It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
Because phillip carter is in iraq 24\7?

No, but (1) he's spent more time there than O'Hanlon and Pollack, and has actually done so as a serving member of the military rather than a gadfly, and (2) his argument is based on the logical implications of O'Hanlon and Pollack's own argument, when placed against other assertions like those of the likely chairman of the JC.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi

This is the left leading the charge on the war in iraq. But it doesnt matter if the war is being won or lost-they would oppose it and activly undermine....

This is untrue. The hard left, which would include people like me, would be of this persuasion, but we are a small minority. Most elected Democrats to some degree object to the administration's policy, but they would not wish the US to be defeated in order to oppose it. Rather they accept the defeat, not because they like it, but because there is no alternative for them.

Anyone not knowingly helping the left is still helping unknowingly by being their dupe.

This is only true if a number of other propositions are true. Those propositions are (a) There is a reasonable prospect of winning the war; (b) Those who believe the war cannot be won are ignoring evidence which should be rationally persuasive for them; and (c) that the cause of them ignoring such evidence is the "left".

(a) is probably false. (b) is also false, since the paucity of evidence is coming from the other side. (c) is most definitely false. To believe that the radical left, which would rejoice in a US defeat has any significant influence on mainstream Democrats is fundamentally absurd, given the track record of Democratic politicians.

So they aren't dupes of some imaginary and powerful "left". They just don't believe the war can be won. That puts them with a majority of the world's population, most of whom are not radical leftists.

Let me just say that both parties are complete POSs IMO. But all this 'the war is hopeless' talk is still liberal propaganda.

Where is the evidence?

[East Street Trader]

For a long time a country which invaded and conquered another would do so intending to annex the territory - integrating the land with its own if a neighbour, creating a colony if far away.

In its short history the US has not really had time for this sort of thing and hasn't generally liked the idea. In the modern world it also seems rather old hat.

So an imposed peace in Iraq with a civil service and governance provided by the colonial power does not seem to be an option anyone considers.

Nor do I hear anyone proposing that a replacement Sadaam Husein be found to restore order in the way a dictator does - by suppressing all oposition.

Instead the idea seems to be that winning constitutes somehow facilitating a way for Iraqis to return to everyday life with functioning shops, offices, factories, courts, civil service, police etc. etc. with some benign form of government functioning. And then US troops come home.

I suppose the difference between someone who takes an optimistic view and a pessimist on this is that the optimist can imagine everything in Iraq starting to work again with a bit of assistance in money and military aid and so on whereas the pessimist thinks that even a whole lot of help with money and military aid and so on will just not get everything working that has to work.

What I imagine everyone could readily agree upon is that progress so far is very slow.

My own pessimism is based on my knowledge of the history of my own country, the UK. Looking at Iraq as it was before the invasion it looks to have reached a point aproximately equivalent to the position in the UK four or five centuries after Christ. It was more important then whether you were Christian or pagan, of Saxon origin or Danish, than whether you were English. Strong leaders could hold territory and impose peace and good governance for a time but succession to their children was hit or miss. Aggressive neighbours were a constant problem.

Now I know how long it took for the UK as it is to-day to evolve from there. It takes a long time for a sense of national identity to be born and to become strong enough to overide tribal or religious loyalties. It took us a very long time to develop politically neutral police forces and armed forces. It was hundreds of years before our judiciary stopped being lions under the throne.

Of course the modern world is different from the world in which the institutions which support my own country's ability to achieve peace and stability grew up. I would be ready to believe that in the modern world the process could be quicker.

But I doubt that hundreds of years can be compressed into periods measured in less than decades.

And plenty of those, at that.

Whether the US has the stomache for such a long haul I don't now. From what is being said - across the full range of the political spectrum - the answer would seem most likely to be that it hasn't.

[Kuciwalker]

For a long time a country which invaded and conquered another would do so intending to annex the territory - integrating the land with its own if a neighbour, creating a colony if far away.

In its short history the US has not really had time for this sort of thing and hasn't generally liked the idea. In the modern world it also seems rather old hat.

Er, Mexican-American War anyone?

[Patroklos]

assertions like those of the likely chairman of the JC.

As I already stated would happen, you guys are misquoting or quoting Mullen out of context.

I dare you to

a.) ready/listen to everything he said.

b.) show your head in this thread once you do, with the hack job you just posted hanging over your head..

Note I did not quote only portionss of the article in the OP but the whole thing, including all the portions that put the seemingly good news as face value as merely a glimmer of hope for future good news.

That’s the sad thing about the criticism of it. It is not really a stellar appraisal of the situation, but even the thought that something other than Armageddon is occurring over there gets the usual panties in a twist.

In this case Wezil, given the source of the spin, the left

[Patroklos]

Er, Mexican-American War anyone?

Spanish American War?

[East Street Trader]

How do you see the situation in Iraq playing out, Patroklos?

[Patroklos]

Ha, my favorite part of the rebuttal besides the Mullen shaddiness.

Neither O'Hanlon and Pollack nor conservative scholars like Fred Kagan, the intellectual architect of the current surge, spend nearly enough time in Iraq to understand its shifting, uncertain realities.

So it looks like the soldiers opinions it is, and what do most of them say?

[Patroklos]

How do you see the situation in Iraq playing out, Patroklos?

I see about another two years of training the Iraqi police and army, with phased turnover of territory as is happening now. Eventually both of those forces will reach a critical mass. And that doesn’t mean a pull out in two years. I see another year or two of us sitting in our FOBs and other bases to continue training major training and be the big brother down the hall. After that reduce our presence to only advisors/low order training functions.

This has always been my benchmark for success, the rest will follow. Disbanding the Iraqi Army was the worst mistake made in this war, and the one from which most of the other problems can be traced to.

In any case if the various ethnic groups are going to ever got along, they need to start doing it on the security front first. How can you expect them to solve the bigger political problems without getting along on such basic things as security? A functioning Army/police force will do this, because as we seen the only area where the different ethnicities seem to be able to put their differences aside is in those organizations.

And don't be fooled by the "lack of progress" constantly thrown out there by the hacks. Why would anyone expect us to be able to build a several hundred thousand man army from scratch, able to operate in one of the most dangerous places in the world, and armed to at least an Eastern Block satellite level in three years is beyond me. If you set impossible goals don't be surprised if they are not met. This goes for both sides over here in the US.

I am not surprised at how long this is taking. I did not expect so much sectarian violence against civilians to be sure, but I expected whatever did materialize to last at least this long. And that is the source of the problem, perception. IMO people these days have no concept of what a realistic timeline for something of this magnitude should be. Just stop and think for a second on the scale of this project.

And as for the political goals, with the exception of oil revenue sharing I think too much emphasis is put on them. For the average Iraqi the constitutional makeup of the government means nothing. What they need is government services. Hell, even in America supposedly major laws/policies rarely have any direct effect on me. Iraqis want a functioning police force, banking system, water/electricity grid, etc. Basically the things that let them have normalcy. How may years did it take us to write our Constitution. Hell, we completely scrapped our system of government once. It took us 11 years.

[Arrian]

It is however true of some people, namely me. But while my opinion might be somewhat represented outside the USA, I doubt that many American commentators would support it.

Agathon,

Well duh. I know your feelings on the matter. I was, however, speaking as an American to another American who likes to accuse his countrymen of (essentially) being traitors. Commies from New Zealand are another thing entirely.

-Arrian

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Ha, my favorite part of the rebuttal besides the Mullen shaddiness.



So it looks like the soldiers opinions it is, and what do most of them say?

Fine.

Grunts: "The US needs to stay until we finish the job."

O'Hanlon and Pollack (and Mullen and Carter): "Finishing the job -- i.e., anything like a victory in Iraq -- would require maintaining current troop levels for years to come."

The Pentagon: "The military will be stretched to its breaking point sometime in the next year; we cannot maintain current troop levels in Iraq."

So: Victory (or at least not utter defeat) in Iraq is possible, but only under conditions which the Pentagon itself acknowledges are impossible.

A possible victory predicated on an impossible condition is, by definition, impossible. Do you really not get that?

[Patroklos]

"The military will be stretched to its breaking point sometime in the next year; we cannot maintain current troop levels in Iraq."

I want you to find me where they say just that, and quantify what that means.

The second part is much more important.

[MOBIUS]

The war shouldn't have happened in the first place. As I said.
Then they ****ed up the 'peace' in every way imaginable. As I warned.
Now the US is finally waking up to making an effort to do something other than use brute force and firepower with something approaching a decent level of manpower. As I kept saying to do.

Is it too late? Probably.
Do I want them to fail? Not in the slightest.
Do I feel justified in saying "I told you so!"? Most definitely!

[Patroklos]

Now the US is finally waking up to making an effort to do something other than use brute force and firepower with something approaching a decent level of manpower. As I kept saying to do.

Excuse me?

[East Street Trader]

It is charming to imagine a police force and army cohesive and high minded enough to maintain order in the midst of what is otherwise a political vacuum (after US withdrawal).