Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 10 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:That may be the reasoning, but it seems seriously flawed at best, particularly in that it ignores any consequences of prematurely disengaging from Iraq. People who advocate a desire to “lose” the Iraq war never justify that with any discussion of strategy; their arguments are always anti-war positions (displeasure with casualties, disapproval with the casus bellum, etc). And really I think a lack of resolve or defeatism plays as much or a larger part then strategy.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well,
I think this is very much a 'lose the battle, win the war' type of mentality by those who say they'd like us to 'lose, and as quickly as possible.'
Their contention is that we are expending lives and resources on a failed conflict. So, the quicker we cut out losses, the better off we will be.
It’s hard to imagine how the challenges faced by the US in Iraq could possibly resemble those faced by Hirohito at the end of World War II. It’s even hard to imagine how Iraq resembles Vietnam. Four years into the US escalation of Vietnam, there were 20,000 US casualties, half a million servicemen incountry and a draft. Four years into Iraq, we have 3000 US casualties, less then a 150 thousand incountry and no draft. And then you look at the dangers of disengagement: Al Qaeda was formed partially as a consequence of Western disengagement from Afghanistan; 9/ll occurred in part because Al Qaeda leaders didn’t believe that the US had the resolve to respond or stay engaged and Saddam Hussein was able to thumb his nose at the UN because he didn’t believe the West would do anything either. The reality is that apocalyptic terrorist organization and rogue regimes thrive in a world where the only powers capable of containing them suffer from an international attention deficit disorder. If we were to lose in Iraq, it could be a major defeat for the war on terror. Regardless of how critical Iraq may or may not have been initially, it is now inexorably entwined with our success in the greater war against terror.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Well, Finn,
You have to remember that for those who want to disengage as soon as possible, it is because they believe that all the bad things are going to happen anyway. Region instability, terrorist haven, etc. All that's going to happen whether we pull out now or in a year. The idea is that we have already failed, that it was a doomed course from inception. That, essentially, no matter what you do as you fall off the cliff, you are going to go splat at the bottom.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, the only thing you can control is how many losses we take before we eventually disengage. If we disengage now or later, we have all the same problems... but if we disengage now, we have those problems and save hundreds or thousands of lives and billions of dollars of resources.
Lives and resources we'll need in 4-12 years when the inevitable consequences of Iraq come back to bite us.
At least, I think this is the position? It's how I understand it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I agree. That's the impression I get too.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
The problem here is that little word, "if". If Iraq had actually had jack squat to do with 9/11, if our duly appointed President had actual proof (as opposed to cherry-picked wishful thinking) about WMDs, then we shoulda been there.
I don't think the question of Iraq's 9/11 connection or its WMDs is relevant to the question of whether we should stay in Iraq.
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today, shouldn't we fight them in Iraq today? I mean its really convienant for everyone right now. I mean our Army is already there, they want to fight, and we have some support from the locals (Kurds, pro-US Iraqis, etc.). The enemy has to walk a long way to get to Iraq. I say as long as they're willing to make that walk, we owe it to them to kill them when they get there. Would you rather us have to go to the terrorists every time they needed the killin? Or maybe you'd rather the battlefield be somewhere else, like Tel Aviv or New York.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I do bow to reality; we cannot easily pull out of Iraq now, since one who mounts the tiger cannot soon dismount--
Really bad metaphor, dude. The one who mounts the tiger can stick a .44 Magmun in its ear and make tiger skin rug out of it, then dismount at leisure.
Otherwise, I agree with much of what you say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, Finn,
You have to remember that for those who want to disengage as soon as possible, it is because they believe that all the bad things are going to happen anyway. Region instability, terrorist haven, etc. All that's going to happen whether we pull out now or in a year. The idea is that we have already failed, that it was a doomed course from inception. That, essentially, no matter what you do as you fall off the cliff, you are going to go splat at the bottom.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, the only thing you can control is how many losses we take before we eventually disengage. If we disengage now or later, we have all the same problems... but if we disengage now, we have those problems and save hundreds or thousands of lives and billions of dollars of resources.
Excellently put, Anthony. We propped up the Viets for years because they would collapse without our help. We left. They collapsed without our help.
Whatever we leave behind in Iraq, whenever we leave it, will either collapse or be our enemy.
We went there because Saddam was a WMD threat, so we had to remove him. That's what the Prez said.
We removed him, and there was no real threat, as it turns out.
So Mission Accomplished! Bring the boys home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
a third thought before I stop for the day:
I like Shakespeare's solution. Early in Henry V, he has Henry comment about his coming invasion of France, another war with questionable justification"
" France being ours, we'll bend it to our awe,
or break it all to bits."
So we pull a Kuwait retreat. Burn the oil fields, destroy the oil port at Basra, absolutely wreck the power grid and water system, blow the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
The leave the place to the Iraquis and Iranians. Let 'em squabble in the dark, while they starve to death, and have nothing to sell in the bazaar.
Actions have consequences, right? They don't want us, that's a consequence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why not just do it properly. There's all these Nuclear weapons lying around, built with loving precision by the Scientists and Engineers that built them, don't you think they should see them used?
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Actions have consequences, right? They don't want us, that's a consequence.
Nuke Irack!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, they did. And then Khmer Rouge, backed by the North Vietnam government and advantaged by US disengagement in 1973, took control and systematically murdered ~2 million people in a genocidal campaign between 1975 and 1979. Indochina would continue to be destabilized by regional wars for many years culminating in the collapse of all US allies in the region. Was that an acceptable result for US disengagement? Most Americans think it is, but then again most Americans keep the Khmer Rouge and US withdraw from Vietnam intentionally separate in their minds. They don’t like to compare the two. Even more troubling is that in hindsight we realize that Vietnam may not have been a lost cause, but rather we lost because of a lack of political will at home, both in government, the populace and the media.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Excellently put, Anthony. We propped up the Viets for years because they would collapse without our help. We left. They collapsed without our help.
By contrast, the consequences of a premature disengagement in Iraq could be much worse then that, and the US commitment in the region is much smaller then it was in Vietnam.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"By contrast, the consequences of a premature disengagement in Iraq could be much worse then that, and the US commitment in the region is much smaller then it was in Vietnam."
Finn,
I must admit that I am unable to imagine what a non-premature disengagement would be. A decade of occupying the country? I honestly don't think the trouble there is going to dissipate within the next year, regardless of what we do.
So then what? As long as we commit troops and resources to the country, it gets kept (somewhat) under control. And as soon as we leave, chaos descends.
The enemy in question is a divided country. The enemy troops are anyone. The enemy needs remarkably little supplies to maintain an ongoing terror campaign. The enemy exists on all political sides.
The enemy does not form up in divisions. They don't field tanks or planes. They are anyone in any home or any building fighting you with anything they have at any time that's convenient.
How do you stabilize something like that?
Meanwhile, while the US is the richest and coolest country around, and while we certainly have a high enough breeding rate to keep shoveling lives into the fire, we can't afford to keep shovelling *money* into the fire. Eventually that kind of spending catches up with you.
So what do we do? Unless you believe that we are on the cusp of a major victory, then you are left with the possibility of an ongoing campaign with no clear endgame.
I understand those who wish to pull out yesterday. At the same time, I'm prepared to give the Pres his one last gasp. I feel very strongly that it will fail. And then everyone can come home for Christmas.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Iraq is not going to immediately stabilize. I don't know how long it will take, but it could likely take longer then a year, and even after Iraq does stabilize, we're going need to keep some support in the region for quite a while.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Finn,
I must admit that I am unable to imagine what a non-premature disengagement would be. A decade of occupying the country? I honestly don't think the trouble there is going to dissipate within the next year, regardless of what we do.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME