Baghdad plan is a dazzling success

[Henny]

Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

So it was A) Maliki, and B) specific to the current surge effort by our troops.  Not apparently in reference to Iraq in general, correct?

I never said otherwise. And I still say that it is too earlier to call the success dazzling. But I'd appreciate if you'd stop strangling this point, because I also said that I TRULY HOPE that the surge is effective.

[domer]

My last post, on panel 2, was a response to Henny's criticism of the Democrats in the current debate over our future in Iraq.

[sirs]

Sirs. It's the headline of the article that started this debate. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

So it was A) Maliki, and B) specific to the current surge effort by our troops.  Not apparently in reference to Iraq in general, correct?

I never said otherwise. And I still say that it is too earlier to call the success dazzling. But I'd appreciate if you'd stop strangling this point, because I also said that I TRULY HOPE that the surge is effective.

Fair enough.  And may I suggest a refraining from references of specific acts as if they're being applied to the whole?  And I too hope the surge effort is as effective as it currently seems to be

[Plane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

also appeared to fit a pattern emerging among the suspected Sunni militants: trying to hit U.S. forces harder outside the capital rather than confront them on the streets during a massive American-led security operation.

But the sweeps have done little so far to ease the city's pain.

Nearly 100 people have died in two days of blasts and sectarian bloodshed in and around Baghdad — most in areas dominated by the majority Shiite Muslims — and Iraqi officials who predicted swift results for the security operation have gone suddenly silent.

This still seems to be working , but not in an easy manner , this sort of thing may have to be repeated  ever few moths .

It is like a contest to see whose heart breaks worse.

[Henny]

All patriots, as the president has been lately saying, the opposing sides in the surge/anti-surge debate have weighty concerns on their shoulders, which they take seriously. Sripped to their essentials, the Democratic opposition is basically saying that we've achieved all that we can rightly expect (confirmation of no WMD, the deposition of Saddam); that the ideal of a fully-functioning Western-style dmocracy as once sought by the administration is, well, a pipedream; that we are reaping diminishing returns (burgeoning costs in lives and treasure for no real progress toward a stable, self-supporting state); that our presence in Iraq is an irritant and catalyst for increased, virulent violence; and that our presence both destabilizes the region and the country, and that our continued occupation is a thumb in the eye to the entire Arab/Muslim world, provoking rather than quelling terrorist recruiting and sympathies from the average folk. The sidenote politics to these main concerns -- and others -- is the folly of entry into the war and its inept management once there.

Your points bring quite a bit of clarity to the subject, however, please allow me to clarify my position. I agree with the premise that our occupation is a "thumb in the eye to the entire Arab/Muslim world," but I see a different problem now. The invasion of Iraq has destabilized the reason to an extreme degree. While we are this "thumb in the eye," if the U.S. walks away now, job unfinished, I predict a worsening of terrorist issues (as if the issues aren't bad enough), not to mention the chaos bubbling over and destabilizing bordering countries.

An idea emerging from the background is the notion that the Iraqis themselves, certainly at SOME point, must step up and take charge of their own destiny. At some point, regardless of the state of the civil war, the dictates of sound process will require us to leave to avoid the black hole of unlimited commitment. AT SOME POINT, the logic and mandate of that proposition will far outweigh the need to avoid a failed state.

I do agree with you on this point, but how can we be sure that the Iraqis are ready for full control? And what of the ramifications if they are not ready, and we pull out too soon?

[Michael Tee]

Does anyone in this thread get the concept that it's just plain WRONG for one sovereign country to invade another one, overthrow its government and stay around until the invaded country adopts the form of government chosen for it by the invader?

That a "dazzling success" in Baghdad would be nothing more than a crime gotten away with?  Sort of like the Nazi occupation of Europe, an earlier "dazzling success" which ended ony when stronger powers than the original invader came and swept the original invader away?

How is a flagrant breach of the Charter of the United Nations a "dazzling success?"   It's a huge set-back for international law.

[Plane]

Does anyone in this thread get the concept that it's just plain WRONG for one sovereign country to invade another one, overthrow its government and stay around until the invaded country adopts the form of government chosen for it by the invader?

This would be an untrue concept.

It was not wrong in Europe , twice , it was not wrong in the CSA it was not wrong in Uganda ,it just is not wrong in principal.

[Michael Tee]

<<This would be an untrue concept.[that it's just plain wrong to invade a sovereign nation and occupy it until it adopts a form of government chosen for it by the occupiers.]

<<It was not wrong in Europe , twice , it was not wrong in the CSA it was not wrong in Uganda ,it just is not wrong in principal.>>

Your examples don't back you up.

Europe once (WWI)  - the Allies did NOT invade Germany, they merely drove Germany out of some countries that Germany had invaded.  Germany chose its own form of government when the various monarchs left their thrones and republics were declared, including the Ebert government in Berlin.  The politicians who formed the various national and state governments all belonged to political parties which had functioned under the Kaiser or were offshoots of them.

Europe twice (WWII) - Germany and Japan were invaded ONLY because they had invaded other countries first and in both cases were restored to forms of government they were familiar with.

The CSA was not a sovereign nation, it was a collection of rebel states, it was the no. one violator of human rights on the planet at the time (with the possible exception of Brazil) and it had begun the war by firing on the federal garrison at Ft. Sumter.  I don't know of any country other than Great Britain which recognized the Confederacy and I'm not even sure about them.  The invaders did not force their own form of government on the CSA, they just gave them back pretty much what they had, minus the right to enslave other human beings.  BFD.

Uganda might be the one example you gave that would hold up, but I don't know much about it.  The invasion might have had some kind of justification under the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (if that's its proper name) or some other regional organization whose members had already agreed to conditions for international intervention.  I'll just pass on commenting more on Uganda.  All of your other examples were pure bullshit.

[Amianthus]

Europe once (WWI)  - the Allies did NOT invade Germany, they merely drove Germany out of some countries that Germany had invaded.

Perhaps you should study the Italian Front a bit more. Also, the Eastern Front. WWI was not just in Western Europe.

[Henny]

Does anyone in this thread get the concept that it's just plain WRONG for one sovereign country to invade another one, overthrow its government and stay around until the invaded country adopts the form of government chosen for it by the invader?

Michael, I totally get that. And I totally agree. But it's too late! That was the argument for BEFORE the U.S. went in.

Now that they are in, what are your feelings about the U.S. leaving Iraq in the mess it's currently in? Do you seriously think it is preferable for America to walk away, rather than fix the damage (or at least try)?

[Amianthus]

The CSA was not a sovereign nation, it was a collection of rebel states, it was the no. one violator of human rights on the planet at the time (with the possible exception of Brazil) and it had begun the war by firing on the federal garrison at Ft. Sumter.  I don't know of any country other than Great Britain which recognized the Confederacy and I'm not even sure about them.

Britain never officially recognized the CSA. However, they and a number of other nations had diplomats stationed in the CSA.

Five native American tribes recognized the CSA, and three of those tribes had representatives in the Confederate Congress: Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw.

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps you should study the Italian Front a bit more. Also, the Eastern Front. WWI was not just in Western Europe.>>

Good point.  Last time I looked, Italy was an Axis Power and a belligerent - - it had invaded France and sent troops to participate in Hitler's invasion of Russia, two of our biggest Allies.  It was invaded in due course, the Mussolini government fell and was replaced by the Badoglio government - - hardly an imposition of the invading Allied armies.  The Badoglio government allied itself with the Allies and the Italian people themselves - - not any invasion army - - captured and took care of Mussolini on their own terms.

On the Eastern Front, pretty much the same story - - the U.S.S.R. was invaded by the Axis Powers and fought back, not only pushing them out of its own territory but following them into theirs.  Members of the Axis, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia had to deal with an invasion and regime change, but it was an invasion provoked by their own aggression against the U.S.S.R.  Poland might have been an exception - - the Red Army supported the Lublin (Polish communist)  government, rather than the "London" government (anti-communist Poles in exile in London.)

I think in both cases the invasion of the Axis Powers and the forcible regime changes  that followed were amply justified by the original aggression to say nothing of the horrendous atrocities that accompanied it.  I must have missed that part of the Iraqi story where Iraq invaded America and committed horrific atrocities against American citizens prior to Bush's invasion.

[Amianthus]

Good point.  Last time I looked, Italy was an Axis Power and a belligerent - - it had invaded France and sent troops to participate in Hitler's invasion of Russia, two of our biggest Allies.

I was talking about WWI. As my quote of your post clearly shows.

[Michael Tee]

Sorry, that's my mistake.  Completely missed the explicit WWI reference.  Far as I know, Italy was our ALLY in WWI and the Eastern front was a massive Russian disaster leading to the loss of a lot of land by our Russian ally to Germany at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.  What exactly was your point?  You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm not aware of the good guys gratuitously invading another country and forcing their form of government down its throat.

[Amianthus]

Sorry, that's my mistake.  Completely missed the explicit WWI reference.  Far as I know, Italy was our ALLY in WWI and the Eastern front was a massive Russian disaster leading to the loss of a lot of land by our Russian ally to Germany at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.  What exactly was your point?  You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm not aware of the good guys gratuitously invading another country and forcing their form of government down its throat.

Italy took over a section of Austria during the war. Russia did as well. Russia installed governments, creating some of the eastern European countries that were previously part of Austria. Italy just annexed the sections of Austria that it invaded.

There are places in Italy that you can go that still speak German, and many of the older citizens still claim to be Austrian. Had a neighbor in New Jersey (he's probably long gone by now) that came to the US just at the outbreak of war, who was born and raised in Trieste (now an Italian seaport). He still had his Austrian passport and paperwork and claimed to be an Austrian.