We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Are we approaching a ‘Tet Offensive Moment’? Are the political opponents of George Bush, who are advocating cut-and-run in Iraq, about to take the attrition war there (which by any objective measure the USA cannot possibly lose on the battlefield) and turn gradual military advantage into decisive political defeat?
Discuss.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
They certainly seem to be trying to do exactly that.
Thankfully, at least some members of the house saw through their deceipt and put this to an immediate vote tonight….. vote should be taking place any moment now and there is no f*cking way this will pass.
I simply can not believe the pass these traitors are being given by the main stream media.
Pass !?! MSM is giving them red carpet treatment. This is certainly going to turn into a neverendum on the war until they get the ‘right’ (er, left?) answer. Then what?
Yeah – I found myself listening to NPR on the way to the gym yesterday morning and the report mentioned that this whole issue was a rebuke for President Bush pretty much every 45seconds. They were like kids opening presents on Christmas morning. “Red carpet” treatment is right.
I remember in high school watching the situation in Viet Nam unravel. A president in trouble who suddenly had other things on his mind. An orderly withdrawal with all the proper agreements in place. And then the final image of the helicopter evacuations from the roof of the embassy.
Now, tonight, I see John Dean, a face from that era say he thinks signs point to Dick Cheney being targeted by the special investigators. That could be a big enough distraction and loss of political clout to de facto put the war in congressional hands. That’s what happened in Viet Nam. Congress cut of the funding.
CNN reported on the Congressional vote shennanigans, including the Republican’s pressing for a vote. The headline: “Bush Rejects Deadline.” Amazing. Last time I checked Bush was in a different branch of government.
No, this will not be a Tet Offensive; but only because I expect Mr. Murtha, et. al. to fail in making it one. They’re trying their best though, I’ll give ’em that.
You are right Westerner. In 1974 the Democratic controlled congress cut off funds to support Vietnamization. We than got to see the pictures of helicopters evacuating diplomatic staff and our former allies. I do not care to see a repeat of that, but I fear I will. When the churches and malls are blown up here, then and only apparently then, will many Americans understand what was at stake in Iraq.
which by any objective measure the USA cannot possibly lose on the battlefield
I think you mean “cannot possibly win.”
AMR, we left Vietnam to its fate in 1972. Cutting funding in 1974 would have made no difference.
No. Bush’s political opponents have never had any real opposition to the conquest of Iraq, they only wanted to be the ones running it. When the US finally pulls out it will be because Republican politicians who currently support Bush see the writing on the wall and change their positions.
FINALLY! The pubbies show some balls.
What an evening.
Rep. Murtha (D) – former Marine – wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, so, Denny put it up for a vote. hehehehehehehehe
403-3. Short about 119 ppl.
The dems are pissed. How dare we actually get them on record! But we have them on tape.
Yes, this is remarkably sad. The seventies were years in which I was completely surrounded by academia. And I had left the independent thinking of my youth and mainly worried about children, business. . . What I didn’t worry about but somewhere in the noise of the background were the killing fields and the boat people. I was insensitive, yes. And I long suspected that the arguments, ones using the strained thinking we see in the Democrats today, that these horrors were our fault may have been true – but not for the reasons given.
The fault lay less in the “warmongers” than in the flower children, the short sighted like McGovern, the self-righteous like the Berrigans. Today, these still see their position (I was pretty much on that side but also pretty much one more silent zombie that didn’t question NPR as I listened to it each day) as righteous.
My generation is moving towards retirement without many realizing we betrayed principles that were the remarkable gifts of previous generations.
Because my generation’s “righteousness” has been applauded by institutions that should have held them accountable (the press, the churches, the historians) I believe they will seize almost anything as a “tet” moment. This was a fine moment – for all those institutions said, ah, yes, they stood up to the man. Now they are the man.
May the generation that followed us, that is fighting this war, see better than we, be less xenophobic (how little do we consider that my generation, the “me” generation, was the same one that didn’t respect the lives of those people across the world and the American red-neck & hard-hat was willing to put his life on the line for the “other” in a way few of us in academic circles would). And may we wake up a bit before we reach our greedy retirement, taking our soc. sec. from the next generation and fighting any privatization of the social security we are so sure to “get” and they not.
I think it’s about time we stopped being nice to the Republicans and George W. Bush. It is now more then TWO YEARS past the fall of Baghdad, and the insurgency is no closer to being defeated or destroyed then it was when it first got underway. Moreover, it seems to me that recent reports from the capture of prisoners suggests that the influence of foreign fighters has lessened over time, and that the insurgency is becoming more nationalistic in nature.
Moreover, there seems to be very little political means to fight the insurgency. America seems to be in a position where it can not really be militarily defeated, but nor can it win. For military victory can not come without a political strategy.
It’s up to George W. Bush, as the American commander in Chief, to come up with a coherent and implementable political strategy to defang the insurgency, and drain its support. It is possible tht the Iraqi elections next month will prove to be a turning point. I hope so. But hope is not enough- there needs to be a fall-back strategy which is more subtle then just another American military offensive.
So given his less then stellar success in Iraq, it is little wonder that the American President is now under attack from his domestic enemies. If I was a US taxpayer, I’d be sticking the boot in him as well. I don’t see how it’s the Democrats who are creating a political defeat in Iraq.
“Insurgency no closer to being defeated”
“Insurgents becoming more nationalistic”
“little politcial means”
“less than stellar success in Iraq”
You have GOT to stop reading Auto Trader and check out the blogs that are coming out of Iraq and the States that give the true picture.
Sorry did I say Auto Trader? Meant to type Guardian.
Blogs will be the bulwark against the slide into defeatism that prevents a repeat of Vietnam.
Also, repeat after me, Iraq is NOT Vietnam (seems so many are too dense to figure that out).
The crazies can blow up mosques and hotels, but so far the Kurds and Shi’a have refused to be goaded into treating the Sunni in kind.
From a military standpoint this conflict has been the most successful ‘failure’ ever. Every objective has been met with minimum losses on our side and amongst civilians (and maximum death amongst the targets given the self-imposed constraints).
The truth will out in the end, the MSM just proves their cluelessness with their defeatist drumbeat, if the Dems continue to join them they will find themselves farther marginalized.
AMR, we left Vietnam to its fate in 1972. Cutting funding in 1974 would have made no difference.
Wrong. Between Tet in 1968 and 1972 the US built up the ARVN in its image. It became an army with tanks, artillery, air support etc. This army, with US air support, defeated the NVA invasion in Easter 1972.
When the Congress cut off funding to the ARVN in 1974, the fate of South Vietnam was sealed. They had a modern army, but no money for ammunition or fuel. Even so, the 1975 invasion was no walkover for the NVA, South Vietnam held out longer than France did in 1940. All they needed from America was materiel and some more air support, not troops on the ground. With continued support from the USA South Vietnam would exist today, just as South Korea does. Instead, its ally stabbed it in the back in its hour of need, and ensured that 58000 Americans died in vain, the ultimate betrayal. Let’s see if it happens again. If it does, it will prove that American support is ultimately worthless, to the detriment of us all.
XWL: “Blogs will be the bulwark against the slide into defeatism that prevents a repeat of Vietnam.”
This has to be the most optimistic declaration since a State legislature decreed that the value of pi was 3.14, period.
Face it: Bush lied, gambled and lost. From now on his big problem is saving face. The elections will be a howling success for democracy, by decree. The Iraqi army will be declared fighting fit soon after. The boys will come home in good order with tails neatly tucked between legs.
The script’s already been written, suckers. The debate is about the timing of the pullout, nothing more.
The Iraqi army will be declared fighting fit soon after. The boys will come home in good order with tails neatly tucked between legs.
I’m afraid it’s true.
I’m afraid that Osama bin Laden was right: the West, including the US are weak and vulnerable. Hit them hard and they run.
There is not the least doubt that this is true as far as Europe is concerned – they are already gonners.
As for the US …. this war isn’t fought with the determination and conviction (and means) needed to win. You cannot win fighting half-heartedly. The political will to win is absent. There is no enthusiasm, no vitality invested in this war.
So, yes, the US will cut and run, sooner or later. Maybe not under this President, but the next one.
The US is weak, not militarily, but mentally, morally. To be sure: there are many strong elements there, but many weak ones too.
Maybe, as John K pointed out above, a startegy of using air power to support a desired outcome in the coming civil war in Iraq – could work, but it seems to me that even for that alone there is not enough will power in the US.
or…
The only way Bush can ‘lose’ in Iraq is if the US military is defeated in the US Congress.
or…
Face it: Roosevelt lied, gambled and lost. The so-called threat of Nazi German WMD (well, did they find any? Did they?) was bogus and now, in 2005, thousands and thousand of US boys are still stuck in Germany years after the war is over. And please note that Germany’s so-called ‘democracy’ has produced intensely anti-American results. Clearly going to war with Nazi Germany in 1941 was bogus, right?
Just as a matter of interest, could anyone who forsees, for whatever reason, a US withdrawal from Iraq followed by a civil war, give us a idea of the likely consequences, both within that country and regionally?
The problem is with oil in the region. Not that we need it. We could get by one way or another. It’s that Oilrabians have SOOOO much money to fight their wars. And so many outside parties willing to help one or another faction in exchange for an oil promise.
No matter what course it follows, it will cross the borders and spread. Probably into Turkey via Kurdistan. Certainly into all the southern border states. Borders will start being fought back and forth by three forces. Existing borders, oil regions, and ethnic regions.
“You have GOT to stop reading Auto Trader and check out the blogs that are coming out of Iraq and the States that give the true picture.”
The blogs do nothing of the sort. I can find blogs from Iraq that neatly fit any pre-concieved view I wish to support. This is the problem with blogs, they give one person’s biased account of the world.
There are Iraqi’s in the resistance, there are some in government, some in academia, some in the police, and some who are expats. Each of them might choose to write a blog supporting a particular view of what’s going on. So what?
I’m closely involved in the UK and US healthcare systems, but if I write a blog explaining why the UK one is better, I don’t think many people here are going to read it, happy in the belief that they are getting the truth. Rather, they will assume I’m just another brainwashed statist. And they’ll have no trouble finding a blog by someone who exposes the waste and incompetence of the NHS and the wonders of the US system.
Blogs are not the answer.
Yes, the Democrats have definitely turned our Iraqi military advantage into decisive political defeat — of themselves.
J,
You’ve just made Carol’s case for her. You made a fairly convincing case that a blog can be found that will represent every possible viewpoint. And then say “so what?”
Apparently diversity of opinions and news sources is a bad thing? By default you are arguing for unipolar opinions and news. Presumably from MSM since that is pretty much the definition of ‘main stream’.
This is the problem with blogs, they give one person’s biased account of the world.
Point taken, but I’d like to gently point out that this is mostly true of other media sources as well. Somehow people forget that the reporters and analysts heard on the radio, seen on TV, and read in the newspaper are people too, giving their own biased account of the world.
Admittedly there is some oversight in some organizations, but typically that oversight is provided by a single editor or producer, a person with biases and a worldview of their own. In some cases it’s an editorial board, a group of people with a collective set of biases and a collective worldview. Not all news organizations are the same, but then not all blogs are the same either. It seems to me that an editorial board of that kind doesn’t differ in any significant way from the group of people who provide the editorial voice of a blog, like Samizdata.
I think it’s true that it’s hard to discern the truth among a multitude of competing voices, but it always was, there were just fewer voices.
Having said all of that, it is undeniable that the large traditional media organizations have a huge advantage in terms of staff and funding. I think this is why blogging runs so heavily to op-ed and analysis with very little actual reporting. I’d love to see bloggers work out ways to manage more reporting and higher quality of content, but these are still early days and the challenge is a great one. There are very few professional bloggers; does one become “MSM” when one goes full time?
Perry:
“Face it: Roosevelt lied, gambled and lost.” And not only that, on the basis if flawed intelligence, he approved the largest military-industrial project in history, the Manhattan Project, to develop the bomb. He lied to the American people and spent billions of our treasure. Well, lied philosophically since he didn’t actually tell us about it as it was a real, you know like secret 🙂
This is the problem with blogs, they give one person’s biased account of the world.
As opposed to the MSM that is always unbiased? Oh please this is the biggest myth going. Have you ever seen Olga Garin’s coverage of Israel? The bloody woman is almost gleeful when a bunch of Israelis gets killed by a car-bomb. Everyone in the media has prejudices one way or tother. Some cover them up better than others but they are all still there. Unbiased news coverage is a total joke.
All they needed from America was materiel and some more air support, not troops on the ground.
Some Vietnamese generals have said that’s all they ever needed. That few American boots need ever have touched Vietnamese soil. IOW, Eisenhower’s policy.
The Republitics–whose foreign agenda is basically to steal as much as they can worldwide using our military, while domestically arranging it so that our grandchildren will work for their grandchildren for free, while eagerly surrendering our freedoms to the terrorists — imagine we can project hundreds of thousands of troops into war zones thousands of miles away forever, we are in charge of what we do in Iraq, and how long we will stay.
Already aides of Sistani have said “after Dec elections, fatwah will be issued ordering occupation out, and it will be backed by non-violent action.” In other words, just as soon as the Shi’a have decided that they don’t need to use us anymore to die and pay for their war with the Sunnis, 15 million Shi’a will go sit on every road into Iraq, letting us travel in only one direction–out. Mighty as our army is it can’t fight without food and ammo re-supply, and shouting “We’re number one” ain’t gonna change that. It’s smart for us to get out now on our own terms, before we are evicted, and let the locals fight their own wars. For one thing, once we’re out, all factions in Iraq will start killing off the foreign terrorists, having no need for their various temporary alliances. We need some way to counter Bush’s hugely successful terrorist recruiting campaign. Getting out is the smart move.
Mama’s boys with big bucks and tiny dicks (the entire Republitic “leadership” class) though will fight to the last drop of my son’s blood as they work diligently to destroy America at home and abroad, so I’m afraid we will stay the off-course until, as several US generals have warned, our military is completely run into the ground, or the Shi’a impose a humiliating eviction.
The GREAT thing about blogs is they give one person’s biased account of the world.
You figure out if you trust them, or not.
Most Auto Trader reporting of Iraq, I think, “what is the opposite of what’s just been said”. Thing is, every once in a while the Guardian has a great and truthful article so I can’t always depend on them to get things wrong.
In South Vietnam, there was a solid body of pro-US opinion right to the very end. Not unlike the Baathists in Iraq, except the USA crippled their power when they overthrew Diem. Still, it carried on even without Diem, whereas the US has no one of substance outside of the Kurdish areas, who are not really pro-US but find the USA useful for now.
The first elections gave power to people who want the US out and are basically hostile to the USA’s plans for Iraq, seeking to team up with Iran. The next elections are likely to strengthen this.
What is most likely to happen is that the US are asked to leave. The existing government must figure they could stay in control with the forces they have, or else are nearly there. It will be Islamists and probably sectarian Shia, but that’s what the majority want.
So, W saying for a couple of years, when we’re asked to leave, we leave – is an eviction?
—- imagine we can project hundreds of thousands of troops into war zones thousands of miles away forever, —
We’ve been in Germany and SorK longer than I’ve been alive…………….
Tell me, samizdata, why the fascist imagery?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/mycentury/transcript/wk47d1.shtml
“Since I was born in 1913, I wore the black shirt for the first time when I went to university. University students at that time would wear black shirts on important occasions. When I got my degree I wore one. It was compulsory. But I didn’t like it too much from the point of view of aesthetics. The shirt also had a badge on it which was worn on the left. It was an eagle, with the book and the gun underneath it. This represented the motto of the university, because “a book and a gun make for the perfect Fascist”. ”
Could it be because you ARE fascists in the true Italian sense? After all, someone here just claimed that all opposition to the President’s war is treason- even by elected representatives of the people. Do you have any other interesting views we should be aware of?
Fascism is just capitalism taken to it’s ultimate logical conclusion.
The main thing a “Tet” scenario would need is a spectacular apparent success by the insurgency, to put strong and upsetting video images in front of the American public. This does not seem to be in the cards. Even with the active support of Syria and Iran which the insurgency enjoys, their capabilities are orders of magnitude smaller than what the Vietcong and NVA possessed in 1968. The war will continue to be one of attrition on the part of the USA and its Iraqi ally, and one of media theatre and intimidation focused on the local population by the resistance. Both sides seem to have the material means to continue like this for years.
The people who sincerely want the United States to be defeated — Leftists in the USA and elsewhere, Islamic fascists in Middle East and elsewhere — have been very consistent and very focused. The Left in the USA genuinely believes that the USA is a force for evil in the world and that anyone who fights against it should be supported or at least given the benefit of the doubt. The Anti-War Movement has had decades of practice in refining their methods and message. The way Cindy Sheahan was promoted into a major figure shows the capabilities of this community and its media allies. The Left as well as the insurgency can rely on the active complicity of the news media to be a megaphone for their messages and images. Both the Left and the insurgency can count also on the complicity of opportunistic politicians, both in the USA and abroad, who see opportunities in opposing “Bush and his War”. So, the anti-War movement will stay in the game and become increasingly effective as expenses and casualties mount. This will, in turn, give the insurgency the accurate awareness that they need only persevere to have a good shot at victory.
Moreover, public support for long and expensive wars is hard to sustain in the USA under any circumstances. After three years of fighitng moderate supporters bail out and want the thing wrapped up. This is a consistent historical pattern. Exacerbating this factor, our President has done a miserable job of explaining the war and rallying support for it, so support is withering faster than would otherwise be expected. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush is Commander in Chief for three more years, or so. Congress is unlikely to vote down his budget requests for the war unless public support collapses entirely — since that would mean not “supporting our troops”. See, e.g. yesterday’s vote. So, the USA has until the end of Mr. Bush’s term to get the situation stabilized and hand off the war to the Iraqis. That’s not a lot of time. Successful counter-insurgencies take more like a decade, e.g. El Salvador and Malaya.
I think that both candidates in the ’08 election will run on varying plans to remove the USA from Iraq, where fighting will be continuing due to active and passive foreign support for the resistance and the slow pace of building an Iraqi army. This is due both to American mistakes and the low quality of the underlying human material we are working with — Arab armies are generally incompetent for deep-rooted cultural reasons and Iraq is a particularly bad example of these pathologies.
It is too early to say if a viable state and army can be left behind or if we will see Saigon II and the helicopters lifting the US embassy staff out of Baghdad during the ’09-13 presidential term. I hope not, but hope is irrelevant. I won’t even give odds. Too much of what you read gives disparate and contradictory information.
The Democrats are worried that things are going too well.there won’t be enough time to lose this war,so they are calling for a withdrawal and will call it a defeat.
A week ago I would have agreed, the will seemed damaged and the momentum was with the cut0-and-run left.
This week’s defense by President Bush, VP Cheney and Senator McCain (mirabile dictu!) improved support. And the vote yesterday, cheap stunt though it was, sends a strong 403-3 signal.
Thankfully the President holds the cards. He is not up for re-election and it’s difficult to think that an antiwar plurality could come to power in ’06. W has three years to assemble a good outcome, and the effort is on pace for that to be “victory.”
What is most likely to happen is that the US are asked to leave. The existing government must figure they could stay in control with the forces they have, or else are nearly there. It will be Islamists and probably sectarian Shia, but that’s what the majority want.
Yes.
And what does the US want ? A relatively stable government, of any color, chosen by the Iraqi people, which can rule – i.e. maintain internal stability, and doesn’t engage in external wars, in international terrorism and WMD production.
When that is acheived, it’s mission accomplished, and time to leave.
The chances aren’t bright, and you usually don’t get all you desire. But, maybe, if a credible military threat (mainly air) is maintained even after the departure of the main force – the next Iraqi regime will abstain from foreign military adventures and WMD.
So I think it does not matter that much when exactly the US leaves. What matters most for now isn’t Iraq’s fate, but preventing Iran from bulding the bomb – i.e. maintaining a credible deterrence position.
Lamentably I repeat my pessimistic view, and my perception that the US is weak – I don’t see it doing anything about Iran …
Amazing how these discussions always devolve into reliving the Vietnam war, even though, as we all know, Iraq is not the same as Vietnam.
But it is more like WWII’s Catch-22. You want Iraq to have a stable gov’t before we leave, but how will you know it’s stable (without us) until we leave? Might as well leave now and find out if we will have to return to stabilize the gov’t.
The real lesson one can draw from Vietnam is not a broad generalization on armed conflict. Rather it is the simple truth that Democrats lose wars. J.F.K. Started Vietnam, as he should have to prevent the rapid destabilization of Southeast Asia, L.B.J. Escalated the war, not entirely unnecessary, but it was Richard Nixon who won the war. (Even if for a short time) Nixon withdrew American Soldiers on the understanding with the N.V.A. and V.C. that if any Communist insurgents entered the south carpet bombing of the north would resume and Soldiers would come back. Communism was contained, contrary to popular beleif we won. But the victory was short lived. As a Senator from California, Richard Nixon was instrumental to exposing Algier Hiss as a Soviet spy. Many of the members if congress during Nixon’s presidency were friends and associates of Hiss who were embarassed that the fair-haired boy of the Democratic party was a Soviet Spy. The reporters who broke the Watergate were egomaniacs. Look at the stories they broke afterwards. They exposed secret naval intelligence operations and generally smeared anyone powerful. The media, desperate for a story and to increase their own hegemony combined with the congress embarassed by and resentful of Nixon forced him to gracefully resign his office rather than be impeached. After Nixon’s resignation the N.V.A. and V.C. saw the weakness caused by the situation in Washingtin D.C. and took advantage of it. A few spiteful democrats, and an egomaniacal media lost south Vietnam to communism. And as a result of this caused the genocide in Cambodia. America can stay the course of the war in Iraq if we are strong enough. Instead of looking to the Vietnam War we should think of the Spanish American war. It can be our example of the right way to practice a kind of friendly imperialism.
Amazing how these discussions always devolve into reliving the Vietnam war, even though, as we all know, Iraq is not the same as Vietnam.
John, you know this and I know this, but I strongly suspect that for a lot of people, Iraq is just a way of reliving their salad days. There is no way the insurgents can win militarily; they represent a small section of a minority population and minorities dont win this kind of war if the majority is prepared to take steps to prevent it. The IRA tried to bomb the British out of Northern Ireland and reunite the island by force, and they failed because the Protestants and HMG decided that they were not going to be seen off by a gang of thugs. The Malayan Communists lost because too many of them belonged to the Chinese minority for their program to go down well with the Malay population. Che Guevara and his merry mob of murdering Marxists got themselves slaughtered in Bolivia because they thought they could intimidate the population into revolution. The Sunnis and the foreign jihadis represent 20% of the total population, and I strongly suspect that once the US leaves the Shi’ites will step on any further nonsense on their part, and will do so without any of the political or legal niceties that bind American hands in dealing with these people.
As for the Democrats, it always amazes me how otherwise sensible Americans can vote for some of these Lotus-eaters over and over again. The jihadis have made plain their intention to slaughter us, in their words and in their actions, and yet the Dems go on, acting as though nothing was wrong here, and if there were, all we would need is some sort of government program to fix the problem. I forget who wrote, when a man shows you who he is, believe him, but it is wisdom sorely lacking along the Potomac these days.
Fear mongering and comparative analysis yet this is the reality of today, Their ” is ” a relationship between Communist Vietnam and the U.S. nor did anyone fight the communists on the streets of America. Excuse me, but what was the point of the Vietnam war again? And this debate is Tet.Because the historical Tet Offensive in its application was a failure but the message it resonated across the globe wasnt.
So, W saying for a couple of years, when we’re asked to leave, we leave – is an eviction?
Commander Bunnypants says all kindsa things, whatever he thinks he can get over. This was said back when our former employee Allawi–a man famous in Iraq for bombing buses and theaters during Saddam’s day (isn’t there a word for that?)–was the head of Iraq. Didn’t look like a snowball’s chance in hell then that Allawi would ask us to leave, given that his throat would be slit the next day.
Back here in the real world the Soviet of People’s Deputies, errr, the US Congress, has authorized funds for building 4 permanent bases in Iraq with another 10 projected. If you read “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” Cheney’s requested Nat Security think-tank paper, you’ll see that the original idea stated in Sept 2000, in plain English, was to invade Iraq to install a permanent presence in the middle east, a mission so important it must be achieved–and this is a quote–“regardless of the presence or absence of Saddam Hussein.” So, yes, if the Shia tell us to get out December 16th, that will be an eviction. The Maladministration has never stated an exit strategy because the plan was and is for permanent bases.
We’ve been in Germany and SorK longer than I’ve been alive
Hmmm, and that with 70 attacks a day, currently 3 killed, 15-20 wounded a day, local population armed, with 45% saying in recent poll that killing US troops is a morally good thing to do, 80% saying US should leave immediately, with tanks, planes, being used at a pace 10 times greater than they were designed for? You honestly believe this is the same thing?
And I hope you haven’t believed the lies Bush, Cheney, Rice, Whacky Don has told that Germany and Japan had resistance too. There was 1, uno, one, US soldier killed by Germans during the entire post-war, zero, nada, zilch, none in Japan.
And this debate is Tet.Because the historical Tet Offensive in its application was a failure but the message it resonated across the globe wasnt.
You are right in a way. Tet was a comprehensive defeat for the Communists, and the VC was smashed as a fighting force. After Tet the fighting was done by NVA main force units. Tet was of course a propaganda victory for the Communists, because it came as a shock to America when the NVA attacked the US Embassy in Saigon, when the American people had been told they were winning the war. This was not something which bothered the Communists much, they did not really understand American public opinion, and were not interested in propaganda victories. Tet was such a severe setback for them, allied to the destruction of their bases in Cambodia in the so-called invasion of 1970, that they could not invade the South again until Easter 1972, when they lost again. It was only after the scum in Congress cut their ally loose that the Communists finally defeated the South in 1975. General Giap was not so much a military genius, more a persistent bugger.
(“Because the historical Tet Offensive in its application was a failure but the message it resonated across the globe wasnt.”)
That’s what i just don’t get! How can a battle go from a stunning victory and be twisted into a tragic defeat for american military arms. And then say the war was lost due to that one battle! Simply amazing…
All i can say is that the MSM is at it again… “Vietnam”… “TET”… “Quagmire”… “Body counts”… “Abusive american soldiers”… “Puppet government”… “War crimes”… ect & ect…
America having enemies… Naaahhhh, it’s all in our heads. That is if we are allowed too keep our heads after this conflict is over! Duh… Enemy? What enemy??? Duuuuhhhh….
OK, so we’ve established that the Iraq Attaq is a no-hoper. Assume the boys scuttle by end-2006. Who’s going to be the next Saddam Hussein, and how long after law ‘n’ order is entrusted to indigenous forces will the joke-democracy be overthrown and the civil war over? Would it be better to have an ayatollah in charge? How are we going to ensure that the next dictator, clerical or military, is ‘our bastard’?
That’s what we should be asking if we’re looking ahead. Undoubtedly the State Depatment is already pencilling in its preferred strong man. You liberventionists and freepers really must get out from behind the eightball.
Jacob: “As for the US …. this war isn’t fought with the determination and conviction (and means) needed to win. You cannot win fighting half-heartedly. The political will to win is absent. There is no enthusiasm, no vitality invested in this war.”
This is all too true. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been going on for almost four years, yet there are no heroic stories for Hollywood to tell. The rescue of Jessica Lynch turned out to be a crock, and Pat Tillman it transpires was killed by friendly fire and the circumstances clumsily hushed up. The best known individual to have come out of this conflict, God help us, is PFC Lynndie England. The images most associated with the fighting are those of Abu Ghraib. That may not be fair, but it is so, and it seems implausible at this stage that the smartest spin doctor could turn perceptions around.
Public opinion is way ahead of the senators. You can’t win a war of attrition thousands of miles from home unless far more than 40% of the electorate are with you. Besides, up till now Bush had good economic conditions to mitigate qualms. They could soon be ending. If there’s a slump in the homeland, with memories of the bungled response to Katrina still fresh, indictments against the President’s aides in the pipeline and his tenure enterng into its lame-duck phase, the prospects of a decisive push against the insurgency are slim, even if the Army knew where to do it. Looks like it’s time to cut losses and mend fences.
jim p said:
The appropriate term is enduring, not permanent. And this is SOP, once you no longer need the mobility of forward operations installations. The expected lifespan is “greater than two years.” Nothing sinister or unreasonable about that.
That not only incorrect, but deceptive as well:
Wow. Nobody fed the troll. He was a particularly vile one deserving of a good thrashing, but everyone stayed cool. You guys are good . . .
Some history for Jim p…
Werewolf was name of the nazi resistence movement even in a completely destroyed country that had to be feed by USA…
To add a thought — when the US media turned against the Vietnam war after Tet, the US media was an 800-pound gorilla. Now the US media is more like an overweight show poodle, long past its winning days.
The US media has turned itself into a left-wing echo chamber, and consequently has continuously decreasing importance and credibility. (Don’t laugh, Brits — you have the BBC!). Think of the many disgraces of the once-respected New York Times. Think of the embarrassment that Dan Rather became. Apart from the small minority of anti-American lefties, who is paying attention to the main-stream media any more?
There will be winners and losers from the Iraq conflict, to be sure. It may be that the US media will be the biggest losers of all.
What the world needs to be concerned about is the next Democrat administration. When Pres Rodham-Clinton is faced with serious international problems (as she inevitably will be), and she knows that the lefties at home will not tolerate boots on the ground, she will have to follow the path blazed by Clinton in the former Yugoslavia — sidestep the UN and bomb people back to the Stone Age from 30,000 feet, then walk away. If the enemy is Iran or North Korea, she may even use nuclear weapons. In the light of what follows, history is going to look back at G. W. Bush with great admiration.
IMO in terms of psy-ops the US started Vietnam from way behind – volunteer soldiers die as heroes, but dead conscripts look like innocents dragged to the slaughter. Not to mention, being half-trained and emotionally unsuited, they’re far more likely to die in large numbers. 2000 dead was a recent “milestone” in the Iraq war. It would have been a “statistical blip” in Vietnam.
I’d say that’s the real reason that the anti-war movement never really got off the ground on Iraq. Corollary: it never will. The Dems can beat their heads bloody against this brick wall, but the American public will see the matter through to a conclusion.
It just goes to show that some people only see what they want to see.
The first person to say that was a moron and it does not get less moronic by being repeated. The logical conclusion of capitalism is the completely unfettered flow of capital, you know, like you DON’T get under a fascist/socialist system.
Anyone remember mogadishu?? Osama does, if he’s still around. So does his terrorists co-horts & sponsoring states! We got more of a drubbing from the MSM than the terrorists could have ever dreamed or hoped to have given us back then!
If mogadishu had emboldened bin laden, i can only imagine just how many more terrorists would be emboldened… By us just throwing up our hands in frustration and just walking away, once again! When is enough… ENOUGH!!! Stay until the job is done, Period!!!
the war in Iraq is one big period.
and yeh its true I cheer every time a Yank gets wasted.
I always go for the underdog!
The werewolves were also good at clotheslining.
The Armed Forces learned quickly to either keep their windshields up or they gerry-rigged poles w/hooks on top to take the brunt.
–You want Iraq to have a stable gov’t before we leave, but how will you know it’s stable (without us) until we leave?–
Yeah, John, look at phrawnce.
Could be heading for their 6th Republic.
— Cheney’s requested Nat Security think-tank paper, you’ll see that the original idea stated in Sept 2000, in plain English, was to invade Iraq to install a permanent presence in the middle east, a mission so important it must be achieved–and this is a quote–“regardless of the presence or absence of Saddam Hussein.” —
And if Prince Al had won????
Election wasn’t decided til December, that paper wasn’t worth what it was printed on at that point.
Julian Morrison: Surely the main reason why there hasn’t been a bigger antiwar movement in the States is that there’s no longer a draft. But if a big crisis blew up over, say, Taiwan or North Korea whileup to 150,000 troops were still tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan… what then?
A draft that meets today’s needs would not permit so many affluent kids to escape. Canada is no longer an option, and deferment for undergraduates would be harder. That would fuel resentment among the articulate and activist.
It would be hard to conscript non-whites, given the current requirements of the US Army. It is Congressionally forbidden to recruit those with an IQ of under 80, and there are tougher minima for soldiers called upon to operate smart weaponry (smarter than the Nam-era technology) which effectively exclude 60% of US blacks from the service. A lot of Latinos would escape frontline service applying the same tests.
With volunteering on the decline the Army has recently had to lower its standards and offer rear-echelon roles to near-morons. The top brass are alarmed about a future degradation of capabilities if numbers of less bright soldiers are retained.
It has become plain that today’s Fourth Generation, low-intensity wars cannot be won by clever technology and shock ‘n’ awe alone. Plenty of boots on the ground– in the casbahs more than on conventional battlefields– are still de rigeur.
Matt: I suspect the modern US army’s attitude to the draft approximates to “Hmm, lemme think. Slaves with rifles. Unfit untrained unmotivated rabble. Grumpy teenagers operating billion-dollar machinery. Fight our own guys 24/7 before even making contact with the enemy. My, what a wonderful idea.”
Cry into your beers, freepers! YOU LOSE!
Julian: Plus the problem of portly junk-fed kids who’ve grown up wearing nothing but sneakers or trainers suddenly having to route-march in boots under the sun of a Southern camp. Agony!
Tom Titmouse presumably cheered for the Kymer Rouge and various other loser mass murderers because they were the underdog. The term cretin comes to mind.
Yes, this thread does have a particularly high dickhead quotient.
Some may have had a little too much to drink cause somethings effecting their comprehension. The tide of the debate was turned a few posts ago.
The meta-lesson of Viet Nam is that you don’t need to fight and win every battle to win the war. Viet Nam was a skirmish in the Cold War. We lost the battle; we won the war. Iraq is a skirmish in the war against the Islamists. We have lost the battle; we will win the war.
I had started to wonder where all the Bush groupies were hiding. Hallelujah.
The talk of Fascism being “capitalism” ignores both the defintion of Fascism given by the Fascists themselves (Fascism as statism the opposite of what they called “liberalism” – which then meant the free market), and it ignores the fact that Fascist Italy was the most statist country in Europe (bar the Soviet Union).
Next some moron will be saying we are like the German National Socialists in the 1930’s.
“Educated” people do not seem to read works like Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” or Mises’ “Omnipotent Government” any more.
As for Iraq:
I did not favour the idea of going to war. However, I believe the war to winnable.
It is possible that Iraq will be a democratic federal state.
Titmouse, maybe should take up a collection to send you to Syria so you can join your friends in the “insurgency” and find out just what they are really about! Perhaps after a little “indoctrination” in their superior lifestyle you may wish you had a few more personal freedoms.
Despicable!
Lot of trolls out I see. I’d love to follow up on some of their assertions, but that would be assuming they had the ability to produce something deeper than ‘Bush lied’….
This Iraq thing, it’s important. Admittedly, I’ve studied this a bit more than the average Joe, but it should be evident to many that the Middle Eastern Status Quo was not working. No one else had a working strategy- if you can call bombing aspirin factories or treating terrorists like heads of state (complete with Nobel peace prize) a viable alternative. And outside of the arrogant, unilateral US- not much else!
So, now we have a terrorist problem. Open your mind and look at the reports- there is no unified ‘insurgency’. You have a fledgling government picking up the pieces of decades of misrule. Let me repeat that, since it’s not something you will be aware of after incessant reporting of bombs and prisoners by the Beeb and the MSM- there is an Iraqi government. They are asserting themselves more everyday. It’s not pretty, but we have much more going than these fools want you to believe. Their methods of counterinsurgency would be a bit different than ours if we left abruptly, probably closer to what Saddam Hussein did to them.
On top of that, we will be withdrawing next year. It’s already been announced. Let me translate that, even though some readers have alluded to it- it is giving the government time to stabilize. We will be there to help, but it’s counterproductive to their governments sovereignty to maintain a large presence. You can already see this in the offensives underway in Al Anbar province- look at how many Iraqi units are operating versus just six months ago.
But hey, don’t listen to my unsophisticated and clearly biased (probably that military propaganda when I was in Iraq) opinions. Bushitler and all that, bring out the troops, ra ra ra. All this info is out there on the web- and while it may be a bit premature to claim that the blogosphere will stop the ‘leftist MSM agenda’, it is a big help.
While the politicians and activists whine and groan, our military is winning the war.
Iraq is a skirmish in the war against the Islamists. We have lost the battle; we will win the war.
WTF? We have lost the battle in Iraq, how? Our side is holding elections, our side is rebuilding infrastructure, while their side is bleeding goodwill by attacking civilians and shifting resources back out of Iraq and toward Afghanistan (again).
I have maintained, and continue to maintain, that we are making progress, however haltingly, toward our strategic objectives in Iraq, and the Islamists are not. I am even willing to generalize that to the Mideast in general, with the sole caveat that the Islamists are making progress toward their strategic objective of obtaining nuclear weapons via the Iranian program.
We are winning, they are losing. If you disagree, spell out for me the progress that the Islamists are making toward a unified Caliphate, toward the destruction of Israel, or toward any of their stated goals.
Oh do shut-up, all of you.
“We have lost the battle; we will win the war”
Will you? Are you volunteering then? Are you going to tell the bereaved that their sons and daughters have lost the battle, but you’re going out to show them how it should’ve been done?
Get back to wanking over your commando mags.
Has anyone read Tommy Franks’ book? Remember him? He was the head of CentCom….the man responsible for US forces in both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
He opined on the future of Iraq, and said that he thinks it will develop into an analog of Turkey. Not exactly a truly western-style liberal democracy, but something significantly better than Saddam’s days. Also, he took a guess that US involvement would continue for about 5 years, post invasion. From everything I’ve read and from those with whom I’ve talked upon their return from Iraq, the 5 year prediction seems about on track.
I do think there will be *some* US, perhaps also UK, presence in Iraq beyond 5 years, but nothing near the present level of 150,000. I expect to see forces redeployed from Iraq at a gradual pace, a brigade at a time perhaps, over the next couple of years, probably starting early ’06.
For anyone interested in a rather unique perspective of the conflict in Iraq, I highly recommend Michael Yon’s blog (which has been referenced here on Samizdata, before). http://michaelyon.blogspot.com
The Iraqi delegation to those reconcilliatory meetings sponsered by the Arab league issued statement, you should read it. Timetable for US withdrawel, Armed resistance in Iraq is understandable, no terrorism.. What does that say about your winning Democracy. I suspect many copies of the text in the US will omit the Resistance part.
So Bierce, then I must be right since I did volunteer, right? I get the ‘moral authority’ end of your chickenhawk argument? Or is that just reserved for say, Cindy Sheehan? You should follow your argument past simple slogans, if you’re capable.
Like Nate said, check out a different viewpoint, like Michael Yon. And don’t worry, ohm, we will get the resistance part. Do you think our countries will censor it? I’m curious what amazing place you come from where the ‘resistance part’ isn’t censored. Your statement baffles me. The UN hasn’t taken control of the Internet just yet.
A selection of ohm’s remarks on the Arabs League’s statement:
Not so. We have access to the whole text. Whether we’re willing to accept its implications is a different question.
We’re winning in Iraq, just like we didn’t get our asses kicked in Viet Nam.
Kevin L. Connors
I’m well aware of the Werewolves. The vast majority of them abandoned their efforts after the German high command surrendered and ordered resistance to stop. Some true-believers didn’t. As to deceptive, well, my facts may have been wrong–it wasn’t one US soldier killed in post war Germany, it was 45 according to your link–shit, man we’ve lost 45 men in the past two weeks in Iraq! So the main point I’m making that the two occupations are not equivalent, is not deceptive at all. But the claim that they are…? The Werewolves never came into major play after the war no matter how you misrepresent it. Even your own link makes that point. And again, nothing like Iraq happened in Japan either.
Sandy P
And if Prince Al had won????
Osama bin Laden would now be dead. The Constitution would still be alive. We would not be involved in this lunatic war.
More fundamentally, it’s likely that before 9/11, several major investigations, including the efforts by John O’Neil, amongst many others, that were trying to nail family-friends of the Bush’s among the bin laden crowd, would NOT have been ordered shut down, and on 9/11 itself there would not have been the mysterious and widespread failure by our airforce to respond to errant aircraft, which had intercepted such aircraft over 190 times in the previous 21 months in under 20 minutes–an average of 15-minutes. In short, slime that Gore is, he probably wouldn’t have sold our nation down the river so that he could act out his fantasies of being a Holy King.
Election wasn’t decided til December, that paper wasn’t worth what it was printed on at that point.
And after being decided that paper became the central articulation of formal US Policy. 19 signers of it–you really must read it if you are to have an opinion–ended up in high positions in Defense and State, or in the VP’s office. You really need to read “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” to understand what’s been done to us and why. They have no shame and state their plans quite openly. They bemoan that their agenda–six wars starting with occupying Iraq– could not be achieved without “a new Pearl Harbor” to get the public behind their plan.
Panther
That’s what i just don’t get! How can a battle go from a stunning victory and be twisted into a tragic defeat for american military arms.
You have to know that several times in the previous years we had been told, after each escalation of troop levels, that “we had turned the corner” we saw “light at the end of the tunnel” etc. A week or so before the Tet offensive, the major news headline was Westmoreland declaring that the enemy could no longer mount meaningful resistance. The fact that the offensive could be mounted convinced most Americans that the leadership either had no clue as to what we were doing, or were lying. Believe it or not, with most Americans, lying about life and death issues reflects badly on the liar. The media, by the way, acted much like it did with Iraq.
Even the so-called liberal press Times, Post, etc, went along for years with whatever lie they were told in both instances, and painted war oppenents–who mainly didn’t want us to waste our lives and treasure and kill innocent people for no advantage to America–as traitors. It took several years of being lied to, and a huge amount of unnecessary suffering before the American people themselves forced first the media and finally our Representatives to oppose the lunacy.
Dont try to pass that stuff off in Iraq as Democracy, who you trying to kid. Im not going to get into the sham constitutional referendum and how the results mirrored their guesstimate ethnic and religious divisions, cause we already know how that works. wether 100% of population votes or 75,50,25% vote. the results will still miirror those stats exactly. Saddam faired similarly in his day.I got one for you. How does Chalibi get to be Oil minister, He has no, nor ever had any popular support. Same with most of those holed up in the green zone for their own protection.Democratic goverment of Iraq. Amusing, Saddam goes on trial for the exact same thing their doing. Disappearance, torture and murder, .But thats OK, because the US wants them to win. I wouldnt be suprised in the least if after everything was settled and they won ( I am a doubter ) that they use there new skills on political opponents. Like they did in the first election.You hould be ashamed, you have nothing to be proud of you bunch of wanna be lord of lords crusaders. You Have installed an Islamic regime now officially called democratic and who’s real leader is an ayatollah. You have uprooted saddams baath party and system. And in the absence of a idealistic politic, Is Religious order in this case ISLAM.You go on and chase that spook Zarquawi and his merry men bak and forth across the mirage Ho chi minh trail. YEAH REAL GOOD JOB FELLAS, you killed captured tens of thousands yet created millions more in the process. a little hint fellas if your religious. Your god is not a christian god, It is the father of all LIES