Don't Call it a Comeback. Really, Don't.
David Weigel | December 12, 2006, 1:55pm
Plans for President Bush to address the nation sometime before Christmas
have been shelved.
[A]s the President has heard from a variety of voices on Iraq it became clear there are no easy answers or quick solutions.
After the President spoke by teleconference with his commanders on the ground in Iraq White House Press Secretary Tony Snow announced that a decision on new policy will have to wait until after the first of the year.
One rumor emblazoned across Fox News just now - the POTUS is weighing the sage advice of hawks to send more troops to Iraq. That is the kind of announcement you'd want to avoid making right before Christmas.
TrickyVic | December 12, 2006, 3:57pm | #
20 - 30 Thousand extra troops will do little. My bet is that it will do nothing.
The problem is one of security. Without it life can not return to normal. The Iraqis CAN'T do it, they are currently incapable of the real dirty work. Also they are not interested in securing their county for their countries sake. They would rather fight each other. Sunnis want to fight Shias and vice-versa.
It's sort of like fighting siblings. The two brothers are fighting, mom and dad can't stop it. The Iraqis really need a major force that can secure large areas for a long time. Work on supporting the local governments first.
It seems obvious to me that our low number of troops from the start is the root of the problem. Not that I'm saying the two sides would have all gotten along. By failing to have the manpower to secure the conventional weapons depots and not having the manpower to quell the looting, we have allowed the country to run amuck. That is our fault. The conventional weapons we failed to secure have been used against us. By not stopping the looting we signaled the whole country that we are willing to turn away from misbehavior. Add those two together and you have misbehavior with weapons.
I think we can look at our past race issues to get an idea of how long Sunni vs. Shia conflict can last.
I see the Iraq problems as solvable, if we act quickly. But it will cost us a lot more because we have wasted three years playing Keystone Cops with the insurgence instead of making the proper troop level adjustments. We should have sent more troops as soon as we realized we didn't have enough troops to secure their weapons depots and squelch their looting.
It is like cancer. My concern is that it maybe too late.
We do have the troops to do the job. If it's sooooooo important as Bush says, it's worth a draft. But I don't think that's necessary. It is worth our best effort, and I don't believe we have put our best effort into it. We put no effort, in advance, to post-invasion control. We are seeing the fruits of those efforts.
Having said all that, more troops are useless if you don't have a plan.
I think the ISG report is a way that Bush can bring an end, at least, close to the end, before he leaves office, therefore not leaving it to someone else to clean up.
KoWT | December 12, 2006, 5:09pm | #
Was that "don't call it a comeback" a sly LL Cool J ref?
"Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear
Makin the tears rain down like a MON-soon
Listen to the bass go BOOM
Explosion, overpowerin
Over the competition, I'm towerin
Wreckin shop, when I drop these lyrics that'll make you call the cops
Don't you dare stare, you betta move
Don't ever compare
Me to the rest that'll all get sliced and diced
Competition's payin the price
I'm gonna knock you out [HUUUH!!!]
Mama said knock you out [HUUUH!!!]"
http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/html/lyrics/m/mama_said_knock_you_out.txt
(For some sad reason, I have no problem picturing our POTUS jamming to that tune)
btw, whatever happened to the "political capital" Bush was yammering about after he won his last election?
embezzled?
send in the auditors...
find out where it went...
TrickyVic | December 13, 2006, 12:15pm | #
"""Tricky Vic, simply declaring Iraqis to be incapable of civilization - the "those people have been killing each other for centuries" excuse - is as wrong in Iraq as it was in Yugoslavia."""
I have not, or ever will declare the Iraqis incapable of civilization. Civilization is YOUR word not mine. I speak of our expectation for them to get along and not kill each other. That is not equal to civilization as a whole. So your above statement is false.
Besides I didn't know Yugoslavia problems were Shia vs. Sunni? If it's not, then your analogy really don't apply at all, even if I take your mis-representation of my post off the table.
"""Have you forgotten that Al Qaeda has set up shop in the country and dedicated itself to creating a Sunni/Shiite civil war through the mass slaughter of Shiite civilians for the past three years? """
Of course I remember, but who's fault is it that AQ was allowed to set-up shop in a country where we are occupiers and the prime military force? I know that's a little off your point. Regardless, Sunni's and Shiites history of fighting pre-dates AQ. AQ simply threw the match into the gasoline. AQ is not the first cause of the current situation. Besides, there was sectarian violence in Iraq before the event you mentioned took place. The bombing of the mosque DID NOT create the violence, although it did kick it up a notch.
"""What we're seeing in Iraq is not the state of nature, not the eternal destiny of Arabs, but a situation that has deliberately been created, and which has its roots in politics."""
The state of nature???? Arab eternal destiny?? Are you kidding? What is the state of nature? The nature of what? Nature? or the nature of man? Nature is dynamic. It does not reside in a single "state". Who knows what the Arab eternal destiny is anyway? No one has a crystal ball. But I can say whatever it is, they will be the ones to create it.
After going back and reading my posts, what statements of mine lead to you using the word "civilization" anyway? You took what I said so far out of context you created a strawman.
"kwais, white guys in Humvees will never, ever be able to insinuate themselves into Iraq society as you describe as well as jihadists from other Middle Eastern countries.""
I do agree with you on this statement. We are outsiders, which is no big deal. But outsiders will never, ever, blend in like insiders. That's way Bush really screwed up our fight against AQ. By alienating more Arabs against us, it is harder to recruit insiders to spy for us or to infiltrate AQ.
TrickyVic | December 13, 2006, 4:25pm | #
I didn't nit pick anything, I'm taking your words at face value.
"""you asserted that the violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is unavoidable because of cultural and historical forces. """
Tell that to them. Are you saying that the cultural and historical forces are NOT the reason they are fighting? You really think that they would have been peaceful without AQ interference? Sure AQ has stoked the flames but the fire was already there.
They are like the Hatfields and McCoys. But if you read my post, I did say this is solveable. Like fighting siblings they need a good time out, normal life can sit in, then they can address their differnces peacefully. Well, hopefully. The question is who is going to force them to take a time out. The Iraqi government is currently incapable. Without that time out, I think they will continue to escalate or at least continue the current level of violence.
"""I disagree with that statement, and point to the fact that the Sunni/Shiite civil war only began after a committed campaign to make it happen was carried out by al Qaeda."""
You are failing to acknowledge, in this comment anyway, that they were fighting before AQ started it's campaign. It's simply escalated since then.
""Against my better judgement, I'll try to restate my argument in language off sufficient neutrality that you might deign to address it;"""
We would all like that, :-)
but seriously, what point of your have I failed to address?
""you asserted that the violence between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is unavoidable because of cultural and historical forces. I disagree with that statement, and point to the fact that the Sunni/Shiite civil war only began after a committed campaign to make it happen was carried out by al Qaeda.""
I have addressed that at least twice. The sunnis and Shias were fighting before it was "civil war" therefore, AQ is NOT the first cause of the fighting.
Dodgeball pro??? You MUST be looking in a mirror.
I ask you this Joe. Why were they fighting before the event (mosque bombing) or any AQ intervention, and even before Saddam took power?
TrickyVic | December 13, 2006, 7:37pm | #
"""Certainly, there are historical animosities between Sunnis and Shiites. There are historical animosities between Christians and Jews in Europe. And yet, they manage to live amongst each other peacefully, unless somebody goes stirring up trouble. Well, mostly, anyway. You can always count on a few assholes to make trouble, but most people will reject such hostility unless there is someone in power stirring the pot."""
Exactly, I never said it was unavoidable violence. It was Iraqi's decision to make after Hussein was removed from power. A few assholes decided to take up the animosities from the past. The inability for us to prevent that violence signaled the ease of getting away with it, then a few assholes, became some assholes, as the violence became tit for tat, some became many, then when the mosque was bombed, many became a lot, and it's been building ever since. But your failing to admit that AQ did not start it, they helped expand it, but the fighting was already happening. I'm talking real fighting, not just the desire to fight. But the prime mover, first cause of the violence is sectarian, not AQ.
There are a couple of things your failing to understand. I have never claimed that tension equates to warfare, I simply do not believe that. I actually argue that there is nothing wrong with extremist elements of religion. As long as they don't try to force their religion on others or break laws of the land. Extremism does not equate to violence either. Only violence equates to violence, at least in my book.
Lennon said The War is over if you want it. I agree with what he means. If we all want peace we will have peace. Easier said than done.
I don't agree to the natural order you speak of, only choices among men. I know there is a classical argument for it but, mankind keeps making choices contra to that order. Man is very inhumane towards his fellow man. Not always of course, but when someone has the desire to, and the means to, it becomes a matter of choice. Peace is a responsibility.
In reality, Iraq is in this mess not because our failures to secure the country, nor AQ's attacks, certainly they are big factors, but because they have chosen to fight each other. They can have peace if they want it. All they have to do is forgive their neighbor's trespass against them and do unto others as they would have done unto them. Then lay down their arms and start rebuilding.
The choice is theirs to make.
But, that is not their choice.
So what now?
TrickyVic | December 13, 2006, 11:08pm | #
A report on Iraqi training.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/12/13/us_officer_spells_out_iraq_police_training_woes/
"""So what if you round up all conventional weapons and destroy them? Will you outlaw them so no one will have guns?""
Are you referring to may comments about securing the weapons depots? That was something we should have done when we invaded.
I'm a firm believer of the second amendment, I do believe everyone should have a right to self protection.
I do agree, they will always have the choice to return to violence even if we were able to get it under control now.
I hate to disappoint you, we are not able to change their culture anymore than we can make them accept peace.
"""What makes you think a time-out will magically install democratic values in those people?"""
I don't, the time out would be an extended cooling off period. It has nothing to do with democratic values.
I am aware my ideas might not succeed.
Everything really depends on the choices of individual Iraqis. That's proving to be a problem for us.
""Staying there or sending more troops only delays the inevitable at a horrendous cost to US (both US soldiers and the billions needed to finance this war)."""
Maybe. I want to believe we can curb much of the violence and accomplish getting Iraq on its feet, but I admit it will be very expensive and requires much more troops and cash. But, is it worth it? I say yes, but 62% say no. I can assure you I'm not one of those people that jumps up and down yelling cut and run coward. I don't buy into that crap. If America decides it's not worth it and wants to bail, so be it, the people have spoken. I don't think we are there yet, but we are getting real close.
""The civil war will play out; only it will play out to its conclusion sooner than later if we withdraw now. """
And maybe that's required. We could back away and let them duke it out till they are tired. That would be real nasty though, and it would likely reverberate throughout the Mid-East possibly collapsing some other governments too.
It's a tough, tough, situation.
TrickyVic | December 15, 2006, 4:08pm | #
""I understand that everyone wants to believe we can solve this problem somehow, curb much of the violence, and get Iraq on its feet, but that's all we have, this hope and magical thinking. I don't know if it's worth it. But even if it is, no one has a plan (any sensible idea really) how to make it happen. Sending more troops in the hope of establishing a cool-off period is NOT a plan. You can send your kids to their rooms to stop the fight, but unless you've taught them not to fight, you're only delaying it. They'll fight again at the next opportunity when you're not watching unless you've addressed the very source of their conflict. And we're not doing that in Iraq and even worse, my whole point is that no one knows how to do that even."""
For one that's not my total plan, it's one element. Reducing the violence is a very large task which why I say it requires a couple of Hundred Thousand more troops. I don't think it's going to happen either. I have a lot of ideas, but I'm not going post the whole thing on H&R.
You make a great arguement to pack-up and leave. If we can't solve it why on earth would we keep spending 2 Billion a week? I think you've said in the past we need to stay, forgive me if I'm wrong on that, but you provide much to the debate on why we shouldn't. But don't kid yourself we can not change their culture, that is up to them. Personally the concept of us trying to change their culture is appalling to me. I say let the Arabs be Arabs. There culture is rich in history, much more than our own. No culture has a monopoly on peace. Their problem is not their culture but their individual inability to forgive and move on.
Which is it? If we go, the logistics are simple, pack up and leave. If we stay we MUST have a plan that will work and we must be commited to providing ALL of the resources the plan needs. I don't believe the American public nor the government, Republican and Democrat alike, have the will for it.
Once the new funding requests are passed by the incoming Congress the cost of Iraq and Afganistan will be over half a Trillion dollars with no end in sight.
No one can do "magic", maybe that's your point. but if it's going to take "magic" that no one can do. If it is impossible to solve then I say we leave tomorrow and not spend another cent on the land of make believe.
One day we may be looking back at this and say, "with the money we spent on Iraq, we could have fixed Social Security".
JF, I don't think that's what Joe meant when he brought up that comparison. But your comparison is why I belived the Sunnis and Shias would start fighting as soon as the big club stopped beating them. I didn't say it quite like that. Joe's argument is that your wrong because there is nothing that says the old rivalries MUST re-emerge. Of course he's right in that nothing says it MUST, certainly I did not, but it's a safe bet to think people will go back to their old ways once the stick that beat them down is removed, and you should be prepared to deal with it from day one. I told my roomate when we invaded "What are we going to give them freedom for, to fight each other?" I was right. I didn't want to be right, but old habits are hard to break.
My opinion on Iraq is simple. Shit or get off the pot. But, I don't think we have the guts to take the painful crap Iraq calls for.
So what now?
