Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 07:50:56

Question is what you are trying to achieve in Iraq at all. Keeping the country stable so it won't turn into a civil war between rival factions?

As I've mentioned before, civil war could actually be beneficial to us, depending on what we're trying to achieve. Therein lies the problem, lack of clarity. The invasion wasn't the blunder, those came later.

Why not just walk away from it and leave it to the Iraqis themselves? I mean if the want democracy, it's their choice isn't it? Will hurt less the sooner you fold, won't be able to pull any bluffs, anyway.

Here's the problem with that. I mentioned the desire among some Muslim extremists to establish a new Caliphate, which you rightly pointed out lacks both popular support and serious threat potential to the West. What's missing is this: Every terrorist attack against US interests from Somalia to 9/11 had one central purpose, to draw US forces into Islamic countries.

Why?

Because the extremists are a minority and need to increase popular support to further their cause. You can't have much of a Jihad if there's no one nearby to fight. So they try to goad us in. Bombing in Kenya, we do nothing. Escalate. Blow up the USS Cole, we do nothing. Escalate. 9/11, now we're pissed off and go in guns blazing.

So we got suckered right? That depends entirely on how we play it. America has a reputation for being short-timers. We're expected to cut and run. Then the Jihadis get to jump around waving Kalashnikovs proclaiming their victory over the Great Satan. Encouraged, they strike again so we'll jump in and provide them another easy win.

But now they're stretched just as thin as we are in Iraq, captured insurgents, documents and intercepted communications attest to this. We weren't expected to hang in this long, we're screwing up the plan.

Unfortunately we're not exactly foolproof planners ourselves and serious mistakes have been made.

Of course the simple answer would have been to avoid war and terrorist attacks on our soil, and I don't mean this "treat it like a law enforcement problem" mindset that's making the rounds. We could just round up all the Muslims and kick 'em out. It would never fly politically and would damage the fabric of American society as much if not moreso than invading Iraq, but it would likely have worked. If nothing else the much-invoked and over-rated FDR gave us a precedent for that sort of thing.

We're at the point where we need to stay and finish it, but we can't keep doing what we've been doing. This isn't a war anymore, it's an occupation with a guerrilla resistance movement. The dynamic is different. By no means unwinnable, but we need to adapt. Cut-and-run isn't a viable option.

Palomar · 2005-05-24 08:06:38

If disagreement is the sign of a healthy society, it would seem the Coalition is composed of healthier elements? It also seems the Europeans in particular are going on some sort of Group Think. (Sorry...just noticing and commenting...)
Will keep that in mind. Maybe there are those who try to brainwash you and we have their conflicting cousins over here trying to brainwash us? Who knows...

*I wouldn't go so far as to apply the word "brainwashing" against Europeans or Americans. That would be too harsh.

However, I have noticed that whereas America is largely split between "The war is great! We were right!" and "The war is terrible! We never should have gone into Iraq!" (and the small remainder of Americans are apathetic or undecided), the overwhelming majority of opinions and feedback from Europe is that the Iraq war was/is completely and entirely wrong.

I'm curious as to the differences between America and Europe in particular, in this regard. Why so much agreement in Europe? Why so much disagreement here?

There must be a cultural aspect to it, no?

--Cindy

P.S.: And maybe I should reiterate that I -don't- agree entirely with anyone else's opinions here. Maybe I'm a bit of a "wild card."

BWhite · 2005-05-24 08:16:24

Question is what you are trying to achieve in Iraq at all. Keeping the country stable so it won't turn into a civil war between rival factions?
As I've mentioned before, civil war could actually be beneficial to us, depending on what we're trying to achieve. Therein lies the problem, lack of clarity. The invasion wasn't the blunder, those came later.

Saddam wasn't the real target of the Bush invasion. The political defeat of the United Nations was one real objective. Building political capital to defeat liberals was another.

Bush KNOWS the Islamo-fascist nut-jobs cannot really threaten the West (except maybe by birth rates and immigration as Gennaro has posted) but they are a dandy tool for bashing Democrats with.

clark · 2005-05-24 08:19:45

Weapons of Mass Democracy?

