Come On, Generals, Let's Move Fast

Nick Gillespie | June 30, 2005

The Libertarian Party has announced an exit plan for U.S. military in Iraq. The conclusion:

Our troops have completed their missions: the liberation of Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the provision of security for the January 30, 2005, elections. American military personnel should be commended for accomplishing these difficult tasks and performing them in a courageous and selfless manner. We cannot continue to keep our servicemen and women committed to an open-ended, violent conflict in Iraq. By removing our troops in an orderly and systematic fashion over the course of one year, we will withdraw our troops on our terms while retaining the honor and respect that they deserve. By creating a direct aid program for Iraq, we give them the necessary funds to become an advanced, industrialized, democratic nation. By giving the Iraqi government full control over the disbursement of aid funds, we respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and foster the development of good diplomatic relations. Our exit strategy will help to end the senseless loss of American and Iraqi lives. It will ensure that Iraq is rebuilt in an efficient and expedient manner, at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayers.

Whole thing, which echoes U.S. disengagement in Vietnam and is well worth reading despite your view on the invasion and occupation, here.

Lyrics to "Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die Rag," from which this post's title is taken, here.

Tip o' hat to many readers who directed me to the LP plan.

Comments

R C Dean|6.30.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Our exit strategy will help to end the senseless loss of American and Iraqi lives.

Only if you live in a fantasy world where the Baathists and Islamists go home and leave Iraq in peace.

If you live the real world, you realize that a precipitous pull-out by the US will trigger a "final offensive" by the Baathists and the Islamists to fatally wound the now-weakened and vulnerable Iraqi government. Eventually, one supposes, after the current government is overthrown due to the withdrawal of the American military (there's your Vietnam analogy, quagmiristas), the Baathists and the Islamists will have their own little civil war in Iraq to determine who rules the roost. Big improvement over the current situation.

Or perhaps the current government survives. They can only do this by finding a new sponsor. The ChiComs, with their burgeoning thirst for oil and new-found global activists, certainly come to mind. Or perhaps the UN somehow assembles a peacekeeping force sufficient to win the day, turning Iraq into Palestine writ large.

That's sure to turn out better for the Iraqis.

|6.30.05 @ 11:15AM|#

I don't know, man. It's short shriftness like that which keeps me away from joining the LP. It's not very real-politik. I mean, yeah, the stated purpose of the invasion by Bush is "the liberation of Iraq" but I think to anyone rational understands that also implies stabilizing the place. I may not agree with all of Bush's views/plan on this issue, but I think some of the LP statement portrays sort of a juvenile gotcha-ism. I can hear my libertarian bros saying "Well, he -said- the purpose was the liberation of iraq, so was he lying??"

That's not to say I disagree with the premise of 'getting out o' there' with a quickness. It's just that this particular statement spends the bulk of its intro pointing out the administration's mistakes, which makes it wreak of "take that, Bush!" as opposed to "let's do the right thing, even though we screwed up in the first place."

I think the main issue, and I'm saying this as a person who does want us out of there ASAP, is that this -is- an exit strategy, but not a victory strategy.

Not saying that with my middle finger perched in the air, or whatnot.

David|6.30.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Um, R C Dean, that would seem to imply that we should *never* leave.

Without tons and tons of additional "support" (a/k/a money stolen from U.S. taxpayers), the Iraqi government will never be able to stand up to the insurgency.

And BTW, how very... libertarian... of the LP to suggest a foreign aid program. It may be "pragmatic", but come on...

|6.30.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Hmm, the first two posts are reminding me of a political cartoon from the 1972 presidential campaign showing Nixon at a roulette table in the "Indochina Casino", with a Vietnamese croupier at the wheel. Nixon is turning to a figure representing the American public with his hand out saying, "Trust me, I've got a system...."

Also, when the Secretary of Defense testifies to Congress that the war may last another 12 years, exactly how is that not a quagmire? Fourteen years total would make the Iraq war longer than the entire period of active American involvement in Vietnam.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 11:32AM|#

By removing our troops in an orderly and systematic fashion over the course of one year, we will withdraw our troops on our terms while retaining the honor and respect that they deserve.

at least the LP understands that this is the only way we're coming home with anything that could be spun to look like victory.

|6.30.05 @ 11:34AM|#

No. Pulling out now would only allow for the insurgents to further organize their actions to the point of actually taking over the country, or, if not that, make life for the government so difficult that they cannot find anyone to serve in their police or military and quickly become a joke. It would only demolish whatever morale is left among the Iraqi people and make them deeply resentful of us for having abandoned them at such a critical moment, thus only retaining Iraq's former status as a country with deeply anti-American feelings.

I did not support President Bush in either election, nor do I think he has done a good job of managing the situation in Iraq or handling the problems- some of them inevitable- that have stemmed from it. But he is right to not set a pullout date. That would only give the insurgents something to look forward to; in fact, many would probably stop their attacks in the hopes of accelerating our departure, only to take over with massive force after we have left. Of course, this does not mean that we can't have some kind of timetable with goals that can be met- like, say, when we should have the Iraqi security forces up to a certain level, or when disagreeing factions of the new government can peacefully sit down and start negotiating their differences in a diplomatic way. But pulling out would only cause chaos and make our soldiers, who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much, look like cowards in the eyes of the world. We need to stay in there until the Iraqi security forces are fully functioning; that may be a long time and may involve more sacrifices, but the alternative is far worse.

|6.30.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Won't you have to run this by Ariel Sharon?

fyodor|6.30.05 @ 11:38AM|#

I long for the days when hawks compared the Iraqi insurgency to post war Germany.

R C Dean|6.30.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Um, R C Dean, that would seem to imply that we should *never* leave.

Only if you believe the Iraqis will never be capable of governing and securing their own country. Do you believe that, David?

By removing our troops in an orderly and systematic fashion over the course of one year, we will withdraw our troops on our terms while retaining the honor and respect that they deserve.

This is truly, truly Nixonian. "Peace with honor" practically verbatim, no? And look how well that worked out.

Ask the Vietnam vets, who were (prematurely) withdrawn under just such a plan, if they feel that they retained the honor and respect they deserve.

Really, folks, the LP plan is an almost willful attempt to guarantee a Vietnam style defeat in a strategic situation that is readily distinguishable from Vietnam in almost every significant dimension. The last time we did what the LP is recommending we do here, we lost, and our ally lost. Why on earth should we try it again?

|6.30.05 @ 11:41AM|#

>>We need to stay in there until the Iraqi security forces are fully functioning; that may be a long time and may involve more sacrifices, but the alternative is far worse

|6.30.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Frankly, I'm shocked that the Libertarian party would suggest praising "our" soldiers for carrying out the murderous designs of "our" state.

|6.30.05 @ 11:45AM|#

Who controls the news? Hint: Think rhyme.

|6.30.05 @ 11:48AM|#

"The last time we did what the LP is recommending we do here, we lost, and our ally lost."

Except that now, 30 years later, we have won the war for their "hearts and minds". Even the old guard communists in vietnam are blaming their own government for their hard economic times, and hence the government is liberalizing. Without a single taxpayer dollar spent, or american life sacrificed.

And of course, the outcome showed just how much hyperbole the domino theory was. Unless I'm mistaken and we currently pay our taxes to the U.S.S.R. Which should cause at least a pause for those that advocate a reverse domino theory.

|6.30.05 @ 11:50AM|#

I am supposing this plan was released from the Libertarian Party World Headquarters at the Holiday Inn Express in Pacoima.

|6.30.05 @ 11:52AM|#

We have to pull out sometime and I don't see how creating a schedule for that would be a bad ideal. People say that the insurgents would just wait for us to leave and then launch a final attack but if our plan allows time for the Iraq government to prepare itself to fully control its nation then let them do that. In Vietnam we pulled out knowing that the South Vietnamese could not repel the north without us.

|6.30.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Ask the Vietnam vets, who were (prematurely) withdrawn under just such a plan, if they feel that they retained the honor and respect they deserve.

They lost their honor and respect the day the US Army drafted them.

You should really be asking the question of the Vietnamese.

|6.30.05 @ 11:53AM|#

If we leave Iraq now, we'll be fighting Mohamedans in Houston. What we need is more Rambos and less traitors.

|6.30.05 @ 11:55AM|#

"This is truly, truly Nixonian. 'Peace with honor' practically verbatim, no? And look how well that worked out."

Pretty swell, actually. Bush was just chillin' with the Vietnamese premier last week. (No word if the premier got a cool nickname, though.)

|6.30.05 @ 11:58AM|#

All the trouble pulling out of Gaza is a message to Bush: Don't try pulling out of Iraq. It will never happen until Sharon wants it to happen.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 11:59AM|#

exactly how is that not a quagmire? Fourteen years total would make the Iraq war longer than the entire period of active American involvement in Vietnam.

the price of empire, mr sr.

i actually think mr dean -- although he hardly means to -- makes a small bit of sense. the insurgency isn't terrorists and foreigners -- it's native iraqis. the administration all but acknowledges this fact in negotiating with the insurgents, who claim to want very reasonable terms.

Top insurgent field commanders and negotiators informed TIME that the rebels have told diplomats and military officers that they support a secular democracy in Iraq but resent the prospect of a government run by exiles who fled to Iran and the West during Saddam's regime. The insurgents also seek a guaranteed timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, a demand the U.S. refuses. But there are some hints of compromise: insurgent negotiators have told their U.S. counterparts they would accept a U.N. peacekeeping force as the U.S. troop presence recedes. Insurgent representative Abu Mohammed says the nationalists would even tolerate U.S. bases on Iraqi soil. "We don't mind if the invader becomes a guest," he says, suggesting a situation akin to the U.S. military presence in Germany and Japan.

that's a bargain only arrogance can refuse, seeing as we're openly losing to an expanding and ever-more lethal insurgency, going bankrupt doing it, calling in favors, wrecking our volunteer military and shredding any moral authority we might have in the process.

i wouldn't hold out. we'll likely end up over a barrel.

the point is that the insurgency isn't directed against anyone so much as the american puppet government. give the insurgents the voice in government they ask, and the insurgency likely diminishes tenfold or vanishes. if that means dumping this little neocon artifice of a government for something less western and more iraqi, so be it. what the insurgents offer would leave the american imperial base structure in iraq, which is obviously the non-negotiable long-term realistic objective for the administration, unopposed. and that sword of damocles would do much to retain american influence against other foreign powers.

if there's a civil war to be fought in iraq that has been repressed since the british forced the state into existence, then our presence or absence does utterly nothing to prevent it from occuring except by giving them a common enemy. we don't even control the cities there anymore. unless mr dean foolishly and provocatively proposes staying forever in force to provide them a common target, the fight will happen. some problems we can't solve.

|6.30.05 @ 12:00PM|#

"Pretty swell, actually. Bush was just chillin' with the Vietnamese premier last week."

You mean nothing bad happened in Vietnam between our pullout and last week?

|6.30.05 @ 12:00PM|#

And BTW, how very... libertarian... of the LP to suggest a foreign aid program. It may be "pragmatic", but come on...


A lot of the new influx into the LP has been performing on very pragmatic grounds. Without the willingness to drop the rhetoric a notch, the LP will never amount to anything, and thats why the more pragmatists that join it, the closer the party gets to becoming more libertarian and less Libertarian.

Also, look at it this way: we're not getting much troop numbers from foreign countries - the manpower in Iraq is pretty much all US troops. Shift it to foriegn aid, and there'll be a lot less cost there for us in terms of money and lives in the form of money coming in from other countries.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 12:01PM|#

It would only demolish whatever morale is left among the Iraqi people and make them deeply resentful of us for having abandoned them at such a critical moment, thus only retaining Iraq's former status as a country with deeply anti-American feelings.

there will certainly be some of that in some quarters, but we're almost universally reviled there anyway. do you think pro-american feelings are EVER going to enter the equation? consider what we've done.

our wounded pride and popularity should be the last consideration.

|6.30.05 @ 12:04PM|#

That country deserves a civil war. I have a hard time feeling empathy for the people who would have to fight off the Baathists and Islamists, considering that we still assume they would have gladly fought for their liberty under Saadam if they'd had the means. A country of unemployed angry men armed with AK-47s stands a half decent chance in my mind. A quick count tells me that quite a few "industrialized nations" have had their own civil wars within the past 200 years. Good enough for us means it's good enough for them.

Say the worst case scenario unfolds and either the Baathists or Islamists rule the roost in 2, 5, 10, 12 years. Might it not be easier to take them on and defeat them finally with a regrouped and rested effort when they're "in control" of the country and not blended in with the general population? Maybe we'll even get to see them in full uniform? Wouldn't that be grand?

And isn't it ironic? One view calls for an as close to immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces as humanly possible. Those holding it are accused of having a decidedly negative view of the possibility of victory. Yet those who hold we should remain there until "Mission Accomplished: Part II" unfolds seem to hold a fairly negative view of the possibility that the Iraqis might figure their own shit out.

Control is relative.

And maybe the foreign aid program could be the rest of the world freely exchanging dollars, yen, rupees, and euros for whatever services a war-torn land can provide, assuming the country's resources hadn't been sold off already to a secret bidder from outside the country (oops -- am I too late for that?).

Or maybe, instead of tens of billions of our tax dollars being sent there every year to build bases and fight the insurgents, we could send fives of billions as aid for their government to do with as they wish. If that means locking half the country away, well, maybe at least the U.S. might get knocked out of the top spot on the list of nations that incarcerate their own citizenry. Hey, maybe the World Bank could handle the disbursment as a loan and we get to essentially own the country the old way.

|6.30.05 @ 12:04PM|#

What happens to all that oil? The LP is dreaming. We're never leaving. Iraq belongs to Halliburton.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 12:06PM|#

But he is right to not set a pullout date.

this is actually the old tactic of the british empire in iraq. constantly address cries of oppression with cant about leaving, but never actually plan to leave. the brits kept that up for some sixty years -- until their empire bankrupted them and forced them out.

is that the plan we want to follow?

|6.30.05 @ 12:08PM|#

We're following Sharon's plan.

|6.30.05 @ 12:08PM|#

Also, let me get this straight:

Bush can't set a time table for withdrawal because the insurgents will stop their attacks and husband their strength.

However,

Bush has repeatedly stated that the US will withdraw when Iraq is stable and peaceful.

Why is it, then, that the insurgents don't just stop their attacks now so as to create an image of stability and peace, thereby encouraging a withdrawal? Afterall, if they have the discipine to lay low for a couple years until the deadline, they certainly would have the discipline to stop all attacks for, say, six months.

[Insert chirping cricket sound as warsies ignore logically inescapable deconstruction of their own hero's argument.]

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 12:09PM|#

guarantee a Vietnam style defeat

i'd be interested in hearing your plan for a victory, mr dean. :)

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 12:11PM|#

If we leave Iraq now, we'll be fighting Mohamedans in Houston. What we need is more Rambos and less traitors.

LMAO! brilliant!!

|6.30.05 @ 12:11PM|#

America is a declining power that can only engage in military theatrics. If we can't pull this off, we're finished.

|6.30.05 @ 12:14PM|#

You laugh, but the Mohamedans hate freedom. I say, keep them bogged down in Iraq.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 12:16PM|#

America is a declining power that can only engage in military theatrics. If we can't pull this off, we're finished.

i do agree with that, mr hillel. to be mechanically routed off the field in vietnam and iraq consecutively says a lot about the loss of functionality that has set in with our ubertechnological, hyperexpensive military and the responsibility-rejecting society that necessitated it. it makes one fairly sure that, if we had stayed in granada long enough, we'd have been ignominiously kicked the hell out of the there too.

|6.30.05 @ 12:23PM|#

Gaius Marcus:

It's hard not to believe that the future beongs to China with its powerful synthesis of a deeply cultural authoritarianism and free markets. No contemporary Chinese would waste the productive time on the nonsense we're wasting our time on here.

|6.30.05 @ 12:26PM|#

to be mechanically routed off the field in vietnam and iraq consecutively says a lot aboutloss of functionality that has set in with our ubertechnological, hyperexpensive military and the responsibility-rejecting society that necessitated it.

|6.30.05 @ 12:27PM|#

"You mean nothing bad happened in Vietnam between our pullout and last week?"

Yes, bad things did happen. But: (A) those bad things didn't cost American lives; (B) those bad things didn't cost American tax money; (C) those bad things were the fault of the locals; (D) those bad things were likely less bad than what the result would have been had US involvement continued.

As an aside, in regards to (D), war supporters typically protest that the North Vietnamese killed approximately 100,000 to 200,000 South Vietnamese bureaucrats, officers, etc. in purges after the war, but that compares with approximately 2.5 million Vietnamese killed during the war with no victory in sight. Was it worth killing another 2.5 million to declare victory (assuming victory could ever be achieved)?

|6.30.05 @ 12:27PM|#

" responsibility-rejecting society"

OMG, that was exquisite! I need a fucking cigarette;
I mean, the way you took your time getting to the climax...I've never had it like that before.

Rob D.|6.30.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Did any of you that criticized this plan, actually read it? Read the whole plan, and check out the blog post below written by Stephen Gordon, addressing the to be expected criticisms.

More on the Libertarian Solution to Iraq...
http://libertyforsale.com/?p=156

"To be clear, it is unlikely that anyone will ever agree with 100% of any complex foreign policy document � including the authors of such documents."

|6.30.05 @ 12:46PM|#

We've been in Germany and Japan for 60 years and counting.

Are those quagmires?

Or fully functioning, industrialized democracies?

|6.30.05 @ 12:52PM|#

Maybe what we need is not a plan to pull out, but a plan for statehood. How about a one or two generation plan for the creation of the state of Iraq?

|6.30.05 @ 12:53PM|#

Fucked if we do, fucked if we don't.

But if we withdraw with our tails between our legs, it would negate one of the primary reasons we went over there: to bust heads. This would rally the animal islamiacs and their euro-fuckhead enablers. Back to square one.

|6.30.05 @ 12:55PM|#

Well, not since their leaders surrendered and ordered their people to lay down arms.

On the other hand, when such orders have not been issued, our fortunes have not been so good.

|6.30.05 @ 1:04PM|#

Germany's been another civil war waiting to happen since Bismarck cobbled together a bunch of Principalities. Eh, willtyre? Add the difficulty of a growing permanent underclass of Muhammedans, and USA might be called to extend its presence in Europe into a triple quagmire.

(I loved it when Peggy Fleming pulled a Triple Quagmire at the Olympics)

|6.30.05 @ 1:10PM|#

Raise your hand if you believe Bush is really in charge. All the decisions are made in a kingdom by the sea.

|6.30.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Well, not since their leaders surrendered and ordered their people to lay down arms.

Hitler was dead in a bunker when we showed up, after telling his underlings to go and do whatever they wanted and without telling them the war was lost. Some chose to fight on for a bit and others went home, but nobody was in charge and certainly nobody capable of issuing orders to lay down arms.

Adam|6.30.05 @ 1:14PM|#

It's all about 9/11.

1998 Justice Department indictment of bin Laden:

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

The same Iraq that tried to assassinate a private American citizen, President George H.W. Bush.

|6.30.05 @ 1:22PM|#

And the Iraq that would kill all the men and rape all the women in Houston if it got a chance.

|6.30.05 @ 1:29PM|#

Dan - what in the hell are you talking about? Do you have some proof that Sharon is 'in charge' or are you talking out of your backside?

CK - what in the hell are you talking about? Let those fucks come over here. We might have a better chance of discerning friend from foe. A lot of actual police work could get done with all that Iraq war money.

I am moved by arguments both pro and against getting out of Iraq now. But as someone who opposed the war from day 1, I think I lean towards getting out now. The LP plan is as good as any. How are things right now? Could it really get that much worse? I doubt it. And as others have said, what's wrong with a civil war? At least then they'd be killing each other and not our boys (and girls).

But again, I quote a line from Aliens: I say we nuke the site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.

Can we figure out a way to make our cars run on glass?

|6.30.05 @ 1:30PM|#

"We've been in Germany and Japan for 60 years and counting.
Are those quagmires?
Or fully functioning, industrialized democracies?"

42 American GIs were killed by hostile fire in occupied Germany from June through December, 1945. Not a huge number but significant. The number of casualties for all of 1946? 3. I couldn't find the numbers for occupied Japan, but I suspect there's little difference. My point is, it's not the presence of US soldiers in Iraq but their vulnerability which makes it a quagmire. If the fighting would let up for a while maybe we could start doing some good in Iraq and justify all this death and destruction. But it won't.

|6.30.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Lowdog-

How about the evidence that Mossad knew about 9/11? What country stands the most to gain from a weakened Iraq?

|6.30.05 @ 1:35PM|#

If I don't ignore the thing I should be ignoring in this post, am I encouraging that thing that everyone else is ignoring?

On-topic, it looks like the LP has finally figured out how to time public relations, and at the same time is trying to appear more pragmatic and less bound to idealism. Props to them.

|6.30.05 @ 1:36PM|#

All the decisions are made in a kingdom by the sea.

Now I have that one Bobby Darin song running through my head; thanks a lot.

|6.30.05 @ 1:37PM|#

Ok, lowdog stopped ignoring him first. And by "post", I meant "thread".

I really didn't think anyone was going to stoop to responding to the obvious anti-semitic neocon-baiting stunts by Dan. Something about not feeding trolls comes to mind.

|6.30.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?

|6.30.05 @ 1:44PM|#

jf - I can't help asking people what in the fuck they're talking about when they make no sense. I'm anti-israel as much as anybody (although as I have to point out to very sensitive people, that doesn't mean I have anything against Jews, whichever country the hail from), and I'm a conspiracy-minded individual (read: paranoid, lol), but without any proof, it's a bunch of bullshit.

So I'm sorry if I fed the troll, but I didn't see the sign...

|6.30.05 @ 1:48PM|#

What's a troll?

|6.30.05 @ 1:51PM|#

"Maybe we'll even get to see them in full uniform? Wouldn't that be grand?"

Right becuase when they come for us they are going to come in battleship, just like they did on 9/11

Why not just stay and finnish the job? I predict we will mostly be withdrawn inside of two years.

Gaius, you may be right. I don't thinks so, but those who attacked us also believe that we are ready to collaps on ourselves. After our performane in Somalia, they probably didn't think we were capable of pulling off what we did in Afghanistan. So they were surprised there. but they are hopefull about Iraq. If they can indeed get us out of Iraq, then they see our total defeat as imminent.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Couldn't it be that the ever-improving technology led people to forget the importance of ground troops and occupation forces rather than irresponsible citizens expecting technology to fight the battles?

i think, mr david, that puts the cart before the horse. we mostly created this kind of army to fight the kind of wars we wanted (needed) to fight. rummy's vaunted transformation -- the creating of an mechanized imperial rapid-reaction police force that relies on unmanned drones and satellite intelligence -- is just another step in a western progression that dates to 1918. the technology is primarily in service of a postmodern ethic, not the other way around.

but, indeed, the ethics increasingly do now serve the technology on some level -- the pervasive cult of technique. "invent something new, do more with less, and all problems are solved! didn't work? invent something else! didn't work?", etc. the advancement of that feedback loop to the detriment of learning the lessons of history pushes us yet farther down the road to decline.

|6.30.05 @ 1:53PM|#

"The same Iraq that tried to assassinate a private American citizen, President George H.W. Bush."

Of course Clinton already carried out retaliatory strikes on Iraq for that plot in June of 1993. And besides, isn't launching an invasion that you know will kill, at minimum, tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with the assassination plot totally disproportionate? (And that's setting aside the question of whether Hussein ordered the attempt. The "conspirators" were held without access to attorneys and reportedly tortured for their confessions.)

|6.30.05 @ 1:55PM|#

But if we pull out and there's a bloodbath and a Saddam-like dictator is back in power, won't it be a crushing defeat for evertyhing we stand for? I think Bush has put us in a trap we can't realistically get out of. Maybe we need to reinstate the draft, so everybody feels the sacrifice.

|6.30.05 @ 1:57PM|#

Miriam-

Sacrifice is the right word.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 1:57PM|#

they probably didn't think we were capable of pulling off what we did in Afghanistan.

indeed, mr kwais, the great game isn't over. what have we pulled off if most of the country is ruled by pashtun warlords that we pay, and karzai's words don't even reach the city limits of kabul? now i read we're backsliding and seeing the start of a -- gulp -- insurgency.

Correspondents say that barely a day goes by now without serious violence across south and east Afghanistan.

sound familiar?

|6.30.05 @ 2:03PM|#

OK, y'all stopped ignoring the "Joos, oh the Joos are in charge of everything" guy.

I guess the ZOG is running this war. They doing as well as we did in Germany but that was a different enemy. I think the Germans were all in all a much deadlier enemy. (ZOG wasn't in charge back then was it?)

Anywho, Rich Barton was making the same claims about 9/11 being done by Israel to get us to go to war with Iraq. Which to me seems that if they wanted us to go after Iraq, and they were able to put together such an elaborate conspiracy, they could have painted a clearer trail to Iraq, instead of Osama. I don't know, maybe they wanted to avoid the publics urging us to nuke Iraq? Who knows.

We are in Iraq, not the Israelis. We are the ones with a vested interest in this conflict. We are the ones who have to persevere or else we are asking to be attacked again.

|6.30.05 @ 2:07PM|#

"But if we pull out and there's a bloodbath and a Saddam-like dictator is back in power, won't it be a crushing defeat for evertyhing we stand for?"

Why would it be any more of a crushing defeat than the three times Haiti has gone down the toilet after the US intervened to "stabilize" it?

|6.30.05 @ 2:08PM|#

I mean, yeah, the stated purpose of the invasion by Bush is "the liberation of Iraq"

I don't mean to quibble, but I think it's important that every time this statement is made, somebody should make the point that this talk of "spreading freedom" is something that only really started when all the other reasons were exhausted. To say that it was a major factor in the war happening is an attempt to revise the past to make something that was entirely about our benefit, whether for our nation as a whole or for a few individuals, into something that was benevolent and noble. Revisionist history is not something we as a nation are supposed to indulge in.

|6.30.05 @ 2:10PM|#

"Anywho, Rich Barton was making the same claims about 9/11 being done by Israel to get us to go to war with Iraq."

When has Barton ever claimed that? As far as I've seen, his position is that Israeli intelligence knew about the plot and didn't inform the U.S., which is a substantially different accusation than the one you're putting in his mouth.

|6.30.05 @ 2:11PM|#

kwais- The ZOG? Presumably has someting to do with Jews, but what does it mean? Sounds like the villain from the next Superman movie, or some cut-rate kids toy.

|6.30.05 @ 2:14PM|#

Kwais-

Rich Barton knows what he's talking about. You just ignore the evidence. Afraid of offending somebody?

|6.30.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Gaius,
what is wrong with technology doing more with less?

Yep, Afghanistan ain't easy, it never was going to be. I always thought, and still do, that Iraq is not the tough nut to crack, and it never was. The tough nut to crack is Afghanistan. Iraq is a distraction for them. They send money and resourses to kick us out of Iraq, they care more for Iraq, because the Iraqis are Arabs. But it is easier to defeat them in Iraq than Afghanistan.

I almost worry that we are defeating them too easily and too soon in Iraq, what with local police defeating the insurgents and all, and the citizenry coming to the aid of police. That the enemy will refocus on Afghanistan, and that is our true problem. Afhanistan defeated the Brittich empire 3 times, and the Russians once. And neither of those two held back. The Russians weren't afraid to use chemical weapons, to burn livestock, to raise villages, all to no avail.

|6.30.05 @ 2:24PM|#

kwais,

Because if you do more with less, we aren't working enough. And are therefore avoiding your responsibilies. Which will lead to the decline of western civilization. That was started by hegelian german individualistic philosophers.

Or something.

|6.30.05 @ 2:27PM|#

SR,
I may have been reading too much into his posts. If so, then I appologize. It could be a result of the whole conversation having taken place ont the 300+ post conspiracy thread about the twin towers having been knocked down by internally placed explosives. Again my appologies if I am miss quoting Rick Barton.

Shem,
ZOG = Zionist Occupied Government. I saw it in a movie about white supremacists. Also someone on this site said Bat Buchannan used tha acronym or something to describe our congress.

Dan,
I am not afraid of offending anybody unless I am wrong. I am not a big fan of the Israeli government. Nor am I a big fan of any religion or country that is racially based. Nor am I a big fan of giving Israel or Egypt 3 billion a year.
That said, I think these wild conspiracy theories are silly. I mean, I could be wrong, but I have read some of the stuff to support those theories, and they are very lacking

R C Dean|6.30.05 @ 2:34PM|#

Why is it, then, that the insurgents don't just stop their attacks now so as to create an image of stability and peace, thereby encouraging a withdrawal?

Because if they stop now, they create a breathing space for the civil government to take full control, take root, and gain legitimacy. If they stop now, their support dries up. The insurgency is like a shark - if it stops moving, it dies.

It's hard not to believe that the future beongs to China with its powerful synthesis of a deeply cultural authoritarianism and free markets.

LMAO at this one. Remember when people said essentially the same thing about Japan, before it sank into a ten year recession?

China is a deeply, deeply unstable country, with demographic and cultural tensions that are likely to tear it apart in decades to come. China has the kind of crony capitalism that works for a perhaps a decade or two, but lacks the kind of infrastrucute necessary for a truly dynamic, creative economy. China will be formidable, and due to its instability will be sporadically very dangerous, but the future belongs to societies with things like private property and the rule of law.

i'd be interested in hearing your plan for a victory, mr dean.

Sure thing, gaius. We do what we do best, what beat the Soviets. We play containment, we bombard the mideast with our culture, and we wear them down.

I define victory in Iraq as the establishment of a government that is viewed as legitimate by a consensus of the Iraqi people, and that has the ability to secure its own borders and stability against Islamists and Baathists. I don't give a crap if Islamist and Baathist nutballs don't accept the government, as long as the bulk of the Iraqi people do.

The road to that end is essentially what we are doing now. We do what we can to keep the insurgency down (personally, I would be much, much more aggressive on the Syrian border to cut the lifeline there) and buy time for the Iraqi civil society and security institutions to ramp up. Its a slog, but the way to a quicker victory involves offing the governments supporting the insurgents (Iran and Syria), which I am reluctant to do at the moment.

Right now, the insurgents have achieved none of the strategic milestones for success. We, on the other hand, are making progress.

Those of you who think Vietnam has worked out all peachy keen have short memories (for the millions killed after our withdrawal) and an odd willingness to overlook the fact that the Vietnamese are still ruled by brutal totalitarians.

Those of you who think the US military is played out are ignorant of military history and realities. The limits on US military activity in the mideast right now are entirely political, and not military at all.

|6.30.05 @ 2:35PM|#

"I think it's important that every time this statement is made, somebody should make the point that this talk of "spreading freedom" is something that only really started when all the other reasons were exhausted."

Exactly. Here's Bush speaking at a NATO conference on November 20, 2002:

America's goal, the world's goal, is more than the return of inspectors to Iraq. Our goal is to secure the peace through the comprehensive and verified disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Voluntary or by force, that goal will be achieved.

Full text available here: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/side/1670378

And here's Bush on October 7, 2002, giving a national address:

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. . . . If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. (emphasis added)

Full text here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

In other words, to the extent democratization was mentioned as a goal at all (which it isn't in the NATO speech), it was purely as a side-effect of destroying Iraq's WMD program.

|6.30.05 @ 2:35PM|#

Miriam,
No free nation should have a draft. If the citizens are not willing to fight for their freedom, maybe they deserve to fall victim to a stronger breed of citizens.

Also, drafting was a good idea for napoleonic wars, maybe, but not a good idea for wars fought with current technology. The increase in people in the armed service would not translate to an increas in combat effectiveness. It would lower the combat effectiveness. Furthermore, it would make it much more expensive.

The biggest problem in recruiting and manpower shortages are in the support fields. The Marine Corps and the Army are having no problem recruiting fighters, they are having a hard time recuiting support. I read somewhere that in Vietnam only 1 in 12 of every soldeir there ever saw any kind of fighting, they were in the rear with the gear. I would guess that in Iraq, the numbers are even more heavily weighed in favor of the support guys.

I see private contractors as the solution to that. Halliburton, and its competitors should fill the void. Free enterprise, that is the libertarian way.

|6.30.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Why is it, then, that the insurgents don't just stop their attacks now so as to create an image of stability and peace, thereby encouraging a withdrawal?

"Because if they stop now, they create a breathing space for the civil government to take full control, take root, and gain legitimacy. If they stop now, their support dries up. The insurgency is like a shark - if it stops moving, it dies."

And why won't the exact same thing happen if the insurgency tries to lie low for two years or more to wait out a deadline?

|6.30.05 @ 2:43PM|#

Dumbfish,
What if you don't have any responsibilities?

RC Dean,
Well said.

|6.30.05 @ 2:43PM|#

If Halliburton were completely in contol, it would be more rational and simply kill most Iraqis, enslave the rest, secure the oil, and be done with it. We have the means but not the will -- the fatal weakness of a modern democracy.

|6.30.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Question for those who oppose the pullout :

Why is it, in your minds, a fact that if we were to pull out now Iraq would get worse and worse?

I tend to believe that if we pull out now, local support for the "insurgency" would fall. The only reason locals are supporting the insurgency (in my opinion) is that they want the occupiers out of the country. If the occupiers leave, why would any locals help support the insurgents?

Add to that the fact that many (not all, but a large chunk) of insurgents are in fact Iraqis and I think it makes perfect sense that the would no longer be insurgents once the occupying power leaves. The only ones left would be the foreign insurgents (or terrorists -- whatever you want to call them) who most likely wouldnt get any local support/cover.

Yes there might be a civil war and and/or power struggle, but aren't those typical growing pains of a nation?? We went through it, many other nations have. That wouldn't be the worst thing to happen.

It doesn't seem to me very productive for us to stay there -- our presence seems to be quite antagonisitic. Transfer power to the government and leave.

(Of course I am ignoring our economic needs/wants there, but again, that wasn't why we went there was it? Economic interests should not be compelling us to occupy a country should it? )

|6.30.05 @ 2:50PM|#

SR,
I don't think that the insurgency would lie low if we announced a plan to withdraw, i think they would step up activity to make it look like they were the ones that kicked us out. To a certain extent, they might do a little low lying to preserve strenght to fight eachother once we had withdrawn.

Hillel,
I am not suggesting that Halliburton be completely in control, just that they and other competing companies do more support roles in supporting our combat troops.

|6.30.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Kwais:

I thought private enterprise was the libertarian way. Let's do it, then.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Maybe we need to reinstate the draft, so everybody feels the sacrifice.

that ain't just talk, either, ms miriam. what's the primary capitol hill criticism that makes it through the media to us? "we need more troops." uh-oh.

what is wrong with technology doing more with less?

because in this context, mr kwais, it's almost invariably a substitute for thinking things through on a philosophical level -- like, "why are we here?" and "what are we really trying to do?" rather than solve the problem at the root by asking real questions, we wittily circumvent or blithely treat the symptom. technique, method and cleverness become an obsession in societies where geniune cultural creativity and problem-solving at the core of growth has ossified and left it hollow.

it's part of a broader indictment of what the west has wrought in commerce, technology and industry as a response to an ongoing cultural collapse that probably can't get a hearing here, where the reductive rational human machine -- the economic monad -- is the core assessment of our nature. but it underlies an explanation of the lack of applied cultural power that is becoming an apparent feature of the west -- both within and without, we are being recognized as the paper tiger, a great soulless engine, without constancy as without purpose.

one joseph ratzinger wrote eloquently on this subject:

On one hand there is the thesis of Oswald Spengler, who believed he could define a kind of natural law for the great cultural expressions: there is a moment of birth, the gradual growth, the flourishing of a culture, then the on-come of weariness, old age and death. Spengler embroiders his thesis impressively, with documentation taken from the history of cultures, in which this law of natural evolution can be discerned. His thesis was that the West had reached its final epoch, which is moving inexorably towards the death of this cultural continent, despite all efforts to avert it. ... This thesis, labelled as biologistic, found ardent opponents in the period between the two world wars, especially in Catholic circles. Arnold Toynbee, too, reacted against it in a striking way, with postulates that, of course, today find little hearing. Toynbee points out the difference between material-technical progress on one hand and real progress on the other, which he defines as spiritualization. He admits that the West -- the western world -- is in crisis, and he sees the cause for this in the decline from religion to the worship of technique, of nation, of militarism. Ultimately, for him, the crisis means secularism.

indeed, toynbee builds a wide-ranging historical case for the inverse relationship between technique and civility, the former rising in response to the implosion of the latter.

that's why i find it very saddening to find important people addressing the question of iraq with technique -- "more troops", "different constitution", "defeat insurgency", "more aid" -- rather than considering the problem as a whole in detail, including what the statement of the problem as a problem particularly demonstrates about us.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 2:59PM|#

If they stop now, their support dries up. The insurgency is like a shark - if it stops moving, it dies

which is why removing its water -- the united states army -- is important, mr dean.

|6.30.05 @ 2:59PM|#

SR,

"Why would it be any more of a crushing defeat than the three times Haiti has gone down the toilet after the US intervened to "stabilize" it?"

Because when Haiti goes to shit it doesn't become a launching point for terrorists, just boat people we send back because they aren't from Cuba.

"Why is it, then, that the insurgents don't just stop their attacks now so as to create an image of stability and peace, thereby encouraging a withdrawal? After all, if they have the discipline to lay low for a couple years until the deadline, they certainly would have the discipline to stop all attacks for, say, six months."

Because, they don't have that discipline. The foreign element at least, is there to fight and kill Americans. They don't give two shits about Iraq. The rest are fighting because they were the sister rapist and brother killers that ran the shithole under Saddam and they know they are screwed when the brothers and sisters of their victims take over.

If we practice Iraqus Interruptus now the foreign fighters will just find some other Americans to kill here or abroad and the homegrown insurgents will keep fighting for their lives and the hopes that they can go back to running the country like the mafia.

If we set a deadline the danger isn't that the insurgents will stop fighting to lull us into a false sense of security. The danger is the Iraqis will stop fighting because they know once were out of there they are toast so they might as well go along with the insurgent program and keep their heads.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 3:00PM|#

China is a deeply, deeply unstable country, with demographic and cultural tensions that are likely to tear it apart in decades to come.

now THIS is worthy of a giggle -- the model arrogant american predicting the collapse of the six-thousand year society. hubris is your strength, mr dean, undoubtedly.

gaius marius|6.30.05 @ 3:05PM|#

I don't give a crap if Islamist and Baathist nutballs don't accept the government, as long as the bulk of the Iraqi people do.

lol -- if it were only so simple and unilateral as you think it is, mr dean. your strategy isn't a strategy that that can work. cultural assault is what got you these problems, sir. if you don't first recognize that basic fact, there is no hope. a strategy built on western/american arrogance is destined to fail because you would in essence throw gasoline on the fire.

i don't expect you, mr dean, to understand or accept this. but for the sake of more thoughtful people reading this, there it is.

|6.30.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Seriously, if we had the will, we could simply raze Iraq to the ground and secure the oil. Given a free hand, I'll bet that's just what Halliburton would do. Private enterprise could be as ruthless as non-state terror groups. Ultimately, it's probably the only solution. Of course, private enteprise would be just as ruthless with us.

|6.30.05 @ 3:14PM|#

gaius,

The current Chinese regime is not six thousand years old. It is a mere 50+. Within the six thousand years you refer to many dynasties and governments have come and gone in the geographical region known as China. I hardly think predicting the downfall of the current political incarnation of China is an act of hubris. It's a simple understanding of the dynamics of history.

|6.30.05 @ 3:24PM|#

gaius,

American troops aren't the water the fish swims in, the local population is.

|6.30.05 @ 3:26PM|#

"the model arrogant american predicting the collapse of the six-thousand year society"

Gaius, that's completely unfair. The age of a society can be determined in many ways and Mr. Dean, I presume, hardly means that the society will cease to exist, but rather, will not exist in the form predicted, which is reasonable. The British society is still here but does not exist as it did. It would have been accurate to say , 200 years ago, that Britian would one day be torn apart.

|6.30.05 @ 3:31PM|#

gauis,

What is arrogant about assuming that most human beings would rather live in a free society rather than an oprresive one that rules by terror?

"that's why i find it very saddening to find important people addressing the question of iraq with technique -- "more troops", "different constitution", "defeat insurgency", "more aid" -- rather than considering the problem as a whole in detail, including what the statement of the problem as a problem particularly demonstrates about us."

What is the problem as a whole? Enlighten us please.

|6.30.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Even if many Chinese would like more freedom, one should not ignore the profound cultural differences between China and the West. China is unlikely to adopt western permissiveness anytime soon, and China is fast becoming an economic super power. Japan and Singapore are traditional, authoritarian countries that have done well... I have to clear out. A plane just crashed.

|6.30.05 @ 3:52PM|#

The Libertarian Party plan gives the elected Iraqi government one year to stand up an army able to defend itself against the Baathists and Sunni Arab fundamentalists.

There is a major difference with Vietnam. North Vietnam was a state that was backed by a super-power.

South Vietnam was a very weak despotism. Its people didn't support its government. Most people were neutral in the struggle between the North Vietmanese state and the Saigon government.

The insurgents aren't an irregular army of a neighboring state. (There is no North Iraq.) There are no Baathist superpowers backing the a North Iraq or the insurgents directly.

Most importantly, about 80% of the Iraqi population is made up of ethnic or religious groups persecuted by the Baathists and with good reason to fear the Sunni Arab fundamentalists. The elected government has a great potential base of support, a 4 to 1 population advantage over the groups inclined to sympathise with the insurgency. Heck, the govenment of Iraq was elected by those very people!

A large portion of Iraq's oil is in areas mostly populated by groups who hate and fear the Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists. None of Iraq's oil is in areas largely populated by Sunni Arabs who are sympathetic to the insurgents--either Baathists or Sunni fundamentalists. A bunch of it is in a disputed area that will be hard for either side to control and capitalize upon. The elected government looks like it has the advantage on resources.

What the elected government of Iraq has to do is get busy and start focusing on survival.

Of course, if the Americans will do it all for them, they will be glad to waste their time whining, complaining, and begging.

Can't you just hear them telling us how they are doing us a big favor by letting us use their country to fight the Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists.

Heck, isn't that one of Bush's lines--we are fighting the Sunni fundamentalists in Iraq rather than here. Yes, let's just tell the Iraqi government what a big favor they are doing us.

Well, how long will it take the insurgents to figure out that the best way to hurt the Americans is to kill some Americans in America. I'm sure they are working on it right now.

Anyway, why is there this assumption that the elected Iraqi government, with the support of 80% of the population, can't defend itself against the insurgents? Sure, maybe they need a little time to get ready, but how long?

Why are the insurgents considered to be so powerful? There is no "North Iraq" with tanks ready to invade. There is no Baathist super power backing "North Iraq."

Why this assumption that the U.S. must build up a perfect army for the elected government and then turn it over when it is ready?

It's not like the Baathists still have tanks, helocopters, and tube artilery. Its not like the elected Government can't find bullets and rifles and APGs for a massive infantry army.

Gee, there might be a civil war? Of course! There is already a civil war. The insurgents are attacking the elected Iraqi government. The elected Iraqi government is attacking the insurgents. The U.S. is, of course, helping the elected Iraqi government, but there is a civil war.

One wonders when people talk about this civil war _if_ the U.S. withdraws are pointing out that they don't really accept Iraqi sovereignity. There is no civil war yet, right? It is the U.S. and its native auxilaries against the Iraqis. If we withdraw, then the Iraqis might start fighting each other rather than us? Catch on! They are fighting each other.

Those who have opposed the LP plan have to come up with something better that this empty Vietnam analogies.

What do you really want to do in Iraq? And why do you think that the Bush administration will do that (whatever it is you think should be done?)

Bush is a proven bumbler and a fool. His government is a faction riven mess where different groups lie to one another in an effort to pursue their private political agendas. And which of the embarassments has Bush fired rather than promoted?

Again, what do you really want to do in Iraq? And why do you think that Bush (or any likely Republican or Democrat) will do it?

|6.30.05 @ 3:56PM|#

Hear hear, Bill!

|6.30.05 @ 4:09PM|#

Thank you Mr Woolsey. Your comment is the best defense of the LP plan I've read today.

Maybe the best course of action is to pull out, arm the hell out the Iraqi govenrment forces and bring on the civil war.

|6.30.05 @ 4:30PM|#

"What's a troll?"

A troll is an ugly creature that hides under bridges, shouts out scary nonsense, and threatens to eat you.

|6.30.05 @ 4:47PM|#

All very true mr. woolsey

|6.30.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Of course while the Iraqis are fighting it out, the foreign elements will just start looking for new places to fight and kill Americans.

|6.30.05 @ 5:44PM|#

Bring 'em on!

Bill Woolsey|6.30.05 @ 8:15PM|#

I believe that U.S. government actions can influence the number of individuals willing to undertake suicide missions against American citizens in America.

For example, if the U.S. should decide on a program of genocide against all Muslim people, the result would be a large increase in the number of people willing to undertake suicide missions against Americans in America. What do they have to lose?

I suppose a sufficiently successful genocide would solve the problem. (I'm one of those God-fearing people who worry about eternal damnation, so that policy is off the table for me.)

Oddly enough, even a plan to abolish Islam, forcing all Muslims to convert to some other religion (or become atheists) would have a similar impact. My guess is that trying to implement such a policy will be so unsuccessful that it won't even have the desirable consequences of genocide. We would have plenty of angry, persecuted Mulsims making suicide attacks on the U.S. in perpetuity.

Simply occupying one part of the Muslim world, with vague plans to somehow reform the locals so that they are more appreciative of personal freedom, will probably have a less serious impact. Heck, secularism isn't quite so bad as enforced atheism, is it?

Moving to a strict Rothbardian noninteventionism would make the effort to recruit Muslims for terrorist attacks against Americans quite challenging, but probably not impossible.

Personally, I think the notion that many would be motivated to kill Americans because of the way we carry on over here is laughable.

Whenever I hear such claims, I wonder if those making the statement are really that foolish, or is it that they are hoping to fool someone else.

On the other hand, I suspect many more Muslims would be inclined to kill American Jews in America for the gifts they give to Israel. Or attack Americans for giving money in exchange for oil, when the money benefits some apostate regime--say, the Saudi monarchs. Or vengence against American named corporations selling weapons to some regime they oppose. In other words, free trade, free investment, free "gifts" could result in terrorism in America.

But less than under various other possible policies.

The number of people that hate the U.S. isn't fixed. The number of people who hate the U.S. so much that they are willing to carry out terrorist attacks isn't fixed either.

You know it. I know it. Who is there to fool? There is no need to pretend. What is it that you really have in mind?

|6.30.05 @ 8:26PM|#

Bill: Please offer your definition of Civil War. If the size and coordination of the opponents matters, Iraq is not in such state. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps it would be useful to establish the nature of the insurgency. From what I glean, it is not a single coordinated effort (there's no North Iraq), but many smaller groups with different axes to grind, grinding them in the same place at the same time.

Your description of Bush seems less accurate as you use it and better as a description of what Bush and Team USA is fighting.

|6.30.05 @ 8:41PM|#

"The last time we did what the LP is recommending we do here, we lost, and our ally lost. Why on earth should we try it again?"

You know there was somebody who said that once, I think he was in the Bush Administration, but I don't think he's there anymore.

...In fact, I think he developed a policy specifically to avoid another war with an ending like the one in Vietnam. Indeed, I think we named that policy after him! Part of it had something to do with not goin' in without an exit strategy, I think.

...But I guess we're not supposed to bring up why we shouldn't have gone in anymore? ...or the UN.

I sure wish the President had outlined a realistic exit strategy last night. ...I'd just like to know that there's another option. ...who said he had to put a date on it?

What if the Iraqis don't inevitably buy into Pax Americana? What then? ...If not an American withdrawal, what is the alternative?

*crickets*

Mr. President? Somebody? ...Anybody?

|6.30.05 @ 9:27PM|#

Bill Woolsey,
To save your excellent first post from blog thread obscurity, you should consider polishing up the ideas and pitching it as an op-ed somewhere. Maybe reason could snark it up, stuff it full of links, and post it. If not, maybe antiwar or some other site could work with it. You've got a decent premise here.

|6.30.05 @ 10:37PM|#

"If we leave Iraq now, we'll be fighting Mohamedans in Houston. What we need is more Rambos and less traitors."

Oh please! Such dramatics!

Where is your proof that Mohamedans will be fighting us in Houston?

If we'd just leave them the fuck alone, they'd leave us alone. Not rocket science.

Do a little research on WHY Usama decided to target us: Hint: it's our initial invasion of the Middle East...you know...Gulf War, version 1.0

leave the Middle east alone...let THEM blow each other to smithereens. The sooner they do that, the sooner we can get on with our lives.

Friggin religious whackjobs.

Gene Trosper|6.30.05 @ 10:42PM|#

"Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?"

Not of your criticize their policies and not their religion or race.

I have many Jewish friends and think of them kindly, but as for the Israeli government.....forget it.

|7.1.05 @ 12:48AM|#

I'm not even going to touch Gene Trosper's "some of my best friends are Jewish" comment, except to note that it's there, and let you draw your own conclusions.

But his contempt for people not quite like himself really shows in the previous comment. "[We should] leave the Middle east alone...let THEM blow each other to smithereens. The sooner they do that, the sooner we can get on with our lives." Exactly. Let the savages kill each other, right Gene? Then us normal people can live in peace?

|7.1.05 @ 1:32AM|#

the point is that the insurgency isn't directed against anyone so much as the american puppet government. give the insurgents the voice in government they ask, and the insurgency likely diminishes tenfold or vanishes...

if there's a civil war to be fought in iraq that has been repressed since the british forced the state into existence, then our presence or absence does utterly nothing to prevent it...

our wounded pride and popularity should be the last consideration.

I have to agree with mr. gm so far. But --

i do agree with that, mr hillel. to be mechanically routed off the field in vietnam and iraq consecutively says a lot about the loss of functionality that has set in

Does anybody realize our "losses" have more to do with our heads, than with our troops and technology?

We could have won in 'Nam in '67. We just didn't want to. China was having their "cultural revolution", they were in no position to back up north Vietnam. But we were afraid of China, and intended to partition 'Nam like Korea. A very, very stupid way of thinking about war. Thank Johnson.

By '72 China was in much better shape....

Maybe what we need is not a plan to pull out, but a plan for statehood. How about a one or two generation plan for the creation of the state of Iraq?

Agreed! I said from the start, if we're going to "do" Iraq then let's do it Roman style. You don't ask "how much is this going to cost?", you ask "how much are we going to make off all that oil?".

Any notion that we can "stablize" Iraq is, by now, clearly insane.

mr gm -- mr RC Dean is correct about China, read their history. How long they'll last I won't guess, but they've got key weaknesses.

|7.1.05 @ 1:49AM|#

RC Dean and mr gauis --

I've read lots of Chinese history. The biggest thing to appreciate about China is that it's like Godzilla: size does matter.

China doesn't have to be very efficient at all, in order to become extremely powerful. Even if their economic boom is short lived, we should be afraid of them for having one at all.

China has always, always been imperialistic when it had the power to be that way. I call on several thousand years of recorded history to bear witness.

Strictly from a military stratagy stand point, I find China a compelling reason to stop wasting our bombs, blood, and $ on Iraq. Militarily, a China married to ex-Soviet technology is border line terrifying.

Iraq poses no serious threat to our national security. The day may not be far off that China does. Our only ace in that show down will be our technological advantage.

Unless we intend to cut the ropes with Japan and Taiwan, because they've become "quagmires" too?

Make no mistake. China will take Japan and Taiwan just as soon as the Chinese are sure they can knock us flat on our asses.

|7.1.05 @ 3:05AM|#

I don't wish to be a part of liberating or securing Iraq. I have no desire to pay to fight Ba'athists or Islamists. Hence, it is wrong to force me to pay for it. If I felt such people were a threat to me, I would gladly to pay to fight them. But I don't.

RC Dean, for all his righteous bluster about liberty over on Samizdata, is just another commie banging his tin for his next great government scheme. Fuck that.

- Josh

|7.1.05 @ 3:33AM|#

We could have won in 'Nam in '67.

How would we have done that? The French couldn't do it, so I ask just how exactly were we supposed to carry it off? I realize it runs contrary to our national myth, but does it never occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, God doesn't love us so much that he's willing to bend the rules of guerrilla warfare to allow us to win against a comparatively popular, homegrown enemy?

The day may not be far off that China does.

I have to disagree with this. Unless the Chinese decide that guns are a whole helluva lot more important than whatever butter they're handing out, China is at least 25 years off being a match with the US militarily. Real quick, what's the Chinese equivalent of the stealth bomber? How many ships has China? Have they any reliable way to carry the war to the US? To Taiwan, even? They'll have to if they want to win. Any reason to take Japan, beyond old animosities? Any reliable way to get missiles to the US mainland? We have incredibly deep bunkers and specifically designated areas for command to retreat to in the event of an assault, does China? Iraq notwithstanding, the US can still count on at least a few European countries, as well as Australia and Japan, (as well as a strong liklihood of India and Russia if the Chinese are seen as instigators) if things get really tough. To whom will China turn? Most important, where will they find the means to bridge these gaps? As a nation, one can only ply Soviets with so much filthy lucre before the Soviets start to wonder when they'll have to face their own guns (and tanks, and planes, and missiles) on a battlefield, especially when you share a border with them and you've fought several rather bloody wars with them in the last 50 years. The US won't sell anything sensitive because it's flat out against the law for any US corporation to do so without permission, and nobody else in the world makes the sort of items you want in the sort of volume you need. So, you face the unappealing process of making the weapons yourself; unappealing because the only way you keep the populace from stopping the grumbling and getting proactive is the phenomenal economic growth that you would have to sacrifice in order to grow a fully modern military. Meanwhile, the US is noticing what you're doing and is taking their own steps, so you have to exceed their military growth rate by enough to pass them, next to impossible when you consider that you're up against a nation that spends hundreds of billions/year on the military. The Chinese could overtake the US economically, but the only way the Chinese military could do the same is if the US made a series of strategic and logistical blunders that would make Iraq appear bush-league by comparison. Not to mention the fact that China's getting much more out of us economically than they ever could from war.

Bill Woolsey|7.1.05 @ 7:47AM|#

I define a civil war as a war between two groups seeking control of the same nation state.

The elected Iraqi government seeks control of Iraq. Most Shia appear to favor Shia majority rule for all of Iraq, and the Shia control the elected government.

The Baathists also seek control of Iraq--a return to power. There appear to be various Iraqi Sunni fundamentalists who also want control of Iraq, though not a return of the Baathists to power. Various organizations of Iraqi Sunni clergy make it clear enough.

There are also some Al Quaeda types who consider this a battle between the U.S. and the Muslim world--presumably part of their plan of rebuilding the Caliphate. But there aren't too many of those.

The various groups of insurgents are fighting the elected Iraqi government. And that is a civil war.

I don't believe that a civil war requires that there be only two sides. There could be five or ten factions all fighting one another. Or there could be multiple factions in coalition. Or some groups fighting other groups while leaving still other groups alone.

Anyway, those who claim that there would be a civil war after the U.S. withdraws should explain what it is that would happen that is so different.

Perhaps more of the Sunni Arabs would join with the insurgents if they were simply fighting the elected government rather than the U.S. This is contrary to what many of them say, but maybe.

Or perhaps the elected government is only seeking Sunni participation because the U.S. is making them. My impression is that they are doing it because Sistani insists and the Shia parties need the votes he can bring. I suspect some of them believe they must give their leading spiritual leader's words some respect if they want to enjoy heaven and avoid hell--along with more mundane political considerations.

Is it that the elected government's forces would commit more atrocities against Sunni Arab civilians, if the U.S. left? Perhaps.

Until just now, I hadn't considered the possibility that this "civil war" talk means that the Sunni factions would become more unified if the U.S. withdraws. Perhaps, but I don't see why.

gaius marius|7.1.05 @ 11:00AM|#

American troops aren't the water the fish swims in, the local population is.

mr kwais, the water would throw them out onto the land if we weren't there. we are the common enemy that makes insurgents and population symbiotic. in many of the important respects, we are the water.

gaius marius|7.1.05 @ 11:25AM|#

What is the problem as a whole? Enlighten us please.

mr ralphus, instead of examining iraq, examine the united states. our problems are ours, not theirs.

why have we made it our militant mission to upend global order, recasting all nations in our mold?

why do we reject peaceful and time-consuming means for the haste and unpredictability of war?

why do we abjectly fear any nation but ourselves obtaining even slightly competitive armraments and the responsibilities that accompany them?

why do we feel compelled to dismiss the opinions and thoughts of any entity which is not american?

why do we refer to wars that we initiate on the other side of the planet as "defensive"?

many questions that few americans are asking.

gaius marius|7.1.05 @ 11:29AM|#

How long they'll last I won't guess, but they've got key weaknesses.

surely, but he blithely will, mr conqueror.

i agree with what a lot of people are saying here re: china -- but that isn't the relavant point. don't use mr dean's arrogance as an excuse to analyze china's problems; observe his words with an eye toward our problems. we've quit doing that almost entirely here, and that is a serious problem.

gaius marius|7.1.05 @ 11:35AM|#

We could have won in 'Nam in '67. We just didn't want to. China was having their "cultural revolution", they were in no position to back up north Vietnam. But we were afraid of China, and intended to partition 'Nam like Korea. A very, very stupid way of thinking about war.

mr conqueror, this goes directly to the heart of the western obsession with technique. we could have won -- on what grounds do you assert this? superior technique, i suspect -- economic management and war widgets.

but there is an entirely superior dimension of culture that resides within this inability to win a war. "we could have won" -- then why didn't we? did we choose not to? or did we feel compelled not to? these are questions that one faces when talking not about western prowess in technique but western societal decline.

gaius marius|7.1.05 @ 11:42AM|#

What is arrogant about assuming that most human beings would rather live in a free society rather than an oprresive one that rules by terror?

it presumes, mr ralphus, that because you're obsessed with freiheit, everyone else must be -- and further presumes that every society that isn't spinning apart is tyrannical.

neither is true, although it is apparently very hard to see that from within the american ideological fishbowl.

gaius marius|7.1.05 @ 11:49AM|#

The day may not be far off that China does.

I have to disagree with this. Unless the Chinese decide that guns are a whole helluva lot more important than whatever butter they're handing out, China is at least 25 years off being a match with the US militarily.

mr shem, mr conqueror -- there is an unasked question here: why do we presume china will be our enemy, an object of fear? why shouldn't they be our ally? why shouldn't they be amenable to cooperation?

this again is an *american* problem, not a chinese one. we see all nations as darwinian rivals. we see all conceptions that are not our own as incompatible and in need of destruction. we see in emergent growing nations not new markets and trading partners but rival hegemons and new wars.

this is a horrid affliction of nationalist militarism that is tainting our worldview, chiding us into suicide just as it did germany and japan in this era, just as it did rome and assyria in prior ages. if we don't come to our senses about it, we will meet the same fate.

|7.1.05 @ 12:21PM|#

"We could have won in 'Nam in '67. We just didn't want to."

I more or less accept this. We made a value judgment. Perhaps we could have won, but, at the time, we didn't think that winning was worth the cost. There are things that are more expensive than valuable to the American people.

...Knowing that and initiating a war on false pretenses suggesting self-defense and/or knowing that and invading without a viable exit strategy was supremely irresponsible. The problem was leadership.

I would add another question to G.'s list of questions Americans should ask themselves: Why did we follow the President into this trap?

|7.1.05 @ 1:17PM|#

We could have won in 'Nam in '67.

How would we have done that? The French couldn't do it

The French couldn't win because they were the ones who made the rise of communism possible in Vietnam to begin with. They completely misunderstood the problem. Besides, look at the battles the Vietnam communists won against the French -- in all cases they won with Chinese weapons. But that's another story.

I base our ability to win on the fact that the North was extremely weak militarily at that time There just wasn't much of an army between the front lines of the Vietnam war and Hanoi, at that time. If we had simply given the south air support, and let them push to Hanoi on the ground, it would have been done and over. Insurgents for a time in the jungle, maybe. But the communists would have lost the north, cutting their odds of eventual success to almost nothing.

The cost to us would have been small, compared to the price we ultimately paid. It's not a cost thing, it's a stupidity thing.

There were Vietnamese generals in the south who wanted to invade the north at that time. The US emphatically prohibited it. Why? Johnson was "afraid of a war with the Chinese". He seemed to miss the fact that Chairman Mao was purging his own ranks at that moment, China would have a a very hard time putting an army in Vietnam.

We intended to partition Vietnam, just like Korea, right from the beginning.

By the early '70's when China had settled down, the cost of defeating the north would have been phenomenal for the US. The window of opportunity was gone.

Communism never had popular support of the people in Vietnam. The Vietnamese disliked the gov't of the south for good reason -- but they disliked the communists even more, by a wide margin.

I'm married to a Vietnamese. Their family was there, lived and fought through the whole stinking mess, and risked their lives getting out.

|7.1.05 @ 1:27PM|#

mr conqueror -- there is an unasked question here: why do we presume china will be our enemy...why shouldn't they be amenable to cooperation?

What makes you think they should be amenable to cooperation? How familiar are you with Chinese culture and history? Methinks you misunderstand them.

this again is an *american* problem, not a chinese one.

If they beat the crap out of us then you're right, it is our problem.

Why does China have war games across the straight from Taiwan? Why did China pass a "law" prohibiting Taiwan's political indepdence? Why is China allowing North Korean missile tests over Japanese islands?

If you think China doesn't pull the main strings in North Korea, think again.

China may not be able to land a sizable force on the US mainland -- yet. But they aren't far off from being able to give us a real run for the money in Taiwan.

China most certainly can land missiles on the US mainland. Their missile technology has come leaps and bounds in the last decade (in part we may thank Clinton for that).

People tried to pretend Hitler wasn't Hitler, too. But who knows, maybe there never will be a serious problem with China.

And my whole point here is, it's exceedingly stupid wasting our fortunes on Iraq, when we've got a far bigger problem looming on the horizon. Better to save our wind in case we really do need it.

Besides the fact that I really don't believe we can ever "stablize" Iraq. Only Iraq can stablize Iraq. We did all we could by knocking Saddam Insane out.

|7.1.05 @ 2:05PM|#

There are two big lessons Vietnam teaches that are relevant to Iraq:

1) Don't fight a war if you don't intend to win. We intended (at first) to win in Korea, but settled for partition. We aimed for partition in Vietnam and lost it all. It's all out or nothing, half measures are stupidity.

2) Don't misunderstand what's happening on the ground with the common people.

Americans have never, even to this day, understood what was going on with the Vietnamese people. I strongly suspect the same is true of Iraq.

Americans don't know why the communist guerillas won against the French. It was because -- only because -- the Viet Minh were fighting the French imperialists. That is the only reason the Viet Minh got any popular support.

The communists never had popular support in the south. The common people by and large were terrified of the Viet Cong, and hated them.

If we'd knocked the communists out of the North by going for Hanoi when the opportunity was there, the communists would not later have gotten popular support as they had against the French.

Why? Because there would have been a Vietnamese gov't in place. American backed, yes. But the common Vietnamese knew the communists were bad news. They would not have willing given any broad support to communist guerrillas.

And if China had invaded later? Gee, I can't think of anything that would have united the Vietnamese people behind a common cause better than a Chinese invasion.....read the history books.

We misunderstood Vietnam. Odds are very good we're misunderstanding Iraq by the same token. Instead of understanding, we have our own axes to grind.

Should we be in Iraq? Should we have been in Vietnam? Or Korea? It doesn't even matter now. What matters is, "now what?"

Now is the time we have to let them hash it out for themselves. We don't understand Iraq nearly as well as we think we do.

When it's over, then will be the time to say "now, do we really want to get tangled up in these kinds of disasters in the future?" At that time I will be in the front ranks shouting "NO!"

But the time for that is not here yet.

|7.1.05 @ 2:15PM|#

gaius,

these are questions that one faces when talking not about western prowess in technique but western societal decline.

Agreed!

this is a horrid affliction of nationalist militarism that is tainting our worldview

But this attitude is part of that decline, gaius. We in the west are now afraid to be strong, let alone assertive.

I assure you, the Chinese are not like this.

If we were going into Korea, then we should have let MacArthur knock the Chinese out right then. I believe he would and could have. And I'll bet if he had, then Vietnam would not have happened.

Don't apologize for being strong, don't hesitate to use if you think you need to (cut the "cultural equality" crap already), and don't use if you don't intend to do the job all the way.

Instead, the US has been infected with the European "balance of power" stalmate BS. That is cultural decline.

James Anderson Merritt|7.1.05 @ 2:25PM|#

By calling for a swift but "orderly" withdrawal, and even a reconstruction aid program, the LP veers to the "pragmatic" side, in an attempt to undo the marginalization it suffers as long as people respond with things like "get real!" or "in the REAL world..." to their proposals. (Several such responses are to be found above :-)

Unfortunately, the Iraq War is now about "winning" -- and especially about NOT being "losers" -- in a game where "winning" is undefined. The LP plan does smack of vietnam-era "peace with honor," which everyone has learned to equate with "losing and moving on." So, although it seems a reasonable enough plan -- which is FAR more than the current Bush administration provides -- I doubt that the LP's proposal will win many American hearts or minds.

The first person or group that comes up with a way to get our troops out of there and make us look like winners in the process, will snag the brass ring. And maybe save thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the process.

|7.1.05 @ 2:39PM|#

James, I think you nailed it.

|7.1.05 @ 5:07PM|#

We could have won in 'Nam in '67.

For those who make this statement I have one question.

What, exactly, would have constituted a "victory" in Vietnam in 1967?

|7.1.05 @ 9:42PM|#

"What, exactly, would have constituted a "victory" in Vietnam in 1967?"

Indeed!

...I somehow missed the year part I quoted above.

|7.1.05 @ 9:43PM|#

Doh!