Originally Posted by Blue Stater

You sound like Rumsfeld, whining about how you can't control reality. Don't you get it, your spin is nothing but that: spin. I am trying to talk to you as a citizen, and all I get is mini-Scott McClellan. No solutions, just politics. It's frustrating.

There are no solutions of the sort you hope for. All roads lead to bad, ugly choices.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

You sound like Rumsfeld, whining about how you can't control reality. Don't you get it, your spin is nothing but that: spin. I am trying to talk to you as a citizen, and all I get is mini-Scott McClellan. No solutions, just politics. It's frustrating.

There are no solutions of the sort you hope for. All roads lead to bad, ugly choices.

Correct. Which is why the Iraq campaign was unsaleable, on it's face, regardless of when you put the start date.

HC, as an ex-grunt, I can put it to you very simply: Infantry war. They are hard to sell, guy. The liberals are (rightly) pissed that nobody fessed up to the f***ups both leading up to, and in the execution of, the current mess.

The liberals are also correct about this: We have no reserves. With all due respect to the Joint Staff guy, we are going to have one hell of a problem trying to create sufficient numbers of troops, even with involuntary selective service. I will leave the political issue for others to discuss.

Nobody wants to fess up to the coming economic mess, either. With Ford, GM, and United Airlines starting the ball rolling, it can't be all that long before rhetoric gets crushed with reality. That, I think, will be the true Fourth Turning Crisis.

Wally.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

You sound like Rumsfeld, whining about how you can't control reality. Don't you get it, your spin is nothing but that: spin. I am trying to talk to you as a citizen, and all I get is mini-Scott McClellan. No solutions, just politics. It's frustrating.

There are no solutions of the sort you hope for. All roads lead to bad, ugly choices.

Correct. Which is why the Iraq campaign was unsaleable, on it's face, regardless of when you put the start date.

HC, as an ex-grunt, I can put it to you very simply: Infantry war. They are hard to sell, guy. The liberals are (rightly) pissed that nobody fessed up to the f***ups both leading up to, and in the execution of, the current mess.

The liberals are also correct about this: We have no reserves. With all due respect to the Joint Staff guy, we are going to have one hell of a problem trying to create sufficient numbers of troops, even with involuntary selective service. I will leave the political issue for others to discuss.

Nobody wants to fess up to the coming economic mess, either. With Ford, GM, and United Airlines starting the ball rolling, it can't be all that long before rhetoric gets crushed with reality. That, I think, will be the true Fourth Turning Crisis.

Wally.

That's pretty much it I think. Whatever the merit or lack of merit of the neoconservative crusade, we just don't have the resources (particularly the fiscal resources) to play the great game anymore. The American government and consumers are both chin deep in rising debt, we may well be facing the end of cheap oil, and we can't afford our current domestic and foreign policy commitments, let alone a crusade to occupy and "democratize" the middle east, the retirement of nearly 80 million baby boomers, and an entirely new energy and transportation infrastructure. Why do people think that millionaires and billionaires in this country are pulling out their money writ large? The elites and their supplicants are in way over their head this time. Maybe something miraculous will happen in Iraq, and maybe the prosperity fairy will cast a magic spell over the land and avert the coming economic apocalypse, but increasingly Bush looks like the worst combination of Hoover and LBJ.

Gee, can we all break out in a hearty chorus of Kum by Yah, now?

Golly, from hearing the way you libs talk you'd think Kerry won the election... well, if it makes you feel any better. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Gee, can we all break out in a hearty chorus of Kum by Yah, now?

Golly, from hearing the way you libs talk you'd think Kerry won the election... well, if it makes you feel any better. :wink:

You don't need to project your feelings of inadequacy on us, Lambeau.

Indeed, we will be forced to make big, probably harsh trade offs.

I do seem to recall something S&H wrote...to the effect that Boomers will accept an elderhood of Spartan means in return for sweeping moral authority.

Maybe some McMansions will be turned into boarding houses for aging Boomers. This would be similar to the housing situation in Places of the Heart, a movie set during the Great Depression.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

He couldn't be removed without force..

Granted, but there was more than one way to do this. Why did we choose conquest? It's like using a sledgehammer to crack open a walnut.

A coup would have served just as well to get rid of Saddam, but apparently the administration didn't want a coup. This implies that getting rid of Saddam was not the only thing the administration wanted. So the question becomes what else did they want? It's looking more and more likely they aren't going to get it, so we will never know.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Indeed, we will be forced to make big, probably harsh trade offs.

