Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Will Bush cave to the insurgents? - Page 2







Post#26 at 01-12-2005 05:35 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
01-12-2005, 05:35 PM #26
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
First, I don't agree that Bush had a larger plan to disengage from the Middle East.
A pullback to the levels of US involvement under Reagan is what I had in mind. What do you suppose Bush had in mind? Isn't it clear that there was no intent to occupy Iraq for a long time? We did withdraw from Saudi Arabia.

Second, I think your analysis makes way too many rosy assumptions and is far, far too optimistic.
Well of course it does, we are there right? We would never have done it if the assumptions were terrible and the analysis pessimistic.

First off, if we leave, our macropolitical power would be severely damaged, and that can have dangerous consequences for us. I am (somewhat) with Xenakis that our loss in Vietnam helped create the first oil crisis. A lot of American economic presitge, as well as political, is wrapped up in our military superpower status. Pulling out of Afghanistan drastically reduced the Soviet Union's leverage in the world, and at home.
This sounds sort of like HC's focus on prestiege. I don't buy it. The USSR lost leverage because it collapsed. It seems to me that two decades after Vietnam US power and prestiege was greater than it was two decades before Vietnam.

And having chaos in the Middle East could eventually have it's postive outcomes. Maybe. But in the meantime the risk of widening war and oil disruptions would be high.
Oil disruptions was one of the drawbacks I cited.

I am also not convinced that bin Ladenism will be satisfied to merely see us leave. I think that in this shrinking world our very existence is a threat to that vision of Islam. They will surely think of some excuse to hate us and attack us. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow Iberia and beyond.
Here you seem to be employing the disease model of Islamism. It is a sickness that has to be either erradicated or contained to prevent its spread, sort of like Communism. The Bush adminstration would like us to believe that terrorism is an irrational force and that our only hope is to follow the administration's agenda without question. I don't buy it.

I believe that Islamicism is an ideology not a mental illness. Although its foot soldiers may be faithful, you can be sure that self-interest is wrapped up in the motivations of elites like bin Laden. I note that even in the very midst of the 16th century religious wars, France saw fit engage in an "Unholy Alliance" with the Turks against Spain.

I see the struggle with the Islamofascists as a war, in which both sides are pursuing limited political objectives.







Post#27 at 01-12-2005 10:25 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
01-12-2005, 10:25 PM #27
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Re: Misplaced Stuff

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
While I've been enjoying your tour of the Blue States, I think you have misplaced Sacramento. Your star should be just northeast of San Francisco Bay, not well up the coast to the north.
Huh. I just figured he'd located the capital of California somewhere around Weed...
Hey, don't go knocking Weed. If I hadn't filled up my gas tank there I just might have died on Siskiyou Pass last winter! :lol:







Post#28 at 01-13-2005 10:21 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
01-13-2005, 10:21 AM #28
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
First off, if we leave, our macropolitical power would be severely damaged, and that can have dangerous consequences for us. I am (somewhat) with Xenakis that our loss in Vietnam helped create the first oil crisis. A lot of American economic prestige, as well as political, is wrapped up in our military superpower status. Pulling out of Afghanistan drastically reduced the Soviet Union's leverage in the world, and at home.

(snip)

I am also not convinced that bin Ladenism will be satisfied to merely see us leave. I think that in this shrinking world our very existence is a threat to that vision of Islam. They will surely think of some excuse to hate us and attack us. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow Iberia and beyond.
Careful, Sean. In some ways you're starting to sound like me. :shock:

Concerning your first point (the collapse of US military prestige, leading to the collapse of US political, economic, and cultural prestige), if I
were a left-winger, I'd be licking my chops at the prospect - especially if I could blame it on 1) Bush, and 2) the American people themselves. And I would expect them to like it even better if our oil imports were to be cut off, on a more permanent basis - as a first installment on our 'punishment'. :evil:

As for Al-Qaeda continuing to hate us as long as we merely exist, I fully agree with you. The only point I would add would be, 'Them and a LOT of other people, including some dangerously well-placed ones right here in this country'. In fact, back in the 70 and 80s, some of my professors were of the firmly held opinion that our existence was our first and foremost act of "Imperialist Aggression Against the Oppressed Peoples of the World". :evil:







Post#29 at 01-13-2005 10:31 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-13-2005, 10:31 AM #29
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
First, I don't agree that Bush had a larger plan to disengage from the Middle East.
A pullback to the levels of US involvement under Reagan is what I had in mind. What do you suppose Bush had in mind? Isn't it clear that there was no intent to occupy Iraq for a long time? We did withdraw from Saudi Arabia.
Comparing Iraq and Saudi Arabia is like comparing apples and Buicks. We will withdraw when we can do so without creating a mess we can't fix from outside. The Saudis, beside being 'allies' and monolithically Sunni, are only stable with us out of the picture. They are the caretakers of both Mecca and Medina, after all.

Iraq is not stable, regardless. They have no structure. Perhaps they will get one, but it's not likely to be soon. The only political structure on the horizon is part Shi'ite, part Kurd and all chaos. Viability will develop ... or not.

Quote Originally Posted by ... then Mike
Quote Originally Posted by ... continuing, Peter
Second, I think your analysis makes way too many rosy assumptions and is far, far too optimistic.
Well of course it does, we are there right? We would never have done it if the assumptions were terrible and the analysis pessimistic.
I agree. Optimism is always warranted when the other options are unavailable, as is the case currently. We all have to hope for the best.

Quote Originally Posted by ... then Mike
Quote Originally Posted by ... continuing, Peter
First off, if we leave, our macropolitical power would be severely damaged, and that can have dangerous consequences for us. I am (somewhat) with Xenakis that our loss in Vietnam helped create the first oil crisis. A lot of American economic presitge, as well as political, is wrapped up in our military superpower status. Pulling out of Afghanistan drastically reduced the Soviet Union's leverage in the world, and at home.
This sounds sort of like HC's focus on prestiege. I don't buy it. The USSR lost leverage because it collapsed. It seems to me that two decades after Vietnam US power and prestiege was greater than it was two decades before Vietnam.
Do we have two decades to recover? With an emerging giant on the horizon, we may 'emerge' into second-class status.

Quote Originally Posted by ... then Mike
Quote Originally Posted by ... continuing, Peter
And having chaos in the Middle East could eventually have it's postive outcomes. Maybe. But in the meantime the risk of widening war and oil disruptions would be high.
Oil disruptions was one of the drawbacks I cited.
... which could potentially deep-six our own fragile economy. We can add some resilience given time, but time seems to be the issue, doesn't it. Right now, a major oil disruption, with continuing increases in our current account deficit, might be the proverbial 'straw' to our 'camel'.

Quote Originally Posted by ... then Mike
Quote Originally Posted by ... continuing, Peter
I am also not convinced that bin Ladenism will be satisfied to merely see us leave. I think that in this shrinking world our very existence is a threat to that vision of Islam. They will surely think of some excuse to hate us and attack us. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow Iberia and beyond.
Here you seem to be employing the disease model of Islamism. It is a sickness that has to be either erradicated or contained to prevent its spread, sort of like Communism. The Bush adminstration would like us to believe that terrorism is an irrational force and that our only hope is to follow the administration's agenda without question. I don't buy it.

I believe that Islamicism is an ideology not a mental illness. Although its foot soldiers may be faithful, you can be sure that self-interest is wrapped up in the motivations of elites like bin Laden. I note that even in the very midst of the 16th century religious wars, France saw fit engage in an "Unholy Alliance" with the Turks against Spain.

I see the struggle with the Islamofascists as a war, in which both sides are pursuing limited political objectives.
To an extent, I agree wit this. I don't see the Islamists being viable outside their zone of influence, unless they abandon much of what makes them a force.

If they succeed, an unlikely outcome to be sure, we might see a case of pseudo-isolationism, with selected use of trade to gain political leverage. If they had their choice, who would they choose to buy their oil? China? Africa? What would they want in return, other than money?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#30 at 01-13-2005 10:40 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-13-2005, 10:40 AM #30
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Comparing Iraq and Saudi Arabia is like comparing apples and Buicks. We will withdraw when we can do so without creating a mess we can't fix from outside. The Saudis, beside being 'allies' and monolithically Sunni, are only stable with us out of the picture. They are the caretakers of both Mecca and Medina, after all.
Eastern Arabia is the home of many Shia "Saudis" in the oil rich provinces (that are of no import as democracy building is the object of our invasion of Eurasia).







Post#31 at 01-13-2005 10:55 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-13-2005, 10:55 AM #31
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Comparing Iraq and Saudi Arabia is like comparing apples and Buicks. We will withdraw when we can do so without creating a mess we can't fix from outside. The Saudis, beside being 'allies' and monolithically Sunni, are only stable with us out of the picture. They are the caretakers of both Mecca and Medina, after all.
Eastern Arabia is the home of many Shia "Saudis" in the oil rich provinces (that are of no import as democracy building is the object of our invasion of Eurasia).
Though small in overall percentage of population, the Shia do have a foothold in the East.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#32 at 01-13-2005 12:25 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
01-13-2005, 12:25 PM #32
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

I read once that the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia is, in fact, oppressed to the point of outright persecution by the Saudi Gov't. (For religious reasons, of course - they are regarded as heretics.)







Post#33 at 01-13-2005 09:41 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-13-2005, 09:41 PM #33
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Podhoretz asks: "A Second-Term Retreat?"

A long read, but interesting. Part of a new book. A view from a quintessential GW Bush supporter.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/sp...1902025_1.html
Commentary February 2005 The War Against World War IV
Norman Podhoretz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Second-Term Retreat?
Will George W. Bush spend the next few years backing down from the ambitious strategy he outlined in the Bush Doctrine for fighting and winning World War IV?...

In a piece entitled "Governing Against Type," Edward N. Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies assures us that
reelected Presidents tend to disappoint their most enthusiastic followers by changing direction: they go Right if they started on the Left (or vice versa); become active when they were passive; turn dovish if they were hawkish; and in all cases converge toward the center of gravity of American politics, as well as toward the mainstream foreign-policy traditions....

All things considered, then, I feel safe in predicting that Bush will not reverse course in his second term, and that he will continue striving to implement the doctrine bearing his name throughout the greater Middle East-that, in short, he will go on "sticking to his guns, literally and figuratively," as Time put it in naming him "Person of the Year." But I feel equally safe in predicting that the forces opposing him, both in the region and at home, will persist in their struggle to nip this immense enterprise in the bud....

But the most important thing the insurgents and their backers in the neighboring despotisms know is that the battle for Iraq will not be won or lost in Iraq; it will be won or lost in the United States of America. On this they agree entirely with General John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, who recently told reporters touring Iraq: "It is all about staying the course. No military effort that anyone can make against us is going to be able to throw us out of this region." Is it any wonder, then, that the insurgents were praying for the victory of John F. Kerry-which they all assumed would mean an American withdrawal-or that the reelection of Bush-which they were not fooled by any exit polls into interpreting as anything other than a ratification of the Bush Doctrine-came as such a great blow to them?...

Long before "graduation day," of course, enemies of the Bush Doctrine who were banking on it to crash and burn had already begun shifting most of their chips from Afghanistan to Iraq, which was looking like a much more promising bet. Now, with so much riding on a failure in Iraq, no effort will be spared to make sure that even a victory there ends up being defined as a defeat.

Impossible? Take a look at the story of the Tet offensive mounted by the Communists in Vietnam in 1968.

The Lesson of Tet

At the time, American officials asserted-and the evidence was there to back them up-that the offensive had ended in military defeat for the North Vietnamese and their Vietcong surrogates. But the almost universal impression created by press and television coverage was of a defeat instead for the Americans and the South Vietnamese. On every point the situation was misrepresented by misleading stories and pictures and even by outright falsehood....

...with Iran as with Iraq before it, the issue of WMD is only the proximate or immediate casus belli. The strategic objective, as defined and mandated by the Bush Doctrine's prescription for the greater Middle East, is to drain yet another of the swamps in which Islamist terrorists are bred and nourished...

Furthermore, facing a conflict that may well go on for three or four decades, Americans of this generation are called upon to be more patient than "the greatest generation" needed to be in World War II, which for us lasted only four years; and facing an enemy even more elusive than the Communists, the American people of today are required to summon at least as much perseverance as the American people of those days did-for all their bitching and moaning-over the 47 long years of World War III. Indeed, in this area the generation of World War IV has an even more difficult row to hoe than its predecessors in World War II and World War III....

Which is why I think (to say it one last time) that the amazing leader this President has amazingly turned out to be will-like the comparably amazing Harry Truman before him when he took on the Communist world-have the wind at his back as he continues the struggle against Islamist radicalism and its vicious terrorist armory: a struggle whose objective is the spread of liberty and whose success will bring greater security and greater prosperity not only to the people of this country, and not only to the people of the greater Middle East, but also to the people of Europe and beyond, in spite of the sorry fact that so many of them do not wish to know it yet.







Post#34 at 01-14-2005 10:17 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
01-14-2005, 10:17 AM #34
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: Podhoretz asks: "A Second-Term Retreat?"

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
A long read, but interesting. Part of a new book. A view from a quintessential GW Bush supporter.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/sp...1902025_1.html
Commentary February 2005 The War Against World War IV
Norman Podhoretz

The Lesson of Tet

At the time, American officials asserted-and the evidence was there to back them up-that the offensive had ended in military defeat for the North Vietnamese and their Vietcong surrogates. But the almost universal impression created by press and television coverage was of a defeat instead for the Americans and the South Vietnamese. On every point the situation was misrepresented by misleading stories and pictures and even by outright falsehood....

...with Iran as with Iraq before it, the issue of WMD is only the proximate or immediate casus belli. The strategic objective, as defined and mandated by the Bush Doctrine's prescription for the greater Middle East, is to drain yet another of the swamps in which Islamist terrorists are bred and nourished...

Furthermore, facing a conflict that may well go on for three or four decades, Americans of this generation are called upon to be more patient than "the greatest generation" needed to be in World War II, which for us lasted only four years; and facing an enemy even more elusive than the Communists, the American people of today are required to summon at least as much perseverance as the American people of those days did-for all their bitching and moaning-over the 47 long years of World War III. Indeed, in this area the generation of World War IV has an even more difficult row to hoe than its predecessors in World War II and World War III....

Which is why I think (to say it one last time) that the amazing leader this President has amazingly turned out to be will-like the comparably amazing Harry Truman before him when he took on the Communist world-have the wind at his back as he continues the struggle against Islamist radicalism and its vicious terrorist armory: a struggle whose objective is the spread of liberty and whose success will bring greater security and greater prosperity not only to the people of this country, and not only to the people of the greater Middle East, but also to the people of Europe and beyond, in spite of the sorry fact that so many of them do not wish to know it yet.
This is quite a revisionist account. The impact of Tet had nothing to do with the outcome of the battle. We won all the battles, yet that didn't seem to help any. The US military had been reporting on the success of their new attrition policy after the old "Strategic Hamlets" policy had failed, and had forecast that the war would be soon over. The enemy was defeated and on the run.

Tet was impossible if what the military were saying was correct. But it happened.

Obviously the military was wrong. Their new strategy wasn't working any better than the old one had. So how long do you keep backing loser strategies? It's not like the US needed to prevail in Vietnam. After all, we didn't--yet we still remained the #1 power, triumphed over the USSR, and are now more dominant than we were in the fiftties, and Vietnam is still a poor and insignificant country.

As for the rest of the article's call for patience and public support. What is there to support? The adminstration has asked for no tangible support. I'm not paying higher taxes for the war. Nobody is getting drafted. Should the war start to cause widespread pain, I expect the GOP will end it, or face becoming political toast.







Post#35 at 01-14-2005 10:44 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-14-2005, 10:44 AM #35
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Imagine

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. William S. Lind
If we look at those who are fighting Fourth Generation war, America's opponents
in Iraq and elsewhere, one characteristic they share is that they believe very
powerfully in something. The "something" varies; it may be a religion,
a gang, a clan or tribe, a nation (outside the West, nationalism is still alive),
or a culture. But it is something worth fighting for, worth killing for, and
worth dying for. The key element is not what they believe in, but belief itself.


....



Old Werther gets at the central fact when he writes that "the modern age
that dawned in the Renaissance is no longer alive ? World War II was the
last gasp of modernity, industrialism, and linearity." The death of the
Modern Age actually comes with World War I; in 1914, the West, which created
modernity, put a gun to its head and blew its brains out. The 90 years since
have merely been the thrashing of a corpse. The rise of Fourth Generation war,
and its triumph over state armed forces in Iraq and elsewhere, marks the real
beginning of the new century, a century that will be defined and dominated not
by the West's ghost, nor by the Brave New World that is that ghost's final,
Hellish spawn, but by people who believe.



Nothing to kill or die for...







Post#36 at 01-14-2005 08:35 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-14-2005, 08:35 PM #36
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
First, I don't agree that Bush had a larger plan to disengage from the Middle East.
A pullback to the levels of US involvement under Reagan is what I had in mind. What do you suppose Bush had in mind? Isn't it clear that there was no intent to occupy Iraq for a long time? We did withdraw from Saudi Arabia.
I am not so sure. I do think he thought Iraq would go more smoothly than it has, but even had it gone smoothly we would've remained engaged (in Syria, in Iran, wherever) until the Neocon Wet Dream was realized. The other theory, that's it's primarily about oil, also suggests Bush would remain engaged with lots of bases established there and such. Either way we're talking about more commitment than under Reagan.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Second, I think your analysis makes way too many rosy assumptions and is far, far too optimistic.
Well of course it does, we are there right? We would never have done it if the assumptions were terrible and the analysis pessimistic.
I see. These are not your assumptions, but Dubya's assumptions. Gotcha. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
First off, if we leave, our macropolitical power would be severely damaged, and that can have dangerous consequences for us. I am (somewhat) with Xenakis that our loss in Vietnam helped create the first oil crisis. A lot of American economic presitge, as well as political, is wrapped up in our military superpower status. Pulling out of Afghanistan drastically reduced the Soviet Union's leverage in the world, and at home.
This sounds sort of like HC's focus on prestige. I don't buy it. The USSR lost leverage because it collapsed. It seems to me that two decades after Vietnam US power and prestige was greater than it was two decades before Vietnam.
Not that I want to be lumped in with HC on anything (Thanks a lot Mike :shock: :x ) but our prestige was SHIT from 1973-1989. Panama, the Gulf War, and the fall of the Soviet Empire is what reinflated our leverage (and the long road back arguably started with little Grenada).

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
And having chaos in the Middle East could eventually have it's postive outcomes. Maybe. But in the meantime the risk of widening war and oil disruptions would be high.
Oil disruptions was one of the drawbacks I cited.
Cool.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
I am also not convinced that bin Ladenism will be satisfied to merely see us leave. I think that in this shrinking world our very existence is a threat to that vision of Islam. They will surely think of some excuse to hate us and attack us. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow Iberia and beyond.
Here you seem to be employing the disease model of Islamism. It is a sickness that has to be either erradicated or contained to prevent its spread, sort of like Communism. The Bush adminstration would like us to believe that terrorism is an irrational force and that our only hope is to follow the administration's agenda without question. I don't buy it.

I believe that Islamicism is an ideology not a mental illness. Although its foot soldiers may be faithful, you can be sure that self-interest is wrapped up in the motivations of elites like bin Laden. I note that even in the very midst of the 16th century religious wars, France saw fit engage in an "Unholy Alliance" with the Turks against Spain.
I agree that it is an ideology and not a disease. I agree that it is in a sick way rational. And I agree that the Bush Administration's spinning of Islamicism is counterproductive overall. That said, I believe that extreme ideologies can have "rationales" all their own and I think Islamicism is in a larger context a reaction to the "shrinking world" phenomenon as it collides with a civilization that is not adjusting well to modernism, let alone postmodernism (which is sick in and of itself anyway).

IOW, I don't think they'll stop at our disengaging from Iraq and Israel (the latter is very unlikely anyway). Though I think Islamicism is reactive and negative in it's origins, it is now a proactive and positive (in the foward-looking, goal-oriented teleological sense) movement. Nothing less than the DEFEAT of the pagan West is now the goal. Remember, the leaders of this are mostly of the Prophet archetype. You know how they can be. :wink:

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
I see the struggle with the Islamofascists as a war, in which both sides are pursuing limited political objectives.
Since our society still has a lot of Adaptives running around I would agree that our objectives are limited. But their movement is mostly run by Prophets (albeit younger even than ours) and I no longer believe for a moment that their objectives are commensurate.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#37 at 01-14-2005 08:46 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-14-2005, 08:46 PM #37
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
First off, if we leave, our macropolitical power would be severely damaged, and that can have dangerous consequences for us. I am (somewhat) with Xenakis that our loss in Vietnam helped create the first oil crisis. A lot of American economic prestige, as well as political, is wrapped up in our military superpower status. Pulling out of Afghanistan drastically reduced the Soviet Union's leverage in the world, and at home.

(snip)

I am also not convinced that bin Ladenism will be satisfied to merely see us leave. I think that in this shrinking world our very existence is a threat to that vision of Islam. They will surely think of some excuse to hate us and attack us. Today, the Middle East, tomorrow Iberia and beyond.
Careful, Sean. In some ways you're starting to sound like me. :shock:
I could do worse Titus. Mike just accused me of sounding like HC! Luckily it was just in the stated beliefs dept. and not in the disingenuousness category. :wink:

Quote Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus
Concerning your first point (the collapse of US military prestige, leading to the collapse of US political, economic, and cultural prestige), if I
were a left-winger, I'd be licking my chops at the prospect - especially if I could blame it on 1) Bush, and 2) the American people themselves. And I would expect them to like it even better if our oil imports were to be cut off, on a more permanent basis - as a first installment on our 'punishment'. :evil:
Please, please keep in mind that only a minority on the (American) Left feel that way, and they're mostly Far Left postmodernist types. They disgust me as much as the seething theo's and neo's on the Right do.

Quote Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus
As for Al-Qaeda continuing to hate us as long as we merely exist, I fully agree with you. The only point I would add would be, 'Them and a LOT of other people, including some dangerously well-placed ones right here in this country'. In fact, back in the 70 and 80s, some of my professors were of the firmly held opinion that our existence was our first and foremost act of "Imperialist Aggression Against the Oppressed Peoples of the World". :evil:
Ah yes. The professors. I had them too. They are part of the reason why we now have such a problem with the Radical Right. These arrogant postmodernist bastards in our universities starting pulling all of this insane bullshit that legitimately scared the crap out of people. There was a rightist reaction. What's really worrisome is how much Leftist garbage infiltrated the Right in the process: Neocon Trotskyism, victimology, upside down multiculturalism (the "Michelle Malkin is God" syndrome), and such.

My warning to the Right is to be similarly careful this time 'round lest they get buried in a reaction.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#38 at 01-15-2005 12:32 AM by Milo [at The Lands Beyond joined Aug 2004 #posts 926]
---
01-15-2005, 12:32 AM #38
Join Date
Aug 2004
Location
The Lands Beyond
Posts
926

[quote="Mike Alexander '59"]
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
First, I don't agree that Bush had a larger plan to disengage from the Middle East.
"A pullback to the levels of US involvement under Reagan is what I had in mind. What do you suppose Bush had in mind? Isn't it clear that there was no intent to occupy Iraq for a long time? We did withdraw from Saudi Arabia."

I disagree. The idea I think is a kind of beachead in Iraq (to replace our presence in Saudi Arabia) to launch a potentially multi-decade crusade to radically alter the political map of the region. The irony of course is that even if the neocon project succeeds, there's unlikely to be much in the way of oil left in the ground over there by the time we're finished. The right-wing boomers get their weirdo "national greatness" thing without any sacrifice on their part. Xers get to pay for it all in dollars, and millies to get to pay for it with their lives.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2489







Post#39 at 01-15-2005 09:45 AM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-15-2005, 09:45 AM #39
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

The War Unwinnable on the Homefront

Victor Davis Hanson's take on the "unwinnable war":

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011405.html

HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS WE WIN

Indeed, from the oscillating analyses of Iraq, the following impossible picture often emerges from our intelligentsia. It was a fatal error to disband the Iraqi army. That led to lawlessness and a loss of confidence in the American ability to restore immediate order after Saddam's fall. Yet it was also a fatal error to keep some Baathists in the newly constituted army. They were corrupt and wished reform to fail ? witness the Fallujah Brigade that either betrayed us or aided the enemy. So we turned off the Sunnis by disbanding the army ? and yet somehow turned off the Shiites by keeping some parts of it.

Massive construction projects were hogged by gargantuan American firms, ensconced in the Green Zone that did not engage either local Iraqi workers or small companies and thus squandered precious good will. Or, indigenous contractors proved irresponsible and unreliable, evidence for why Iraq was in such bad shape to begin with. And when we did put exclusive reliance on them, it ensured only lackadaisical and half-hearted reconstruction.

We also lost hearts and minds by using GPS bombs to obliterate houses full of killers and take out blocks of insurgents. And yet we lost hearts and minds by failing to act decisively and de facto turning over large enclaves to terrorists and Saddamites whom we were afraid to root out. Elections should have been held earlier; no, they must be delayed since they come too soon when the country is still unsecured.

Our helmeted soldiers with sunglasses are holed up in enclaves, don't mingle, and perpetuated the heavy-handed image of snooty occupiers. But leaving the Green Zone is an open invitation to kidnapping and worse. So we are both too well hidden and yet not hidden enough. Embedded media gave us a real-time picture of the fighting. But (if one is conservative) it left open the opportunity for sensationalism on the part of wannabe crusaders, and (if one is liberal) it created too close a psychological bond with the soldiers that impaired objectivity.

It was a mistake to postpone Iraqi sovereignty for so long; but it is an equal mistake to rush into elections while the country is so insecure. The CIA is impotent, out-of-touch, and clownish; somehow it mind-controlled Allawi, Chalabi, and a host of other Iraqi "puppets."

The litany from the mercurial Beltway always goes on: There were enough troops to take out Saddam in three weeks, but not enough to restore order to the countryside ? but still too many that resulted in too high an American profile on the streets of Baghdad. The transformations of Donald Rumsfeld (this week's genius, last week's fool) have left us stripped down and bereft of the muscle needed. Yet new, more mobile brigades in strikers and special forces with laptops are preferable to old armored divisions on the streets of Iraq.

We cannot flee, but must not stay. Iraqis publicly say we should leave, but privately beg us to remain. We were after cheap oil, but gas prices somehow climbed almost immediately after we went in. Democracy won't work with these people, but somehow we are seeing three elections in the wake of the Taliban, Arafat, and Saddam.

There are many constants in all this pessimistic confusion ? beside the fact that we are becoming a near hysterical society. First, our miraculous efforts in toppling the Taliban and Saddam have apparently made us forget war is always a litany of mistakes. No conflict is conducted according to either antebellum planning or can proceed with the benefit of hindsight. Iraq was not Yemen or Qatar, but rather the most wicked regime in the world, in the heart of the Arab world, full of oil, terrorists, and mass graves. There were no helpful neighbors to keep a lid on their own infiltrating jihadists. Instead we had to go into the heart of the caliphate, take out a mass murderer, restore civil society after 30 years of brutality, and ward off Sunni and Baathist fomenters in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria ? all the while keeping out Iranian-Shiite agents bent on stopping democracy. The wonder is not that there is violence and gloom in Iraq, but that less than two years after Saddam was removed, elections are still on track.







Post#40 at 01-15-2005 10:36 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
01-15-2005, 10:36 AM #40
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: The War Unwinnable on the Homefront

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Victor Davis Hanson's take on the "unwinnable war":

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011405.html

HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS WE WIN

Indeed, from the oscillating analyses of Iraq, the following impossible picture often emerges from our intelligentsia. It was a fatal error to disband the Iraqi army. That led to lawlessness and a loss of confidence in the American ability to restore immediate order after Saddam's fall. Yet it was also a fatal error to keep some Baathists in the newly constituted army. They were corrupt and wished reform to fail ? witness the Fallujah Brigade that either betrayed us or aided the enemy. So we turned off the Sunnis by disbanding the army ? and yet somehow turned off the Shiites by keeping some parts of it.

Massive construction projects were hogged by gargantuan American firms, ensconced in the Green Zone that did not engage either local Iraqi workers or small companies and thus squandered precious good will. Or, indigenous contractors proved irresponsible and unreliable, evidence for why Iraq was in such bad shape to begin with. And when we did put exclusive reliance on them, it ensured only lackadaisical and half-hearted reconstruction.

We also lost hearts and minds by using GPS bombs to obliterate houses full of killers and take out blocks of insurgents. And yet we lost hearts and minds by failing to act decisively and de facto turning over large enclaves to terrorists and Saddamites whom we were afraid to root out. Elections should have been held earlier; no, they must be delayed since they come too soon when the country is still unsecured.

Our helmeted soldiers with sunglasses are holed up in enclaves, don't mingle, and perpetuated the heavy-handed image of snooty occupiers. But leaving the Green Zone is an open invitation to kidnapping and worse. So we are both too well hidden and yet not hidden enough. Embedded media gave us a real-time picture of the fighting. But (if one is conservative) it left open the opportunity for sensationalism on the part of wannabe crusaders, and (if one is liberal) it created too close a psychological bond with the soldiers that impaired objectivity.

It was a mistake to postpone Iraqi sovereignty for so long; but it is an equal mistake to rush into elections while the country is so insecure. The CIA is impotent, out-of-touch, and clownish; somehow it mind-controlled Allawi, Chalabi, and a host of other Iraqi "puppets."

The litany from the mercurial Beltway always goes on: There were enough troops to take out Saddam in three weeks, but not enough to restore order to the countryside ? but still too many that resulted in too high an American profile on the streets of Baghdad. The transformations of Donald Rumsfeld (this week's genius, last week's fool) have left us stripped down and bereft of the muscle needed. Yet new, more mobile brigades in strikers and special forces with laptops are preferable to old armored divisions on the streets of Iraq.

We cannot flee, but must not stay. Iraqis publicly say we should leave, but privately beg us to remain. We were after cheap oil, but gas prices somehow climbed almost immediately after we went in. Democracy won't work with these people, but somehow we are seeing three elections in the wake of the Taliban, Arafat, and Saddam.

There are many constants in all this pessimistic confusion ? beside the fact that we are becoming a near hysterical society. First, our miraculous efforts in toppling the Taliban and Saddam have apparently made us forget war is always a litany of mistakes. No conflict is conducted according to either antebellum planning or can proceed with the benefit of hindsight. Iraq was not Yemen or Qatar, but rather the most wicked regime in the world, in the heart of the Arab world, full of oil, terrorists, and mass graves. There were no helpful neighbors to keep a lid on their own infiltrating jihadists. Instead we had to go into the heart of the caliphate, take out a mass murderer, restore civil society after 30 years of brutality, and ward off Sunni and Baathist fomenters in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria ? all the while keeping out Iranian-Shiite agents bent on stopping democracy. The wonder is not that there is violence and gloom in Iraq, but that less than two years after Saddam was removed, elections are still on track.
What a whiner this Hanson is. Things don't go 100% his way and it's bitch bitch bitch, what a loser.







Post#41 at 01-15-2005 02:56 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-15-2005, 02:56 PM #41
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: The War Unwinnable on the Homefront

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Victor Davis Hanson's take on the "unwinnable war":

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011405.html

HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS WE WIN

Indeed, from the oscillating analyses of Iraq, the following impossible picture often emerges from our intelligentsia. It was a fatal error to disband the Iraqi army. That led to lawlessness and a loss of confidence in the American ability to restore immediate order after Saddam's fall. Yet it was also a fatal error to keep some Baathists in the newly constituted army. They were corrupt and wished reform to fail ? witness the Fallujah Brigade that either betrayed us or aided the enemy. So we turned off the Sunnis by disbanding the army ? and yet somehow turned off the Shiites by keeping some parts of it.

Massive construction projects were hogged by gargantuan American firms, ensconced in the Green Zone that did not engage either local Iraqi workers or small companies and thus squandered precious good will. Or, indigenous contractors proved irresponsible and unreliable, evidence for why Iraq was in such bad shape to begin with. And when we did put exclusive reliance on them, it ensured only lackadaisical and half-hearted reconstruction.

We also lost hearts and minds by using GPS bombs to obliterate houses full of killers and take out blocks of insurgents. And yet we lost hearts and minds by failing to act decisively and de facto turning over large enclaves to terrorists and Saddamites whom we were afraid to root out. Elections should have been held earlier; no, they must be delayed since they come too soon when the country is still unsecured.

Our helmeted soldiers with sunglasses are holed up in enclaves, don't mingle, and perpetuated the heavy-handed image of snooty occupiers. But leaving the Green Zone is an open invitation to kidnapping and worse. So we are both too well hidden and yet not hidden enough. Embedded media gave us a real-time picture of the fighting. But (if one is conservative) it left open the opportunity for sensationalism on the part of wannabe crusaders, and (if one is liberal) it created too close a psychological bond with the soldiers that impaired objectivity.

It was a mistake to postpone Iraqi sovereignty for so long; but it is an equal mistake to rush into elections while the country is so insecure. The CIA is impotent, out-of-touch, and clownish; somehow it mind-controlled Allawi, Chalabi, and a host of other Iraqi "puppets."

The litany from the mercurial Beltway always goes on: There were enough troops to take out Saddam in three weeks, but not enough to restore order to the countryside ? but still too many that resulted in too high an American profile on the streets of Baghdad. The transformations of Donald Rumsfeld (this week's genius, last week's fool) have left us stripped down and bereft of the muscle needed. Yet new, more mobile brigades in strikers and special forces with laptops are preferable to old armored divisions on the streets of Iraq.

We cannot flee, but must not stay. Iraqis publicly say we should leave, but privately beg us to remain. We were after cheap oil, but gas prices somehow climbed almost immediately after we went in. Democracy won't work with these people, but somehow we are seeing three elections in the wake of the Taliban, Arafat, and Saddam.

There are many constants in all this pessimistic confusion ? beside the fact that we are becoming a near hysterical society. First, our miraculous efforts in toppling the Taliban and Saddam have apparently made us forget war is always a litany of mistakes. No conflict is conducted according to either antebellum planning or can proceed with the benefit of hindsight. Iraq was not Yemen or Qatar, but rather the most wicked regime in the world, in the heart of the Arab world, full of oil, terrorists, and mass graves. There were no helpful neighbors to keep a lid on their own infiltrating jihadists. Instead we had to go into the heart of the caliphate, take out a mass murderer, restore civil society after 30 years of brutality, and ward off Sunni and Baathist fomenters in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria ? all the while keeping out Iranian-Shiite agents bent on stopping democracy. The wonder is not that there is violence and gloom in Iraq, but that less than two years after Saddam was removed, elections are still on track.
Sometimes a truly wonder whether Hanson is being paid like Armstrong Williams. He's is capable of so much better than this. He has become an ideological hack.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#42 at 01-16-2005 03:02 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-16-2005, 03:02 PM #42
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

A Persian Draws Analogies Between Iraq & Algeria

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sect...=15&m=1&y=2005

Algerian Lessons for Iraq | Amir Taheri*

Earlier this month Algerian security forces tracked down and captured Nureddin Boudiafi after a nine-week hunt and five days of intense fire-fights in the woods near the capital Algiers.

Wonder who Boudiafi is and why his capture merits attention?


Well, the man was the leader of the Islamic Armed Group (GIA), the deadliest of terrorist gangs that have shed Algerian blood, killing over 150,000 people, since 1992. Boudiafi described himself as Emir Al-Momeneen or ?Prince of the Faithful?, and issued fatwas (religious edicts) sentencing anyone he didn?t like to death. He had seized control of the group last July after staging a coup against the then ?emir?, a certain Rashid Abu-Turab, who had had an equally black record of mischief and murder. Both men had been graduates of the school of terror set up by the so-called ?Arab Afghans? in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and belonged to the same movement that produced Osama Bin Laden and Abu-Mussab Al-Zarqawi, the ?emir? of the Sunni terrorists in Iraq.

So, why is Boudiafi?s capture significant?

One reason, for starters, is that the capture establishes firmly that the terror groups are now on the run, pursued by the Algerians security.

This was not always the case. For more than 10 years the terrorists held the initiative, attacking where and when they wished, forcing the government?s forces into a defensive posture. The terrorists specialized in mass killings. In Bin Talha, a suburb of the capital Algiers, for example, they cut the throats of some 800 people, mostly women and children, in a single night. They also targeted the ordinary personnel of the army and the police, in the hope of discouraging young Algerians from enlisting in government forces.


The Algerian terrorists never came up with anything resembling a political program. They just killed people. They killed children on their way to school. They chopped the heads of Christian monks and Muslim muftis. They murdered trade unionists, political leaders, and journalists. They captured teenage girls and forced them into temporary marriages with ?the holy warriors.? They seized hostages, burned schools and hospitals, blew up factories and shops, and did all they could to disrupt the economy. At times they pulled off spectacular coups, for example by murdering the country?s president, and its most prominent trade union leader.

The terrorist campaign had started in the mid-1980s with a bandit, named Mustafa Bu-Ali, wreaking havoc in the environs of the capital. By 1990, however, the terrorists and their political allies had established themselves as a force in national politics. In 1991 they came close to winning power with a mixture of violence and electoral fraud.** By 1992, however, they had reverted to a strategy of murder and mayhem.

They pursued two objectives.

The first was to destroy the Algerian Army by killing as many recruits as they could in the hope that this would provoke masse desertions.

The second was to prevent the holding of any elections. ?Democracy means the rule of the people,? Antar Zu?abri, one of the most notorious of the terrorist chiefs, killed in action in the 1990s, liked to say. ?Those who want the rule of the people defy the rule of God, which is Islam.?

By 1994 the terrorists seemed to be close to victory. At least, Francois Mitterrand, France?s president at the time, thought so. In a statement he said Paris was prepared to work with an ?Islamic? regime in Algiers. At least four provinces and parts of the capital Algiers were deemed too dangerous for government forces to enter.

On some occasions the terrorists demonstrated their strength by engaging government forces in big battles, including one in Jijel which involved both the Algerian Navy and Air Force. Visiting Algiers in March 1994 I was struck by the mood of doom and gloom at almost every level of government. European ambassadors confided their fear that the terrorists might seize power at any time. A segment of the elite was urging negotiations with the terrorists, which meant discussing terms of surrender.

After a long moment of tergiversation in which the Algerian leaders did not know quite how to deal with the threat, they stumbled on a strategy almost by instinct.

They soon realized that the terrorists lacked a significant popular base. But it was also clear that a majority of Algerians had adopted a wait-and-see attitude, hating the terrorists in secret but too frightened of them to make a clear stand against them in public. The key, therefore, was to mobilize the ?silent majority? to demonstrate the isolation of the terrorists.

The most effective way to do that was to hold elections. Few people are prepared to die, and even fewer are willing to kill in support of their political opinions. But almost everyone is ready to vote. The task of a civilized society is to render the expression of political opinions easy. The terrorists made it difficult because they demanded of the people to kill and died. The Algerian leaders decided to make it easy by asking the people to vote.

The turning point came in 1995 when Algeria organized its first ever pluralist and direct presidential election.
This is was not an ideal election. The candidates were little known figures that had appeared on the national political scene just a couple of years earlier. None presented a coherent political program. To make matters worse the terrorists did all they could to prevent the election. They burned down voter registration bureaus and murdered election officers. Masked men visited people in their homes and shops to warn that going to the polls would mean death.


And, yet, when polling day came it quickly became clear that the terrorists, in the forlorn attempt at stopping democracy, were, as in so many other instances in history, facing certain defeat. Never in my many years of journalism had I seen such enthusiasm for an electoral exercise anywhere in the world. The ?silent majority? spoke by casting ballots, not because it particularly liked any of the candidates but because it wanted to send a message to the terrorists that they had no place in Algeria.

That one election did not make Algeria a democracy. Since then Algeria has held three more presidential and a dozen local and parliamentary elections. None of these exercises have been perfect, and Algeria may need dozens more elections, which means many more years, before it can achieve the standards set by mature democracies. But the Algerian exercise has made one fact clear: The only way to defeat terrorism is by involving the mass of the people through elections.

Algeria was the first major Arab country to be attacked by Islamist terrorists on a large scale. It is also the first to defeat them.

The Algerian experience holds many lessons for Iraq today. The terrorist insurgents operating in Iraq pursue the same strategy as their Algerian colleagues in the 1990s. Zarqawi and other terror chiefs are also trying to disrupt elections while, by killing recruits, preventing the formation of an Iraqi national army. Copy-catting their Algerian counterparts, the terrorists in Iraq have also assassinated many high profile officials and politicians. But like the Algerians, they, too, will learn that in a democracy no individual is indispensable.

Iraq?s first ever free election, scheduled for Jan. 30, will confront the terrorists with the people?s power just as Algeria did in 1995. This is why it is vital that the election be held on time and in as many parts of the country as possible. Using elections to defeat terrorism could become the key to the future of several other Arab countries.

*Amir Taheri contributor, is an Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam. Taheri is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

**After the 1990 municipal elections in which the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) won a weeping victory, the party leadership began to insist on general and presidential elections in 1991. The government (FLN) responded by promising legislative elections in June, but refusing presidential elections as well. During the year the government continued its market economy and electoral reforms. However, the FIS objected to these electoral reforms claiming they gerrymandered the new consitiuencies in favor of the FLN. In June 1991 a general strike called by the FIS led to fierce fighting between demonstrators and riot police and the country was placed into a State of Emergency which resulted in the postponement of elections. Also resulting from the crisis was the dismissal of Mouloud Hamrouche's government and its replacement by a pragmatic administration until elections in Dec. 1991. In the first round of elections held on Dec. 26, 1991 the FIS won a clear majority, however, before the planned Jan. 11, 1992 second round of elections took place the Algerian army forced Pres. Chadli Bendjedid to resign. A new army-backed regime, invited the political exiled Muhammad Boudiaf to return from Morocco to head the High Security Council (HSC). The security forces dismantled the FIS arresting some 9,000 militants and on Mar. 4, 1992 banned the FIS which resulted in an urban terrorist campaign against the regime. In 1995, Algeria experienced a fourth year of political violence, with conflict between government forces and Islamic militants. In November, President Liamine Z?roual won a presidential election that gave some legitimacy to the military-backed regime.







Post#43 at 01-16-2005 03:22 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-16-2005, 03:22 PM #43
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

That's all fine and dandy. But it doesn't change the fact that things in Iraq are still deteriorating. The Iraqi insurgents have more of a program and a cause than even the Algerian ones, and there are ethnic and global dynamics here that Algeria didn't have.

Morevoer, I think this article conveniently leaves out some of the measures the Algerian government had to take to get this far. Some of that was likely not fun. And I vaguely remember the insurgency in Algeria starting in earnest because some election was voided . . .
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#44 at 01-16-2005 03:24 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-16-2005, 03:24 PM #44
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Investors Business Daily Beats the Drums of War

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?view=1

Issues & Insights | Tuesday, January 18, 2005 | Investor's Business Daily | Free Ride Is Over

Middle East: Recent reports { http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5709-6329r.htm } indicate that hard-liners in the White House have been considering taking out insurgent training camps in Syria. In the words of Neil Young: "Should have been done long ago."

How many lives ? American and Iraqi ? would have been saved if we'd been striking insurgents wherever we found them? How many Americans and Iraqis would still be alive if the Pentagon had sealed the Syria-Iraq border a year ago with a hail of fire so intense that it removed the incentive for anyone, save the suicidal, to cross it illegally?

A move against Syria would no doubt have given critics even more reason to make the Vietnam comparison: Syria would be to Iraq what Laos and Cambodia were to Vietnam.

But so what? Critics do little other than criticize. And in this case, they'd do nothing to make our troops safer in Iraq except bring them home, which would only make the world less safe for others...

We also recall Secretary of State Colin Powell bluntly declaring that states harboring terrorists "cannot be given a free ride anymore." Iran, with its deranged ayatollahs, nuclear weapons ambition and much-deserved position on the axis of evil, receives the most attention in the Middle East outside of Iraq.

But Syria has been a deadly occupying force in Lebanon for nearly three decades. It also has acted as a breeding ground for terrorists and, as an arms bazaar, attracts and welcomes the most undesirable of customers. Syria might also be home to banned weapons shipped out of Iraq before the war against Saddam Hussein's regime began nearly two years ago?

It's the same with the U.S. We'd be happy to leave Syria to the Syrians. But Assad has made the country a target. It is an enemy of peace, a rogue nation, a patron of terrorists ? all facts that, according to a UPI report, have shifted minds within a Bush administration that had been opposed to striking there.

Regime change in Syria should be the ultimate goal of the civilized world. But for now, liquidation of the insurgents will do.







Post#45 at 01-16-2005 03:38 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-16-2005, 03:38 PM #45
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Alergian History

Peter Gibbons wrote:

Moreover, I think this article conveniently leaves out some of the measures the Algerian government had to take to get this far. Some of that was likely not fun. And I vaguely remember the insurgency in Algeria starting in earnest because some election was voided . . .
The article did leave them out, but the "**" footnote says:

**After the 1990 municipal elections in which the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) won a weeping victory, the party leadership began to insist on general and presidential elections in 1991. The government (FLN) responded by promising legislative elections in June, but refusing presidential elections as well. During the year the government continued its market economy and electoral reforms. However, the FIS objected to these electoral reforms claiming they gerrymandered the new consitiuencies in favor of the FLN. In June 1991 a general strike called by the FIS led to fierce fighting between demonstrators and riot police and the country was placed into a State of Emergency which resulted in the postponement of elections. Also resulting from the crisis was the dismissal of Mouloud Hamrouche's government and its replacement by a pragmatic administration until elections in Dec. 1991. In the first round of elections held on Dec. 26, 1991 the FIS won a clear majority, however, before the planned Jan. 11, 1992 second round of elections took place the Algerian army forced Pres. Chadli Bendjedid to resign. A new army-backed regime, invited the political exiled Muhammad Boudiaf to return from Morocco to head the High Security Council (HSC). The security forces dismantled the FIS arresting some 9,000 militants and on Mar. 4, 1992 banned the FIS which resulted in an urban terrorist campaign against the regime. In 1995, Algeria experienced a fourth year of political violence, with conflict between government forces and Islamic militants. In November, President Liamine Z?roual won a presidential election that gave some legitimacy to the military-backed regime.







Post#46 at 01-16-2005 04:15 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-16-2005, 04:15 PM #46
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Investors Business Daily Beats the Drums of War

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?view=1

Issues & Insights | Tuesday, January 18, 2005 | Investor's Business Daily | Free Ride Is Over

Middle East: Recent reports { http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5709-6329r.htm } indicate that hard-liners in the White House have been considering taking out insurgent training camps in Syria. In the words of Neil Young: "Should have been done long ago."

How many lives ? American and Iraqi ? would have been saved if we'd been striking insurgents wherever we found them? How many Americans and Iraqis would still be alive if the Pentagon had sealed the Syria-Iraq border a year ago with a hail of fire so intense that it removed the incentive for anyone, save the suicidal, to cross it illegally?

A move against Syria would no doubt have given critics even more reason to make the Vietnam comparison: Syria would be to Iraq what Laos and Cambodia were to Vietnam.

But so what? Critics do little other than criticize. And in this case, they'd do nothing to make our troops safer in Iraq except bring them home, which would only make the world less safe for others...

We also recall Secretary of State Colin Powell bluntly declaring that states harboring terrorists "cannot be given a free ride anymore." Iran, with its deranged ayatollahs, nuclear weapons ambition and much-deserved position on the axis of evil, receives the most attention in the Middle East outside of Iraq.

But Syria has been a deadly occupying force in Lebanon for nearly three decades. It also has acted as a breeding ground for terrorists and, as an arms bazaar, attracts and welcomes the most undesirable of customers. Syria might also be home to banned weapons shipped out of Iraq before the war against Saddam Hussein's regime began nearly two years ago?

It's the same with the U.S. We'd be happy to leave Syria to the Syrians. But Assad has made the country a target. It is an enemy of peace, a rogue nation, a patron of terrorists ? all facts that, according to a UPI report, have shifted minds within a Bush administration that had been opposed to striking there.

Regime change in Syria should be the ultimate goal of the civilized world. But for now, liquidation of the insurgents will do.
I have mixed feelings about taking out the camps in Syria. Yes, of course, if they are there and they are supplying the insurgents then they should be taken out, and with all deliberate speed and power. Make an example of Syria that shakes Assad in his gay little boots.

OTOH, is our ever accurate intelligence SURE that's what those targets are??? We better be. We can't afford any more screw ups. How about we say, okay CIA (or whoever in this case), we'll hit those targets you've assigned, but if the officer who signed off on these targets is wrong, his or her career is over with no pension, period. If they're right, they get a promotion and raise. That should focus minds.

Also, if we had enough troops in there to begin with we'd have enough coverage on the border. But our fellow T4Ter Chris S. seems to think all we have to do is await for special "quality" troops to do this job.

Well, we've been waiting for two goddamn years and the borders still aren't covered any where near well enough. It is BLATANTLY obvious to anyone without blinders on that 400K troops would greatly alleviate this problem so we wouldn't have to expand the war "Cambodia style" in the first place.

If 400K sounds like too much of a burden, take it up with President "Earpiece" Monkeyboy. He's the one who got us into this mess when he invaded and then wiped out the political and military infrastructure of the country so as to remake them in our own image. Fine, let's do that job right.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#47 at 01-16-2005 04:16 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
01-16-2005, 04:16 PM #47
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Alergian History

Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Peter Gibbons wrote:

Moreover, I think this article conveniently leaves out some of the measures the Algerian government had to take to get this far. Some of that was likely not fun. And I vaguely remember the insurgency in Algeria starting in earnest because some election was voided . . .
The article did leave them out, but the "**" footnote says:

**After the 1990 municipal elections in which the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) won a weeping victory, the party leadership began to insist on general and presidential elections in 1991. The government (FLN) responded by promising legislative elections in June, but refusing presidential elections as well. During the year the government continued its market economy and electoral reforms. However, the FIS objected to these electoral reforms claiming they gerrymandered the new consitiuencies in favor of the FLN. In June 1991 a general strike called by the FIS led to fierce fighting between demonstrators and riot police and the country was placed into a State of Emergency which resulted in the postponement of elections. Also resulting from the crisis was the dismissal of Mouloud Hamrouche's government and its replacement by a pragmatic administration until elections in Dec. 1991. In the first round of elections held on Dec. 26, 1991 the FIS won a clear majority, however, before the planned Jan. 11, 1992 second round of elections took place the Algerian army forced Pres. Chadli Bendjedid to resign. A new army-backed regime, invited the political exiled Muhammad Boudiaf to return from Morocco to head the High Security Council (HSC). The security forces dismantled the FIS arresting some 9,000 militants and on Mar. 4, 1992 banned the FIS which resulted in an urban terrorist campaign against the regime. In 1995, Algeria experienced a fourth year of political violence, with conflict between government forces and Islamic militants. In November, President Liamine Z?roual won a presidential election that gave some legitimacy to the military-backed regime.
Interesting. Thanks for looking that up.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#48 at 01-16-2005 09:30 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-16-2005, 09:30 PM #48
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

One Who Serves Under GW Bush Opines

Here's an excerpt from a biased view on news coverage of the war in Iraq:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/0..._and_abbe.html

Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq By LTC Tim Ryan, CO, 2/12 Cav, 1st Cav Div

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. War is a terrible thing and terrible things happen during wars, even when you are winning. In war, as in any contest of wills with capable opponents, things do not always go as planned; the guys with the white hats don't always come out on top in each engagement. That doesn't mean you are losing. Sure, there are some high profile and very spectacular enemy attacks taking place in Iraq these days, but the great majority of what is happening in Iraq is positive. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlight mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. Just yesterday, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. From where I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year. The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80% from late October -- before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships...







Post#49 at 01-16-2005 10:14 PM by NickSmoliga [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 391]
---
01-16-2005, 10:14 PM #49
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
391

Seymour Hersh cries, ?Havoc..."

Linked from http://www.drudgereport.com

Seymour Hersh cries, ?Havoc, the Dogs of War are Loose in Persia?

Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran | Jan 16, 12:33 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday. The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible." One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. ... Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."?

COMMANDO TASK FORCE

Bush has warned Iran in recent weeks against meddling in Iraqi elections. The former intelligence official told Hersh that an American commando task force in South Asia is working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their Iranian counterparts. The New Yorker reports that this task force, aided by information from Pakistan, has been penetrating into eastern Iran in a hunt for underground nuclear-weapons installations?." Defining these as military rather than intelligence operations, Hersh reported, will enable the Bush administration to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA's covert activities overseas.
First fruits of Porter Goss's clean-up at the CIA? Disgruntled ex-employee develops a bad case of deep throat?







Post#50 at 01-16-2005 10:30 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2005, 10:30 PM #50
Guest

Re: The War Unwinnable on the Homefront

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by NickSmoliga
Victor Davis Hanson's take on the "unwinnable war":

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011405.html
What a whiner this Hanson is. Things don't go 100% his way and it's bitch bitch bitch, what a loser.
Um, you obviously didn't read the whole Hanson article. The thing you took as whining was Hanson's interpetation of how the Left is approaching the war in Iraq. They can't be pleased, Hanson believes, for the Left it's a "Heads You Lose, Tails We Win" proposition for them.

Hanson then argues that war is simply a messy business:
  • The Follies of World War II
    Second, our very success creates ever increasing expectations of perfection for a postmodern America used to instant gratification. We now look back in awe at World War II, the model of military success, in which within four years an unprepared United States won two global wars, at sea, on the ground, and in the air, in three continents against Japan, Italy, and Germany, and supplied both England and the Soviet Union. But our forefathers experienced disaster after disaster in a tale of heartbreak, almost as inglorious as the Korean mess or Vietnam tragedy. And they did things to win we perhaps claim we would now not: Shoot German prisoners in the Bulge, firebomb Axis cities, drop the bomb ? almost anything to stop fascists from slaughtering even more millions of innocents.

    Our armored vehicles were deathtraps and only improved days before the surrender. American torpedoes were often duds. Unescorted daylight bombing proved a disaster, but continued. Amphibious assaults like Anzio and Tarawa were bloodbaths and emblematic of terrible planning and command. The recapture of Manila was clumsy and far too costly. Okinawa was the worst of all operations, and yet was begun just over fourth months before the surrender ? without any planning for Kamikazes who were shortly to kill 5,000 American sailors. Patton, the one general that could have ended the western war in 1944, was relieved and then subordinated to an auxiliary position with near fatal results for the drive from Normandy; mediocrities like Mark Clark flourished and were promoted. Admiral King resisted the life-saving convoy system and unnecessarily sacrificed merchant ships; while Bull Halsey almost lost his unprepared fleet to a storm.

    The war's aftermath seemed worse, to be overseen by an untried president who was considered an abject lightweight. Not-so-quite collateral damage had ruined entire cities. Europe nearly starved in winter 1945-6. Millions were on the road in mass exoduses. After spending billions to destroy Nazi Germany we had to spend billions more to rebuild it ? and repair the devastation it had wrought on its neighbors. Our so-called partisan friends in Yugoslavia and Greece turned out to be hard-core Communist killers. Soon enough we learned that the guerrillas in the mountains of Europe whom we had idolized, in fact, fought as much for Communism as against fascism ? but never for democracy.

    But at least there was clear-cut strategic success? Oh? The war started to keep Eastern Europe free of Nazis and ended up ensuring that it was enslaved by Stalinists. Poland was neither free in 1940 nor in 1946. By early 1946 we were already considering putting former Luftwaffe pilots in American jets ? improved with ample borrowing from Nazi technology ? to protect Europe from the Red Army carried westward on GM trucks. We put Nazis on trials for war crimes even as we invited their scientists to our shores to match their counterparts in the Soviet Union who were building even more lethal weapons to destroy us. Our utopian idea of a global U.N. immediately deteriorated into a mess ? decades of vetoes in the Security Council by Stalinists and Maoists, even as former colonial states turned thugocracies in the General Assembly ganged up on Israel and the survivors of the Holocaust.

    After Americans had liberated France and restored his country, General de Gaulle created the myth of the French resistance and immediately triangulated with our enemies to reforge some pathetic sort of French grandeur. An exhausted England turned over to us a collapsing empire, with the warning that it might all turn Communist. Tired of the war and postbellum costs, Americans suddenly were asked to wage a new Cold War to keep a shrinking West and its allies free. The Department of War turned into the Department of Defense, along with weird new things like the U.S. Air Force, Strategic Air Command, Food for Peace, Alliance for Progress, Voice of America, and thousands of other costly entities never dreamed of just a few years earlier.

    And yet our greatest generation thought by and large they had done pretty well. We in contrast would have given up in despair in 1942, New York Times columnists and NPR pundits pontificating "I told you so" as if we were better off sitting out the war all along.
This is the very same method of debate I use (in a much abreviated form, of course) with our highly esteemed military historian, David Kaiser. It is amazing how woefully, intentionally or not, ignorant Kaiser seems to be about history and the realities of war. Kaiser seems to be wanting it every which way but the way it is. Bush can't win no matter what he does. In Kaiser's mind it'll always be the wrong thing to do (while Kaiser himself eagerly champions FDR's slaughterhouse approach to WWII no less!).

Hanson closes his article with... well, you can read it for yourself if you'd like. :wink:
-----------------------------------------