Author Topic: The Beltway Retreat  (Read 6922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The Beltway Retreat
« on: October 26, 2006, 11:57:26 AM »
The Beltway Retreat
The insurgents are hitting their targets--in Washington.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006


We need to be realist but not defeatist. We need to understand that there is a need of utmost urgency to deal with many of the problems of Iraq but we must not give in to panic.  So said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih on Monday, in a BBC interview while in London for talks with Tony Blair. If only such statesmanship prevailed on this side of the Atlantic, where election politics and a spate of critical new books have combined to paint an increasingly desperate--and false--picture of what's happening in Iraq.

As the critics describe it, all of Iraq is in chaos, its new government isn't functioning, the U.S. is helpless to act against these inexorable forces, and it is only a matter of time before we must pack up and leave in abject defeat. "We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working," declares Senator Lindsey Graham, in one of the purer expressions of this elite inconstancy. Just what Mr. Graham would do about this, he doesn't say; but in the land of blind panic, the sound-bite Senator is king.

Yes, the Iraq project is difficult, and its outcome dangerously uncertain. The Bush Administration and its military generals have so far failed to stem insurgent attacks or pacify Baghdad, and the factions comprising Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government have so far failed to make essential political compromises. But the American response to this should be to change military tactics or deployments until they do succeed, and to reassure Iraqi leaders that their hard political choices will result in U.S. support, not precipitous withdrawal.

The current American panic, by contrast, is precisely what the insurgents intend with their surge of October violence. The Baathists and Sadrists can read the U.S. political calendar, and they'd like nothing better than to feed the perception that the violence is intractable. They want our election to be perceived as a referendum on Iraq that will speed the pace of American withdrawal.
The Bush Administration hasn't helped matters of late with its own appearance of indecision, asserting on one day that we must avoid "cut-and-run" while leaking on another that the forthcoming Baker-Hamilton report might be an opportunity for a strategic retreat. President Bush has sounded resolute himself, but many of his own advisers seem to be well along in their own electoral run for cover.

A measure of rationality at least came yesterday out of Baghdad, where General George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad tried to put the violence in some larger context. The Iraq government is in fact "functioning," as Iraqis continue to get their food rations, and as more than a million civil servants, Iraqi security force members and teachers continue to show up for work every day and get paid. Just this weekend, Iraq's oil minister announced that production had surpassed pre-war levels.

"Economically, I see an Iraq every day that I do not think the American people know about--where cell phones and satellite dishes, once forbidden, are now common, where economic reform takes place on a regular basis, where agricultural production is rising dramatically, and where the overall economy and the consumer sector is growing," said Mr. Khalilzad, who for this attempt at hopeful realism will be derided in some quarters as a Pollyanna.

As for security, two provinces have already been turned over entirely to the control of Iraqi forces, with a total of six or seven scheduled to be under Iraqi control by January. While the police forces remain unreliable, the Iraqi army is making notable progress. The joint Iraqi-U.S. operation to make Baghdad safe hasn't succeeded so far, but Iraqis we talk to say the situation in many specific neighborhoods of the capital has been vastly improved.

And while every terrorist success is broadcast far and wide, acts of bravery by Iraqi forces go unheralded. Only 10 days ago, insurgents staged a huge attack on government and police offices in Mosul, but it was successfully repulsed by Iraqi forces. Dozens of insurgents were killed or captured, and one heroic Iraqi police officer gave his life successfully defending others against a suicide truck bomber.

The truth is that the Sunni insurgents are still capable only of hit-and-run attacks, are slaughtered whenever they gather en masse, and have held down no permanent territory since Fallujah was cleaned out in late 2004. Nor have they been successful in their other goal of keeping their fellow Sunnis out of the political process. Sunnis continue to sit in the current government and parliament, despite being labelled "collaborators" and marked for death.

As General Casey observed yesterday, "we've seen the nature of the conflict evolving from what was an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis." One of the main challenges now is to reassure the Sunnis that it is safe to compromise with Shiite and Kurdish leaders on issues such as the distribution of oil revenue and the shape of Iraqi federalism. Mr. Maliki must also demobilize--or at least neutralize--the militias that grew in his own Shiite community in response to Sunni violence.

But the political truth is that none of this will happen any sooner if Americans look like they are heading for the exits. Timetables and deadlines may sound like realpolitik, but they only feed suspicions that the U.S. will abandon Iraq's leaders once they have walked out onto a political limb. Iraq is not yet in a state of "civil war," and it has a functioning, if imperfect, government. If changes of tactics or force levels are needed, by all means make them. But what Iraqis most need from Washington is reassurance of support for the tough decisions and battles that lie ahead.


http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009147
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2006, 01:36:46 PM »
<<The truth is that the Sunni insurgents are still capable only of hit-and-run attacks, are slaughtered whenever they gather en masse, and have held down no permanent territory since Fallujah was cleaned out in late 2004. >>

Funny, but that was the exact same argument I heard after the end of the Tet offensive.  As if it never occurred to these morons that the insurgents fight on their terms, not the U.S. government's.  OF COURSE they don't "hold down permanent territory" or "gather en masse."  What kind of fucking idiots would they have to be to do either, when the U.S. is the sole possessor of air power in the conflict?  They strike, they disperse, they hide.  They can do it over and over again, and as many as the U.S. can kill, more will rise up from the population.  That's because they live there, because it's their country.  They can keep this up for a long time.  The U.S. can't.  So everybody knows that the U.S. sooner or later will leave.  The insurgents?  They aren't going anywhere.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2006, 02:24:37 PM »
Quote
The insurgents?  They aren't going anywhere.

The US will leave, but then the insurgents will have to deal with the Iraqi government and their proxies.

Oh, wait that is happening already.


_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2006, 02:27:21 PM »
Quote
I see an Iraq every day that I do not think the American people know about--where cell phones and satellite dishes, once forbidden, are now common

The Trades Union Congress in the United Kingdom did a superb job of gathering used cell phones and delivering them to newly formed Trades Unions in Iraq, along with help in constructing their unions (which were also illegal). I think that is an excellent example of working towards the common good of the average Iraqi citizen. The TUC really has done a great job working in Iraq as best as they can.

Quote
OF COURSE they don't "hold down permanent territory" or "gather en masse."  What kind of fucking idiots would they have to be to do either

I'm going to have to agree with Mike on this one. That isn't taking place because they have been defeated, but because they know how to fight a guerilla war. Permanent territory and gathering en masse is useless in guerilla warfare. As for "civil war," it just depends upon your definition of the term.

I do agree that our drive to leave Iraq tends to leave Iraq's leaders necks exposed, yet I believe we've never really committed to the effort.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2006, 03:08:48 PM »
<<The US will leave, but then the insurgents will have to deal with the Iraqi government and their proxies.

<<Oh, wait that is happening already. >>

Only in your bullshit world of fantasy.  Sorta like the Viet Cong were supposedly having to deal with the  South Vietnamese government.  Problem, there wasn't any "South Vietnamese" government (there wasn't even any "South Viet Nam," but that's another story) and there isn't any "Iraqi government" either, just a collection of treasonous collaborationist puppets who will melt away in a relatively short span of time if their U.S. military support is pulled out from under them.  As is bound to happen in due course, after a few thousand more U.S. troops have made the trip back home in body bags and a few hundred thousand more Iraqis bite the dust for the sake of "democracy."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2006, 09:46:15 PM »
Quote
Problem, there wasn't any "South Vietnamese" government (there wasn't even any "South Viet Nam," but that's another story) and there isn't any "Iraqi government" either, just a collection of treasonous collaborationist puppets who will melt away in a relatively short span of time if their U.S. military support is pulled out from under them.  As is bound to happen in due course, after a few thousand more U.S. troops have made the trip back home in body bags and a few hundred thousand more Iraqis bite the dust for the sake of "democracy."

So the millions who risked life and limb to vote were just puppets to their US masters?


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2006, 10:42:50 PM »
<<So the millions who risked life and limb to vote were just puppets to their US masters?>>

You just don't get it, do you?  The puppets are the hand-picked candidates the Iraqis were allowed to vote for.  No Ba'athists and no pro-Iranian extremists and nobody on the American shit-list.   The people, once they finish the one-day charade of waving their ink-stained fingers around for the photographers to record, go back to having no say whatever in the fate of their country. 

The voters were basically divided into (a) suckers and (b) people who were afraid to stay away from the polls and get their name on a occupation army's list of people who boycotted the vote in obedience to the call of the Resistance.  I'm sure they knew all about Abu Ghraib and what the Americans could do to them once they got them inside, long before the MSM got hold of the story thorugh Seymour Hersh's digging.

Typical of you to think a real democracy can be built on a foundation of armed invasion, military occupation, abductions without warrant, torture in secret prisons, extrajudicial assassinations and murders and a constant barrage of incessant lying and bullshit.  Was that how you built your democracy?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2006, 11:29:53 PM »
Quote
(B) people who were afraid to stay away from the polls and get their name on a occupation army's list of people who boycotted the vote in obedience to the call of the Resistance.

See this is where you quit making sense. Shouldn't  the b group belong with the a group as certainly they were more afraid of the weaker choice. The resistance is kicking uncle sams ass right?
,

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2006, 08:34:25 AM »
<<See this is where you quit making sense. Shouldn't  the b group belong with the a group as certainly they were more afraid of the weaker choice. The resistance is kicking uncle sams ass right?>>

No this is where you need to get back to the real world.  Look at the numbers for example.  Something Republicans hate to do.  Kicking ass does not mean a superior kill ratio.  Think Viet Nam:  The Vietnamese kicked Uncle Sam's ass but the cost was something like two to three million dead Vietnamese versus only 57,000 dead Americans.  Kicking ass does not equate to better survival odds in everybody's math.  Americans in general are gutless, cowardly killers whose preferred form of warfare is from 10,000 feet or from inside 40 lbs. of body armour, and who will abandon any struggle at casualty rates that are ludicrously low compared to what their enemies will tolerate.  So I suppose it is natural for you, coming from the culture you come from, to figure that kicking ass is synonymous with extremely low risk of death.  The Resistance kicks ass but at a great cost in human life.

The Resistance is kicking Uncle Sam's ass, alright, but only because Uncle Sam is a chickenshit coward.  His casualties measured against the "enemy" casualties are minimal.  In this conflict, almost 3,000 Americans have died.  On the other side, about 600,000 Iraqis.  Still the Iraqis will win because they can take their casualties and the Americans can't take theirs.  But as heroic as the Iraqi Resistance is, this does not mean that the Iraqi people are suicidal.  They know what it is to get on a shit-list and they know what the Americans can do to you once they get you inside the walls of Abu Ghraib.  Not voting was not an option for some Iraqis who weighed the consequences of voting or not.  Each family made its choice.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2006, 02:34:31 PM »
The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of those 600k who were killed were not killed by US personnel. They were killed by people who didn't like the way they voted or what sect they belonged to or where they worked. So the insurgents seem to be more effective in wiping out the opposition, which means not voting and risking pissing off the americans vs pissing off the native iraqi's would have been the smarter course. Which places them clearly in the sucker column.

or is there a twist to your "logic" i seem to be missing.


Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2006, 05:15:58 PM »
The problem with your logic BT is that those 600,000 people would probably still be alive (definitely not killed by violence) if the US hadn't invaded Iraq illegally.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2006, 05:22:37 PM »
The problem with your logic BT is that those 600,000 people would probably still be alive (definitely not killed by violence) if the US hadn't invaded Iraq illegally.




They would mostly still be alive if we were to have our way .

But as MT points out getting the political result you want is more important than staying  alive or keeping third partys alive.

We will have to grow the kind of guts our opponents have if we want to win , the kind of guts that hears of very high colateral damage and just shrugs.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2006, 09:39:04 PM »
<<The problem with your logic is that the vast majority of those 600k who were killed were not killed by US personnel. They were killed by people who didn't like the way they voted or what sect they belonged to or where they worked. >>

That is not established at all.  We have absolutely no way of dividing up the 600,000 dead into neat little piles labelled "killed by US airpower," "killed by US ground forces," "killed by US black ops," "killed by SCIRI forces," "killed by Sunni Ba'athists," "killed by foreign Arabs," "killed by Iranian agents," "killed by Mahdi Army," "killed in internal strife between members of same organization," "killed in armed robbery," or even "killed in highway traffic accident."

You don't know and I don't know who killed who, only in a war where one side uses WP and cluster bombs in heavily populated civilian areas, I would tend to think that a lot more Iraqi civilians were killed by US forces than the US wants to take credit for.

In any event, the legitimate government of Baghdad was keeping order and whatever killings were going on in Saddam's prisons and torture chambers were probably (a) less than what is going on today in American prisons and torture chambers and (b) in any event no match for the absolute carnage taking place in three-cornered fight between Shi'a, Sunni and invaders.  So as Brass pointed out, ALL of the carnage is correctly laid at America's doorstep.

However, even usuing your "logic," you failed to consider the religious divide in terms of voters and boycotters.  It is the Sunnis who boycott, the Shi'ites who vote.  The Shi'ites, who control the Interior Ministry and the police and militias, are in a much better position than the Sunni to compile lists based on voting attendance and to punish the transgressors, in their eyes, the ones who stay home on voting day.  The Sunni, whose main killing tactic seems to be suicide bombs in crowded marketplaces, kill much more randomly - - any Shi'ite, Kurd or Christian will do for their purposes.
So the insurgents seem to be more effective in wiping out the opposition, which means not voting and risking pissing off the americans vs pissing off the native iraqi's would have been the smarter course. Which places them clearly in the sucker column.  So if I were a survival-minded Iraqi, I would have to think: stay home on voting day and be targeted by the Interior Ministry and/or Shi'ite militia or police?  or vote, which keeps the Shi'a off my back and take my chances every time I leave the house on a random Sunni bombing?  No brainer:  they're always gonna be exposed to the random bombing of the Iraqi Resistance, but they'll only be targeted by the Shi'a if they don't vote.

<<or is there a twist to your "logic" i seem to be missing. >>

Your problem is that you think very simplistically without analyzing; the problems are fairly complex but your approach is uniformly simplistic.  I think if you first of all just realized you are dealing with a complex situation, take a little more time to analyze it and then offer an opinion, you'll be wrong less often.  Also, you seem to have taken a pathological desire to contradict anything and everything that I say.  Since I'm right about 99% of the time, as long as you jump in without reflection, you are going to be wrong about 99% of the time.  It's not about missing a "twist" in my logic.  It's more about you failing to make a sophisticated enough analysis in the first place.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2006, 09:58:59 PM by Michael Tee »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2006, 10:20:25 PM »
Quote
That is not established at all.  We have absolutely no way of dividing up the 600,000 dead into neat little piles labelled "killed by US airpower," "killed by US ground forces," "killed by US black ops," "killed by SCIRI forces," "killed by Sunni Ba'athists," "killed by foreign Arabs," "killed by Iranian agents," "killed by Mahdi Army," "killed in internal strife between members of same organization," "killed in armed robbery," or even "killed in highway traffic accident."

So the Lancet II report is guilty of making false assumptions that those 600k deaths were adirect result of US intervention?


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Beltway Retreat
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2006, 11:16:34 PM »
Quote
That is not established at all.  We have absolutely no way of dividing up the 600,000 dead into neat little piles labelled "killed by US airpower," "killed by US ground forces," "killed by US black ops," "killed by SCIRI forces," "killed by Sunni Ba'athists," "killed by foreign Arabs," "killed by Iranian agents," "killed by Mahdi Army," "killed in internal strife between members of same organization," "killed in armed robbery," or even "killed in highway traffic accident."

So the Lancet II report is guilty of making false assumptions that those 600k deaths were adirect result of US intervention?



It may be that it is, Iran is a very simular country with a very simular death rate even though it has not yet been invaded.