I do seem to recall something S&H wrote...to the effect that Boomers will accept an elderhood of Spartan means in return for sweeping moral authority.

Sweeping moral authority like Jefferson Davis'?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Nah, it's completely pointless. The 'we've been at war all this time' meme was introduced in 2003 to make the concept of fighting a real genuine, can't-call-it-by-any-other-name, war in Iraq seem logical.
Ask any American on the street when the War in Iraq started. They'll tell you March 2003.

You're probably right, Blue. Most Americans on the street would tell you that, but that's because we've done a pretty good job of convincing ourselves that siege warfare and naval and aerial bombardments are nothing more than diplomatic tools and humane alternatives to war -- mainly because they produce virtually no American casualties.

The Arab-Muslim world understood, correctly, that we were at war with Iraq throughout the '90s. That's why America's war against Iraq was bullet point number two in al-Qaeda's recruiting materials and communiques, right underneath the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And invading, occupying, raping, tortuting, shooting, and blowing up tens of thousands of Iraqis is no doubt the model of humane behavior.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Gee, can we all break out in a hearty chorus of Kum by Yah, now?

Golly, from hearing the way you libs talk you'd think Kerry won the election... well, if it makes you feel any better. :wink:

Here's to Marc Lamb, he's true red,
Steal your face right off your head,
Hates ol' FDR and Eleanor, too,
And spits tobacco at anything blue.

--a green one

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Originally Posted by Milo

The last I heard the "war" of which you speak didn't include a six figure occupation costing tens of billions of dollars, an insurgency against that occupation, the rape, torture and murder of Iraqi detainees, and hundreds of Iraqi civilians dying a week. But if you want to play semantic games that's just fine. If we have been at war since 1991 and the 2003 invasion and occupation was just an escalation of that war it was an unnecessary and costly escalation against an enemy who was by any reasonable definition contained. By a similiar logic you could say we were at war with the Soviet Union from 1945, but you'll note that no president decided to send a dozen tank batallions across the plains of eastern Europe en route to Moscow to depose Kruschev and sodomize the Politburo. Containment: it works.

Who's playing semantic games here?

We laid siege to Iraq and killed a large number of civilians over twelve years, we hammered Baghdad with aerial and naval bombardments, our warplanes enforcing no-fly restrictions were fired upon on a fairly regular basis, and we attacked Iraqi military targets quite frequently.

That's a war, not a "war".

It's not exactly containment, either -- at least not in the Cold War sense.

We weren't bombing Moscow, or killing large numbers of civilians by laying siege to the Soviet Union, or attacking Soviet military targets regularly. Unlike the Cold War, we were fighting a completely one-sided battle against a mostly helpless enemy while avoiding the real enemy -- the Ba'athist regime in power. We "contained" the Iraqi threat in the sense that we violently dismantled the country's ability to make war over the course of twelve years, but in the process, we destroyed its civilian infrastructure, caused a massive humanitarian crisis, and provided the number two reason (just under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) for young terrorists to sign up with al-Qaeda.

Well, if we weren't dependent on mideast oil there would have been no gulf war I, possibly no sanctions, and probably no Islamist terrorist threat against us (they didn't attack Brazil or Iceland after all). In short we would've regarded as just another fucked up authoritarian backwater in the developing world, like much of Africa, and a good portion of Asia and Latin America.

I guess it is fair to say that a consensus has never been reached on the legitimacy of the Iraq War.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

He couldn't be removed without force..

Granted, but there was more than one way to do this. Why did we choose conquest? It's like using a sledgehammer to crack open a walnut.

A coup would have served just as well to get rid of Saddam, but apparently the administration didn't want a coup.

We couldn't realistically arrange a coup, unless we simply replaced Saddam with someone just like him who was (momentarily) more useful.
Our need is for an entirely different kind of state there.

Even just replacing Saddam with OurSaddam would be a slim chance. Matters were made far worse by our failure to back up the rebels after we encouraged them, under Bush I (whose errors in handling the aftermath of the first Gulf War competently played a large role in setting up the necessity of the second).

It's hard to arrange a coup against a competent autocrat. They tend (and Saddam did) to have excellent sources of internal intelligence, to govern over cowed populations, and to cultivate external allies who have a vested interest in their continuance. Saddam did all that.

