by Frank James
U.S. policymakers and the military may be launching a new round of Iraq whack-a-mole, only on a larger scale.
That’s the take of Anthony Cordesman, the national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has been oft-cited in this blog because of the respect he gets from many in the nation’s capital as one of the best thinkers on security issues.
Cordesman has been observing the latest state of play in Iraq, including the current Operation Ripper launched by U.S. and Iraqi forces to take out insurgents and al Qaeda outside Baghdad.
While he’s impressed with how much the U.S. military has transformed itself to fight a counterinsurgency, he’s concerned still by some of what he hears from top U.S. military officers.
It is too early to judge what is happening in Baquba, and the use of far more intense combat tactics coupled to broader efforts to seal and secure urban areas after tactical victories may have a more lasting effect. There is, however, an obvious risk that the US will simply end up playing “Whack a mole” on a steadily rising scale.
So far, the claims of success to date have been tenuous to meaningless. As of June 23rd, MNF-I claimed that, “at least 55 al-Qa’ida operatives have been killed, 23 have been detained, 16 weapons caches have been discovered, 28 improvised explosive devices have been destroyed and 12 booby-trapped structures have been destroyed.” These figures are far too low to matter.
It also really doesn’t matter if insurgent casualties are much higher than our own unless such casualties include substantial cadres of leaders and experts that cannot be easily and rapidly replaced. The insurgents can simply disperse, stand down, and regroup. The domestic political realities in the US also make it clear that unless the US is successfully taking out cadres and insurgent infrastructure, the US is now so sensitive to American casualties that tactical victories can result in the same kind of political and strategic defeat that occurred in Vietnam.
This risk is all too apparent from the recent statements of Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq. If, as the general said on June 22nd, some 80 percent of the top Qa'ida leaders in Baquba fled before the American-led offensive began, it is not clear that it matters if “80 percent” of the recruits remained when the offensive attacked the western half of the city.
It also is silly to call the leaders and cadres who leave “cowards.” Iraqis are not foolish and they understand that such actions are an inevitable insurgent reaction to US military superiority and a key element of asymmetric warfare.
Cordesman doesn't say this, but when Gen. Odierno was rattling off the statistics about the insurgents killed and the bombs found last week, it had a real feel of what the U.S. military did in Vietnam when it attempted to demonstrate progress in that war by providing the media with bodycounts for North Vietnamese Army troops and Viet Cong guerillas.
Cordesman's bigger point is that the U.S. can have all the tactical success in the world, but unless Iraqi politicians can get their act together and progress is made in other areas as well, such as an end to the sectarian violence, Iraq, if not effectively lost, still won't be stable enough for the surge to be declared a success. And it's going to take much longer than September for the kind of progress that's needed to happen.
Here's Corderman's entire article:
“Iraq, Baquba, Arrowhead Ripper,and the Real Elements of ‘Victory’”
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2007— The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Arleigh Burke Chair in Strategy Anthony Cordesman has prepared a new analysis, “Iraq, Baquba, Arrowhead Ripper, and the Real Elements of ‘Victory’.” Dr. Cordesman’s entire analysis can be found below:
Iraq, Baquba, Arrowhead Ripper, and the Real Elements of “Victory”
By Anthony H. Cordesman
There are many elements of the current US campaign in Iraq that are very impressive. The US military has steadily shifted from a force oriented towards conventional war to one that can also fight counterinsurgency campaigns. It has greatly improved its tactical, intelligence, and targeting skills to attack dispersed networks of insurgents like the Sunni Islamist extremists that include Al Qa’ida’s various affiliates. It has shown it can win tactical battles with a surprisingly low ratio of forces to opponents.
It is also a fact that the US, its Coalition allies, and the Iraqi government cannot win any form of security and stability if insurgent movements can keep large areas of Iraq unstable and constantly exacerbate Iraq’s civil conflicts. Tactical success is an important element of victory.
Tactical Victory or Stretching Too Thin and a New Form of “Whack a Mole?”
The present campaign in Iraq, however, raises serious issues regarding its strategic value. One key problem was raised during the debate over the surge strategy before President Bush adopted it and announced it in January 2007. It was always clear that an operation in Baghdad would simply lead many insurgents to leave the city and operate elsewhere and that most Shi’ite militias might simply stand down, let the US-led forces defeat the insurgents, watch a Shi’ite dominated government gain power, and resurface once the US was gone. Baghdad was important. It never made sense to see it as the decisive battlefield or center of gravity.
This is now all too clear even in a narrow military sense. The US is having to expand its counterinsurgency operations broadly outside Baghdad in ways that can steadily disperse limited US and combat-capable Iraqi military forces. Baghdad is still only 30-40% secured, but the fighting not only is dispersing limited US forces into the Baghdad ring cities, but into a troubled zone of provinces ranging from Anbar to Diyala. The US has learned it cannot ignore growing Shi’ite tensions and Iranian pressure in the south, and still faces serious potential problems with Arab-Kurdish tensions in the north.
It is too early to judge what is happening in Baquba, and the use of far more intense combat tactics coupled to broader efforts to seal and secure urban areas after tactical victories may have a more lasting effect. There is, however, an obvious risk that the US will simply end up playing “Whack a mole” on a steadily rising scale.
So far, the claims of success to date have been tenuous to meaningless. As of June 23rd, MNF-I claimed that, “at least 55 al-Qa’ida operatives have been killed, 23 have been detained, 16 weapons caches have been discovered, 28 improvised explosive devices have been destroyed and 12 booby-trapped structures have been destroyed.” These figures are far too low to matter.
It also really doesn’t matter if insurgent casualties are much higher than our own unless such casualties include substantial cadres of leaders and experts that cannot be easily and rapidly replaced. The insurgents can simply disperse, stand down, and regroup. The domestic political realities in the US also make it clear that unless the US is successfully taking out cadres and insurgent infrastructure, the US is now so sensitive to American casualties that tactical victories can result in the same kind of political and strategic defeat that occurred in Vietnam.
This risk is all too apparent from the recent statements of Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq. If, as the general said on June 22nd, some 80 percent of the top Qa'ida leaders in Baquba fled before the American-led offensive began, it is not clear that it matters if “80 percent” of the recruits remained when the offensive attacked the western half of the city. It also is silly to call the leaders and cadres who leave “cowards.” Iraqis are not foolish and they understand that such actions are an inevitable insurgent reaction to US military superiority and a key element of asymmetric warfare.
Not only have such estimates of “stay behinds” been badly exaggerated in past fighting, along with the capacity to keep them from infiltrating out or hiding, it is all too easy to move on to the next area and city and recruit more, and exploit the hostility following urban combat operations and large-scale detainments. Moreover, no major US-led or Iraqi operation will ever take place without enough signs, leaks, and infiltration to provide leaders and cadres with advanced warning.
The Critical Importance of Political Conciliation
The tactical problem, and stretching a limited pool of US forces too thin, is only part of the problem. As both General Petraeus and Secretary Gates have made clear, none of this matters unless the Iraqis can move towards political conciliation – or at least a relatively stable form of coexistence. So far, there is only a limited promise of potential legal action by the government.
