A Conservative Agenda: Part 1 of 5
Here’s a little ditty Alan gable writes today on An American Front Porch:
“Tom Delay wrote a little piece over at Townhall.com yesterday that broadly outlined a 5 point “conservative agenda”. Over the next 5 Fridays, I think I’ll direct my thoughts on each of these 5 and try to lay out what I think the conservative movement should be doing.
The first facet of a new conservative agenda is victory in the war on terror. No issue in this or any election, carries greater significance. The initial front of this war is the two-headed beast of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can all agree that a free and stable Iraq is in the best interest of the United States as well as the Iraqi people. What this President and each chief executive over the last 50 years has lacked is the willingness the break the enemy’s back. Lincoln had Sherman deal the knock out blow by means that seem to many like brutality. Can we forget Hiroshima/Nagasaki? This country has seemingly lost her willingness to finish. A conservative agenda should hinge on this idea; that we must end this war quickly and with victory. Conservative leaders, armed with Reagan’s sense of military strength, must lead this charge. My vision of this plan will be wildly unpopular at first and will require a great deal of persuasion but once implemented will be one of our finest hours (because there is nothing Americans love more than military victory).
Implementation of a short term draft would be necessary. Quick victory will require an overwhelming troop presence. An increase or troop surge from the approximate 125,000 troops to a half million would be sufficient. Draftees would be called to 6 month terms of service. Many of the professional soldiers already in Iraq would be placed at the borders to seal off all incoming and outgoing shipments. If we seal the Syrian border, then we stop the bleeding and give the insurgents no escape route. The rest would be placed in the highly volatile areas of the major cities. The drafted soldiers would, over 6 months, perform a broad sweep of every inhabited corner of the country. All weapons, explosive devices, sling shots, or cap guns would be confiscated from each Iraqi home with the exception of those soldiers and law enforcement officers of the Iraqi government. Our troops, allied with Iraqi forces, would systematically and very quickly take the teeth out of the insurgent forces, relegating them to rock throwers. Once the sweep is finished, the American drafted forces will come home and there time and efforts will be rewarded by a grateful nation. A skeleton crew of approximately 75,000 troops will remain in Iraq to perform border security and complete the training of a new generation of Iraqi soldiers. With the removal of weapons from insurgent forces, the Iraqis will have the ability to take control of their own country.
This is one conservative’s vision of the goal of a peaceful and economically friendly Iraq. What say you?”
Sounds like the plan that some generals put forth before the war but were dismissed by Bush. At this point, crazy. There has been perpetual war in this region for a millenium. Only under an authoritarian dictator has there not been war. This plan is fine in the short term, then what? America can afford to keep a permanent force of 75,000 in Iraq with no help from neighboring Arab countries? This is asinine narrow “conservative” thinking at it’s core. If we had elected President Kerry, he would have established an Arab summit to provide solutions for the region. But no… we spend $330 million a day in Iraq trying to do it unilaterally… and we’re going to increase that 5 fold to put an occupying force of a half million? And who is going to pay for this? Just print more money right? What a dipshit. All to desperately try and save face for the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history.
William, you sound a little angry.
Liberalism advocates peace through authoritarian dictatorships? Perhaps we should be careful not to mistake “peace” for stability.
If the region has been “at perpetual war for a millenium”, how will an Arab summit provide solutions for the regions? I’d be interested to hear these solutions.
The enormous cost of this plan is a difficult pill to swallow indeed. However, a speedy end to this conflict is better than several years worth your estimate of 330 mill per day. This plan provides that quick end. Also, I believe a free and economically friendly Iraq would, in the future, more than make up for the current financial sacrifice. Wouldn’t you agree?
This plan does not carry the intention to “save face”. It is intended to end a war. The biggest foreign policy blunder in US History? That is quite a claim. Perhaps most historians would disagree with you.
We are not the world’s policeman. Bring Our Troops Home!
.
It would absolve the US of total responsibility. We broke it we fix it.
I think thats already been decided
The biggest Foreign Policy Blunder is joining the United Nations.
Nathan is confusing NeoConservative with Conservative.
Nathan is reposting interesting thoughts from his site actually. This article is by Alan Gable.
I’m unsure as to the effectiveness of this plan now as well, but it’s perplexing to me as to why liberals are so terrified of international power politics when every other nation uses it against us.
It’s not power politics, it’s stupidity.
To give such a pat answer to any thought out argument is not only disrespectful of the author, but betrays your own narrow minded, self indulgent air of superiority.
It seems that the only rebuttal to this plan has been some rather unoriginal name-calling. Perhaps this is the best liberalism has to offer. I would like to hear some actual logical criticism if such a thing can be mustered.
If your problem is with the idea of the large invasion force, then you should be pacified by the knowledge that this force would betemporary and only for the purpose of ending armed conflict. This does not qualify as an “occupying force”.
If your problem is with funding, this is a legitimate concern but the short term nature of the plan presents a much better alternative than a decade long war.
If your problem is with the general effectiveness of such a plan, then I’m afraid you may underestimate the United States’ military abilities.
Alan, Nathan,
Give this a read
You might learn something.
If you actually read much of what I think, you would see I’m no big fan of regime change either. However, there is a medium between the bravado you are so desperately painting on McCain and the “tail between our legs, kneeling at the altar of forgiveness” version of diplomacy that Obama preaches.
Iraq is a mess, and was a mistake. No doubt. However, the solutions are far more intricate than either single party line, and much bigger than a link to Joe Biden’s demagoguery. I am amazed that a modern (not classical) liberal can ponitificate about the spread of “freedom” when they are so ready to trample freedom at home.
“tail between our legs, kneeling at the altar of forgiveness” version of diplomacy that Obama preaches.
Talk about painting.
Modern Liberalism holds no true answers, only an apologist attitude for being alive, rich, free, and American at the same time.
Alan is right, we win the war, not tuck tail and run. Yes, we all agree the war was a mistake, but as William said, “We broke it, we fix it.” However, this will not be done at an Arab summit. This suggestion is naive at best, and perhaps William should put his extensive vocabulary of superfluous colloquialisms to good use starting with himself.
Calling the author a “dipshit” from the comfort of your keyboard is cowardice, while showing a total lack of respect and study of the region’s history in William’s writing proves his discomoding lack of cognitive comprehension.
We are all now dumber for having heard William’s responses. I award you no points; and may God have mercy on your soul.
We can all agree that a free and stable Iraq is in the best interest of the United States as well as the Iraqi people.
Probably, but can you prove that it is necessary to the survival of the United States.
That is an important distinction when considering possible ramifications of implementing a draft for an illegal war that only has about 30% support.
the “tail between our legs, kneeling at the altar of forgiveness” version of diplomacy that Obama preaches.
Oh, horse-fuckin’-shit, dood. What the fuck are you talkin’ about?
I am amazed that a modern (not classical) liberal can ponitificate about the spread of “freedom” when they are so ready to trample freedom at home.
Yes! God DAMN those LIEBERALS for lovin’ them some warrantless wiretapping!
And I’m serious: The Dems that enabled that shit need to swing alongside the ReNAMBLAcans who thought it up.
.
You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. We’ve been in Iraq longer than WWII. You Cameron are advocating more war. When will we know if we won? Say Iraq is secured, what is going to stop the terrorist with a suitcase bomb or biological weapon hitting America? Don’t you think it would be more pragmatic to say… ah, maybe defend our borders instead of putting a half million US in Iraq to defend theirs? You say I don’t know anbything about history, tell me smart guy, what is the winning % of an occupying force against an insurgency on it’s own turf? Think about the Brits in America,the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam. I would think people would learn. If there was a true international coalition like the Gulf War or the Kosovo War, Iraq would be stable because regional nations would be taking responsibility. but, sadly no.
If you give me your phone #, I’ll be happy to call you and your war plan dipshit.
I agree that victory in the war on terror is an exceptionally important objective. I disagree that Iraq ever had much of anything to do with that. The fact of the matter is, we could quintuple our forces there, and all we could ever do is temporarily subdue the region. Short of mass slaughters (which would NOT achieve our goals in the region), there’s no way to “win” in Iraq, certainly not with the military.
And that’s the main problem with neoconservative thinking, which holds a military hammer and therefore sees all problems as nails: they simply fail to recognize that not all problems can be solved through military action. You want to chalk up a huge victory in the war on terror? You should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Chase down bin Laden, into Pakistan, if you have to, and capture or kill him — preferably the former. (You kill him, you martyr him — you capture him, you can destroy his reputation. He doesn’t fear death, but he DOES fear capture). You use the military to get rid of the Taliban (like we did), but then instead of going on an Iraqi wild goose chase, set up a sizeable peacekeeping force and set up a stable democracy there. Get an international effort involved in the process, so that everyone’s got a stake.
Of course, there’s an easier solution to the terror problem, and it’s actually (to my mind, anyway) quite conservative: STOP MESSING AROUND in the middle east to begin with! How many times have we (the US) propped up oppressive regimes and two-bit dictators (including, for the record, Saddam Hussein, not to mention the Saudi Royal Familiy) just because it served short-term US foreign policy objectives? Several times, we even helped overthrow democracies to do it! (They were anti-US democracies, but democracies nonetheless.) If we actually stand up and fight oppression instead of selectively endorsing it when it suits us, we’d have a much better reputation in the world, and terrorist extremists would have a lot harder time recruiting foot soldiers.
tgirsch,
Very well said.
Trying to talk sense with neocons requires the patience of a stone cutter. Sorry for my lack of patience. Glen has called me a ‘communist piece of shit’ but I won’t hold it against him or call him a coward. I appreciate that he made this blog, and would hope that he and other conservatives would find some meaning in comments like yours.
Yet again the communication has broken down with such vigor from William. You lack statesmanship and you refused to give any goals or objectives an Arab summit would possibly accomplish. To answer your questions:
We know we’ve won when we “make them howl” and they lay down their arms. That is the goal of total war. The choices are defeat via withdraw, or winning the day. Those are the only choices. You want to end the war by withdraw; and that is a perfectly valid opinon. I want to end the war by winning the war. When they stop shooting….that’s when we know we’ve won. If they don’t stop shooting….neither do we.
But yet again with the name calling? Get some counseling, William. You’ve got some anger issues. Also, if you would like to resort to name calling, I’d like you to be accurate….it’s “obstinate, gun-totin’, son of a bitch.” I don’t feel giving you my phone number would be a productive idea. I am certainly not frightened by a “man” such as yourself, but answering my phone to a non-sensical, unoriginal, over-repetative label of “dipshit” and the incoherent ramblings that follow is not my ideal way of spending 20 seconds.
Let me be perfectly clear: I did not want to go to war with Iraq in the first place. While I advocate a military build up in Iraq, I do not advocate Alan’s idea of instituting a military draft.
I certainly agree with tgirsch that Afganastan should have been the only war we fought on terror. It would be the ultimate goal to capture Bin Laden and finish off the fighting there. Chief among President Bush’s failures is his lack of willingness to close out that war successfully. We opened another front without finishing the first.
Despite the Iraq war being a mistake, if we put our troops in harm’s way, we must win a clear and decisive victory. The 4,000 plus men and women who have died in this mis-adventure should be honored by winning out the day. That’s my opinion.
Additionally, William, our (the U.S.’) winning percentage as an occupying force is pretty good, 4/5 (80%) since 1900, not counting our experience in the Spanish-American war. Vietnam stands as our lone failure there, and we are running the risk of doing it again in Iraq.
Comparing our occupation of Iraq to the American revolution is the worst kind of comparative analysis. I think you should sit in a quite corner and not speak for a while.
Mr. Keats, we agree that this nation should not be at war, but I do not wish to leave the battle half-done to the whims of the Islam radicals that wll fight for control of the region and bring stability through tyranny. Again, if we’re over there, I wish us to finish the fight.
If that makes me, and those like me, “dipshits” then I’m proud to be considered such by men (William, Jeffraham) like yourselves.
I wish you all a good evening.
By the way, William, it’s not MY war plan. I simply stating my incomplete opinion on Alan’s.
Also, Mr. Keats, I think you would be hard pressed to find something neo-conservative in the philosophy of myself, Alan, and Nathan. “More war” is not neo-conservative, it is finishing out the power politics we started when we invaded. What I think about that mistake is irrelevent to the present. Only what we do now.
Cameron,
I don’t know you but my guess is that you’d likely be well over 50, probably retirement age. Looking today’s war on terror with an old fashion perspective like we can solve something or keep this country safe by defeating ‘terrorists in iraq’ … it’s a perspective I’d expect to hear from someone of the WWII era. It’s ridiculous and wreaks of a face saving neocon agenda.
BTW, regarding your 80% figure… how many of those battles were won by the US going in unilaterally? Name one. Grenada? heh
Despite the Iraq war being a mistake, if we put our troops in harm’s way, we must win a clear and decisive victory. The 4,000 plus men and women who have died in this mis-adventure should be honored by winning out the day. That’s my opinion.
So you agree with William that saving face is your primary concern?
I seriously wonder what the point to any of these blogs are. No one can simply talk to each other, or hash-out simple dialog without the exchange turning personal and pointless.
William, since you continue to avoid answering any questions and level your baseless sumations and assertions at someone whom you do not know, I’d say our conversation is over. I wish you all the best, but there is no dialog or usefulness here. Count it as your moral and intellectual superiority that ran me off the field. I hope it makes you feel like more of a man. It appears you need that kind of affirmation only found in the safety of the blogoshere.
Mr. Keats, all wars are tragedies. I have answered your criticisms on our website without any answer from you. You seem to want to swoop in without engagement, only belittling your opponent. It is obvious you feel those who disagree with you are less than you.
Since you took the time to quote part of my response, I would imagine you also saw this:
“Mr. Keats, we agree that this nation should not be at war, but I do not wish to leave the battle half-done to the whims of the Islamic radicals that wll fight for control of the region and bring stability through tyranny. Again, if we’re over there, I wish us to finish the fight.”
Willam said, “we broke it, we fix it.” His fix-it idea was an Arab summit. I don’t believe this will be successful on any level, but we could give diplomacy a try again. The other options are not popular, they are not easy, and they are not an ideal set of circumstances: withdraw and leave it to a new tyrant to sort it out, or stay the unfortunate course and bring good out of bad.
If we must call it “saving face” then, fine. You disagree with that opinion, and you think me dumber for it.
Is it any wonder why these national divides are so seemingly irreconcilable? This conversation, from the get-go, was met with a total tonnage of disrespect and hatred for simply trying to hold discussion on an important issue:
i.e.-”dipshit”, inserting a “NAMBL” reference, “dipshit” yet again, and the insinuation that we need to be talked to like children because we disagree, while asking for phone numbers to continue an unsuccessful dialog into an extremely personal level.
What have we done here today? Without real conversation, this nation’s divides will only grow ever deeper. And nothing constructive or good can come from it.
It does indeed amaze me how such little understanding is needed to pounce on he or she with whom you disagree. Indeed there has been no real conversation here if you walk away considering Cameron and I anything near “neo-conservative” (a media-induced term, by the way).
To assume all that has been assumed here by William and Jefferson only betrays a line of thinking all too prevalent these days. Today is an era of “hear talking point, regurgitate talking point, namecall, retreat” guerilla warfare, and it’s not only tiresome, but juvenile.
Alan’s plan is one I’m not sure I agree with on many levels, and I’m sure I disagree with some (i.e. draft) but to pummel him for thinking of a plan, and to attempt to do the same to those who raise his argument up for discussion is so typical, yet disturbingly the stratus quo.
He offered A solution to be discussed. Apparently there aren’t many here who place themselves on the left capable of civil discussion. Only social ineptitudes.
You guys have got to understand, those of us that knew the Iraq invasion was a mistake from the beginning, and you can include Natalie Maines in that group, have no patience for those that refuse to deal in reality, not that you guys are necessarily guilty of that.
We are going to need to clear the air before any rational policy discussion can begin, however.
The invasion of Iraq is about money, power, and oil, period.
The “win at all cost” militarist posture is all about saving face.
So, are we on the same page?
I would admit that money, power and oil are parts of the equasion, although Bush’s strategy obviously didn’t work. If it’s still about oil, I’ know that Cameron would advocate the “Total War” policy to reach that end.
I believe “win at all cost” is indeed a mistake, and unnecessary. I think I would fall more along the lines of “win without a doubt.” How we get there? TBD
And thanks for bringing things back up a bit.
But see, that’s the thing. I am not buying into the “parts of the equation” disclaimer, unless you may wish to include a personal vendetta of W. Do we need to invade Saudi Arabia to spread freedom? Let’s cut the bull. Ron Paul was right: Saddam became a problem when he decided to sell oil for Euros, and that’s the problem with Iran too.
Regarding total war, over 100,000 (!) Iraqis have died here. For those of us with a conscience, there are serious moral issues to contend with.
I admit I don’t have any policy solutions off the top of my head. But I do know this: the ‘Iraq’ we invaded no longer exists in any real way. Kurdistan is pretty much functioning independently, and you won’t get them to give that up without force. The south is heavily influenced by Iran, and I am not sure total war with Iran is such a good idea right now. The central area has been managed recently by putting the Sunni insurgents on our payroll. Like Patraeus said, fragile and reversible.
Right now, putting Iraq back together is like putting Humpty Dumpty back together, and this is another reality that has to be acknowledged before any serious policy can be discussed.
Oh, yeah, one other thing.
Posting comments to the effect of “modern liberalism is the root of all evil” is indicative of the same divisive obstinacy that the poster is decrying, so that is something to consider regarding the level of discussion.
“Modern Liberalism holds no true answers, only an apologist attitude for being alive, rich, free, and American at the same time.”
You may read that to be “the root of all evil”, but it’s not. It’s pointing out that there are NO SOLUTIONS being offered after the criticism of the original idea. It’s low-brow and beneath everyone who responded to this article. Commonly, if one is going to criticize an idea, it means a better idea is possessed by the criticizer. Once again, we’re talking past each other. An Arab Summit doesn’t accomplish anything. Do we have any other ideas?
We’ve said again, and again, and again that this war was a mistake. I think the air is clear, you just have to thoroughly read what has been written. Us “neo-con dipshits” (Alan, Nathan, and I) want a foreign policy very much like what Ron Paul suggested, in fact, two of us voted for Dr. Paul in our primary. We’ve been clear, we continue to be clear, but fixing this problem will require real solutions. Anyone who criticizes without alternatives are cheap hacks who don’t belong at the table.
If we withdraw, the region will be stabalized, but by tyranny after even more civil war. No one has remarked on the validity of that statement. If someone wants to withdraw to save Iraqi lives, then that very real scenario must be considered by one advocating withdrawal. That is not saving face, and you, Mr. Keats, have ignored that statement twice to quote other portions of my responses.
I’m not suggesting a total war where we start burning villages, razing crops and killing livestock. I’m advocating that we put the hammer to the insurgents wherever they may be (even mosques), choke-off the insurgency’s supplies at the borders, and win the thing. That idea offers stability. That idea is “win without a doubt.” That idea protects Iraqi lives. Leaving them to a new civil war with the rise of a new dictator should be taken into your moral accounting, Mr. Keats.
You also suggested only those like you possess a conscience, and that more war is only going to lead to more death. I assure you, Mr. Keats, expanding our campaign will take FAR less lives than a withdrawal and a civil war. It’s a big picture thing, and I believe you can see that, Mr. Keats. It is a reasonable conclusion.
This is now the third time I’ve offered this scenario as the likely course of events after our immediate withdrawal. Does anyone want to discuss that?
Mr. Clark:
The point is your use of the term “modern liberalism” in a pejorative context is just more of the “same old, same old” divisive obstinacy.
No one is under any intellectual obligation to offer anything other than criticism of your idea. Like I said, unless you acknowledge the political reality I pointed out at 9:06, I can’t take you seriously at all. I’m sorry, but there is no nice way to put that.
The idea of waging war until we “make them howl” is just the kind of blind nonsensical hubris that would more than likely lead to a disastrous escalation, eventually.
BTW, these are not the ramblings of some “liberal hippie”. I am really just parroting retired USAF Col. Mike Turner, an expert on Middle East affairs, who is running for Congress as a Democrat.
YET AGAIN you have either ignored and refused to acknowledge to full set of statements, only taking the pieces you find suit your own pigeon-holing, must-label set of ideals.
I could not care less if you take me seriously or not. All I have seen from you, sir, is an unwillingness to understand that we agree on certain aspects, but continue to lump us in with a neo-conservative view of every party platform holding nut job in the Republican Party. You either ignore the statements, or are too stupid to understand it when it is written in plainly in front of your face. There’s no nice way to put that eiter because it is either one or the other.
You have refused to acknowlege that withdrawal will lead to even more death and suffering. You simply change the subject by pointing out that you don’t have to answer the question after having earlier conceeded that you don’t have ideas off the top of your head. You want less death and destruction, but full withdrawal. I’m contending that will not be the case.
“Making them howl” is a reference to any insurgent who picks up a weapon to wge conflict against our occupying force. We don’t carpet bomb Baghdad or take the war to innocent civilians. If they fight, they die. That simple. It’s not hubris, nor is it an unintelligent or reasonable measure to confront the problems of an illegal and ill-advised war. It is possible that you will see we agree on that point, but you will ignore it because it is hardly relevant to what we do next. We broke it, we are indeed responsible for fixing it.
I find you arrogant (for no reason) and without the common sense of an Animal Cracker. Also, Mr. Gable eviscerated your witless and arm-chair regurgitation of another’s article so that you may try to support Michael Hirsch’s ridiculous and wholly biggoted statements. He gave you a solid response, and suppose you don’t have an answer for that one either.
I gave you a response to your brainless characterization that I was “warped” because you simply couldn’t wrap your mind around the comparative analysis of dropping aid and an illegal occupation. If it was a problem with my authorship, I would gladly address it, but others have found the idea easy to understand and the analysis valid.
I’m not labeling you a liberal hippie. I don’t care how someone else would view you, as I do not know you. You do, however, offer nothing in conversation except snide remarks and doltish summations or labels. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact.
Mr. Clark,
You make a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
Where did I say I support full withdrawal?
Where did I say I support Michael Hirsch?
You’re right that I think your “comparative analysis” of dropping aid and military occupation is warped, though. If that’s brainless, then I’m better for it.
And you are wrong. I am offering something. I am telling you what the vast majority of Middle East experts are saying: a military solution, like the one Mr. Gable proposes, will not achieve the desired goal.
“
Well, all you’ve done is say 'I love my South', accuse Mr. Hirsch of stereotyping, and complaign about being maligned.You are certainly free to express those views, but why not take it to the next level and actually address some of the specific points raised by Mr. Hirsch, providing evidence or reasoning to support your disagreements?"
Hirsch raised few valid points. You had anothing but a snide comment on our website in response, and the above reference is asserting Hirsch’s article carried something other than biggotry and stupidity. Your retort to Alan’s points were weak.
Your main disagreement with us is that this war cannot be won in a traditional sense, and that military might will not do the job. Presenting the very best your mind has to offer, which is NOTHING, there is little else but to reasonably conclude that withdrawal is your answer. If I made assumptions, it’s because you lack the willingness to lay-out any other reasonable course of action.
No, Mr. Keats, you don’t have to offer other proposals, but flatly refusing to even think around the subject in its entirety makes you flatly worthless in this discussion.
Your answer: “The war was a mistake. Dixie Chicks. We were right. Me no take you seriously. I have nothing else to offer. You are wrong.”
Thanks for that. It was enlightening.
Mr. Clark,
…and the above reference is asserting Hirsch’s article carried something other than biggotry and stupidity.
No, its not. It’s critiquing the content of Mr. McIntyre’s response. Once again, you have made an unwarranted assumption.
You seem to be laboring under the false dilemma that that are only two options available from a policy standpoint.
As far as my “response” goes, your childish paraphrasing left out the part where I explained the political reality of the situation.
So, to sum up,
I told you Mr. Gable’s idea was bad, and I gave a mildly detailed reason. How is that “nothing.”
I regret appearing arrogant, but again I confess to having lost all patience for militaristic bombast.
I’m going to talk mainly to people like Nathan, who while I may disagree with him, seems to genuinely want to engage in a substantive discussion of the topic.
For those here who are actually interested in an intelligent and serious discussion about this topic, I suggest you start by watching this. It’s not a trivial task, though. It’s four and a half hours, and I just finished watching it (saved on TiVo) today. It gives a good overview of how we got where we are, just how bad things really are, and the challenges that face us moving forward. And if you’re looking for one-dimensional “bad guys” or scapegoats, you won’t find them here. Which isn’t to say that it lets people off the hook — it doesn’t, not by a long shot.
What becomes abundantly clear in watching it is that because of the mistakes that have been made and the opportunities that have been missed, “victory” in Iraq — if it’s even possible, which I doubt — will cost a great deal more blood and treasure than it would have if we’d done things right five years ago (setting aside whether or not we should have gone in there in the first place). The only way to stabilize the region would essentially be to start over. You’d have to dissolve the current government, which is made up mainly of Shi’ite theocrats and Sadr loyalists, and you’d have to go in with enough troops to properly implement the clear-hold-build strategy on a nationwide scale — a task that would likely require at least half a million troops and a period of years. That would be a tough sell even if we hadn’t already been there for five years. That we have been makes it that much tougher. And even then, there’s no guarantee it would work. Which is why I think it’s a remarkably bad idea.
The other elephant in the room is the long-term damage that has been done to our armed forces by the engagement so far, and what continuing the deployment is likely to do. See here, for example. Basically attrition in the military is at an alarming high, and those who are leaving are the ones we can least afford to lose. There’s a dire shortage of qualified officers, and that’s not something that can be fixed through a draft. It will take fifteen to twenty years to replace the qualified officers and officer candidates we’ve lost, and that’s if we were to withdraw tomorrow. If we stay, that attrition only gets worse, unless we do something drastic (and anti-freedom) like forced re-enlistments.
Bottom line is, it’s one thing to say that we should double down or go “all in” and try to “win” this thing, but it’s quite another to seriously consider what that means, and what the long-term effects of doing so would be. The obvious objection to that is the long-term effects of not doing so, but that’s the hell of it: we really have painted ourselves into a no-win situation. Even a military “victory” turns out not to be much of one, and comes and a tremendous, tremendous cost.
FINALLY, a great and valid point is brought to the forefront for an actual discussion. Thank you, tgirsch.
Just like he said, “the hell of it” is the “loss” either way and must move forward from the “we should have never been there” idea. It is irrelevant now, we must find a solution to the current set of problems.
Any withdrawal will be done in increments over time. This phasing out may very well be the best and only course of reasonable action. It doesn’t seem like that will be happening any time soon, so do we simply hold to a failing status quo? I think our answer should be to secure the nation in the meantime. If we’re biding our time over there until President Obama or McCain is elected, we’ve left our fighting men and women in a losing situation until January and find that unacceptable. That is the reality, and that is the only reality that matter regardless of what Mr. Keats asserts.
I believe we should try to secure the nation, and it doesn’t have to be done by instituting a draft or bombing needlessly. It would require another build up, but as has already been pointed out, that has its major flaws.
We’re not going to withdraw soon, so what are we to do in the mean time?
There is no “nation” to secure, that’s the point.
Ok, Mr. Keats. WHAT ARE WE TO DO IN THE MEAN TIME?
You won’t like it, because it involves compromise, and owning up to past failures.
This is what I’m talking about, Keats. You tried to make a point about my “assumptions” that you advocated a withdrawal….yet here you are again, playing games with semantics and offering nothing to the discussion. Does “region” or “geography” better suit your understanding? I’m not so naive as to think we’re going to bring Shiite and Sunni together while trying to slip the Kurds into the mix as well. For the fifth time….what course of action would you have us take?
tgirsch offers a reasonable point that extending our occupation is inviting long-term disaster for our own military, and this is the only point I’ve seen that strongly argues we should not care so much if another tyrant does take over Iraq. Others have refused to even address the likelihoods of what would happen in a power vacuum.
Keats, you asserted you and those like you have a conscience (which of course implies those who disagree are without one) and yet you continue to refuse to address what happens when we withdraw. If we’re using an “America First” model, we go home as soon as possible and to hell with the people over there. I don’t necessarily see a conscience at work in that, but if it’s the only solution that benefits the United States, it must be done.
can you expound on this compromise and what exactly owning up to past mistakes looks like?
Who says I won’t like it? Now who’s making assumptions?
Well, an Arab summit is a vital step, to start with.
Keats, you asserted you and those like you have a conscience (which of course implies those who disagree are without one)
That’s bullshit.
“over 100,000 (!) Iraqis have died here. For those of us with a conscience, there are serious moral issues to contend with.”
That’s what you said, and it is, in fact, bullshit. Good call.
What would this Arab Summit look to accomplish? How do we get them to the table and keep their mouths shut and hands to themselves long enough to have the opening statements?
Mr. Clark:
Why did you not castigate tgrich?
Basically, all tgrich did was say the idea was probably bad, and then give a reason. The only real difference was that tgrich gave a more detailed reason. Tgrich did not offer a solution; therefore nothing was brought to the conversation, right?
Yes, it is bullshit to assert that because I stated that there are moral issues pertinent to the death of over 100,000 innocent inhabitants that we are supposedly liberating that I necessarily believe that those that disagree with me on policy necessarily have no conscience.
First of all, offering to convene the summit would help alleviate the perception that all the U.S. cares about is running roughshod over those that stand between us and the oil.
tgirsch was much, much, much more specific and his reasoning is coherent, unlike others.
Why so upset about my assertions, Mr. Keats? I’m just applying the same “on its face” interpretation you have so gracious given me and my brothers.
So now much, much, much, more specific and coherent is the specific criterion?
Why did that change?
I don’t know. I’m sure it’s because I’m pretty stupid. You’ve done such a good job educating me all weekend, and I appreciate it. It’s been…..illuminating.
If a person were to take a page from William’s book the question would be asked why William, H.B. Keats, JP, and the other various assorted pacifists are not protesting in Iraq rather than boring our readers with the “war is bad” never ending ditty?
Good grief, we get it. We got it the first 5000 times. Guess what? No body like war. It is bad. Always has been. Always will be.
The question is what do you do when America is attacked? Make excuses and hope it doesn’t happen again? Sorry Mr. President, we can’t figure out who blew up the Pentagon. We think it was terrorists and we just cannot find who to hold responsible.
What did you think would happen? What is the number one responsibility of the government? It is not to redistribute wealth. It is to protect the country. Que the order borders diatribe from the usual suspects.
How people can get so confused about what government is supposed to do is tragically sad. What I would like to know from the “peace first” crowd is what would you fight for?
Anything?
No, socialised medicine is not a reasonable answer.
Number 9, you must be joking.
Just because socialized medicine has never worked in any sizable nation on the face of the earth doesn’t mean it won’t work here. It is a moral imperative, so who cares that it bankrupts the states and the federal government. We can “afford” it.
Redistributing wealth? Not all people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so we must take a page from of our economically conquered adversary, the U.S.S.R. and give to those without. They don’t need to lift a finger. That’s what the federal government is here for.
Closed border? You’re such a racist. It is certainly the job of America to throw caution to the national security wind and take on a benevolent attitude to all who enter. It is our responsibility after all. What else is a super power to do?
And attacking other nations who attack us is not very sporting. We shouldn’t do it.
Why didn’t we just attack England?
After all, they are pretty arrogant.
Having been directed to this blog for yet another laugh at the “responses” of those who define their lives by hatred of not just conservatism but conservatives (neo or otherwise), I was not disappointed. Congratulations to those who have completed yet another successful “cut and paste” session from WeReallyReallyHonestToGodFreakin’HateGeorgeBush.com. You have a skill! And here I thought only the vast right wing conspiracy had that talent.
Just when one thinks that Keats may have had an orginal brain cell transplant, he/she implodes. Just as one thinks perhaps Tgirsch may be approaching this volatile subject with some dispassionate analysis, he/she makes the heedless-of-history statements that “we” will not “win” in Iraq and that there will be no victory. Don’t know where the bejeebers y’all have been these past five years, but the vilely evil Saddam Hussein, found by UNITED STATES FORCES (Thank you 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and special operations forces of Task Force 121) in the rathole that so suited him, is…well…EXECUTED. Dead. Gone. Swims with the fishes. Damned to hell — whether that hell is Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim or Shinto. [Don’t bother lecturing me that Buddhists and Shinto/Taoists don’t have hell - they just pretend they don’t] Saddam? Well, he “Ain’t gonna war no moe” is he? However, having bypassed that initial victory, why ain’t we left yet? We now find ourselves in a neverending and pointless exchange with muffin-heads who honestly believe — in the face of all evidence to the contrary — that all we have to do is sit down with the Muslim faction, talk nice and sing “Kumbaya” for a while at a big, happy round table with the useless United Nations as cartoon mediator, color us up some Crayola pictures, and thereafter immediately float away into some Muslim Nirvana — and make no mistake IT WILL BE MUSLIM if we withdraw from Iraq now. As someone else on this site has apparently said in not-so-many words: “This kind of dupable, gullable naivety is dangerous. It’s like holding a gun to the heads of our children and our children’s children and their children after them.” Did I wish to send troops to Iraq? NO! Why? Because I knew we would be there for a while — too long a while with no common sense way out, but that was part of the choice by Republicans AND Democrats who now turn tail in the pretense that they WERE LIED TO. Can you make up better comedy? Do I wish to engage on this site? Naw. I get my thrills jousting in a courtroom. I’m going to sit back, pull out my CAO cigarillos and a Starbucks frappachino and peer through my opera glasses at the mayhem that the Brothers are invoking here. Great website/blog/forum. Thanks for allowing me to hit and run. Be seein’ y’all soon. In fact, lookin’ forward to it.
England has got a lot of Muslims too, I am sure they are all terrorists.
That’s why I’m in favor of shipping arms to Scotland and militarizing the border. Heyoo!
HEY WILLIAM….You said:
“You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. We’ve been in Iraq longer than WWII.”
Strictly speaking we conquered Iraq without the paperwork in less than two months. Our occupation of Germany, Japan, and Korea have yet to end. This is what we do. Conquer, occupy, rebuild. Your statement is misleading and again betrays your lack of understanding of the situation.
It’s just that we have a different method of fighting and identifying combatants today. I don’t think we’re in danger of a military defeat. I think we’re in danger of losing our will to do what is necessary to secure the region. Would you agree, or are we being beaten back militarily by a superior and more resolved fighting force? Another question to follow up, is do we need to secure the region, or just come on home? I think that portion is the debate, and we should try our best to not lose site of that.
All war is calamity and any life lost is a tragedy. But we, as an American occupying and fighting force have lost 4,000 brave men and women to the cowardice fighting of militants and insurgents. However, if you study history….4,000 casualties are a low number indeed for a 6 year engagement. War is not an accurate term; us historians are going to have to figure out a better word for the post conquered Iraq to describe the situation other than “war.”
Do you want to come on here and debate any more, ignore the questions, or come back for a cheap name calling episode? Your choice.
GRITS:
“Heedless of history?” OK, I’ll bite. Educate me.
Oh, and as for this:
That’s quite a lovely straw man you’ve got there. Did you build it all by yourself?
Cameron:
Look, I know you are a knowledgeable guy. I never claimed to be smart; but I know that 2+2=4.
I am not going to continue lecturing on political reality, because these people are going to do what they are going to do.
I will just ask that you really apply some seriously critical reasoning, IOW consider very carefully each piece of information you are using to form to your assessment of modern political reality, really question what does or does not add up or make sense without making any assumptions or offering any benefit of doubt.
I am not going to try to convince you to alter whatever conclusions you draw.
tgirsch, GRITS has some points, as do you. I don’t think doubting the veracity of an Arab Summit is invalid based up on the ENTIRE history of the region. The set of circumstances is wildly different from that of the Camp David accords, and I wouldn’t even consider those talks a “success.”
If we use an “America First” model, we should come home.
If we use a “we broke it, we fix it” model…..An Arab Summit? Then what?
I don’t mind sitting down and talking, but as William has pointed out, these peoples have been at war with each other for a millenium (and a half). I don’t think we (the U.S.) are responsible for that. We did make the mistake of engaging in a pointless war this time, so it’s really just a matter of the philosophy we apply to the situation on how it is addressed.
Although 100,000 Iraqis have died in this conflict, we have toppled a brutal dictator, built schools instead of madrases, and I don’t believe we are the ones killing the Iraqi people….insurgents are doing that. We are responsible for destabilizing the region, and that’s why we have the question before us. Stabilize peace or go home.
I have no faith that an Arab Summit will get anything accomplished. We can and should sit down to talk, but what’s next?
In the mean time, we’re not even going to start withdrawing until January 20th at the earliest, what are we to do until then?
When we do withdraw, there will be an even more bloody civil war. More bloody that the status quo, more bloody than ratcheting up our presence and might in the region. An Arab Summit will not stave off that inevitability. It will bring stability through tyranny.
Going back to talking about how we shouldn’t be there doesn’t matter at this point. The political reality is that we don’t have the will or the stomach to secure the region, so it’s fine with me if we withdraw….but I don’t want people forgetting the pages of history where we conquered and public opinion in America brought us home, not our concern for the region or what we believe is “right.” Otherwise, we will not have learned anything from it as a nation.
My conclusions are drawn from history and facts. If I am met with a set of facts that should change my conclusions, I will gladly do so without pride that my initial analysis was incomplete or just plain wrong.
You say it doesn’t matter how we got into the war, but i think one’s position on policy would be influenced by whether one believes the administration lied about WMD, or was mistaken.
what exactly would change in their policy approach? Mind you, I didn’t want to go in, so my policies in the future wouldn’t change.
Outside of a hollow apology, how does it influence the next few steps?
Well, if they lied that means that the people running the government, the military, and the CIA are dangerous criminals so dealing with that problem would necessarily have to be the first step.
So, we have to deal with an impossible domestic policy before we address our problems overseas?
Am I misunderstanding that?
Cameron:
GRITS has some points
I’m not sure. Frankly, he struck me as the (neo)conservative equivalent of what you’ve been accusing William and (to a lesser extent) H.B. Keats of.
these peoples have been at war with each other for a millenium (and a half). I don’t think we (the U.S.) are responsible for that.
Not solely, but we’ve certainly been guilty of fanning the flames, intentionally or not. Look at how the current crew totally screwed the pooch on religious conflict in Iraq, for example. The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz wing genuinely believed it wasn’t going to be a problem.
we have toppled a brutal dictator, built schools instead of madrases, and I don’t believe we are the ones killing the Iraqi people….insurgents are doing that.
I think that’s a bit of a rose-colored view of what’s really going on over there. We haven’t done all that much building, for one thing — the infrastructure remains in far worse condition than it was in before we got there. And a disturbing number of Iraqis — a majority, if I’m not mistaken — feel that things were actually better under Saddam Hussein than they are now (or, more accurately, are worse now than they were then). Further, while we’re not the ones actually killing the Iraqi civilians, that doesn’t mean we don’t bear any responsibility for it happening. Our failure to properly plan for what happens after the fall of Hussein was arguably the biggest U.S. military blunder of my lifetime. Remember Wolfowitz’s now infamous argument that it was “outlandish” to suggest that it would take several hundred thousand troops to pacify a post-Saddam Iraq? (The estimate came from top Army generals and advisers, and we all know how it turned out.)
When we do withdraw, there will be an even more bloody civil war.
The problem here is whether or not our continued presence can stop that from happening. I’m not sure it can. They’re basically waiting us out, at this point, and at some point, their patience will wear thin enough that the conflict resumes whether or not we’re there. And that’s the last thing I want our troops in the middle of.
The political reality is that we don’t have the will or the stomach to secure the region, so it’s fine with me if we withdraw….but I don’t want people forgetting the pages of history where we conquered and public opinion in America brought us home, not our concern for the region or what we believe is “right.”
Again, I strongly recommend that you take the time to watch the documentary I linked. There’s a lot in there that I suspect may change your opinions; mine were certainly impacted. For starters, trying to pin the “defeat” there on public opinion, or acting as though the people running the show actually cared much about averting civil war, turn out to be quite erroneous. For example, one thing I learned, and did not know: for almost his entire tenure, Rumsfeld was never trying to “win” in Iraq in the sense we now use the term. He and his advisers were simply looking for a way to get out as quickly and quietly as possible, with little regard for lasting stability. (It’s ironic, in a way: Rumsfeld and the anti-war critics actually shared an objective, though it wasn’t publicly discussed.)
But what’s interesting is how there aren’t many one-dimensional good guys or bad guys in the whole mess. At most levels, people were right about some stuff and wrong about other stuff. Sadly, though, the big mistakes have already been made, and cannot be undone. Most people “in the know” will tell you that de-Ba’athification was a terrible idea; they’ll also tell you that disbanding the Iraqi army was an even worse idea, and gave birth to the insurgency we now see. Those genies can’t be put back into their respective bottles, meaning the job of getting to anything like “victory” in Iraq is now several orders of magnitude more difficult than it would have been had the undertaking been made intelligently (assuming, for the moment, it was a good idea to go in there in the first place).
If I am met with a set of facts that should change my conclusions, I will gladly do so without pride that my initial analysis was incomplete or just plain wrong.
Watch the documentary.
The reality is messy, a lot messier than either the pro-war or anti-war side will readily admit.
In other news, I’ve been challenged about what I think we should do moving forward, and that’s a tough call. I do think that US forces have to start drawing down — their presence, I’m afraid, has become too poisonous in the minds of the Iraqi people, who don’t trust us — but I don’t think leaving a vacuum there is a good idea, either. About all I can think to do is to beg the UN on bended knee to send in a large, international peacekeeping force, which we would largely fund and provide material support for (probably at a lower cost than our current engagement). But I’m open to suggestions. And as I said above, I think we have to shake the proverbial etch-a-sketch when it comes to the Iraqi government. The current government is corrupt and largely beholden to Iran. But I’m not sure how to fix that, either.
Cameron,
Obviously, because consider who the “we” is in your question: the ones deciding how to address our problems overseas.
I hope we are not talking about an impossible domestic policy, the implications of that would be beyond devastating. We’ll issue subpoenas, they will claim executive privilege, and the courts will decide.
You mention that your conclusions are drawn from history and facts. However, if we establish that the people on whom we have been dependant on to supply our facts have not been acting in good faith, then we can not claim to have a true understanding of the facts that we would need in order to determine the correct course of action.
Tgirsch, you make reasonable points as usual….but come on now, your quotes of mine ended at opportune times.
Where you ended quote #3, it was followed by “We are responsible for destabilizing the region, and that’s why we have the question before us. Stabilize peace or go home.” Thats takes the “rose-color” naivety out of quoting that one sentence by itself.
In response to quote #4: I don’t think it’s a matter of a stronger fighting force existing. Like you and I have both said, it’s a question of will it work and do we have the stomach for it. We’re not going to legitimately be beaten militarily on the ground.
I’ll watch the video starting tonight when I’m up at the wee-hours with my newborn. That’s the only time I’ll have.
Cameron:
“We are responsible for destabilizing the region, and that’s why we have the question before us. Stabilize peace or go home.” Thats takes the “rose-color” naivety out of quoting that one sentence by itself.
OK, it takes the “rose color” out and puts the “false dilemma” in.
For starters, there’s no guarantee that choosing not to “go[ing] home” will actually “stabilize peace.” Far from it, actually. There are some who have argued, not without merit, that our continued presence there is actually doing more harm than good wrt stabilizing Iraq.
We’re not going to legitimately be beaten militarily on the ground.
Two problems with this. First, it fails to recognize that our remaining objectives there aren’t military ones. Second, it fails to recognize that while we can’t be “beaten,” they most certainly can play us to a stalemate. Pretty much the same way it was done in Vietnam — involve the civilians, guarantee lots of civilian casualties, avoid head-to-head military conflicts wherever possible, in favor of guerrilla/terrorist warfare, etc.
I also think it’s more complicated than “will it work and do we have the stomach for it.” The other factor to consider is “is it worth it?” And that’s not just referring to us. If we have to kill more civilians to stomp out an insurgency than would be killed in a full-blown Iraqi civil war — not at all outside the realm of possibilities — then that answer would be “no.”
As for the video, I understand about time. Four and a half hours is an awfully big commitment, especially for someone with a newborn. But if you care about the subject, it really is worth watching. And I’m interested in another conservative perspective. (I’ve discussed it with someone who’s more libertarian than conservative, and who was never a big fan of GWB to begin with, so he doesn’t count.)
“For starters, there’s no guarantee that choosing not to “go[ing] home” will actually “stabilize peace.” Far from it, actually. There are some who have argued, not without merit, that our continued presence there is actually doing more harm than good wrt stabilizing Iraq.”
Yes, but it is still a conjecture. There are equally qualified people telling us we can “win” on the ground, and that our presence is a stabilizing force. We don’t know, so we’re arguing opinion for the time being.
We have little else to do there. Status quo doesn’t work. The choices are few and terrible at this point. We’ll get to pick our poison. I don’t perceive it as a false dilemma when the options are so limited. I understand your perspective though.
“(I’ve discussed it with someone who’s more libertarian than conservative, and who was never a big fan of GWB to begin with, so he doesn’t count.)”
While I voted for GW in 2000, you’re not going to find a Bush apologist here. I’m embarrassed every time he gets behind the microphone, and I cringe at the early historical analysis done on his presidency. Easily the worst of the modern era, 1945-present.