Author Topic: A Frank Debate  (Read 2446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

domer

  • Guest
A Frank Debate
« on: October 01, 2006, 02:04:11 PM »
Especially in light of recent spectacular intelligence failures, the answers to the questions I'm about to pose may be characterized as pure speculation. That is the damning aspect of the situation we now find ourselves in. Too much policy and planning hinges on "best guesses" or even "projections" of our core beliefs which are untethered to a dependable set of facts. The War on Terror thus assume the nature of ann American Dream: wishes and hopes, perhaps, cast on a surreal landscape.

Yet, try we must for it is the only tool at our disposal, that is, divining the future from the meager tea leaves we have. To this end, the questions themselves assume critical importance. I have asked before whether the Iraq War is winnable, and even what "winning" is. The administration line, finally settled upon after WMD and assorted threats, is that the Iraq War is the keystone to the War on Terror generally, such that a decisive victory or defeat could prefigure if not the outcome of that general struggle than at least its virulence and duration. Hidden within that policy orientation is the profound creed that the "free" Iraqis and the Iraqi government, given time and appropriate help, can vanquish the tormenters of their nation and grow up to be a solid democratic ally in the region, a beacon of hope for reform in all Muslim and Arab nations somewhere (can we assume this) on their own trek to freedom.

Yet, facts obtrude. I will leave to others, if so disposed, the task of documenting the present and projected state of the Iraq situation. In that effort may lie the solution, or may lie more muddling. But clearly, I ask, is the expenditure of vast future sums of money and the loss of American life and limb worth the best outcome we can REALISTICALLY anticipate. Both Bush's preconceptions and his projections from those preconceptions must be examined critically. Indeed, THAT is the stuff of a democracy.

I have also written before that the Democrats' position, logically extrapolated, countenances a "tactical defeat" in Iraq -- if that outcome is either inevitable or its opposite is not worth the lives of our soldiers expended in averting it. This proposition must be examined critically as well, for its revelations about the "American character," among other things, but also  about the OVERALL goal or aim of Iraq in the larger struggle against violent, Islamic radicalism. In THAT analysis, choosing the forest over the trees, it may be possible to view Iraq, regardless that it was a mistake, but more importantly that it is not ESSENTIAL to our long-term strategic interests. In sum, I propose speculatively, that our foes are ultimately a malignant ideology and its companion evil acts which, handled properly and given the light of day, may very well shrivel up and die in the sea of minds it may influence but which reject it categorically when its true nature is laid bare. (This is my entrant into the "American Dream" of the moment.)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A Frank Debate
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2006, 03:33:34 PM »
If Iraq is less important than winning the larger battle , where are we fighting the larger battle?

domer

  • Guest
Re: A Frank Debate
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2006, 03:34:32 PM »
We aren't.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A Frank Debate
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2006, 03:52:08 PM »
 Then why not fight where we are already ?

Iraq is as good a beachhead as any other we can expect to find in the future.

The opposition we face in Iraq can be exausted , if we succeed there we will have forced them to retreat .

But if we retreat in the face of such a much smaller force , won't we have given the kind of victory to Al Quieda that Hezbollah claims to have won against  Israel?
Not so much a gain of territory , or an advantage in military terms , but an enheartining of all supporters?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A Frank Debate
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2006, 04:26:40 PM »
Quote
But if we retreat in the face of such a much smaller force , won't we have given the kind of victory to Al Quieda that Hezbollah claims to have won against  Israel?  Not so much a gain of territory, or an advantage in military terms , but an enheartining of all supporters?

BINGO
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A Frank Debate
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2006, 04:32:43 PM »
Is it victory if you call it victory?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A Frank Debate
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2006, 04:37:22 PM »
Is it victory if you call it victory?

Only to those making the claim.  History & facts will ultimately decide if or if not
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle