Iraq: suppose they gave a victory and nobody noticed
The title of this post was inspired by the saying, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”—one of the stupidist slogans of the peace movement of the 60s.
The news that Iraq has ratified a formal US/Iraq military and strategic alliance has fallen under most people’s radar screens. Ho-hum. The economy is (rightly) on people’s minds these days. But let’s pause to realize how successful the Iraq venture has been, and to cheer on the Iraqi people so far.
Yes, there are always caveats with Iraq, yada-yada-yada. But this news should be celebrated as much as the war was previously excoriated.
One way to do so (celebrate, not excoriate) is to take a look at this photo essay about normalcy returning to Iraq . The very first shot, of some Iraqi policemen, caused me to remember the dark days when recruits were mowed down as they waited in line to volunteer for the force. The times they have certainly a’changed.
Neo
I’m in Afghanistan. Today we had a ceremony for three Canadians killed by an IED. That will get massive coverage and rightly so. However, any positive action in Iraq or Afghanistan will be ignored by the press. You cannot appreciate the amount of hostitily there is toward the news media here. I do not believe people will give a damn because the war does not touch them. The Marines were ever so right. “The Marines are at war, America is at the mall”. This has been going on for seven years now and I wonder why people are still amazed that the good is not news. We have no emotional investment in these wars. Any buy in after 9/11 is totally gone. I think this goes to show my rule is true 100% of the time. I call it the Indiana simple rule. People in Indiana where I lived like things straight forward so I made the rule straight forward. “Until you feel pain, you will not change.”
Beer and picnics and pick-up soccer games — excellent!
The “what if they gave a war” line is only the second dumbest anti-war quote. The prizewinner is “War is not healthy for children and other living things,” and the mawkish little drawing that accompanied it on posters in the sixties. Even then, it made my gorge rise. That solemn, sanctimonious, faux-naive tone did more, I think, to turn me against the left than anything else.
I fully agree with and share all of your sentiments, mizpants. I’d like to add a serious contender for the dumbest anti-war quote: “war never settles anything.”
I believe Adolf, Benito, Hideki, and more recently Saddam would beg to differ.
Unfortunately, no notice will be taken of serenity in Iraq until after the Historic Inauguration in January.
Then, miraculously, I suspect the mainstream media will start publishing reports on how Obama’s Pennsylvania Ave. presence translated to less violence on Baghdad streets. Trust the leftist illuminati to decide to frame the report in the all-important context of timing.
In the beginning of OIF, the unknowns were:
The first three questions have been answered in the affirmative. America should now finish the job, and consolidate a significant victory in a strategically important area. We ought not rush resources to Afghanistan to consolidate a less certain, muddier, cloudier, less decisive victory in a strategically less important area. We should finish strongly in Iraq. We should decisively win what can be decisively won. That Iraq can be decisively won is part of the strategic brilliance of undertaking OIF.
When we have fully completed Iraq: Afghanistan will still be there, waiting for us. This is why “Win Afghanistan” is a foolish reason to rush from Iraq.
Afghanistan requires a longer term strategy. Trying to recreate OIF style victory in Afghanistan would be strategic folly, and I pray Barack will not go down this road. Best case in Afghanistan will result in cloudier, less decisive victory which will only be seen and fully recognized years after it has been completed. Afghanistan requires strategy which is possibly more complicated than the Cold War, and which integrates Pak and India, as well as China, Russia, Iran, and the Stans.
We can be audacious in Afghanistan. We are best when we are audacious. But we must be smart audacious, not foolish audacious.
Your comment about cheering the Iraqis on is something that has long bothered me. So many people would rather see Bush and our military lose that they are willing to sacrifice the Iraqis. It’s as if the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi who can prove I was right about Bush. What a sick perspective! I wonder if things would have gone a little differently had the Iraqis sensed that all America was behind them cheering them on.
After looking at the photo essay, I clicked on another about college dorms. My 60s dorm life was described as draconian. How come I didn’t find it so terrible? I think the modern palaces portrayed might explain something our spoiled young people and their distorted picture of the real world. Can these kids really imagine what fear of Saddam’s meat grinders must have been like? To them, sex-segregaated dorms and lights out must be the equivalent of torture.
Then again, we have this from this morning:
But when hostile fire tore through a group of soldiers from the regiment’s 3rd “Thunder Squadron” at an outpost in Zanjili last Wednesday, Nov. 12, it came not from insurgents but from an Iraqi soldier, Private Barazan Muhammad Abdullah al Hadidi. With a squad’s worth of American soldiers clustered in the courtyard of the outpost, which was manned by Iraqi Army and National Police troops, Barazan opened fire at about 11:30 a.m., first firing one shot and then a long automatic burst.
By the time Barazan fell to American fire a few seconds later, a cavalry trooper lay dead and seven more had been wounded, one mortally.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/12/in_mosul_americans_f.php
What we have here is a disagreement about what constitutes victory.
From the American right’s perspective, the war was won by May 2003 and for about 12 weeks, the mainstream media went along for that little joyride.
And it’s easy to see why they did. Having bought into the idea that “liberated” Iraqis would welcome our troops with hugs and flowers and the locals would put a statue of GW Bush in the town square, the mainstream media was primed to accept the defeat of Saddam’s army and the glorious pull-down of his statue as victory.
But myths expose themselves over time and so it was that it soon became clear that Iraqis did not and had not welcomed the invasion.
A charitable interpretation is that there have really been two Iraq wars this time. One to destroy Saddam’s regime: won quickly at little expense in American lives and money. The second, to establish an occupation and replace Saddam’s regime with something better, alas turned into a nightmarish failure.
Thus for the past four years, the conservative media has continuously asserted that we are winning or have won the war, even as the body count piled up and the estimates of $7 billion to $50 billion in spending on Iraq spiraled to well beyond $1 trillion.
We can have a meaningful debate over whether the war is won or not only after agreeing on the definition of victory.
If removing Saddam is the measure then, yes, the war was won long ago. But that, of course, leaves the million ton elephant question of why we’re still there, losing beautiful American men and women even as I type.
If establishing democracy is the measure, we need to look at Iraq’s neighbors and what has happened there as the war has progressed. Safe to say, the Iraq war hasn’t contributed to improving the situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or Syria, the most relevant nations.
Ultimately, won or lost is a false dichotomy. This isn’t a football game.
You want a parade, by all means, have one, regardless of what the “score” might be. The men and women who fight deserve not only a hearty welcome home, but all the medical care they need or even just want — again, independent of the politics that sent them to Iraq.
It isn’t did we win or did we lose, but did the benefits outweigh the costs.
And when we do that accounting, we cannot rationally throw presumed future gains onto the balance sheet. At some point, the results are due and we have to accept the reality of what they tell us has happened, not what we hope will happen at some unidentifiable point in the future.
At some point, the results are due and we have to accept the reality of what they tell us has happened, not what we hope will happen at some unidentifiable point in the future.
By that standard, every war ever fought on this planet was not worth fighting.
Which I suppose is your point. Why don’t you just say: “War doesn’t solve anything.”? It’s shorter and less pretentions (but still just as wrong.)
Why would I ever let some one who would never actually fight for anything tell me what is worth fighting for?
“Until you feel pain, you will not change.”
I think that should replace “E pluribus unum” as as our national motto.
Bogey Man: I am puzzled as to why you keep saying “we” when referring to Americans.
Neo-neocon, judging from this post I’m not sure if you saw this:
VI Day, Victory in Iraq.
Many like Bogey Man of course will miss the point, which is that when the news from Iraq is dominated by political strife rather than bloodshed, and that said political strife is within a somewhat democratic framework, which is to say people from different cultural backgrounds are talking and negotiating, then we have achieved the original neocon goals. This is as much of a victory as we will ever see, and it is worth celebrating.
In this kinder, gentler age, it is not enough to win the war. Since we can’t win the war by destroying our enemies completely, and since sometimes our enemies live among friends and possible friends whom they use as shields, we must be able to win the peace as well. Of course, this has always been true; it took more than a decade to get Europe and Japan back on their feet as allies, but only a few will argue that our enemies are worse off for having lost to us. But we now must accept the peace as part of the job, and learn to excel at is as we have learned to excel at war. This was an area at which Rome excelled, and at which pre-Roman Greece did not. The difference marks a sea change in politics between sovereign entities. We’re grown up now; we have to do the
dishes and mow the lawn. Get used to it.
Neoneo: I’m American, as are you, and quite proud of my country at its best.
Gray: Please explain why you think an accounting of costs and benefits as of, say, 1948, seven years after WWII began for the U.S., shows it wasn’t worth fighting.
When a war is existential, surviving beyond your enemy’s demise constitutes victory, plain and simple. I’m sure you realize that, but not that your rhetoric contradicts it.
Bogey Man: I believe you know why I am asking the question, if you consider where you are located.
“From the American right’s perspective, the war was won by May 2003….” Bogey Man
So you fell for the Progressives’ meme regarding “Mission Accomplished”, eh?
Tell me, why did I immediately interpret the statement correctly and you didn’t?
“Why would I ever let some one who would never actually fight for anything tell me what is worth fighting for?”
What an infuriating statement. Fighting does not mean murdering. Fighting for a cause and fighting for what is right does not require that one must use a weapon, or do anything physical at all. Reaching for justice in this world does not mean you need to violate and destroy the sanctity of human life. In fact, slaughter kind of works against that whole ideal of justice just a little bit, now doesn’t it.
Now in all my comments for a while on this blog I’ve tried to not be abrasive at all, but I’ll tell you I just cannot understand you idiots who sit around celebrating “victory” in war. There is no victory in war; there is no victory in killing; there is no justification for murder, whether you are compelled by insanity, by religion, by injustice, by economics, or by that most vile creed above all the rest – that it is better to kill than to be killed. Human adherence to that basest, most bestial, most despicable of ideas – that is what is killing humanity.
Now I will tell you straight out, all you wonderful people on Neo-Neocon:
There is no victory in Iraq for
hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis
4204 dead American soldiers (as of a few days ago)
hundreds of dead contractors, coalition soldiers and other foreigners
tens of thousands of American soldiers wounded
and the uncountable number of lives that have been forever ruined by the evil that continues in this world – evil you condone.
Murder cannot be avenged with murder. You cannot make up for the lives that have been lost by taking more life. That is a truly sick urge, to apply the punishment of absolute destruction when it heals no ill but creates even more suffering. The greatest thing one can do after tragedy is to give to the world, not take away from it.
Murder cannot be prevented with murder. There is but one place the killing stops – the human soul. It takes an effort of spirit, even an effort of selflessness, to realize that one’s life is but a little thing spent in the quest for purity and the quest for the advancement of the human race.
At the core of all of this, you debase yourselves. You see us all as animals, as physical selves, as individual embodiments of the urge to survive. You see killing as a practical matter, an “us or them” situation no matter how far you are from the innocents being blown apart by missiles you praise as effective. You give in to the weakness of thinking that your continued presence on earth is more important than the advancement of humanity. You give in to the weakness of thinking that rearranging death makes it better – death for all those who get in our weapons’ way half a world away instead of the remotest fear of death lingering in your pitiful pampered minds.
A pessimist might say we will always be throwing ourselves at the feet of our primal instincts and murdering ways. Obviously, I don’t see it that way – because maybe one day people will be able to think.
Maybe one day people will realize that it is not “to kill or to be killed” but rather “to not kill and not be killed.”
