Obama’s withdrawal proposal a withdrawal from reality
At the end of January of 2007, shortly after Bush proposed the surge, Barack Obama countered with a Senate bill featuring a plan for withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, which would have been fourteen months later.
Fortunately for Iraq, the bill didn’t pass. Instead the surge came to pass.
But at the time of Obama’s proposed bill all that was in the future, and it must have seemed to Obama that it was his move, not Bush’s, that was bold and forward-looking.
He stated back then that his timetable was consistent with the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations (remember those great military minds?), and with what the American people indicated they wanted when they elected the Democrats to the 2006 Congress. It was time to cut our losses:
When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and for patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions of dollars have been spent, for us to trust the president on another tired and failed policy.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the surge. And who is it who’s now advocating a retread of a tired policy? Why, Barack Obama, that’s who.
Even ABC, not known for its conservatism nor its pro-McCain stance, did its homework on Obama’s recent proposal (which is similar to his old proposal in terms of the timing of the pullout, one or two brigrades a month for sixteen months instead of fourteen, in this case). ABC interviewed the military, who state that it’s simply not logistically possible, much less desirable.
Apparently, however, Obama thought it was the right way to cut our Iraq losses back then—which would have assured not only the logistical chaos described in the final section of the ABC article, but would have virtually guaranteed that all our work and sacrifice in Iraq had been in vain.
Now, according to Obama, it’s time to cut our gains—and in the same muddleheaded manner.
Obama has been living in fantasyland. And who are his military advisers? Do they have even the most rudimentary grasp of military matters?
[NOTE: See also Richard Fernandez and Austin Bay on the subject.]
People who have never dealt with it often have little idea of what it takes to move an army around, much less keep it supplied and ready to fight. It is a far bigger, more complex undertaking than the vast majority of civilians comprehend. The old adage, “amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics”, has a solid basis in fact. Obama is no military professional, and he seems to have only rank amateurs advising him. I was glad to see ABC throw the b.s. flag regarding his modified cut-and-run plan. The man is clueless, and maybe some of the “undecideds” will finally figure that out.
Yes, Obama was wrong on the surge.
Yes, Obama was wrong on the surge.
Good of you to admit that–more than most opponents of the Iraq War and Obama himself will do.
That’s big mistake, a major blow to Obama’s judgment and smartness credentials.
You say so with the sort of finality that suggests, now let’s just forget it, drop it the subject, eh, Mitsu?
Neo, your Austin Bay link is broken.
Hello! Please visit my blog and read my most recent post- if only just for humor’s sake. I wrote it just this morning. It should hint at my basic attitude towards such things as this… things such as this here meaning all things military. Thanks!
Sdferr — Yeah, I understand. Still Mitsu is making an attempt at intellectual honesty from the anti-war position, which is something I don’t often see.
Both sides tend to paint the Iraq War in terms too certain, too black-and-white for my taste–I believe history will have the final say, if any–but the anti-war side is far more guilty of this IMO.
This shows in Mitsu’s posts for instance by the frequent “huge … tremendous … gigantic” hyperbole he uses when referring to what he considers to be mistakes on the pro-Iraq War side.
In my mind, the Iraq war was a huge mistake … it seemed to me that way before the war, and it still seems that way to me. Naturally, that’s not how most of you guys see it. We have differing opinions on that.
However — I have always maintained that since we made this mistake, and it’s obviously not something we can undo — precipitous withdrawal is not a good option. Yes, we should withdraw as quickly as we can do so, prudently — because our troops are sorely needed elsewhere (the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the most obvious candidate), but what “prudently” is, is hard to assess. I supported the surge because I felt it was the best chance to stabilize Iraq in the short term. But clearly the goal can and should be withdrawal at the earliest possible date, without destabilizing Iraq. This was the stated goal of the surge in the first place, and it was the goal that Petraeus himself outlined when he proposed the surge strategy to Congress.
So, yes, Obama is a politician and he was I think overly swayed by Democratic opinion that if the war was a mistake, we ought to withdraw as quickly as possible. I was one of the few who argued that even though the war was a mistake, we still shouldn’t withdraw too quickly. You have to look at the situation on the ground, assess conditions, etc. I believe that whatever Obama may say right now he’ll do just that when elected.
Also, by the time Obama is elected, the situation in Iraq will likely have stabilized further. So, by then, it’s probably not too far off the mark to consider a phased withdrawal, redeploying our forces to Afghanistan, where they are sorely needed (as JCS Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen testified to Congress last week).
War is not a good idea… period! Does anyone have an adequate response to this? Can anyone possibly argue that war is a necessary tool in the greater progress of humanity? I thought not. (I’m kind of broadening the topic a little bit here… is that ok?)
War is not a good idea… period! Does anyone have an adequate response to this? Can anyone possibly argue that war is a necessary tool in the greater progress of humanity?
1) Finland’s fighting back in the 1939-1940 war meant that Stalin did not take over Finland. Progress
2) Got rid of Hitler. Progress Or do you think that Europe would have been better off under Pax Germanica?
3) Got rid of slavery in the US. Progress The South was NOT about to go gently into that good night. I had family on both sides that lost their lives.
4) Got rid of Saddam. Progress The Kumbaya people weren’t going to do it.
5) Prevented South Korea from being turned into a clone of the totalitarian, starving North. Progress
6) I was a 1-O during the Vietnam War. The genocide in Cambodia changed my mind. The pacifist sits on the sideline with “clean hands”, and the killing continues.
7) Resulted in independence of the US.
My point of view in the debate regarding war being/not being a good idea may be summed up in a remark that some have attributed to Trotsky:
YOU MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN WAR, BUT WAR IS INTERESTED IN YOU.
IOW, pacifists beware. As long as there will be a badass out there w a gun, in both the micro and macro view, and there will always be, take precautionary measures. While “negotiation” is to be preferred, there will often be differences that cannot be negotiated.
Obama has been living in fantasyland.
“Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner. He was hailed by media stars as a “breathtaking” example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein.”
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
And the crew of the Lincoln was homeward bound, after accomplishing their assigned duties.
You have a point?
Or just a construct to perpetuate?
Peter: an answer of sorts.
And, by the way, when you pose a question and ask whether anyone has an answer, and then immediately write “I thought not” before even giving them a chance to respond, you indicate a rather closed mind, don’t you think?
I suppose it’s possible that you don’t think that stopping Hitler was “in the greater progress of humanity.” Of perhaps you think if Chamberlain had tried just a little harder, or been just a tad more understanding…
neo: What I find to be the case is, when they are answered with overwhelming evidence they’ll pretend no one answered.
Interesting…
Mitsu, who is respectful of all opinions, modifies his opinions in light of developments, is able to push forward his overall thesis: Iraq War A Mistake/Miscalculation.
Respectful response generates other respectful responses. And perhaps adds further germane questions, building on agreed framework.
BTW, this is how effective diplomacy works.
OTOH, now comes Jolly Old Truth to tell us all we were [fill in the blank] and it all goes to show us, etc., etc..
Result: We listen to Mitsu, ignore Truth.
There’s a moral here somewhere…
Out of curiosity, I took up Peter’s invitation to look at his blog. He, apparently, is an enthusiastic high school junior who has strong, idealistic opinions based on limited life experience and observation, attributable to youth.
In the introductory portion of his post he writes:
“There’s a general consensus that people become less radical as they age, and to a lesser extent this is generally a movement to the right on the political spectrum, wherever your original starting point was.”
Let him live a little, experience the many changes that will occur as he continues and finishes school, the transition into adulthood, gaining the responsibilities of supporting oneself, and, later, family, making one’s way in the world, and having a real stake in the outcome of events of his city, state, country, and the world in which he lives.
When I was little, there was a saying: you can’t teach a child that the stove is hot by just telling him/her. He/she has to touch it before they understand that , indeed, you get burned — a euphemism for much of life’s experience.
For better or for worse, there’s no requirement for voters to have the benefit of age, wisdom, education, experience. Thus, the result of elections is so often NOT based on the most informed, logical or rational thinking. That’s why politicians use PURSUASION and endeavor to play on EMOTION, as opposed to always basing their “solutions” to issues on objective facts.
As we often say about our legal system, so goes democracy: it’s not perfect, but it’s the best system there is.
Sometimes it works out right, and sometimes it doesn’t………
cSimon: If Peter is a high school junior, maybe there’s hope that he does want to hear a few answers.
Peter is in High School? Oh then he already knows everything.
🙂
I get the impression that neo is thinking Obama is incompetent and a fool in these matters.
What if, as I believe, he wants a catastrophe in Iraq?
Given his background, which is easier to believe, that he and his advisors are totally incompetent, ignorant of the least bit of history, or that they know exacty what they are doing?
“Obama wants a catastrophe in Iraq” sounds a lot like “Bush wanted 9/11.” I think the left and the right both have their own crank ideas.
Actually the only President who wished for 9/11 was Bill Clinton.
War is not a good idea… period! Does anyone have an adequate response to this?
I have a question. At what point would you go to war? is there no oppression, no slavery so awful that you would you resist by force of arms if necessary?
YOU MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN WAR, BUT WAR IS INTERESTED IN YOU.
That’s a good one, I hadn’t read that before. But it is true. I’ll point our friend Peter to review this back-and-forth from LOTR: The Two Towers
Theoden I will not risk open war.
Aragorn War is upon you, whether you would have it or not.
While it takes two to tango, it only takes one to wage war.
Peter:
Here is an intro to what Chesterton had to say:
If war is not a good idea for the conquerer, it it any better for the conquered?
Much of the discussion of war is stuck in the model of World War One. Wilhelm II was spoiling for a fight. He was spoiling for a fight in everything he did, from when he got up in the morning to when he went to bed at night, with his servants, his government, and every other government.
Robert Massie makes a case in Dreadnought that Whm II was an abused child. If I understand the term (Neo, you can take me to task), he had an extremely fragile ego structure because of the treatment he received at the hands of a teacher who believed that, since no mere human being could be good enough to be Kaiser, the youth would be criticized unstintingly, but never praised.
Whatever you can say about the recent chief executives of the democracies, the one who comes nearest to this description is William Jefferson Clinton. Bush 41 and especially Bush 43 have borne criticism stoicly, even cheerfully. The same can’t be said of our legislators.
kung.
Problem is, there are folks who say the US needs a lesson in humility. That the US is a fascist power which needs to be defeated.
Graham Greene, the Brit writer, said, of his pro-Sov attitude, “I do not care for the USSR, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend and my enemy is Ronald Reagan”. Journalists have, from time to time, said the same thing. Chris Hedges, for example.
The prof who hoped Iraq would be “a million Mogadishus”.
Sorry, Kung. Unlike the 9-11 troofers, there really are those who wish the US would lose. And if you check DU and Kos, you’ll find them identical to Obama’s supporters.
Then there’s Hayden and the Ayers/Dohrn combo. Only question is whether Obama and his close friends and primary supporters share the same view.
Oh, yeah, he’s a red-diaper baby, as well.
You see my point?
Iraq was in America’s future, we enabled Saddam’s rise to power as a chess move to counter the spread of Soviet influences; the Cold War was a struggle of competing empires; a competition that forced the West to act like an empire; ever see a dog swallow more than it needed? This was the Soviet Union. I don’t care if conservative leaders lead the charge or not, freeing Iraq for the Iraqi people has been a disengagement from our Imperial past; and this is encouraging. To have freed Iraq in 1992, or much soon, would have been better; to have waited later would have been worse; later would have at least seen the utter implosion of Iraqi society throughout the country, not just in Baghdad, it would have most likely thus seen the invasion of Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arab, sometime in part that has been happening despite the presence of coalition forces; and once this blood bath soaked into the soil, who would have been jeered for not doing more to stop it? Who would have been given the humanitarian mandate? Us :\
War is not a good idea… period! Does anyone have an adequate response to this?
Yes, you’re as dumbass
Or, Kung, Obama could really be as clueless as he looks.
What do you think?
““Obama wants a catastrophe in Iraq” sounds a lot like “Bush wanted 9/11.” I think the left and the right both have their own crank ideas.”
With respect, Kungfu, try this:
Obama is incapable of acknowledging anything but catastrophe in Iraq.
I don’t think there is any question at all that his published position in opposition to, and critical of, the war is why he is the presumed nominee (boy, will he be surprised come Denver…).
He doesn’t have deeply held beliefs. None after “I want to be president.”
Everything else is … conditional.
It is quite possible he is the ethical antipode to George Washington. He makes Bill Clinton look almost statesmanlike.
And now to change the subject –
Why, if you are a citizen of a republic, would you entertain the opinions of a declared pacifist?
It’s nice for them to self identify, but beyond knowing for sure who is absolutely worthless in terms of defending self, community, society, or nation… but what utility does it serve to entertain their opinions on anything?
They have declined responsibility for their freedom, or anyone elses. Leave them to their fate.
Richard,
Are there liberals who would like to see Iraq fail so they can say I told you so? Yes. Is Obama one of them? I doubt it.
kingfu
I don’t think Obama’s motivation is to say he told us so.
Nothing so benign.
Thing is, by this time, any failure would be laid on his plate. There would be no excuses that Bush left an intractable situation, nothing like that. It would be a forthright change from a favorable situation to a losing situation on his orders.
If he’s willing to take the hit for that, it would likely be for more than the opportunity to say he told us so.
Except, he told us if he got elected, this is what he’d do.
So, maybe you’re right.
“I told you I’d do it. I did it. Told you so.”
“Iraq was in America’s future,”
Very true – we would have had to do this at some point anyway.
“we enabled Saddam’s rise to power as a chess move to counter the spread of Soviet influences;”
Yes, and I’m still not so sure this wasn’t the right thing to do. It may very well have been one of the important cogs in the fall of the USSR (which was a MUCH larger threat than Radical Islam currently is and will ever be if we can follow through now). It’s kinda like the guy who cut his arm arm because he was trapped on the side of a remote cliff (it was a few years back – did it with a pocket knife to boot) – yea cutting your arm off sucks and is a Bad Thing, however it is better than death.
“To have freed Iraq in 1992, or much soon, would have been better; to have waited later would have been worse; ”
I agree in hindsight – however at the time the information we had to work on we did the right thing. We, firstly, felt that with the Republican Guard crippled the civilians revolt would work – Schwarzkopf literally did not get the memo. Bush Sr assumed he knew of the situation in Iraq, he did not, had no way too, and had no reason too – he was more of a tactical general at that point and even the strategic command structure there wasn’t aware of it (they only cared about the current conflict). He allowed Saddam to fly helicopters as long as they didn’t enter the no fly zone or appear to engage coalition troops, thus the rebellion failed.
That was the number one mistake the US ever made in the region – bar none. Schwarzkopf has given some very interesting and candid interviews about it being one of the best and worst moments of his career. We told the people to rebel and then allowed Saddam the means to destroy them. It precipitated the idea of the US as a paper tiger in that region (which directly led to the first WTC bombing, USS Cole, and the myriad other attacks through the 90’s – our lack of retaliation didn’t help much there) and has taken us *years* to regain that trust. Amongst the other things that occured during the surge was that the US soldier finally gained the trust of those locals that lived through the failed ’91 rebellion.
I shudder to think what a premature withdrawal from there would do, not just to Iraq but with the rest of the region.
People who think that Iraq was a wrong and are reasonable (maybe Mitsu – still haven’t been here long enough to know for sure) I would note the general lack of terrorist attacks like the ones in the 90’s. They did it because they knew there would be no consequences to those action. Now they know they can be “enemy combatants” and get the same old benefits (they shouldn’t, but they take advantage of many on the left predisposition to do such things – same thing the Russian did and the term “useful idiots”) but know where their sphere of opportunity is. Iraq *greatly* reduced it – it reduced it to the point where we can focus most of our efforts in one spot and it allows us to kill them. Afghanistan wouldn’t have done this for us as it was a different type of attack, of all the places this would have worked Iraq was the easiest *and* the most desirable.
I don’t believe that their ranks have been swelling (nearly all polls and all evidence is to the contrary), but even should it be then it is SIGNIFICANTLY less sophisticated people. We are winning and would *not* have been otherwise. This is what the military does and what they are trained to do. Not death – no one is trained for that – however that is part of it (for centuries soldiers have had motto’s that are along the lines of “I don’t want to die, but if I’m called then I served with honor”). Instead of lamenting those deaths note that each one bought us no attacks for how many years now? I’m sure some would have not made the sacrifice if directly asked, then again I’m sure many many more would.
Iraq is a large part of that if for nothing else than removing the paper tiger idea and doing what we should have done ages ago (were that just *our* thoughts then not really, but given the attitude it has caused in the region). Afghanistan will never be that way as no one cared about people living in mud huts nor could we really do much in Pakistan (unfortunately their govt wouldn’t allow it, would they do so then I would most likely have my mind tipped towards removing as quickly as we reasonably can too, but I can’t say for sure unless things were to come to pass).
Plus if we ever have to fight Iran go look at a map that only shows countries and tell me Iraq is not important. Then go look at supply lines and major highways and tell me it’s not – we have Iran almost totally cornered – all they have is waterfront and, well, I don’t think their Navy us up to ours once they hit international waters if it came to that. Not only that but if one looks at the area and highways controlled with just Afghanistan (even just the areas we have focused on controlling – our military leaders aren’t stupid) and with Iraq then we have a controlling interest in pretty much every country there. We control part of nearly *all* the major supply lines of the region – not too shabby!
From a military standpoint strategically and tactically Iraq is the single most important country in the region. Others may cover more area and others may have more resources – but Iraq is the center of *all* the supply lines. It is the Suez Canal of the region – very nice to have it nice and friendly to us and not the despots 🙂
Ok, end of a long post. I’ve been watching TV and unwinding writing this. I will do a once over read but being dyslexic it will not be too good. It’s been a long day otherwise (we had our TFAA/NFAA State Field Archery Tournament today and tomorrow, I’m a range official) so I’m going to correct the major ones I spot. Sorry about that, I normally try and do better even if I don’t always succeed to the level I would like – today will be worse. Anyway – always enjoy such an argument and it is a change from what I’ve been doing all day 🙂
I’ve been voraciously devouring everything and anything about Obama for about six months now, in order to find evidence that he understands how to lead in a time of war. There is none. Nothing. I’ve skimmed his two books, and read a number of articles where his thoughts touch on war and military matters. This man is quite possibly the most abject idiot on the subject of war. Even George McGovern at least had military experience in WWII.
And he is arrogant enough to think he understands these things. Plus, he only has ex-military advisers vetted by George Soros and who agree with his already extant views. This is definitely not a man who will listen to professional, impartial assessments from a military man. That is why I am very afraid for my country starting in January.
In January it will be time for the country to bend over and grab its ankles, so ordereth our new POTUS.
Richard,
I keep telling all the liberals in love with Obama that I know that the honeymoon is going to end real quick with the first air strike he orders.
I’m skepitical that he is as liberal as liberals are hoping and conservatives are fearing.
I foresee a lot of status quo.
strcpy, when considering Iran’s geography, it is also good to see where the mountains are. The political borders bear some resemblence to reality.
strcpy,
Us for long time looked by all woarld a country human right and freedom loving country, all people around the world make thier distination tward the free world.
While all Armarican go all aroun thw world with thier chen up a d prode.
With all US wars i Laten Amrica nd S.East Asiea US postion aas free world and human right symbol kept US as the keystone for all of that, when all people and groupes seek freedom and support for thier greavness of theier local rugh regimes US was the partener for them.
After 2003 Iraq inavsion we saw that image and symbol damaged not littil buy a hughe setback for the values that US and Amarican hold it for decades and they are proude of it.
We saw some Amarican changing thier pecking acent, strcpy,
For long time US looked by all people around the world as human right and freedom loving country, all people around the world make their destination toward the free world. While all American go all around the world with their chin-up and full of proud.
In all US wars in Latin America, S. East Asia US kept her position as a free world and human right symbol that kept US as the keystone of those values. Most people and political groups who seeking freedom and support US was the partner for them.
After 2003 Iraq invasion things changed dramatically that image of US and symbol damaged not little but a huge setback for the values that US and Americans hold for decades and they are proud of it.
Some American chose to changing their speaking accent, some hiding their identity as been Canadians, more American have lost the respect of other world not like before when American walking in the street of Paris, or other places with proud.
All this due Iraqi invasion.
If you still think “Iraq was in America’s future,” you need to rethink deep for that view.
we saw Amaricam changing thier identy as been Canidians, more ArMarican have lost the respect of other wordd not like before when Amarican walking in street of Paris, or other with proude.
All this due Iraqi inasion.
If you still think “Iraq was in America’s future,” you need to rethink of the above points.
Truth:
“…He was hailed by media stars as a “breathtaking” example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein.”
And why not? Who else had toppled Saddam Hussien?
Or did you mean to say that this was a “bad” thing?
kungfu Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 12:18 am
“I keep telling all the liberals in love with Obama that I know that the honeymoon is going to end real quick with the first air strike he orders.”
Hope you’re right about that k, but it’s more likely that B.O. will be more like J.C. (Carter that is…), if we’re lucky; More likely he will have the “audacity” to set new precedents in catering to the leftist/islamist movement, of which he has had long-standing and active associations and sympathies, from his church of two decades and family, to his wll demonstrated political orientation. The democratic party has already sold this country out for nothing more than their petty political ambitions…
harry McHitlerburtonstein the COnservative Extremist,
The point here neo raised about Obama has been living in fantasyland, but Bush declared before he is living in fantasyland when he rushed to declare ““Mission Accomplished” were in fact till now “Mission Not Accomplished” .
Though both are living in fantasyland
Obama is appealing to liberals for his expertise at slight of hand. He’ll simply make those in denial of a coming world war FEEL better by his ability to eloquently change the subject.
The democrats will raise their own Mission Accomplished sign in November. The irony will escape them.
It takes two to wage a war, it takes only one to wage a massacre.
Gringo brought up the following as evidence of “good” wars. I’ll take them up one at a time:
1) Finland’s fighting back in the 1939-1940 war meant that Stalin did not take over Finland. Progress
Finland’s defense of herself was of course a good thing, and fully justified. But she didn’t start it. A good analogy to the South in the WBTS.
2) Got rid of Hitler. Progress Or do you think that Europe would have been better off under Pax Germanica?
My recent interview with Pat Buchanan about his new book that argues that the war with Hitler was a mistake is a good case in point. Buchanan and I were both attacked visciously by the ADL over this interview.
Did the attack offer any argument against what was said in the interview? No, it was a fanatical, dogmatic rant. And the ADL press release was widely reprinted as if it was self-evident truth.
I invite anyone to review it at the http://www.squidoo.com/cesspool lens.
WW II was a direct result of our foolish and disastrous entry into WW I. WW I was another step in our road to empire building that begin with the “Civil” War – better designated by my friend Bob Whitaker’s term – “The war to keep the South.”
Hitler may have wanted in on the empire game, just as every major country was into facism (just look on the back of a dime if you don’t think FDR was a fascist) but didn’t want to take on the US or Britain.
And if Hitler had taken over Europe, do you think he would have given it to the Muslim world on a silver platter?
3) Got rid of slavery in the US. Progress The South was NOT about to go gently into that good night. I had family on both sides that lost their lives.
Yes, well over 600,000 lives lost over ending slavery? Sure the South didn’t want to give up slavery, for many reasons. But it could have been dealt with without resorting to a fratricidal war.
People always ask when Southerners will quit fighting the war, but the real question is when will the US? Iraq is just a continuation of the empire building began by Lincoln and the GOP. We’re seeing the end of the GOP unfolding before our eyes, and I say good riddance.
4) Got rid of Saddam. Progress The Kumbaya people weren’t going to do it.
Saddam was no more a threat than the next guy there. Iraq was again a creation of empire building that went awry.
5) Prevented South Korea from being turned into a clone of the totalitarian, starving North. Progress
6) I was a 1-O during the Vietnam War. The genocide in Cambodia changed my mind. The pacifist sits on the sideline with “clean hands”, and the killing continues.
Both Korea and Vietnam were not fought to “win” and the motivations for each are far from clean. McNamara has admitted as much regarding Vietnam.
7) Resulted in independence of the US.
A natural development of growing up and leaving home. It was more a civil war than the so-called one. It didn’t take 100 years before what was put in place was destroyed by Lincoln and company.
My point in all this is that we should really take an honest look at our history and our attitudes about war and demand that of our leaders. Obama and McCain are proof our system is incapable of that as presently constituted.
Peter Says:
War is not a good idea… period! Does anyone have an adequate response to this? Can anyone possibly argue that war is a necessary tool in the greater progress of humanity? I thought not.
I so argue. It’s like saying, “Violence is not a good idea… period! Therefore, abolish the police.”
As novelist Frederic Manning wrote in his (1930) novel Her Privates We, by Private 19022 (note that Manning fought in W.W.I under that serial number):
“War is waged my men; not by beasts, or by gods. It is a peculiarly human activity. To call it a crime against mankind is to miss at least half of its significance; it is also the punishment of a crime. That raises a moral question, the kind of problem with which this age is disinclined to deal. Perhaps some future attempt to provide a solution for it may prove to be even more astonishing than the last.”
Jane Edwards:
Now here I thought I was right wing! But, relative to you, I’m a bleeding heart liberal.
Counterpoint: Finland. Generous of you…but I fail to see the analogy of The War Between The States. I do recall though that ardent segregationists in my day always referred to The Civil War this way, plus The War of Northern Aggression. Just before the use of the term “nigger”.
Counterpoint: The Hitler Thing. Whosoever the WWII arose, we were more or less obligated to get into this one. The Versailles Treaty alone did more damage than all the airy-fairy reasoning of you and Reichsfuehrer Buchanan.
And for the sake of calm and blood pressure, please don’t get me started on the deep thought of Chairman Pat. If thought it is.
Look, pal, it boils down to this: “There are things a man must do.” There are things that must be done to advance civilization and the pursuit of happiness. One of them is to follow through on Mr. Jefferson’s Oath:
“I have sworn on the altar of My God Eternal Enmity toward all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.” Or words to that effect.
Who fits the tyranny? Your moral duty is to discern who truly fits this description.
And then follow through.
Having screwed it up, a form of justice would ask that we clean it up.
James Edwards Says:
(Too much and too brain damaged for me to want to debunk very much, so let’s do just this….)
3) Got rid of slavery in the US. Progress The South was NOT about to go gently into that good night. I had family on both sides that lost their lives.
Yes, well over 600,000 lives lost over ending slavery? Sure the South didn’t want to give up slavery, for many reasons. But it could have been dealt with without resorting to a fratricidal war.
You seem ignorant — or determined to play on what you think is ours — of the fact that the South started the war! It was the South that decided they would unilaterally withdraw from the Union after a candidate they didn’t favor won the election — and it was the South that thereupon arrogantly attacked Federal property and the Federal agents peacefully occupying that installation, launching the war. The burden for that lies, not on Lincoln, but the Southern slavers.
I keep hearing how Bush was not ready for the war in Iraq and its aftermath. And yet Obama could not be bothered to even find out if his own policy was phsically possible. Nope, him want, him get.
I thought this was interesting, George Orwell, on pacifism:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force. But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism. Even pacifists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Nazi victory is desirable in itself. In the letter you sent on to me, Mr Comfort considers that an artist in occupied territory ought to ‘protest against such evils as he sees’, but considers that this is best done by ‘temporarily accepting the status quo’ (like Déat or Bergery, for instance?). a few weeks back he was hoping for a Nazi victory because of the stimulating effect it would have upon the arts:
Charlie,
You must be a journalist. At least spell my name right!
Versailles was a big element in starting WWII. That was part of WWI wasn’t it? Our involvement in that treaty helped make it unworkable. I was just giving a thumbnail sketch.
As for the WBTS, you don’t have an answer, but Micheal repeats the tired pharisaical line that we “started it.” I won’t bother giving a history lesson here, but will remind both of you that we don’t let children get away with that excuse.
Why are we bound to follow through with “things ill begun” just because “we” started them? Don’t include me in that royal “we.”
God doesn’t just allow for repentance, he demands it. Kierkegaard pointed out that the problem with democracy is that it doesn’t allow for repentance. Maybe we should all step back and think on that one.
Truth.
WRT “mission accomplished”. I understand that you think you can wear out the normal people by relentless lying.
Probably, you’re right.
But not so far.
The carrier was returning from a deployment, hence the banner.
Bush said major combat ops were complete. True.
You are trying to make people think Bush said the war was over. You lie.
I know you know this. Point is, so does everybody else. You’re making yourself look bad, which would be acceptable if you fooled as many as one person. But you haven’t.
Since we’re talking about “Mission Accomplished,” let’s look at how big an accomplishment it was. Twenty-one years ago this spring, Saddam struck the American warship the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf with two missiles from an Iraqi jet fighter — killing 37 American sailors at a single whack.
Saddam’s army, one of the largest in the world, during the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated the Iranians for a decade in the 80’s at a cost of perhaps a million deaths on both sides.
In 1991, the U.S.-led coalition felt it necessary to face Saddam’s army with a half-million-man heavy-armor force designed to fight the Soviets in World War III — preceding that ground attack by five weeks of heavy aerial “smart-bomb” bombardment.
In 2003, the U.S.-led coalition, assembling a force less than one-third as many troops and with no preceding bombardment, smashed Saddam’s army in barely a month’s time, at the cost of 140 Americans and 33 Brits — expending little more than four times the casualties incurred by the Stark attack alone.
five weeks of heavy aerial “smart-bomb” bombardment.
smashed Saddam’s army
It was war crimes with your smart -bomb do you remember ‘Highway of Death’ Slaughter? It’s just smart war crimes not more Saddam your boy left for more 13yeras.
‘Highway Of Death’ Slaughter
Jeez, Truth.
Shooting up the enemy. Whatever will the evil US think of next.
Heard of the Falaise Gap?
Also, the Versailles Treaty was after, not before, WW I. Which mean the Germans can start wars either with or without the Versailles Treaty. Might mean they take some looking after.
Richard,
Of course it was after. It was the last part of WWI, since it set the terms to end the war.
Am I missing your larger point?
Janet Edwards:
Say, you are “Truth” aren’t you? And Jack, pray note that I accused you of being basically a racist on your analysis of The Civil War.
I will not repeat the Versailles argument. Mr. Aubrey has done that.
As a keen military commentator, John, I would think that the radical notion of an artillery barrage should be examined. Don’t matter how the device is delivered: the effect is the same whether from tube or plane.
But I am deeply wounded by your calling me a journalist, Judy. As the Old Sweats on this blog can tell you, I’m a card carrying Scientist/Teacher.
James Edwards.
Big time, big time.
WW I started BEFORE the Versailles Treaty. Which means there are probably other reasons for the Germans to start wars than the Versailles Treaty.
Since VT was AFTER they started WW I. So it couldn’t have been a reason for starting WW I, because they started WW I BEFORE the VT.
Got that sequence down, now?
Which could be taken to mean that the usual reasons for attacking everybody they could find on a map might have been in play in 1939, with VT nothing more than the excuse for the self-loathing western lefties to play with.
“Truth” Sez:
‘five weeks of heavy aerial “smart-bomb” bombardment…. smashed Saddam’s army’
It was war crimes with your smart -bomb do you remember ‘Highway of Death’ Slaughter? It’s just smart war crimes not more Saddam your boy left for more 13yeras.
Pounding a retreating army is a “war crime,” huh? Sure; in a pig’s eye. If they didn’t want to be bombed, then that army should have surrendered. They did not. Hitting Saddam’s army was an act of war (guess what! — we were at war), not a war crime.
And it seems most likely that the “highway of death” was mostly populated by dead vehicles, the occupants of which had fled.
neo.
Yeah, everybody knows that. But guys like “truth” keep hoping to encounter one, just one, of the stone-ignorant.
In their wanderings, peddling nonsense, they convince many, many normal people that they are liars. But, apparently, if they find that one stone-ignorant person and convince him, they net out ahead.
I don’t see how the math works on that.
Richard Aubrey: I don’t think “everybody” knows it at all. I would bet most of my friends don’t know it, for instance. I think the math works out very well; the MSM spread the original word, and most people have not gotten the updated and less-sensationalistic version.
Neo:
I do remember a picture set of The Highway of Death Whatever. Prominently featured in the ruins: not too many bodies (most made it to a ditch for cover) but many, many, many burned-out looted Color TVs. One or two per vehicle, IIRC.
Yeah, war is hell…almost missed the Iraqi Daytime Dramas.
neo.
You may be right.
Problem is, worrying about it validates the meme that we shouldn’t kill our enemies.
So, truth may convince fewer people than I thought that he’s a liar and more people than I thought that the Highway of Death (see Falaise Gap) is a war crime.
Could be the math works out better than I thought.
Means I have to get busy.
neo-neocon
mostly populated by dead vehicles,
I don’t think “everybody” knows it at all. I would bet most of my friends don’t know it, for instance. I think the math works out very well;
neo with all due respect your words not right.
Yes it turned to be a line of Iraqi military and civilian’s dead vehicles all along the road from north Kuwait to Basra South Iraq.
But those vetches how they came along that high way?
Are they empty when they bombed?
Did they have people driving them and other retreated after Iraq accepted cease fire?
So where is those almost o.5 Million or more Iraqi solders their family just waiting for loves ones never returned back.
Why I call it war crimes because at the time of ‘Highway of Death’ Slaughter” Saddam accepted cease fire on condition to withdrawal Iraqi military from Kuwait GWB father accepted the cease fire and then while Iraqi army retreated back to Basra in long lines along the high way, US start there aerial “smart-bomb” (its not smart bombing targeting along lines without any enemy fires, asked you military experts is just a game show).
truth.
I am operating under the assumption that you know better than you speak, so I not attempting to inform you of reality. Except to say that many people, perhaps not as many as I thought, know better.
The bombers hit the front and back of the column, the column stalled, the drivers mostly got out and ran–good idea–and most of the vehicles hit were empty. As you know.
The half million–that’s about five times more than reality, as you know.
Most of them in combat priorto the fabled Highway, but there was substantial desertion prior to the start of combat, more prior to ground combat, and the gone guys were initially counted as dead. But they weren’t. As you know.
And now you know I know.
Waste your time at a group home where you have some chance of making an impact.
But if you run into somebody who’d like to try us on, tell them your side of the story. Might save a lot of grief. Hell, give them a video.
Most of them in combat priorto the fabled Highway, but there was substantial desertion prior to the start of combat,
First you need to know that I am not ruing for some one, if some info looks to you not right that’s ok, the here different version of story as assume where the truth is laying in between them.
But to your knowledge with “was substantial desertion prior” Saddam forces (Republican grads and Saddam Special forces) were on Iraqi land standing in the back of all Iraqi military forces they killed any one trying come back leaving the war lines that’s why you know better here most Iraqi solders are surrendered to US forces instead goes back to Iraq.
That not first time in Saddam wars, same scenario done by that Abed Hammeed who is one of Saddam closest guy (he is in US hand till now in Iraq God knows!!) who was on other side of the Arab River (Shat Al-Arab) in mid 1980 with in command of Saddam special forces who shooting any Iraqi trying to flee war lines more over he is the guy he intruded the cut of Ears of those who refuses to go back to their military units during the 13 years of sanction.
In mean time I hope with your knowledge that US Military was hired by Kuwaitis and Saudis to push Saddam military out I guess you got paid well from Kuwaitis and Saudis money for your wide knowledge of 1991 war!
Truth:
Give Iraqis a little credit for intelligence.
Once the head of the column is blocked off by air power and the end of the column is sealed off from retreat, you don’t have to be Napoleon to realize that the middle is next.
And so it’s “Let’s get the hell out of here” time. So away we go with our bare feet over the sands. (Remember: bare feet have more traction in sands).
So burned out vehicles are in order. However, I was struck by the relative lack of burned corpses in the photographs. There were some visible, but none were formless ash: you could see what they were.
Can’t recall tracks in the sand…but obviously, a majority had sense enough to take French Leave. And live to loose another day.
Charlie,
Call me a racist all you like, but name calling isn’t an argument. Feel free to define “racist” if you are making some kind of point. I am a European and a white man, and I love my people and my race. If you’ve got a problem with that, that’s your problem not mine.
As for Versailles, everyone knows it came at the end of WWI. Keynes predicted at the time it would lead to WWII, among others, I’m sure. De Toqueville predicted the world wars 80 years before WWI.
The blockades run by the Allies against the Germans long after the VT contributed greatly as well.
Whether the Germans “started” WWI or not, we had no business getting involved. Washington wanted us to stay out of Europe’s wars, and we would have done well to heed him.
One day we’ll bring adult discussion back into politics. This isn’t the year, but it’s coming.
Good Ole Charlie,
Looks we got more and more people knowledgeable about 1991 war and “Sand Death” here
So Good Ole Charlie your intelligence makes you saying Iraqis killed in “‘Highway of Death’ Slaughter” due to Hot Sand in the desert??
Well done, what about your friends telling about “aerial “smart-bomb” was it so “smart-bomb” no Iraqis killed?
Let us draw the picture for you here from your words and from you moths:
Most Iraqi death in 1991 by our intelligence guys here was by hitting the head and the tail of the Iraqi military convoy, so Iraqi solders run for their survival on the hot sand in the desert and they died!! This was nothing to do with US military actions in that time.
The point I made and been clear here to these intelligence guys Iraq accepted cease fire US agreed, the aerial “smart-bomb” bombardment came after the agreement which cause Iraqi death so here is the war crime isn’t?
This is the concerns not how the scenario was and why is it a”‘ Highway of Death Vehicles’ Slaughter” or was “‘Highway of Death’ Slaughter” of Iraqis or due to Hot Sand in the desert??
Understood folks? Stick to the point we don’t need more knowable stories.
Calls are now being made to have Western leaders who caused this genocide sit trial in the War Criminals Tribunal. Is this possible and do you support such calls?
So you think President Bill Clinton should be tried?
Death For Oil
Dennis Halliday, Ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General Heading The UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm
Truth:
So you are White Man, Kimo Sabe?
You may not know the reference….sorry.
Where are you? You-rope? What country?
Just curious…mebbe Canada?
I might add that a “Ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General Heading The UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq” as a credential rates as laughable.
“All Piss, No Power” my Maine father-in-law would say.
“Truth’s” timetable is defective. The “Highway of Death” incident took place on the night of February 26-27, 1991, G.H.W. Bush’s unilateral proclamation of cease-fire (which occurred when it did largely as a result of the spectacle of carnage along that road) didn’t occur until the night of Wednesday, Feb. 27, Washington time — nor, contrary to “Truth’s” explicit assertion, was it immediately accepted by Saddam Hussein. The upshot is that the “Highway of Death” happened while the fighting was still very much raging.