Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Government Puzzled by Iraq Situation, Seeks Conspiracy Theories
From a Washington Post report today on the surging violence in Iraq:
As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.
Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now.
|3.28.08 @ 10:12AM|#
I'm going to go out on a limb, and postulate that Maliki decided
to act now, because Sadr's militias took over the second largest
city in Iraq.
That, or Jack Ruby.
Taktix®|3.28.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Not to shill for the hawks, but I had heard this was
purposefully given to the Iraqis as the first "test" of their
security forces.
Now, my source (the radio, I think) was likely biased to the hawks,
and say of the WaPost what you will, but I wouldn't assume things
are suddenly spiraling out of control.
Since it's clear the anti-war crowd will not have a say this
November, our best bet is to wish for things to improve.
But as Jayne Cobb says, "if wishes were horses we'd all be eating
steak."
The Wine Commonsewer|3.28.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Well, I don't pretend to have the inside track, but my buddy
Stevie Crown (trenchcoat, Dick Tracy watch, porkpie hat) has been
dispatched to the Middle East (he leaves Sunday) so, apparently
this is quite serious. Last time his security clearance came up he
wanted to give my name to the fibbies--I said yeah,
right.
On another note, if they're looking for conspiracy theorists, man,
they just need to look at the fringe libertarians. We have good
ones.
Here's one:
Why are we paying a trillion bucks for the war and still paying a
trillion dollars a gallon for gas. Wait, that's a question.
|3.28.08 @ 10:30AM|#
I still believe the chaos in Iraq can be traced to one player.The people of Iraq.They do not seem capable of behaving in a civilized manner.Many think Arabs in general need a repressive government to keep them in check.This does not bode well for the region.
|3.28.08 @ 10:46AM|#
MP, substitute "The people of the U.S." for "The people of Iraq"
and I'm right with you.
You think there'd be this kind of chaos absent the U.S. invasion?
There might be a whole lot of other nasty problems there, perhaps
some even worse, but I imagine the country would be a lot less
chaotic right about now.
|3.28.08 @ 10:49AM|#
There might be a whole lot of other nasty problems there,
perhaps some even worse, but I imagine the country would be a lot
less chaotic right about now.
If internal stability was your goal, then Saddam was your man, no
question about it.
|3.28.08 @ 10:53AM|#
President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning
to "normalcy,"
That's "normal," in the SNAFU meaning of the word,
I imagine.
|3.28.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Winter is over. I expect the violence in Iraq to increase and the war is going to be a big (pivotal?) issue come November. Feel free to call me on this prediction in seven months.
Geotpf|3.28.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Yeah, as violence increases in Iraq (which seems to be happening), it will be more important in the Presidential race. A big part of who becomes president will depend on how many car bombs explode in Baghdad in late October and early November.
Jennifer|3.28.08 @ 11:22AM|#
I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that when a
country's infrastructure is bombed to shit, and then the country is
occupied by a military force whose members can't speak the natives'
language, AND a power vacuum is created at the top of the country,
AND the occupying force keeps making oopsie mistakes like killing
the civilians it's supposedly there to protect, this might result
in a bit of instability.
I'm also going to go out on a limb and speculate that a person who
drinks water heavily spiked with LSD will be an unreliable
eyewitness to anything which happens an hour or so later.
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Taktix® | March 28, 2008, 10:18am | #
Not to shill for the hawks, but I had heard this was purposefully
given to the Iraqis as the first "test" of their security
force...
This makes sense, and also explains the determination of the admin
to claim "they have nothing to do with it"
The reason being, we're siding with the Fadilla party/Badr
organization when in theory we are supposed to be a neutral
moderator.
I wouldnt be surprised if the campaign was negotiated with the
sunni camps - that if Fadillah could neutralize/marginalize Sadrs
organization, they'd be more willing to work together with the
government. WIth Sadr holding so much power in the south, they are
basically forced to be an opposition group, since the Sadrists are
the ones they see as wanting to 'ethnically cleanse' baghdad and
take total power over the oil resources in the south.
This can only work politically if seen as a cooperative effort
between Iraqi interest groups (to destroy/marginalize the most
'fanatical' camp)... if seen as an American-coordinated scheme, no
one internally, especially the sadr city bagdhadites, will swallow
it.
that said, the effort seems to be failing, and US warplanes were
called in today.
Or, I could be totally wrong, and it's just a powergrab by the Badr
types to retake the oil-smuggling business away from the gangsters
in Basra
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Michael Pack | March 28, 2008, 10:30am | #
I still believe the chaos in Iraq can be traced to one player.The
people of Iraq.They do not seem capable of behaving in a civilized
manner.
Dont let anyone accuse you of oversimplifying things.
I mean, 10 years of us bombing their country to shit wouldnt have
ANYTHING to do with it. Nope, they're just a bunch of animals. Dont
know whats good for them.
Jennifer|3.28.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I still believe the chaos in Iraq can be traced to one
player.The people of Iraq.They do not seem capable of behaving in a
civilized manner.Many think Arabs in general need a repressive
government to keep them in check.This does not bode well for the
region.
The cool thing about this theory is that if you change just one or
two words, it works equally well to explain why certain of
America's inner cities are crime-ridden hellholes.
|3.28.08 @ 11:42AM|#
The flare up is orchestrated to show instability so the voters
in the U.S. will dislike Mr. hundred years Mccain. Since the dems
are throwing away a sure thing, the "insurgents" have to make a
little chaos to scare the american public back to the dems that
promise to get out fast after occupation of the white house.
The good folks of Iraq see how we all fiked up america and they
rightfully want to be responsible for fikin up Iraq in their own
special way.
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Jennifer | March 28, 2008, 11:27am | #
""I still believe the chaos in Iraq can be traced to one player.The
people of Iraq.They do not seem capable of behaving in a civilized
manner.Many think Arabs in general need a repressive government to
keep them in check.This does not bode well for the region.""
The cool thing about this theory is that if you change just one or
two words, it works equally well to explain why certain of
America's inner cities are crime-ridden hellholes.
How about replacing "Iraq/Iraqis" with "africa/africans"
It really is the one-size-fits-all explanation
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Brother ben =
That might make sense if the people fighting down there were what
you call "insurgents"
aka 'foreign fighters'/exbaathists/al q in Mesopatamia, etc.
they're not. They local tribesmen who snatched the port of basra
for themselves and have been making a load of loot smuggling oil
exports.
They're in some cases connected to Sadrs militia, but in other
cases are 'renegade' guys basically out for themselves.
Maliki's crew is by contrast the Badr brigade guys who have been
fighting the Sadrists for control of Basra and other cities farther
north where there are major oil reserves.
So the idea that this was coordinated to influence the american
voters...? Makes no sense. Maliki needs to US to prop him up. He
doesnt want to do anything that will speed our departure. He'd
rather have left these guys in place if that were the case. No,
he's probably doing this at the encouragement of US forces. The
basra situation has deteriorated so badly over the last 3 months
that unless something was done it was going to *require* us forces
to relocate down there, or redeploy the brits, neither of which are
politically feasible.
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 12:24PM|#
brother ben
Your theory, however, may apply to the recent increase in attacks
on the green zone. Also, if there is an uptick of major car
bombings, etc. that would make sense.
TallDave|3.28.08 @ 12:26PM|#
LOL Who are these anonymous "officials?" I suspect they are
interviewing the White House head janitor.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/iraqi_security_force_11.php
The current Iraqi offensive has been in the works for some
time. The Iraqi Army and police have been massing forces in the
South since August 2007, when the Basrah Operational Command was
established to coordinate efforts in the region. As of December the
Iraqi Army deployed four brigades and an Iraqi Special Operations
Forces battalion in Basrah province. The Iraqi National Police
deployed two additional battalions to the province
TallDave|3.28.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Also, it's interesting that the other political factions are so
fed up with Sadr they don't even want to talk about compromise,
calling it a "law and order issue" and refusing to attend talks
aimed at ending the confrontation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=AvizBpHdC8tADs7BRClierBX6GMA
In political developments, the main Shiite bloc in parliament
said it would not attend an emergency session called for Friday to
find ways to end fighting between government forces and militiamen
in southern Iraq. Deputy parliamentary speaker Khalid al-Attiyah,
also a member of the United Iraqi Alliance, said the events in the
south are a law and order issue, not legislative. The bloc has been
in contact with its Kurdish allies for them to boycott Friday's
session too, which would prevent a quorum, he said.
Heh. Reap the whirlwind, Moqtada.
|3.28.08 @ 12:33PM|#
One theory I saw floated out there is that the US is tired of
Maliki and want him to fail so they are secretly supporting the
elements of the uprising.
That way the Iraqi people will lose confidence in him and the US
doesn't have to bring him down in any way that can be directly tied
back to them and it wont look like they are pulling the
strings.
I don't believe this thery though
|3.28.08 @ 12:40PM|#
We bribed the Sunnis to stop fighting against us, so maybe we bribed Malaki to start fighting for us.
|3.28.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Heh. Reap the whirlwind, Moqtada.
There you go. Sit at your computer and howl "Bring it On."
Hey, Turks! You asked for it, now we're REALLY going to land in
force on that penninsula! You guyz are soooooo dead...
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 12:50PM|#
One correction to above
It's not Fadilah and Badr brigards working together...
It's Badr/SCIRI/and Dawa (Maliki's party) ganging up against
Sadr/Fadilah groups.
Also, it's interesting that the other political factions are so
fed up with Sadr they don't even want to talk about
compromise
This should be expected. Sadr played hardball with everyone else
since day one since he had the largest bloc and the most people on
the streets with guns. It's just gotten to the point where enough
people are fed up with him that they can work together.
It should be clear though that he's not entirely in control at all
of the groups they are fighting. The papers sort of vacillate
between describing the fighters as "his army", but then pointing
out he's got no influence on these particular chappies.
More than anything, it's tribal and it's about regional power, not
some religio-sectarian thing that people try to cast it as... these
are all different shiite power groups fighting, not 'insurgents' or
terrorists etc.
They might use some of the same tactics, but it's far less about
fighting the "occupiers" and more about controlling their territory
for their own tribal enrichment and power.
|3.28.08 @ 1:05PM|#
I forgot, what was it again that Iraqi civil war has to do with US National Security (other than the in-country troops)?
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Tbone | March 28, 2008, 1:05pm | #
I forgot, what was it again that Iraqi civil war has to do with US
National Security (other than the in-country troops)?
teh terrorists.
if seeking more detail, ask TallDave
the fez|3.28.08 @ 1:23PM|#
The cool thing about this theory is that if you change just
one or two words, it works equally well to explain why certain of
America's inner cities are crime-ridden hellholes.
Well, why are some American inner cities crime-ridden hellholes?
Something about "racism" and "lack of opportunity", I suppose.
Nothing to do with the people that actually live in these
places.
Strangely enough, after we bombed Germany and Japan to smithereens,
they didn't devolve into violent chaos, religious and ethnic
in-fighting and civil war. Of course, this cannot have anything to
do with the "German people" or the "Japanese people" or their
respective cultures.
Jennifer|3.28.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Well, why are some American inner cities crime-ridden
hellholes? Something about "racism" and "lack of opportunity", I
suppose. Nothing to do with the people that actually live in these
places.
My guess would have something to do with a combination of
perverse-incentive welfare-state tactics combined with a police
force so intent on pursuing (and often fraiming people for)
victimless drug crimes that, on the rare occasions police want to
investigate an actual crime crime of the
robbery-rape-murder variety they find to their utter shock that the
residents of said neighborhoods harbor a distrust of them.
Gasp.
But commenter Michael Pack might say instead the problem with
inner-city denizens is that they, like Arabs, "need a repressive
government to keep them in check." They have not yet evolved the
necessary freedom DNA, you see. And it DEFINITELY isn't a case of
merely a few bad apples allowed to run rampant over a peaceful
majority due to a police force that's either non-existent or simply
doesn't give a shit.
|3.28.08 @ 1:59PM|#
No doubt the U.S. presence exacerbates the violence in Iraq,
but...
"If there were no Americans, there would be no fighting," said Abu Mustafa al-Thahabi, 38, a senior Mahdi Army member.
...this is still one of the least convincing statements I've
heard in a long time.
Nothing to do with the people that actually live in these places.