That will be the day nobody comes.
humanist wrote:
“A pessimist might say we will always be throwing ourselves at the feet of our primal instincts and murdering ways. Obviously, I don’t see it that way – because maybe one day people will be able to think.
Maybe one day people will realize that it is not “to kill or to be killed” but rather “to not kill and not be killed.”
That will be the day nobody comes.”
You moniker is very consistent with your message as one who associates with such people everyday in academia.
In two sentences you reveal the basis of your underlying philosophy. First, by saying anyone who thinks war may be a necessary evil does not “think”, you are expressing the typical notion that only people such as yourself, are smarter than the rest of us morons.
This brings me to the second point: that the idea of “kill or be killed” is wrong. For someone who claims that they are a “thinker”, this sentence displays an enormous lack of knowledge as to human nature; and this from a “humanist”. The unfortunate reality, which you desperately want to ignore, is that some people are EVIL. They want to hurt, or kill the rest of us. They have always existed, and will ALWAYS exist. “Thinking” won’t make them go away. For someone who sports the moniker “humanist”, you must have read many books to make yourself smarter than the rest of us. Tell me, which books, ancient or modern, do NOT play on the central theme of good vs. evil, and the constancy of that tension throughout human history?
The evil people, when in charge of a nation, can present a true existential threat. Or, even just by invading your home with the intent to simply murder you and your family (see Connecticut news a year and half ago). You may thump your chest as to being a “thinking” person while simultaneously being tortured, or killed. I, however, prefer a violent response to such a threat to my self or my family.
Humanist: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”–George Orwell.
You can stutter and protest all you want, but those words ring true. Argue about the aims of the Iraq War or about the mistakes and blind alleys travelled. But the freedom to do so was paid for by the blood of patriots.
A thread such as this seems to lend credence to the results of the Zogby poll / Wilson Research findings reported earlier on this site.
People on the left and right in this one nation, truly, live in different worlds.
“to not kill, and not be killed”.
To not flip off, and not be flipped off.
To not be angered, and not have anger shown toward you.
To not cheat, and not be cheated.
To not rob, and not be robbed.
To not misunderstand, and not be misunderstood.
To not tax, and not be taxed.
To not take a stand, and not be stood against.
I’ve got a million of ’em.
Sing with me here……
If you’re going to San – Fran – cisco…..
Be sure to wear some flowers in you hair……….
Dan:
The Orwell quotation is attributed but not authenticated, to the best of my knowledge. It’s in Orwell’s spirit, to be sure. He did say something once like “Pacifism is an ideology that can be indulged only in countries where the people feel very safe.”
Ah, yes, those sixties bumper stickers. I had a variant of one on my car and you all won’t be surprised that in Ann Arbor, where I was going to law school at the time, it did not meet with agreeable tolerance for diverse ideas. “Russia Is Not Healthy for Jews and Other Living Things.”
I didn’t have the sticker but the response to “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” is, “What if they gave a war and only one side came?” To a certain extent that was what happened to the western democracies in the late thirties, and that brings to mind a Churchill quotation, that the democracies had to choose between shame and war. “They chose shame. They will get war.”
As to “war never solves anything,” my favorite response to that is from Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers.” Someone says that to a teacher who responds by asking the questioner to consider why she can’t spend her summer vacation in Carthage.
How do you feel about abortion, humanist? Just asking.
Humanist: “… That most vile creed above all the rest – that it is better to kill than to be killed.”
This is not rational. It is not even humanist. Your are placing a spiritual principle above the value of your own life. Do not be blinded by your own inherent decency to the short line that leads from that philosophy to those young men who sacrifice their own lives in the name of spiritual purity via the detonation of suicide belts.
People on the left and right in this one nation, truly, live in different worlds.
Correct: the delusional vs the real, the former including the delusion that the delusional world can even exist to any significant extent without those of us in the real world who provide and protect the delusionalist niche to begin with.
Now, humanist – and your moniker is really quite telling regarding your own narcissistic self-delusion – please let us all know how pointedly ignoring reality in favor of simply incessantly mouthing Utopian mantras and fantasies helps anyone.
But myths expose themselves over time and so it was that it soon became clear that Iraqis did not and had not welcomed the invasion.
Maybe I’m missing something but hasn’t the democratically elected government of Iraq acquiesced in the US presence? Perhaps the “Iraqis” did not welcome the US but their elected leaders, voted into office by those same “Iraqis,” surely have. We keep hearing from the anti-war folks how the US is not wanted but the Iraqis keep electing leaders who DO want the US there. A real puzzler, I guess, to the anti-war folks.
A charitable interpretation is that there have really been two Iraq wars this time. One to destroy Saddam’s regime: won quickly at little expense in American lives and money. The second, to establish an occupation and replace Saddam’s regime with something better, alas turned into a nightmarish failure.
“Nightmarish failure?” A democratically elected government allied with the US in Iraq is not “better” than Saddam and his murderous regime? Reality is truly topsy-turvy in the anti-war world.
Thus for the past four years, the conservative media has continuously asserted that we are winning or have won the war, even as the body count piled up and the estimates of $7 billion to $50 billion in spending on Iraq spiraled to well beyond $1 trillion.
The “conservative media,” a minuscule portion of the media as we all know, had steadily criticized Bush’s conduct of the Iraq War until the US started winning with General Petraeus. The writer needs a subscription to LexisNexis so he can read up on the subject. As for the “cost,” the Iraq War has cost less treasure and American lives than any major was in US history. We have Bush’s policy to thank for that.
If removing Saddam is the measure then, yes, the war was won long ago. But that, of course, leaves the million ton elephant question of why we’re still there, losing beautiful American men and women even as I type.
Apparently the writer would have had the US leave Iraq after Saddam’s fall, with no US reconstruction afterward. Then no doubt he would have vigorously criticized the US for the chaos that would have resulted.
If establishing democracy is the measure, we need to look at Iraq’s neighbors and what has happened there as the war has progressed. Safe to say, the Iraq war hasn’t contributed to improving the situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan or Syria, the most relevant nations.
The writer is worried about the “situation” in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan is a crushed Taliban regime(who sheltered bin Laden while he planned 9/11 and afterward refused to hand him over), replaced by a democratic government friendly toward the US. For me, if not for the writer, THAT is a much better situation than what was there before.
Furthermore, the writer’s implication is that Iran and Syria would very nice these days, maybe even “turned” into friendly folks, if only the US had not toppled Saddam. Only a dedicated anti-war would believe such a fantasy. Both these regimes were at the forefront of state-sponsored terrorism long before the Afghan or Iraq wars, a “situation” that seemingly will not change until their murderous regimes are ended.
AS for Pakistan, the fragile situation there has been boiling for many decades. It is a nation that has never really been stabile, the government of which has been liberally stocked with Jihadists from the get-go(can we say Mumbai, class?) and I really doubt the Iraq War had anything to do with the volatile politics currently playing out there.
Fighting for a cause and fighting for what is right does not require that one must use a weapon, or do anything physical at all.
Oh, if fighting doesn’t involve anything physical at all, then Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and George Bush are as honorable combatants as any soldier on the field.
That is a truly sick urge, to apply the punishment of absolute destruction when it heals no ill but creates even more suffering.
Well, war fought on your behalf prevents more of your suffering. You should thank the men and women fighting to prevent your suffering death, or enslavement instead of crapping on them.
Murder cannot be prevented with murder.
And oil shortages cannot be prevented with drilling for more oil!
There is but one place the killing stops – the human soul.
A human soul never killed anyone, just like fighting is, in fact, a physical act.
It takes an effort of spirit, even an effort of selflessness, to realize that one’s life is but a little thing spent in the quest for purity and the quest for the advancement of the human race.
I don’t know what a ‘quest for purity’ is, sounds pretty utopian…. But the human race does seem to advance with every jihadi terrorist killed.
Why would I let myself be lectured about what is worth fighting for by someone who would never actually fight.
At least with the terrorists I can disagree with what they are fighting for and defeat them.
You are just a Hollow Man:
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
That so perfectly describes you and your other humanists “fighting for justice and advancing the race without even doing anything physical”.
You’re a wolf-loving sheep who can’t even spare a kind word for the sheepdogs who protect your worthless self-centered ass.
Gray: Please explain why you think an accounting of costs and benefits as of, say, 1948, seven years after WWII began for the U.S., shows it wasn’t worth fighting.
From humanists bullshit above:
There is no victory in Iraq (Europe) for
hundreds of thousands (millions) of dead Iraqis(Germans)
(200K) dead American soldiers (as of a few days ago)
hundreds of dead contractors, coalition soldiers and other foreigners (millions of Russians)
tens (hundreds) of thousands of American soldiers wounded
and the uncountable number of lives that have been forever ruined by the evil that continues in this world – evil you condone.
There you go–by cost/benefit, no victory in Iraq, no victory in Europe….
As I explained, Gray, Russia survived WWII as a nation. That’s victory in an existential war, plain and simple. Any cost is less than the benefit of survival. Isn’t that obvious to you?
Iraq isn’t an existential war. Our survival, then, cannot be the definition of victory.
Iraq isn’t an existential war. Our survival, then, cannot be the definition of victory.
Begging the question:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
BogeyMan-
Back in “the day”, I was convinced as to the superiority of liberalism as pertaining to human rights and social justice. Everywhere it seemed the U.S. supported “friendly dictators” {Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.) And from a human rights perspective liberals were right in their condemnation.
But for the life of me, and as a main impetus to my political change, I never understood how the Left seemed unconcerned about the human rights and untold suffering of millions throughout the world in communist hell holes.
The final straw for me was when the Left did everything in it’s power to undermine the effort of the neocons to free 50 million plus souls suffering in fear societies, while possibly spreading freedom beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to the larger region.
It is you who has the pitifully pampered mind, who, half a world away would consign entire populations to lives lived in fear, while you denigrate those who are attempting to foster change at a core level.
I don’t see what the neocons have attempted as “kill or be killed”, but rather giving oppressed peoples an opportunity to live free, while at the same time it being in our security interests.
That is the ideal of compassion that I always thought liberalism was about.
I was wrong. Modern liberalism is only interested in human rights when it comes to trashing the West.
Sorry- my previous post should have been directed at Humanist, not Bogey Man.
Humanist has no clarity.
Humanist must not have a love that he would defend.
He would submit –
Convert or die. Humanist converts….
I will not let a rapist take my love in any way.
I will not let a murderer take my love in any way.
My daughters will not be take by evil.
Humanist will sit and watch and try to talk as horrors take place in front of Humanist’s eyes.
Humanist has no clarity.
@ Humanist:
“I just cannot understand you idiots who sit around celebrating “victory” in war. There is no victory in war; there is no victory in killing; there is no justification for murder, whether you are compelled by insanity, by religion, by injustice, by economics, or by that most vile creed above all the rest – that it is better to kill than to be killed. Human adherence to that basest, most bestial, most despicable of ideas – that is what is killing humanity.”
You are not going to win friends and influence people by calling them idiots, especially when you state you cannot understand them. Moreover, the practice in the US of denigrating the intelligence of opponents to your political right is getting a little shopworn, as it has existed at least since the days of Adlai II and Ike.
Can’t you come up with something original?
I can understand your abhorrence towards killing. My abhorrence towards killing led me to argue long and hard for conscientious objection in bull sessions in my college dorm during the Vietnam War. After I was drafted, my support of conscientious objection became more than a theoretical construct. I applied for 1-O ( Conscientious Objector) status, and was granted that status. Had the draft board not granted me 1-O status, I was prepared to refuse induction and go to jail.
The millions killed in Cambodia after the US left Southeast Asia changed my mind. As another poster said, what if they gave a war and only one side showed up? The US stood on the sidelines while the genocide of Cambodia took place. Perhaps you were/are comfortable with that stance, but the genocide in Cambodia led me to the conclusion that while the pacifist believes he can wash his hands while standing on the sidelines when slaughter takes place, by refusing to stop the killers, the pacifist’s hands also become bloodstained. After Cambodia, I was no longer a pacifist.
I recall seeing Senator McGovern, for whom I voted in 1972, on TV before Gulf War I commenced. He stated that in Vietnam we got peace etc. I thought to myself: the peace of the dead. Regarding peace, kumbaya and all that, I refer to the Who’s song: Won’t Get Fooled Again.
Call me an idiot if you like; that is my point of view.
Humanist, have you ever been in a fight?
Rhetorical question. I know you haven’t. To those of us who grew in tough neighborhoods your perspective is laughable.
Some years ago, in my mid thirties, I was on a bus on the West Bank when an Arab passing by getting off the bus sucker-punched me while I was looking out the window. The habits of my youth instantly kicked in. I chased him off the bus, caught him, and kicked his ass to a fare-thee-well.
But having read your post, I’m so ashamed…I should’ve hugged it out with him, right?
Don’t lift the toilet seat henceforth. The penalties for fraud are severe.
Simply put Bogey Man you are a liar and most likely a paid blog monitor from Huffington or Koz or Bowel Move On.com. There is no use in presenting a cohesive argument to you as your purpose is not to engage in insightful dialoge but to lie, twist, misdirect and connive and if that fails you fall back on Goebbels edict; “Do not engage your enemie in debate, attack his charachter”.
What’s your definition of “victory”? Seems it’s changed over the last 60+ years.
What exactly have we accomplished in the seven years in Iraq?
Killed a boatload of our enemies, and put other enemies on notice?
“Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”…..Orwell in “Notes on Nationalism”, ( available on the web)…After Germany invaded Poland in 1939, a stalemate known as the “phoney war” developed in Western Europe as those countries mobilized and Hitler finished business in Poland before invading France in 1940…Striking a pose of moral superiority, a number of cowards in France, England & the low countries refused mobilization on the grounds that defensive violence was as immoral as was the offensive violence practiced by the Nazis…..Orwell termed such people ‘Objective Facists” in that by refusing to fight the Germans they were, in effect, helping the Nazi cause…
After France fell to the Germans,according to Orwell, a “majority” of these convenient pacifists went over to the Naziis and became COLLABORATORS…..
That wouldn’t be you now would it, Mr Humanist ????
“Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.” or attempt to hide their inaction and cowardice behind a pose of intellectual & moral superiority……
Le Trebuchet: I haven’t decided about Bogey Man. He’s not yet in troll category, but he presents himself as an American although his IP indicates he is posting from Australia.
“Your purpose is not to engage in insightful dialoge but to lie, twist, misdirect and connive and if that fails you fall back on Goebbels edict; “Do not engage your enemie in debate, attack his charachter”
Pot, meet kettle, mere words away!
And Neoneo: I’m not in Australia. I am a middle-aged Californian American living in China. Whatever method you use to trace DNS is giving you the wrong info, apparently.
Hey Bogey Man:
Your China ISP is actually using a proxy server located in Australia. Why…to conceal the identity of poster withing China and avoid (by going around the Great Firewall) unwanted governmental curiosity.
Been There, Done That. My ISP (recently) in China used the same strategy…
How you like living in police state, white man?
Bogey Man: thanks for the clarification. As I wrote, I do not consider you a troll. But a large number of the trolls here have come from Australia or New Zealand.
Reading the linked article by Charles Krauthammer, I concluded that he has produced an excellent example of one of the reasons Americans today do not show what you call grit or determination, or even ordinary prudence. Why go to the trouble, pain and effort of achieving an actual success if you can “spin” away any inconvenient facts.
Consider the following:
Leaving aside the breathlessly thoughtless arrogance of assuming Iraq’s politicians care in any way about some political/social gatherings in a small state a world away from them, Krauthammer disingenuously neglects to mention that the Bush Administration lobbied the Iraqi government hard to avoid imposing the deadline for withdrawal he now calls “symbolic”. Krauthammer also neglects to address a couple of other features of the agreement: the requirement that American forces cease combat operations in Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009, the prohibition against using Iraqi bases for operations outside Iraq, and the provision that the Iraqi people get to vote on the agreement. If they reject it, American forces will have to withdraw by the middle of 2010.
Even the most skilled propagandist cannot spin straw into gold. Writers can describe straw as golden or gold-like, they can question the patriotism or probity or intentions of those they disagree with, but they cannot make straw ductile, malleable, resistant to corrosion, or any of the hundreds of other things that make gold so valued. Krauthammer can claim all he wants that an agreement that gives American troops a decent amount of time to pack means Iraq has “thrown in its lot” with the United States. Such claims rate only a sour smile from those who considered the Iraq campaign a disaster. To those committed to a just resolution of the so-called “war on terror”, which means the evolution of a world that has no place for the kind of extremism espoused and exemplified by al Qaida, it has a considerably less innocent effect: it encourages those not disposed to sacrifice their comfort and self-esteem to believe the decision to invade Iraq “worked” and to avoid further reflection.
Clarification: when I wrote: “Americans today do not show what you call grit or determination, or even ordinary prudence” in the post above, I meant to refer to the post Neo wrote comparing Americans today (unfavourably) with the generation of World War II. Having known and worked with many Americans, I consider them no more lacking in the signature American virtues of practicality, optimism and generosity than any other generation, and I would say that the mediocre results of this and other conflicts stems virtually entirely from problems in leadership from the top. But some degrees of failure in American life today stem from a simple unwillingness to look reality in the face. If anyone took what I wrote as a disparagement of Americans generally, I apologise for my imprecise phrasing.
Such claims rate only a sour smile from those who considered the Iraq campaign a disaster.[Right from the beginning!]
And now Spragge keeps on with simply postulating disaster, despite grindingly progressive success in the real world, coupled always with a watchful eye toward events.
But it’s still amazing how Spragge thinks he can control reality, including the future, by repeating the mantra of “disaster”, no? Well, I guess that’s just what delusions require, if Spragge’s m.o. is any indicator.
I can’t wait until Obama takes on Afghanistan! He doesn’t want to lose there, either – and despite the wishes of those such as Spragge.
If anyone took what I wrote as a disparagement of Americans generally, I apologise for my imprecise phrasing.
Spragge, the only person you are disparaging is yourself.
To those committed to a just resolution of the so-called “war on terror”, which means the evolution of a world that has no place for the kind of extremism espoused and exemplified by al Qaida, it has a considerably less innocent effect: it encourages those not disposed to sacrifice their comfort and self-esteem to believe the decision to invade Iraq “worked” and to avoid further reflection.
Given that you believe the Un works, are you really surprised that Iraq’s supporters and the supporters of the Surge would be people you must defeat first, even before you get your goal of defeating AQ?
John wrote, “Such claims rate only a sour smile from those who considered the Iraq campaign a disaster.”
I’m thinking you would never accept Iraq as anything other than a disaster.
You like submission.
Iraq’s freedom has had a price.
America’s freedom had it’s price.
The world’s freeom in WW2 had it’s price.
In your eyes the loss of life and money spent makes all campaigns a ‘disaster’.
We understand you John. No need to keep writing your negativity. It doesn’t work on us. 🙂
But that’s nothing compared to the epitomized avoidance of reflection by those undisposed to actually thinking and acting which comprises the “wishing makes it so” way of approaching problems – which Spragge so ably exhibits by way of his delusionalism: a “just resolution” will perforce cause the “evolution” of a Utopian World, no less! Shazam!
But, otoh, if anyone can make non-delusional “diplomacy” work, Hillary can.
If I really had it wrong, if any of you had speculated about my personality or motivations with any accuracy, I would have expected that you could have addressed the specific points I made. Did Iraq really cast its lot in with the Americans, as Charles Krauthammer claims, or have the Iraqis politely but firmly informed the Americans that they no longer require or want an American troop presence, and given the American forces reasonable (and face-saving) time to pack? Even a fair number of American conservatives concede that the evidence points to the second option.
As for disaster, consider: the United States government spent over a trillion dollars by some estimates (well over 1% of US GDP for the period in question), destroyed huge amounts of Iraq’s infrastructure, much of which remained unimpaired for years. The war displaced a full 5% of the population of Iraq, millions of whom remain spread out through the Middle East in a continuing and quite dangerous humanitarian crisis. Four thousand American soldiers lost their lives. And now you discover the political upshot of this: instead of a welcome to the role of new Middle Eastern hegemon, you get an invitation to take your time packing (as long as you have all your bases crated up by the end of 2011. And as the more honest (on this topic at least) American conservatives have said, this agreement represents the actual state of Iraqi opinion. Meanwhile, the war has moved on to the India-Pakistan border and the underground uranium enrichment plants of Iran. In both these places, the war on terror has gone poorly, and in neither place does the United States have much ability to control events. If you don’t want to call this a disaster, maybe you could suggest an adjective?
“humanist”:
If you do not love your own miserable life, then what do you love? What is left to you if you do not love your own life? If you do not love your own life, how can you appreciate how others love theirs? If you cannot hold that most basic of existential values, how can you hold any other? If you do not love your own life, how can you believe anything else worth enough to lay it down for?
If you do not love your own life, what are you? Not a human being, surely, not in any real sense of the word. Nor a humanist, for you do not know what it means to be a human being. You are a lost soul, but since you don’t really believe in a soul you can’t even understand the meaning of that.
I can guess that you love pleasure; what else will keep you going except the love of pleasure, the love of pain, or hatred of those who know what you do not, whose lives you cannot even understand to envy properly.
You are Elliot’s Hollow Man. You are C.S.Lewis’s Man Without Chest. Lacking even the need to struggle for your existence, you never appreciate the gifts you have, and the first of those gifts is your life. You are Dr. Eames of Chesteron’s Manalive, to whom Innocent Smith deals life from the barrel of a revolver, or perhaps you are Dr. Pym who, although walking and arguing and attempting to impeach and imprison the supremely innocent Smith, has nevertheless been dead for ten years.
Do not ever, ever dare to damn the man who loves his life on the foul grounds that you don’t know enough to love your own.
If we’re talking about old poetry or songs, Humanist’s view of the nightmarish failure in Iraq is explained by
“Wishin’ and hopin'”
njcommuter:
Neither your society, nor any society we have yet conceived, could exist without people willing to lay down their lives for others. Courage means more than doing, or allowing others to do, what it takes to keep you alive. The warrior, the mariner, the firefighter, the healer: all the people who do these tasks, so central to keeping us safe and fed and protected, must lay down their lives from time to time. And so we honour those who give their lives, whether we agree with them or not.
Like it or not, we give some of our highest respect to those who give their lives without killing and without hate. Think of Martin Luther King or Mohandas Ghandi, or Raoul Wallenberg, or hundreds of others who chose to die rather than to kill or to allow others to die. To call this, the highest form of self-sacrificing courage, a characteristic of “men without chests” merely dishonours Lewis’s writing; C. S. Lewis, a devout Christian and a soldier, knew that the time might come for anyone when they must lay down their lives, and wrote about it most movingly.
John,
YOU don’t get it.
In your 2:20 AM post you go on again with the negativity. We mourn the loss of the 4,000 soldiers. For all of your statistics and numbers – each person is a huge loss to each family.
In the few weeks of Iwo Jima we lost as many of our men. Each of those men’s families were impacted.
The only thing missing here is the resolve that you show daily, hourly that you will NEVER have. You are not interested in victory.
You are only interested in calling someting a ‘disaster’. There will never be success and you will never resolve with us to win (victory).
You are not convincing anyone here with your negativity. You are only displaying your propensity to be the person we are talking about. 🙂
Good job !! You display it well. Good job !! Keep it up !! /end single line of sarcasm.
Do YOU john want victory? Is there a way for victory in your mind? Can you EVER resolve to get on board for victory?
Are you happy that we won WW2 and defeat the enemy in Iwo Jima? Are you happy that America for all the loss of life in the Revolutionary War gained freedom?
It’s only up to you John. It’s up to you to get on board. Your negativity is the problem. You offer no victory (in your mind).
Fighting for a cause and fighting for what is right does not require that one must use a weapon, or do anything physical at all.
What you forget is that sometimes war is upon you, whether you’d have it or not. And that’s because someone is being active and physical.
For instance, the US Civil Rights movement wouldn’t have succeeded if they’d just sat around preaching the virtues of civil rights to each other. The Bull Connor’s of the world would have kept on keeping on.
Reading the linked article by Charles Krauthammer, I concluded that he has produced an excellent example of one of the reasons Americans today do not show what you call grit or determination, or even ordinary prudence. Why go to the trouble, pain and effort of achieving an actual success if you can “spin” away any inconvenient facts.
Consider the following[re: the Krauthammer article]: Nor is the setting of a withdrawal date terribly troubling. The deadline is almost entirely symbolic. U.S. troops must be out by Dec. 31, 2011 – the weekend before the Iowa caucuses…
Leaving aside the breathlessly thoughtless arrogance of assuming Iraq’s politicians care in any way about some political/social gatherings in a small state a world away from them …
A correction in the writer’s characterization of Krauthammer’s article: Krauthammer does not state or even imply that Iraqi politicians purposefully set the US withdrawal deadline with US domestic politics in mind. Krauthammer mentions the deadline in conjunction with the Iowa caucuses only as an example of how far in the future the deadline actually is, to wit: The deadline date is set at a point in time that almost coincides with the next US Presidential election.
I concluded that the writer has produced an excellent example of one of the ways anti-war folks today formulate their arguments, which is to obfuscate and persistently misinterpret extraneous details. Why go to the trouble, pain and effort of achieving an actual understanding of events if you can “spin” irrelevant facts?
Krauthammer disingenuously neglects to mention that the Bush Administration lobbied the Iraqi government hard to avoid imposing the deadline for withdrawal he now calls “symbolic”.
Apparently the writer is ignorant of even the most obvious tactics of negotiation, which in this case is to start off by asking for much more than you are prepared to accept.
Krauthammer also neglects to address a couple of other features of the agreement: the requirement that American forces cease combat operations in Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009, the prohibition against using Iraqi bases for operations outside Iraq, and the provision that the Iraqi people get to vote on the agreement. If they reject it, American forces will have to withdraw by the middle of 2010.
Also, it seems that the writer failed to read the full article. in which Krauthammer points out: “Moreover, that date is not just distant but flexible. By treaty, it can be amended. If conditions on the ground warrant, it will be”.
… it[the Iraqi-US Agreement] encourages those not disposed to sacrifice their comfort and self-esteem to believe the decision to invade Iraq “worked” and to avoid further reflection.
Thousands of Jihadis have been killed in Iraq and thereby kept out of mischief elsewhere, Saddam has met his ignoble end and Iraq has become a democracy allied with the US. The Iranians and Syrians, who tried everything they could to prevent the agreement, have been shown the door by the Iraqi parliament. But the deposal of Saddam has not “worked” according to the writer.
If I really had it wrong, if any of you had speculated about my personality or motivations with any accuracy, I would have expected that you could have addressed the specific points I made. Did Iraq really cast its lot in with the Americans, as Charles Krauthammer claims, or have the Iraqis politely but firmly informed the Americans that they no longer require or want an American troop presence, and given the American forces reasonable (and face-saving) time to pack? Even a fair number of American conservatives concede that the evidence points to the second option.
I’m wondering just what the writer believes that would represent political victory in Iraq – an agreement to have a full complement of US forces in Iraq forever? Surely a phased withdrawal over a 3 year period, which can be amended as necessary, is anything but “face-saving”.
As for disaster, consider: the United States government spent over a trillion dollars by some estimates (well over 1% of US GDP for the period in question) …
The Iraq War has been the least costly in American lives and treasure of any major war in US history. And this historical fact is a “disaster”?
… destroyed huge amounts of Iraq’s infrastructure, much of which remained unimpaired for years.
What does the writer believe happens in war? That “infrastructure” remains pristinely intact?
The war displaced a full 5% of the population of Iraq, millions of whom remain spread out through the Middle East in a continuing and quite dangerous humanitarian crisis.
The Iraqis displaced by the war may go back to Iraq at anytime. I submit that many of those “displaced” left after it became apparent that Saddam’s days were numbered and the country seemed to be veering toward a sane, US-allied democracy because they had ties to Saddam’s Ba’athist regime before the war. If they want to go back to Iraq and live peacefully under a democracy, fine. But if they have other ideas it would be best for all(even themselves) to take up permanent residence in places more amenable to their political goals, say, like Iraq and Syria.
And now you discover the political upshot of this: instead of a welcome to the role of new Middle Eastern hegemon, you get an invitation to take your time packing (as long as you have all your bases crated up by the end of 2011.
I wouldn’t characterize the withdrawal plan as sending the US “packing.” A measured withdrawal with the ability to amend the withdrawal date at any point in time should that prove necessary is far from a condition that could be accurately termed as sending the US “packing.”
And as the more honest (on this topic at least) American conservatives have said, this agreement represents the actual state of Iraqi opinion.
Iraqi public opinion is such that the Iraqis have voted and elected representatives that have decided to ally with the US. If the Iraqi public feels differently now they have but to cast their votes against the US-Iraqi alliance in the next election in Iraq. Until such an eventuality Iraqi public opinion can only be seen as pro-US.
Meanwhile, the war has moved on to the India-Pakistan border and the underground uranium enrichment plants of Iran. In both these places, the war on terror has gone poorly, and in neither place does the United States have much ability to control events. If you don’t want to call this a disaster, maybe you could suggest an adjective?
The writer apparently believes the long-standing hostilities between India and Pakistan and Iran’s decades-long nuclear shenanigans has something to do with the Iraq War. The implication is that if only Saddam had not been deposed by the US that India and Pakistan would now be hugging and kissing each other and Iran would be peacefully living up to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Let us all hope that Obama doesn’t drink the same Kool-Aid as the writer.
Baklava:
Do you seriously mean to claim that if I get my mind together, then… what, we will always have been at war with Eastasia? Didn’t somebody write a book about that? Reality, in the sense that matters for political purposes, does not exist in my mind or your mind. Certain objective facts exist in external reality, and refusing to accept or deal with them does not equal resolve.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. If you have actual facts and evidence to offer about the actual agreement ratified by the actual Parliament in the Baghdad that exists apart from the mind of any one of us, then bring it on. In the real world, the agreement signed by the Iraqi government (as commented on by many, including conservatives) sets hard time limits on the American military presence in Iraq, forbids the use of Iraqi bases for operations outside Iraq, and makes American contractors fully subject to Iraqi laws.
John with lack of clarity wrote, “then… what, we will always have been at war with Eastasia?”
Show me my sentence that said that to you.
Show me how we can move forward with ‘victory’ is my point. You are all over the board asking us for things that are irrelevant to the discussion.
Victory is the topic. You are about ‘disaster’. Your focus is ‘disaster’. You cannot fathom the concept of ‘victory’.
Everything else you bring up is irrelevant – except to point out that you aren’t interested in victory
Are you?
Spragge, caroming back and forth wildly between analyses involving neurotic disasterizing and Utopian delusions is simply not indicative of good mental health – for one thing, because it can’t possibly be responsive to reality. But that’s what you are doing.
Perhaps the people you mostly hang out with do the same thing or are at least responsive to this mode of dealing with their own lives and larger issues, you know, Progressives?
grackle
Given a huge troop presence and infrastructure to pack up, three years transforms into a remarkably short space of time. And it bears repeating: characterizing the three year deadline as “distant” distorts the reality of the agreement. US troops have to cease all urban operations by the middle of next year, and the agreement bars you from using Iraqi bases for any operations outside the country. The three year deadline puts a limit to all US military activities: the trainers and advisers have to go by 2011. The only troops you get to keep will wear Marine blues and guard the embassy.
grackle
I read it. I just decided not to pile on with yet another example of spin and distortion. Americans could amend your constitution to turn the South-Eastern states into the Confederate States of America. You won’t, but if “conditions on the ground” warranted, you could. The French could restore the Bourbon dynasty, and I actually rate the revival of the House of Bourbon as slightly more likely than an agreement by the Iraq government to extend the US troop presence. Iraqi politicians have made it clear that they view American withdrawal as critical to their national sovereignty, and American withdrawal has strong public support in Iraq. To argue that this agreement doesn’t really count because you claim that you (with Iraqi consent) can always amend it distorts these crucial facts.
grackle
Your claim contains a double standard. When I point out that the Bush Administration said they regarded a hard exit deadline without conditions as unacceptable, you invoked negotiating tactics. What makes you think the Iranians and the Syrians did not do the same; press for an outright refusal to sign any agreement, when in fact they wanted American forces out by date certain, and prohibited from attacking them in the meantime? Maybe we should see what they have to say (this via that bastion of liberalism, the National Review Online)
grackle
Conservative commentators at the time proposed exactly that.
The Bush Administration and the McCain campaign did all they could to promote a pretty nearly permanent (or at least indefinite) presence in Iraq. Andrew McCarthy, a reasonably honest conservative writer, has conceded his disappointnent with the agreement, particularly the refusal to allow Americans permanent or usable basing rights.
grackle
If the British in 1945 had demansded that all US troops but Embassy guards leave by 1948; if the conditions for any US basing rights had included an absolute ban on the use of British bases for offensive operations against any other country, what would the “Western Alliance” have looked like? You keep repeating that the Iraqis have chosen to “ally” with the United States. In what sense? Can you quote an agreement that says the Iraqi government has to provide troops, ships, money oil, bases, or anything else to the United States in the event of a conflict of any sort? Because in the meaningful sense of the word, allies usually do that sort of thing for each other. The Iraqis have signed an agreement intended to facilitate an orderly departure of US troops. Calling that an alliance, like calling a tail a leg, doesn’t make it one.
grackle
The Iraq war supposedly had a place as a campaign in a larger war against terror networks, predominantly but not exclusively terror networks associated with certain militant Islamic sects. Those terror networks have just committed mayhem in India, and the government of Iran, which your government accuses of supporting a number of these terrorist networks, looks uncomfortably close to having a nuclear military option. I don’t know what you call that. Presumably, if you can call an agreement that calls for orderly troop departures and rigidly rules out any cooperation against third countries an “alliance”, you can call the current state either irrelevant or a brilliant success. I still disagree.
