Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez So the left finds some reporters excessively optimistic on the surge's success.

Not just 'some' reporters, rm. William Kristol's 'Weekly Standard' is the magazine of record for the Neo-Cons and the PNAC.

You know... the very people who most ardently promoted and justified the war in the first place.


.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart 1 I don't think bin Laden was trying to provoke us into attacking Iraq. We did that for our own purposes... it just played perfectly into al-Qaeda's scheme by embedding us even deeper into a Mideast quagmire, but now defending ourselves on two fronts. No, I've always maintained that we invaded Afghanistan - which I supported, by the way - because of bin Laden, but we invaded Iraq as a Neo-Con demonstration of our post-Cold War super power, with the goal of ridding ourselves of an irritating nuisance while simultaneously intimidating the rest of the Muslim Mideast into submission and the returning to the peaceful production of cheap oil. 2 That doesn't sound cunning to you? The mujahadeen used OUR aid to defeat the Soviets, and then turn around and use RUSSIA'S aid to defeat us. That's not only cunning, it's downright poetic. 3 Leading to nowhere only if you support the losing side. History is what it is, and the war in Iraq has been what it is... a giant clusterfuque, started for reasons that didn't exist, misled and mishandled in every way possible, at huge expense in blood, treasure and international respect, and from which we may just manage to extricate ourselves with some semblance of face... although I doubt it.

#1
You are most likely correct.
There is a chance to re-build U.S. economy, still, especially while the source of energy is crucial element within it. "Enron" appeared to become a total fiasco and/or failure enterprise, and time was running out against U.S.

#2
I am not familiar the level Russia's intelligence provided O.bin-Laden with.
However, it was good enough O.bin-Laden to avoid U.S. surveillance.

#3
I wish U.S. did "this" instead of "that".
We all learn, and history is one of the best teachers.

[rmnunez]

invaded Iraq as a Neo-Con demonstration of our post-Cold War super power, with the goal of ridding ourselves of an irritating nuisance while simultaneously intimidating the rest of the Muslim Mideast into submission and the returning to the peaceful production of cheap oil.

That's generally true, though I'd prefer "encouraging democratic representative government" rather than "intimidating Muslims into submission".

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez That's generally true, though I'd prefer "encouraging democratic representative government" rather than "intimidating Muslims into submission".

That might seem remotely believable if our closest allies in the Mideast, after Israel, weren't Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Pakistan, none of whom strike me as "democratic representative governments".

.

[rmnunez]

Sonart can you name a single Muslim "democratic representative government"? One that isn't just "technically" or "formally" such? If the US is to have relations in the Middle East, in addition to those with Israel, these will have to be with undemocratic and unrepresentative rulers.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Sonart can you name a single Muslim "democratic representative government"? One that isn't just "technically" or "formally" such?

No a one, rm... which is exactly why I consider it being gratuitously kind to ourselves to suggest that, when we don't even push our allies on the matter, we invaded Iraq to "encourage democratic representative government" rather than to intimidate our regional enemies through a demonstration of power.

There's folks on this board who keep repeating, "All they understand is strength". Well apparently that's what the Bush League NeoCons believed as well.

.

[rmnunez]

I find the absence of democracy or representativeness in governments of the region excuses having relations with the ruling regimes and justifies seeking to establish a more democratic and representative system there.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I find the absence of democracy or representativeness in governments of the region excuses having relations with the ruling regimes and justifies seeking to establish a more democratic and representative system there.

How is state militarism going to improve
international relations? I don't see that happening.
I have no doubt that militarism is stifling peace.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

I don't know what you mean by "state militarism".

I was refuting the implication that since the US has relations with undemocratic and/or unrepresentative regimes in the region, their claim they sought to establish a democratic and representative government in Iraq is not credible.

I don't think any Muslim government is democratic or representative, there are a few nominally democratic Muslim governments, but when you look closer they've got big problems with politcal repression, censorship and often rather intolerant clerical involvement.

I think the argument democratic or representative governments cannot be imposed by force is flawed. I know this was done quite successfully with Germany. I've heard the Muslims have a radically different outlook and culture completely alien of democratic values, but this wasn't a problem when democracy was "imposed" on Japan either. So I don't think cutomary rule by tyrants or a fundamentalist worldview are obstacles to democracy -backed by force.

But forcibly imposed democracy must be 'adopted' by its subjects and this depends on only whether it appears to deliver better. Democracy carries with it accountability and this always leads to better government. A democratic and representative government has been imposed in Iraq, if representatives are held accountable, the Iraqis will find the system worthy of support and it will succeed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't know what you mean by "state militarism". I was refuting the implication that since the US has relations with undemocratic and/or unrepresentative regimes in the region, their claim they sought to establish a democratic and representative government in Iraq is not credible.

You can't logically deduce what "state militarism" means? Interesting.

Anyway, a government that supports "undemocratic and/or unrepresentative regimes" is not particularly democratic, or otherwise credible.

More generally, it hardly makes sense to talk about credibility if one just accepts US government propaganda, or any propaganda from any government. Credibility comes from critical analysis, skepticism and basic empirical observation, not by copout arguments such as "It's the lesser of two evils".
Obviously, we shouldn't support any evils, especially in the name of something good and pure.

For obvious reasons, some Iraqis feel the government in Iraq is not credible. Some probably wonder if it should even be called "The government of Iraq," and not "the government
of the United States and the United Kingdom." Until these two historical superpowers are no longer present,
it's akin to a joke to say Iraqis will be separate and virtually autonomous from them.

Stories like this also undermine US credibility, at least in my view:
US plans case against AP photographer - Yahoo! News

The U.S. military says it will turn over an award-winning Associated Press photographer to an Iraqi court, accusing him of having links to terrorist groups. The military is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented, and an AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.

Furthermore, one could extend the argument about autonomy and credibility to the clash between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. So long as the conflict goes on, neither party can be independent in any meaningful sense.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

You can't logically deduce what "state militarism" means? Interesting.

I know what it means, its a broad and ambiguous term, I wanted to know what you meant by it, in the context of international relations or foreign policy implementation.

The "lesser of two evils" is a poor way to characterize the policy choice to support a tyrant, which again is an ambiguous and even time-sensitive term. The alternative is also an entirely subjective idealized notion.

a government that supports "undemocratic and/or unrepresentative regimes" is not particularly democratic, or otherwise credible.

I disagree, governments deal with each other as they come, just like people. There are kind ones who are polite, team-players, friends, ones who help out, some particularly admired or respected. Governments are also like people in that some cheat, lie and steal, they deceive, form groups, bully and push each other around too. Governments deal with what's on the scene.

I appreciate the modellic vaue of a congruent foreign policy and domestic regime. If democracy is an aim in US foreign policy, we ought to find it amply evident in its own government.

Credibility does come from those things you mention, and these indicate objective gains on the ground in Iraq despite the naysaying generals.

[rmnunez]

Notice the trend:

• Feb-07 -3,019
• Mar-07 -2,977
• Apr-07 -1,821
• May-07 -1,980
• Jun-07 -1,345
• Jul-07 -1,690
• Aug-07 -1,674
• Sep-07 -848
• Oct-07 -679
• Nov-07 -377

(a 90% drop in 10 months)

Next month its likely any major US metropolitan area will have a higher rate of criminal fatalities than Baghdad

[thx1138]

Quote by: rmnunez Notice the trend: Feb-07 -3,019 Mar-07 -2,977 Apr-07 -1,821 May-07 -1,980 Jun-07 -1,345 Jul-07 -1,690 Aug-07 -1,674 Sep-07 -848 Oct-07 -679 Nov-07 -377 (a 90% drop in 10 months) Next month its likely any major US metropolitan area will have a higher rate of criminal fatalities than Baghdad

So this means the US will have to keep more forces in Iraq for a longer time. This is not good news you're showing it's the opposite, it means the US forces are stuck there. Bigger drain on the military and the tax payer, unless this was the plan all along. Why else would 14 permanent bases be built if the plan was to leave? And where are the extra troop going to come from to keep up this level in Iraq?

What do you think... the draft, private contractors, non-citizens fast tracked into the militiary with hopes of becoming citizens, from forces in Germany and Japan, or will another country like Turkey be asked to help, or even the U.N. troops?
How is it going to be done? recruitment is at a low and I don't think people will be lining up to be sent to Iraq anytime soon. Afghanistan is going to be drawing more forces also were will they come from?

[rmnunez]

So this means the US will have to keep more forces in Iraq for a longer time. This is not good news you're showing it's the opposite, it means the US forces are stuck there.

No, if the abatement of insurgency and terrorism holds, this means exactly the opposite -that the US will be able to start drawing down deployments in Iraq, doesn't need as many.

Its an evolving situation, the diminution in insurgency or terrorism is supposed to encourage encourage political reconciliation. This in turn, when among leading figures in Baghdad, is expected to lead the government there to accomplish some things that have been delayed, like the deployment of an adequate police force. If leaders in the Iraqi government reconcile political differences and work together on some of the more urgent things, they might get that police force out there before beaten-back insurgents or terrorists resurge.

A complete withdrawal is not part of the successful accomplishment of the mission in Iraq. Those bases, in whatever number, are intended for long-term US military use in its global efforts to erradicate international terrorism.

[rmnunez]

Shift in 'tone' on Iraq among critics of the war:

Advisers to Senators Clinton and Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains.

Moronic to deny the gains, recognize them and lets consider how this can be built upon.

(T)he changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war (a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters) they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

Yes, if the trend continues, in two or three months those critics are going to be looking rather foolish.

Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq —a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

That shift in tone is the best indication to me that things are actually improving in Iraq.

This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground —a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace. As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts - New York Times

Why wouldn't Democrats want to acknowledge the surge has had some success when it really has? They would do better to ditch the campaign strategy of merely opposing everything Bush does. Candidates ought to be propositive rather than just antagonists of whatever 'the establishment' has.

[rmnunez]

Whatever the surge has accomplished, it is less than the “political reconciliation” sought. But I remarked on the ambiguities of this 'mission' for the surge when announced. Reconciliation is an eminently personal decision and thus likely to be induced by different things in different people. Political reconciliation seems even more ambiguous, but its supposed to be among legislators in Baghdad.

Political reconciliation is sought to induce the reconciling to work together on those benchmarks their counterparts in the US demand be met. The surge in effect took place, about 30 thousand reinforcements were sent, this pushed back the insurgency or terrorism, reducing attacks and casualties. The breathing room thus generated has induced political reconciliation among tribal lords in the hinterlands and this has facilitated Al Qaeda erradication, but its not evident in Baghdad yet.

I think it will take longer in Baghdad because its more diverse, there are so many people, lots of artificial barriers, plenty of strangers. I also think the political reconciliation among central goverment figures will depend on their relationship with any insurgency or terrorist groups. It makes sense to anticipate anyone with ties to such groups would want to verify the surge's impact, confirm his guys got pushed back, check and see what the damage was like, try and figure how bad his rivals had been hit. He'd need to know this before making any reconciliation move.

Surge ---> Breathing Room ---> Political Reconciliation ---> Benchmarks

Its a sequence of events the surge was aimed at setting into motion. The reinforcements did succeed, this was a well-executed and successful military strategy. Large areas have been completely cleared of insurgents or terrorists, locals feel empowered and are made stakeholders with official support, reconstruction needs to follow, but we want to see if the situation holds -if it does, then we should see some political reconciliation and this in turn will lead to those benchmarks being met.

[thx1138]

No, if the abatement of insurgency and terrorism holds, this means exactly the opposite -that the US will be able to start drawing down deployments in Iraq, doesn't need as many.

Maybe they're just waiting. Once US forces start drawing down the attacks will go up... just like a cat and mouse game.

With the bases in Iraq... How would the early United States of America feel about the French Army staying in the US after the British were defeated and building bases?

Will the Iraqi Government be free to make it's own decisions?
And what if one of the decisions is to remove the US bases?

This happened in France after WWII, the US had bases in France, but the French government voted for them to be removed. And if a puppet government is placed in Iraq isn't that really what this war was about.

[rmnunez]

There are plenty of places where the US has bases and whose independence is not in question. The US has influence, but its not like Japan, South Korea, Germany, all those NATO members and others are all puppet regimes. The local military gets technology and training, they may have neighboring rivals who will be cautioned against an attack which could provoke the US forces at the bases. The US leases the bases and those arrangements are profitable to the host government, bases also have ancillary benefits for neighboring communities.

The US could have several important bases in Iraq without denying its government an iota of legitimacy. The US doesn't have foreign military bases on its soil, but lots of other countries do and its not just third-worlders, nor only in those countries.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I know what it means, its a broad and ambiguous term, I wanted to know what you meant by it, in the context of international relations or foreign policy implementation. The "lesser of two evils" is a poor way to characterize the policy choice to support a tyrant, which again is an ambiguous and even time-sensitive term.

The term "lesser of two evils" is used by war-supporters as well... it's hardly just my term.
It is not instantly inappropriate, unless it is hard to determine who the "lesser" evil is.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez There are plenty of places where the US has bases and whose independence is not in question. The US has influence, but its not like Japan, South Korea, Germany, all those NATO members and others are all puppet regimes.

Independence can always be up to debate, even if we take something moderate like Beijing's communications satellites over South Africa and Brazil. Is the presence of a given person or entity benign or is it somehow threatening independence (however defined). It's probably a more pertinent question when it comes to an actual military presence, or the existence of "puppet regimes." For example, many consider Musharraf to be "Bush's
Pakistani puppet," and it's not entirely without reason.

The US and its puppets become even less trustworthy when they don't provide evidence for their claims. For example:

Iraqi Shiite leader defends Iran - Yahoo! News BAGHDAD - Iraq's most influential Shiite politician said Sunday that the U.S had not backed up claims that Iran is fueling violence here, underscoring a wide gap on the issue between Washington and the Shiite-led Baghdad government. .

Meanwhile...

A draft bill to ease curbs on ex-Saddam Hussein loyalists in government services also drew sharp criticism from Shiite lawmakers, opening old wounds at a time when the United States is pressing the Iraqis for compromise for the sake of national unity.

Grandpa h.