DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on December 20, 2006, 01:33:22 PM
-
In asking this question, the companion to the one asked Democrats in which Brass shone so well, I am looking for a realistic assessment of the situation, a clear definition of "victory," an estimation of costs, and a clear projection that in the end we would be better off pursuing "victory" than we would be instituting a policy of withdrawal and developing and implementing an alternate strategy to win the overall conflict with violent, radical Islam.
-
I guess I won't bother with one of my "inane" responses.
-
What if you're not a Republican? ??? Are we not allowed to participate?
-
Anyone can answer though the question's directed to Republicans. Here's your chance too present your case, inane or not, which it will be your burden to defend.
-
Define "victory"
My answer would be yes, which will be fully fleshed out at a later opportunity, qualified by your definition.
-
By "your" definition, as I stated. My definition is quite broad; it can tolerate a "loss" in Iraq -- withdrawal with unknown short-term ramifications -- if we can prevail in the long run over violent, radical Islamicists. I've explained this all before, perhaps ad nauseam: my position (or positions) are not a secret.
-
Here's a "fresh" rendition of some of my thoughts: I hope a true WORKABLE policy emerges from this process, one that a meaningful consensus can embrace. The truth is, though, I don't think Bush is up to making and sustaining such a decision, one that ostensibly would require him to "change his stripes." Voices from many quarters are counseling regional talks, with Syria and Iran included, but Bush has rejected the idea unless those two countries meet preconditions. I think that is folly, and it reflects not a mature, wise judgment on the administration's part, but continuation of a (failed) anti-diplomacy stance, or, at least, a policy orientation favoring confrontation ("bring it on") over the arts of diplomacy and statesmanship. Indeed, my view is that conceived properly, the struggle with violent, radical Islam should be waged as a broad-front cultural (public relations/political) effort to influence the entire Muslim world to undergo their own renaissance with the result being an Islamic culture inhospitable to the radicals. I have seen none of this from Bush, or, more accurately, nothing on the scope or effectiveness needed. Iraq is just part of the picture, to my mind, a battle but not the war itself. Tactical concessions in Iraq, even to the point of a wisely-staged withdrawal, are not incompatible with success in the overall conflict. On the other hand, Iraq is critical in the sense of dictating, to some degree, the very character of the struggle herein out. Given the realities of the situation, which are paramount, a successful outcome, that is, one that is optimal to our interests and the legitimate interests of all others with sympathetic values, broadly defined, will greatly aid our struggle going forward, which may last decades upon decades.
-
Victory as defined by me would be a dismantling of the Saddam regime, already done, and the installation of a democratically elected Iraqi government capable of administering the country's affairs, in all that that entails.... partially done.
-
You keep saying that the US need to talk to Iran and Syria.
Fact is the Iraqi government needs to talk to them, if they see the need, as they are the ones being interfered with. .
-
Voices from many quarters are counseling regional talks, with Syria and Iran included, but Bush has rejected the idea unless those two countries meet preconditions. I think that is folly, and it reflects not a mature, wise judgment on the administration's part, but continuation of a (failed) anti-diplomacy stance, or, at least, a policy orientation favoring confrontation ("bring it on") over the arts of diplomacy and statesmanship.
I'm sure Chamberlain had similar "voices" and a mindset, when confronted with the ever growing Axis powers. The "folly" however domer, is the notion of appeasing Terrorists & Terrorist sponsoring regimes. The folly is in NOT requiring preconditions for ANY talks to begin with such states. The folly is the idea that they would support a free & democratic Iraq.
-
We have had a lot of victory in Iraq.
We clobbered Saddam in 91.
We clobbered Saddam in 03.
We have been killing Al Queda in Iraq at a rate of 2000 every year , it is amazeing that they can replace at this rate.
We tore Falujah down and made it clear that there is a certain limit to the amount of resistance a resistance movement can get away with .
Getting a purely military victory in Iraq is a done deal , it may not be possible to have a political victory .
A military victory can be entirely one sided but a political victory requires compromise and participation from the other side like a military victory doesn't.
-
Relatively weak replies, with a notable exception.
I'm sure Chamberlain had similar "voices" and a mindset, when confronted with the ever growing Axis powers.
People who bring up Chamberlain (of which there were many in British history and notable that family in fact) in this regard typically have little understanding of the history of World War II and the situation Britain faced at that time. I find that the only correlation they really draw is that the word appeasement now has the negative connotation for which they carry over.
By all means Sirs, tell us how Britain was going to stop Hitler from annexing the Sudetenland? Would you have preferred that Czechoslovakia fought back in a meaningless war?
-
By all means Sirs, tell us how Britain was going to stop Hitler from annexing the Sudetenland? Would you have preferred that Czechoslovakia fought back in a meaningless war?
What was the difference between Poland and the Sudentenland, other than Germany had more years to arm and Britain had time to play catchup.
-
You noticing a pattern, Domer?
-
What was the difference between Poland and the Sudentenland, other than Germany had more years to arm and Britain had time to play catchup.
For starters, the French were with Britain in defending Poland. When Hitler was planning to annex the Sudetenland the British had no real allies. How would they have stopped them? What would they have done?
Note also that the Soviets were presumed to be as much of a threat as the Fascist Germans. (There was even Parliamentary debate on whether to declare war on the Soviets - as the invasion of Poland and Finland were taking place). There was also no real justification for invading Poland. The British did not buy into the Danzig corridor being threatened whereas the Sudetenland at the time did contain a number of Germans and German-speakers. It was a flimsy reason to annex them, but you must view this in light of World War I and the punitive Versailles Treaty.
The British and Americans both saw the treaty as overwhelmingly spiteful and somewhat dishonorable. In that sense there was a feeling of indebtedness to the German's honor. Chamberlain and his peers were not men of the 21st century, they were men of the 1930's and a time that still honored Imperialism and Victorian principles. In that sense, Hitler was ahead of his time (more like politicians of today) in that he had a cunning sense of selfishness and exploitation, but also an observance of dogma in fascism.
-
Did Chamberlain in any of his writings indicate that he knew a war was coming and or that he was simply buying time?
-
I'm not aware of any, though many in Britain supported the policy at the time (it had links to the "splendid isolation" conservative policy from years ago).
Airey Neave wrote a famous essay in 1933 on the rise of Hitler and dangers of fascism as well as the inevitability of war, yet he was but a student at the time.
-
Rather than trying to establish or refute parallels, why not discuss on how acutley dissimilar Iraq is from pre-war Germany? The starting point to recognize is that there is not a monolithic opponent such as the Nazis. Indeed, in Iraq, were it only for al-Qaeda, in my opinion there would be no war. What we have in Iraq, instead of the metasticizing cancer that was the Nazis, is, in effect, a civil war between two sets of "nationalists" (the term is used loosely), the Sunni insurgents and Shia sectarians both angling to win the upper hand in whatever happens to be left of Iraq when they're through. Iraq in its present posture is thus a "domino" in the larger war on violent, radical Islam, not its home and fortress. I concede that al Qaeda was instrumental in provoking this civil strife, but that is history. The present situation has al Qaeda as a minor player, not significant as to outcome. I will add in closing that a surefire strategy to ameliorate the particular US problem now concerning Iraq is to strike at the heart of what is left of al Qaeda in the border region of Pakistan, a good in itself if politically viable and a cover for a very graceful exit from Iraq.
-
From the character of the replies here and in other threads, I can only conclude that there is no valid vision of victory in Iraq, that is, how it can be achieved and, indeed, what it is. Given the present situation, "dire and deteriorating," which most people credit, any proponent attempting to refute the sensible prescriptions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Commission carries the burden of proof, which is profoundly lacking in this instance. Without that effort, the position falls as the stubborn whim of the true believer belied by facts.
-
Any parallels to Chamberlain's situation are weak and confused.
Chamberlain:
1. Did not have hindsight to work with
2. Did not have very much time (Remember Stanley Baldwin was PM until May 1937)
3. Did not have a well equipped army or air force (much of the British forces were very scattered to protect the Empire)
4. Did not have a United Nations with a Superpower sitting on a Security Council
5. Did not have an ally willing to help them defend the Sudetenland.
Let's compare this to Bush:
1. Bush has not had hindsight, but he has had a number of advisors suggest that the aftermath of Iraq would be difficult. Those included his father who famously stated that occupying an Arab country was too dangerous (post Gulf War). Chamberlain's previous war to reflect upon was the Great War, an unmitigated disaster for every nation involved. What was Bush's previous war to draw upon?
2. Bush has had years to get to this point. Chamberlain was in office sixteen months when he signed the Munich Accords.
3. Bush has what most of the world considers the greatest military on the planet. Chamberlain was handed a very good but very scattered navy and a nearly non-existent army and air force.
4. Bush has the most authority at the UN of any nation from which we have historically been able to wield a great deal of power. In fact, we went to war on the basis of UN resolutions. Chamberlain had no such body and no such authority.
5. Bush has Britain among other coalition partners as well as the Kuwaitis and supposedly other Arab nations to support the goal of a democratic Iraq. Chamberlain watched as the Germans captured the Sudetenland, then Poland while the Soviets attacked Finland and Poland all the while no one was willing to help (it took a few days to gain France's commitment even after Poland's invasion).
I won't even get into the differences between the wars themselves, how we got there, and what it meant. I'll repeat that I often see Chamberlain's name mentioned as a tactic to attack diplomacy, but it is often used by those who have no historical understanding.
-
Well, JS, this illustrates that I have a mind like, say, St. John the Baptist, but weaker, and you have a mind like Alex Trebeck, but stronger.
-
That should read "St. John the Evangelist." D'uh.
-
"Airey Neave wrote a famous essay in 1933 on the rise of Hitler and dangers of fascism as well as the inevitability of war, yet he was but a student at the time."
Just looked up Neave on wikipedia.org. Very interesting character, especially with his prison escapes during the war, only to end up being assassinated by a Irish Socialist group.
But I haven't found this essay in question yet though.
Jw
-
Airey Neave was an interesting character as well as being one of the primary forces responsible for Margaret Thatcher's rise to power. His essay might be at the Eton archives, I'm not entirely sure. He was not the first person to wish to fight Hitler. A number of Labour Party members wanted to ally with the Soviet Union and attack the Germans and Italians early on in fascism's rise. Churchill also made some leanings towards war as did Baldwin (who began a program of investment in the RAF) but both they and Chamberlain had reservations and considered Communism a strong threat (for which Hitler was a known virulent anti-communist.
-
From the character of the replies here and in other threads, I can only conclude that there is no valid vision of victory in Iraq, that is, how it can be achieved and, indeed, what it is
Victory as defined by me would be a dismantling of the Saddam regime, already done, and the installation of a democratically elected Iraqi government capable of administering the country's affairs, in all that that entails.... partially done.
and i would start doing it by disarming the militias.
-
The first job in Victory is defineing victory.
If you let an opponent , foreign or domestic , define victory you will never win.
Note that Hezboallah's Nasrallah did a victory dance on a huge heap of his own peoples corpses , this was strictly due to his skill at setting the bar high for his opponent and low for his own.
What would President Bush have to do in order to claim "mission accomplished " with no argument ?
Establish a peacefull paridise better than any other on earth , or merely bring Iraq to the standard of the US?
http://www.netanyahu.org/inwithezlead.html
-
This discussion should be proceeding on an absolutely realistic plane (sorry for the pun). I think it is much closer to the truth to establish our next goal in these terms: preventing Iraq from becoming a completely failed state, to the best we can, which may not be much. That is not "victory" as Bush conceives it, but it would be "success" in my book. And, not to lose the point, it is the Iraqis who will determine their own fate, one way or another, with the US only as the "catalyst" to get the process going.
-
What part of my post specifically
an Iraqi government capable of administering the country's affairs, in all that that entails
is different than what you just posted?
Other than i didn't dilute the debate by bringing bush bashing into the equation?
-
is different than what you just posted?
Why, can't you see the difference? You don't have his gift for language and wasn't trained by Catholic clergy, so obviously you're wrong and he's right.
-
For starters, and I'll leave it there, a successful state need not be democratic, eh?
-
For starters, and I'll leave it there, a successful state need not be democratic, eh?
So you are advocating a dismantling of the present democratically elected Iraqi government, because being democratically elected was one of my conditions.
-
I'm saying that there's a very good chance that the fucking government will fall, and that what results might not meet Bush's specs.
-
I'm saying that there's a very good chance that the fucking government will fall, and that what results might not meet Bush's specs.
Is it unimportant that a strong majority of the people in Iraq voted ?
The people who do not want democracy in Iraq are by definition a violent minority.
-
"We" should fight their fight?
-
"We" should fight their fight?
Not a fan of JFK?
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
"... And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. 2
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4
This much we pledge—and more. ..."
-
Not in the idiotic sense that you're misusing him.
-
I'm saying that there's a very good chance that the fucking government will fall, and that what results might not meet Bush's specs.
Perhaps you should reframe your question. You asked what we thought, not what Bush thought. I gave my conditions for victory.
-
Not in the idiotic sense that you're misusing him.
I included a link so that the context would be availible .
So what do you think JFK ment?
-
The point is this: if the government falls, and there's a distinct chance it could, I don't think it wise to tether one's policy to the success of a democratic government. There two reasons: we would be committed to a long haul to get democracy up and running, and it really would not be our business how the Iraqis choose or consent or act out of fear to be governed. While we could get into the finer points of a government's legitimacy, the facts on the ground would trump (as they seem to be doing now) any preference we might have or think we can impose.
-
The point is this: if the government falls, and there's a distinct chance it could, I don't think it wise to tether one's policy to the success of a democratic government. There two reasons: we would be committed to a long haul to get democracy up and running, and it really would not be our business how the Iraqis choose or consent or act out of fear to be governed. While we could get into the finer points of a government's legitimacy, the facts on the ground would trump (as they seem to be doing now) any preference we might have or think we can impose.
Now I agree!
The Pottery barn rule is not working out .
Let all our enemys know , if we destroy , we are not compelled to rebuild.
We will destroy what we need to and just leave it there.
-
There two reasons: we would be committed to a long haul to get democracy up and running
We have already had numerous elections there. The present government may well be replaced, but odds are it will be replaced democratically. Sure power brokering will take place, but what else is new. I don't see us leaving before 2009 or 2010 unless the dem congress says otherwise, and i don't think they will.
-
That might well be. And, if the outcome could be reliably sketched and the chances of success advantageously stated, I might even support such a longer term commitment. The berry in the crucible now, however, is whether things have deteriorated so far now that we would only be deferring the inevitable. That's the question, and, returning to my dilemma, there are no clear objective indices to guide us. If Course A has 49% chance of succeeding and Course B has 48% chance of succeeding, virtual dead heat contingent on so many unknown variables, why not choose the course that saves more of our lives. The rejoinder, of course, to which I'm sensitive, is that many more Iraqis may lose their lives. Yet, that itself may be almost an inevitability if things are as grave as touted. It's a Herculean decision that has to be made, and, effectively or not, in my little corner of the world I'm trying to contribute to it. Look at it this way, and I mean this in all seriousness and humility, deferring, of course, to those cogniscenti who may be found who can reliably guide us (and I don't consider Bush, Cheney or Rice to be among that mumber), this problem may be harder to solve than the Theory of Relativity was to discover.
-
There are no guarantees in life.
If the challenge is violent radical Islam that challenge must be met. This is no time to get all wobbly.
And i mean that with all the sincerity i can muster.
-
Forswearing agreement pending a decisive change in the debate as I see it, I will nonetheless heed your words very seriously.
-
That might well be. And, if the outcome could be reliably sketched and the chances of success advantageously stated, I might even support such a longer term commitment. The berry in the crucible now, however, is whether things have deteriorated so far now that we would only be deferring the inevitable. That's the question, and, returning to my dilemma, there are no clear objective indices to guide us. If Course A has 49% chance of succeeding and Course B has 48% chance of succeeding, virtual dead heat contingent on so many unknown variables, why not choose the course that saves more of our lives. The rejoinder, of course, to which I'm sensitive, is that many more Iraqis may lose their lives. Yet, that itself may be almost an inevitability if things are as grave as touted. It's a Herculean decision that has to be made, and, effectively or not, in my little corner of the world I'm trying to contribute to it. Look at it this way, and I mean this in all seriousness and humility, deferring, of course, to those cogniscenti who may be found who can reliably guide us (and I don't consider Bush, Cheney or Rice to be among that mumber), this problem may be harder to solve than the Theory of Relativity was to discover.
We can't know the outcome .
Not when we begin .
The establishment of a Democracy in Iraq would be a landmark in history , a hinge point and a great good thing . If it works .
If we fail we will be wounded for nothing , out a lot of time, effort, treasure and blood.
Should we never act on our ideals unless success is assured?
-
I've tried to stay out of this in hopes that "republicans" would actually invest the time to come up with something like I tried to do in domer's other thread.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that such an investment has not been made and does not appear forthcoming.
Here are my observations on this thread and its subject. It appears to me that those on the right have no intention of going on the record as to what they believe should now be happening in Iraq to decrease the number of deaths that are occurring every day and bring the Iraq invasion to a close. The responces to this thread have pretty much held to what could be boiled down to "stay the course". Amid posts of clever dismissive snark and vague excuses for plans like "disarm the militias" (something that our military hasn't been able to do in 3 years) and the unattainable "create a government that can stand on its own" there are successful attempts to change the subject to whether or not Iraq is like WWII or VietNam and/or if domer is a fan of JFK.
Those on the right feel more comfortable attacking those who ask valid questions of them. Those on the right feel the subject must be changed. Those on the right don't want to figure out the mess they have actively supported for years even to the point of being unwilling to even entertain the idea that a change of plan is in order or that Bush has made a mistake. I imagine they fear that even an inkling of that type of thought would be a slippery slope for them.
The world is telling Bush to pursue something other than "victory" and there is a small representation of that 21% of Americans who believe that Bush is doing a fine job of handling the war right here in this forum. I find this utterly outrageous. Now, even now, as chaos reigns in Iraq we are being told that "This is no time to get all wobbly." It is no wonder that Bush is rejecting the world's offerings of new courses when he knows that out here in America there are a small number of people who have followed him down his rabbit hole of delusions and still swill his slop of solipsistic horseshit.
The act of calling the "opposition" "wobbly" is dated and immaterial. I imagine those using this tactic would fall into fits of giggles if someone imitated Clara Peller by crying out "where's the beef?!"
-
I'm disappointed but not surprised that such an investment has not been made and does not appear forthcoming.
Guess you missed this post (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1342.msg11094#msg11094).
Of course, it was immediately followed by liberal deriding of the contents.
Which has been the pattern for a number of years.
-
Brass,
I believe i answered Domer's question.
I believe i did it in two sentences.
Victory as defined by me would be a dismantling of the Saddam regime, already done, and the installation of a democratically elected Iraqi government capable of administering the country's affairs, in all that that entails.... partially done.
You then go on changing the theme of the thread from defining acceptable victory to one of designing a way to minimize causalties. And then decrying that no one responded to a query that was not asked. What do they call that? False premise, strawman?
You then make some nebulous claim that the world wants Bush to follow some plan other than "victory", so i am assuming you want Bush to engineer defeat. Am i correct in my reading of your words?
I stand by my charge that the American people have failed the gut check. Domer has defined the overall conflict as defeating or at the minimum reigning in violent radical Islam. That front is currently in Iraq, aided and abetted by folks in Syria, Iran and other Middle East countries. And as the battle drags on more and more people have turned against the war, going wobbly, blaming Bush but never arguing against the general worthiness of the conflict. In effect they are capitulating to car bombers.
As i have also stated, there is a new congress being sworn in in January. They were elected because they successfully politicized the Iraq War. Now they must either deliver on their promises or redefine their promises to save political face. How Nixonian.
And yes, their action or inaction will have repercussions for years to come. .
-
Whatever.
-
Whatever.
Exactly
-
Whatever.
Exactly
I just realized that the radical islam thing was hyped and is not viewed as a serious threat by the people of the US anymore or at least that Iraq is not part of that problem.
-
I just realized that the radical islam thing was hyped and is not viewed as a serious threat by the people of the US anymore or at least that Iraq is not part of that problem.
So you have no problem capitulating to car bombers. Which brings us full circle to my wobbly charge.
Thanks for making my case.
-
So you have no problem capitulating to car bombers. Which brings us full circle to my wobbly charge. Thanks for making my case.
He's been good at that, lately ;)
-
I just realized that the radical islam thing was hyped and is not viewed as a serious threat by the people of the US anymore or at least that Iraq is not part of that problem.
So you have no problem capitulating to car bombers. Which brings us full circle to my wobbly charge.
Thanks for making my case.
Seeing as how we have been killing Iraqis 24-7 for nearly four years and never stemmed let alone stopped them from happening nearly EVERY FUCKING DAY and increasing in number constantly, then I have to think that we're not going about stopping or stemming car bombings and we have to do something besides kill people.
If using my eyes and my mind and being willing to admit that what we're doing is NEVER going to acheive our goal of stopping and/or stemming car bombings in Iraq and our actions are actually doing the opposite of what we want is "wobbly" then call me the wobbliest sumbitch on the block.
Yeah, I'm making your case but it doesn't mean you're right in the least.
-
Yeah, I'm making your case but it doesn't mean you're right in the least.
You confuse the goal with the methods used to achieve the goal.
-
The core of the debate, for me, is whether, at this point, victory as envisioned by BT is even possible -- remembering that the Iraqis have to work out their own problems over which we have but limited, if any, control -- and whether the costs of that victory would not prove too much: an outcome which actually sets us back seriously in the main fight with violent, radical Islam.
-
Any takers on the central problem, stated immediately above, that must be addressed by the mature, responsible and wise among us. THAT's what the debate is about, or mostly is about, not the smokescreen horseshit that usually passes for thought here.
-
The core of the debate, for me, is whether, at this point, victory as envisioned by BT is even possible -- remembering that the Iraqis have to work out their own problems over which we have but limited, if any, control -- and whether the costs of that victory would not prove too much: an outcome which actually sets us back seriously in the main fight with violent, radical Islam.
Of course the Iraqi's have to work out their own problems, the aid we can provide is to lend stability to the democratically elected government until such time as they are able to stand on their own. I believe we are doing just that.
And i believe we need to be a bit more aggressive in neutralizing those who don't want to see the democratically elected government succeed.
-
Any takers on the central problem, stated immediately above, that must be addressed by the mature, responsible and wise among us. THAT's what the debate is about, or mostly is about, not the smokescreen horseshit that usually passes for thought here.
Are you going to perceive wisdom in an opinion that you can't agree with?
-
Forget it. Can anyone point in the direction of a better club?
-
Forget it. Can anyone point in the direction of a better club?
Don't know if it is better and it is much slower but perhaps you can find intelligent lifeforms there. Say hi to AMJ for me.
http://groups.msn.com/PoliticallyIncorrectCafe/_whatsnew.msnw
-
Forget it. Can anyone point in the direction of a better club?
There are plenty of "liberals only" forums on the 'net.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: domer on Today at 04:07:31 PM
Any takers on the central problem, stated immediately above, that must be addressed by the mature, responsible and wise among us. THAT's what the debate is about, or mostly is about, not the smokescreen horseshit that usually passes for thought here.
Are you going to perceive wisdom in an opinion that you can't agree with?
Forget it. Can anyone point in the direction of a better club?
I wonder if it is really impossible to perceive wisdom without agreeing with it or understanding it?
-
Too often, Plane, you make a mockery of the concept of intelligent discussion, and you're a moderator.
-
Too often, Plane, you make a mockery of the concept of intelligent discussion, and you're a moderator.
This cuts to the quick.