If anything, the use of Sunni tribes in the West has created new forms of Sunni vs. Shi’ite polarization. Shi’ite on Shi’ite fighting and feuding has gotten much worse in the south and in the central government, and the uncertainties over oil and a regional referendum on federalism in the north are increasing Kurdish, Arab, and Turcoman tensions.
Creating an Effective Bridge between Tactical Victory and Lasting Strategic Impact
There also is the problem of creating an effective bridge between tactical victory and lasting strategic impact even if political conciliation does move forward. So far the Coalition has been virtually silent on progress in Baghdad, much less how such progress can be made in the new fighting outside it. Giving tactical victories lasting meaning requires the following additional elements:
Iraqi Army forces must begin to take over meaningful operations without US embeds and US partner units, and dependence on US reinforcement and support. There does seem to be increasing Iraqi Army capability here, but Coalition reporting does not provide a useful picture of progress – merely grossly inflated figures on areas of responsibility and total numbers of battalions in the lead.
Iraqi police and local security forces must establishing a lasting security presence in the areas where tactical victories are won, and do so credibly in ways that give ordinary Iraqis security. There can be no “win” without “hold.” So far, the US has made claim after claim to have secured cities after winning tactical battles to control them, and has never actually established lasting security in even one of them. The most critical problem has been the lack of active, combat-capable police, without corruption and sectarian or ethnic ties. Falluja and Samara are only the most obvious cases of such failures.
Coalition reporting so far talks about the number of police posts established. It has not said a word about the ability to provide lasting security using Iraqi police in parts of Baghdad or anywhere else. It also has not talked about the ability to support police efforts with an effective local criminal justice and court system or to screen detainees in ways that do not breed local hostility.
The Coalition also needs to start talking about who actually does provide local security, and stop treating militias, local security forces, and police hired locally without Coalition training as if they are always hostile or do not exist. In the real world, these forces and not the “trained and equipped” police are the real local security forces in most of Iraq. There has to be a credible plan to use, absorb, or contain them.
The Iraqi government must follow-up security with a meaningful presence and by providing steady improvements in services. “Winning hearts and minds” doesn’t come from public information campaigns and propaganda. It comes from providing real security for ordinary Iraqis, and showing the government cares, is present, and can steadily improve services. Once again, promise after promise has been made in past campaigns, and the central government has not yet shown it can follow up in even a single case. If this is happening even in the “secured” areas of Baghdad, no one has yet said so. How it can happen in Diyala or other high threat areas is unclear.
There must also be effective local government. The liberation of various areas often has seen the emergence of local leaders willing to work with the Coalition – although often with little faith in, or ties to, the central government. In most cases, however, they have become targets, and the effort has broken down in local factional disputes or because of a lack of effective government support and problems in Coalition civil affairs efforts. Once again, if there is progress in creating stable, survivable, effective local government; none of the details are clear.
There has to be economic aid and progress. Iraqis have to give priority to physical security and key services, but unemployment, underemployment, and shut or failed businesses affect some 60% or more of Iraqis nationally and the figures are even higher in high threat and combat areas. The strategy President Bush announced in January 2007 advanced proposals for accomplishing such an effort in Baghdad. Once again, there has been no meaningful Coalition reporting on broad progress in such efforts in the secured areas of Baghdad, and past promises such aid would be provided in “liberated” cities like Samara and Falluja were not kept.
There must be an end to sectarian and ethnic cleansing and displacement. There is no near and perhaps midterm answer to suicide bombings and atrocities, to attacks on sacred shrines and critical facilities. No mix of security forces can stop even small cadres of extremists from occasional successes. No tactical victory has meaning, however, unless Iraqis can be secure in neighborhoods and areas where they are in the minority, and can reach across ethnic and sectarian lines and barriers in ordinary life.
One of the greatest single failures of the current approach to fighting in Iraq is that it does not track sectarian and ethnic separation and displacement and make ending this on a local and national level at least as important as halting major attacks and killings. It may take years to make Iraqis secure from Islamist extremists and the worst elements of Shi’ite gangs and militias. There can be no meaningful tactical success, however, unless Iraqis can be safe from their own neighbors and begin to lead ordinary lives in their own neighborhoods.
Metrics, Benchmarks, and Real Victory
The late Colonel Harry Sommers summed up the US defeat in Vietnam in a brief exchange he had with a North Vietnamese officer after the war. Sommers pointed out that the US had won virtually every tactical encounter with both the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces. The Vietnamese officer replied, “Yes, but this was irrelevant.”
The new US Army manual on counterinsurgency, which is the result of an effort led by General Petraeus, recognizes this reality, and virtually all of the points made above. It also may well be unfairly early to judge progress in Baghdad even in September, much less now. Historically, any campaign that has had to begin with as weak a foundation as the surge strategy took at least a year to seriously take hold and often several years. An Iraq in political turmoil, in local economic collapse, and without security even for senior officials and members of parliament, will not move quickly – especially in a Baghdad summer.
The fact remains, however, that tactical success will remain largely meaningless in Baghdad, Baquba, the other areas covered by Operation Ripper, and in Iraq as a whole unless it can be linked to political conciliation and progress in the other six critical elements of victory listed above. The US team in Iraq and the Bush Administration need to show the American people and the Congress that they understand this, are acting on the basis of these realities, have sound plans, and are making real progress. “Spinning” the importance of tactical success does not do this.
At the same time, both the media and outside analysts need to focus far more on the full range of actions it takes to win, and to do so with patience and objectivity. No strategy or campaign could possibly achieve significant success in all of these elements by this fall, or even ensure a successful start. It is reasonable to demand credible plans and transparent and meaningful reporting – something that the Administration has not yet provided in a single critical area.
It is not reasonable to demand instant progress or focus solely on the level of US troops in Iraq or casualties in the fighting. It should also be clear from the above list that US military tactical victories are almost certain to be meaningless if the US political system cannot adapt to the reality that broad success – albeit with what may be much lower US troop levels – will require an effort that extends at least several years in to the next Administration and which cannot take place without bipartisan support. The odds are bad enough given the problems in Iraq; they are hopeless if the political environment in the US offers no hope of the necessary time and bipartisanship.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The answer is : Yes, it is "Whack-a-mole".
"The U.S. commander of a new offensive north of Baghdad, reclaiming insurgent territory day by day, said Sunday his Iraqi partners may be too weak to hold onto the gains.
The Iraqi military does not even have enough ammunition, said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek: “They’re not quite up to the job yet.”
His counterpart south of Baghdad seemed to agree, saying U.S. troops are too few to garrison the districts newly rid of insurgents. “It can’t be coalition (U.S.) forces. We have what we have. There’s got to be more Iraqi security forces,” said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch."
Posted by: Tony | June 25, 2007 4:41 PM
"Experts Fear US Will Win The Iraq Battles But Lose The War"
Apparently the experts are not listening to this "expert", thank god.
"The insugency is in it's last throes".
-DICK CHENEY in 2004-
Posted by: John E | June 25, 2007 4:54 PM
Win battles, lose war? Been there, done that. Only, don't remind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They weren't paying attention thirty-five, forty years ago. Too busy running and hiding.
Posted by: gus | June 25, 2007 5:13 PM
When everybody in Iraq is finally dead, will we have won the war?
Posted by: San Miguel | June 25, 2007 5:17 PM
Our troops are being used as target practice by Sunni and Shia. Iraq is a bloodbath whether we stay or leave. Let's get our troops our of harms way now.
As for you lunatics who believe that by staying in Iraq we are somehow thwarting terrorist attack here in the US: HOGWASH.
George W Bush is far and away the worst president in US history. It will take years to undo the damage this clown has done.
Posted by: Old Hawk | June 25, 2007 5:55 PM
Echos of Vietnam; we won every major encounter, but lost in the end anyway.
This is what we mean when we say 'GWB didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam'.
Check out 'A Bright and Shining Lie' by Sheehan. It's free at your socialist library.
(Don't panic Cons. it's not by Cindy.)
Posted by: TheReamer | June 25, 2007 5:58 PM
Hey Bush and Pentagon,
I planned for my wedding better than you planned for the Iraq occupation. Heads hopefully will roll some day for this amazing blunder.
Posted by: Gort | June 25, 2007 6:02 PM
After all that analysis, it is `clear to me that Saddam's methods of maintaining law and order and preserving the Iraqi Republic by his stern measures for which he was`executed was the sure and best way. Bush et al will find out that Saddam's methods was/is `necessary in that region or we'll be there for decades which in a sense is disastrous. Where is `the "Meat" or where `are the troops necessary to guarantee victory in the true sense? What has`Bush achieved?
Posted by: r.richard fusilier | June 25, 2007 6:17 PM
Where is the Iraqi government's political plan for reconcilliation?
That's right, there isn't one.
If they don't care, why should we?
It's time to get our troops out of this clusterf... quagmire.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 25, 2007 6:31 PM
Frank James quotes Anthony Cordesman so often only because Cordesman says things James likes to hear.
Cordesman is undoubtedly an expert. As is army Lt. Col. Michael Infanti of Fredericksburg, VA. But Frank James will never quote Col. Infanti, or others like him, because Col. Infanti doesn't say things media liberals like to hear. For the "other side", read an article on Col. Infanti in the Fredericksburg Star:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/062007/06242007/294235
The headline to the article sums up his views: "Stafford County Army officer whose men were captured in Iraq criticizes Congressional leaders who he says are making decisions about Iraq war based on polling"
Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2007 6:52 PM
Hey Gort,
Klaatu barada nikto.
************
R.Richard,
The world WAS better off with Saddam in charge. That's the 'lesson of Iraq.'
But as The Reamer points out, these fools have not even learned the lessons of Vientam.
How can we expect them to learn from their own screw up in Iraq?
Posted by: C.Morris | June 25, 2007 7:09 PM
Bruce = Conservative version of ficus shrub
Posted by: C.Morris | June 25, 2007 7:13 PM
"Experts Fear US Will Win Iraq Battles But Lose War"
Here's a quote from a Republican "expert" on Iraq.
"The insurgency is in it's last throes"
-DICK CHENEY 2004-
Posted by: John E | June 25, 2007 7:21 PM
Yes, Iraq and the World was MUCH better with Hussein in charge. Tell that to the 200,000 Kurds who were gassed by his regime. Or the 300,000+ Shia killed by his regime.
Now these same bozos who think Iraq and the World were better off with Hussein want the U.S. to unilaterly stop the genocide in Darfur. Under the Loony Left reasoning, the World is better off with Sudan's leaders. How about Milosovic, the world better off when he lead too?
Posted by: John D | June 25, 2007 7:30 PM
JE,
More Cheney,
"We know where the WMD are.."
"We found the mobile chemical weapon units." (Weather balloon launchers)
Every word that tumbles from his lips is a lie.
Bruce, Crazy John Devola, Aroo, can't figger that out.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 25, 2007 7:31 PM
RNC Bruce,
Why should some light bird colonel's opinion carry more weight than that of the U.S. Congress?
You've heard of them Bruce? A co-equal 1/3 branch of government.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 25, 2007 7:40 PM
Yeah Bruce,
Anxious to hear from the "other side", since they've been right so often on this war. WMD (not!), Mission Accomplished (not!), Last throes (not!), Escalation..I mean, Surge, the answer to security and decreased violence, (not!). Don't you get tired of being right all the time, Allardyce?
Posted by: dt | June 25, 2007 7:40 PM
Bruce, if you and Sherman want to read phony "good news stories" about the Republicans why don't you log onto redstate.com?
Please do this because the adults on here are trying to digest the real news while you two continue to live in a fantasyland of Rightwing delusion.
Your constant one-note posts make you two sound like psychopaths.
Sincerely,
The Majority of Posters
Posted by: John E | June 25, 2007 7:43 PM
C. Morris,
Get ready for "bomb, bomb Iran". It's coming to a theatre (of war) near you.
Posted by: dt | June 25, 2007 7:50 PM
Oh crap, John E, Bruce won't have anything to say about the failures of team Bush, but he might find it important to slam me for a misspell on "throes". Reminds me of those anal corporate bean-counters.
Posted by: dt | June 25, 2007 7:55 PM
in the modern world, our technological superiority is a matter of life and death...
and so here come the dry-drunk moron and his cohort who give the fundamentalist muslim fascists a lesson in modern methods of warfare...
when we actually need to fight for our survival, not to make money for already rich people, we'll find our hands will be quite full..
oh right! i forgot, it was the nascent neo-cons who hooked up al qaeda in the first place... nice job!!
i don't know about whether iraq/the world is better or worse with or without saddam, but i can say for sure-- the world would have been a better place if we had left the sovets alone in afganistan...
the neo-cons thought it was funny to arm and train our sworn enemies in modern warfare/insurgency methods...
ok... they keep makin the bed, but they won't sleep in it... just more lies and m,ore lies and more lies...
dumb ass americans, many of whom post here quite cogently, all of whom are bigots and azzh0les, can't admit where they really stand... they are led by their noses by their leaders... and we all pay the price...
and the israelis learned the same lesson without learning the lesson... when they acted on the behest of the rnc and invaded lebanon they learned how different the world is now...
rascists always bite off more than they can chew... espirit d'corps!! somehow these people believe that because they are chosen by god to be the gretaest warriors on earth (pick your fanatics) that they should be able to just push 1,000 motivated people armed with moder rpgs and ak's out of an apartment complext?!?!?
what planet are u on? what drugs are YOU using? the hubris levels suffered by cons is almost astronomical...
it is a function of a military culture that is out of touch with reality... these people want to compare themselves, and these battles to wwii??
gtfoh! i respect the horrible situation these guys are in, and i feel bad cause they've been thrown into a meat grinder...
i heard a marine on a call in radio show border-line crying -- pleading with the american people to let him and his comrades finish their job in iraq...
i felt bad... and i'm sure he lost great friends that he wanted to avenge...
but this is why we have civilian leadership... the GOP killed your friends, and DEMS who failed to challenge the GOP killed your fiends...
if the DEMS had any balls one of them would self-immolate on the senate floor...
if a mad-man orders the military to shoot themselves in the foot...
no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money the american people put into this 'effort', it will ony fail, and can only fail-- not for any failure of our military, but for the failure of our leadership...
the american revolution is a perfect example... the british military machine was the world's strongest... but what did that matter if the insurgency is prepared to sacrifice everything?
the entire neo-con leadership of this country should meet the same fate as saddam hussein... fair trial... conviction... end.
Posted by: seth | June 25, 2007 8:05 PM
Bruce = RNC stooge. John D = Jonestown. Bush and Cheney = chickenhawk screw-ups. Bring the troops home.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 25, 2007 8:07 PM
John D.
We had the NFZ in effect. Saddam wasn't gassing anyone in 03, fool.
Also, Reagan and Rummy didn't seem to mind the gas at the time. Saddam was their go to guy.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blsaddamrumsfeld.htm
Posted by: C.Morris | June 25, 2007 8:21 PM
I was watching the speech on C-span by Dick Lugar, the Senior Rep. Senator from Indiana on the Senate floor- essentially saying the same things as the Cordesman quote.
Its time for the White House to face reality.
Posted by: C. | June 25, 2007 8:33 PM
RNC Bruce,
Sorry, my bad.
I hear Darth Cheney has carved out a 4th branch of government.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 25, 2007 8:35 PM
"Expert fears U.S. will win Iraq battles but lose war"
Well, what do you know. The 'experts' have finally figured out what the American people knew years ago.
You've got to love Cheney. Has this guy ever been right about ANYTHING?!?!?
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 25, 2007 8:52 PM
John D,
200,000 Kurds?, who told you that, Chemical Ali?
300,000 Shia, According to what source? (Iran doesn't count).
Are you just pulling these figures out of your butt, Dyslin?
How many Iraqis have died as a direct result of our invasion and occupation? How many citizens have fled the country? What's the infrastructure like now? Can anyone besides John McCain stroll down to the market? Is it safe to attend college in bagdad, visit a friend?, go for a walk?
The U.S. cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is 3933, with tens of thousands injured.
The dollar cost so far, over half a trillion (more than 2 trillion if you include the projected cost of caring for those with debilitating injuries).
The high cost of oil is a direct result of middle east destabilization. Anti-American sentiment has never been higher in the region. Terrorist recruitment has never been easier. How is the world better off, pray tell?
Posted by: dt | June 25, 2007 9:06 PM
Bruce,
Its really starting to show, how hard it is to stick to your guns. Lt Col Infanti is a soldier we should be proud to have on our side. However, his opinion (opinion, not a strategic analysis like Cordesman's) is of the GREAT minority right now, and this is a democracy, not a military dictatorship. Congress represents the people. Question to consider -- how much did politics drive Congress to approve the war resolution in 2003? How many were afraid to say no and get lambasted as weak, soft unpatriotic? Bush and the Repubs were riding high using those tactics back then. How times have chnaged.
Posted by: kb | June 25, 2007 9:17 PM
This is "A bright Shining Lie", "About Face", and "Secrets" all over again. Where is an Ellsberg type to completely expose the vast lie (and prevent all the John P Vann types from getting WASTED?!?!) from within when we most need it?! Someone please "neutralize" the criminal factions within the United States government before it is too late! We invaded the wrong damned country - we should have started with "spreading freedom" to the south side and all the other slums before trying to "fix" the rest of the world.
The only reason these bastards decided to invade was for the Oil – there is nothing else of value in Iraq or the Middle East – so why didn’t they just detonate h-bombs and say that terrorists decided to turn the region into a glowing green parking lot and get it over with?! At least then they would not have been seen as liars! These thieves can’t even steal correctly!
Posted by: The Decider | June 25, 2007 9:29 PM
army Lt. Col. Michael Infanti of Fredericksburg, VA.
Posted by: Bruce | June 25, 2007 6:52 PM
Bruce.... There are 11 ranks in the US Army (1 being lowest and 11 being highest, in times of war). Lt. Col. is "5".
Congratulations. You found a lower middle manager in a beuracracy of roughly 3 million people (military, reserves, and civilian) who thinks the Iraq war is a huge success.
Posted by: david k | June 25, 2007 9:32 PM
John D why don't you tell them that bc it is not that different then what we told them inadvertently two decades ago by acquiring a relationship with Saddam in light of their plight. Please tell them we stood by for a decade or two in light of their mass murder. Just don't get discouraged if you don't get through. After all, its harder to hear when you've got presumably six feat of dirt to get through.
Posted by: AR | June 25, 2007 11:05 PM
How do all you military types tell an al Qaeda terrorist from a Sunni insurgent? Where did all these al Qaedas come from? Are they Iraqis? Or are we just designating all the Iraqis we kill as al Qaeda? How many of these al Qaeda do we have in prisons? Or are they Sunni if still alive? I think all you military types are lying to us again.
Posted by: c. perry | June 25, 2007 11:10 PM
You might want to read this.
" Busting The Myth That Al Qaeda Will Simply Appear Elsewhere In Iraq Whack-A-Mole ends when the mole runs out of holes
Al Qaeda cannot survive in Iraq without the complicity of a host population. It relies on this population to provide housing, food, recruits, support personnel, materiel, cover of all manner, including a general population within which to blend, transportation…you name it. Without these things, Al Qaeda cannot survive. Without a host body, no parasite can.
The Kurds are not receptive to Al Qaeda, and have sufficient numbers and means to avoid forced complicity. This is why Al Qaeda, though able on rare occasion to strike in Kurdistan, have never established a base there. The scenario is the same in the Shiite south. Al Qaeda had transformed Al Anbar province into a home at large, and portions of it into a shaky Isalmic State of Iraq. Because Al Anbar is a Sunni province, and Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, Al Qaeda enjoyed there the complicit host population it needed. But after years of struggle, and for a variety of reasons, including the deft U.S. maneuver of the literal bribing of local tribes with Saudi Arabia as its go-between and co-financier, Al Qaeda was ultimately militarily routed from its little kingdom, its Islamic State of Iraq ignominously overthrown.
When the mole was whacked in Fallujah, it popped up in Ramadi, and solidified control over the rest of the Anbar province. The mole has been whacked in Ramadi. The mole has gone to it’s last hole, the mixed Sunni/Shiite environs of Baghdad. Remember, as far as Al Qaeda goes, no Sunnis = no home, no home = no Al Qaeda. We are currently whacking the holy living shit out of the mole in the last hole. Al Qaeda cannot survive in Kurdistan. Al Qaeda cannot survive in the Shiite south. And the Sheiks of Al Anbar who chased them out will not have them back. They will find some refuge in the lawless border areas, around the bandit’s routes between Iraq and Iran. But there will not be much to sustain them, and literally caught between Al Sadr’s Shiites and an Iran who was willing to support them when they had some real power, but who will not have much use for a lame duck Sunni militia trapped in a pocket of forgotten desert, Al Qaeda will die like every other lifeform that requires more sustenance than that harsh environment can provide.
Now there’s some mopping up to be done in Al Anbar, particularly Fallujah which has seen small bits of Al Qaeda pop up. But only small bits. And we are not yet finished in Diyala et al. And yes, there will be pockets, small cells of handfuls of men still vainly trying to regain the glory days when they ruled half the country, but the Islamic State of Iraq is finished.
Unless of course, we abandon the country before the new situation can be exploited to the Iraqi government’s political advantage.
Remember how so very recently President Bush was warning that if we left Iraq, it would remain a haven for Al Qaeda? And the Dems were saying there was no Al Qaeda there at all? As the fact that Al Qaeda was literally running an Islamic State of Iraq, with its own schools, social and justice systems in Al Anbar was revealed to the world over the last few months, the President was validated in a way that no one has acknowledged. Everyone thought he was taking out of his neck, laying out a paranoid and unrealistic scenario about the future, about a time in which Al Qaeda might be able to create a base from which to launch further attacks against the West. Little did the world realize that he was not merely right in predicting the future, but that the future was already here, that Al Qaeda’s Iraqi terrorist kingdom was already in existence. Thank God we didn’t leave. Or Al Qaeda might still reign over Al Anbar. And be using the province’s resources and manpower to strike America wherever it had run to.
So the next time some anti-victory leftist scoffs at Operation Phantom Thunder and smugly asserts that Al Qaeda will just go elsewhere, ask him where, exactly? And ask him how in the f*** he expects Al Qaeda to survive there.
http://patdollard.com/2007/06/25/busting-the-myth-that-al-qaeda-will-simply-appear-elsewhere-in-iraq/
"
Posted by: Peg | June 25, 2007 11:46 PM
are we just designating all the Iraqis we kill as al Qaeda?
Posted by: c. perry | June 25, 2007 11:10 PM
That's a question I've been asking myself for a while now. The Administration has recently taken up the brilliant PR move of publicizing body counts of "Al Qaeda terrrrrsts killed", which makes me wonder. How do you know the political/ideological affilliation of a mangled corpse. Do these guys all carry Al Qaeda membership cards with them? Tattoos? Dog tags?
Please, tell me how we know that those killed are "Al Qaeda"? The best I can come up with is that, after killing someone, we stand over the corpse and state "Yup... sandals, bit 'o facial hair... kinda dark complexion... that's Al Qaeda, all right".
Posted by: david k | June 25, 2007 11:57 PM
Ah Bruce...your keen eye and indepth thinking tells me that if you had been on the Titanic and seen the ice on the deck you no doubt would have yelled....LOOK...it's a wet bar!
Posted by: bill r. | June 26, 2007 7:16 AM
"Or are we just designating all the Iraqis we kill as al Qaeda? "
c.perry,
As in Vietnam, if they were dead they were VC. That's how our military killed all the VC three times over.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 9:04 AM
Hey RNC squarehead John D.-When Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and Ronald Reagan was President, no too many people cared. After that occurred, the incompetent former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ran over there to shake Saddams hand. They both were wearing big smiles. I can e-mail you a picture of that if you want. Maybe you can display it in your bedroom. You comments and postings here are nothing but a pile of RNC/ Fox garbage, as you are too.
Posted by: Doug R. | June 26, 2007 9:13 AM
AR, in this world you sometimes have to get in bed with the devil. Hell, we did during WWII with the Soviets. We did in early 1980s with Saddam because he was at war with Iran, Iran was a greater enemy to us than Iraq. I don't know how old you are, but I was old enough to remember when the Iraq-Iran War began and everyone in this country was cheering about it because of the hate the U.S. people had towards Iran and the hostage crisis.
Today, the Left wants us to get in bed with IRan, Syria, North Korea and other bad regimes.
But when we went to bed with Saddam it was for strategic purposes because Iran was the greater threat and enemy, and we needed a counter balance to Iran and Ayatollah Khoemeni. By the end of the 1980s, we no longer were in bed with Hussein because it was clear he was a threat, he was a danger and he was killing his own people.
Even though the Kremlin was brutal on their own people even before WWII, we needed to ally with them against the Nazis and Japan, greater threats at that time. It wasn't too much longer after WWII ended that the Cold War began.
Heck, the French and Spaniards were not the best and kindest of people either and early in our country's life we were in bed with them against the English to one degree or another.
It's perspeftive, folks. Does it suck that sometimes in order to get things done you have to sleep with the enemy? Yes. Unfortunately thst is the world we sleep in, and it's been that way for eons.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 9:17 AM
John D-
You are getting dangerously close to being logical. Lets see if we can take it all the way, ok?
Can you maybe accept that the reason that some people suggest that we talk to Syria and Iran is because it supports our national interest, rather than a deep love for those regimes?
Just as we needed Iraq as a balance to Iran in the 80's, we now need to "get in bed" as you put it with Iran and Syria to help solve the problem we created with our ill-thought out invasion and occupation of Iraq.
It does suck that sometimes you have to get in bed with the enemy. It's just too bad that GWB has forced us into that position in the mid-east.
Posted by: Tony | June 26, 2007 9:38 AM
"Doug Zook" and the rest of the barely literate commissar wanna-bes who post here don't like Free Speech, and they don't like equal time, which is why they spew their personal vitriol at anyone who disagrees with their alternate reality.
Why are you so deathly afraid of other points of view, guys?
Posted by: Bruce | June 26, 2007 9:39 AM
Today, the Left wants us to get in bed with IRan, Syria, North Korea and other bad regimes.
But when we went to bed with Saddam it was for strategic purposes because Iran was the greater threat and enemy, and we needed a counter balance to Iran and Ayatollah Khoemeni.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 9:17 AM
First, how would you know what the left wants since you have nothing in common with your so called lefty L#*ns. Secondly you seem to have made a great case for why the war in Iraq was a colossal mistake. I feel sorry for you and your inability to come to grips with a failed policy. Then again maybe your just a person with very small ideas. Please seek professional help. p.s. that goes for Bruce the RNC stooge as well.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 26, 2007 10:08 AM
"But when we went to bed with Saddam it was for strategic purposes because Iran was the greater threat and enemy, and we needed a counter balance to Iran and Ayatollah Khoemeni."
John D[evola],
'Moral relativism' on steroids?
Better hope Bill Bennett or the ghost of Jean Kirkpatrick doesn't see that!
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 10:27 AM
"By the end of the 1980s, we no longer were in bed with Hussein because it was clear he was a threat, he was a danger and he was killing his own people."
John D,
Nothing you say makes any sense.
Until March 03 Iraq WAS still a counter balance to Iran. Now we are the counterbalance.
Also, now he is not killing the Iraqi people. WE ARE.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 10:32 AM
Johhny D,
Your "understanding" of the world is a perfect example of what makes you a sociopath. Brutality and genocide is always wrong and America should never be arming countries that engage in it. You however will look the other way if a Republican says it is alright. Your taxpayer dollars bought and sold the WMD technology that was used to engage in chemical warfare against Iran and Iraq's own people.
Posted by: Janet | June 26, 2007 10:39 AM
"But when we went to bed with Saddam it was for strategic purposes because Iran was the greater threat and enemy, and we needed a counter balance to Iran and Ayatollah Khoemeni."
Thank you for stating the obvious. Unfortunately, you stop short of the big truth here. This necessity for a counter-weight didn't end in the 80's with Khomeini, as you suggest, it went on up to the very day Mr. Bush launched his invasion. Saddam was a necessary counter-weight to our greatest threat, Iran. Same was true 25 years ago as it was 6 years ago.
So, using your logic displayed in this thread, why was taking down Saddam in 2003 a wise move? Using your own logic, wouldn't it have been wise to maintain Hussein as the Sunni counterforce to Shiite Iran?
"Does it suck that sometimes in order to get things done you have to sleep with the enemy? Yes. Unfortunately thst is the world we sleep in, and it's been that way for eons."
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 09:17 AM
So, again, why was taking down Saddam smart?
Posted by: Bryan | June 26, 2007 10:51 AM
Today, the Left wants us to get in bed with IRan, Syria, North Korea and other bad regimes.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 9:17 AM
John D... the "left" wants to talk to those regimes (you know.. diplomacy?), not arm them to the teeth and then invade them in 10 years.
Talking is not "getting in bed with the enemy". Arming the enemy to the teeth is.
Posted by: david k | June 26, 2007 11:05 AM
Today, the Left wants us to get in bed with IRan, Syria, North Korea and other bad regimes.
But when we went to bed with Saddam it was for strategic purposes because Iran was the greater threat and enemy, and we needed a counter balance to Iran and Ayatollah Khoemeni.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 9:17 AM
First part first....John D states pure partison rhetoric that is absurd. The country is tired of hearing this kind of b-u-l-l.
secondly....After time and time again, this policy has come back to bite us in the butt, we would actually learn from these mistakes. But no, John D wants to say "stay the course" and continue to make mistake after mistake. It's time for real statesmen to step up and leave status quo politicians to hit the pike.
Posted by: bill r. | June 26, 2007 11:08 AM
Doug R., I've seen the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand. I believe at that time Rumsfeld was a Middle East envoy for the Reagan administration. As I already stated, at that time Iran was the greater worry and not Iraq. Iran was the greater enemy, not Iraq.
But if we're on the picture thing, can I show you pics of Madeline Aldim getting it on with Kim Jong Il????
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 11:18 AM
Ah, this is why I find it pointless to debate the amoeba-crap brains of the Loony Left. You discuss soemthing intelligently and the human sludge that is the Loony Left can't debate back.
Folks, Hussein no longer was a counter to Iran once the Iran-Iraq War ended, once the Persian Gulf War began in 1991 and once Hussein began mass slaughtering his citizens.
Diplomacy and talk are fine and have a role, but not always. Getting in bed with Iran and Syria, who are the biggest destabilizers in the Middle East, along with their Al Qaeda friends, will not get anyone anywhere.
And, hey, if you Loons think we should "talk," than does that include bin Laden???
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 12:30 PM
I remain somewhat annoyed by some assertions made by some conservatives, but also slightly annoyed at the responses becuase they tend not to address the actual points of logic that made them defunct.
First of all, Saddam did kill large amounts of his own people. Although I am quite skeptical whether conservatives actually care about this or not: it is a fact they only care about to win thier respective argument.
Regardless, John D's assertions about how many of his own people Saddam killed is pointless. More are in fact dying now. It is not intentional, but it does not matter. In 2006 the best, most comprehensive study done in the Lancet journal posted thier best CI at around 600,000. There has been no reasonable argument not to believe that study other than to cast doubt on the Iraqis themselves who went door-to-door to get those statistics (and the death certificates in 80-90% of cases). The Bush administration's reason for doubting the studies is because it is higher than other accumulations and studies: but there's been only TWO other attempts, and they have HUMONGOUS holes in thier methodology since they don't use statistics: the UN attempted a straight body count -- which will only work if you visit every single morgue and that all the morgues account for every single body. IBC, which the administration goes by, has an even BIGGER one in that it only accounts for Iraqi deaths reported by the media. Which means if a reporter didn't see it or hear about it and then report it, it might as well have not happened. Which is probably a good 90% of cases. Reporters can't be everywhere, ESPECIALLY in Iraq.
Therefore, since 600,000 (as of one year ago) is our best estimate, we measure that: 600,000 in about 3.5 years -- against what, let's say John D's numbers of 500,000 under Saddam over his reign... which was from the late 1970s until 2003.
Clearly, leaving Saddam in control of the country would have resulted in less Iraqi dead over 2003-present. It's not that he was a nice ruler, a good ruler or anything o the kind. It's that he was able to give the country a rule of law under which less people happened to die. For whatever reason, the US has not been able to repeat that.
Then we have Peg's post about killing off al Qaida and playing "whack a mole". I frankly don't understand what she's trying to say other than Al Qaida in Iraq's days are numbered. Sure, and... then what? Surely Peg, you don't think al Qaida is the only group fighting American soldiers? Heck, they aren't even CLOSE to the majority. Al Qaida probably makes up only 10-15% of American casualties. The majority of this insurgency has been native Sunni groups that want to take the fight to the US. There are NATIVE Iraqis, not the foreign fighters.
That's why it doesn't matter if Al Qaida is pushed out or not. Once they're gone... or even before they're gone... the other groups will just pick up the sword and start fighting the Americans again. Al Qaida's reach in Iraq is already limited, and they're only one of many.
I mean, if what you post is true, why is it the administration and military are cautioning for many casualties over the summer. If this is the "last hole", it's not going to take the whole summer to secure it, right?
C'mon people, THINK. Argue things as they are, not as you would like them to be.
Posted by: Brandon | June 26, 2007 1:02 PM
Also, the name-calling here is just plain dumb. Whether you're calling John D a right-wing nutjob or he's calling someone else a leftist loon, it's pointless. Even if it were true, even broken clocks work twice a day, so it's a waste of space. Concentrate on the argument and stick to it. Don't fall into the trap of the Republicans in calling Democrats/French/Germans/eveveryone but them "surrender monkeys" or the trap of the Democrats in just putting down George Bush. It gets you nowhere. Be like Joe Biden and actually try to come up with some SOLUTIONS or something...
oh, and Biden for Prez, 08! :P
Posted by: Brandon | June 26, 2007 1:20 PM
John D says....Ah, this is why I find it pointless to debate the amoeba-crap brains of the Loony Left. You discuss soemthing intelligently and the human sludge that is the Loony Left can't debate back.
This is beyond loonacy! Read this sentence from John D and then imagine trying to "debate" with him. Bring plenty of mud with you for thats about the most you'll get out of it.
Then John D says....Diplomacy and talk are fine and have a role, but not always. Getting in bed with Iran and Syria, who are the biggest destabilizers in the Middle East, along with their Al Qaeda friends, will not get anyone anywhere.
You missed the point genius....You are the fruitcake that said the left wants to get into bed with Iran, etc. We "were" in bed with Iran..the "shaw" remember him? This is a foreign policy that needs changing...not a wink and a nod and a Hey everybody does it..it's OK. Is that your "good moral" decision?
Before you tell me how many democratic presidents have done the same thing, save your breath. You may not understand this concept, but it doesn't matter to me which side did what, it is that this policy is wrong. So save your partisan gas bombs for somebody else.
Posted by: bill r. | June 26, 2007 1:22 PM
Take any one of Crazy John Devola's postings, change the words 'Loony left' to 'Jews' and wah-lah! You have a Goebbels' Christmas speech!
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 1:43 PM
Re" Peg's post asserting that the "whack a Mole" strategy will succeed. Peg posits the idea that if "all holes are plugged" in Iraq, Al Quaeda will be left without support. The final paragraph is "So the next time some anti-victory leftist scoffs at Operation Phantom Thunder and smugly asserts that Al Qaeda will just go elsewhere, ask him where, exactly? And ask him how in the f*** he expects Al Qaeda to survive there."
Not to seem like an anti-victory leftist, but the many possibilities include Pakistan and Indonesia (both with large Muslim populations, shaky governments, and antipathy to the US- plenty of opportunity for support, as we have already seen), as well as simply waiting for a bit and then returning to the offensive.
One problem with the idea that "victory" is critical in Iraq is the idea that it is isolated. Even the Administration asserts it is simply one front in a global conflict. If so, success is determined not simply by military success in Iraq but by the overall impact on the larger canvas. And at this point, it is difficult to believe that the continued US actions in Iraq are increasing support for the US and decreasing support for the radical Islamic forces. Instead, US actions in Iraq serve as recruiting posters for the opposition- worldwide.
So, as a straightforward tactic in the global conflict, the US should be looking at how to make some progress in the "hearts and minds" arena- that is, find a fig leaf and exit. For those who scoff at such an approach, consider it simply a tactical retreat- fully honorable and well within standard miulitary practice.
Posted by: skeptic | June 26, 2007 1:50 PM
bill r.'s response to John D illustrates my point. He spends far too much time calling him names to actually address the real point of WHY John is wrong about Iran and why John is contridictory.
He's patently wrong because according to him we supported Iraq because Iran was appartently only a threat during the Iran Iraq war. But this makes no sense -- nothing changed in Iran as an outcome to that war. Iran was still there, nothing had changed. It wasn't as if Iran's ambitions in the region went "poof" in 1988: Iraq was still needed as a buffer and the US got rid of it for reasons that made absolutely no sense, for the supposed reason of saving Iraqi lives, but ended up killing many more Iraqis had they just left Saddam there. The entire affair has been lose-lose for Iraq and the US, even the world. The only country that has benefitted from any of this has been IRan.
John D also makes no sense in supporting Saddam as a lever on the Soviet Union: the Soviets supported Saddam even more than the US!
The real reason he's saying these things is political convenience to win the argument and not admit defeat. It has nothing to do with Iraq or Iran, Eurasia or Eastasia.
But you wouldn't know that if you were to read most of these posts which are too busy bashing him than to destroy his argument.
Posted by: Brandon | June 26, 2007 1:59 PM
bill r.'s response to John D illustrates my point. He spends far too much time calling him names to actually address the real point of WHY John is wrong about Iran and why John is contridictory.
Posted by: Brandon | June 26, 2007 1:59 PM
You are obviously a virgin to the swamp. Did you read my post? Did you read john d's opening statement in it? Here it is again..."Ah, this is why I find it pointless to debate the amoeba-crap brains of the Loony Left. You discuss soemthing intelligently and the human sludge that is the Loony Left can't debate back"... I have listened to him for over a year writing the most vile posts.
Had you read my post it is pretty easy to see I said that getting into bed with anyone just for strategic gain, is a bad policy. I'll tell you what....have a "debate" with John D and then come back and tell me.
Posted by: bill r. | June 26, 2007 2:14 PM
Brandon, please show me where I say we supported Hussein as a counter to the Soviets, OK?
Bill r., yes we did support the Shah when he lead Iran, that is until Peanutbrain came along.
But there is no point to any of this, because you Loser Loons have no context, no understanding, no historical perspective, no sense.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 2:23 PM
But there is no point to any of this, because you Loser Loons have no context, no understanding, no historical perspective, no sense.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 2:23 PM
Good debate John.
Posted by: bill r. | June 26, 2007 2:43 PM
Crazy John D,
Remember the USS Stark? 'Raygun'
cut-n-run on that one, hey? Ditto the 241 dead Marines.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 26, 2007 2:59 PM
"You should have lost that war. We never lost a battle, and you never won one," said Westmoreland, to which Giap replied: "This is true. It is also irrelevant."
Conventional warfare waged against an unconventional enemy.
Discuss.
Posted by: johnf | June 26, 2007 3:08 PM
John D:
Well if you did or you didn't it doesn't really matter. Let's say you didn't -- it doesn't change anything, so fine. You said the US supported Iran as a counterweight against Saddam. Your argument still doesn't make sense either way because nothing had changed in Iran once the war was over.
Maybe it's you who lacks historical context, John D. After all I don't know of any historian you've quoted.
Of course, then you may have the convenient argument of saying the historians are all liberal loons as well... so that even historians don't know history. So, for example, if I said I read AJP Taylor and John Keegan, you could just say they were liberals, etc. and basically imply that you know more about history than people who actually study it.
I'll tell you something about history maybe you don't know John: what has marked every global empire in modern history has been the ability to fight a major war. The reason for the collapse of each -- except the Soviet Union which fell over on itself through inept economics -- has been in actually fighting major war. It happened with Spain (1600s), with France (1800s), and with Germany/Britain (1900s).
War is the most expensive thing any global power undertakes. If America looses it's global footing, it will most likely be through war expenditure.
Posted by: Brandon | June 26, 2007 3:23 PM
Brandon, you need reading comprehension skills. I did not say we support we supported Iran to counter Iraq. We did support Iraq to counter Iran and that began in the late 1970s under Jimmy Carter. Iran was our enemy, holding Americans hostage. Iraq invaded Iran and this nation, from leadership to citizenry was glad.
At that time, Saddam was not a threat to the U.S., nor to other nations in the region except for Iran.
Reading history also will help you Brandon.
Anyway, you seem to be new here. You also indicate you support Biden, who perhaps is one of the more rational Democratic senators, though I'm still no fan. I do find him entertaining and worth a listen though.
Despite getting information from my posts mixed up, you don't seem to be a member of the Loony Left. A liberal, most certainly, but not card-carrying member of the Loony Left.
Once you read John E., dt. bill r., raving loon and a few others you will learn what I mean. Just don't fall into the Weird World that is the Loony Left. YOu'll thank me some day!
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 4:56 PM
The argument over whether more Iraqis died at the hand of Saddam or in our attack and occupation is moot.
The unofficial position of the government and the military is summed up in the expression, "they are just rag heads and there are too many of them anyway". We do not even keep accurate records of how many we kill.
Posted by: c. perry | June 26, 2007 6:02 PM
"Yes, Iraq and the World was MUCH better with Hussein in charge. Tell that to the 200,000 Kurds who were gassed by his regime. Or the 300,000+ Shia killed by his regime.
Now these same bozos who think Iraq and the World were better off with Hussein want the U.S. to unilaterly stop the genocide in Darfur. Under the Loony Left reasoning, the World is better off with Sudan's leaders. How about Milosovic, the world better off when he lead too?"
John D,
"In this world you sometimes have to get in bed with the devil." That doesn't mean you get to ride the high horse on a two way street. If you base you argument around - mass human tragedy - it is a two way street. Their misfortune the basis for an argument against the aggressor, his crime of commission, but at the same time the basis of an argument to those who stood by; they usually find reasons to white wash their crime of omission. Inadvertently your making a case at their expense to put the US in a better light while attempting to debase one party. Your are inadvertently mocking and trivializing them by telling people to "tell them," and by including it in your "who for what" debasing debate to show the edge over another party. Their is no edge to gain when people die. Period. The bottom line is that human strife was not this administrations main cause for action; only surfaced to become relevant in the present from the grave where they were buried decades ago in the past, irrelevant at that time to our "main concerns." Certainly, if you plan on elevating the killings to a status they did not previously enjoy you see the hypocrisy; how the importance you placed on it is negated by how it relevance is determined to our interests, to our "vital interest" agenda. Our involvement in Iraq is based on protecting OUR "vital interests." OUR "national security concerns." Never had that anything to do with if the people under Saddam found the world a much better place with in him in charge. It's coincidental and convenient at best. But it has A LOT to do if WE found the world a better place with him in charge or not.
In the worst case scenario, Iraq does have a potential to turn into something that will overshadow what Saddam did, and what our involvement with lack of planning have brought there now. Iraq might play out like Rwanda and Burundi where their ethnic battles were, unintentionally, played into and were facilitated by a western power and independence ending up in civil tensions and mass genocide that the world later overlooked. IF and I mean IF that happens. I hope you won't be the one to wait to make their tragedy relevant only once they are dead. Not be the one to wait to "tell" them anything only from a distance obstructed by the passage of time, mortality, and dirt; the one we walk on AND the one we all sweep under a our proverbial social rug. It might just be too late. Tell them being present tense, and them being alive. No matter what mitigating stunt you pull that's the only thing that is relevant at the end of the day to the people to whom it matters most; the other side of the street who's existence undermines you ridding a high horse and tailoring strife to meet your trivial needs.
Posted by: AR | June 26, 2007 6:23 PM
Potential for Bush to attack Iran is eerily similar to the runup to invasion of Iraq. One of the key players from the Iraq inner circle has vanished. If we knew why perhaps we can stave off for sure a Bush/Cheney attack on Iran.
Its been over a year and still no answer. There is a news blackout on anything about Al Saadi. Why?
Written Saturday, June 24, 2006
It matters not that we opponents of the unnecessary invasion of Iraq are absolutely right about everything with regard to WMD in Iraq. The MSM and most Americans don't care about the issue anymore. Not finding WMD after all the invasion supporters were so sure the WMD was there is called "Old News."
What I have been working on for over a year is switching the debate from the Admin's hyping WMD to the Admin's ignoring the Iraqi peace initiatives. Had the CIA gone into Iraq, numbering in the thousands, as offered by Saddam Hussein, there would have been no way that the invasion would have occurred and the confusion about Iraq's WMD capacity would have ended without all the bloodshed and waste.
The way to break the peace initiatives wide open is to bring Amir Al Saadi to daylight. He's gone, missing, not a peep about him on the internet. Do a search. There is nothing recent. So this is all I'm asking to start a new front in discrediting those who refuse to investigate the Administration's run up to war.
Let's all ask:
Can we get any information on Amir Al Saadi?
The latest information on Al Saadi's release was a February 2005 record (below) from the British Parliament which says he was released in January 2005.
Sixteen months have passed since we have heard anything about or from Al Saadi, his wife and family. He's gone. Vanished. Why the blackout? This is big news. The most prominent spokesperson for the Iraqi government on WMD and UN inspections has dissappeared after being in US custody for nearly two years and supposedly released.
Why can't we get an answer?
Start your own search. This is the last government or news media information on Amir Al Saadi that I can find. The question's here have never been publically answered:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050207/text/50207w30.htm
The United Kingdom Parliament - document for the record
7 Feb 2005 : Column 1315W To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when (a) he, (b) officials of his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government last had discussions with members and representatives of (i) the US Administration and (ii) the Iraqi interim authority concerning the detention of Amir Al-Saadi; and if he will make a statement; [212200]
(2) what discussions (a) he, (b) officials of his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government had with members and representatives of (i) the US Administration and (ii) the Iraqi interim authority concerning the status under which Amir Al-Saadi is being detained; when this status was last (A) reviewed and (B) changed; and if he will make a statement; [212201]
(3) what discussions (a) he, (b) officials in his Department and (c) representatives of the UK Government have had with members and representatives of (i) the US Administration and (ii) the Iraqi interim authority concerning the release of Amir Al-Saadi; and if he will make a statement. [212210]
Mr. MacShane: Our Embassy in Baghdad has raised Dr. Al-Saadi's case with the US authorities in Iraq and with senior members of the Iraqi Government. Dr. Al-Saadi was released by the US on 18 January 2005.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the role of Amir Al-Saadi in dealing with UN weapons inspectors since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [212209]
Mr. MacShane: The Government have made no formal assessment of the role of Dr. Al-Saadi in dealing with UN weapons inspectors.
Posted by: NotfooooldbyW | September 4, 2007 4:43 AM
Politicians should read the likes of "On War" by von Clauswitz. The point is that "war is an extension of politics, by other means", etc. We will "lose" in Iraq in a similar way that "we" lost in Vietnam. At some point, the politicians, in order to be re-elected, or elected, will have to conform to their voters wishes by cutting off funds, thus setting up a "t-day" scenario for execution. There is no "withdrawal with honor". Whatever wealth at the top was created or maintained with all the expenditure and waste of young american lives is still hidden from the public.
Homeless people and poor people in america ( under $65,000 income) could use some help instead of creating an increasingly (obscenely) wealthy upper class in america. When health insurance companies can buy senior politicians what hope is there for any quality health care and other socially beneficial programs in America, i.e., like exists in many other countries?
Within three years we will be "out" of Iraq with nothing gained more than the creation of additional, unnecessary wealth for a very few individuals at the top of american society at the great expense of the majority of the american public. One reason that politicians and news reporters on tv ask such ridiculous questions of senior military is that they have not read or understood Clauswitz, or for that matter, Ho Chi Minh - "Political power grows from the end of a barrel of a gun", etc.
America is spending more money than it ought to be spending on items that do not help internally. It is overdue to withdraw such expenditures in many other parts of the world, not just Iraq, and begin rebuilding the infrastructure necessary to survive in a global economy.
Posted by: Jerry Pauler | December 29, 2007 9:46 PM