New at Reason

April 23, 2007

Jeff Taylor weighs the unlikely prospects for a smooth withdrawal from Iraq.

Comments

Dave W.|4.23.07 @ 1:30PM|#

The Iraq War was a mistake.

|4.23.07 @ 1:35PM|#

Ohnoes!

The Democrats are doomed! Again!

I predict that Harry Reid's approval rating will rise as a result of this, just as Nancy Pelosi's approval rating rose after the Republicans spent two weeking wailing about her visit to Damascus.

It's funny that political commenters still seem to think that calling the Iraq War a failure is a political loser.

|4.23.07 @ 1:39PM|#

l-Maliki, beaming in from an Arab League summit, may be right or wrong about the merits and larger meaning of a wall to divide Sunni from Shia,

Like the wall around the green zone stopped the bombing inside the green zone last week.

|4.23.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Contrary to the cliché, the peace has not been lost; there never was any peace in Iraq. Similarly, the Iraqis have not lost their country-it turns out there is no such thing as an Iraq to win

What an utterly idiotic thing to claim. So, now there was never peace and there was never Iraq? I guess those daily bombings in Baghdad were there before US liberator showed up in Baghdad.

pdog|4.23.07 @ 1:46PM|#

When did the term 'defeatism' come out? What does that even mean really? Some kind of social philosophy of making or living by defeats? What does a 'defeatist' stand for? Can we now just tag 'ism' at the end of any abstract concept and label people with it ?

|4.23.07 @ 1:57PM|#

"When did the term 'defeatism' come out?"

About two days after the Soviets surrounded Paulus and the Sixth Army.

Guy Montag|4.23.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Oh, before the critics of Richard McBeef begin again to call the author illiterate, perhaps they should compare it to other post-modernist works and see who the true illiterates are.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 2:17PM|#

pdog,

In France during WWI.

|4.23.07 @ 2:29PM|#

"When did the term 'defeatism' come out?"

"In France during WWI."

Must...resist...cheap humor!

Guy Montag|4.23.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Grotius,

I believe it originated shortly after the 1066 Battle of Hastings.

Slight glimmer in the 1950s when the troops in paris actually repelled an invasion, but it was just against rogue generals from Algeria.

However, examining the behavior of the french and attempting to apply a human face to them is nothing but much guesswork.

|4.23.07 @ 2:42PM|#

From the Max Boot account at the weekly std...

...its attempts to impose fundamentalist sharia law (banning even smoking)...

When can we expect the invasion of Chicago to commence?

ktc2|4.23.07 @ 2:48PM|#

I do not believe a hostile occupation of a foreign land is possible by civilized forces.

Long ago peace would be obtained by absolute barbarism in occupied lands such mass public executions, zero human rights, rape, murder, disarming and torture. Things such as for every one of us you kill we will kill 10 or 100 of you were the method of control.

Absent that kind of brutality by the occupying forces I do not believe a successful hostile occupation is possible.

ktc2|4.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Iraq was "underpants gnome" foreign policy

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 3:28PM|#

joe,

I dunno, a which nation had lost millions of men to death or horrifying injuries during a brutal, bloody war might expected to have some "defeatists" in its ranks. I myself don't see much humor in millions of dead people.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 3:29PM|#

joe,

And of course France ended up prevailing in that particular war, despite its horrifying costs.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 3:33PM|#

joe,

In light of America's fortunes in Viet Nam and Iraq maybe we ought make up some jokes about the inability of the U.S. to win assymetrical conflicts. That ought to go down real well.

|4.23.07 @ 3:33PM|#

America is soft and defeatist. There are 300 million Americans and most of them are not even fighting in Iraq. Meanwhile wealthy Jewish aristocrats like George Soros get a tax cut which they use to compaign against America. There is talk of a 'war czar' but that is another half-measure. What about a 'war Furher' who can provide the backbone which is sorely lacking? Only total war can deliver a just and lasting peace. It is naive to think that ending the war would end the war.

|4.23.07 @ 3:34PM|#

...examining the behavior of the french and attempting to apply a human face to them is nothing but much guesswork.

I can never tell if you're trolling or not, but you're either doing a fine imitation or a good job.

|4.23.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Must...resist...cheap humor!

Why? Nobody else does.

|4.23.07 @ 3:40PM|#

The Iraq War was a mistake.


It is naive to think that not starting the war would have prevented the war from starting.

|4.23.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Meanwhile wealthy Jewish aristocrats like George Soros get a tax cut which they use to compaign against America.

First, what (the fuck) does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Secondly, why do you equate U.S. foreign policy with "America?"

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Rich Ard,

Who wrote that?

|4.23.07 @ 4:42PM|#

Groitus,

You don't have to explain any of that to me. I know the "cowardly, surrending French" thing is bogus. Hell, I've explained those same points to other people.

It's just a comedic convention.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Anyway, if I recall correctly the term was used to label those who advocated some sort of peace with Germany during WWI. Similar sentiments existed in the UK and Germany during the war. Both the British and French were able to find civilian and military leaders who could quell such sentiments while Germans let loose such desires when they ousted the Kaiser.

|4.23.07 @ 4:57PM|#

Thanks for the reminder, Grotius, I should have been more specific - Guy Montag wrote it here.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 5:00PM|#

Rich Ard,

I gotta be honest and write that I tend to skip over Guy's comments.

|4.23.07 @ 5:26PM|#

And of course France ended up prevailing in that particular war, despite its horrifying costs.

More like "France's enemies would up losing in that particular war." I don't think France really prevailed against anyone, although its allies did.

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 6:12PM|#

R.C. Dean,

I'm curious, sans "les blues" who would have held and advanced along 2/3rds of the Western front's lines in 1918 during the German spring offensives and the allied offensive in the summer and fall of that year?

Grotius|4.23.07 @ 6:15PM|#

R.C. Dean,

Indeed, sans the French armaments industry who would have armed the 'doughboys?' Whose aircraft did they fight in? French aircraft. Whose artillery did they use? French artillery.

|4.23.07 @ 7:54PM|#

"In light of America's fortunes in Viet Nam and Iraq maybe we ought make up some jokes about the inability of the U.S. to win assymetrical conflicts."

If the administration had announced "We're outta here in 90 days" on the day the statute of Saddam was toppled and stuck to that, the Iraq war would have been a "victory". The country might still be in a total mess with suicide bombers in marketplaces and incipient civil war, but President Bush could have called it a 'win'.

|4.23.07 @ 9:06PM|#

If we did a massive withdrawal of all troops and support starting next week, and finished as fat as possible would these be the results?
The different religious factions would do even more killing of each other. The Persian neighbors would stream in to help their kind and the Arab neighbors would stream in to help their kind. It would become one large bloodbath with hundreds of thousands dead. Ant the cranky muslims worldwide that are lookin for a fight would run there also to fight with their brothers.
And the U.S. would be forgotten. I don't see that scenario as a loss for the United States.

ktc2|4.24.07 @ 12:44AM|#

Brotherben,

I've said the same long ago. Let them hate each other enough, hell STIR IT UP, then get the F out. Let them kill each other.

Then eventually in the end, we can deal with the winner, if there is one.

|4.24.07 @ 2:57AM|#

If we did a massive withdrawal of all troops and support starting next week, and finished as fat as possible would these be the results?

One can only hope.

But I, for one, have no hope. The US public conscience is feeling too guilty for it.

At the same time, as has been noted,

Absent that kind of brutality by the occupying forces I do not believe a successful hostile occupation is possible.

we'd also feel way too guilty going in there and "winning". And does anybody know just precisely what it is we'd be "winning"? It's clearly not about oil because we aren't pumping Iraq dry.

So we'll just muddle along until we're about broke. It's easier to appease your guilt when you can say "sorry man, I did my best but I just can't afford to do any more."

How's that for a sorry ass way to run a war? But it's just the downside of a democracy. Or a republic. Or whatever bastardized mix we think we are today.

|4.24.07 @ 3:00AM|#

I wasn't always this much of a cynic. :) I was younger once, I believed in ideals.

That was before I was aware of the statistical improbability of an ideal prevailing in a democracy. Or a republic. Or whatever we mixture we are.

Guy Montag|4.24.07 @ 9:49AM|#

Rich Ard,

I can never tell if you're trolling or not, but you're either doing a fine imitation or a good job.

I really hate france and ireland. Does that help solve the puzzle?

|4.24.07 @ 9:52AM|#

"In light of America's fortunes in Viet Nam and Iraq maybe we ought make up some jokes about the inability of the U.S. to win assymetrical conflicts."

I can see that working as a cartoon. Sort of a Foghorn Leghorn character, mouthing off, pounding his chest and sticking his beak into all sort of places. Then getting blown up.