You slay me Bill. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 08:23:57

Bill, do you really believe this was all about bashing Democrats? That Bush lied about the intelligence, knowing it would eventually come out. . . so that Dems would look bad? ???

Great plan, what an idiot that Bush must be. :laugh:

As for defeating the UN, that sort of takes care of itself. Just be ready with the spotlights.

Palomar · 2005-05-24 09:29:24

*Thanks to everyone who have given me food for thought over these many months of political discussions. There is a lot of wisdom at this message board, and I definitely can see good points raised and maintained on both sides of some very tough issues.

It's been exasperating, fun, sometimes difficult.

As for the differences between the US and Europe (primarily), I've intended no harm. Simply couldn't help noticing a very marked difference is all.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2005-05-24 10:10:02

One can't help wondering: If Bush had been on active combat in Vietnam up to the time U.S. had to acknowledge defeat and leave in ignomy, how his approach might have differed as President regarding the invasion of Iraq? Real life-and-death experience counts.
The same applies to Mars: If he'd been a space nut, would he have squandered his budget surplus and industrial resources on a distracting unilateral invasion? Imaginative open-mindedness counts.
If he had not been alcohol-addictive, would he have become susceptible to religeous-right influences, and all that? Self reliance counts.
Why am so "what-iffy" about the present? Frustrated old age counts.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 10:12:38

That sounds almost like a farewell message, Cindy. Say it ain't so.

As for the differences between the US and Europe (primarily), I've intended no harm. Simply couldn't help noticing a very marked difference is all.

I wonder how much of that is spin. I suspect that Americans have a very distorted idea of what Europeans are like and vice versa.

Any of our European particpants care to chime in, are we Americans seen as a bunch of bible-thumping arrogant burger-slurping third-world country invading, socialist ridiculing imperialists?

clark · 2005-05-24 10:25:26

are we Americans seen as a bunch of bible-thumping arrogant burger-slurping third-world country invading, socialist ridiculing imperialists?

From one American to another, yes, yes we are.

At least the part that consistently votes according to their preachers take on it.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 10:29:48

At least the part that consistently votes according to their preachers take on it.

So a few keep saying, but the Republican voters I know are for the most part not churchgoing types. And there's alot of them.

The premise is flawed I suspect.

But now I'm off to ridicule some socialists and thump them with bibles.

clark · 2005-05-24 10:37:22

So a few keep saying, but the Republican voters I know are for the most part not churchgoing types. And there's alot of them.

Since the Republican's you know are not churchgoing types, therefore my premise is wrong?

Well, if Mine Fuhrer proclaims, Mine Fuherer proclaims.

Republicans, as you know em, are the moderate branch. The conservative base, the religious element, they won the election for Bush. That was the whole point of yelling about the sanctity of marriage while we are at war.

That's the whole point of making a show about religious beliefs and federal judges.

That's the whole point of giving federal funds to religious groups for charity out-reach programs.

It's pandering to the base that wins the Republican's their election.

But again, if you proclaim otherwise, this humble servant must merely bow to the benevolence of the Pro-Consul.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 10:45:58

Since the Republican's you know are not churchgoing types, therefore my premise is wrong?

Since the Republicans I know are either not churchgoing types, or taking a much wider group (of Republican activists and elected officials) are not the oft-invoked evangelical fanatics I must question your premise. There is a tendency to look at recent election results and say "It's the evangelicals voting their morality, they run the Republican party" but that's ignoring other, more significant factors.

It's pandering to the base that wins the Republican's their election.

As a general rule it's pandering to the base that wins anyone an election. The problem with the Dems is that their base has gotten so out of phase with the rest of the country that it doesn't work for them. That's a bigger factor in recent election results than religious Republicans marching from the pulpit to the polls.

clark · 2005-05-24 10:51:20

There is a tendency to look at recent election results and say "It's the evangelicals voting their morality, they run the Republican party" but that's ignoring other, more significant factors.

Like what? What are these significant factors?

The problem with the Dems is that their base has gotten so out of phase with the rest of the country that it doesn't work for them.

So I suppose 50% of the vote demonstrates that Democrats are out of phase? They are not out of phase, they are being forced into a polarization of ideas with Republican's- and the end result is bad for America.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 11:10:08

So I suppose 50% of the vote demonstrates that Democrats are out of phase? They are not out of phase, they are being forced into a polarization of ideas with Republican's- and the end result is bad for America.

The Democrat base, the voters they can count on and who drive the direction of the Party are out of phase . They are too far left, the Deaniac/MoveOn wing of the Party. Democrats still attract a majority of their traditional support groups (blacks, Unions, etc.) but the percentages are slowly whittling away. In the last Presidential election a large percentage of Kerry voters did so for the simple reason that he wasn't George Bush. That isn't a solid foundation, it's a sign of decline. The republic is self-correcting, that happens when things slide too far one way.

Like what? What are these significant factors?

To name a few:
Dems presented themselves, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertantly, as subservient and wimpish. While it may seem silly in an intellectual sense voters don't decide on reason alone, or even primarily in many cases. Schwarzenegger was on to something with those "girly men" comments.

Dems rightly bash Bush's overspending, but push tax increases as the solution. People don't like having more money taken from them, particularly when it's used for things they can see have made little or no progress in their stated goals. "We'll raise your taxes" is not an election-winning slogan.

In the "War on Terror", specifically Iraq, the Dems have put themselves in a position where they rejoice when America loses. They only do well when America does badly. It's a bad vibe.

Abortion. Most of the country does not want unrestricted late-term abortion. The Dem base keeps pushing it.

Most of the country emphatically opposes gay marriage. When Leftist kook loose cannons like that mayor in San Francisco decree it legal or liberal judges strike down voter-approved legislation it only hurts them further.

Most people aren't clamoring for government-run universal healthcare.

The majority of people aren't clamoring for more gun control.

The extreme enviromentalists are the most vocal and pollute the argument. Most Americans aren't quaking in their boots about "global warming".

In short, the Dems have attached themselves to casues that the majority of people either oppose or don't give a damn about, and their base is very vocal and inflammatory about it. They're losing because of them, not just some religious Republicans voting on homophobia.

clark · 2005-05-24 11:30:49

This is so asinine.

I honestly should be on your side. Well, the Republican’s at any rate.

I find myself getting more money under Bush than I ever saw under Clinton. Healthcare? Screw the millions of uninsured, I’ve got mine. Medicare and Medicaid? Slash it, what do I care, I’m a working stiff, and I’m covered, and I’ve got time to figure out what to do if it isn’t there anyway. Out of wedlock babies are not my problem, let the single mothers go to court and garnish the dads wages. Abortion? I’m a guy. I don’t give a rats ass about any woman’s right. Gay marriage? Whatever. I don’t have personal problems if it is banned. It won’t change a single thing in my life. Social Security? Right, as if I would ever see a dime. Screw it, go personal plan and carve up Social Security so that it becomes class based, then a few years out, it will be that much easier to finally kill, once and for all. Global warming? Again, it will be centuries (or decades, whatever) before the waters rise. I’ll move inland, after all, I bought an SUV to make it easier to move things. You want to pray, fine, I can keep quiet for a few minutes- I routinely say grace at tables if that is the norm. Pledge allegiance, sure, whatever, I pledge. Big deal, kids should too. They don’t have to believe it. Want to attack another country? Fine, whatever, just keep gas low, imports flowin, and me with a job, you get my vote.

Welcome to America, where the American dream is: I get mine, take care of yourself.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 11:40:06

Welcome to America, where the American dream is: I get mine, take care of yourself.

Crude, but that actually used to be part of it in essence.

We, as Americans, are trying to find a balance between keep the fruits of your labor and the responsibility for your welfare and we know what's good for you, get in line.

I'm simply pointing out a few things that hurt Democrats with the voters recently, not saying any of them are right or wrong as that isn't the issue in election results. You want to portray the Republican position as advocating a flooded, sweltering land of starving single mothers, their sickly children and dying old people go right ahead. But that's part of the problem your side has lately.

clark · 2005-05-24 11:53:53

My side? I think that there is the problem. What happened to our side?

I don’t care which party is in the white house, they are both the same. The collective consciousness of America need to wrap their heads around the idea that our government is US (as in the people), versus THEM (as in the guv’nment).

Instead, we have both parties playing their extremes against the middle. It’s divide and conquer and they raise the specter of the gay-boogeyman to one side, and the firebrand-zealot to the other.

You, me, and maybe Bill (everyone else is a lost cause), we’re somewhere in the middle, but routinely brandish our talking points as if they were garlic and crosses, to ward off the blood sucking “other” of our comfortable political spectrum. You admit that global warming is an issue, not the end of the world, but somewhere between that and “no problem-o”. You admit that the Iraqi war has bad points and good points and could be done in a better manner. Meanwhile, the loud-mouthed extremists on either side of the divide keep declaring, “traitor!” or “quagmire!” without ever trying to reach that common ground (and we never end up getting heard).

Saying Bush has done a half-assed job is telling the truth. He did a half-assed job at lying, cause he got caught. And he did a half assed job of running the war, cause it isn’t improving (but not getting worse). George Bush is half-assed!

Yet for every vote against Bush were just as many votes against Kerry! That’s the state of affairs we are in now, voting against the other guy because of the polarization of extremes who have taken the floor from the middle ground. It’s happening on both sides and it is fundamentally dangerous to our Republic (a Parliament might be able to deal with this, but not the two party system we got).

But whatever.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 12:08:46

George Bush is half-assed!

Can't argue with that. Most of the post in fact is on target, with a few little excpetions.

Not being an extremist sucks don't it, you find yourself agreeing with all sorts of unsavory characters from time to time. :laugh:

Still, I've got to thump some socialist with this bible.
:hm:

clark · 2005-05-24 12:12:55

Not being an extremist sucks don't it, you find yourself agreeing with all sorts of unsavory characters from time to time.

Like now. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-05-24 13:11:33

Bill, do you really believe this was all about bashing Democrats? That Bush lied about the intelligence, knowing it would eventually come out. . . so that Dems would look bad? ???
Great plan, what an idiot that Bush must be. :laugh:
As for defeating the UN, that sort of takes care of itself. Just be ready with the spotlights.

I believe Bush believed his own press clippings and he genuinely believed the fall of Saddam would be like the fall of the Iron Curtain. A few "dead enders" to use Rumsfeld's phrase would object but 80% - 90% of Iraqis would greet us like heroes and set aside their tribalism to embrace Western secular values.

Bad intel on that - - wishful thinking combined with a penchant for firing those who aren't "yes men" - - that problem, ignoring dissenting voices, continues still. Condi Rice, for example, still draws analogies between freedom from Soviet domination and freedom from Islamicism. Its a bad analogy that gets us in trouble.

That said, had we stopped the looting and got the infrastructure going within 60 - 90 days after regime change, maybe it would have been okay. In theory, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. In theory.

I recall reading at the time of regime change numerous analysts saying we had 6 to 9 months to win Iraqi hearts and minds. After that? We were screwed. So we send in Paul Bremer to FUBAR the reconstruction.

Had Iraq stabilized in months, not years, finding no WMD would have been ignored as irrelevant in light of the greater good.

Bush rolled the dice with America's future - - and lost. Now he wants to weasel out of taking responsibility for the consequences.

= = =

Had Rumsfeld listened to Shineski and arranged for 400,000 troops to maintain order after Saddam fell, had Bush asked up front for the billions needed to rapidly build Iraqi infrastructure; had Paul Bremer not been given a full year to attempt neo-con fantasy policy scenarios, this might have turned out okay.

But that would have required that they listen to the facts, not the neo-con ideology.

BWhite · 2005-05-24 13:15:36

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=5598 … fghanistan:

BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
DEFENCE chiefs are planning to rush thousands of British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate.
An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers.
The looming crisis in Afghanistan is a serious setback for the US-led 'War on Terror' and its bid to promote western democratic values around the world.
Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 13:41:36

Bill, overall I can agree with the general thinking of most of your last post on Iraq. Good in theory, weapons or not, Administration screwed it up, prime window of opportunity squandered. I certainly don't think it's a lost cause, but mistakes continue to be made that shouldn't be.

The occupation of Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan have the same problem, namely we're treating it like "war" and it isn't anymore. We aren't good at the nation-building thing because we're too hung up on perceptions. "We're here to liberate, not conquer, we want democracy as soon as possible, self determination, freedom liberty and Mickey D's" Excrement. Kill the enemy army, take over, impose order, ensure essentials are provided to the populace, steadily improve conditions. Only then does any of that other stuff matter. Conquer away, but do it smooth. Be ready to brandish that hammer at a moments notice, but don't swing it at every fly that buzzes by.

On a related note, it could be argued that we were too soft in the initial invasion both times around. Yes, I'm suggesting that maybe we didn't kill enough people. Plenty of those Afghan warlords attaching their destiny to us are vicious bastards and one of the advantages of conquering a tribal area is that if you wipe out an entire tribe no one is going to be too upset about it.

In short, we should either get used to blowing up the bad guy's stuff, killing a bunch of people and leaving the rest in the stone age or we have to get good at nation-building. short-term empire-building.

There are ripples of hope, but it's too soon to call it either way. But if it makes anyone here feel better . . .

BWhite · 2005-05-24 13:54:04

Cobra, elsewhere I have described it as a desire to play John Wayne or Gary Cooper rather than Humphrey Bogart. Bogart usually did the right thing yet he never sought credit for doing the right thing. Bush was too eager to be seen as a "war president" to support drooping public opinion numbers.

We also need to accept that we don't understand how to play the tribal politics. Saddam thought he was immune because only a Saddam-like tyrant could keep Iraqi clans in line. Sunni & Shia & Kurd are only the tip of that iceberg.

Iraq is an artificial country, after all, created by the British less than 100 years ago.

BWhite · 2005-05-24 15:44:50

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php … 744]Andrew Sullivan fully supports the fight against Islamo-fascism. Concerning Iraq force levels he writes:

ARE WE WINNING? I haven't tackled the fundamental question in Iraq for a while. No, Mickey hasn't scared me into silence. Since the elections, it's simply been hard to figure out exactly what's going on. You can read the good news here. The demise of a complete Sunni boycott of the next political phase also has to be encouraging. Buit it would surely be dumb not to notice how resilient the insurgency still is, how it has capitalized on the political drift of the past few months, and how it is as lethal as ever. My old friend, Niall Ferguson, provides a longer view. Like me, he has long believed that the war was absurdly under-manned from the beginning. Like me, he wants it to work. But some things cannot change. This is the key point:
>> How, then, did the British crush the insurgency of 1920? Three lessons stand out. The first is that, unlike the American enterprise in Iraq today, they had enough men. In 1920, total British forces in Iraq numbered around 120,000, of whom around 34,000 were trained for actual fighting. During the insurgency, a further 15,000 men arrived as reinforcements. Coincidentally, that is very close to the number of American military personnel now in Iraq (around 138,000). The trouble is that the population of Iraq was just over three million in 1920, whereas today it is around 24 million. Thus, back then the ratio of Iraqis to foreign forces was, at most, 23 to 1. Today it is around 174 to 1. To arrive at a ratio of 23 to 1 today, about one million American troops would be needed. <<
We are fighting a global war with the manpower for a minor spat. Technology can only do so much. And when you further consider that, in order to win, we need to deal with Syria and Iran at the very least, you can see the scale of our problem. Solution? At this point, I can't see any except a major dose of luck.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 06:31:45

Locked, continue in "V"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#326 2005-05-24 07:50:56

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#327 2005-05-24 08:06:38

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#328 2005-05-24 08:16:24

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#329 2005-05-24 08:19:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#330 2005-05-24 08:23:57

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#331 2005-05-24 09:29:24

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#332 2005-05-24 10:10:02

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#333 2005-05-24 10:12:38

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#334 2005-05-24 10:25:26

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#335 2005-05-24 10:29:48

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#336 2005-05-24 10:37:22

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#337 2005-05-24 10:45:58

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#338 2005-05-24 10:51:20

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#339 2005-05-24 11:10:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#340 2005-05-24 11:30:49

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#341 2005-05-24 11:40:06

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#342 2005-05-24 11:53:53

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#343 2005-05-24 12:08:46

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#344 2005-05-24 12:12:55

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#345 2005-05-24 13:11:33

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#346 2005-05-24 13:15:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#347 2005-05-24 13:41:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#348 2005-05-24 13:54:04

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#349 2005-05-24 15:44:50

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#350 2005-05-25 06:31:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer