DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on April 26, 2007, 06:37:17 PM
-
I hear various criticisms of the Democratic "symbolic" time table, but I submit that it, and all the verbal sparring that goes with it, serve one overriding purpose, pretty much independent of details: the war will end sooner. That is the grand strategic aim of the initiative, and it rings true to a solid majority of Americans, who clearly want a resolution-sooner rather than a resolution later. The specter of a prolonged quagmire, a "never-ending" commitment is palpable and has been rejected.
As always, however, discussion on the Hill should address these issues: what is the optimal outcome we can expect? What is the realistic outcome we can expect? What would be the region-wide and global ramifications of the various possible outcomes? What are the costs of achieving the various outcomes? Are those costs too dear compared to the expected benefits? Is there a "Plan B" (and "C" etc) that can be implemented now to cover our bets, or can an easy transition be made to such a plan come the next administration? As a concluding note, I'll point out that the present Democratic initiative is, awkwardly perhaps but surely, tilling the diplomatic field for a succeeding policy relying much more heavily in that specific theater (Iraq and the Middle East) on diplomacy.
-
Reid and Schumer think the logical outcome of these dem initiatives is that they will pick up a couple of Senate seats.
If they have addressed any of your other concerns , i haven't heard about them.
-
As always, however, discussion on the Hill should address these issues: what is the optimal outcome we can expect?
A stable Iraqi government that can control the country and keep it together in a federal, democratic system
-
Sirs, is the optimal outcome realistic, that is, feasible? What would it cost us to achieve a realistic outcome? Is the price too high? Are there alternate methods of "skinning the hippotamus"? Do you agree that Iraq does not equate with the entire war on terrorism? Could it be that a withdrawal will actually yield benefits to our cause, such as by signaling our embrace of a proper dose of humility and thereby extinguish some of the fervor (resulting in an al Qarda recruiting boon) that our occupation has ignited?
-
Sirs, is the optimal outcome realistic, that is, feasible? What would it cost us to achieve a realistic outcome? Is the price too high? Are there alternate methods of "skinning the hippotamus"? Do you agree that Iraq does not equate with the entire war on terrorism? Could it be that a withdrawal will actually yield benefits to our cause, such as by signaling our embrace of a proper dose of humility and thereby extinguish some of the fervor (resulting in an al Qarda recruiting boon) that our occupation has ignited?
"Do you agree that Iraq does not equate with the entire war on terrorism?"......
It s an important part , it is the biggest part , where elese would be better? If we do not fight against Al Quieda in Iraq where will we be fighting them?
"Could it be that a withdrawal will actually yield benefits to our cause, such as by signaling our embrace of a proper dose of humility and thereby extinguish some of the fervor (resulting in an al Qarda recruiting boon) that our occupation has ignited? "..........
Your position is extremely coounterintuitive , why would Al Quieda have ay recruiting problem shortly after being handed an unearned victory?
-
Sirs, is the optimal outcome realistic, that is, feasible?
YES
What would it cost us to achieve a realistic outcome? Is the price too high?
The cost to us will be exponentially greater if that is not the acheived outcome
Are there alternate methods of "skinning the hippotamus"?
None that I'm aware of or privvy too, though obviously I disagree with your analogy
Do you agree that Iraq does not equate with the entire war on terrorism?
Yes, I learned that from Fatman
Could it be that a withdrawal will actually yield benefits to our cause, such as by signaling our embrace of a proper dose of humility and thereby extinguish some of the fervor that our occupation has ignited?
NO. Folks like AlQueada will see that as a celebratory beginning, and become the greatest recruiting tool this country could ever see
-
Your position is extremely coounterintuitive , why would Al Quieda have ay recruiting problem shortly after being handed an unearned victory?
Folks like AlQueads will see that as a celebratory beginning, and become the greatest recruiting tool this country could ever see
Two questions. First, what basis do we have for the assumption (presumption?) that a speedy withdrawal of troops will necessarily result in an Al-Qaeda recruiting boom? Second, what basis do we have for the apparent assumption that the conflict in Iraq is somehow hindering Al-Qaeda recruiting efforts? There is probably a single answer for both questions, but in the interest of clarity, I think asking both is important.
-
Al Queda had no problem gaining recruits in 1999, by then they had grown to a large well organised and well financed organisation with a remote country under their controll.
They wern't twenty years old yet .
Al Queda need no more than a situation of benin neglect to do again exactly what they have done before , but this time with a larger country and greater income .
We could leave immediately , but if the result were that we had to return after a while because a well dug in Al Queda was running a giant Taliban out of Iraq , then we would have gained exactly nothing.
-
Al Queda had no problem gaining recruits in 1999, by then they had grown to a large well organised and well financed organisation with a remote country under their controll.
Please define, within the context of this topic, 'no problem gaining recruits', 'large' and 'well organized'.
Al Queda need no more than a situation of benin neglect to do again exactly what they have done before , but this time with a larger country and greater income .
This assumes that something is hindering them from doing so right now. What is that something? How is that something hindering them? And why is hindering them achievable only with that something?
We could leave immediately , but if the result were that we had to return after a while because a well dug in Al Queda was running a giant Taliban out of Iraq , then we would have gained exactly nothing.
Possibly. But you have not made a case for why that is the most likely scenario.
-
Folks like AlQueads will see that as a celebratory beginning, and become the greatest recruiting tool this country could ever see
Two questions. First, what basis do we have for the assumption (presumption?) that a speedy withdrawal of troops will necessarily result in an Al-Qaeda recruiting boom?
I'm a little surprised you're asking this question Prince, though perhaps it's simply rhetorical. Common sense makes that assumption, along with the rhetoric Usama has used in the past. ANYTHING that can be construed as "victory" would be a godsend to the likes of AlQeada & Bin Laden. It would literally validate everything they have said about the U.S. And nothing gets more victorious than not only the leaders of a political party declaring that "the war is lost", but the actual withdrawl of troops before Iraq is prepared to try and defend itself from such attacks led by AlQeada.
Second, what basis do we have for the apparent assumption that the conflict in Iraq is somehow hindering Al-Qaeda recruiting efforts?
No one is saying that our intervention in Iraq has dismantled AlQeada recruiting efforts. They will continue to recruit, so long as its leaders continue to portray the likes of the U.S. as the great Satan. They will also continue to recruit so long as moderate Muslims and the leadership of so many Arab countries refuse to denounce the efforts and actions of AlQeada. What "I" am saying is that our actions have substantially degraded their organization, in so many ways, militarily, financially, logistically, training, etc. It doesn't mean they've been beaten, nor have ceased their recruiting, but the fight is being taken to them, vs we simply waiting for them to attack us....again. So, we can deal with their current recruiting efforts, as we have been or we can give them a substantial boon in their recruiting efforts by withdrawing prematurely. I chose the former
-
Prince raises very good questions. Everything that is said about Iraq going forward, even moreso than your normal-type predictive situation, is necessarily speculative. The intellectual tools to quantify these basically unquantifiable factors, and account for unknown contingencies that regularly crop up, and then to plug them into a reliable formula for discerning a set of options in order of priority according to the legitimate goals we may set, simply do not exist. We are thus left to speculation and political posturing, largely, to make these life and death decisions. The Democrats are simply saying, if I have it right, that their notion of the "conflict withering away" on the heels of a US withdrawal (on the theory that US presence is the actual catalyst for the conflict) should be given "equal speculative effect" to the "more war" contingent, and should be preferred both because it will necessarily save American lives and because it would signal a US recognition -- sure to be noted in foreign capitals and on the "Arab street" -- that the US, definitively, is not interested in expanding an empire into the Middle East. If deftly played, this latter factor, speculatively speaking, would counter al Qaeda recruitment bonanzas from the withdrawal and, affirmatively would lay the groundwork for a more constructive, effective diplomacy.
-
ANYTHING that can be construed as "victory" would be a godsend to the likes of AlQeada Bin Laden. It would literally validate everything they have said about the U.S. And nothing gets more victorious than not only the leaders of a political party declaring that "the war is lost", but the actual withdrawl of troops before Iraq is prepared to try and defend itself from such attacks from AlQeada.
The main problem I have with that argument is that it essentially gives Al-Qaeda and the terrorists control over our choices. It locks us into behavior based solely on parameters set by the terrorists. And imo, that is a really bad position for us.
But let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct. Why does that mean that more people will flock to Al-Qaeda than are currently willing to join up? Are we assuming that people are just waiting for an excuse to join a terrorist organization? Or do we have a sound basis for believing that? If so, what is it?
No one is saying that our intervention in Iraq has dismantled AlQeada recruiting efforts.
Aren't you implying it when you say that pulling out of Iraq will boost Al-Qaeda's membership?
They will continue to recruit, so long as its leaders continue to portray the likes of the U.S. as the great Satan.
And what effect does our current military effort have on that situation? And please don't jump to talking about appeasement. Leave that for another time, please, and consider just the question.
What "I" am saying is that our actions have substantially degraded their organization, in so many ways, militarily, financially, logistically, training, etc. It doesn't mean they've been beaten, nor have ceased their recruiting, but the fight is being taken to them, vs we simply waiting for them to attack us....again
But why is the military action in Iraq central to that? Why must the military action in Iraq continue to achieve those ends? Is there no possibility to achieve those things without having a open-ended military action in Iraq with only a vague "when they're ready" goal?
-
[quote author=Universe Prince link=topic=2564.msg22948#msg22948 date=1177778037
Quote from: Plane on April 27, 2007, 03:22:32 PM
Al Queda need no more than a situation of benin neglect to do again exactly what they have done before , but this time with a larger country and greater income .
This assumes that something is hindering them from doing so right now. What is that something? How is that something hindering them? And why is hindering them achievable only with that something?
Al Queda need no more than a situation of benin neglect to do again exactly what they have done before , but this time with a larger country and greater income .
This assumes that something is hindering them from doing so right now. What is that something? How is that something hindering them? And why is hindering them achievable only with that something?[/quote][/quote][/quote]
We are shooting them ,captureing them, chaseing them around , breaking up their cells , and spying on them .
The decade ofthe 90's we left the Al Quieda unmolested and neglected the needs of Afganistan , the result of that process can be repeated if we quit shooting the Al Quieda and nglect the ned f a country that they are trying to take over.
What "I" am saying is that our actions have substantially degraded their organization, in so many ways, militarily, financially, logistically, training, etc. It doesn't mean they've been beaten, nor have ceased their recruiting, but the fight is being taken to them, vs we simply waiting for them to attack us....again
But why is the military action in Iraq central to that? Why must the military action in Iraq continue to achieve those ends? Is there no possibility to achieve those things without having a open-ended military action in Iraq with only a vague "when they're ready" goal?
[/quote]
The reason is that it is a big job and it would be a completed a lot sooner if we had freinds to help. Iriquis are not all fooled ,a lot of them know what Al Queda is offering them is inferior , but there is a lot of fear that Al Queda will exact retribution and enforce compliance.
The less we inspire confidence in the public of Iraq the more likely we are to find apathy where we need help.
-
ANYTHING that can be construed as "victory" would be a godsend to the likes of AlQeada Bin Laden. It would literally validate everything they have said about the U.S. And nothing gets more victorious than not only the leaders of a political party declaring that "the war is lost", but the actual withdrawl of troops before Iraq is prepared to try and defend itself from such attacks from AlQeada.
The main problem I have with that argument is that it essentially gives Al-Qaeda and the terrorists control over our choices. It locks us into behavior based solely on parameters set by the terrorists. And imo, that is a really bad position for us.
The parameters were put in place when we invaded. Saddam had to be taken out. When that mission was accomplished, we could not leave Iraq the way it was. Morally, ethically, and geopolitically that just wasn't an option. Our choices are simple, win, and degrade AlQueada's efforts to infect the region that much more, or fail, and allow AlQeada to mutate and grow, possibly exponentially. Those choices were put in place as soon as we entered Iraq. Bad position or not........that's where we are
But let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct. Why does that mean that more people will flock to Al-Qaeda than are currently willing to join up? Are we assuming that people are just waiting for an excuse to join a terrorist organization? Or do we have a sound basis for believing that? If so, what is it?
I'm confident you're aware of the "bandwagon" phenomenon. In sports, it's when you have a team that has its core fans, that support them tru thick and thin. Those years where a team is suddenly very successful, all of a sudden there are new fans coming out of the woodwork. Point being there will continue to be "core extremists" who'll join AlQeada's cause, no matter the "thick or thin". But there are plenty of fence sitters, who if believing AlQueda is actually winning the war against the Great Satan, will likely come out of the woodwork to join the "winning" team
Aren't you implying it (degrading AlQeada recruiting) when you say that pulling out of Iraq will boost Al-Qaeda's membership?
You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming it has to be an either/or. I'm claiming it's more along the lines of status quo or an exponential boon to AlQeada membership, with a premature withdrawl
They will continue to recruit, so long as its leaders continue to portray the likes of the U.S. as the great Satan.
And what effect does our current military effort have on that situation? And please don't jump to talking about appeasement. Leave that for another time, please, and consider just the question.
Killing terrorists 1st is a great way of preventing them from killing Americans (or any other civilian) later
What "I" am saying is that our actions have substantially degraded their organization, in so many ways, militarily, financially, logistically, training, etc. It doesn't mean they've been beaten, nor have ceased their recruiting, but the fight is being taken to them, vs we simply waiting for them to attack us....again
But why is the military action in Iraq central to that? Why must the military action in Iraq continue to achieve those ends? Is there no possibility to achieve those things without having a open-ended military action in Iraq with only a vague "when they're ready" goal?
See 1st paragraph. It's the parameters that were placed when we entered. It requires open ended military action, and as Usama (or 1 of his main commanders) I believe as being on record for saying that Iraq is the key battlefield for their very existance. Something along those lines.
-
Quote from: sirs on April 28, 2007, 01:58:54 AM
They will continue to recruit, so long as its leaders continue to portray the likes of the U.S. as the great Satan.
.......................................................................................
[quuote]
And what effect does our current military effort have on that situation? And please don't jump to talking about appeasement. Leave that for another time, please, and consider just the question.
They are not only saing that we are evil , but also that we are cowardly and can be defeated by terrorism.
eithre one of these being disbeleaved would reduce recruiteing.
-
We are shooting them ,captureing them, chaseing them around , breaking up their cells , and spying on them .
The decade ofthe 90's we left the Al Quieda unmolested and neglected the needs of Afganistan , the result of that process can be repeated if we quit shooting the Al Quieda and nglect the ned f a country that they are trying to take over.
Okay, but that does not explain why the conflict in Iraq is the only possible way for us to continue shooting them, chasing them and spying on them.
The reason is that it is a big job and it would be a completed a lot sooner if we had freinds to help. Iriquis are not all fooled ,a lot of them know what Al Queda is offering them is inferior , but there is a lot of fear that Al Queda will exact retribution and enforce compliance.
The less we inspire confidence in the public of Iraq the more likely we are to find apathy where we need help.
So... the conflict in Iraq is the only way for us because we need the help of the Iraqis to hunt down Al-Qaeda? Why would that be?
-
The parameters were put in place when we invaded. Saddam had to be taken out. When that mission was accomplished, we could not leave Iraq the way it was. Morally, ethically, and geopolitically that just wasn't an option. Our choices are simple, win, and degrade AlQueada's efforts to infect the region that much more, or fail, and allow AlQeada to mutate and grow, possibly exponentially. Those choices were put in place as soon as we entered Iraq. Bad position or not........that's where we are
Win what? And frankly, we don't seem to have degraded Al-Qaeda's efforts to infect the region. We seem to have opened the door for them. And I have to ask, upon what do we base this assertion that without the conflict in Iraq Al-Qaeda would have grown unhindered? We seem to still be stuck on the notion that the conflict in Iraq is the only way to fight Al-Qaeda, and the only reason for this seems to be "because it is". I don't find that to be a convincing reason.
I'm confident you're aware of the "bandwagon" phenomenon. In sports, it's when you have a team that has its core fans, that support them tru thick and thin. Those years where a team is suddenly very successful, all of a sudden there are new fans coming out of the woodwork. Point being there will continue to be "core extremists" who'll join AlQeada's cause, no matter the "thick or thin". But there are plenty of fence sitters, who if believing AlQueda is actually winning the war against the Great Satan, will likely come out of the woodwork to join the "winning" team
Okay, that seems reasonable. But then, as you pointed out, we are responsible for putting ourselves in this position.
Killing terrorists 1st is a great way of preventing them from killing Americans (or any other civilian) later
Okay, but that doesn't address how our current actions affect the perception/portrayal of the U.S. as evil.
It requires open ended military action, and as Usama (or 1 of his main commanders) I believe as being on record for saying that Iraq is the key battlefield for their very existance. Something along those lines.
I find hard to believe that Iraq is a key battlefield for Al-Qaeda's existence. Almost as hard to believe as the idea that we need an open-ended conflict in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda.
-
We are shooting them ,captureing them, chaseing them around , breaking up their cells , and spying on them .
The decade ofthe 90's we left the Al Quieda unmolested and neglected the needs of Afganistan , the result of that process can be repeated if we quit shooting the Al Quieda and nglect the ned f a country that they are trying to take over.
Okay, but that does not explain why the conflict in Iraq is the only possible way for us to continue shooting them, chasing them and spying on them.
The reason is that it is a big job and it would be a completed a lot sooner if we had freinds to help. Iriquis are not all fooled ,a lot of them know what Al Queda is offering them is inferior , but there is a lot of fear that Al Queda will exact retribution and enforce compliance.
The less we inspire confidence in the public of Iraq the more likely we are to find apathy where we need help.
So... the conflict in Iraq is the only way for us because we need the help of the Iraqis to hunt down Al-Qaeda? Why would that be?
What alternative do you offer Prince?
-
We are shooting them ,captureing them, chaseing them around , breaking up their cells , and spying on them .
The decade ofthe 90's we left the Al Quieda unmolested and neglected the needs of Afganistan , the result of that process can be repeated if we quit shooting the Al Quieda and nglect the ned f a country that they are trying to take over.
Okay, but that does not explain why the conflict in Iraq is the only possible way for us to continue shooting them, chasing them and spying on them.
It probably is not the only way , but it seems like a good way for us to choose the battle feild rather than allowing them to choose the time and place. If we don't fight them in Iraq they will fight us when they are ready and we are not , when they have the resorce and we are snoozeing, if they choose the battlefeild they won't choose one where all of the Americans present are well armed. One of the things I don't like about a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq is that it gives controll of all choices to the Al Quieda.
The reason is that it is a big job and it would be a completed a lot sooner if we had freinds to help. Iriquis are not all fooled ,a lot of them know what Al Queda is offering them is inferior , but there is a lot of fear that Al Queda will exact retribution and enforce compliance.
The less we inspire confidence in the public of Iraq the more likely we are to find apathy where we need help.
So... the conflict in Iraq is the only way for us because we need the help of the Iraqis to hunt down Al-Qaeda? Why would that be?
-
...frankly, we don't seem to have degraded Al-Qaeda's efforts to infect the region. We seem to have opened the door for them.
Well, as I keep saying, I'm not of the mindset that it has to be an either/or scenario, that unless we're degrading them significantly, they have to be growing substantially. I am of the mindset that it's preferable to kill as many of them "over there", than wait until they can kill as many of us, "over here". And I also have to disagree with you that we have't degraded them at all. We've completely dismantled their command and control, we've significantly disrupted their financial channels, we've significantly altered their methods of communicating, and they're having to adapt to all those accomplishments we've brought about...and they are. That's why they're still a threat, that's why they're still able to recruit, and that's why they're focusing a ton of their resources in 1 general location, than being able to systemetically operate all over the globe, even though they still try
And I have to ask, upon what do we base this assertion that without the conflict in Iraq Al-Qaeda would have grown unhindered? We seem to still be stuck on the notion that the conflict in Iraq is the only way to fight Al-Qaeda, and the only reason for this seems to be "because it is". I don't find that to be a convincing reason.
Same basis in how we left Hitler and his Nazi machine alone, expecting them to abide by international law & will. And may I correct yoy in that the conflict in Iraq isn't the "only way" to fight AlQeada, simply that it's the current way. A subtle yet distinct difference
I'm confident you're aware of the "bandwagon" phenomenon.....there are plenty of fence sitters, who if believing AlQeda is actually winning the war against the Great Satan, will likely come out of the woodwork to join the "winning" team
Okay, that seems reasonable. But then, as you pointed out, we are responsible for putting ourselves in this position.
As I said, the parameters were put in place when we entered. Whether you like it or not, we are there now. Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevent now. As you have referenced above, it's an absolutely reasonable assumption to make of a significant boon in AlQeada's recruiting efforts, if we were to prematurely withdrawl. Currently you keep arguing how our presence now is a recruiting effort. Let's pretend for a moment it is.......what could make it exponentially worse is to prematurely withdrawl
Killing terrorists 1st is a great way of preventing them from killing Americans (or any other civilian) later
Okay, but that doesn't address how our current actions affect the perception/portrayal of the U.S. as evil.
Our current actions are magnified 10fold, by not just AlJazira, not just by CNN, by by our own politicians on the left, who echo any and everything bad that happens, and pin it on the U.S., thus perpetuating the "Great Satan" phenomenon. Lemme go back to the bandwagon reference. There are those core supporters of AlQeada who will se us as evil personified for simply existing, kinda like how they see Israel. I'm rarely referencing those folks, outside of the need to kill them. This recruting tangent you & I are referencing is about the middle of the roaders, the fence sitters, those who are trying to decide if what we're doing is in an effort to help bring them stability and democracy for them & their families, or as some perverted effort of ourse to reign terror on their people & religion. Obviously it's the former, but that message consistently gets blunted when you have news stories plastered for days on a complete distortion of some soldier flushing a Koran down the toilet, and a Majority Leader claiming that "the war is Lost", adding even further discouragement to the fence sitter.
When our actions are consistently shown/broadcast in the most negative light possible, minus all the positive actions that have been accomplished, that "perception" will continue, regardless of what we actually are doing
I find hard to believe that Iraq is a key battlefield for Al-Qaeda's existence. Almost as hard to believe as the idea that we need an open-ended conflict in Iraq to defeat Al-Qaeda.
A) I was referencing the rhetoric coming from the likes of Usama & his officers, and B) there is an end, despite the continued distortions that this is a war with no end in sight
-
This struggle with violent, radical, fundamentalist Islam is, first and foremost, a cultural-political-religious-ideologgical-etc. conflict. While military expeditions and intelligence and law enforcement operations are vital to its success, the clash maintains a character more similar to eradicating racism from the South in the Civil Rights era than it does to pounding the beaches at Normandy or Iwo Jima.
-
Too bad. We are much better at the latter than the former.