Baklava
I have no interest in anything but an honest and assessment of what the policy of invading Iraq has and has not achieved. I it has achieved poverty, violence, dead Iraqis, and dead Americans. It has achieved democracy in Iraq, which remains an impressive accomplishment. But the attempt to suggest that it has achieved allies for the United States involves major distortions of the facts.
J. Peden:
You don’t know anything about me. If you want to address the facts of this issue, feel free. If you don’t, why bother writing? I make it a point of principle to ignore all attempts to persuade me to adopt a political goal on the grounds of “mental health” or a mental health goal on political grounds. If you have a convincing political case, you can make it on objective factual grounds. Care to try?
John wrote, “it has achieved poverty, violence, dead Iraqis, and dead Americans.”
Your measures are the problem. They would’ve had you speaking negatively of the Revolutionary War and WW2.
Again, moving forward, how in your mind can victory be achieved?
Given a huge troop presence and infrastructure to pack up, three years transforms into a remarkably short space of time. And it bears repeating: characterizing the three year deadline as “distant” distorts the reality of the agreement.
Balderdash. Three years is all the time in the world needed for troop withdrawal. That’s about 150,000 troops at the rate of about 4,100 troops per month, an easy deadline to observe and in an orderly manner, too. US troops could be at twice that number and the withdrawal could still be easily accomplished.
US troops have to cease all urban operations by the middle of next year …
As of this point in time home-grown Iraqi forces are taking over more and more of the security duties in Iraq – as is to be expected. But there is no mention in the Agreement about US Forces ceasing “… all urban operations by the middle of next year … ” Indeed Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Agreement states:
The Government of Iraq requests the temporary assistance of the United States Forces for the purposes of supporting Iraq in its efforts to maintain security and stability in Iraq, including cooperation in the conduct of operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, outlaw groups, and remnants of the former regime.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq
… and the agreement bars you from using Iraqi bases for any operations outside the country.
I see no significant problem with the above proviso. Does the writer believe the US is contemplating invading a nearby nation, perhaps Iran? If such an event should come to pass Afghanistan, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are all close to Iran and could easily provide bases from which to launch such an action.
On the Krauthammer article the writer erroneously cited before:
I read it. I just decided not to pile on with yet another example of spin and distortion.
Get it, readers? The writer made a boo-boo on the article, wrongfully using it to attempt a debate point. When this little ‘mistake’ is revealed he falls back on the tactic of asserting the article “distorts” crucial facts.
Americans could amend your constitution to turn the South-Eastern states into the Confederate States of America. You won’t, but if “conditions on the ground” warranted, you could. The French could restore the Bourbon dynasty, and I actually rate the revival of the House of Bourbon as slightly more likely than an agreement by the Iraq government to extend the US troop presence.
Let’s overlook the fact that the writer’s analogies(the House of Bourbon and the Confederate States of America) are laughable. Let’s concentrate on the ridiculousness of the writer claiming to be able to read the minds of the Iraqi Government ahead of time. How does he know how the Iraqi Government would act if that government were threatened? This is what passes for debate in many anti-war circles.
Iraqi politicians have made it clear that they view American withdrawal as critical to their national sovereignty, and American withdrawal has strong public support in Iraq. To argue that this agreement doesn’t really count because you claim that you (with Iraqi consent) can always amend it distorts these crucial facts.
I’ve never stated, nor has Krauthammer to my knowledge, ever claimed that the Agreement “doesn’t really count.” In fact I’m reasonably satisfied with the Agreement and Krauthammer seems to love it. It “counts” a lot.
After months of withering criticism as negotiations ensued, Iran’s judiciary chief, Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, gushed on regime-controlled television that “[t]he Iraqi government has done very well regarding this.”
If the writer believes that Iran is happy with a US-allied democratically elected government on their front doorstep he’s living in La-La Land. Ditto Syria. They very much don’t want the contrast to be seen by their own people – it might prove disruptive.
Andrew McCarthy, a reasonably honest conservative writer, has conceded his disappointment with the agreement, particularly the refusal to allow Americans permanent or usable basing rights.
I too am a bit disappointed about the basing rights issue, but only a little bit, considering that the Agreement can be amended as needed. I view the lack of bases after 2011 as a sop to Iraqi domestic politics. The Iraqi government has to prove to Iraqi citizens that it has some degree of independence, a requirement Great Britain(put forth as an analogy by the writer) never had to meet after WW2.
You keep repeating that the Iraqis have chosen to “ally” with the United States. In what sense? Can you quote an agreement that says the Iraqi government has to provide troops, ships, money oil, bases, or anything else to the United States in the event of a conflict of any sort? Because in the meaningful sense of the word, allies usually do that sort of thing for each other.
Iraq is hardly in a position to provide troops or ships to the US. Such a thing would occur in the fullness of time after Iraq starts pulling in the really big oil bucks(Iraq is potentially a very prosperous nation). First, agreements are signed, then treaties follow afterward is how the sequence goes, perhaps during the Obama administration. Bush doesn’t want to tie Obama’s hands, after all. If the writer believes that Iraq as presently constituted is NOT an ally of the US then I can only disagree.
Those terror networks have just committed mayhem in India, and the government of Iran, which your government accuses of supporting a number of these terrorist networks, looks uncomfortably close to having a nuclear military option. I don’t know what you call that.
I call it ‘troubling.’ But then Iran has been a pill for a very long time – since 1979 in fact, long before the Iraq War. Apparently the writer firmly believes that if Saddam had only been left alone in his perfidy that Iran would have left off sponsoring terrorism and stopped developing a nuclear weapon. And India and Pakistan, who have been hostile to each other since the late 40’s, would now be sweet on each other – just a couple of lovebirds, so to speak. Indeed, he persists in correlating the deposal of Saddam with long-standing India-Pakistan troubles and Iran’s decades-long nuclear activities. Someone needs to cut off his Kool-Aid.
Presumably, if you can call an agreement that calls for orderly troop departures and rigidly rules out any cooperation against third countries an “alliance”, you can call the current state either irrelevant or a brilliant success. I still disagree.
The Agreement nowhere cites “cooperation against third countries” as a no-no. Only US actions taken alone by “attacking” another country. In fact Article 27 of the Agreement specifically provides for just such an occurrence of cooperation against invading countries. But even if the Article did not exist and if Iran were to decide to invade Iraq does anyone believe that Iraq would not request US assistance?
J. Peden: You don’t know anything about me.
Of course I do. Or haven’t you been here?
John, stop the gross and grotesque denial. I’ll bet you can’t. But you might surprise yourself. You might even have a “self”. That’s up to you. But you really should stop trying to involve the rest of the World in your own searches as to who you are and why you exist.
~ “The monkeys know it’s true because they always say it is.” – Mogli, The Jungle Book movie.
~ “They say they are the greatest of all beasts in the Jungle.” – Mogli, interpreting what the monkeys “always” say to him, no matter what the topic is.
Either Spragge and his Progressive cohorts are humans in severe denial, or else they are monkeys.
grackle wrote:
Read the agreement again please. Part 24 paragraph 2
No, let’s keep our eye on the pea, shall we, rather that the absurd claim “grackle” makes that I somehow claim to “read the minds” of the Iraqi authorities. I don’t. I don’t need to. I can read the plain words in the treaty the elected government not only agreed to but insisted upon. They want the United States forces out of combat in six months, and out of the country in no less than three years. I also note reports (again, with no mind-reading required) that the Iraqis want American troops out.
Give it a rest. If you call the central obligation imposed on one party to the agreement “symbolic”, then you can hardly claim to have meaningfully affirmed it.
On one hand, we have “grackle’s” speculations about my mental state, and surmises about what the Iranian authorities might or might not think. And on the other hand, we have, well, what the Iranians themselves have had to say about it. And we have the objective evidence of what the agreement actually contains: no use of Iraqi terrotory or airspace to launch attack on anyone (including Iran). No use of US combat troops except in the most restricted possible context after June 30. If I had to have a hostile foreign force on my border, I would want them bound by an agreement like this one. And if other Arab countries get the idea they can negotiate a status of forces agreement like this, all the better for Iran and Syria.
Excuse me, but it takes both sides to amend this turkey. That means if the American government “need” to bomb Iran (not very likely), you’ll have to convince the Iraqis, who already made it clear they won’t give you basing rights, that they “need” to help you. Care to lay odds on getting that done?
Again, let’s stick to the facts and evidence. In what sense would you call Iraq an ally? What do they offer the United States? Money? Nope, the agreement makes it clear you get to pay your own way. Basing rights? Troops? If “ally” means they kicked you out, won’t let you use their airspace, and won’t pay to keep your troops there, then fine, that makes them your ally. With a little effort, maybe you can tell them apart from France.
J. Peden
Actually, no, I haven’t. I have typed in information based principally on reports from authoritative news sources, a respectable proportion of which come from Americans and conservatives. I contribute very little here not dictated by logic or evidence. So you know very little, indeed virtually nothing about me. Rest assured, a tremendous difference exists between reading the words someone writes on a restricted set of topics, and experiencing their actual presence.
John Spragge, if you don’t exist here, then perhaps you don’t exist anywhere.
J. Peden
As George Orwell observed, the statement “you do not exist” contains a logical absurdity. But in any case, I do not inhabit this server, and neither do you or anyone else; we wouldn’t fit between the circuit boards. You know nothing about me except that I write certain facts, and transmit them as ISOLatin1 bitstreams which you can (and choose to) read. In other words, you know virtually nothing at all about me. Even if you did, I would resist your attempts to address my personality on principle. If you have a factual argument, bring it on. If you don’t, why demonstrate the fact?
I said earlier: “… there is no mention in the Agreement about US Forces ceasing “… all urban operations by the middle of next year … ”
the writer replies: Read the agreement again please. Part 24 paragraph 2
All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages and localities… no later than June 30, 2009
I did read Article 24 again and found no mention of operations ceasing in urban areas at any date, June 30 or otherwise. True, US combat forces are to be physically stationed just outside cities, villages, etc., by June 30(Paragraph 3) but they will be nearby in case the Iraqis need help with hostilities in urban areas, rural areas, or any area that needs an operation.
I think the writer may be mistaking a provision for the physical housing for US forces outside heavily populated areas for a dictum against US forces participating in urban warfare. This misinterpretation has apparently led the writer to believe that US forces, if needed by the Iraqis, are confined by the Agreement to fighting only in rural areas. The writer’s problem is that the language of the Agreement simply does not support that belief.
Article 4, entitled “Missions,” in paragraph 1 speaks plainly of “assistance” by the US with supporting Iraq “in the conduct of operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, outlaw groups and remnants of the former regime.” I can imagine no “operations” against al-Qaeda as being anything but military in nature. There is no clause or phrase limiting that assistance to rural areas only.
They want the United States forces out of combat in six months …
Here the writer compounds his error. The Agreement absolutely does not forbid “combat” by US forces at any time up to December 31, 2011, when all US forces will be gone from Iraq. On the contrary, the Agreement is liberally larded with references to possible joint US-Iraqi military operations and specifies American freedom to defend against attackers during the 3 years leading up to the deadline.
… and out of the country in no less than three years. I also note reports (again, with no mind-reading required) that the Iraqis want American troops out.
Yes, yes, “reports” indicate the Iraqis want American troops out. The trouble is that they elect leaders that are fine with the troops being there for 3 more years. They know how to vote now – if they want the US out they can vote like-minded politicians into office in the next election. It’s called democracy.
I said earlier: “…nor has Krauthammer to my knowledge, ever claimed that the Agreement “doesn’t really count.”
Give it a rest. If you call the central obligation imposed on one party to the agreement “symbolic”, then you can hardly claim to have meaningfully affirmed it.
The actual quote from Krauthammer is that the deadline is “almost entirely symbolic.” In my opinion the deadline date is at least somewhat symbolic because it is distant in time and has provision for amendment.
On one hand, we have “grackle’s” speculations about my mental state, and surmises about what the Iranian authorities might or might not think.
I don’t remember speculating about the writer’s “mental state” in my comments. I did speculate on what the Iraqi Government might do, such as to call upon US military assistance in the event of a hypothetical invasion by Iran into Iraq but I made it clear that it was speculation. No one actually knows for certain what they would do but I think if they were in trouble they would ask for help.
On the other hand the writer makes it clear that he believes that irregardless if the Iraqi Government feels threatened 3 years hence that they would never call upon the US for help – no matter what might be going on. The writer is apparently not that great of a student of human nature.
And we have the objective evidence of what the agreement actually contains: no use of Iraqi territory or airspace to launch attack on anyone (including Iran).
And how is this relevant, considering the writer himself has termed such an “attack” as “not very likely”?
No use of US combat troops except in the most restricted possible context after June 30.
As I pointed out earlier the writer is simply mistaken and is imagining restrictions when there are none save that any combat actions by the US will be subject to approval by the Iraqi Government. So far the Iraqi Government has been extremely approving. I believe they will continue to be approving but the writer seems to think they will not be. Time will tell.
If I had to have a hostile foreign force on my border, I would want them bound by an agreement like this one.
Why the writer thinks it is of the utmost importance to prevent the US from invading Iran from Iraq when he himself has termed such a thing as “not very likely” is beyond me … but there it is – cognitive dissonance in action for all to see.
… if the American government “need” to bomb Iran (not very likely), you’ll have to convince the Iraqis, who already made it clear they won’t give you basing rights, that they “need” to help you. Care to lay odds on getting that done?
Whew! It’s getting tiresome to repeat but the writer keeps coming back to this same self-contradictory point. A US invasion of Iran from Iraq is said to be “unlikely” by the writer and I concur. So why all this wanting to “lay odds” on something that’s not going to happen?
Again, let’s stick to the facts and evidence. In what sense would you call Iraq an ally?
In the sense that Iraq has requested US assistance in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Agreement. Allies request assistance, enemies do not.
What do they offer the United States? Money? Nope, the agreement makes it clear you get to pay your own way. Basing rights? Troops?
Iran is in no condition to offer troops or money to the US, yet. The basing rights proviso is slightly disappointing but can be amended if the need arises.
If “ally” means they kicked you out …
The US has not been “kicked out” of Iraq. The US is there for 3 more long years and maybe longer if the Iraqis decide US forces are needed past that time.
won’t let you use their airspace …
The above is absolutely not true. The US uses Iraqi airspace now and will continue to use Iraqi airspace for as long as the US is there. It could hardly be otherwise.
and won’t pay to keep your troops there …
Another irrelevancy. Nobody expects Iraq to pay the US for US troops.
There are three problems with Spragge’s declaration of the state of things in Iraq. First, it misstates the present. Second, it is based on a faulty assessment of the past, and therefore of the possible present. Third, it ignores the future, and by definition ignoring the future is ignoring consequences of present actions, and that is the definition of “reckless.”
It ignores the past: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a poor country, in which Tikrit and Baghdad had enough electricity, but nobody else did. It was a country in which a large number of people were employed by the state to make cigarettes, and in which long-standing fault lines in Islam and society were exploited to keep people suspicious of each other, watched by the secret police who routinely whisked people off to torture houses, whence they were never seen again, in which the environment was devastated, sometimes by neglect, sometimes to destroy a people (eg. the Marsh Arabs).
It ignores the possible present: that Saddam Hussein and his sons were still seizing women to rape, killing people in horrible ways, and managing the several competing sets of secret police, that Saddam Hussein starved his own people while building huge palaces, that he would continue to cut corrupt deals with the UN and tolerate the presence of terrorists and terrorist recruiters so long as they harried the Americans.
It ignores the likely future: that Saddam Hussein would do all those things, and would reconstitute his stock of chemical weapons as soon as the easily distracted eyes of the West were off him, that the people of Iraq would live in an economy
in decline, that neither Syria nor Iran would have to deal with the presence of a nation friendly to the USA on their lengthy borders (though they would still be able to menace Israel by their control of Lebanon and the ‘Lebonese’ Hezbollah).
Before industrialization, everybody in the world had a choice. They could engage in backbreaking labor, or they could refrain. But the choices carried consequences: if you didn’t plant, defend your crops from wild animals, harvest, preserve and store the food you would starve the next year. The consequences were obvious and inevitable.
The consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein were obvious and inevitable. Taking him down had risks, and one day we judged them worth taking. Comparing the present and likely future outcomes with their alternatives, it looks pretty good. Iraqi’s police and army are strong enough to deal with terrorists of various stripes.
That we suffered a big setback is no surprise; it is the nature of war. That we learned from our mistakes, fixed them, and prevailed should not be a surprise; it is part of the American way of war. Where others would have lost, we learned and we won.
The tribes joined us when it was clear that we were keeping our word and defending their neighborhoods and leaders while the terrorists were not. Iraq has a fractious parliament that is probably the best solution for a fractious society. The smaller cities and towns are getting about the same amount of electricity that Baghdad is getting, and if it’s not available ’round the clock, it will be soon. The Iraqi army will still need our advice and training for at least seven more years, although they will be in command of things. People are going back to work.
Things are not perfect. Iran and Syria are still trying to meddle and these long borders are hard to secure. There are stories we are not being told, like why Syria raised only the most feeble protest when we took out a terrorist headquarters on their soil. The changes in Iraq are not enough to visibly change the calculus of Iran’s leaders, though of course we can’t say what they would have done otherwise. And there are surely stories we are not being told.
But right now, things are looking pretty good. And the proudest thing that anyone in Iraq can say about Iraqi soldiers is “they fought like Americans.”
This thread looks like it has been played to a draw. John G. Spragge brings up facts in the form of a close reading of the status of forces agreement. grackle responds with a plausible rebuttal, based on a close reading. njcommuter revisits the context with admirable clarity.
A couple of things are not clear.
1) What is the central question that is being argued here? Bogey Man says there is no victory in Iraq, humanist says he doesn’t like war, John G. Spragge says Iraq was a disaster, so not worth the cost, and all this talk of victory is just spin not reality.
2) Why does anyone think that the mind of anyone else will be changed through exchanges of this type? Or perhaps no one does, and the posters have some other purpose. There is no shared definitional or analytical framework to allow us to come to a shared conclusion. The absence of such a framework is a particularly acute problem in John G. Spragge’s writing, which is otherwise well argued. I find myself wondering about John G. Spragge’s intellectual formation and experience in the world of “unbounded games”–which is the world of war.
To go back to the beginning, what is victory in war? War is the continuation of politics with the admixture of other means. So if the US achieved the goals of its war policy, the war should be considered successful. I think a fair reading of history will be that it did achieve those goals.
Whether the victory was worth the cost is another question. The currencies involved are a) blood, b) treasure, and c) impact on the balance of power for the next round. In the interest of space, I will not suggest an analysis, but only propose that there is a respectable argument that the costs were not excessive.
grackle
No sale. Article 24 of the agreement deals with the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The first paragraph sets the deadline for withdrawal of all American forces by 2011. The word withdrawal here clearly means that American forces will cease all military operations, quit the country, and only rteturn at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The second paragraph uses the word withdrawal in the same context, with the added proviso that American forces will withdraw as the Iraqis take over their security functions. I suggest that this indicates quite clearly that the withdrawal contemplated entails a withdrawal, at the very least, from any active initiation of combat operations without a specific request, by the Iraqi government, for aid. In this context, the phrase “in case the Iraqis need help” contains a basic error. The current agreement indicates quite clearly that the Americans may only act if the duly constituted Iraqi government asks for help. The distinction matters, because the agreement clearly suggests the Americans will have no powers to decide a situation warrants their intervention.
Alternatively, the Iraqi government had no desire to risk the disruption that a rush by US forces to withdraw by December 31 might have caused, and chose to negotiate for an orderly handover of responsibilities. Also, the Iraqis have to vote on the agreement. If they vote it down, a one-year clock (as specified in the text) starts, and US forces have to withdraw by mid-2010.
The Iraqi government has certainly taken steps to ensure that if they did have to call on the United States for help. that help would take longer to arrive, and would involve considerbly more logistical difficulty. Upholding national sovereignty (stated by the Iraqis as a priority) involves an assertion of independent action that does not always make perfect logical sense. It might cost less in lives and money for the Iraqis to subcontract their security to an American protector, but they have chosen not to; a choice in line with most other nations that guard their independence.
Oblio: Simply put, I believe that two converging and probably unavoidable trends: the increasing complexity and interdependence of society leads to an increasing fragility, witness the way 19 men with box cutters sparked a worlwide financial panic by bringing down theworld trade center. At the same time, the increasing sophistication of society greatly empowers each individual. That generally works to the good, as witness the decline in absolute levels of poverty. But it means that those disposed to harm others can do so on a far greater scale. As a result, I see no long-term alternative to putting an end to large scale armed conflict and lethal violence.
Hoever, I do not judge specific wars by this criterion. I simply object when pundits announce victories out of mostly spin. The Iraq war did not accomplish absolutely nothing; it got rid of Saddam Hussein. But in almost all other respects, the war (or more precisely the campaign) in Iraq fell far short of almost all its announced goals.
Earlier I stated: I did read Article 24 again and found no mention of operations ceasing in urban areas at any date, June 30 or otherwise. True, US combat forces are to be physically stationed just outside cities, villages, etc., by June 30(Paragraph 3) but they will be nearby in case the Iraqis need help with hostilities in urban areas, rural areas, or any area that needs an operation.
No sale. Article 24 of the agreement deals with the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The first paragraph sets the deadline for withdrawal of all American forces by 2011. The word withdrawal here clearly means that American forces will cease all military operations, quit the country, and only return at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The second paragraph uses the word withdrawal in the same context, with the added proviso that American forces will withdraw as the Iraqis take over their security functions. I suggest that this indicates quite clearly that the withdrawal contemplated entails a withdrawal, at the very least, from any active initiation of combat operations without a specific request, by the Iraqi government, for aid.
The above represents what is known in debate as a “straw man.” I never argued that that US Forces could initiate or participate in combat without Iraqi approval. I made that very clear. Yet here is the writer acting as if I had. The reader must keep in mind that the writer has stated flatly that:
US troops have to cease all urban operations by the middle of next year …
and:
They[the Iraqis] want the United States forces out of combat in six months …
Which are obviously false statements. If the Iraqis want help the US soldiers will be fighting in the streets as well as in the rural areas. What has happened is that the writer has reviewed the Agreement, realized my reading was the correct reading and decided to take a different tact. He would be better off by simply admitting he was wrong.
In this context, the phrase “in case the Iraqis need help” contains a basic error. The current agreement indicates quite clearly that the Americans may only act if the duly constituted Iraqi government asks for help. The distinction matters, because the agreement clearly suggests the Americans will have no powers to decide a situation warrants their intervention.
Fair enough. I change my wording to “in case the Iraqis want help.” I never meant to imply that the US forces could initiate combat in most situations without Iraqi approval. Except of course in cases of “self defense.” Paragraph 5, Article 4, specifies that US forces need not ask for anyone’s approval in such instances.
Earlier, the writer had stated that:
I also note reports (again, with no mind-reading required) that the Iraqis want American troops out.
I replied: The trouble is that they elect leaders that are fine with the troops being there for 3 more years.
The writer’s response: Alternatively, the Iraqi government had no desire to risk the disruption that a rush by US forces to withdraw by December 31 might have caused, and chose to negotiate for an orderly handover of responsibilities.
Here we go again with the writer reading the minds of the Iraqis. He knows what the Iraqis “desire” and why they “chose” to negotiate certain provisions. This may be true or it may not be true but I’m wondering what it has to do with the issue – which is Iraqi opinion. I believe the best gauge of public opinion is the ballot box with a secret vote. It’s why elections exist – to reveal what folks really think. Otherwise we could just hire Gallup or Zogby and declare a winner based on polling results.
Also, the Iraqis have to vote on the agreement. If they vote it down, a one-year clock (as specified in the text) starts, and US forces have to withdraw by mid-2010.
The Iraqi parliament has to vote on the Agreement and it has to be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council. I’m betting it will pass.
As an informational aside for the readers I will point out that the Iraqi Government can request the withdrawal of US Forces at any time, even after ratification. Likewise the US can withdraw at any time. It’s specified in paragraph 4 of Article 24.
I said earlier: …if the Iraqi Government feels threatened 3 years hence[the writer believes] that they would never call upon the US for help – no matter what might be going on.
His reply: The Iraqi government has certainly taken steps to ensure that if they did have to call on the United States for help. that help would take longer to arrive, and would involve considerably more logistical difficulty.
The US helicopters and aircraft can be in the air in minutes. Our drones are swift and lethal, having knocked off many a Jihadist. I sincerely hope that the Iraqis security forces in the cities will have no need to call to the nearby US bases but they will be there in case things get dicey.
Upholding national sovereignty (stated by the Iraqis as a priority) involves an assertion of independent action that does not always make perfect logical sense. It might cost less in lives and money for the Iraqis to subcontract their security to an American protector, but they have chosen not to; a choice in line with most other nations that guard their independence.
The writer is belaboring the obvious. He’s saying that the Iraqis want to try to ride the bicycle without the training wheels. I’ve never argued otherwise. But the Iraqis have wisely kept the training wheels nearby, just in case.
Simply put, I believe that two converging and probably unavoidable trends: the increasing complexity and interdependence of society leads to an increasing fragility, witness the way 19 men with box cutters sparked a worldwide financial panic by bringing down the world trade center. At the same time, the increasing sophistication of society greatly empowers each individual. That generally works to the good, as witness the decline in absolute levels of poverty. But it means that those disposed to harm others can do so on a far greater scale. As a result, I see no long-term alternative to putting an end to large scale armed conflict and lethal violence.
I knew an old gunny sargent years ago. He put it more succinctly: “The world is going to hell in a handbasket.” But these theories have nothing much to do with any of the issues I’ve been debating.
However, I do not judge specific wars by this criterion. I simply object when pundits announce victories out of mostly spin. The Iraq war did not accomplish absolutely nothing; it got rid of Saddam Hussein. But in almost all other respects, the war (or more precisely the campaign) in Iraq fell far short of almost all its announced goals.
The US seems about to add another democratic ally in the Middle East, one that is in a strong strategic position in regards to Iran and Syria. An ally that will provide a tempting contrast, with its prosperity and political freedom, to the baleful situations their citizens find themselves in those 2 benighted nations. But the writer sees no advantage whatever from this happy state of events.
As George Orwell observed, the statement “you do not exist” contains a logical absurdity.
But, John, you are the one who claimed it. [Damn, John, you are really freaking stupid.]
As George Orwell observed, the statement “you do not exist” contains a logical absurdity.
Just to digress, John, I don’t care who said this, it’s a big “duhhhhhh”, whoever says it. So obviously, that’s not what we’re talking about when we are considering your “existence”. You have claimed that in speaking here, it does not involve your existence. So either you do not exist – because all of your manifestations might similarly not prove your existence – or else I can infer things about you from your speaking here, and you do exist.
Comprende?
John G. Spragge, thank you for responding.
Increasing “complexity and interdependence” is not inconsistent with the continued large scale armed conflict and lethal violence, however much we may abhor war. This sounds like Norman Angell all over again. As someone else said, you might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
The rise of “the super-empowered individual” inevitably leads to more Mumbais, Balis, Madrids, and 9/11’s.
We are still lacking the framework that justifies calling a competing argument or analysis “mostly spin.” Spinning is undoubtedly all around us; therefore, we need methods to separate false claims, misrepresentations, and misinterpretations. (Where is Occam’s Beard when you need him?)
I think you know a lot more about economics than you know about war.
grackle:
If we could just couple all this spin to a generator, we could do away with global warming. Look, the Bush Administration stated clearly and repeatedly that they wanted a more open status of forces agreement. Members of the Bush cabinet, as well as the President, repeatedly rejected any agreement that would oblige the United States to withdraw troops from Iraq by date certain. They repeatedly rejected any limits on the operating authority of American troops in Iraq. All these statements went on the record. That the status of forces agreement now contains a date certain for withdrawal, a prohibition on the use of Iraqi airspace and bases by the US military for anything but the limited (in time and function) role of supporting the remaining military presence in Iraq represents a clear rejection of the Bush Administration’s stated requests and intentions. More straightforward conservative voices have honestly deplored this.
J. Peden:
What I say here contains mostly factual and logical analysis; I deliberately avoid making personal revelations in political contexts, and I refuse to engage any attempts to appeal to “psychology” to induce me to change a conclusion based on fact and logic. So if you have a rational, logical argument to offer, feel free to present it. If you don’t, then don’t bother trying to address my conclusions any other way.
Oblio
Please explain the sense in which the second statement does not refute the first. An increasingly technological society will empower the individual, because we intend it to do that. Empowered individuals have the ability to perpetrate acts of terrorism. Because of the increasing interdependence of society these acts will have a far greater effect. Thus, in a technological society, the traditional monopoly on the use of force enjoyed by the state erodes significantly. We therefore have a choice between a system in which nobody has the right to use violence, except in limited self defence, which necessarily entails an end to war, or else a state in which everyone has the ability to use violence.
As for a “framework”, we have the words of the agreement at issue and the Bush Administration to go by. If, as happened here, one side stakes out a position and rules out any deviation, then signs an agreement that yields on every significant point, while the other party gets all they want, it makes sense to say the first party has suffered a political defeat. If someone then calls the provisions at issue “purely symbolic” because the party that insisted on the concessions in the first place can always change their mind, then I call that spin.
If we could just couple all this spin to a generator, we could do away with global warming.
The analogy is lost on me since I consider “global warming” nothing more than a lot of bunk.
Look, the Bush Administration stated clearly and repeatedly that they wanted a more open status of forces agreement. Members of the Bush cabinet, as well as the President, repeatedly rejected any agreement that would oblige the United States to withdraw troops from Iraq by date certain. They repeatedly rejected any limits on the operating authority of American troops in Iraq. All these statements went on the record.
All of the above are simply standard negotiating tactics. You start out by demanding much more than you expect to get. As I’ve stated before I am reasonably satisfied with the final version which keeps US forces in Iraq for at least 3 more years, ensures the Iraqis can call for help if they need it, allows US forces to act without Iraqi approval in self-defense situations and can be amended if the parties feel it is necessary. I think it is a good idea that the Iraqis try to ride the bicycle without training wheels.
That the status of forces agreement now contains a date certain for withdrawal, a prohibition on the use of Iraqi airspace and bases by the US military for anything but the limited (in time and function) role of supporting the remaining military presence in Iraq represents a clear rejection of the Bush Administration’s stated requests and intentions. More straightforward conservative voices have honestly deplored this.
Just for the record, I am not a “conservative.” I believe both ends of the political spectrum, conservative and liberal, are on the wrong side on many issues. I probably fit into the neoconservative mold more than any other category.
But back to the issues: To use an adjective used before, the so-called prohibitions and limitations in the Agreement are somewhat symbolic as they stand and may become entirely symbolic if the Iraqis get into a tight spot militarily. For instance, does the writer really believe the Iraqis, who have no air force to speak of, would hesitate to call upon the US for air cover if needed? I would think that any military commander, Iraqi or otherwise, would be abysmally stupid not to use available troops, aircraft and other military hardware in the event of a troublesome military operation. But then commonsense is not exactly the hallmark of the anti-war folks.
John G. Spragge, you have convinced me that you are not a student of war and peace, probably not of history, and perhaps not even of elementary political philosophy.
You wrote, “We therefore have a choice between a system in which nobody has the right to use violence, except in limited self defence, which necessarily entails an end to war, or else a state in which everyone has the ability to use violence.”
In the end, rights are not self-enforcing. Rights are not respected because of their moral weight, but because someone can coerce someone else to respect them. Absent that, and especially in the context of super-empowered individuals, you end up in a Hobbesian war of all against all. States won the monopoly of force very recently and almost as an accident of technology and finance, and many have never been able to maintain that monopoly.
In this context, it is silly to talk about a “right to use violence.” If you think that you will get universal adoption of your preferred ethical position to restrict yourself to self-defense, I think you are showing a very weak understanding of the diversity of human values; of human ability to perceive threats (even when there are none); of human feelings of shame and victimization, and the desire for revenge; human capacity for aggression; and the way that weakness acts to encourage predation.
Without universal adoption of your values, you can choose not to use violence for yourself and perhaps for your government, but you will be at the mercy of the super-empowered individual who makes a different choice. Hence my quote (or paraphrase) of Trotsky above.
Since people in the real world understand this, you will have BOTH war and terrorism until the people who want war or terrorism believe that the cost/benefit and risk/reward analyses are very negative for either, and you will see full spectrum military action from states. For states who refuse to do so, you can expect super-empowered individuals to take self-defense into their own hands in response to the perceived threats.
With respect to a “framework,” we are talking geopolitics here, so the proper kind of analytical framework would consider the multiple goals and pressures at work on the various decision-makers, the dynamic nature of the resources and correlation of forces, and the objective benefits of the outcome. For good examples, think about Kissinger’s writings about Metternich and perhaps Louis Napoleon. (I’m writing from memory, but I’ll find citations if you care.)
It is this kind of framework that is required to answer the larger questions about the Iraq War and whether the final status of forces agreement represents a political loss or a reasonable compromise than consolidates the results of the war policy and serves US interests well, and is thus a political achievement. You haven’t come close to making the case for the former as the correct analysis.
grackle”
You can declare victory any time you want, of course.
You call this a feature of the agreement? And you consider it a feature favorable to the American position? Anybody in the world can call for help from the United States, and in Iraq’s case, they would probably get it, with or without an agreement.
I don’t think you can have an agreement that you can’t amend with the consent of both parties. Your continuing to trumpet these as “successful” features of the agreement shows what thin gruel it really contains for the Bush Administration.
Still just words. Spin. Look, if you really want to trumpet the democratization of Iraq at a “mere” cost of somewhere between 50 and several hundred thousand Iraqis killed, over two million made homeless, four thousand American dead, two trillion dollars, and a virtual halt to progress elsewhere in the war on terror, fine. I think with better management you could have achieved far more at far less cost to everyone, but you have a right to your opinion. However, you can make that case without resorting to spin techniques, such as calling the prohibitions you don’t like “so-called”. The Iraqis have insisted on, and the Bush Administration has now accepted, a prohibition against using bases in Iraq for operations against any third country. The Iraqis have insisted on a US withdrawal from active combat in six months, and a total withdrawal in three years. Nothing “so-called” or symbolic about any of that.
oblio
OK, then, how many violent people do you know? And how many violent situations have you worked in? Do you make all these claims about what people will and will not do from personal experience, or does this all come from books and classrooms?
I wrote earlier: As I’ve stated before I am reasonably satisfied with the final version…
You can declare victory any time you want, of course.
And the writer can claim defeat anytime he wants.
Earlier, by me: …[the Agreement] ensures the Iraqis can call for help if they need it…
You call this a feature of the agreement? And you consider it a feature favorable to the American position? Anybody in the world can call for help from the United States, and in Iraq’s case, they would probably get it, with or without an agreement.
Yes, anyone can call for help from the US. Iran can call for help, so can Syria. As these 2 nations stand, as violators of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and leading sponsors of terrorism, does the writer really believe the US would jump in to prevent their governments from collapsing if such a collapse were eminent? No, not just “anyone” can ask the US for military assistance and expect to get it.
I said earlier: …[the Agreement] can be amended if the parties feel it is necessary.
I don’t think you can have an agreement that you can’t amend with the consent of both parties. Your continuing to trumpet these as “successful” features of the agreement shows what thin gruel it really contains for the Bush Administration.
If an amendment clause is not in an agreement, then amendments are not possible. A new agreement would have to be drawn up – that is if the parties wanted a new agreement.
I stated earlier: …the so-called prohibitions and limitations in the Agreement are somewhat symbolic as they stand and may become entirely symbolic if the Iraqis get into a tight spot militarily.
Still just words. Spin. Look, if you really want to trumpet the democratization of Iraq at a “mere” cost of somewhere between 50 and several hundred thousand Iraqis killed,
Many of the Iraqis killed were murdered by Jihadists, many were killed resisting US forces at the outbreak of the Iraq War. Folks die on both sides during any war. To refuse to go to war because casualties are certain to occur is to give the enemy an insurmountable advantage.
over two million made homeless,
Does the writer believe that wars can be conducted without displacement? Like I’ve said before, the anti-war folks possess a paucity of commonsense.
four thousand American dead, two trillion dollars,
The Iraq War has been the least costly in treasure and blood than any major war ever conducted by the US.
and a virtual halt to progress elsewhere in the war on terror, fine.
I think the writer and I would have differing views on what would constitute “progress” in the War on Terror. A deposing of a troublesome murderer(Saddam) replaced by democratic ally bordering 2 rogue states so all their citizens can see the contrast between the despotism in their own nations and the democracy in Iraq – I call that progress. And where has this “virtual halt to progress elsewhere in the war on terror” happened? The writer doesn’t say …
I think with better management you could have achieved far more at far less cost to everyone, but you have a right to your opinion. However, you can make that case without resorting to spin techniques, such as calling the prohibitions you don’t like “so-called”.
The writer wrote earlier that the US forces were constrained entirely by the Agreement from all combat in Iran, which was a misreading of the Agreement(wishful thinking?). US forces are allowed to defend themselves without approval, to initiate combat if the Iraqis approve or to assist the Iraqi security forces should they feel the need for help. As I’ve said before I believe these “prohibitions” are somewhat cosmetic in nature.
The Iraqis have insisted on, and the Bush Administration has now accepted, a prohibition against using bases in Iraq for operations against any third country.
Wow. The writer AGAIN beats the dead horse of a hypothetical invasion of Iran by the US from Iraq – an eventuality we BOTH have said is “unlikely.” A restriction on something that is not likely to occur has to be seen by any rational person as symbolic.
The Iraqis have insisted on a US withdrawal from active combat in six months, and a total withdrawal in three years. Nothing “so-called” or symbolic about any of that.
Yet anything in the Agreement can be amended at any time by the parties to the Agreement. Speaking of symbolism, does the writer believe that the amendment clause in the Agreement is symbolic?
@John G. Spragge 11.32 pm
Your questions are not relevant.
Grackle:
The difference between an agreement with an amending clause and one without:
1) with This amendment, agreed to by both parties, replaces section 1.6 with…
2) without This agreement, made with the consent of both parties, replaces agreement x, incorporated in the present agreement by reference, except for section 1.6, which in the present agreement reads…
Seems pretty symbolic to me.
On three other points:
You claim to have replaced Saddam by a democratic ally, except that the “ally” relationship in this case only goes one way. And just to note: if you consider Islamic militancy the problem, you have replaced a secular dictator with a confessional democracy. Ask any Iraqi Christian (I believe the majority now live in Jordan, Syria, and so on) what having the governing party entitled “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq” has meant to them.
Progress in Afghanistan has ground to a halt; if anything, the “West” has lost ground since 2002. Likewise in Pakistan. Likewise in Somalia. Want me to go on? Nor do I think the Iraqi model will cut much ice with the Syrians and the Iranians. Democracy loses some of its appeal if democratically electing the “wrong” people gets you bombed.
Cosmetic– yet another “spin” word. If these prohibitions involve nothing but appearance, why did the Bush Administration push so hard to avoid them?
Oblio:
You pronounced on the subject of what keeps people from committing violence. I wonder what basis you have to make those claims. If you make grand statements, I don’t consider a question about the source of your claimed expertise “irrelevant”.
The difference between an agreement with an amending clause and one without:
1) with This amendment, agreed to by both parties, replaces section 1.6 with…
2) without This agreement, made with the consent of both parties, replaces agreement x, incorporated in the present agreement by reference, except for section 1.6, which in the present agreement reads…
I don’t really know what the above means but it seems to me that the difference between an agreement with an amendment and one without is that one can be amended and the other cannot be amended and thus a new agreement must be negotiated should any of the parties desire a change in any of the provisos. However, the present Agreement wisely contains provision for amendment of any part of the Agreement.
Seems pretty symbolic to me.
I am gratified that the writer believes that at least some of the Agreement is symbolic. I wonder, are there any other parts of the present Agreement that the writer thinks are symbolic – or is it solely the amendment clause that he deems symbolic?
On three other points:
You claim to have replaced Saddam by a democratic ally, except that the “ally” relationship in this case only goes one way.
Iraq is in no position now to provide much to the US, except of course the present Agreement. After all, no one is sure at this point whether Iraq can even provide security to their own government and this will not be finally determined until all the US forces are out of Iraq 3 years from now(IF the Iraqi government does not sometime in the interim extend the 3-year deadline) – THAT will be the true test. It’s WAY too early to be thinking about what the Iraqis can do for the US in other ways. For now, for me, it is more than enough that the nascent Iraqi government has acquiesced in a US presence and Saddam’s shenanigans are over for good. After a year or 2 of true independence we will see just how good of an ally Iraq will be.
And just to note: if you consider Islamic militancy the problem, you have replaced a secular dictator with a confessional democracy.
I would have welcomed a Saddam-led Iraq that was friendly to the US. His war against Iran was a point in his favor and he did give some freedom to the women of Iraq and attempted to modernize the economy and culture of Iraq. But alas, he chose the hard road by invading Kuwait and then ignoring the agreements he made after his defeat. He would no doubt be secure in his power in Iraq this very day if he had acted differently.
Ask any Iraqi Christian (I believe the majority now live in Jordan, Syria, and so on) what having the governing party entitled “Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq” has meant to them.
The Iraqi Christians, like the Iraqi general population, are rightly concerned about security from terrorism. They, along with other minorities in Iraq, have been the special targets of terrorists since the beginning of the insurgency. It will be one of the tests of the Iraqi security forces viability whether this can be brought under control. But I don’t believe the Iraqi Christians are particularly worried about what the Iraqi governing party is called.
Progress in Afghanistan has ground to a halt; if anything, the “West” has lost ground since 2002.
Other than preventing another Taliban or Taliban-like regime from taking control in Afghanistan I don’t believe there is much at stake for the US there. As long as the terrorists are kept holed up in the apparently ungovernable mountainous tribal regions of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan and confined to occasional raids into the Afghan/Pakistan border area the US has little to fear. The country is just not that strategically important to the Middle East to devote much blood or treasure there.
Likewise in Pakistan.
Pakistan has always been a ‘sometime’ ally with a spotty record of cooperation with the US – a situation that existed before the Iraq War. If the country ever attains a stable government some progress might be made but the deposal of Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the turmoil that has festered there for several decades.
Likewise in Somalia.
The above area(it’s never attained real nationhood) has been the site of numerous coups, assassinations, wars and general unrest since at least the 60’s – long before any War on Terror.
Want me to go on?
The writer seems to be taking the tact now of listing every Islamic nation or region that has had longstanding issues of political stability and violence and declaring progress has been lost there due to the deposal of Saddam. It’s a standard debating tactic of the anti-war folks.
Nor do I think the Iraqi model will cut much ice with the Syrians and the Iranians. Democracy loses some of its appeal if democratically electing the “wrong” people gets you bombed.
Perhaps I’m overlooking the obvious but I simply do not comprehend what the writer means with the above reference to bombs. Does he mean that the Iraqis will bomb Iran and Syria and thus provide a poor example of democracy to Iranian and Syrian citizens? Or that if Iran and Syria eventually become democratic that their elected representatives will bomb their own folks? If the writer would elaborate I will attempt a reply.
Cosmetic— yet another “spin” word. If these prohibitions involve nothing but appearance, why did the Bush Administration push so hard to avoid them?
It has become evident as the debate has gone on that the writer has no idea what a negotiation entails. I will simply reiterate here that a standard negotiating tactic is to start out demanding much more than is expected.
In regards to the debate by myself and my opponent on the significance and meaning of the Status of Forces Agreement, I found an interesting item in the “Contentions” blog at “Commentary.” Yes, it seems that ALL US troops will NOT be pulling out of Iraq’s urban areas in 6 months time. Below are some quotes from the article.
Iraq’s prime minister upbraided his top government spokesman for saying some U.S. soldiers might need to remain in the country for many more years. “What was announced about the Iraqi forces needing 10 years in order to be ready is only his personal point of view and it doesn’t represent the opinion of the Iraqi government,” Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s office said in a written statement Saturday.
The spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told reporters in Washington this past week that the Baghdad government would be open to negotiations that would keep troops in Iraq past the agreed upon withdrawal date.
It is evident from this that while the Iraqi Government certainly does not want to make it public knowledge in Iraq that the Agreement’s deadlines are adjustable that among themselves the deadlines – all US troops out of urban areas in 6 months, all US troops out of the country in 3 years – are very flexible, that indeed this is exactly the situation. This is also confirmed by US military authority:
Even with the mandate in the recently approved U.S.-Iraq security agreement, there have been suggestions some troops would not leave urban areas. But Gen. Raymond Odierno was the first military leader to acknowledge some forces would remain at local security stations, as training and mentoring teams.
“We believe we should still be inside those[urban areas] after the summer,” he said the sprawling U.S. base in Balad, north of Baghdad before welcoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates on a brief visit.
It is nice to see that the Iraq Government has more common sense than my opponent. Just as the post-WW2 Germans realized that a US presence guaranteed freedom from Soviet aggression the Iraqis also realize that a strong US presence can be a good thing.
We have not heard from my opponent for awhile. Perhaps he could be roused enough by this post to attempt further comment.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_GATES?SITE=NVREN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT