Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 17 of 21
Quote:You want candor? Remember AnthonyT, the guy you were just trying to paint as a hypocrite because he wasn’t towing your line? He’s on your side! He’s opposed to the war. He wants to leave Iraq. But unlike you, he actually had intelligent arguments and an actual interest in discussion. You don’t. You don’t have a clue what I think, and you wouldn’t listen to me if I told you. What you and Pheonix and HK have is ad hominem. If someone disagrees with you, then their hypocrites or they hate their children or they don’t have any empathy, i.e. their “evil.” How the hell does that go anywhere towards finding a solution?
Originally posted by Righteous9:
That kind of candor could go a long way towards finding an actual solution. I don't know what we should do at this point, but I surely know we should stop lying to ourselves about it
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
You're wrong about whether I would listen to you. I would. Every once in a while my political and world beliefs really do come under crisis. Every once in a while I do discover that I was in fact wrong as I see it now. I really do listen to what you have to say, and care more than you know.
But how does leaving your post at "give up" further any discussion? That's a soundbyte, and one that is meant to charactarize all of us who wish to end the war.
Where was I guilty of the ad hominem you suggest? I really do wish to watch those sorts of things.
I also don't know where I was painting anthonyt as a hypocrite, except in one post where I also indicated that yes, I might be a hypocrite also.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
The short history of the US in Iraq has been one of continuous retrenchment. First it was just some relatives over in Tikrit, then a few dead-enders in Mosul, then foreign fighters in Fallujah. But since then the military declared the entire Anbar province a lost cause.
Now the US is fighting to secure it's last stronghold - Baghdad.
Baghdad ??? !!!
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not going to get into all of your points, the ad hominem and sophomoric arguments which are specifically designed as red herrings are clearly presented in this thread and many people including AnthonyT, Fletch2 and myself have pointed them out. You don’t need me to review them for you. But as for my response to HK, that’s a valid question and the answer is that it isn’t supposed to further any discussion. HK’s position is that I’m evil (lacking empathy) if I don’t agree with him. And I’m not going to argue on that puerile level, so my response to him was sufficiently curt. But it was true. It is easier to give up, after all giving up ends the war, right? Well, not really, it just ends it for Americans. The “rageful, vengeful, jingoistic” violence will continue magnified many times, but it will be easier to put out of sight and mind for most Americans, and perhaps some people will sleep better, but I will not. Maybe you and HK can’t understand my point of view, which makes me reluctant to spend too much time presenting it to you, but I don’t want another Khmer Rouge, because America gave up. And maybe that’s inevitable or maybe Iraq will surprise us all and stabilize after we’re gone, I don’t know but I want us to try and make sure.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
But how does leaving your post at "give up" further any discussion? That's a soundbyte, and one that is meant to charactarize all of us who wish to end the war.
Edited to add: After eating a hotpocket and reviewing my last two post here, I wonder if I haven’t been overly pointed in my language? I think HK ticked me off with his implication that I’m evil, and I lost it at Righteous. Anyway, just imagine that I’m using more measured language.
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:First of all, it is helpful to understand that a counterinsurgency is basically a kind of entrenchment, and it is often a long commitment. Secondly, the insurgency is almost completely located around Baghdad. We’re securing Baghdad because that’s where the violence is, not because it’s our last stronghold. Before you can reverse a “stunning loss” you first have to identify that such a thing exists. The nature of the war in Iraq is a counterinsurgency in Baghdad. There’s no stunning loss, that’s just what the war is.
Originally posted by rue:
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?
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
Finn,
The only place going well is nothern Kurish Iraq. And that is being destabilized by the influx of Sunni refugees. The US military has given up the entire Anbar province. They say there is nothing that can be done to 'win' that part of the country. The British, who formerly had an easier time in the south have given that up as well to entrenched militias..
Baghdad has become a focus not because the rest of the country is going so well, but because it is literally the only place left the US (and Britain) hasn't given up on.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The war in Iraq is all about Baghdad, because that's where the violence is. I don’t think your characterization of it fair. Anbar province is a big dessert with huge international borders that will probably always be difficult to police. But the problem is Baghdad. You claim that Baghdad is our “last stronghold,” but in reality most of the war occurs there, so it’s hardly a stronghold much less our last. And it’s also critical to maintaining control in Iraq. If Baghdad falls, so does the country.
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
Hello,
In all fairness, I don't think that you can control a country by controlling a single city. I don't think that the 'enemy' is entirely located in a single city. I think that most of the fighting happens in baghdad because that's where most of THEIR enemy is.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do what Bush is doing- redefine the objectives and "enemy" so that a loss is a success and the enemy becomes our ally.
The short history of the US in Iraq has been one of continuous retrenchment. First it was just some relatives over in Tikrit, then a few dead-enders in Mosul, then foreign fighters in Fallujah. But since then the military declared the entire Anbar province a lost cause. Now the US is fighting to secure it's last stronghold - Baghdad.
Baghdad ??? !!!
What should the US do to reverse this stunning loss?
Which is in all likelihood the better course. Bush& Co really stepped in it when they defined Sunnis as "the enemy" and cast their lot with the religious, Iran-oriented, vengeful majority Shiites. (The Kurds are more or less not in the picture.)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is most definitely NOT true. If the hostile forces- however defined- entrench, that actually makes things easier because you can conquer territory decisively. But the biggest problem that our armed forces have is that the warring forces have been very mobile- "melting away" in the face of force only to return when force is w/drawn. As one of the generals said "willing to trade space for time".
First of all, it is helpful to understand that a counterinsurgency is basically a kind of entrenchment,
Quote:Yes
and it is often a long commitment.
Quote:Not true. "The insurgency" is alive and thriving in Anbar Province according to this Jan 15 article
Secondly, the insurgency is almost completely located around Baghdad.
Quote:www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_49344.shtml
According to counter-insurgency experts, many young insurgent recruits were trained in six towns in Anbar: al-Qaim, Haditha, Anah, Hit, Fallujah and Ramadi. As a result, these five towns have witnessed particularly heavy clashes resulting in the deaths of hundreds of local citizens and the destruction of thousands of shops, schools, houses and government buildings.
"Today, the situation is spiralling out of control with the return of insurgents and the increase in the number of those displaced as a result of sectarian violence," said Muhammad Rabia'a, media officer for Anbar province council in Ramadi, some 115km west of the capital, Baghdad
You can't control a nation from a single city and I don't think that is the intent. The problem in Iraq is power struggles. Where one group clearly dominates, there is no problem. But Baghdad is a very mixed city.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME