What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Bill White · 2004-05-10 15:23:19

Any comments on http://www.agonist.org/archives/015564.html#015564]this analysis?

clark · 2004-05-10 15:25:18

I get some kind of error when i click the link...

Bill White · 2004-05-10 15:45:50

Link should work now.

Further thought. That new Iraqi flag is a really bad idea.

What will the psychology be when insurgents tear down the new flag and raise the old red, black and green flag over various government buildings they capture from time to time?

Letting the insurgents use the old colors (which pre-dates Saddam) appears to emphasize intruders versus traditional Iraqis.

http://flagspot.net/flags/iq_1920.html]Early Iraqi flag

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-10 16:33:45

Further thought. That new Iraqi flag is a really bad idea.

Agreed. The move is ill-advised.

Bill White · 2004-05-10 17:04:53

Compare with the new (post US invasion) and old flag (1930 - 1973) for http://flagspot.net/flags/af.html]Afghanistan - - it almost seems as if the members of the Iraqi Governing Council have chosen a flag best designed to annoy the Arab world.

Earthfirst · 2004-05-10 17:13:20

We would not loss if we stop playing the goody PC nation.
Arbas respon well to power, fear, and torture. They think of them selfs as men with big balls, if you dont rape, and torture them they think less of you, they think that you are weak, then they fight back. They are like animals you have to kick them, so they get that you are the master.
Dogs comes to mind!, thats they way the arba world works, then why do we think they accept are veiw of the world?
Love, huges, kittens and every thing nice they laugh at you.
Do as the romans would do, the delt with the arba ancesters.
First when a village revolts, gather the army, we did that, then surround it, did that, then burn it to the ground killing every thing in sight, did not. Then inslave the women and kids, pike the men head alone the roads.
Since we have bombs and planes, and artillar we could bomb it out of existance preventing are people from people from getting killed. The arbas now resepect you and know not to mess with you, saddom knew this.
This is the key to wining the arba street, kill them if they protest you, then force them to covert to christ.
That is what they would do to us, let recicake! :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-05-10 18:18:27

Compare with the new (post US invasion) and old flag (1930 - 1973) for http://flagspot.net/flags/af.html]Afghanistan - - it almost seems as if the members of the Iraqi Governing Council have chosen a flag best designed to annoy the Arab world.

*I am -very- reluctant to post this. However, the site's author points out he's not anti-Semitic and even refers to comments made by TV's Jon Stewart (Jewish) of the "Daily Show."

I'm -not- anti-Semitic either.

I recalled seeing it in a newsgroup the other day -- found it again.

Not saying I'm in agreement with Mr. Blumrich (site owner) -- and frankly, I think he's overreacting. Just thought I'd post it for comments:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/flag.html]Flag issues ???

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-10 19:25:25

Not saying I'm in agreement with Mr. Blumrich (site owner) -- and frankly, I think he's overreacting. Just thought I'd post it for comments:
Flag issues

Well, that little bugger's got some anger issues doesn't he.

Yes, the flag is a bad idea. In my opinion the governing council is a bad idea at this stage (preferring something akin to native-born prefects) Reading this little rant one could get the impression that George Bush personally approved the design for the sole purpose of turning Iraq into Israel II.

Take it down a notch, Blumrich. You sound a little unstable.

Bill White · 2004-05-10 19:33:30

There is a possibly sinister interpretation.

Consider these links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4881157]htt … id/4881157

And this from Salon.com (admittedly a rather leftie source):

When the definitive history of the current Iraq war is finally written, wealthy exile Ahmed Chalabi will be among those judged most responsible for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. More than a decade ago Chalabi teamed up with American neoconservatives to sell the war as the cornerstone of an energetic new policy to bring democracy to the Middle East -- and after 9/11, as the crucial antidote to global terrorism. It was Chalabi who provided crucial intelligence on Iraqi weaponry to justify the invasion, almost all of which turned out to be false, and laid out a rosy scenario about the country's readiness for an American strike against Saddam that led the nation's leaders to predict -- and apparently even believe -- that they would be greeted as liberators. Chalabi also promised his neoconservative patrons that as leader of Iraq he would make peace with Israel, an issue of vital importance to them. A year ago, Chalabi was riding high, after Saddam Hussein fell with even less trouble than expected.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ … ex_np.html

Now, who designed that freakin' flag? Someone who had a vested interest in the US mission perhaps failing?

What better way to sabotage the mission than by asking Muslim Iraqis to fight for a blue & white flag?

Chalabi (and his family & pals) as double agent? Is that so very hard to believe?

= = =

Cobra, Bush didn't do it, we got played.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-10 19:40:57

Cobra, Bush didn't do it, we got played.

Perhaps, unfortunately we are not privy to all the information.

But whatever the case, the game is on now...

Bill White · 2004-05-10 19:43:48

Cobra, Bush didn't do it, we got played.
Perhaps, unfortunately we are not privy to all the information.
But whatever the case, the game is on now...

True, we don't and we may never know for sure.

No American designed that flag. An Iraqi did. An Iraqi living in London and a high Iraqi official on the IGC approved it.

Rule #1 for success in the Middle East. Accept that we Americans are friggin' naive and our enemy is more crafty and devious that us, no matter how many JDAMs we have.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 05:53:08

Rule #1 for success in the Middle East. Accept that we Americans are friggin' naive and our enemy is more crafty and devious that us, no matter how many JDAMs we have.

Yes, it's been a long time since we were the underdogs in a fight.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 08:11:55

This is a smart guy - - University of Chicago, like me ;-)

He has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war from the beginning. Now he "gets it" IMHO:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opini … ...sition=

Excerpt:

They took a tragically ironic view of their situation. They understood that we can't defeat ruthless enemies without wielding power. But we can't wield power without sometimes being corrupted by it. Therefore, we can't do good without losing our innocence.

This requires introspection and humility. How much of that does President Bush have? After all, he only looks in the mirror to comb his hair (in his own words).

May 11, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose
By DAVID BROOKS
his has been a crushingly depressing period, especially for people who support the war in Iraq. The predictions people on my side made about the postwar world have not yet come true. The warnings others made about the fractious state of post-Saddam society have.
It's still too soon to declare the Iraq mission a failure. Some of the best reporting out of Iraq suggests that many Iraqis have stared into the abyss of what their country could become and have decided to work with renewed vigor toward the democracy that both we and they want.
Nonetheless, it's not too early to begin thinking about what was clearly an intellectual failure. There was, above all, a failure to understand the consequences of our power. There was a failure to anticipate the response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate. They resent us for our power and at the same time expect us to be capable of everything. There was a failure to understand the effect our power would have on other people around the world. We were so sure we were using our might for noble purposes, we assumed that sooner or later, everybody else would see that as well. Far from being blinded by greed, we were blinded by idealism.
Just after World War II, there were Americans who were astute students of the nature and consequences of American power. America's midcentury leaders — politicians like F.D.R. and Harry Truman, as well as public intellectuals like Reinhold Niebuhr and James Burnham — had seen American might liberate death camps. They had also seen Americans commit wartime atrocities that surpass those at Abu Ghraib.
These midcentury leaders were idealists, but they were rugged idealists, because they combined a cold-eyed view of reality with a warm self-confidence in their ability to do history-changing good.
They took a tragically ironic view of their situation. They understood that we can't defeat ruthless enemies without wielding power. But we can't wield power without sometimes being corrupted by it. Therefore, we can't do good without losing our innocence.
History had assigned them a dirty job: taking morally hazardous action. They did not try to escape, but they did not expect sainthood.
That rugged idealism looks appealing today. We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.
We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point.
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us. If the future textbooks of a free Iraq get written, the toppling of Saddam will be vaguely mentioned in one clause in one sentence. But the heroic Iraqi resistance against the American occupation will be lavishly described, page after page. For us to succeed in Iraq, we have to lose.
That means the good Iraqis, the ones who support democracy, have to have a forum in which they can defy us. If the insurgents are the only anti-Americans, then there will always be a soft spot for them in the hearts of Iraqi patriots.
That forum is an election campaign. There would be significant risks involved in moving the Iraq elections up to this fall. Parties might use their militias to coerce votes. But Iraqis have to see their candidates and themselves standing up with speeches and ideas, not just with R.P.G.'s. The insurgency would come to look anti-democratic, which would be seen to be bad, not just anti-American, which is seen to be good.
If the Iraqis do campaign this fall, then at their rallies they will jeer at us. We will still be hated around the world. But we will have succeeded in doing what we set out to do.
And we will have learned about the irony of our situation.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 08:17:09

Suggested reading?

The Book of Job followed by Jack Miles commentary on the Book of Job.

It not sufficient to merely be powerful and it not sufficient to merely be good. We must be BOTH and being one always undermines being the other.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 08:53:03

That rugged idealism looks appealing today. We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.

I've been saying this from the beginning. This is a bigger undertaking than some in the Administration realise, but it is not the hopeless pit of despair that opponents mark it as either.

The analysis of elections as they relate to the current political climate in Iraq has merit. If we're committed to playing chess with the situation, of course.

Yet despite it's strengths, it may be over-generalizing the population. There is a fine line between getting them to come up with an idea on their own that just happens to be what we want done... and tricking them into it. Elections for the primary purpose of giving "our" Iraqis a forum to denounce us in order to win the respect of the people is straddling that line. But again, the idea has merit.

If the future textbooks of a free Iraq get written, the toppling of Saddam will be vaguely mentioned in one clause in one sentence. But the heroic Iraqi resistance against the American occupation will be lavishly described, page after page. For us to succeed in Iraq, we have to lose.

No, we simply have to leave victorious but unspoilt as conquerors. Or appear to have left. This isn't just about Iraq, there's a bigger war. If we even appear to have "lost" in Iraq, even if it is the price of achieving our goals there, we will have handed our enemies a nice little propaganda nugget that will be thrown around for years. "See, the noble Iraqi insurgents drove the infidel from their lands before the corrupted, westernized American lapdogs betrayed them." The Iraqi government will still be seen as illegitimate and America will appear unwilling to stay the course. Iraq may calm down, but other fronts will heat up.

Whatever path we take there will be bumps, holes and a few mines. We can't focus too much on the next year or the next election cycle. This war of which Iraq is but a part will have to be judged two or three decades down the line.

Nostradamus' "Seven and twenty years" sounds about right.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 09:02:00

Cobra, are you familiar with http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … lance]this book?

Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos

Robert D. Kaplan is one of my favorite foreign policy writers. I was re-reading that book last night and we have broken rule after rule and rule with how we went about the Iraq war.

“Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it,” Alexander Hamilton says, “or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.”

We can whine and cry about unfair this is, but its the truth, and we need to deal with it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 09:13:12

Quote
No, we simply have to leave victorious but unspoilt as conquerors.

Is this still feasible?

It's certainly more difficult now than it needed to be.

What is absolutely essential now is to reach a state of security and relative "normalcy" where the contact between occupying troops and Iraqi civilians becomes infrequent and more casual. In many areas we need cops, not soldiers. The US Army is not well suited to this task, the Marines even less so.

We need a situation where the Iraqi's are not sitting around saying "and then the American dogs came into my house and tore it to pieces, then left without a word. Those bastards," yet we also have to reach a point where "at least with Saddam I could walk down the streets without being robbed" isn't a common gripe

This, in my view, requires a two pronged approach. Relaxing of military presence and increased turnover to local authorities in the more pacified areas, and overwhelming force in the centers of resistance to eliminate uprisings before they can spread.

In parts of Baghdad we can dump some of the Kevlar and be more like the British. In other areas, such as Fallujah, a precisely targeted but heavy hand is needed. We absolutely should not be negotiating with Sadr and his henchmen, it helps no one but Sadr.

If we can significantly reduce our "footprint" in the less hostile areas while striking hard at the source of uprisings and protecting the basic utilities from harm we'll be doing well. If we can maximize the involvement of the local forces in those tasks, better still.

Or, we could just send some SpecOps troops in to plant that new IsRaqi flag over the buildings held by Sadr's forces. Let the Fallujites kick 'em out.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 09:29:58

We need local security. So in Fallajuh, the men who were shooting at the Marines 30 days ago are now loyal membes of the Fallajuh Brigade, and our allies.

What if Saddam were not caught yet? Who would that new Fallajuh Brigade be more loyal to?

Heavy weapons buried in Fallajuh's cemeteries were NOT turned over.

= = =

Sadr? Sistani wants us to whack Sadr to save him the trouble. What does arresting (killing) Sadr do? It removes an opponento to Sistani and his followers and reduces US credibility with the rest of the Shia, empowering Sistani.

The mainstream Shia party line? Thank you for getting rid of Saddam - - now go home. Reprise that with Sadr.

Thank you for taking out a rival, now go home.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 10:24:50

We need local security. So in Fallajuh, the men who were shooting at the Marines 30 days ago are now loyal membes of the Fallajuh Brigade, and our allies.
What if Saddam were not caught yet? Who would that new Fallajuh Brigade be more loyal to?

Local troops are less reliable, this is nothing new. They are generally not first-rate forces and sometimes are little more than a PR move. Such is the case in Iraq. If we can get Iraqis to see Iraqi troops fighting for the Coalition aligned government we have progress. Sure, we may have to kill those same Iraqi soldiers tomorrow, but if we are unwilling to exert direct power (like conquerors) than we have to rely on less direct methods. Some Iraqi troops actually support what we're doing, others fight alongside us only because they don't believe they can win against us. Fine, as long as we understand that we are not going to unleash an Iraqi army to do the work itself, but merely to be seen trying to do it.

Sadr? Sistani wants us to whack Sadr to save him the trouble. What does arresting (killing) Sadr do? It removes an opponento to Sistani and his followers and reduces US credibility with the rest of the Shia, empowering Sistani.

I was using Sadr merely as an example, but you bring up a good point. There are many factions fighting for ends we do not want, and fighting amongst themselves. If one is removed, the others become relatively stronger. But they must be dealt with.

We can either do it ourselves, or make them fight each other. If we are unwilling to preside over a civil war we must take out these factions. Otherwise, a civil war isn't such a horrible thing from a occupation administration point of view.

Hell, if it gets bad enough the Iraqis will be glad to have us fix it, just like they were as the regime toppled.

Which is another reality we need to accept. gratitude is fleeting, resentment festers.

Palomar · 2004-05-11 10:37:19

*I know this thread is a continuation of a previous one...

We've lost the war, period. IMO.

Yep, resentment festers. The prison abuse scandal grows worse. Now the Red Cross is in hot water (not sure why).

The gov't was obviously keeping the scandal from the public. Of course, eventually it would have leaked.

Where's the outrage over these pics and videos? American and British soldiers being abusive, ignoring the Geneva Convention.

People sympathetic to the abusive soldiers are already coping out with "Oh, they were just following orders." So were Hitler's willing executioners. And the Army is ordering torture and abuse on the prisoners? If so, the problem is even worse (try another cop-out, morons). No one with a conscience and backbone would follow orders to torture -- especially not while smiling and showing off for the camera. Oh, I forgot...those pics were *POSED*. Yes, of course! (like hell).

Meanwhile the outrage is limited to overseas. There was more public flack and outrage about Ted Koppel reading the names of soldiers killed in action on live TV than the abuse in the prisons.

A young gal from El Paso is coming home. Today's her 26th birthday. Or would have been...she's coming home in a coffin and was killed yesterday. Better not read her name on TV, though; might anger some folks. Meanwhile, let's just brush that abuse stuff under the rug and pretend it never happened...

Priorities, anyone?

--Cindy

P.S.: Go ahead, Cobra...tell me I'm "whining"...but this is how I feel about it.

::EDIT:: And how convenient that Bush wants an Iraqi governing body in place by June...yep, to help his re-election along. Is Iraq anywhere NEAR sustaining its own gov't? For their sake, I hope so. But yep -- civil warS are here. I think the entire nation will go down in one big many-sided civil war, we'll pull out completely and they'll be in worse shape than ever before.

::EDIT 2::
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _2]Senator Inhofe says "screw the Geneva Convention"

*Nazi soldiers brought as prisoners to this nation in WWII were given all the food they could eat, allowed to paint and play music, made to work no more than an average work day, officers were given nice and separate accommodations, on and on. I saw that on the "History Channel" just a few weeks ago. All while Japanese civilians were ordered into camps. Guess your treatment depends on your skin pigment and facial features.

Thanks, Senator Inhofe. You make me so proud. :down:

Bill White · 2004-05-11 10:45:47

Local troops are less reliable, this is nothing new.

Is the Fallujah Brigade loyal to that new blue/white flag or their Baath/Sunni tribesman?

When the Shia see the Fallujah Brigade will they willingly disband their militias?

The Kurds are merely trying to stay invisible while everyone else fights.

Months ago, I proposed partition. That may be more inevitable today unless the Iraqis unite to throw out the USA and the Brits.

Lets have elections ASAP, declare it a HUGE victory for democracy, and leave! But to do that we need to surrender control over the outcome of the eelction.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 11:05:31

P.S.: Go ahead, Cobra...tell me I'm "whining"...but this is how I feel about it.

Fair enough. Now what do you think about it?

War is filled with setbacks and it's easy to get frustrated. But we're not the only ones experiencing it, there are thousands of terrorists even more worried than we are.

Lets have elections ASAP, declare it a HUGE victory for democracy, and leave! But to do that we need to surrender control over the outcome of the eelction.

Alright. If "our" Iraqis win we're cool. If the bad guys win... we can take 'em out and start over. Or better yet, let them screw the place up even worse than it was with Saddam, then provide our guys the means to take 'em out.

Seriously, if we really wanted to we could try free elections at virtually no risk, except to our credibility. But we've already lost that, haven't we. So there's really no reason not to.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 11:14:54

Cobra, my fear is that we don't really have any "our guys" in Iraq.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 11:22:18

Cobra, my fear is that we don't really have any "our guys" in Iraq.

As I see it, the ones that just want to get on with their lives and be left alone are "our guys."

JammerG55 · 2004-05-11 11:26:57

Whats with all this "our guys" stuff ?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-10 15:23:19

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#2 2004-05-10 15:25:18

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#3 2004-05-10 15:45:50

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#4 2004-05-10 16:33:45

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#5 2004-05-10 17:04:53

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#6 2004-05-10 17:13:20

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#7 2004-05-10 18:18:27

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#8 2004-05-10 19:25:25

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#9 2004-05-10 19:33:30

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#10 2004-05-10 19:40:57

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#11 2004-05-10 19:43:48

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#12 2004-05-11 05:53:08

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#13 2004-05-11 08:11:55

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#14 2004-05-11 08:17:09

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#15 2004-05-11 08:53:03

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#16 2004-05-11 09:02:00

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#17 2004-05-11 09:13:12

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#18 2004-05-11 09:29:58

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#19 2004-05-11 10:24:50

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#20 2004-05-11 10:37:19

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#21 2004-05-11 10:45:47

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#22 2004-05-11 11:05:31

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#23 2004-05-11 11:14:54

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#24 2004-05-11 11:22:18

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#25 2004-05-11 11:26:57

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer