I’ve been putting off writing this post for a couple of months. Not out of any fear of blogospheric consequences although it would pain me if my honest opinion drove people away from this site. But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government. For them, it may come as no surprise that I have reached a point where I believe we must make a decision as a nation about whether we want to continue our involvement – which would mean an increase in resources and a direct confrontation with Iran and Syria over their massive support for the terrorists and insurgents – or whether we should pack up and go home. In other words, escalate or leave.
Why now? And why bother writing about it?
Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point.
And the reason to write about it is equally simple; to join a growing chorus of conservatives who are becoming very critical of our involvement and try and break through the spin and myopia of the Administration which is making the situation worse by pretending that things are getting better or are not as bad as we think they are.
The ultimate question to be asked is do we make one, final, massive attempt to alter the deteriorating situation by committing more resources to the war while at the same time giving ultimatums to both Syria and Iran to halt their clandestine and outrageously illegal assistance to the terrorists who are murdering thousands of civilians every month.
The risks involved in the latter should be self-evident; a general Middle East war that could drag the world into both economic chaos and a massive regional conflict with uncertain consequences for our friends and allies. And, of course, the risk in committing more resources is that we increase the number of American targets for the terrorists and insurgents as well as face the possibility that all our efforts will be for naught anyway.
The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow.
But perhaps the most damning record of stupidity and spin comes via the book Cobra II by Michael R. Gordon and General (Ret.) Bernard E. Trainor. Much of the book is a heartbreaking recitation of erroneous assumptions, overly optimistic assessments, and finally, a risible refusal to admit mistakes and change course.
Lest one think that these books are the products of left wing loons or authors suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, the one common thread running through both volumes is the massive amount of research and unprecedented access to documents that went into writing them. To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself. Facts are facts and if the Administration had confronted many of the problems – insurgency, militias, disenchanted populace, the extent of foreign assistance to the insurgents, and sectarian factionalism to name a few – it may be that a different outcome to the war could have been salvaged.
For as it stands now, we are at a psychological tipping point in Iraq where drastic measures are needed in order to turn the situation around and give the weak Iraqi government a chance to gain control. There are many hands raised against this government and as of right now, they are losing any semblance of legitimacy due to their powerlessness in the face of the massive violence that has been unleashed.
Here’s a short list, by no means comprehensive, of what is happening in Iraq as you read this:
- An Sunni insurgency that despite offers of amnesty and clemency continues apace and if anything, is growing stronger and bolder. Certainly a large part of the insurgents strategy now is to ratchet up the violence in the lead up to the American elections in hopes that the Democrats can gain control of Congress and force the President to withdraw. And in perhaps the most disheartening news imaginable, as we have transferred troops from insurgent strongholds in the central provinces to Baghdad in order to quell the violence there, the insurgents have moved back into areas vacated by departing American troops and have re-established themselves in towns already “swept and cleared” by our men.
- The Iraqi army is not making the kind of progress that would allow us to draw down our forces anytime soon. With the exception of a dozen brigades (around 7500 men), the Iraqis are poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly led, and are riddled with corruption and infiltrated by militias whose loyalty to the government is at best questionable.
- The end result of the Israeli-Hizbullah war has emboldened both Iran and the militias who are apparently doing Tehran’s bidding by stoking the fires of sectarian conflict. The Shia militia death squads are taking a fearful toll of Sunnis and are even starting to fight amongst themselves. There is ample anecdotal evidence of the Iraqi army turning the other way while the slaughter goes on which calls into question whether the violence can be stopped by American forces alone.
- In the south, Shia on Shia violence is also starting to escalate as militias battle for supremacy in towns and villages that were formerly peaceful. More Iranian meddling here as one of the prime movers behind the violence are the Badr Brigades who, like Hizbullah, were trained in Iran.
- In the north, a confrontation with NATO member Turkey has been avoided for the present as the terrorist arm of the Kurdish independence movement, the PKK, continues it cross-border terrorist activities against Turkish targets. The Turks had threatened to invade Iraq and handle the PKK problem with or without our blessing which has necessitated sending precious assets to the border region in order to deal with the Kurds.
- Also in the north, sporadic fighting is occurring between Kurds and Shias over oil rights. Despite clearly belonging to the Kurds, northern oil centers are under pressure from Shias as they seek to move the Kurds out.
- While weakened, al-Qaeda in Iraq has not gone away and is killing dozens daily with sophisticated car bombs and some suicide bombers. Coordination between the Sunni militias who make up the insurgency and the terrorists in AQI has improved in recent months thanks to the elimination of al-Zarqawi who was generally hated by all Iraqis. So for every step forward, it appears at times that we lose a step in the process.
- There are now more than 250,000 Iraqi refugees (mostly Sunnis) – people driven out of their homes in mixed Shia-Sunni areas by force. The dwindling number who stay in these areas are subject to harassment and ostracism.
- Criminal gangs who kidnap up to 70 Iraqis a week for ransom. They use the money to fund their extortion and shakedown rackets as well as buy guns to sell to insurgents.
- 3400 dead civilians in July alone. Thousands more injured. And no sign of any let up in August.
The government’s plan to combat this escalating violence which was implemented in June has failed miserably. They deployed 60,000 Iraqi troops and policemen in Baghdad in order to stem the violence. All told, the violence worsened. This is the direct result of the machinations of the Iranian backed cleric Muqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi militia at the moment is engaged in a low level insurgency against Americans.
It is al-Sadr’s thugs who are carrying out the brutal public execution of hundreds of Sunnis with impunity. Only recently has the government given the go ahead to try and take the Mehdi militia down, something long past due. Since the police and army are simply too untrustworthy for this task, it has fallen to Americans with some assistance from the Iraqi army to try and defang the Shia militia. We are suffering increasing casualties as we move through Sadr City and systematically go door to door looking for weapons and members of the death squads. It is uncertain how this campaign will turn out.
But this campaign may be undermined by the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. The medicine is harsh and some innocents are being killed. Maliki has already severely criticized the operation and it is unclear at this point whether we have scaled back our operations in response. If so, it makes the job of disarming the Mehdis that much more difficult.
But even disarming the militias, while minimizing the violence, won’t help deal with the insurgency. This is a political problem for the Iraqis themselves and one that, so far, they have failed to address in any comprehensive way. Clearly some kind of amnesty program and national reconciliation will be needed. But this will never happen until Shias stop killing Sunnis. Most of the insurgency is made up of Sunni militias whose tribal and clan loyalties require them to protect their own and not depend on the central government to do so. They will never disarm until they can be assured that their participation in the political process will not leave their people open to slaughter.
Given all of these complex and heartbreaking problems, what has our government been telling us about the state of affairs in Iraq?
Here’s Rumsfeld earlier this month:
Q: Is the country closer to a civil war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don’t know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is—there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it’s a—it’s a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I’m not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.
The “14 other provinces” may not have the violence that Baghdad has but Rumsfeld never mentions the lawlessness that necessitates a constant military presence in the streets. Not does he mention that 75% of the Iraqi people live in the three most violent provinces.
Similar sentiments have been echoed by the President, albeit with a little less nonchalance. What this adds up to is an Administration unwilling or unable to face up to its past blunders and apply the necessary lessons in order to try and win through to victory.
For if there is a victory to be had in Iraq – and one can just barely make one out in the distance amidst the blood and ruin – it will take courage on the part of the President to confront these problems and do what is necessary in order to reverse course. And this will entail both risks and probably a larger casualty count among Americans fighting there.
Yes we need more troops – a lot more at least temporarily. Order must be brought to Baghdad and its environs and to do that we would need, according to General Trainor, is perhaps as many as 50,000 more Americans to both police the area and ferret out insurgents and the death squads.
For that to happen, the President would have to admit he and Donald Rumsfeld have been wrong all along and that in order to achieve stability, the additional troops must be sent. It is of the utmost distress to me that this President has failed to take responsibility for past mistakes and admitted to error in prosecuting the war. The grudging admissions of mistakes just isn’t getting it done. If he is serious about winning in Iraq (and he has called Iraq the “frontline” in the war on terror”) then he is going to have to go before the American people and explain why additional troops are necessary.
Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now. The whispers in Washington that the President wishes to simply “hang on” in Iraq and leave the denouement to his successor is possibly the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard – which leads me to believe that it is not true. But it is equally immoral to simply apply more of the same prescriptions to a war that is now clearly out of control. Drastic changes are necessary. And if the President is not willing to apply them whether out of fear of the political consequences to his presidency or the Republican party, then he doesn’t deserve to sit in the big chair.
In war, rhetoric must match reality or you lose credibility. By constantly reminding us that Iraq is at the forefront of our anti-terror strategy – and then not doing the things necessary to win through to victory – the President takes the risk that our deterrent will lose its edge. And this is no more true than in the actions of Iran and Syria.
Both nations have judged that we will do nothing to stop them from continuing their support for the terrorists and the insurgency. We interdict what supplies and men that we can but it isn’t enough. And Iran and Syria have apparently decided that since there is no downside to their support for our enemies in Iraq, that they can bleed us white while engineering a humiliating defeat for American prestige in the process.
Jawboning hasn’t worked. Clearly some kind of diplomatic demarche is in order. Whether it involves sitting down in formal talks and making clear that our apathy toward their support for terrorists is at an end or we actually threaten force against assets that are supporting the insurgents, peace will not come to Iraq until those two nations stop their meddling. And why we have done so little in the past three years to stop them is, to my mind, one of the biggest mysteries of the war.
Restoring hope to the Iraqi people by radically diminishing the violence will help retrieve a situation that is getting worse by the week. It will take courage, initiative, boldness, and a more humble approach to the problems caused by our presence there. But there really isn’t any viable alternative. If we leave, Iraq will become what we all fear; a haven for radical Shia fundamentalism and terror. And the humanitarian disaster of Sunnis being slaughtered and driven out of the country will be a reality that will echo as painfully as the plight of the Vietnamese boat people a generation ago.
But if we are not willing to do what is necessary to win, then the only sane, moral course of action is to bring the troops home as fast as humanly possible. Such a humiliation should not result in a single additional death or injury to the men and women who have performed so bravely and selflessly in the face of blunder after blunder by their superiors.
To those of you who have taken the trouble to read this piece in its entirety, I thank you.
UPDATE 8/22
The Commissar weighs in with a comprehensive critique of Iraq of his own. He prescriptions are similar and he mentions something that I didn’t make clear.
I still support the policy that led us to invade in the first place. How is that possible given the failures to date? (Yes Dave, our policy will be a success when we are able to draw down the bulk of our troops and we are farther from that today than we were at the beginning of the year).
Those who see the war on terror as a police action fail, in my opinion, to take into account the rogue states that support and facilitate terrorism. Try as you might, you cannot seperate Saddam from Palestinian bombers (who he gave $25,000 to the family of the suicide bombers) or from radical fundamentalists who all evidence points to him getting closer to. It is also clear to any objective observer given the revelations contained in the Saddam papers, that the dictator and al-Qaeda were in close contact and were on the verge of consumating a strategic partnership in order to attack American targets.
This does not mean we attack willy nilly countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia. It does mean that we need a military as a credible threat and, in extreme cases, to effect regime change. There is a large military component to the War on Terror and I agree with the Commissar that Iraq was a logical target. The fact that the post war environment was botched unconscionably doesn’t obviate that point.
1:14 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House » IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow. [...]
1:24 pm
I am a firm believer that our position in Iraq will be a strategic placing when we battle with Iran …as for leaving Iraq, if we give up and let it go, Iran will take it over and we might as well say western civilization is soon to be a thing of the past. This is a clarion time in history, if we punk out now we should be prepared to eventually give up life as we have known it.
1:57 pm
Great post but I still think we are in transition in the Middle East and Iraq is just one part of the puzzle. Therefore, yes we in the middle of a violent, dangerous time in Iraq but the endgame has not played out. Yes there have been errors, but quite honestly I fully expected these and also this is typical in any major conflict.
Let’s look at the bigger picture. Iraq was all about establishing a strategic front by cutting off Syria from Iran, as well as surrounding Iran for the inevitable denouement in this war, which started in 1979. I still maintain it was a good move, the evidence being Iran’s continual attempts to keep American forces focussed on internal Iraqi matters, and not them, since the invasion. The signs are OK - we have 160,000 combat experienced troops on Iran’s eastern frontier; as well as assets and troops surrounding Iran. We are ready to move if needed.
Back to Iraq. The result of the war with Iran will determine the future of Iraqis. I’m a firm believer that once the mullahs are gone, much of the tension in the region, as well as Iraq specifically, will decrease. Within Iraq, Al-Sadr will lose his patron and his momentum. This will dramatically affect the violence between Shiites and Sunnis.
2:20 pm
I agree with the commenters above. Iraq is the strategic staging ground for the inevitable confrontation with Iran.
Personally, I believe Bush has been biding his time, quietly building his forces, waiting until after the midterm elections. I do not think he is going to leave a mess in the Middle East for his successor. I think he is going to wait until the time is right, then the U.S. and Israel are going to strike.
Once Iran is dealt with, as it must be, Iraq will stabilize. Then we can turn our attention to the real problem, Saudi Arabia.
2:31 pm
Iraq: All Exits Closed? Detours Where?
As everyone was focused for the past month or better on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the little matter of the ongoing spiral into chaos and instability in Iraq has tended to fall off the political radar. From Wapo today:
3:37 pm
We have been in Iraq four years. The Islamonazis have been preparing for this movement for 1200 years. Oh, I know, the U.S. has not existed for 1200 years, but remember we ARE the Big Satan.
Pull out of Iraq and what? Then Iran, which is the major source of the insurgency and is funding it, simply walks in, takes over and we lose our strategic foothold. Iran then has a clear path to Syria and Lebanon.
Did we think this was going to be a quick war? Did we think that after four years, we would have defeated an enemy that has been waiting centuries to take us down? But with the aid of the MSM, the American people really do not understand the stakes. All they see are the body counts.
If this president has failed on anything, it is his explaination to the American people just exactly what is at stake with the WOT. For the first time, he uttered the words “Islamic fascists”. We have been told how Islam really is a religion of peace. But anyone who has read the Quran and takes it’s mantra literally, would understand that is wrong. Do we expect to change one billion minds because we are such nice people?
We have two choices: be in this for the long (and I do mean long) haul, or give up and give the Islamonazis another thing to claim victory over?
The president needs to make clear what a lot of bloggers have been saying, we are in the fight of our lives, the most important one in our history, and we damn well better stick to our guns. We need to show the duplicity of the left wing with their anti-war rhetoric (give me the name of one publication that explains how CodePink is a friend of Castro and has Marxist beginnings?) and start telling it like it is.
Can anyone tell us what exactly it is that the terrorist want? What are their demands? I can tell you; it is an Islamic world. The return of the 12th Iman to secure the world for Islam under Islamic law. And unless that is what we are willing to settle for, we need to wipe off our sights, keep our powder dry and treat Iran as if we were already at war with them.
3:38 pm
But guys – Wolfowitz said the oil would pay for the war! Perle – he said we’d be greeted with rose petals! Bush says we’re winning, that Iraq is a real democracy! Cheney said it’s dead enders … last throes and all that! Don’t let me down like this … how are we going to get on with nation-buildin’ and democracy-deliverin’ if you keep up with negative posts like this???
5:43 pm
If we do go down in defeat in Iraq, I don’t know which I dread most… the Islamo Fascist celebrations throughout the Middle East, or the Looney Left conga line dances here at home.
5:50 pm
Rick
Exelent post!! If its up to me, we commit the resources to get this done now. I’ve been calling for this all along. If we withdraw, we will likely have to go back in later when things are even harder than they are now. The cry of the oppostiion should be to COMMIT MORE RESOURCES!! Even if we fail, we will at least be able to know we did all we could albiet a little late or perahps alot late.
6:48 pm
[...] UPDATE: Rick Moran with what at least is a reasoned opinion. I agree, it’s time to sweep up in Iraq. [...]
7:06 pm
“Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point.”
There is no democracy to be an enemy of. This “democracy” is employing death squads, supporting Hezbollah rallies, arresting homosexuals, curtailing women’s rights, and imposing an Iran-style theocracy on our nickel. Getting into a lifeboat didn’t make one an “enemy” of the Titanic – it was the prudent and smart thing to do after all other options were exhausted. Do we throw endless amounts of good money (and good lives) after bad? Sorry, but you are now in direct opposition to the majority of Americans and the more you cheerlead for a lost cause the more marginalized you make yourself. You’d have a tad more credibility if even a single promise of a post-Saddam world had been met: all costs of the occupation and rebuilding paid for by cheap Iraqi oil, a beacon of democracy that would force neighbors to reconsider their own governments’ methods, Iraqis greeting us as liberators, troops home in six months, a cakewalk…remember? So the fact that now, three and a half years later, we are skeptical and pessimistic speaks to America’s waking up, not breaking down. All the talk of a free and democratic Iraq is now heard only on the fringes and rings increasingly hollow. Face it: you lost this one and there’s no resurrecting it. This is not the war we were told it would be, and the only return on our monumental investment has been tens of thousands dead, civil war, record-high oil prices, the alienation of our allies, America’s new persona as torturer, and the implosion of the Republican party. Get out the pom-poms and cheerlead til the cows come home. Luckily, cheap slogans – “as they stand up we will stand down” and “the insurgency is in its last throes” – are now fodder for Jay Leno, national jokes. In the wake of Bush’s incoherence on Iraq, even conservatives like Joe Scarborough are pondering whether our president is”an idiot.” Sorry Rich, I know your intentions are good, but you’d better step back and see this as it really is. It isn’t pretty.
7:12 pm
Odd isn’t it? The President in his 2002 SOTU calls 3 nations the axis of evil.The most important of the three was and is Iran.Yet he goes and spends his capital invading the weakest and least likely to threaten the US.So now,when we need it the most (if you believe that Iran enriching uranium is the worst of all worlds),the army is weaker and less able to fight a second front and at the same time deal with insurgents in their rear.
Of course,Iran is permitted,under the NNPT,to do exactly what it is doing.The same NNPT which our good friends Israel,Pakistan and India have not signed.
7:25 pm
Richard:
I have given what I believe a realistic assessment of the situation.
You, on the other hand, are exaggerating grossly.
The majority – the vast majority of Iraqis – do not support al-Sadr and his radical theocrats. If they did, the theocratic parties would have won overwhelmingly.
The major Islamic party, the SCIRI is NOT in favor of establishing Sharia law nor in having the mullahs run the country. They are, if you had been paying attention, the first Islamic DEMOCRATIC party in the world. The Iraqi constitution, ripped by liberals because it wasn’t written by James Madison, is the first of its kind in the world. It does not use the Koran as basic law but rather is inspired by the Koran – a huge difference.
The weakness of the government leads to independent death squads (those connected to the Interior Ministry are inspired by a foreign country – Iran) as well as crackdowns in the street by thuggish mullahs on gays. As for “curtailing women’s rights” give me a break. Most nations in the 3rd world “curtail” women’s rights.
As for the rest, perhaps you should step back and see where we’ll be when you get your wish and we cut and run. And by that I mean ANY TIMETABLE NOT GEARED TO WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND IS CUTTING AND RUNNING. Any arbitrary timetable period.
A timetable is immoral. It is asking men to fight and die even after the war is lost. At the moment, there is a chance the situation can be retrieved to the point where the Iraqi government will be able to handle the insurgency. But first, those who are not loyal to it (al-Sadr and the militias) as well as foreign meddlers must be dealt with.
And your take on the American people’s position is also exaggerated. People disagree violently with the way the war is being conducted. They hate Bush. But if you ask the question should we leave Iraq to chaos there has been a consistent majority that says no.
So there are polls…and there are polls.
7:35 pm
We (sort-of) leave Iraq…
my proposal is to remove our troops from populated areas. Keep them out of sight of the crazies who are shooting one another. Stop using our troops as a buffer between the idiots who are killing each other. Deploy our troops where they can be brought t…
7:41 pm
A manifestly insecure staging ground where our troops will be outnumbered by hostile natives….great.
7:47 pm
Rick: it doesn’t really matter that the majority of Iraqis don’t support the crazies. The only issue is whether our sticking ourselves into the fight helps make America safer or whether it doesn’t. And NOBODY (sorry for the caps, my finger slipped) has shown – or even made a really good argument – that bringing democracy to Iraq would do the least bit to keep America safe. It’s a theory that frankly isn’t sound enough to justify keeping American soldiers in harm’s way. As I posted, giving crazies the vote only ensure that crazies get elected… it happened in Gaza, it happened in Lebanon, it happened in Iran (and, to many liberals, it has happened here at home). Here’s a question: if the majority of Iraqis really truly were interested in peace, why aren’t more of them out patrolling the streets, turning in the insurgents and doing more to advance their supposed interest in peaceful, liberal democracy? Sure, they say they want peace, but they’re not willing to do a darn thing to really make it happen, are they? And if they’re not willing to stand up for themselves, why should America send its young to die for them?
7:52 pm
Are you seriously saying that the effect on Iraq doesn’t matter?
I happen to think that it does and that, regardless of the decision reached in the end, the reasoning behind it should MOST DEFINITELY take into account the effect on the lives of the people we forced into this mess. Anything less is simply dishonorable.
7:53 pm
I hope you feel better now….But now when you passed that gallstone you can enlighten us what your plans are?
Milan
7:59 pm
You make some fair points, but I also think some of your arguments are arcane. You can write about how good the constitution is in theory, but what does it mean? Is it being enforced? Is it being taken seriously? You can argue about who’s Sharia and who’s for true democracy, but where is the country actually heading as reflected in its actions (such as the arrest of gays)? We need to look at it from an ontological perspective: what is actually happening there and can we still control events there?
I think most Americans, like myself (and I was an early supporter of the war) are deeply confused and conflicted about what we should do next. No, we don’t want to leave Iraq in chaos. Just as in 1972 in Vietnam, we want to get out with as much “face” as we can so that we can say, “We went in, we eradicated the Saddam tyranny, we gave them the tools for democracy and it is up to them now to make it work.” And I predict that is exactly what we will say, in a scene errily reminiscent of Vietnam – because, tragically, there is simply no other choice in the matter, because any hopes of “winning” in the way Bush originally promised we would are down the toilet. I trust you saw today’s article in the WaPo by Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman? It spells out just how crushing our problems there really are, and these are not hysterical leftists. The story, with its blunt examination of the catastrophe that would follow all out civil war in Iraq, is the stuff for nightmares. As is the alternative, staying and slowly bleeding to death. I’m afraid there are no good choices, but calling on Americans to show more “resolve” and more “will” is a futile exercise at this point. Our trust has been betrayed, and Bush cannot rally us as he could on September 12, 2001.
Strange similarities, too, to Germany in 1918, when the war efforts collapsed and the German government literally imploded. All of us (at least those with their eyes wide open) feel that we are now at that critical juncture, at the edge of a precipice, and we’re scared to death that Bush could force us to jump. We have lost all our faith in our government (and the polls do make this very clear) and no one knows what’s next – all we know is that there are no good choices, and whether we begin to pull out or plan to send in more troops, there’s going to be unparalleld bloodshed to come, all for a goal no one can define anymore.
8:03 pm
Count me among those who believe we are in Iraq and Afghanistan to put pressure on Iran. I believe the Administration thought that BEING THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH. The Cheney wing, anyway. (Remember “we will be welcomed with flowers, as liberators”, and “our war in Iraq will be paid for with Iraqi oil”? Same group. The goal was noble, the wisdom perhaps terrible.
Well, we are there in Iraq and Afghanistan, but being there has not been enough for handling Iran. In fact, Iran is operating with complete impunity, arrogance, and freedom. Iran just keeps on winning. We have a choice to make: Begin applying serious pressure, including military pressure, or leave.
No one wants violent war. Yet, looking at the alternatives, this may be a case where the violence of an all-out war is by far the best choice. Count me in, then, among those who expect a war against Iran to begin sometime in the year following our November elections.
8:21 pm
Rick, kudos to you for at least approaching reality. But the question that you pose (“Do we make one, final, massive attempt to alter the deteriorating situation by committing more resources to the war while at the same time giving ultimatums to both Syria and Iran to halt their clandestine and outrageously illegal assistance to the terrorists who are murdering thousands of civilians every month?”) is a question that should have been asked in late 2003, when it was clear that the pre-war prognostications of the cheerleaders were way off. Sorry, but we are years too late for any “final push.”
I admit that I opposed the war from the beginning. I believed the WMD excuse was always crap and I will always oppose a war based on lies and false pretexts. I also believe that validating the doctrine of preventive, aggresive war was insane in the nuclear age.
Having said that, once we did invade, I never believed that a stable, Western-friendly government was an impossibility. But the administration did everything in its power to screw it up.
You state: The major Islamic party, the SCIRI is NOT in favor of establishing Sharia law nor in having the mullahs run the country.
This only proves the incompetence of the Bush administration. The Bushies were handed a gift on a silver platter: Sistani. A Shia leader who, while predictably skeptical of the U.S, was willing to work with us (we did deliver them from Saddam). Moreover, Sistani didn’t want to impose an Iranian-style thoecracy Iraq.
But instead of taking this gift, the Bushies got cute and greedy. Rather than focus on nation-building, they prefered to foist Chalabi on the Iraqis and engage in nation-looting and war-profiteering.
BTW, “liberals” don’t rip the Iraqi constitution for its existence. They rip the unbearably naive assumption that its mere existence can guarantee the words that comprise it. Some of us remember that the Soviet Union, technically, guaranteed human rights and individual freedom. An unenforceable law is no law at all.
As for “curtailing women’s rights†give me a break. Most nations in the 3rd world “curtail†women’s rights.
This is the exact same kind of denial that the White House engages in. I don’t even understand how you can claim to fight Islamic extremism if you can’t tell the difference between how women were treated in a secular country like Iraq and how they are being treated now.
8:30 pm
And to all the nutballs above who think the American people would trust this administration to lead a fight against Iran and Syria: get real.
When the adults are back in charge we can begin to discuss confronting Iran and Syria. Until then, the children need to stay away from daddy’s gun cabinet.
8:38 pm
If we believe that this war with radical islam is a conflict that will define our generation its benefitial to put it in a perspective.
We invaded Iraq three and half years ago.The real cold war started in 1948(by establishing communist regimes in Eastern Europe).Three and half years after that in the year 1951 things didn’t look good around the world for western democracy.Mac Arthur was just removed by Truman,war in Korea was in stalemate with no end in sight,few years back Soviets detonated their first atomic bomb(and in two years they developed hydrogene bomb),Josef Stalin was planning third world war,communists ruled China for one year and all over Eastern Europe show trials were in progress.
But in 1951 United States didn’t quit, didn’t whine,didn’t withdraw…..It took thirty eight more years until communism finally decomposed and croaked.
I think little bit of patience and endurance is in order…..
Milan
8:39 pm
Space: while I wholeheartedly agree with you that this administration can’t be trusted to deal with Iran and Syria, just who are the adults you are referring to? Please, just please, don’t tell me they have a ‘D’ after their name…
9:11 pm
Milan, back then, in 1951, Americans were generally in agreement that there was a very specific threat(the USSR) against which we had to stand united. And we did. Today, the threat (as far as Iraq goes) is far less clear, and unfortunately the terrorism that now runs rampant there was brought about by our invasion. Ironically, the war in Iraq causes us only to degress from the real clear threat – Islamic jihadists. America was 100 percent united in September 2001 and ready to do whatever had to be done to fight this threat. Bush, by sidetracking us and crippling us, has generated infinite disappointment for those of us who really wanted to se OBL and his operation destroyed.
The “whining” over Iraq is not a symptom of childishness or lack of resolve. It is a cry of despair over a war that, due to poor execution, now cannot be won, and that no longer makes sense.
9:15 pm
More courage. 50,000 more troops? You can’t find them and the trucks to convey them. Not now. That’s not even enough troops. Pollack in the WaPo today writes of 450,000 troops. That would have to be OUR troops. Maybe a few battalions less, if we count on the best Iraqi formations. Maybe…
What it comes down to is a draft. I do not mean this in the Rangle-esque threat of a draft resolution to scare voters from the GOP. If you want to achieve something stable and productive in Iraq, you need a draft and a substantial resupply of the US Armed forces… You will need to raise taxes.
It is immature and wrong to simply leave Iraq to this evil. It might be wrong to stay as well. But, it would be wrong damned by the best intentions. Those intentions are only honest if they are also earnest. Yes, it’s draft and taxes.
There’s no “surge force” left in our military—we can’t send divisions to the problem overnight. Much of the equipment is in need of repair. Many battalions are drained of ardor, though morale is remarkably resilient and a credit to the force.
There are three options, as I see it. Cut and run (maybe just to Kurdistan). Fight the way we are now and lose eventually. Or, fight with overwhelming force and a half million Americans in the country.
9:17 pm
Oh and the only way to make a draft work politically is to hold major administration officials accountable. Cheney and/or Rumsfeld would have to go. Perhaps the top-dog himself. A resignation or two or nine and then a draft, or vice versa.
10:10 pm
steve sturm:
Your comment is barely worth responding to. However, on the off chance that you have a fraction of an open mind, I will indulge you.
Nothing is killing this country and hastening our demise than the idiocy of Americans who treat politics, particularly foreign policy issues, as they treat professional sports.
I can accept the Red Sox fan who thinks all Yankees suck because it is part of sports. But that thought process does not belong in politics. Anyone who would argue that either major party has nobody who is thoughtful, serious, and educated about foreign policy issues is a moron in my book.
I can think of Republicans, including Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell (when not following the orders of idiots), who I would call adults. I might not pick them for my own cabinet, but they aren’t living in fantasyland.
Frankly, I do not know the party affiliation of many of the people that I would look to for guidance, as many of them have spent their careers in the military and avoiding open partisan affiliation.
Many others, such as Richard Clarke, William Cohen, Anthony Zinni, James Webb, are currently associated with the Democratic party but are either former Republicans or served in Republican administrations (including the present Bush admin!)
Some others, such as Wes Clark or Paul Hackett, are openly and unapoligetically Democrats, but have more military combat experience than 99% of the Bush administration combined.
As I said, there are some Republicans who I would call adults. But considering how few of them realized the incompetence of the Bush team back in 2002 and 2003 (and how many continue in their delusions), I wouldn’t go praising the party as a whole.
10:29 pm
Let’s stay with comparison with cold war for a while.After all I am a child of the cold war(born in Czechoslovakia in 1957).
There’s no doubt we made some serious blunders in Iraq and the whole”war on terror”conflict.But let me remind you several huge blunders United States commited in conflict with communism:
FDR’s total lack of understanding of murderous character of Stalin’s regime,almost complete dismantling of American military after WW2,Yalta conference(now here is an example what happens if United States retreats),Berlin crisis(after death of Stalin Soviet Union was in turmoil and was prepared to give up Eastern Europe but United States didn’t take advantage of this opportunity),Bay of Pigs and finally charade of”detente”(at the time when Soviet economy was falling apart and population of Soviet Union and all satellites was disillusioned and couldn’t wait to give up on communism we helped to put Soviet Union on life support and gave them almost two additional decades of existence).
Yes…we made some huge mistakes in this current conflict.But we made blunders in all previous wars. And ultimately we prevailed…not because we conducted mistake-free wars but because we stuck with it.
Milan
10:47 pm
[...] Maybe they are not single points. Maybe they are related. I happen to think they are. Instead of discreet points and events, I see underlying suspicious coordination. Sectarian violence in Iraq begins to accelerate where it really had not been a major problem.Apparently driven by Shi'ite militias of a cleric tied to Iran. PKK elements (living in an area 10 miles from the Iranian border) suddenly start offenses into Turkey. An Iranian proxy begins a war in Lebanon. [...]
11:23 pm
Watching the Bandwagon Go By
I’m looking at Rick Moran’s post on the virtual hopelessness of the situation in Iraq and I’m afraid all I can do is shake my head in mild annoyance. I suppose I could take all this wailing and gnashing of teeth seriously if Rick wer…
11:25 pm
Give it up, Milan. You can’t compare the war in iraq qith the Cold War. Stalin and his heirs had the bomb and threatened to point nuclear missles at us from Cuba. Saddam, evil butcher that he was, was a man in the twilight of his power with no weapons and no threat to speak of. I can see giving all we have to save us from nuclear destruction. I can’t see our giving all we have for a fruitless quest to bring democracy to a people who are in every way – culturally, religiously, historically – not interested in democracy. We have better and more important things to do. At the risk of raising the chorus of Godwin’s law, Hitler was very famous for insisting until his very last day in the bunker that through sheer force of “will” and “resolve” and “sticking with it,” the Nazis could repel the Russians and Americans from German soil. It sounds good and all-American to have this can-do attitude. But there somes a point when we simply have to ask: is it working? What do have to show for our investment? Is our strategyu correct?
Great new op-ed in the NY Times today (pay-for-view only) by a military analyst during Vietnam. Let me quote a couple lines:————————-
THREE years into the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, everyone from slicksleeved privates fighting for survival in Ramadi to the echelons above reality at the Pentagon still believes that eliminating insurgents will eliminate the insurgency. They are wrong.
There is a difference between killing insurgents and fighting an insurgency. In three years, the Sunni insurgency has grown from nothing into a force that threatens our national objective of establishing and maintaining a free, independent and united Iraq. During that time, we have fought insurgents with airstrikes, artillery, the courage and tactical excellence of our forces, and new technology worth billions of dollars. We are further from our goal than we were when we started.
Counterinsurgency is about gaining control of the population, not killing or detaining enemy fighters. A properly planned counterinsurgency campaign moves the population, by stages, from reluctant acceptance of the counterinsurgent force to, ideally, full support.
American soldiers deride “winning hearts and minds†as the equivalent of sitting around a campfire singing “Kumbaya.†But in fact it is a sophisticated, multifaceted, even ruthless struggle to wrest control of a population from cunning and often brutal foes. The counterinsurgent must be ready and able to kill insurgents — lots of them — but as a means, not an end.——————————-
If by “will” and “resolve,” you (Milan) mean we should stay the current course of trying to kill insurgents, I’m afraid it’s a doomed enterprise. And I’m afraid it’s to late to try to do it the right way, via hearts and minds. All my hopes for that evaporated the dy the Abu Ghraib photos were released. That was my personal turning point, as I know once those we set out to liberate hate us, we’re screwed. And the rest is history.
11:26 pm
Sorry, left out the source of my long quote: Terence J. Daly is a retired military intelligence officer and counterinsurgency specialist who served in Vietnam as a province-level adviser.
11:30 pm
i can’t believe what i’m hearing: people actually considering a new war in iran—with the same ham-fisted application (i.e., bombing with gay abandon). facing this dilemma without iraq on our backs would be one thing; now we (could) have 130k troops trapped in mess-o’potamia should the persians decide to muck up the persian /arabian/american(?) gulf with a blockade at the straits of hormuz. think about consequences this time…clearly, unlike the last.
11:35 pm
As usual those who talk of continued conflict and war talk of winning as a end unto itself. Furthermore, these people give us no hint of what they define as a winning situation. If I were to put a dozen of these like minded idiots in the same room I would get a dozen different opinions as to what winning means. Such foolish, foolish people. They haven’t a clue. They honestly believe that the result of every armed conflict is to win and to lose, when in fact the opposite is true. No one ever wins. We are all losers.
12:20 am
excellent, well-reasoned post.
in all lost battles, there is the same explanation: too little, too late. and so it is here.
there are mistakes in all war plans. hopefully there is an understanding of the mistakes and a change in plan. bush’s greatest blunder is refusal to adapt his battle plan to the changes on the ground. it reminds one of stories of hitler in 1945, moving nonexistent divisions on a map.
the only question is what is the best interest of the US at this point in time. all the arguments re image or street creed are irrelevant.
a rule comes to mind: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging.
quit or commit may not be ideal but each has it advantages. the present course is a known disaster.
a short war is mostly military. a long war is as much political and social as military. we are now in a long war.
no more tax cuts in a time of war, put the nation on a war footing, ask for universal sacrifice, stop using the war for political advantage, invite the dems into the war council, sell war bonds, use hollywood to make patriotic films. In short, get serious.
unite the country by declaring war or get the hell out
12:50 am
“in all lost battles, there is the same explanation: too little, too late. and so it is here.”
Absolutely. So interesting to see the consensus here, in a self-professed right-wing blog (and one of the few I really respect)as commenters nearly unanimously refer to it as a lost cause. in all lost battles, there is the same explRich was right, the president’s inability or unwillingness to admit mistakes and to reconsider has wreaked havoc. Such a man should never be president. It calls to mind a classic quote from HL Mencken about the kind of person who runs for president:
“[A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
12:50 am
MidEast Crisis 122: August 20, 2006
Muslim militants who volunteered to fight against Israeli troops in Lebanon hold toy guns during training exercises in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia. Iraq: Quit or Commit by Rick Moran @ Right Wing Nut House “If we are not willing…
1:53 am
I believe that we did not adequately plan trhe war. I believe that we did not commit enough troops to begin the war.
I agree with your belief that the best way to better secure Iraq is to send MORE troops and not to reduce troops (to which peaceniks will say “this is an escalation… ‘just like Vietnam’” – because they have tried to compare every U.S. military action since Vietnam to Vietnam).
One thing I disagree on is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have the upper-hand. I do not believe they have the upper-hand, however, they have enough of a hand to prolong the fragility of Iraqi democracy.
4:00 am
War? What’s That?
Iraq has mostly slid off the radar screens of bloggers these days, eclipsed by the Lebanese drama. Here’s a summary (no links necessary; nothing has changed in months):-Sunnis bombed Shiites-Shiites bombed Sunnis-Iran is ...
4:43 am
Hi, I’m what you’d call a Shinseki Democrat. You us, the ones who thought the war was a mistake but when it became clear it was going to happen anyway said, better send enough troops to do the job.
George Bush as suckered you all and he hasn’t the balls to do what it takes to win. Some of us have been saying send enough troops to do the job or leave for two years.
You just caught up to the reality of how pigheaded and wrong the man you voted for is. He’ll keep smirking that smirk and you’ll wonder just what it will take to save the troops left in Hell.
4:49 am
Hot Or Cold, Not Lukewarm
In other words, no withdrawel. There is, in my opinion, but one fair possibility: the US should raise the number of troops in Iraq. Of course this will not just be the best thing for the US but also for the West (and Israel) as a whole. This means that…
6:00 am
[...] From a commenter at Right Wing Nuthouse: TD Said: [...]
6:03 am
I reached this conclusion 6 months ago. There’s no good solution. Maintaining the status quo is feasible (we can do it for a long time) but pointless- it’s not attaining our goals. Leaving will be horrific- handing a victory to radical crazies everywhere. Doubling up is not a meaningful option politically or militarily- let’s be honest. Powell, Scowcroft, Baker- the Bush 41 realists- were the grownups. They understood a simple proposition: in the Middle East, just when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, there’s always something worse. Cf. Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The real ME threat vis-a-vis the United States remains economic, not military, at least for the next decade.
6:22 am
Bush 41 held up invading Iraq in the first Gulf war because he foresaw a lot of what’s happening now. Bush 43 could have benefited from a talk with Dad.
6:29 am
While the original post was thoughtful and raises a lot of valid questions, I find the comments section far more alarming and dismaying. It seems that so many righties have now bought into the fantasy that we are actively engaged (or at least desperately need to be) in a holy war against the religion of Islam across the planet, and that somehow a “final battle” against the nations of Iran and Syria is going to magically solve the world’s problems, terrorism will cease, everyone who survives in the middle east will convert to Christianity and flowers and peace will spread across the world.
This is a fantasy. Do you know how many Muslims there are in the world? Hint: it’s in the billions, not millions. And the majority don’t even live in or near Iran and Syria combined. The vast majority of them also apparently don’t feel like they are involved in a war of conquest.
Even if this fantasy were true, the prospects of a war with Iran, either now or in the near future, are too horrible to contemplate. You seem to think that we can just declare war, turn on the machine, and Iran and Syria will fold up like a cheap suit. It boggles the mind to see such war mongering, oversimplified minds at work.
6:35 am
Jazz:
The “fantasy” is in your own mind. Not one single commenter here has said one single word about converting Muslims to Christianity. You just made that sh*t up out of whole cloth.
Neither has anyone said a war with Iran and Syria would solve all of our problems. More made up sh*t by you.
You’re a serial exaggerator and an ignoramous to boot.
Try again…
7:06 am
[...] Rick Moran says QUIT OR COMMIT: Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point. [...]
7:08 am
Rick: I agree with your disappointment, but what of those poor Iraqis who have trusted us and will be murdered if we leave? What of those throughout the world who suffer and whose only hope lies in a strong United States? What of our potential allies who will look on our surrender and never trust us again? What of the innocent children who will be condemned to fight an even larger, bloodier war because we did not? I would rather die myself than see this come to pass.
7:13 am
Better yet, Rick, if you’re going to write this kind of crap, address it to the person who deserves it: President Bush. Tell him to shit or get off the pot.
In any event, stiffen you spine.
7:21 am
Oh really, Rick? Let’s take a look at what Bondservant said in comment number two.
“I am a firm believer that our position in Iraq will be a strategic placing when we battle with Iran …as for leaving Iraq, if we give up and let it go, Iran will take it over and we might as well say western civilization is soon to be a thing of the past.”
Notice the “when” (not “if”) we “battle with Iran.” And failing to do so will be the end of “western civilization.” That doesn’t sound to you like a statment that all out war with Islam in Iran is not only inevitable, but neccesary and presumably will lead to some good result?
How about TD in post number three?
“The signs are OK - we have 160,000 combat experienced troops on Iran’s eastern frontier; as well as assets and troops surrounding Iran. We are ready to move if needed.”
And GwainsGhost in the very next post?
“I agree with the commenters above. Iraq is the strategic staging ground for the inevitable confrontation with Iran. Once Iran is dealt with, as it must be, Iraq will stabilize. Then we can turn our attention to the real problem, Saudi Arabia.”
Holy crap, that one’s got us attacking everyone over there, including the Saudis?
And for Pete’s sake, go back and read retire05’s comment at 3:37 pm. All of the frankly demented rambling about the “islamonazis” who have been waiting 1200 years for a chance to attack the United States and a laundry list of countries we apparently need to invade and bring to their knees.
Seriously, Rick. While perhaps not spelled out in exact words in response to this particular post, you certainly spend enough time cruising the wingnut blogosphere to have seen it all before. What do you think they are talking about? They’re talking about (and simply eager for) a holy war. And you’re claiming that they DON’T think this is going to solve all of our problems with Islam? Then why the hell would they be suggesting it, Rick?
Nice try? Right back at ya. I know you have a kneejerk reaction to defend anyone who’s defending the neocon principle of democracy at gunpoint and the defeat of Islam, but these people continue to preach a mindless, violent “solution” to a problem that calls for a completely different approach. You don’t defeat terrorism with armies. I would hope that we’re finally starting to learn that, though the cost of the lesson has been ungodly high.
7:46 am
Jazz, apparently your knowledge of jihad is very, very limited. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of the Quran and read it, in the literal sense. And perhaps you would also like to provide all the readers with my “laundry list” of nations that we need to invade. Dealing with a nation as if we were already at war with that nation is a hellofa lot different than invading that nation.
And since you claim that we don’t defeat terrorism with armies, maybe you can provide us with your enlightened suggestions on just how we can defeat terrorism.
You seem to take offense at my term “Islamonazis”. Maybe a little history lesson in how the Mufti aided and abetted the Hitler government would serve you well. Ever bother to notice how the Palestinian army marches? How about the Arab SS troops? Ever heard of them? Or the fact that Saddam’s uncle fought for Hitler and Saddam was a big, big fan of Hitler’s?
And while you are providing an education for all of us you could give us the terrorists specific complaints against the U.S. I would imagine it will include a “laundry list” of all the human rights violations the U.S. is guilty of (in your mind) against the Muslim world.
The terrorists understand two things: jihad (death or slavery to all infidels) and violence. Sitting around singing Kumbaya with them will only provide you with the separation of your head from your shoulders.
8:02 am
Anyone who does not recognize that the Saudis are a large part of the problem we face is a fool.
Their Wahhabi sect preaches hatred, intolerance and jihad in maddrasas across the world. Does anyone pay attention to what they’re teaching in these ‘schools’? All funded by petro dollars, I might add.
Granted, they don’t pose such an immediate threat as the mullahs in Iran, but ulitmately they must be dealt with. Or this war is going to go on and on into perpetuity.
Our options are very limited. We can either take Lawrence Auster’s advice, over on View From the Right, and completely divide Islam and the West, which would require rounding up every Muslim in the West and dumping them in the desert. Or we can take the fight to the terror masters and their sponsors. There are no other options.
Mr. Moran makes some excellent points, but I don’t think our choices are to commit or quit. Quitting is not part of the American character.
8:18 am
“Dealing with a nation as if we were already at war with that nation is a hellofa lot different than invading that nation.”
Please at least be intellectually honest enough to not back off from your statements on some twisting of semantics. Those two descriptions are barely different. Being “already at war” with a nation involves, sooner or later, either invading them or being invaded or fighting them on somebody else’s property.
As to understanding “jihad” it’s very different than understanding Islam, unless your brain has been rotted away by overdoses of Ann Coulter and Rush. We have a mosque here in my home city with a huge membership. The vast majority of them are not even of middle eastern lineage, and in their street clothes I bet you couldn’t pick most of them out of a lineup. Fine people, quite a few of whom I work with, who are horrifed by the actions of the few radicals who are causing all the trouble.
“maybe you can provide us with your enlightened suggestions on just how we can defeat terrorism.”
Glady, though I typically find that these types of conversations with closed minds are fruitless, I feel obliged to keep shouting at the ocean. How do you deal with terrorists? The same way the Brits did last week with that bombing plot. (Even though those chuckleheads had a plan that would have been almost impossible to pull off. They were still looking to try and needed to be dealt with.) You use good intelligence and special operatives, you investigate them, find them, prosecute them, and either lock them away or execute them. They are criminals, not a nation unto themselves. You deal with them like criminals and treat it as a federal police action matter. I seem to recall you righties were all cheering the Brits wildly for that one. Keep notes on it. That’s how you deal with them.
“You seem to take offense at my term “Islamonazis—
I take offense at all of the attempts by you and your ilk at painting the entire Muslim world with one brush. It may be true that the solid majority (though hardly all) of terrorists are Muslims. It’s also true that they are a group that only numbers in the thousands out of more than a billion people. It is equally true that the members of the most violent gangs in America’s inner cities (crips, bloods, m3, et. al.) are blacks and hispanics. That does not, however, mean that we insitute a plan to ship all of the minorities out of America. We’re at “war” with gangsters… not all African Americans or Mexicans or Cubans, etc.
“you could give us the terrorists specific complaints against the U.S. I would imagine it will include a “laundry list†of all the human rights violations the U.S. is guilty of (in your mind) against the Muslim world.”
Again, gladly, though it will do no good. There are undoubtedly quite a few complaints that some of the more radical elements in the Islamic world have agains the West and the United States in particular, but number one on almost every single list would have to be Israel, and you already know that. The righties just don’t admit it, that’s all. And of course, by simply admitting it, I will now once again be tarred with the broad, knee-jerk brush of saying I’m an anti-semite, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anyone who even suggests that it might be time to reexaming the United States policy regarding Israel is some sort of traitor who needs to be executed, apparently. But there’s your answer since you asked. That’s their number one complaint.
Be sure to keep the oxygen turned on in the echo chamber, retire05. Lack of fuel to the brain can cause serious and permanent damage.
8:41 am
[...] So forgive me if I have been a ‘downer’ lately; it’s not to bug you or depress you, but because I believe the things I am writing about. As Rick Moran put it in a long, excellent piece that I recommend you read in its entirety: …[I]t would pain me if my honest opinion drove people away from this site. But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government. For them, it may come as no surprise that I have reached a point where I believe we must make a decision as a nation about whether we want to continue our involvement – which would mean an increase in resources and a direct confrontation with Iran and Syria over their massive support for the terrorists and insurgents – or whether we should pack up and go home. In other words, escalate or leave. [...]
8:50 am
Iraq: Quit or Commit
I personally don’t agree with Rick Moran’s assessment of the situation in Iraq or his assumptions about Bush’s thinking on the issue in this piece. That said, it’s worth reading—a fierce debate is brewing in the comments, as the left points to it…
9:01 am
Only serfs believe that Freedom and Democracy are easy roads to take.
10:07 am
Wow, Monday morning and already so many comments…
Rick,
Overall, I agree with your analysis of the current situation. Where I depart company, however, is your second proposed solution. Adding more troops and “resources” will likely not change much from the current situation and could be counterproductive. There are universal calls for “more troops” in the media and among self-described “experts,” but often more troops does not equal more effectiveness in this kind of conflict, especially if those troops are not adequately trained in counterinsurgency techniques, tactics and procedures. Sending a bunch of conventional forces into this complex war zone will, in all likelihood, not have the desired effect. This is an example of using conventional war tactics to fight an unconventional war, a mistake which has been repeated throughout history.
Pulling out completely is obviously admitting defeat, but like you indicated, is the best course of action if the war becomes completely unsupportable (and therefore unwinnable). Counterinsurgencies – what we’re fighting in Iraq – are ultimately battles of will and attrition for allegiance of a population. They are almost always long, extended, grueling conflicts. Richard in post #32 above gives some great quotes by a guy who knows counterinsurgency.
I’ve mentioned it before on this site and others, but everyone here should read the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual ( http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf ) for the best primer on fighting insurgencies there is.
In my mind, we have two choices. We can admit defeat and lay the plans for a pullout. The better choice is to recognize this conflict for what it is – a long-term counterinsurgency effort, and work toward winning it. Unfortunately, I don’t think the American people have the stomach for that kind of commitment, considering the blunders made up to this point. Winning would require an adjustment in strategy and tactics, along with a decade or more of commitment on our part. This kind of commitment is necessary because the Iraqi population’s loyalty will not change overnight.
Also, something not often mentioned, is the effect of Saddam’s rule on the psychology of the Iraqi people. His authoritarian rule that prized obedience over initiative turned a generation of regular Iraqi’s into timid people who aren’t accustomed to taking risks. For almost four decades, Saddam made sure that “the tall grass got regularly cut.†This bred in many Iraqis not only a fear of central government and authority, but also the tendency to “stay invisible†and avoid confrontation. This has created a significant hurdle in fighting the insurgency because people that could help with information have been trained by years under Saddam’s rule to keep quiet. It has also enhanced tribal loyalty over that to the central government. It’s difficult to train Iraqi military and police forces to take initiative because it’s simply not something they’re used to doing. Changing these mindsets and galvanizing the silent majority of Iraqi’s to support the central government will take time and training.
Since counterinsurgencies are as much about endurance of will than anything else, it should be no surprise that democracies often fail at combating them. Democracies, or rather the people in them, simply don’t have the political will to recognized and support the kind of long-term commitment necessary for victory. This is especially true with America, which has a notoriously short attention span and memory. So overall, I still believe we could ultimately achieve many of our objectives in Iraq, but no one should be fooled into thinking it will be quick, easy, or simply require “more troops.†It will require a complex, sustainable, long-term strategic and tactical effort. Unfortunately, I just don’t think the American people have the patience to see it through.
10:08 am
Jazz, excuse me? You said that when we are acting as if we were already at war with someone that involves either invading them, having them invade us or fighting them on someone else’s property. Well, gee, that gives you a pretty wide berth, doesn’t it. Talk about steel trap minds. You seem to set the bar. We were in a cold war for years with Russia, yet we never invaded them nor did they invade us, but then you can always throw back the old Vietnam carnard. Never mind that you can impose sanctions, block their financial ability to fund their war mongering and deal with them on a political/world wide basis.
You say calling them Islamonazis paint a whole segment of people. You say there are only a few thousand out of a billion Muslims that want to harm us. Perhaps you have just ignored the experts (who are Muslims themselves) who say that 60% of the world wide Muslim community agree with the terrorists. How do you account for that number. As we see marches in San Francisco supporting Hezbollah, where are the marches that DENOUNCE Hezbollah? You say we should deal with the terrorists on a criminal basis. That worked really well for the previous administration, didn’t it?
The reason for the Jolly Jihadists? Well certainly it has to do with Isreal. It has had to do with the Jewish community since the days of Mohammed. The U.S. wasn’t even a dream in the 7th century.
The number one complaint by the terrorist is that we are basically a Christian nation and if they can take down the Big Satan, then all over nations will follow giving them the Islamic world they desire.
Rightie? You cannot submit your response to me without insults? That must be part of the leftist platform, insult when at all possible.
Now for all those fine people who attend the mosque in your city and some of whom you work with, ask them this: if they had to choose between loyality to the United States and loyality to Islam, which would they chose? Ask them what they are doing, ACTIVELY DOING, to change the minds of those in their community who are against the United States, like the ones who were marching for Hezbollah. Ask them what the Quran says about Muslims who speak out against other Muslims. Ask them why Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq. Ask them what the Quran says about infidels (which you are if you are not Muslim) and how they are to be treated. Ask them if they accept jihad in the personal sense or in the militant sense. Ask them how suicide bombers attain martyr status when the Quran strictly forbids suicide. When you get honest answers to these questions, get back to me.
And then maybe you should give up Kool-aid. It contains phenylalanine which has been found to be damaging to the brain.
10:18 am
Excellent post, Rick. You are not alone in your ideas posted here.
11:37 am
Good Post Rick,
Before we quit however we must consider the consequences of not seeing this through.
Many point to the war in Iraq as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah. To some extent it is. Imagine though, the recruitment levels that Al-Qaeda and Hizbollah will experience when they can proudly claim to the muslim world that they have stood toe to toe with the most powerful military in the world, and won!
Jihadists world wide will dance in the streets, and then launch new and more devastating attacks on US and western interests. Our Allies in the Global War on Terror will question our resolve in defending freedom and democracy. Many will conclude that appeasing the terrorists is their only hope of survival.
Like you said we have a choice of either quiting or commiting.. I firmly believe that quiting will be far more disasterous for us as a nation and for the world as a whole. Therefore we need the commitment to wage this war as a war… no half assed approach is going to work here. War is brutal.. we need to ensure that our enemies and those who support them know full well just how brutal it is.
Darrell
11:56 am
[...] Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse has a post entitled IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT. In it he points out several shortcomings of how the administration is prosecuting the war in Iraq, and the criticism is valid. I firmly believe that quiting will be far more disasterous for us as a nation and for the world as a whole. Therefore we need the commitment to wage this war as a war… no half assed approach is going to work here. War is brutal.. we need to ensure that our enemies and those who support them know full well just how brutal it is. [...]
12:04 pm
Throwing in the towel – almost
Well another member of the right is just short of throwing in the towel. Rick Moran at the Rightwing Nuthouse has all but admitted that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal has screwed things up so badly that Iraq is a lost cause. But I realize many re …...
12:11 pm
Thoughtful post, as usual. I do believe that the Iraq situation should be viewed as part of the GWOT. There is no easy or short term solution to this. But losing would certainly be catastrophic. So, failure cannot be an option. Get the job done!
12:33 pm
So we either withdraw, and our enemies at home and abroad achieve a victory of the forces of Good and Right – or we declare total war, and bring the whole world to an end.
May God roast George Bush in hell for bringing us to this pass.
12:54 pm
I say we commit. It is possible that the force of our commitment is being tried in phases. Operation Forward Together Phase 1 did little. We are currently in Phase 2 (some sections around Baghdad are proving to reduce violence); and Phase 3 may be the “commit” in full force final option.
Another good read by the Ambassador of Iraq to the US:
A Call to Support Democracy
By Samir Sumaida’ie
Monday, August 21, 2006; A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/20/AR2006082000529_pf.html
1:06 pm
Rick:
This must not have been an easy piece for you to write. Everyone should read Rick’s “Fiasco” that you cited and
“Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice” by David Galula. Galula’s text is THE primer on counterinsurgency and unfortunately, a complete laundry list of the mistakes and inevitable outcomes of our invasion of Iraq, written 40 years before the war. Large numbers of troops are of use in an insurgency primarily to maintain the borders of the insurgent country(another failure of our efforts). Massive troop deployment and engagement will only refuel and intensify the insurgency at this point. It is too late, with too many blunders already committed, to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, so they may themselves extinguish the insurgency. There is no joy in saying there is nothing we can commit at this point that will lead to a different outcome.
As my Grandpa always said, “When you find that you have dug yourself into a deep hole, the first rule is to stop digging.”
1:34 pm
But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government.
Huh? Iraq has a stable, democratic government NOW, blood notwithstanding, and 275,000 troops (they may not be model soldiers, but by all accounts the majority are superior to their enemies) to keep it that way. There’s violence, but strategically there is no existential threat to the regime. The insurgency is local to Sunni areas, has no popular mandate at all, and really amounts to little more than a major criminal enterprise.
People are taking a not inconsiderable amount of civil disorder (which one might expect from the collapse of a brutal police state) and blowing it out of all proportion. Read Powerline’s analysis of the Iraq violence and comparisons to actual civil wars; things could be a LOT worse.
As for Cobra II, I found it next to worthless as an analysis. It constantly makes cause and effect assumptions that have little or no basis in reality. It’s basically a collection of DNC talking points.
There are a lot of problems in Iraq, but they do not come near to equalling the successes: we’ve crushed Saddam’s regime, put the dictator on trial, and now Iraq is a democracy with one of the highest degrees of political freedom of any country in the region besides Israel.
1:35 pm
[...] It ends with a question, the answer to which is in serious doubt even among righty bloggers. Foremost among them is Moran in this widely-linked piece which says it’s time to crap or get off the pot. The Commissar and Rusty are dejected too, as, of course, is the high priest of civilizational pessimism, Mark Steyn. Watching the clip, one gets the impression that Bush thinks staying put is, in itself, a form of victory instead of a mere precondition. His resolve is admirable, but it would be a lot more admirable if it applied not just to things we shouldn’t be doing, like pulling out, but to things we most assuredly should. [...]
1:40 pm
Iraq: Does the right think it’s time to quit?
I certainly don’t agree with much of his diagnosis or analysis, but I do think Moran’s post reflects exactly the type of thinking I was talking about a year ago.
1:43 pm
QUOTE
MIAMI — More U.S. troops and a new president could be needed to win international support for U.S. efforts in postwar Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Sunday.
The Massachusetts senator said President Bush has created a “quandary” for the nation by failing to develop a broad coalition to fight the war, to secure Iraq and to let countries that didn’t fight participate in rebuilding.
“It may well be that we need a new president, a breath of fresh air, to re-establish our credibility with the rest of the world” and bring other countries into Iraq, Kerry said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
He also said that “if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos” discouraging the United Nations and other countries from helping, “that’s what we have to do.”
ENDQUOTE. USA Today, 4/18/2004.
I never thought I would see the day Kerry and Rick Moran would agree on something.
Unfortunately, they are both wrong and the commenter above is correct.
“Large numbers of troops are of use in an insurgency primarily to maintain the borders of the insurgent country(another failure of our efforts). Massive troop deployment and engagement will only refuel and intensify the insurgency at this point. It is too late, with too many blunders already committed, to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, so they may themselves extinguish the insurgency. There is no joy in saying there is nothing we can commit at this point that will lead to a different outcome.”
More troops wouldn’t have helped a bit unless the model for COIN ops was changed and now it is too late. Time to withdraw with as much grace as possible. Forget Iran, there’s no capability left to do anything now, given what the inevitable backlash would be. Sad but true.
Regards, C
1:53 pm
Massive troop deployment and engagement will only refuel and intensify the insurgency at this point. It is too late, with too many blunders already committed, to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, so they may themselves extinguish the insurgency.
Sorry, but that’s just silly. You talk about insurgency like it’s a house on fire that everyone wants to put out, rather than self-interested parties acting in their perceived best interests. Sunni youth are fighting because it offers them a chance to seize power, achieve status, and earn money (either from ransom or from Saddamist/Al Qaedist paymasters). More U.S. troops, less U.S. troops, it wouldn’t matter, because post-Fallujah this isn’t a military problem, it’s a civil disorder problem, and will be solved only with the imposition of Iraqi civil authority.
There are large numbers of people in Iraq who want, for various reasons, to commit murder. The major difference is that today those people are not running Iraq’s government.
Iraq has had huge, bloody civil wars every decade for some time now, well before we ever showed up. The current violence is unfortunate, but everything that goes wrong in Iraq is not our fault, nor necessarily our problem to solve. The democratic gov’t is in little danger of falling, Saddam is on trial, and Iraqis have a measure of freedom.
1:54 pm
Rick: Hi, I don’t agree with all your analysis or conclusions; but I’d defend to the death your right to say them, being a former Marine and all.
And, for anyone who has attacked you for saying them, they’re just proving that they really belong on the other side.
Dissent with the analysis if you like; but don’t attack the person, like most of the Leftists.
That’s why they’re nuts; they confuse dissent with personal attacks, and criticism with ad homenim attacks.
More later…
2:19 pm
[...] RightWing NutHouse: Iraq: Quit or Commit [...]
2:28 pm
To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself.
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who has noticed that about Bush partisans!
2:34 pm
Tall Dave:
There is nothing stable about the Iraqi government – not when there are important elements who are exhibiting dual loyalties to both Iraq and Iran.
I’m talking about an Interior Ministry rife with traitors who have created their own death squads as well as see that members of both the Mehdi and Badr militias are well represented in the police force.
There is nothing stable about a government where huge swaths of territory is not under its control – as we find in the south where entire town and village governments do not answer to Baghdad but have carved out their own Shia enclave and are actually starting to agitate for seperation.
You are correct that the problems in Iraq are solvable. And forgive my generalizing but you seem to dismiss “civil disorder” as something trivial. If not trivial, perhaps something that looks worse than it is.
To a certain extent I agree with you. But what the sectarian violence has done more than anything is sap the will and kill the hope of the Iraqi people for the future. The Mehdi inspired death squads are only the tip of a very large problem – extreme anger against the Sunnis by the Shias. This manifests itself in any number of ways, most notably in the grudging manner in which the Shias were forced to share power. And our protection of the Sunnis is now causing a Shia backlash which makes policing the country that much more difficult.
I think your analysis while well thought out is flawed. Using both independent sources as well as our own Pentagon whose judgement on the Iraqi troops combat effectiveness is very pessimistic – their loyalty to the government is quite another issue – I think it is safe to say that we aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Neither are we making any progress in re-establishing civil order in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces which is where most of the people live.
Until we can drastically reduce the flow of blood, the government will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the people. And that’s from the Prime Ministers statement in June when he initiated his failed security program for Baghdad.
3:00 pm
Holy smokin donuts! A lot of analysis but few answers. Rick has a good, sincere post. I respect his opinions and find some things to agree with in them. However, the problem is that Iraq is inextricably linked with the wider war with the Islamo-Fascist Alliance. This cabal (with Syria and Iran as the state actors) is poised to execute its four basic goals, restore the Caliphate, impose Sharia law, destroy Israel, and subjugate (read kill/enslave/convert) all non-believers.
Iraq, I beleive, presented the United States an entry into this conflict on IFA home turf. There was no cause for going into Iran, Afghanistan had worked out better than planned and Syria was countered by Israel. Once in the country, we discovered how truly rotten were the state of affairs of that nation. Short of tearing down the house completely (partitioning the land into three governing areas), we had to make a go at saving a building well on its way (prior to our arrival) to full conflagration.
I am not sure if the sectarian violence is good or bad (in a strategic sense). The Sunnis and Shiites must come to some reconciliation for many, many years of bad blood. It will not come smoothly, quickly or be forced. It will take the route of intermarriages, business partnerships and sheer will of the people. Our presence can ONLY be that of a facilitator. No matter how many troops we impose on the region, only time and opportunity will win the day. OUr commitment in the Balkans has past the 10 year mark with continued work yet to do.
Iraq is no different, save that it provides a buffer against Iran and a place for the Mideast to experience the rewards and consequences of real political choice.
3:01 pm
There is nothing stable about the Iraqi government – not when there are important elements who are exhibiting dual loyalties to both Iraq and Iran…There is nothing stable about a government where huge swaths of territory is not under its control
That’s certainly a novel definition of stability. You do realize Saddam never controlled those areas either? You realize most countries in the area have “vast swaths” of their countries not under gov’t control? Iraq’s government is in no danger of falling, and ask any Arab how he feels about taking orders from Persians. And as for divided loyalties, look at Quebec, or Ireland. Iraq is being held to a standard few other countries meet.
I’m talking about an Interior Ministry rife with traitors who have created their own death squads
You call them death squads. Ask many Shia, and they’ll them “justice squads” in retaliation for Sunni terrorism. Roughly the same thing happened in El Salvador in the 1980s when Communists were behaving the same way the Sunni Iraqis are now. It’s bad and it should be stopped, but it’s far from the end of the world, as the El Salvadoran example proves.
kill the hope of the Iraqi people for the future.
The last poll, taken in June, showed most Iraqis think their country is headed in the right direction. That means Iraqis have more confidence in Iraq’s future than Americans have about America’s future.
3:03 pm
Until we can drastically reduce the flow of blood, the government will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the people
Again, polling seems to indicate that is not true: Maliki had a 55% approval rating in the last poll. That’s a higher approval rating than Bush has seen in years.
3:22 pm
Twenty-five years of appeasement (With one or two minor exceptions) can make an enemy doubt your resolve. It is unfortunate that many in the government and media do not make them questions theirs.
3:24 pm
Ed
That would be an excellent place to start. We should commit enough troops to secure the borders. This would help to cut off the supplies to the “insurgents” which would help us to get securtiy under control. If we can restore securtiy this would help us rebuild the country, which should help us to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq.
David Galula is probably right to a point. When we initially commit more troops, this will initially intnsify the insurgency. A greater commitment will probably mean more deaths in the short run but in a situation of lawlessness the police commit more law enforcement personnel to bring the situation under control. The same principle should apply here. Commit enough security personnel that the insurgency has no life to breathe. this is what has been done in the past. At least, if we are not going to engage the insurgents with the added troops, we should secure the borders. This should provide a valuable assist in getting security under control.
I think now is the ideal time to commit more troops. We will have to make a stand against Iran and its proxies in Iraq or elsewhere. Better to do it now. The bad thing is mismanagement of key aspects of the war effort has made this more difficult than it needed to be. The country should go on a war footing much like it did during WWII. Even if we withdraw from Iraq, a massive military build up will be needed for Iran who will have to be dealt with sooner or later unless they change course which does not seem likely.
Rick
You are correct the problems in Iraq are solvable. Part of solving the problem will be dealing with the regimes in Iran and Syria. Those regimes are a major threat to Iraqi democracy, as welll as major threat to the US. Once the Iranian and Syrian regimes are removed this will greatly help Iraq’s chances of achieving democracy. The generations who sacrificed so much in wars like the Revolutionary War and the Civil War would probably be ashamed that so many people are already so willing to quit. Most of this problem is a failure of the leadership of the US. The President will need to explain the stakes to the American and major changes in the administration are probably needed.
3:34 pm
So far with the exception of the troops and their families the average American has had to sacrifice virtually nothing in the GWOT. It should be apparent by now that to win a military conflict as massive as the one we are currently engaged in will likely require major sacrifices on the part of the American people. Good places to start would be: 1.)A Manhattan project of sorts to eliminate all foreign oil imports. 2.) Oil rationing. 3.) A suspension of tax cuts is probably in order. As a Conservative, I like tax cuts but the US is in a war for its survival and this calls for drastic measures that we will have to make now or later. It would be better to deal with this now. If it is put off, the threat will only grow.
In order to win, it is possible that we may need to withdraw from Iraq to regroup. I hope it does not come to that but we must be prepared to do whatever it takes to win.
3:57 pm
You are correct that the problems in Iraq are solvable. And forgive my generalizing but you seem to dismiss “civil disorder†as something trivial. If not trivial, perhaps something that looks worse than it is.
It’s not trivial, it’s just not a military problem, in scale or in quality: it’s civil disorder, not civil war. Civil disorder generally cannot be solved by military means, because soldiers make lousy policemen, especially foreign soldiers. This is why we’re training massive numbers of ISF instead of bringing in massive numbers of U.S. troops.
In many ways, it would be a hell of a lot easier if it WERE a military problem. When your problem is an army, you can just destroy it. Our military is superb at that sort of thing. Establishing a civil society is a lot trickier, espeically in a land that has been ruled by thugs for so long. It may take decades, and for the most part it won’t be done by us, but by Iraqis.
3:59 pm
Rick –
A thoughtful, clearly difficult post for you to write. It echoes my own evolution on this conflict, except perhaps lagging me by a year. I am a committed Democrat, one of many who may not have gone to war as quickly as we did, but once we did, thought it might be an opportunity to get something right in the Mideast.
I am heartbroken at the outcome. Unlike you, I don’t think we have the political will (Republican included) to deploy the resources to fix this problem. It would take a commitment substantially greater than 50,000 more troops and another $200 billion. It has now spiraled to the point that we have lost a war we should not and can’t afford to lose. But we did. And we’re beginning to lose the one in Afghanistan.
What we did in Iraq did not work. What we did in Afghanistan is beginning to fail. You’re absolutely right: it is time for some humble reassessment of our current approach and a new course. You respect this president: I do not. But perhaps you will understand the roots of my skepticism that there is anything in this Administrations’ character that would allow for this sort of reassessment (humble or otherwise). There isn’t. And because of that, our loss will not just be bad. It will be catastrophic as we do more and more to hurt our long-term interests.
I applaud you for your courage. And I applaud other conservatives who have come to your conclusion. It takes courage to break with a President you adore. But you have the evidence of your eyes and the basis of your intelligence to understand what is going on. Forget what the left, or Democrats like me think. Work on getting your fellow Republicans to realize the desperate nature of our state and pressure their legislators to begin the work that needs to happen to salvage this terrible situation.
4:00 pm
Citizen Deux
You seem to suggest that Iraq would be a good base to be used to provide a check against Iran. I tend to agree. Iraq was not as big a supporter of terrorism as Iran but it was a major supporter. As such, it was a legitimate target for invasion. In order to provide that check, a substantial increases in ground forces will likely be needed. Even if they are not stationed in Iran, they will need to be stationed somewhere in the region.
Amadinejad has recently stated that good relations with Iran require those who desire them to bow and surrender to them. Now is the best time to make our stand against Iran and its Russian and Chinese allies.
4:25 pm
What we did in Iraq did not work.
People keep asserting this, so I guess it must be true. I mean it’s not as though we successfully removed Saddam and put him on trial, held elections with huge turnout, seated a gov’t with representation from all major factions, established a constitution by referendum, held another election with even bigger turnout, seated another government from those elected under the constitution, trained 275,000 troops, and face no strategic military threats to the current government. And it’s not like Iraqis now enjoy more political freedom, according to the Index of Political Freedom, than any other countries in the region excepting Israel and Lebanon, and are more optimistic about their future than Americans, and have a Prime Minister with higher approval ratings than our President.
Because if we’d accomplished all that, surely it would be hailed a major success for freedom and democracy, regardless of sectarian violence.
So none of that must have happened, right?
4:27 pm
Whatever goals you folks have in invading Iran, if the goal is to “get rid of the mullahs,” that is not going to work. An attack on Iran will galvanize the mullahs. If you kill them all they will be replaced by disciples. You will also destroy the entire nascent Iranian reform movement. I am very disturbed by the comments here to the effect that Iraq is just a staging ground for Iran. What on earth makes you think that an attack on Iran would somehow wind up better than an attack on Iraq? Think about it. We don’t have troops to occupy Iraq alone, let alone sufficient troops to occupy Iran. Recall that the Iranian government, oppressive as it is, is not some illegitimate despot but rather was installed in a popular and relatively bloodless revolution – notwithstanding the Iranians who want democratic reform, the Iranian government enjoys much broader support among the Iranians than, say, Saddam Hussein. How do you think seventy million Iranians are going to react to our going in and “taking out” their popular government? First of all, it will be a failure because we won’t take out the government, the government will be replaced, except now it will be fully radicalized and the moderating forces of the secular government will be completely radical, and the entire younger generation of Iranians (which is something like 40% of the population and currently supports reform) will become totally radicalized and America-hating. And we will utterly lose Iraq in the process. I have heard some idiotic ideas in my day, and up until now invading Iraq was one of the biggest, but this one takes the cake.
4:32 pm
TallDave
Perhaps more law enforcement personnel embedded with special forces may help. I think this is largely a law enforcement issue. The lack of law enforcement seems to have been the biggest issue.
Peter
We will either need to muster the politcal will now or later. If it is done later, the problem will be much harder to deal with. I suggest that Republicans and Democrats should work to explain to the American people what the stakes are. This will probably require Republicans to jettison the President, who I gave up on long ago and the Democrats will probably need to jettison the anti-war left. We can win this. It may require us to withdraw from Iraq and regroup. The biggest problem seems to me to be not enough troops for either Iraq or Afghanistan. This was made worse by poor planning and failure to make the appropiate adjustments.
Rick
Once again, excellent post!!
4:35 pm
B.Poster:
Thanks for your always thoughtful response. I wish I had your confidence that we can still prevail in Iraq. There is not tangible evidence that I can find to support such a notion, but if we are going to continue in Iraq, the borders must be secured and closed, the completely ineffectual democratic government of Iraq must be under the direct command of a Supreme Coalition Commander(a la Douglas McCarthur in making post-war Japan a success) who reports directly to President Bush, Cheney must be kept completely out of the loop, Rumsfeld fired post-haste, a replacement of the top military command in Iraq, and a clear, concrete definition of success. “We will stand down when the Iraqi soldiers and police stand up” is an undefined political slogan, not a plan or an outcome.
For example, success will be when IED bombings are reduced to x per month in Iraq, when suicide bombings are reduced to x per month, etc. Concrete, defined outcomes with a commitment to leave when they are reached is an absolute if we are to escalate our Iraqi involvement. The White House must also have a timeline (that they DO NOT publicize) that states if our operational goals cannot be met in x number of months, then we will leave the area for Iraq’s self-determination. If we are going to continue in Iraq, then go smart, go prepared, go with a plan, go with a clearly defined set of objectives, and go with enough humility to define when our best of intentions have not worked.
4:51 pm
Andy
We are not at the stage where we have to invade Iran now. Hopefully it won’t get there. Some reports have indicated that their leaders are not very popular with the people there now. Perhaps the Iranian government can be remove from within. In any event, I find nothing idiotic about considering the possiblilty of removing a government who has threatened to “burn the roots of the anglo-saxon race” and has threatened to “wipe Israel from the map.” Our very survival may depend upon removing this government. We’re not there yet but the option should be considered.
Invading Iraq will have been idiotic if it does not work out. It is in danger of not working out because of poor execution. There is still time to get the execution right. If we fail, at some point it will be idiotic to remain and we will need to pull back and regroup.
I do agree with your general assertion that we will need more troops. The government should have placed the US on a war footing immediately after 911 and started adressing the trop issue right then. Both Republicans and Democrats are reluctant to ask the American people to make sacrifices. This needs to change.
Negotiations with Iran are likely to be frutiless, however, negotiations with Russia and China who are Iran’s biggest supporters may bear fruit. If we can get them to withdraw support from Iran, the Iranian threat becomes much easier to neutralize.
5:14 pm
Ed
Thanks for the response to my posts. Your posts are very thought provoking. I very much appreciate it:)
I agree with pretty much everything you write. Hopefully there are plans similar to what you propose. There should be. the problem is I don’t have much confidence in this adminstration. I think Cheney and Rumsfeld should have been removed a long time ago.
I think we can win in Iraq, however, the commitment it will require will likely be far beyond what we have commited to date. The sad thing is due to mis steps in the execution this has become much harder than it needed to be. If there is a silver lining, mismanagement of the post war situation of WWI helped create the conditions that led to the rise of Nazi Germany. This is not to make excuses. It is simply to point out that such blunders have happened in the past and WWII turned out pretty well for us. Course corrections will need to be made now and alot of top people will need to be relieved of their duties. Clearly the results are lacking.
At some point, if this does not work out, we will need to cut our losses and withdraw. If we must withdraw, we should take the time to regroup and reorganize. The Islamic Extremists enemy would correctly view our withdrawl from Iraq as a defeat of the US and they would be emboldened and would be in a much stronger position. The way I look at it, it is best to deal with the terrorists now in Iraq. If we do it later, it only gets harder.
With that said, the biggest terrorist problem is Iran. If conceding Iraq to the terrorists, so we can focus on stopping terrorism at its Iranian source will better help us win the GWOT then this would be a prudent strategy. Taking care of the problem at its sources in Syria and Iran will help greatly with Iraq.
5:49 pm
Anyone wanna guess why the Russians didn’t press further West at the end of WWII?
We spend as much effort apologizing for Gitmo as we do in killing the enemy, and we wring our hands over whether we’re allowed to listen in on the enemy’s phone calls . . . and then we complain that we’re not winning fast enough?
The last time we won hearts and minds was WWII —do you really have to ask why we won over the hearts and minds of the surviving enemy? We haven’t applied nearly as much persuasion this time, and it’s showing.
But we can’t just stop now. The problem is that if we don’t finish what we started, the enemy will follow us home. And they’ll eventually obtain the WMD, so if we don’t finish this now, it’s gonna have to be later. Better to get the job done, but just do it and save the recriminations for afterward.
5:55 pm
[...] All of which is understandable. What is less understandable is why right-wing webloggers – subway terminus buskers to Jöe Scarböröügh’s Mötley Crüe – should be influenced by mercurial public opinion. And yet, here we are: The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow. [...]
6:52 pm
I’ve been putting off writing this post for a couple of months. Not out of any fear of blogospheric consequences although it would pain me…………
And God said……â€Let there be light, and the atom was fused and nuclear weapons were built………..
Is the time nearing to drop the leaflets over Teheran as we did over Hiroshima and Nagasaki????????
10:03 pm
[...] Lot’s of people on the right are starting to say what sounds very similar to what those on the left have been saying for smoe time. The Bush administration and the commanding generals in Iraq do not have a plan to win the war. [...]
10:40 pm
To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself.
You;ve been doing fine denying reality so far, what’s the reason for this change of heart?
10:41 pm
I can respect that you are honestly struggling to show your change of mind on this, but… c’mon. I’m just a guy reading the better blogs out there, and you know what I learned? The things you’re facing now were largely laid out months and months ago. Juan Cole explained the flawed constitution, for example. So please forgive me for pointing out that you’re very late in catching up.
And if you read the people who have been largely RIGHT about the situation in Iraq all along, you read some very good reasons for believing the following:
1) Adding more troops now will increase problems, probably more than it could solve. There is no reason to think adding people or weapons would improve the intelligence or targeting there, and more soldiers will inevitably increase resentment, credibility of accusations of occupation.
2) It may look like having US troops in Iraq is a big advantage for military threats to Iran and Syria… but it isn’t. The US could easily overextend troops, and Iran would be in a position to cut lines, isolate troops. It’s horrible, but the duration of the disaster in Iraq has greatly limited options for the US.
I hate it. I hate what this administration has done to our country.
11:48 pm
tubino
According to the polls the top priorities to Iraqis seem to be security and infrastructure development. Having more boots on the ground would give us more abiltiy to tackle the insurgency and the Al Sadr militia. In the short run, it will probably create more problems, especially for the addtional security personnel. If the insurgents are focused on the additional troops, this would take some of the pressure off of the civilians. We’ve never had enough troops commited to the situation. In order to give liberty a chance and to get a valuable ally from this, we should attempt to insert more troops. The additional troops will help us with security. This should help us to get better intellegence, as the local populace will be more secure to work with us. Having additional security personnel would likely choke the life out of the insurgency. In a lawless situation, a city commits more police officers to the situation until the situation is gotten under control. The same thing should work here. We should try and, if it fails then try something else. Perhaps it is police officers instead of military personnel that are needed. In any event, more boots on the ground would likely help the long run situation.
You are correct to point out that we could over extend our troops. This is why we need a larger military. I’ve been pushing for this for a long time. Air support would probably be helpful to ensure that the supply lines are secure. There is no question that it will be difficult. I hate this too. Due to a number of grievous errors, on the part of this administraion, a very difficult situation has been made even more difficult than it probably needed to be. Also, some of the rhetoric has been very unhelpful. Clearly changes need to be made at the very top. Some people will need to be relieved of their duties.
The goal in Iraq is an allied, stable, and democratic allied Iraq. If we can achieve, at least a stable and allied Iraq this would likely be enough. If the mission fails it will be a disaster but the results are not in yet. So far we have not even begun to do all we can. This will require sacrifices on the part of the American people. If the people who fought WWII were as reluctant to make sacrifices as some people today apparently are, we would have likely be ruled by Nazis now. We need true leadership who will explain the stakes to the Aemrican people, in no undertain terms. If the President can’t do this, he needs to make room for someone who will.
If we are unable to salvage the situation, at some point we wil have to cut our losses, regroup, and get ready for the next round that the terrorists will force on us. There is one good reason that I know of to withdraw from Iraq right now. If conceding Iraq to the terrorists will somehow help us to focus on Iran. If we can get Iran to stop interfering, this should help to quell the insurgency within Iraq.
“Harry Truman’s Ghost” sums up the situation perfectly. Make our stand now in Iraq or fight them later when they are far stronger. Also, we will need a military force structure that will provide some kind of deterent against Iran and Syria. A premature withdrawl from Iraq will be correctly viewed by the terrorists as a defeat for America. Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon did not help Israel any. If we withdrew prematurely, we would likely face a similar situation to the situation Israel faces.
Rick’s post nails this. We will either need to make the commitmnet necessary to get this done or we need to get out. I say make the commitment now. It will probably only get harder later.
2:38 am
“Make our stand now in Iraq or fight them later when they are far stronger.”
Who’s the “they”? The Sunni insugents and the Shia death squads, both of whom threaten us, are not going to come attacking the US. Ever. Increasingly, the “they” is a huge cross-section of the very people we went to liberate. They are not Al Qaeda, sworn to create the great Caliphate spanning the globe. They are fighting a local and centuries-old internecine battle that we cannot stop. Well, maybe we could have if, right at that golden moment when we had the chance – before the looting started, as the Saddam statues were falling – if we had shown we could maintain order and restore services and care about the people as much as the pipeline…maybe then we could have turned it around. I honestly thought we were right on the verge. I was so optimistic, ready to chalk one up from Bush. And then, bam!, we played the price for Rummy’s lean-mean-fightin’-machine strategery. And the rest is history.
But back to my point… This isn’t Al Qaeda we’re fighting in Iraq, aside from a relative handful of AQ infiltrators. To say if we don’t defeat the Iraqi insurgents in Iraq we will have to fight them on our shores is alarmist and insane: they hardly have the resources to survive, let alone assemble an army to cross the oceans and invade America. They need to be contained, monitored, frightened, intimidated, isolated and weakened. But you can’t defeat them with guns – the more you pop, the more you fuel recuitment and resentment. A vicious circle, a never-ending tug-of-war. Just look at the Viet Cong. Did our dumping napalm on them keep them from their goal? Did it diminish their ranks? As is often stated, we never lost a single military battle in Vietnam. We always won. And yet it was in the end a defeat from which we have yet to recover – and from which we have yet to learn.
5:42 am
I have mixed feelings here.
I want our boys home but I’m scared of what that nutcase in Iran will do.
I also get hacked off when I hear the Iraq newly formed gov’t make a stupid statement like the minister guy did during the Israel/Lebanon conflict, that really pissed me off. Our guys are over there busting their buns for your attitude, I do hope that Bush called him to dog cuss him and I hope the generals slapped him around also.
I still get the feeling that they don’t have what it takes to stand up for themselves and we can’t baby-sit forever, I say if they don’t show improvement by Christmas, keep it as quiet as possible from the new york slimes and company and just get the hell outta dodge. Bring em all home and prepare for the hezzies and cells already here.
7:15 am
Iraqis Keep Reporting For Duty
A week ago, I wrote that the United States needed a commitment to win in Iraq, rather than playing not to lose, or we should get out of the country. Rick Moran said much the same thing in his essay…
8:59 am
Richard
The Shia militias are backed up by Iran and the Sunni insurgents are made up of many former regime elements. It was the former regime elements, who were once very close to achieving Saddam’s stated goal of regional hegemony. this was after the invasion of Kuwait. Niether Iran nor the former regime elements should be allowed to gain control over Iraq. This is precisely what would probably happen if we were to leave to soon. If this happens the enemy is far stronger than it was before. Given the allies that the former regime elements have and the Iranian proxies have, they are fully capable of attacking the US homeland. This would likely be through terrorist proxies. They in concert with their terrorists proxies are fully capable of winning. I see nothing alarmist and insane about focusing on a legitmate threat. What I do find insane is the tendency of both Republicans and Democrats to underestimate American power.
I think the best way to monitor, contain, frighten, and isolate them would be to commit more troops. This would give us a better opportunity to get security under control. If we can do this, we can probably get an ally from this. The reasons we lost Vietnam are several fold. We did not secure its borders. Also, we betrayed our South Vietnam ally when we cut funding. In addition, we lacked the will to see it through to completeion. At one time one of the generals asked for more troops, but they were not forth coming.
After commiting more troops to Iraq, if this does not work, then we should try something else. All of our options have not been exausted yet.
I agree that we made a mistake and did not capitalize when Saddam’s statues were falling. According to polls I’ve seen, the most important things to Iraqis seem to be infrastructre development and security. If we can establish these things, then we should get a reliable ally from this. To this end, the appropiate course correction seems to be a greater commitment. If it does not work out, at some point we will have to leave. I don’t think we have done all we can yet.
In the final analysis, the greatest threats to American security are Russia and China, not Islamic extremists. Russia and China are the primary backers of the Islamic extremists states. This is probably no accident. Diplomatic efferts should be directed at Russia and China to get them to stop supporting Iran and others. If we can do this, the Islamic extremists threat becomes much easier to neutralize.
9:15 am
Drewsmom
I agree with you. We can’t stay forever. If we don’t make our stand in Iraq it will have to be elseshere. As I see it there may be three good reasons to withdraw now. That is if withdrawing from Iraq will help us to do one or more of the following better: 1.)Russia and China are the greatest threats to Aemrican security. These two countries are the primary supporters of Iran and Syria. The “insurgents” and the militias are being suppolied, to a large degree, by Iran and Syria. If we can focus our efforts on getting then to withdraw support for Iran and Syria this would help quell the insurgency. 2.)After the killing of Al Zarqawi, we were close to an agreement between Shia and Sunni, however, the Iranians undermined it. A greater focus needs to be given to Iran. So far this is costing Iran very little. Changing the Iranian regime will help to quell the insurgency in Iraq, as well eliminate a major terrorist threat. Preferably the regime could be overthrown from within.
9:50 am
Not Leaving is Not Enough
The Washington Post characterized President Bush's words for the press pool as "impassioned," causing Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham (guest host of Vent yesterday and today) to quip, "What, not cuckoo or angered-by-his&#...
10:15 am
[...] A week ago, I wrote that the United States needed a commitment to win in Iraq, rather than playing not to lose, or we should get out of the country. Rick Moran said much the same thing in his essay from yesterday. However, the Iraqis still show that they have committed to self-government and the rule of law, even in the difficult province of Anbar: More than 500 Iraqi men have joined the police in restive Anbar province — a focal point of the Sunni Arab insurgency — in the most successful recruiting drive in the region by U.S. and Iraqi forces, the U.S. military said Tuesday. … [...]
10:45 am
I am enjoying reading all of the comments. I have a few more random thoughts:
I don’t think you are going to see the Iranian regime ‘overthrown’ from within or without (if you do, it’s going to be bad), but I believe that, provided the middle east does not completely destabilize, Iran will reform. It will help when this completely insane president (I mean Iran’s, not ours, heh heh) is out of office. Recall that both Khatami and Rafsanjani were economic reformers and social moderates who provided a much-needed counterpoint to the mullahs. Ahmadinejad is something of an aberration in the Iranian presidency – unfortunately, as many people have commented here, he is completely CRAZY and runs on an Islamic populist, hardcore blood-and-jihad kind of platform. So…this is a particular bad time for the region devolve into instability, with Ahmadinejad at the wheel of Iran. Don’t ask me why, but I have a lot of faith in the Iranian people that they will replace him with someone more moderate…provided that he doesn’t get to play the hero any more than he already has. In a stable Middle East, the Iranian government will liberalize naturally. Iran has a massive young population that does not appear to be particularly interested in the revolutionary ideals of their parents. In an unstable Middle East, however, all those kids are going to radicalize.
You aren’t going to ‘solve’ terrorism by taking out Iran and Syria. Remember al-Qaeda, the gang that got us into this mess in the first place? They aren’t sponsored by Iran or Syria. In fact, when you think about it, al-Qaeda and Iran (and Hezbollah) are enemies, as were al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I sometimes think all of this is just a prelude to the real battle for control over the middle east, which is going to be between groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The West is practically marginal here – hating America and Israel is just a way for these groups to build a base, gain credibility, and get POWER over their own people and each other.
And as for the United States….you guys I know this is just the wimpiest thing to say, but at the end of the day this is going to be a war of attrition. We are going to be the victims of terror attacks. We will stop most of them but not all of them. So, innocent Americans are going to die, and we are going to have to devote billions of dollars and hours to intelligence in order to minimize those deaths. We can’t just go in with guns and rip out the “root cause” of Islamic fundamentalism any more than we could just go in with guns and rip out the root cause of communism. I’m not saying that military action won’t sometimes be necessary or appropriate, or that we shouldn’t take an active role in encouraging reform in the Middle East, but at the end of the day we are just going to have to outlast this.
10:51 am
Andy:
Sorry, I don’t buy the Rafsanjani/Khatami being moderates bit. It was a useful sell to the western media but the fact is both men are by any standard measure, extremely conservative Islamist politicians who helped fund terrorism around the world and whose Rev Guard bully boys beat women to death in the streets for showing too much.
Add to that, it was Rafsanjani who created the Iranian nuke program with the help of A.Q. Khan and Khatami eagerly continued it. Not to mention the fact that every reform ever proposed by either of those men has been shot down either in Parliament or in the Guardian Council which reviews all laws for their adherence to Islamic principles.
No – the only “reform” is the overthrow of the mullahs. And that will get very bloody indeed.
11:13 am
Rick, Andy:
You’re right about Rafsanjani and Khatami. They could be considered moderate in the Iranian context, but certainly aren’t moderates to the west. It’s important to note the nuclear program is almost universally supported by all the factions in the Iranian government including the “liberals” and “moderates.” The issue for the majority of Iranians is one of prestige and nationalism, as well as deterrence from Israel and Pakistan.
Another important point that often gets missed is that the Iranian President has very little real executive power. The real power in Iran is in the supreme leader, Khamenei, who is an enigmatic figure. The President does not have the authority to declare war, is not the CINC of the armed forces, and does not control the security and intelligence apparatus. The office is still influential, but many, especially in the media, make the mistake of assuming he has similar powers and roles to our own President.
11:20 am
Rick
I would prefer to overthrow the mullahs from within, should that become necessary. Another option is to get Russia and China to stop supporting them. This should make them easier to neutralize.
If we plan on overthowing the mullahs, unless I’m missing something, we are going to need a much larger army. Also, it would be helpful to have Iraq for a base. Perhaps another place in the region could be used for a base. I’m concerned that Iraq distracts us from dealing with Iran or the much bigger threats posed by Russia and China. As I see it, if quiting the mission in Iraq will help us to focus more on Russia, China, and Iran then we should abandon Iraq. Otehr wise I think we should try to commit more resources to Iraq.
11:22 am
Excellent article. As someone who is joining the Marine Corps in one year, Iraq is a topic that is heavily on my mind. I was for the liberation, and I still support the war, and I completely agree that the President needs to take actions that may imperil his Party’s majority in Congress.
11:26 am
I am of two minds regarding regime change in Iran. Clearly this option is far preferable to any military solution. We managed to help Poland in the 80’s without angering the Soviets too much. The real help was given by the AFL-CIO and USAID - both overtly through cultural exchanges and the like.
That obviously has its limitations in Iran but it’s something we should be trying to do anyway. Overthrowing the regime by military force is more likely to hurt us more than it could ever help us. For that reason, even bombing the nuke sites must be seen as an absolute last resort. This is why even though I’m extraordinarily skeptical, we at least have to try the diplomatic route until all options are exhausted.
12:12 pm
Good post Rick.
Andy, Saddam and AQ surely didn’t like each other but they were CERTAINLY defacto allies and their cooperation made a deadly alliance that had to be dealt with.
Who the hell do you think gave al Qaeda all of their CBW manuals in Northern Iraq and Afghanistan?
I’ve worked 3 years looking for honest answers on Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda and it’s quite complicated, but saying that the two were “enemies” isn’t true at all. Iraq was the ONLY country in the region to NOT assist the U.S. with al Qaeda arrest post 9-11. Even Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia arrested some al Qaeda members. Saddam’s regime arrested a few of Zarqawi’s buddies and turned them loose while warning them that the Jordanians were after them. The rest were provided weapons, money, passports, access to safehouses, etc.
It’s one thing to say the war isn’t going well, it’s a whole different thing to distort the events leading up to the invasion.
12:14 pm
Also Rick,
I say the hell with the polls and the political fallout. Bring in more troops and let Turkey, the Saudis, the Jordanians and Egyptians know that if they don’t get in there and help they will be dealing this with this problem down the line when it might be worse. So they better get in there and help.
12:38 pm
Mark
I think you are right about the Iraq/AQ connection. The question is not was there a threat. The question was the magnitude and did it justify invasion. I agree with you on more troops. This would help us break the current stalemate.
Additional commitments should be done consistent with Aemrican national security interests. The biggest national security threats are posed by Russia, China, and Iran. We must be certain to not lose sight of that.
12:49 pm
Mark,
To the extent that AQ and Iraq could have been allied, it could only have been in the most myopic marriage of convenience created by a general “enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude. Saddam was a secular dictator and pre-war Iraq was not a fundamentalist state by any stretch of the imagination – on the contrary, while it was a repressive police state, the police were not used to enforce Shariah, but rather to squash political opposition (that includes the rise of fundamentalist opposition). AQ is a fundamentalist organization which considers even the Saudi regime to be overly secular. It’s not a distortion to say that the two entities are natural enemies. Of course, as I stated in my earlier comment, all the multitude of disparate groups in the Mideast can find common ground in bashing America…that’s the main reason they bash America – they get street credibility for it. And to the extent that Iraq and AQ were both happy about 9/11, probably hinges on that. Saddam has been in a pissing match with the US since Kuwait. I’m not surprised he didn’t go out of his way to help us arrest al-Qaeda members. That doesn’t mean that the two weren’t fundamentally at odds with each other. If you think about it, it is obvious that they are. It seems more likely to me that al-Qaeda viewed that Iraqi invasion as an opportunity (opening up Iraq), than as a setback. I’m not trying to distort or rewrite history here, I’m trying to take an honest look at the different interest groups involved in the situation.
2:26 pm
[...] Iraq is a mess, a failure. For background, previous posts are here, here, and here, and this by Rick Moran. Taking as a given that it is a mess, a failure, and if we want to ask “What should we do next?” then we should put forth some explanation of what kind of failure it has been, and use that to help think about ‘what next.’ [...]
2:49 pm
Andy,
I apologize if I came off rude in the initial response to your comments.
As I said before, I’ve spent 3 years on this issue and literally thousands of hours. It is the ONLY issue I read about and I’ve read about it obsessively (ask my girlfriend) and read everything out there on the subject.
The notion that the two sides would cooperate because of an ideological block has been made to me so many times that I just did an entire post on it at my site (linked below). Basically, that’s the mentality the intelligence community had (dangerously) in the years building up to the invasion of Iraq. Because they were so “sure” that Iraq wouldn’t work with al Qaeda they didnt even feel the need to seriously monitor that situation.
That being said, there are HUNDREDS of al Qaeda and Baathist detainees in custody who have talked about the two sides cooperating. When responsible for protecting a country (particularly post 9-11) it’s unbelievably dangerous to just say “Oh, those two have different ideologies and they wouldnt assist each other in attacking us, Ok, nevermind then, I’ll leave him alone.” I find that mentality dangerous to the point of being infuriating.
I’ll ask you again, because I’ve seen enough evidence to be fairly certain about the answer, where did al Qaeda get their CBW manuals and know how?
Their actual cooperation means far more to me than what the two sides thought of each other, and it should mean far more to anyone looking at the issue.
Link http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/06/saddam_husseins_regime_and_isl/
I also have a piece planned for the next few days discussing the plans for attacks on the U.S. and it’s allies that Saddam had attempted in 2002/2003, which for some reason have been swept under the rug.
2:52 pm
B Poster,
Fair enough on your comments.
I am not saying that because of one certain thing or another we HAD to invade Iraq but I think the argument is incomplete if Saddam’s sponsorship of terrorists, (including the thousands trained in his state run camps) is left out.
3:00 pm
The serious plan for invasion and occuptation under General Zinni assumed enough troops to impose order, secure ammunition dumps and borders and all the rest.
It also assumed that rebuilding must start quickly because we did not have the forces to mantain an occupation for long.
However as you will recall little effort was made to begn rebuilding; experienced individuals were not used, instead recinstruction was managed by rcent college graduates whose resumes were listed at Heritage Foundation thus ensuring political correctness, 20 billion in Iraqi oil for food money went primarily to American corporations and was refused to Iraqi companies because these were stil government owned, the goal was capitalism. the prode of our rebilding was was hat 28 million was distributed to army commanders in the first six months for local rebuilding. Garner’s people had started negotiatins with officers representing a hundred thousand troops but this was broken by Bremer who iniatially tried to stop paychecks to old officers.
We blew the “honeymoon” that expers said we had and as Shineski reminded us we don’t have a 12+ division army.
In your magical world we may have troops to do anything, but Rumsfeld doesn’t like ground forces. They are 20 billion short of basic equipment since that isn’t particularly juicy pork and as these entry points out they are already overextended.
http://festersplace.blogspot.com/2006/08/future-troop-availaibility-for-iraq.htm
We don’t have forces for your grand plan.
5:13 pm
[...] A week ago, I wrote that the United States needed a commitment to win in Iraq, rather than playing not to lose, or we should get out of the country. Rick Moran said much the same thing in his essay from yesterday. However, the Iraqis still show that they have committed to self-government and the rule of law, even in the difficult province of Anbar: More than 500 Iraqi men have joined the police in restive Anbar province — a focal point of the Sunni Arab insurgency — in the most successful recruiting drive in the region by U.S. and Iraqi forces, the U.S. military said Tuesday. …U.S. Marines screened thousands of applicants earlier this month in various regions along the western Euphrates River valley before shortlisting the recruits for the Anbar police force, said a statement by the U.S. command. [...]
5:30 pm
Mark
I agree. Saddam’s active support of terrorism has to be included in any objective analysis. Even the Clinton Administration talked extensively about this. By not including this in the analysis, the msm does the Aemrican people a disservice.
I’m not so sure we had to invade Iraq when we did or that we should have. The decision was made. It is to late to undo it. I would at least like to see us devote the necessary resources to give us a chance to achieve an allied, stable, and democratic Iraq. Whether or not Iraq ends up as a democracy will ultimately be up to the Iraqis, however, an allied and stable Iraq is something we can achieve, if we will make the commitment.
Ultimately we should be a defender of liberty everywhere but we can only guarantee our own. The additional commitment to Iraq should be done in a manner consistent with American national security.
5:35 pm
Julie
We clearly messed up significant parts of the post war occupation. You are also right about the ground forces. It will take some time to get them built up to where they need to be. Even if they are not to be used for Iraq, they will likely be needed elsewhere. The Air Force and the Navy seem to be okay but they can only do so much. If we make the commitment to the ground forces, we should still be able to achieve an allied and democratic Iraq but as is the theme of Rick’s post, if we are unwilling to make the commitment, then we should pull out now.
5:35 pm
B. Poster,
Very true. I just think the idea of seeing a welcoming public (thankful for Saddam’s removal) was involved in the planning and thus lowered the (or so they thought) need for more troops. Big mistake that, as Rick said, deserved addressing long ago.
I still think Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and the Saudis have a lot to lose if Iraq goes bad and better get in there and help.
8:26 pm
The serious plan for invasion and occuptation under General Zinni assumed enough troops to impose order, secure ammunition dumps and borders and all the rest
This assertion is among the more silly commonly made. Imposing order is not a question of numbers; the French put far higher relative numbers of troops into Algeria and not only failed to impose order but actually lost the war. Having a bigger footprint might have just created a lot more resentment, a lot more casualties, and resulted in us being much worse off. And there’s no question we’d have had far more logistical problems and spent a lot more taxpayer money doing it that way, both of which make conflicts more difficult to sustain. The commanders on the ground decide troop levels.
Anyway, foreign troops make terrible policemen; they don’t speak the language, don’t know the locals’ routines, and usually don’t stick around in one place for more than a year or so. Imposition of order is a responsibility of local institutions, which is why we’re training all these ISF. What Iraq needs is time to develop those institutions. As was mentioned in the military briefing today, troops can only carry out suppression of existential threats to those institutions, to provide space for them to develop.
8:36 pm
Rick,
Regarding your update:
Yes Dave, our policy will be a success when we are able to draw down the bulk of our troops and we are farther from that today than we were at the beginning of the year
Well, I’ve made the first point myself before. The second is simply not true, by the estimation of every military official, Iraqi or American, I’ve heard speak on the issue. Read the Iraq Index; we have vastly larger numbers of ISF trained, even leaving aside the fact we now have a constitution and a constitutionally elected government, neither of which existed a year ago. Much more reconstruction has been completed. The institutions of government are better-established. Yes, the sectarian violence is worse, but that has ebbed and flowed in Iraq for decades; we do not control it and to imagine we do is both hubristic and self-defeating.
8:49 pm
“What I do find insane is the tendency of both Republicans and Democrats to underestimate American power.”
What I find insane is that so many commenters here have learned NOTHING from Israel’s overestimation of its own military power in fighting guerrilla warfare. How many times do you have to make the same mistake???
What I find insane is that so many commenters here have learned NOTHING from the US installation of the Shah in Iran in the 70s. Do you STILL not understand that if the US goes in and uses force to install a pro-Western leader over a populist govt in Iran, it will FOMENT exactly the kind of Islamic fundamentalism you do NOT want? DO you still not understand the origins of Ayatollah Khomeini???
The Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan. If the Bush admin can find a way to turn two bad places into even worse ones (Afghanistan now supplies most of the world’s opiates, Iraq has more violent deaths than under Saddam), then what makes you think it can now magically do more in Iraq???
Do you still think the US can accomplish something constructive in Iraq NOW, when the number of daily attacks is up to 90, when it couldn’t do it when daily attacks were less than half that??? When the IEDs are more sophisticated now, and when the Iranians have great influence there??? Do you think that after the US burned through a few hundred billion dollars (you have to include the $30B of Iraqi funds mismanaged too), it can now spend 3-4 times that to get something done???
I find it INSANE that even when the president of the US, on nat’l TV, says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, there are still some dead-enders who just can’t admit that’s true? Why would the Bush admin HIDE that info? It’s insane to believe that Iraq had anything of any substance to do with Al Qaeda. The US, with its Afghanistan connections to propel AQ against the USSR, has had WAY more supportive connections with AQ than Iraq. The US funded and helped train bin Laden’s people
Sure, it was to defeat the USSR, but still, there it is.
And now, the Bush admin falls right into bin Laden’s trap. Iraq is to the US what Lebanon was to Israel in the 90s, what Afghanistan was to Soviet Russia.
Occupations are terribly messy bloody affairs, and the occupied nearly always prevail.
9:14 pm
Here’s what mainlining the Kool-Aid can do to you. TallDave winds up and pitches:
“Read the Iraq Index; we have vastly larger numbers of ISF trained, even leaving aside the fact we now have a constitution and a constitutionally elected government, neither of which existed a year ago. Much more reconstruction has been completed. The institutions of government are better-established.”
Complete and utter HORSESHIT. Sure, the numbers say more are trained—but they neglect to tell you that a portion of those we are training and arming are now death squads, and some are probably aiding insurgents. Sure there is a constitution, but the inherent flaws in it are pushing the country apart as much as holding it together. The funds for reconstruction are pretty much gone, and the situation so much more dangerous in many cases, so it doesn’t much matter if projects are at 20% or 35% done—they aren’t likely to get finished.
The reconstruction failure is a textbook case of cronyism, corruption, and lack of accountability and oversight. In other words, it’s a typical Republican use of gov’t funds, channeled to donors and insiders, all political patronage and damn the results. And it was PLANNED that way, because repubs resisted all efforts by Dems to put accountability into the funding bills. Even the outright fraud by Custer Battles did not result in jailtime, as I recall, because the system doesn’t allow prosecution, even of clear obvious THEFT.
And your solution is to commit MORE, when the same people are in charge?
Absolutely insane.
11:44 pm
Tubino,
Go to the Brookings Foundations study on deaths per day now vs. under Saddam. It’s far LESS now. I know your emotion won’t allow you to believe so but it is true.
What in the world does not having operational control of 9-11 have to do with not assisting al Qaeda on other operations? You libs are supposed to be so nuanced, why can’t you distinguish that al Qaeda is larger than the 12 guys who carried out 9-11, for instance,I’ve seen estimates in the tens of thousands from Democrats on the Senate intel committee, so forgive me if I don’t take your shallow argument about “either Saddam ran 9-11 or had no links to al Qaeda” very seriously. I don’t really think you even believe what you are saying or if you do you are an intellectual midget. I’ll assume it’s the former.
I see a ton of emotion in your response yet there’s a ton of facts about Saddam’s terror links that you are either ignorant of or can’t explain (detainee admission from both sides, documents confirming support, U.S. military finding the two sides fighting side by side in the early days of the war until today, etc.).
Either bring a decent argument to the table or just admit that you don’t really know what you are talking about and are just an angry and emotional about the war and let that raw emotion dominate your thinking.
I could literally spend hours documenting the links but I’ve got tired of doing it in comments sections and made my own site, http://www.regimeofterror.com, which is thoroughly cited and you can read all the original sources for yourself.
Or you can read this
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004954.php
http://www.husseinandterror.com
The info is there if you ever take down the emotional barrier
12:03 am
TallDave,
I agree with some of what you say, but you leave out important details that have long-term implications. Specifically, loyalty of the newly created ISF and military forces. If these units are loyal to the central government, particularly after we leave Iraq, then yes, everything you say is true. However, the reality is that their loyalty is suspect because of historic emphasis on tribal/religious/ethnic affiliation as well as infiltration and subversion by 3rd parties, primarily Shia militants. Additionally, there are many reports of armed men dressed in Iraqi Police uniforms kidnapping and murdering scores of people. It’s not clear if these are rogue members of ISF units or simply militants with ISF uniforms. But to the general population, especially the Sunnis, the distinction matters little because it breeds distrust of the ISF and therefore the central government. As a result, the populations’ loyalty remains with their faction rather than the government.
So there are two issues here that must be resolved for your scenario to happen and it all comes down to loyalty: The ISF must have demonstrable loyalty to the central governemnt, and the population must have a modicum of trust in the ISF - at least enough to know they will not be their murder victims. In both cases the situation looks pretty grim. If these two issues are not resolved, then there certainly will be additional civil disorder if not civil war once we leave.
My personal opinion is that Iraq will end up like Lebanon in many ways – a weak central government with armed factions it cannot control. It’s already like that with the Kurds, who de facto independent. Open civil war will certainly occur should we leave soon. All around it’s not a pretty picture.
1:11 am
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
4:57 am
Watching the weasels and other stuff
This week’s Watcher’s Council nominations are out: The Sundries Shack demands the release of Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and his cameraman Olaf Wiig who were kidnapped in Lebanon nearly two weeks ago by parties unknown? The PA can’t or won’t d…
6:30 am
Tubino,
We know how and why the 911 attacks succeeded, but do you know why they were set in motion? It’s not like GWB invaded Iraq and caused attacks on the US homeland. The attacks were set in motion for a reason-what? (back to that in a moment)...Perhaps you could explain why Al Queda was revived after the Soviet’s pulled out of Afghanistan?
ok, look, the answer is Iraq-wait! Before anyone wigs out on leftist rants, please hear me out.
Al Queda’s post-Soviet pissing points were:
Presence of US forces in Saudi (waging air war on Iraq)
US-lead blockade/sanctions on Iraq
and of course the obligatory rant about the US supporting jews
Now, ask yourself again, why was the 911 attack set in motion?
First see when it was set in motion-that’ll help.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/
and what did Al Queda claim was the cause?
“On December 18, 1998, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Vanguards of Conquest had issued a new threat, stating in part that the group will not be “satisfied with the empty statements of condemnation that we are used to hearing from [Arab] regimes. We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment.” The statement was signed by the Vanguards of Conquest’s secretary general, Abduallah Mansour [an alias for Al Queda’s #2 man and strategic planner, Dr Ayaman al Zawahiri]. It was published in the al-Hayat on December 19, 1998.”
Still doubt they’d work together? Ok. Read pg 61 of the 911 Commission report that clearly says UBL wanted to work with Saddam, and Saddam wanted to work with UBL. Problem was there was no intel at all on Iraq between 1998 and 911, so the Sen Intel Com report said there needs to be more evidence researched. Since then, several 911 Commission members have said the new intel found in the invasion indicates a closer relationship than thought, and it should be re-examined.
6:53 am
Just a couple quick points.
First, some of you believe that—for reasons you apparently can’t reveal—the Bush admin is sitting on all this revealing evidence, and in fact is DENYING the Iraq-AQ connection. That’s the clearest evidence that you either believe in some crazy conspiracy theory, or are denying the obvious.
Second, even if you are 100% correct about the connection of Iraq-AQ, then it only STRENGTHENS the idea that bin Laden hoped to lure the US into invading Iraq, where AQ could do to the US what it did to the USSR in Afghanistan. In other words, if you are right, then it means the Bush invasion of Iraq was even STUPIDER and more self-destructive than it initially appeared. Or at least that the evidence that it was stupid and counter-productive was even more convincing.
It does not justify what happened, at all, and it does not support the idea that continuing in a failed direction is a good idea.
Saddam was contained prior to the invasion.
AQ was working with LOTS of people around the globe, and in many countries much more than with Iraq, even accepting ALL your evidence. Using this evidence (denied by the Bush admin, remember)to justify a military invasion in Iraq (while ignoring AQ in Saudi Arabia etc etc) is to wear convenient blinders.
Take off the blinders. AQ was lots of places. Iraq was a minor one at most, and the only one that was really contained. The invasion has opened it up to AQ like it never was before.
Why is that a good thing?
7:40 am
The Bush Admin’s not sitting on any evidence. Their PR has always been abyssmal. C’mon, Scott McClellan? Nope. I just pointed out quotes from the 911 Commission. How is that sitting on evidence? I pointed out links to ABC news reports that are confirmed by the Sen Intel Com investigation into Iraq intel…how is that sitting on anything? It’s not.
Now, this idea that UBL wanted to lure the US into Iraq is baseless. Everyone agrees that he didn’t expect the US to react to 911 the way it did-he expected another reaction similar to the USS Cole (nothing) or the African Embassy Bombings (a few missiles).
Now, claiming that invading Iraq to fight Al Queda on a battlefield of America’s choosing is what’s stupid. That’s like saying Japan bombed America, so let’s go invade Morocco, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, France, and Belgium. It ignores the bigger picture.
Continuing in a failed direction? Ignoring the foolhardiness of the claim, what’s option B? Runaway and let things in Iraq get worse? Good plan.
Al Queda did work with lots of people and groups around the globe-it’s their specialty; coordination and cooperation between various affiliates and state sponsors.
The raving about the US should’ve invaded country X, Y, Z instead is faulted because AQ’s gripes were predominately with the US war on Iraq.
Oh, and I love that part about containment. Containment is a strategy for use against conventional forces. It’s as useful a counter-terrorism strategy as a naval blockade of Afghanistan. How well did containment work against Afghanistan on 91101?
Why was it a good thing to invade Iraq? Because removing dictators is always a good thing. Because it prevented Saddam from restarting his wmd programs and making fresh wmd in months, weeks, days, or hours. Because it created a battlefield of America’s choosing rather than UBL’s. Because it’s draining the region of it’s terrorists and terrorist wannabes. and many reasons more
The only blinders on are the ones from people who ignore that the US was waging war on Iraq from 91-03, and that this is why Al Queda was revived, this is why the 911 attacks were set in motion, and this is why Iraq has been and is the central issue for the war on terror.
7:55 am
Tubino,
Did you even read my previous comments or are you just so angry and emotional and stuck in your mindset that its NOT POSSIBLE in your head that the two sides overlapped in some cooperation that you either ignore all the evidence, don’t know about it or just discount it all for some odd reason?
Bush discounted the 9-11 connection not an overall connection.
I am done replying to you though because you can’t even be honest with yourself. There’s no way that you don’t understand the separation of 9-11 and other al Qaeda activity. NOT EVERYONE IN AL QAEDA EVEN KNEW ABOUT THE PLOT. The guys within the plot didn’t know about each other and the guys within each cell didn’t even know their destinations yet you expect me to believe that all of the 10,000 members of al Qaeda are supposed to know every detail of every member of al Qaeda and what states the received support from?
I have no idea how you can justify such a position to yourself and I frankly don’t want to know. It’s just getting old to see the same stale arguments from people who aren’t even sincere.
8:09 am
It’s ironic that when people say “no ties” and they refer to GWB’s comments about Iraq not being part of 911, or when they refer to Colin Powell saying he saw no evidence of collaboration, or the 911 Commision saying no ties, or the Sen Intel Com saying no evidence of ties…all of those comments rely on HALF the quote.
For example,
When Pres Bush said Iraq was not involved in 911, the first half of that sentence has him saying that “we know there was a relationship, but…” Ok, so back in 04 there was no evidence of involvement in the attacks, but there was a relationship. Why’s this important…because it’s “lack of evidence”(more on that later)
When Colin Powell said he saw no evidence of collaboration, he continued on to say that he believed there was a relationship and that the intel supports that idea.
When the 911 Comm and Sen Intel Com both said there was a lack of evidence, they BOTH continued on to say that the reason for the lack of evidence was a lack of intel(evidence) gathering from 98-01. In fact, we know from both that monitoring of AQ prior to 911 never numbered more than 40 people and averaged only 4! As bad is the comment from the Sen Intel Com that after 98 there were ZERO human intel assets reporting on Iraq. No one collecting evidence=no evidence.
HOWEVER, both the Sen Intel Com and the 911 Commission specifically say that the lack of evidence means that the issue should remain OPEN-not closed, and that it was not the final word, and since then several 911 Comm members and Senate as well as House members have said that new evidence should be re-examined as the depth of the relationship is now showing itself to have been more than just tacit ties.
Whether one believes that Iraq asked AQ to conduct the attacks or that the attacks were set off in response/sympathy for the US war on Iraq…the fact is that Iraq was the problem, and if Saddam had been removed in 91 or between 91 and 01…Al Queda never would have been revived, and 911 never would’ve happened-let alone the entire GWOT. Without Saddam’s Iraq and the war on him…the attacks and the war never would have happened.
9:19 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Iraq: Commit or Quit†[...]
9:25 am
Waterloo wasn’t a retreat. It was a strategic redeployment.
It’s this simple,
right now, Al Queda is in Iraq
America is at war with Al Queda
America must stay in Iraq and fight Al Queda
This BS about civil war pops up every 4-6 months. What kind of a civil war pits 15-20,000 insurgents against 270,000 ISF and 140,000 Coalition forces? Total civil war apparently equals 1/2800 Iraqis rising up to saw off heads. AND WOW are they effective-those 20k insurgents are about to crush a force 40x their size. uh-huh.
I don’t deny there’s violence there, but it’s hardly a civil war when the enemy is outnumbered 40:1 or more, and it’s hardly a rebellion of any sort if it’s less than 1/2000 of the population.
10:41 am
Mark said, “Go to the Brookings Foundations study on deaths per day now vs. under Saddam. It’s far LESS now. I know your emotion won’t allow you to believe so but it is true.”
Mark, there are many ways to count deaths: natural deaths, violent deaths, or you can add the two, then compare to only one. Apples, oranges, old age, execution-style shots to the head.
You want numbers? Forget biased thinktanks. Try these:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/latest-iraq-resistance-stats.html
If you get your head out of Stephen Hayes’ rearend for a while and try some reality-based claims, you’ll have to rearrange your ideas.
“I am done replying to you though because you can’t even be honest with yourself. There’s no way that you don’t understand the separation of 9-11 and other al Qaeda activity. NOT EVERYONE IN AL QAEDA EVEN KNEW ABOUT THE PLOT.”
You’re all about smoke and mirrors. None of that is relevant to justifying the lying, the counterproductive invasion, or the supposed coverup by the Bush admin on all this. Do you understand? IT DOES NOT MATTER if there were some connections. AQ was global, had stronger connections elsewhere, now has a golden opporutnity in Iraq, and openly said their only hope was to lure Bush into an occupation of a Muslim country. This isn’t hindsight—it was the basis for the famous cover of Harper’s with Bin Laden as Uncle Sam, saying I WANT YOU … TO INVADE IRAQ!
And Bush gave bin Laden his wish. Now you’re flying around, citing all kinds of bogus stuff the White House is distancing itself from, and wondering why you’re not taken seriously.
“The Bush Admin’s not sitting on any evidence. Their PR has always been abyssmal. C’mon, Scott McClellan? Nope. I just pointed out quotes from the 911 Commission. How is that sitting on evidence? I pointed out links to ABC news reports that are confirmed by the Sen Intel Com investigation into Iraq intel…how is that sitting on anything? It’s not.”
What you cite is the circle jerk of stories planted by Cheney’s WH gang through people like Judy in the NYT, picked up elsewhere, never verified, like all the WMD stories.
You cite stories citing reports citing unnamed witnesses (discredited by the CIA). The WH is not just doing bad PR, it is distancing itself from this BS, while happy to have it out there via Limbaugh etc. Why does it work? Because people like you will believe it.
If it were true, the WH would be citing it chapter and verse, all the time.
10:46 am
Here’s a link to the bin Laden, I want you to invade Iraq poster:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/democracy.html
Even before the invasion, it was no secret that bin Laden would gain if the US took the bait.
Remarkable what can vanish down the memory hole, but a large number of the anti-war protesters were saying that invading Iraq would make the US LESS safe.
And that’s just what happened. Imagine a world where some of those who were RIGHT about Iraq actually got some air time on the pundit shows. Half the country was against invading—why can’t they find anyone to put on TV now?
11:02 am
Back from the memory hole, here’s a piece from Sept 2002:
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020929gene1.asp
I’d like to hear Sam Pender’s reaction. There it was, back in 2002, the predictions that came true. How many shows have you seen where they brought that poster, and the people who created it or even just believed in it, to explain why they were right?
Does it make you made to realize that Bush fell into OBL’s trap? Join the rest of us.
11:27 am
UBL knew Iraq was going to be invaded just like the rest of the world saw it coming since 98.
Wow, you are really on to something now…...
11:35 am
Mark,
Try to grasp this simple concept: Bush did not have to invade Iraq, but hd did invade Iraq, despite it being clear to many many people that this woudl be playing into OBL’s hands. This information was so compelling that a major magazine put it on their cover, columns were written, and the Bush admin smeared everyone they could, and did it anyway.
And so it happened, and 5 years after 9-11, Bush has managed to strengthen AQ. And in the face of this, your reaction is to say that somehow this catastrophic stupidity in the face of evidence shows that Bush was RIGHT somehow??? When your own argument is that AQ was THERE only means it was even dumber to do what he did?
You have some powerful powerful delusional drugs.
11:45 am
Mark, forgot to ask: what point do you think you’re making with all this AQ stuff?
MY point all along has been that the US likelihood of success in Iraq was very very low all along, and that this isn’t hindsight but rather what millions of us thought at the time, in 2002.
Those coming to the realization now, like Rick, might as well face what we saw then.
12:04 pm
What is my point in the AQ stuff?
Correcting an error that is made by you and others on a daily basis.
I have said I am far more sure about Saddam’s support for them than I am about the invasion. People can make up their own minds about whether or not we should have invaded but should make that decision based upon honest alternatives.
What would Iraq be doing now if we hadn’t invaded?
Where would Zarqawi be? Would Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam still be smuggling poisons and cw into Europe and elsewhere?
Would they be attempted to, and having the capability to, kill 80,000 people like they tried in Jordan in 2004?
Would Saddam be free of sanctions now?
The options weren’t “Go to war” or “Remain at peace” as so many have tried to simplify this down to. The options were take out Saddam and the rest of the scumbags holed up in his country or just play defense with the NON - CONVENTIONAL attacks being launched from inside Iraq.
12:27 pm
Tubino,
You were right about Brookings being biased. They are a liberal think tank, aka not pro Bush, that’s why I cited them.
Tubino,
all my sources are discredited? Nice try but your argument is just so shallow.
I’ve spoken with Clintonistas, and cited them at my site, foreign intelligence agencies, Kurds, and cited for you quite a bit of intelligence that’s made it’s way through bipartisan investigations.
You just want to not see the links and you’ve reached your position not through logic, but emotion, and thus using logic to get you out of it obviously won’t work. Good luck in your willfully ignorant endevours.
1:56 pm
Wow, talk about a circle jerk…
Searched all over for a quote from UBL showing he’d love the US to remove Saddam, and you couldn’t find one, so ya found a cute cover from Harper’s that’d let you beat your chest with faux-I-told-you-so’s.
Where does Bin Laden express his desire to have the US invade Iraq(I could give a crap about what Harper’s or some columnist said in 02 about invading Iraq)? answer: he doesn’t.
“What you cite is the circle jerk of stories planted by Cheney’s WH gang through people like Judy in the NYT, picked up elsewhere, never verified, like all the WMD stories.
You cite stories citing reports citing unnamed witnesses (discredited by the CIA). The WH is not just doing bad PR, it is distancing itself from this BS, while happy to have it out there via Limbaugh etc. Why does it work? Because people like you will believe it.
If it were true, the WH would be citing it chapter and verse, all the time.”
I didn’t cite a single thing from Judy or stories about stories about un-named sources. I cited the 911 Commission pg 61, and I refer to the Sen Intel Com investigation into pre-war intel on Iraq.
The conspiracy theory that VP Cheney somehow manipulated intel and news etc was investigated a half dozen times and found to be a false accusation.
Here’s a good one for you…
“, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. ”
-Nov 1998 Clinton Admin indictment of Osama Bin Laden sec 4
Care to explain how VP Cheney put that in there?
Or maybe you still think that the reports of ties between Al Queda and Iraq were all a Bush Admin neocon cabal, but if so…then could you explain this 1999 ABC News report:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
I doubt it.
Quote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders†during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
-911 Comm pg61
Quote:
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
-911 Comm final report pg 61
As I said earlier, no evidence was described as the result of a near complete lack of intel gathering on Al Queda from 98-01, and a complete lack of intel gathering on Iraq from 98-01. Both the 911 Comm and the Sen Intel Com said that because of this lack of intel gathering, the question of Saddam’s ties to Al Queda should be left OPEN-not closed. Since then, more information has been collected in the GWOT and now the 911 Comm, the Sen Intel Com, and the House Intel Com all want to re-evaluate Saddam’s Ties as the evidence points to a deeper relationship.
Interesting how you didn’t discuss my numbers on Iraq.
Outnumbered 40:1 militarily+Outnumbered 2800:1 in population=victory for insurgents?
If it’s bad there now, imagine how bad it’d be if the US left, and tell us all how that’s better.
2:12 pm
Wow, you still don’t get it.
Even if you’re right, Mark, it’s irrelevant. And even if you’re right, there were a dozen other nations with stronger AQ ties, and some posed and still pose bigger terrorist problems.
Why is that hard to understand? You didn’t even try to refute that, even though it means you’re just blowing smoke here.
Sam can’t read the graph on insurgent activity, and he doesn’t realize that by his numbers, the US won in Vietnam, and Israel never pulled out of Lebanon. Sam doesn’t understand insurgent activity.
2:14 pm
“Where does Bin Laden express his desire to have the US invade Iraq(I could give a crap about what Harper’s or some columnist said in 02 about invading Iraq)? answer: he doesn’t.”
It would be funny if it weren’t tragic.
Too bad you can’t read the links I posted.
I give up.
2:21 pm
Tubino,
First al Qaeda had NO LINKS to Iraq then those links were irrelevant.
Which country had stronger links and what course of action do you recommend for those countries?
You never answered my question , a very important one, “Who gave Ansar al Islam and al Qaeda in Afghanistan the CBW manuals know-how for cyanide, ricin, sarin and vx?”
Please answer the question.
2:30 pm
“If it’s bad there now, imagine how bad it’d be if the US left, and tell us all how that’s better.”
If it was bad last year, and worse in January, and worse in March, and worse in June, and still worse in August,... it’s getting WORSE. See the graph I linked.
Tell us all how getting worse is really getting better. Be sure to tell us HOW.
2:31 pm
I’ve read the Brookings rpts
My numbers come from them.
I like the part about my not reading your links too. That’s a good one. I did-never found a quote from UBL expressing a desire to wage war in Iraq. On the contrary, he expressed nothing but desire that the US stop waging war on Iraq-it was the primary and secondary reasons for reviving Al Queda.
What you don’t seem to understand is that there were extensive ties between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Queda BEFORE 911, before the second invasion in 03. US Marines ran into foreign terrorists by the thousands. The 3rd ID ran into as many as 16,000 Syrians in Baghdad.
Were there other countries with more ties to Al Queda after 911? Saudi and Pakistan had lots of AQ in their countries, but turned around and started rounding them up by the thousands after 911. No need to invade since they chose the lady not the lion. How about UAE? US forces are all over that place now. How about Djibouti? Same thing. How about Philippines? US Forces went in and fought-err, advised there. How about Georgia, Chechnya, etc.? Same deal again. Only Iraq required invasion-particularly since there were so many other reasons that when combined made it not only necessary, but inevitable.
Like I said earlier,
If Saddam had been removed in 1991, then Al Queda never would have been revived, 911 wouldn’t have happened, and there’d be not GWOT.
If Pres Clinton had removed Saddam instead of waging a half-hearted effort every 6 months, then Al Queda never would have grown to power through inept and impotent responses used to recruit, and thus Al Queda would have fallen by the wayside.
You’ve got to look at the bigger picture instead of excuses to avoid a war that was not avoidable. Anyone who’s seen the pictures in the ISG report can see that quite clearly-inspections couldn’t work in 2003 the way they did eight years earlier. Without inspections, there was no way to prove Saddam had disarmed. Without proof of disarmament, he had to be removed. All other means of regime change had been tried and failed on increasingly bad levels-leaving invasion as the last resort.
Why stay in Iraq after the invasion? To draw in all the terrorists and terrorist wannabes in the region-it’s smack dab in the middle. Add to that the devastating blow to the Arab Nation Caliphate movement by supporting a democracy that can serve as another proxy fighter for the US in the gwot.
These are facts that funny little posters and excuses just don’t knock down.
4:17 pm
Neither of you have answered the simple questions:
why is the WH distancing itself from the Iraq-AQ claims?
What difference do the claims make now?
If invading Iraq was clearly a trap for the US, why support those who fell for it?
How many Iraqis were on the 9-11 planes? Where did most of the AQ members in Afghanistan come from?
Now that the US fell for the trap, why do you want to pour more resources into something getting worse?
If you think things are getting better, how do you explain the increasing number of attacks on coalition forces, apart from the civil war?
Do you realize that your incessant wankering on details keeps you from the simple questions about accountability, responsbility, and a plan for the future?
4:20 pm
“If Pres Clinton had removed Saddam instead of waging a half-hearted effort every 6 months, then Al Queda never would have grown to power through inept and impotent responses used to recruit, and thus Al Queda would have fallen by the wayside.”
yeah, and if the 1998 attacks in Iraq hadn’t succeeded, Saddam probably would have had WMDs.
And if Bush I had invaded to Baghdad, ... then what? Clinton wouldn’t have inherited that mess? Is that your take?
And if Bush II hadn’t committed the biggest blunder, the next president would have a ready military, half a trillion less debt, and the ability to deal with Iran and Korea.
Nice game we’re playing here.
4:34 pm
tubino
you cherry picked his comments. he hasn’t “distanced himself from the links”
It’s, as I said earlier, intellectually dishonest and/or incredibly stupid to take the statement “Saddam didn’t run 9-11” and turn that into “Saddam had no links to al Qaeda”
What Bush says, or doesnt say, about an issue really has no bearing on whether or not its true, though it’s curious that you view everything through a political prism like that.
You are all over the place with your other comments.
I’ll ask a THIRD time. Where did Ansar al Islam and al Qaeda in Afghanistan get their CBW manuals?
4:36 pm
LOL, the Iraq war was a trap for the U.S., set by bin Laden?
That’s a good one. First time I’ve heard that one. Good one.
5:30 pm
Yeah, that cute graphic from Harper’s is damning evidence that UBL set a trap to get the US to invade Iraq-how’d he trick the US into invading Iraq exactly? Oh…he wanted to get the US to invade Iraq so he put Saudis on the planes, had them trained in Iran, and paid for by the UAE. Yep-good plan.
Again…where’s a single quote from UBL saying he wanted the US to invade Iraq? An important question since Al Queda’s primary and secondary reason for being revived was in DEFENSE of Iraq.
The White House hasn’t distanced itself at all from the fact that there’s a relationship. What-are you gonna suddently START believing GBW’s word? I’ll take that of a bi-partisan committee and an independent bi-partisan committee over his any day.
You’ve presented as much evidence that UBL wanted the US to invade Iraq as there is evidence that Howard Dean wanted the US to invade Iraq.
11:44 pm
turbino….
“Try to grasp this simple concept: Bush did not have to invade Iraq, but hd did invade Iraq, despite it being clear to many many people that this woudl be playing into OBL’s hands. This information was so compelling that a major magazine put it on their cover, columns were written, and the Bush admin smeared everyone they could, and did it anyway.”
It is a simple concept….unfortunate that so many cannot grasp it…dont waste your time trying to reason with them….the replies that you will continue to get remind me of something Confucius once said: “Better for fool to keep mouth shut than to open it and remove all doubt”...
OBL had hoped to draw us into a protracted war in Afganistan, but failed to do so. Did we quit while we were ahead??? Of course not…he didn’t even have to do anything in Iraq and got exactly what he wanted….
And unquestionably…the world is LESS SECURE….
If you haven’t already read it, I thought that you might be interested in this article written by James K. Galbraith in November, 2002…..before the invasion of Iraq…you can find it at:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/galbraith-j.html
6:26 am
Where is a quote from UBL saying he’d like the US to invade Iraq?
Where is that in the 911 Commission report?
Where is it in any of the Sen Intel Com reports?
Where is it in Steve Coll’s, Ghost Wars?
Where is it in Bergen’s books on UBL?
1:07 pm
Where is a quote from UBL saying he’d like the US to invade Iraq?
Where is that in the 911 Commission report?
Where is it in any of the Sen Intel Com reports?
Where is it in Steve Coll’s, Ghost Wars?
Where is it in Bergen’s books on UBL?
Here’s your quote:
Iraqi ‘brothers’
“O mujahideen brothers in Iraq, do not be afraid of what the United States is propagating in terms of their lies about their power and their smart, laser-guided missiles.
The smart bombs will have no effect worth mentioning in the hills and in the trenches, on plains, and in forests.
They must have apparent targets. The well-camouflaged trenches and targets will not be reached by either the smart or the stupid missiles.
There will only be haphazard strikes that dissipate the enemy ammunition and waste its money. Dig many trenches.
The [early Muslim caliph] Umar, may God be pleased with him, stated: “Take the ground as a shield because this will ensure the exhaustion of all the stored enemy missiles within months.”
Their daily production is too little and can be dealt with, God willing.
We also recommend luring the enemy forces into a protracted, close, and exhausting fight, using the camouflaged defensive positions in plains, farms, mountains, and cities.
The enemy fears city and street wars most, a war in which the enemy expects grave human losses.”
Sounds a lot like he’s saying:
“BRING IT ON”
This is only one part of the full text of an audio message by Osama Bin Laden, broadcast on Arab television station al-Jazeera on 11 February, 2003, just before the Iraq invasion…....
The Bush administration believes the tape to almost certainly be genuine….
You can find the full text at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2751019.stm
1:15 pm
Bin Laden’s comments from Nov 2002 until the start of the war in Iraq told his followers it was “ok to work with socialists in these times” , socialists referring to Baathists.
He actually made numerous threats against the U.S. to NOT invade Iraq, which is the exact opposite of what Tubina has said.
2:32 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Iraq: Quit or Commit by Right Wing…
9:43 am
[...] The Watcher’s Council has announced its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week. The winning Council post Right Wing Nut House’s post, “Iraq: Quit or Commitâ€. I disagree that those are the alternatives but I can’t deny the power of the post. Second place honors went to Gates of Vienna for “The Nation-State vs. Anarchy and Imperialismâ€. These were the posts for which I voted this week so I’m quite gratified at this result. And a little surprised that my own rather dry submission received any votes at all. [...]
12:14 pm
Wow, that’s rich. Ask for a quote supporting the idea that UBL waged war on the US as a means of getting the US into Iraq, and all we get is rhetoric from days before the invasion was supposed to begin. That’s hardly indicative of an Al Queda strategy. At best, it just reaffirms that Al Queda was revived in sympathetic defense of the 1991-2003 US war on Iraq, and it reaffirms that Al Queda set the 911 plots in motion at least because of its sympathy for the 1991-2003 US war on Iraq:
“On December 18, 1998, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Vanguards of Conquest had issued a new threat, stating in part that the group will not be “satisfied with the empty statements of condemnation that we are used to hearing from [Arab] regimes. We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment.” The statement was signed by the Vanguards of Conquest’s secretary general, Abduallah Mansour [an alias for Al Queda’s #2 man and strategic planner, Dr Ayaman al Zawahiri]. It was published in the al-Hayat on December 19, 1998.”
Or at the direct behest of Iraq’s Intelligence Services:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
So, what IS the anti-war in Iraq position:
1) Al Queda “hated” Saddam’s Iraq but wanted the US to go there and fight-as demonstrated by the 2/03 quotes which show UBL’s support for Iraqis in that fight
OR
2) Al Queda was revived because of the 1991-2003 US war on Iraq (one which Saddam, Al Queda, UBL, the Iraqi people, and the Arab World all recognize, but anti-war protesters continue to ignore), and the 911 attacks were set in motion in continued sympathy or at the direct behest of Iraq’s intel services
Pick one-ya can’t have it both ways. One can’t say that UBL hated Saddam and Saddam hated UBL and the two would never work together (despite all the contradictory descriptions of desire to do just that by the 911 Comm), and at the same time claim that UBL’s whole purpose was to trick the US into invading Iraq.
Step up and pick one.
12:19 pm
In regards to quitting Iraq…what’s gained? Fewer American deaths? Hardly since the entire war with Al Queda is because of America’s war on Iraq from 1991-today, as well as previous examples of America’s cutting and running:
“After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return. ”
-Osama Bin Laden Interview with Peter Arnett Late March 1997
Fewer Iraqi deaths? Um, pardon me but lowering the number of security forces doesn’t translate well to lowering the number of killings. Would reducing the number of cops in NYC reduce the number of gangland/sectarian killings? nu-uh
Al Queda is in Iraq
America is at war with Al Queda in Iraq and elsewhere
America must stay and fight and support the ISF until the ISF is capable of being another American proxy fighter/ally in the GWOT.
Why not pull out of Afghanistan too? There’s still Al Queda there, still sectarian/warlord killings. Why not pull out?
11:09 am
The Council Has Spoken:
This week’s winning post was by Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House. Rick does not mention Vietnam in his post, but many of us old enough to remember would suggest that it was the attempt to fight the Vietnam
2:08 am
The Coalition of the Willing
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what we consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… though I don’t actually vote unless there happens…
4:48 am
Watcher’s Council Results
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Iraq: Quit or Commit by Right Wing Nut House, and Bad Faith by 3AM Magazine. Please click the link for the full results of the vote….
4:57 am
Of the council and carnivals 08/28/06
The Council has spoken. Top Council Pick – Right Wing Nuthouse’s Iraq: Quit or commit in which he argues that the Bush administration hasn’t been doing enough to win the war and has thus called the whole enterprise into question. He wants the adminis…
9:01 am
Watcher’s Council results, August 25
The Watcher’s Council spoke thusly last week: Iraq: Quit or Commit, Rick Moran insists: [A]s it stands now, we are at a psychological tipping point in Iraq where drastic measures are needed in order to turn the situation around and give the weak Iraqi…
9:56 pm
Haha, ok, ok, I just need to point out the sheer irony of tubino’s post:
‘You want numbers? Forget biased thinktanks. Try these:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/latest-iraq-resistance-stats.html’
Forget BIASED thinktanks, and then in response, gives a link to LENINOLOGY, a radical revolutionary socialist (read: Communist) website who wants to discredit and overthrow the government. Thank you, tubester, for giving me the best laugh I’ve had in weeks!
And then he and leaflet dropper spout their typical liberal drivel like ‘don’t try and reason with them’, with that tone of disdain that liberals carry for us ‘common folk.’ Honestly, screw you guys, move to China. I don’t want you in our country, and neither does anyone else.
5:08 am
I’ve been hearing this idea that we need to stay in iraq ‘as a staging area’ for action against iran. Now let’s say we do just that in early ‘07, here are the problems:
1. In order to have any real chance of succsessfully taking on iran would require about 90% of our forces currently in iraq now. It would be a de facto ‘abandonment of iraq’.
2. That would immediatly plunge us into the worst possible situation; A ‘Two-Front War’ with the need to establish a rear guard to prevent our enemies BEHIND US (iraqi shias) from overrunning our offensive positions.
3. By attacking iran from within iraq our forces will be in a ‘landlocked’ position. With the primary means of resupply of manpower and material being by air.
4. Rick Moran ‘’danced around’’ the other issue but I have no problem with saying it:
OUR ARMED FORCES ARE STRETCHED THIN. He noted that we are MOVING forces from areas that we have previously ‘cleared’ of the ‘insurgency’ in order to shore up our forces trying TO ESTABLISH some semblance of security in baghdad.
5. The iranians don’t NEED the NYT,CNN or ‘al-rueturs’ to tell them what is going on in iraq. They can see (and hear from their shia iraqi allies) it for themselves…
5:58 am
Krauthammer: Commit
A few weeks ago the winning entry of the Watcher’s Council was Right Wing Nuthouse’s Iraq: Quit or Commit. The argument (in a nutshell) presented was that the war in Iraq is not going well and therefore the Bush administration is obligated to do one …
12:30 am
Iraq roundup: The guess and wait policy
The Blue State
General John Abizaid says the scheduled troop reductions that were supposed to take place now will actually not end up happening until next spring at the very earliest. Of course, that’s what the Administration said last time, t…
3:10 pm
[...] But why bother with the rest if you’re not planning on finishing the job? It has been my contention for many months – spelled out most recently here – that if we are not going to attempt victory then it is immoral to ask our men and women to place themselves in harm’s way for some face saving solution. That’s the Kissinger Viet Nam formulation. I thought it stupid, wasteful and immoral at the time and still feel that way today. The only business government has in asking young men to die is in the cause of victory. Anything less is state sponsored murder. In a free society and even with an all volunteer army, national leaders should not use the lives of its young men to make geopolitical statements or “save face,” or prove how much suffering we can endure (as the Nixon-Kissinger logic went after they decided we couldn’t win). [...]