I'm not well-versed in the art of rhetoric. What's it called when a person tries to make his or her oversimplified hypothesis seem more acceptable by sarcastically stating its equally oversimplified negation?
|3.28.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Jennifer
DNA schmee n a,
We all knows that its cause them islams, they aint got the Christ.
DUHHHH
|3.28.08 @ 2:17PM|#
If you want to understand why some inner city areas are "crime
ridden hell-holes," read Jane Jacobs "The Life and Death of Great
American Cities." It's about economic migration and "scientific,"
suburbanist urban renewal.
The War on Drugs, welfare dependency, occupying (as opposed to
protective) police and the other usual suspects all came
later.
Seriously, first came welfare then came poverty? There's nothing
about that formulation that strikes you a little funny?
|3.28.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Who gives a sh*t any longer? Gas up the trucks, toss all our equipment in, and convoy south to Kuwait. Ta ta, have a nice day.
|3.28.08 @ 2:28PM|#
How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie-roll
center of a Tootsie Pop?
Three.
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Strangely enough, after we bombed Germany and Japan to
smithereens, they didn't devolve into violent chaos, religious and
ethnic in-fighting and civil war
Uh. They didnt have any religious or ethnic differences in either
case.
Plus, we'd just NUKED one. They werent looking to up the
ante.
And in the case of der germans, most people in the country were
more scared of the russians than allied occupiers, so were
perfectly hospitable to their new anglo-american overlords.
I mean, come on. You're talking Apples Kiwis and fucking Kumquats.
Almost none of the examples are remotely comparable.
|3.28.08 @ 3:10PM|#
combined with a police force so intent on pursuing (and
often fraiming people for) victimless drug crimes that
It is not only for victimless drug crimes they try to frame people.
(Sadly in Chicago these are not isolated incidents anymore)
From this
story:
In October, three years after his arrest, Robinson, 26, was
acquitted. Having him home has been "heaven,'' Patricia Robinson
said.
Now, mother and son are demanding justice from the two Chicago
Police detectives who they say beat and framed Robinson by falsely
claiming he confessed to the murder of a child. One of the
detectives then harassed his wife by telephone, according to a
lawsuit filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court.
...
The allegations in the lawsuit were backed up in rulings by the
judge who acquitted Robinson. According to Robinson's attorney
Andre Grant, Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan said in court he
believed Robinson was beaten while in police custody and that
Robinson never gave a confession. Further, he said he believed
Humphrey, the detective who said Robinson had made an oral
confession to the murder, had "hit on'' Robinson's wife after his
arrest, according to transcripts released by Grant.
"My God,'' Gaughan said in the transcripts. "There's a conflict of
interest there. For the lack of a better word, he's hitting on Mrs.
Robinson at a time when he's the one saying that her husband made
an oral confession.''
Jennifer|3.28.08 @ 3:14PM|#
The problem, ChicagoTom, is that the Cook County government is not repressive enough to keep the bad people in check.
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 3:19PM|#
POG
What's it called when a person tries to make his or her
oversimplified hypothesis seem more acceptable by sarcastically
stating its equally oversimplified negation?
i think you're talking about a "reductio ad absurdum"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
pretty common in daily usage. Like,
"Oh, so you libertarians want to like, put a toll booth on every
corner and have corporate police charging us when they stop us from
getting mugged..."
You could also be talking about an "appeal to consequence"
"But if we leave Iraq, it will lead to chaos and anarachy!!"
And one scratches one's head and goes, "yeah...but we're staying...
and...we've already got chaos and anarchy?"
Or maybe thats "begging the question" - or a reverse form of it,
where their conclusion is ignoring the present state where that
conclusion is already true.
Like, "if we make contraception more accessible, teens will go on a
sex spree and it will lead to disease and unwanted pregnancies
and..."
... sorta the same thing. The argument ignores that lack of
contraception already produces their 'unwanted' result.
I never can get these things exactly right. they may overlap in
some cases.
|3.28.08 @ 3:37PM|#
"""MP, substitute "The people of the U.S." for "The people of
Iraq" and I'm right with you.
You think there'd be this kind of chaos absent the U.S.
invasion?"""
I agree with Michael. Sure we could talk about context, and
situations. But it is Iraqi v. Iraqi fighting. They could have
peace if they want it. It is up to them, not us.
It's sort of like the homeless guy who doesn't want to work or
engage in society, then blames his choices on society.
|3.28.08 @ 3:39PM|#
The Surge did nothing to change the underlying conditions in
Iraq.
Without a change in the underlying conditions, a return of
2006-2007ish violence in inevitable.
This is one of those points, like the problem with the Sunnis
boycotting the 05 elections, that is so obvious as to seriously
call into question the judgement of those who denied it.
|3.28.08 @ 4:16PM|#
GILMORE
The "appeal to consequenses" fallacy is about evaluating the truth
or falsehood of a descriptive proposition. Talking about
the consequenses of implementing a certain policy is not a case of
commiting that fallacy*.
eg:
Saying "We should not lower the speed limit on the I-95 to 1 mph
because it will take way too long to get anywhere." is not a
fallacy even though it talks about consequenses.
However, consider saying "Its impossible for us to be almost out of
this antidote; because we have a ton of poisoned people here and if
they find out there is not enough we might have chaos break out as
people fight eachother to get some of the remaing treatment." The
question of what people will do if they find out has no bearing on
whether or not it is true that there isn't enough antidote
to go around. Thats why that would be an example of the
fallacy.
I'll explain "begging the question" in my next post.
* - Although the specific examples of arguments you cite do have
problems, which you go on to describe.
Neil|3.28.08 @ 4:24PM|#
This is just an example of our Iraqi allies standing up so we can stand down. The Surge is working, surrendercrats. Deal with it. Victory is just around the corner. Stopping now would be like surrendering to Germany in WWII after we crossed the Rhine. We'll be in Berlin soon!
|3.28.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"Begging the question" is typicaly described as "assuming the
point in contention". Two people are debating point A; and they
ultimately disagree about it because they disagree about point B.
One person makes an argument in the form of "Since we already know
that point B is true, let my show you how that proves that point A
also must be true."
Example: I am a DA prosecuting a murder case with a victim who was
shot in the head. The defendant claims not to be the shooter. I get
up in front of the jury and say: "Since we know the defendant
pulled the trigger, I intend to present evidence that pulling the
trigger of a loaded gun causes a bullet to be projected at very
high velocity. I further intend to prove that having a bullet in
such motion go through his skull is the cause of the victim's
death."
But it can be more subtle than that.
Its "begging the question" (I take it) because its like saying
"Please just agree with me so that I can win the debate".
|3.28.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Now that that's out of the way, I'll talk a little about Iraq
(although I think this thread might be dead).
It is true that violence has decreased in recent months, with
significantly fewer casualties amoung the coalition and Iraqi
civilians and security forces. That is certainly a good thing but
we are not out of the woods yet. There is no garauntee that the
security improvements will continue or remain permanent.
A major factor in the improved security, is the changing sides of
major Sunni insurgent groups. They've been cooperating with the
coalition to fight the common enemy of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but they
have not become fundementally pro-American.
It is necessary to offer some type of long-term
reconcilliation/power sharing plan that they will accept. Otherwise
there is no assurance they won't go back to fighting the coalition
after Al Qaeda is demolished to their satisfaction. A timetable for
witdrawal, or some other detailed explicit exit plan, might
eventually be a useful concession in such an agreement.
They may also need similiar diplomacy between competing shiite
factions, if they are going to avoid having outbursts of violence
like this every few months.
Neil|3.28.08 @ 5:03PM|#
"There is no garauntee that the security improvements will
continue or remain permanent. "
There was no guarantee after the Battle of the Bulge that violence
would decrease either but victory was ours in the end. This is it.
The Mahdi army is in its last throws.
|3.28.08 @ 5:11PM|#
""There was no guarantee after the Battle of the Bulge that
violence would decrease either but victory was ours in the
end."""
We didn't care a rats ass if after that battle the Germans decided
to fight themsleves, that would have saved us work.
That's a difference between a war and a police action.
Neil|3.28.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Trickyvick this isnt a war? It isn't? Because it sure looks like one to me. Its a war that started on a Tuesday morning in September, and it won't end until Islamofascism is whiped from the face of the Earth. Iraq is one battle in this larger war. Either you want victory, or surrender to the forces of darkness. Which is it?
|3.28.08 @ 5:33PM|#
I was surfing the net and i came up on this resetamaerica.com website. the candidate Michael Jingozian said that we should prosecute the bush administration for warcrimes well i dont know if that is going tooo far but i do think based on tghe speech and reality that we should drug test them and prosecute for stupidity. I agree with the Jingo guy its time to reset the war and a whole lot more
Neil|3.28.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Frank are you a traitor? I guess you would've prosecuted FDR and Truman for "war crimes" too? Guess what, war is hard. Some people will die. Get over it.
|3.28.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Neil
I don't know whether or not I should expect a detailed answer with
point-by-point analysis but,
What is your proposal for endgame in Iraq?
Do you have an exit plan in mind? And what conditions would have to
be met before you determined that the mission is complete? Do you
have any ideas on how to expedite reconcilliation between factions?
Should the coalition take out the PKK on their way out to placate
Turkey? (And can they do that without getting kurdish
authorities all riled up?)
|3.28.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Is it a question of difficulty or length? All war is hard, sure.
But the ones we won were relatively short. The longer it drags out
the more likey we will not win. We defeated the Japs and the
Germans in less time then our endevours in Iraq.
But what is war other than killing their army and taking their
land?
We've done plenty of missions in the past where we tried to protect
the population of a foreign land from other members of that same
land, or their neighbors. There's another name for that.
""Either you want victory, or surrender to the forces of darkness.
Which is it?""
"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will.
We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world."
- Dick Cheney (source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html)
I thought we were the dark side.
Neil, Jesus told me he doesn't love you.
Neil|3.28.08 @ 7:04PM|#
"What is your proposal for endgame in Iraq? "
A stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq who is an ally in the War
on Islamofascism and a model for the rest of the region. Namely,
victory.
"Do you have an exit plan in mind?"
There is no exit plan. We will probably have bases there for a very
long time (i.e., Germany, Japan, Korea). Whats wrong with having a
large base in a very violent region of the world that we may have
to again pacify at some point?
Its not difficult to reconcile the factions. After all, North and
South reconciled after the Civil War it shouldn't be anymore
difficult in Iraq. Its only the Islamofascists (Al Qaeda+Iran) who
are stirring up sectarian violence, most Iraqis want peace,
democracy, and freedom.
Neil|3.28.08 @ 7:05PM|#
We're very close to victory and all you defeatists will have egg on your face. The Mahdi Army is in its last throws, Al Qaeda in Iraq is on its way out, and soon peace and democracy will reign.
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 7:20PM|#
BG =
Why do you assume we are somehow responsible for
'reconciliation'
what makes you think our presence in fact is an enabler as opposed
to an obstacle?
GILMORE|3.28.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Talking about the consequenses of implementing a certain
policy is not a case of commiting that fallacy*.
BG
OK. But what about when the consequences described arent different
than the consequences of doing nothing?
My point above re: contraception being a common one.
|3.28.08 @ 8:09PM|#
GILMORE
I don't think the success or failure of reconcilliation is going to
depend completely, or even mostly, on what the coalition does.
However, there may be some things they can do to assist that
process.
And I don't know if there is a name for the type of fallacy you
describe. Maybe something about "false difference" or "false
contrast" but I'm not sure.
Neil
I don't know. And I'm not too sure how I would start to answer that
question. I do think that it was/is pretty badly fucked in either
case, just in different ways.
But lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that from here on out
things improve dramaticly in a way that they would not have if not
for the invasion. And suppose further that the end result is "A
stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq who is an ally in the War on
Islamofascism and a model for the rest of the region". Would that
prove that the invasion was the right decision? I'm not sure it
would. One could reasonably argue that the ends don't justify the
means. And of course, there were all those unintended consequenses
along the way.
But as for this:
There is no exit plan. We will probably have bases there for a
very long time (i.e., Germany, Japan, Korea). Whats wrong with
having a large base in a very violent region of the world that we
may have to again pacify at some point?
Its not difficult to reconcile the factions. After all, North and
South reconciled after the Civil War it shouldn't be anymore
difficult in Iraq.
Well given the attitude of many Iraqis towards indefinate US
military presence, keeping a large base there might be why
we would have to again pacify it. The structure of Iraqi society,
in which leaders of tribes and local militias often command
sufficient loyalty to raise an army and make war, make this unlike
Germany, Japan, or Korea. Its even very different than what the
structure of society was within a typical confederate state.
|3.28.08 @ 8:15PM|#
"""Is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam
Hussein?"""
It's stupid to ask an American that question. How the hell would we
know. Try asking an Iraqi.
Neil|3.28.08 @ 8:17PM|#
I'm sure a lot of white Southerners didn't want us occupying
them in 1865. Tough luck. They're better for it.
TrickyVick polls of Iraqis consistently show not only do they want
us to stay but they're better off.
|3.28.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Well, post a link.
"""I'm sure a lot of white Southerners didn't want us occupying
them in 1865. Tough luck. They're better for it."""
How do you know?
Neil|3.28.08 @ 8:22PM|#
"But lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that from here on
out things improve dramaticly in a way that they would not have if
not for the invasion. And suppose further that the end result is "A
stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq who is an ally in the War on
Islamofascism and a model for the rest of the region". Would that
prove that the invasion was the right decision?"
Did the firebombing of German cities mean the ends of WWII didn't
justify the means? What about the burning of Atlanta that helped
end slavery? War is hell, deal with it. Sometimes the ends DO
justify the means.
|3.28.08 @ 8:27PM|#
From 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
From 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
But there is something interesting in the ABC poll that
claims
U.S.-led invasion: All Arabs Kurds
Was right 48% 40% 87%
Was wrong 39 46 9
Liberated Iraq 42% 33% 82%
Humiliated Iraq 41 48 11
Presence of coalition forces:
Support 39% 30% 82%
Oppose 51 60 12
Attacks on coalition forces:
Acceptable 17% 21% 2%
Unacceptable 7 8 74 96
Of the Arabs in Iraq 60% oppose our presences. 48% say we
humiliated instead of liberated the country. If it was right or
wrong is closer, but more said it was wrong than right.
|3.28.08 @ 8:32PM|#
""""But lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that from here
on out things improve dramaticly in a way that they would not have
if not for the invasion. And suppose further that the end result is
"A stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq who is an ally in the War
on Islamofascism and a model for the rest of the region". Would
that prove that the invasion was the right decision?""""
I might agree to that if you will agree, that for arguments sake
that if things get worse, and stay worse, it would prove that it
was a bad decision.
Brandybuck|3.28.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Why won't Hit&Run remember my information? Why do I have to re-enter the comment fields if it takes me longer than thirty seconds to write a post?
|3.29.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Art-P.O.G.
You're welcome.
Neil
I probably should have responded sooner but,
Did the firebombing of German cities mean the ends of WWII
didn't justify the means? What about the burning of Atlanta that
helped end slavery? War is hell, deal with it. Sometimes the ends
DO justify the means.
While I think the fight against the axis powers was a just war, I
do not think the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden were necessary or
justified.
While the fight against the axis powers was justified on both
self-defense and humanitarian grounds, justifying the Iraq war only
seems possible on humanitarian grounds. But while Saddam had
massive genocidal atrocities, his barbarism reached its peak years
ago. At the time of the invasion, his regime's rate of human rights
abuses had gone back down to near ordinary levels. So when one
weighs the amount of humaitarian damage that should have been
expected from the war against the humanitarian benefit from getting
rid of Saddam, it is far from clear that invading was the right
decision. The bang for the buck - so to speak - was less with this
war than what it was with the war against the axis powers.
And of course, there are other factors to consider in evaluating
the decision to go to war. We could ask for example "To what extent
would this make (the party engaging in war) directly responsible
for causing harm ot innocents?", as opposed to merely failing to
prevent such harm. We should also consider intent and level of
effort taken to avoid negative unintented consequenses.
This is just a broad overview of some of the things to think about
when evaluating a decision to go to war. If we were satisfied with
saying "War is hell, deal with it. Sometimes the ends DO justify
the means", we would have a hard time ever ruling out a
military action as long as any type of benefit could
reasonably be expected from it.
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 1:45AM|#
Neil is a fucking idiot and there is no reason to reply to his one-dimensional soundbytes
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245