Afghanistan is doing okay. Even Iraq is not nearly as bad as many like to believe it is. The Iranians are now worried; Rafsanjani got elected to head the Council of guardians and the hard core Pasdaran Chief got replaced by as moderate. We ignored their folks in Iraq for years (Dumb General's orders) but the gloves are now off and they're being picked up in carload lots.
I've spent enough time in the ME that I know that your "...Arab Street theory is flawed from the get go, because few of the hostiles you're lumping together into one mega enemy are allied with one another." is ludicrous. Anyone who entertained such a thought would have zero knowledge of that environment -- I sure don't entertain the thought. They are a bunch of amorphous groups who rarely talk to each other, seldom cooperate -- but are smart enough to watch what goes on and learn from each others mistakes. Yet again you accuse me of ideas I've never had or stated. You seem to do that a lot...
You don't need to spell out your theory, the outlines are adequate to know you're on track. What you are off track on is in assuming you're the only one able to get there. What you seem to miss is that we are not attacking any ME countries and killing anyone who is not them. We caught them off base in Afghanistan (not a ME nation, BTW) in 2001 and we caught them off base in Iraq in 2003. It's now 2007 and we haven't invaded anyone else nor are we likely to do so.
They recovered quickly, they're more flexible than we are -- but AQ in Iraq and AQ ala OBL (dead) and Zawahiri are not even the same thing. We did kill too many innocents due to bad tactics initially in the summer of 2003 but we've fixed that. When Iraqi kids say they like Americans because they're the only ones that don't shoot at the kids, your idea of their strategy -- pretty well correct -- shows that strategy hasn't worked for them.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sounds to me very much like the statements by Leeden and Friedman that you are careful to distinguish yourself from, or at least it's in the same vein.
Except that we're gouging out both eyes, cutting off the nads and stuffing them in the mouth of a neighbor who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident perpetrated by someone else and without our victims knowledge or collaboration.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for centuries. Friedman's traveled enough over there to have picked up on it, don't know enough about Ledeen to comment. I traveled enough over there to know it is a credo with most in the ME. Wouldn't have so many tribal feuds and intra-family "honor" killings were that not so...
You're thinking like a westerner, logically and naturally. Though processes in the ME don't work the same way; not that they're bad, just different. Those in the ME see Afghanistan as "an arm for an arm" for attacks on US soil; Iraq was for attacks on US interests elsewhere in the world. That's "an eye for an eye." Not that subtle a distinction, though most in the west miss it. We attacked someone else but indirectly attacked the interests of every nation in the ME.
It is also expected when you take the eye that you may mutilate the genitalia if you wish, so your allegory once again ends up being sort of correct even if you got there the wrong way.
Iraq was not attacked BECAUSE of 9/11 -- that was Afghanistan. Iraq was ABLE to be attacked due to 9/11. That's not such a subtle difference either. Yet, again, most in the west miss it.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for a substantial attack on 'someone' in the ME, time and target at our discretion, in order to set an example that we wouldn't be messed with is what you appear to be saying. Kinda like the way the Nazis dealt with partisans by rounding up a group of noncombatants from the nearest village, who may or may not have had familial or other supportive ties to partisans, and shot them all in cold blood.
If I thought that were even remotely true then I could only conclude we deserve everything bad that might come our way because of it, just like the Nazis, and anyone in a position of authority in the government or military who enunciated such a scheme ought to end up at the Hague.
Morally bankrupt doesn't seem a strong enough term, but it will have to do.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )believe.
War, in any guise, is morally bankrupt. Always has been and always will be. Doesn't change the fact that some have to be fought.
Do recall your subject line in #60948 -- you could change the word 'license' to 'wake up call' at your discretion.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This one didn't, which is were the bankruptcy element comes in.
Wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic if Bush were the one who ended up at the Hague?
It's not what I believe, it's an interpretation I offered of your comment, and one that I had hoped you would have made some effort to contradict.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )dependent and you and I have long established we see that differently. You're unlikely to change your mind and it really matters little to me whether you do or not. I know I'm not going to change my mind so there's little to debate on that aspect.
As for Bush ending up at the Hague, I doubt you've got a case there though I have little doubt some lawyer or wild Magistrate will try to make that happen -- to no avail.
With respect to the moral bankruptcy, morality is a personal construct, there are some norms but most us differ widely on the interpretations and nuances. I disagreed with your simile and I disagree that the attack was or is 'morally bankrupt' -- not nice, I'll grant; not nice at all. Relations between nations and warring entities are rarely nice. Interests trump alliances, friendships and niceties. I have no problem with that; totally support it, in fact. Thus, I'm not sure what you expected in the way of a contradiction; we disagree and I have no problem with that.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Which, if your theory is true, explains the mile-wide inch-deep support for the war which has now dried up to the point of making it all worthless.
--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 )it being worthless. It's already accomplished most strategic goals; the rest will be along in due time.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Bush ignores it.
I guess that still counts as doing something?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Try some viagra or sump'n. That's pretty weak...
Dunno about Bush but I'm ignoring global warming simply because it drives the left up a wall. Bush may be doing it for the same reason. :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )they are building naval assets for Arctic Ocean operations.
Bush isn't ignoring it either. He wants the US to ratify a treaty (Law of Sea or somesuch) the Right has been opposed to a gazillian years.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )because compliance is too costly. you knew that, right? And of course the Russkies are effectively exempt.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I believe that Sparti gave two quotes from well-known guys that properly represents your views on our reasons for getting into Iraq.
So, do we both mis-understand your position? Or, is your position "evolving"?
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Something did need to be done in the ME to counter the failures there of Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton.
I do not believe the US needs to throw its weight around and in fact think it should not -- but I do know that to back down in front of a threat from the ME is seen as a weakness and that such action invites attack. That peculiarity is limited to the ME, most of the rest of the world doesn't work that way.
I don't agree with any of that Neocon stupidity. I didn't agree particularly with what Bush did and when he did it but did and do think it will probably work. I have said and mean that I am not a war supporter for this one but I am an accepter of it as better than a failure to react.
I've long said the first substantial changes will occur in the summer of 2008, that there'll be moderate stability increasing slowly after that to the general rule of law by 2018 and that Iraq will be a productive and functioning nation with governance in accordance with world norms by 2033 -- and we'll be there in lesser numbers that whole time.
Been saying all that for over four years, no evolving to it.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it means you have fronts and a clear cut enemy, whereas counterinsurgency recognizes you don't have those things and need different tactics like small units embedded with locals rather than operating on your own out of large bases.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )rationale for its existence and structure since WW I and, most distressingly since WWII. The term refers not to the number of people involved but to the tactics and techniques used.
Specifically, it is envisioned as an armored or mechanized combat using the latest technology to overwhelm a conventional opponent.
Those tactics do not cope at all well with insurgencies. The Army erred in Korea by trying to use those tactics against a Chinese and North Korean enemy who was too low tech, numerous and dispersed for the effort to work. They tried it in Viet Nam for seven years (1962-69) against an even smarter, lower tech and more dispersed enemy with disastrous results before finally getting smart and implementing COIN techniques in 1969 -- but by then, even though they worked well, it was too late politically.
While the USSR was alive, the priority to a European war made some sense -- even though, post Viet Nam, it was pretty obvious that future wars would more nearly look like VN than WW II -- after 1990, though, for the Army to cling to that model of war was very short sighted. Regardless, cling it did.
That model failed in Kosovo and yet, the guy who led US troops into Kosovo, Sanchez, was selected to lead US troops in Iraq. There were a lot of political foul ups, so it wasn't all the Army's fault but their inability to preclude the start of the insurgency (due to not knowing what to do)and then continuing to do the wrong things for a year and a half made a bad situation worse. As M.A. has said, if the surge and COIN efforts had begun three or more years ago, it probably would have been beneficial; this late, it may or may not be.
That 'not knowing what to do' was as a direct result of the so-called Powell (actually, Weinberger) Doctrine, a flawed prescription by which the Army tried to avoid any counterinsurgency because it's hard on the Army, it's dirty and it takes a long time -- the land war in Europe is more attractive; think Knights in a jousting contest versus other Knights as opposed to Knights in ugly hand-to-hand against lightly armed but far more agile unarmored serfs.
Good goal, would be nice -- but totally unrealistic. No opposing Knights out there since 1990; however, there are a lot of unhappy serfs about...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It certainly seems useful to be prepared to deal with an insurgency in light of the political realities of the post cold-war world.
I nevertheless hold Rumsfeld in particular responsible for some of the current problems in Iraq.
Specifically, I question whether there was a serious effort to prepare for a potential insurgency -- to some extent "you go to war with the army you have" but to some extent you should at a minimum adopt those tenets of COIN ops that can be easily and quickly implemented. For example, a higher force density would not have appreciably harmed our military actions but could have helped minimize instability.
I also question whether he made Bush fully aware of potential difficulties facing the military in Iraq (or perhaps, given his optimistic public statements, whether he himself foresaw those challenges). More time was politically available, had it been viewed as necessary, but I don't see much concern expressed or many attempts made prior to the invasion to prepare for the inevitable occupation.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In his defense, he really had no military experience and thus had to rely on the advice of his Army leadership on that score; they let him, Bush the nation and themselves down by NOT being prepared to (a) stop the insurgency that was predicted by many to be probably before it built up to a major problem; and (b) not being able to react because they hadn;t trained for it when that insurgency did blow up. In their defense, their predecessors -- including Powell -- had convinced them that