As for all the other ways that were supposedly better, they were all tried. That somehow seems to get lost in the argument, but the simple fact is that UN efforts, sanctions, variations on inspections, were all attempted, and they all failed, because Saddam knew how to play the game too well, and there were too many people who had a vested interest in his continued rule.

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Originally Posted by Milo

The last I heard the "war" of which you speak didn't include a six figure occupation costing tens of billions of dollars, an insurgency against that occupation, the rape, torture and murder of Iraqi detainees, and hundreds of Iraqi civilians dying a week. But if you want to play semantic games that's just fine. If we have been at war since 1991 and the 2003 invasion and occupation was just an escalation of that war it was an unnecessary and costly escalation against an enemy who was by any reasonable definition contained. By a similiar logic you could say we were at war with the Soviet Union from 1945, but you'll note that no president decided to send a dozen tank batallions across the plains of eastern Europe en route to Moscow to depose Kruschev and sodomize the Politburo. Containment: it works.

Who's playing semantic games here?

We laid siege to Iraq and killed a large number of civilians over twelve years, we hammered Baghdad with aerial and naval bombardments, our warplanes enforcing no-fly restrictions were fired upon on a fairly regular basis, and we attacked Iraqi military targets quite frequently.

That's a war, not a "war".

It's not exactly containment, either -- at least not in the Cold War sense.

We weren't bombing Moscow, or killing large numbers of civilians by laying siege to the Soviet Union, or attacking Soviet military targets regularly. Unlike the Cold War, we were fighting a completely one-sided battle against a mostly helpless enemy while avoiding the real enemy -- the Ba'athist regime in power. We "contained" the Iraqi threat in the sense that we violently dismantled the country's ability to make war over the course of twelve years, but in the process, we destroyed its civilian infrastructure, caused a massive humanitarian crisis, and provided the number two reason (just under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) for young terrorists to sign up with al-Qaeda.

Well, if we weren't dependent on mideast oil there would have been no gulf war I, possibly no sanctions, and probably no Islamist terrorist threat against us (they didn't attack Brazil or Iceland after all). In short we would've regarded as just another fucked up authoritarian backwater in the developing world, like much of Africa, and a good portion of Asia and Latin America.

Now that's a fair point, and a good one. IMHO, we should have been taking steps as far back as the 70s to prevent this situation, and we didn't, and there is plenty of bipartisan blame for that. Carter recognized a problem but intentionally turned his face from all the possible solutions, and the GOP largely ignored the problem for a long time (as did the Democrats later, during the oil glut).

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

I guess it is fair to say that a consensus has never been reached on the legitimacy of the Iraq War.

In late 3T and early 4T, when worldviews are clashing in earnest, it's hard to achieve a consensus on anything. That was one of the basic predictions of S&H back in Generations.

All the armchair quarterbacking on the war aside, the only thing of any consequence is the end game - what emerges in Iraq as the new paradigm. We have a hint of it now, but nothing definite, so we're all free to take a guess.

I'll wager that Iraq becomes a weak sister in the area, by failing to coalesce as a true nation state. The Kurds are the most organized and least likely to accept a situation that deprives them of the first whif of self rule they've had in a long time, the Sunnis aren't interested in being a minority partner and the Shi'ia are more likely to seek unity with their brethern in the Saudi oil patch than with either the Sunnis or the Kurds.

But political reality won't permit any of these groups to break-away or annex neighbors (especially the Kurds in Turkey), so they'll remain a confederation of convenience but of little power. This may have been the neocon plan all along.

Now the other question is - do we leave or find endless excuses to stay?

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Indeed, we will be forced to make big, probably harsh trade offs.

I do seem to recall something S&H wrote...to the effect that Boomers will accept an elderhood of Spartan means in return for sweeping moral authority.

Sweeping moral authority like Jefferson Davis'?

The Confederates did grant their Transcendentals sweeping authority, just as the North did (for a little while). Davis' problem was that he wasn't really the South's 'Gray Champion'. By the very nature of the southern worldview, it was almost impossible for a single such figure to emerge. Davis was perpetually dogged by disputes with Confederate governors (esp. Georgia) who essentially saw their States as sovereign nations, and the Confederacy as an alliance of such.

An example of a (as opposed to 'the') Confederate GC would be Edmund Ruffin, or Robert Rhett or William Yancey. The later individual actually worked to intentionally elect Lincoln, going out of his way to split the Democratic Party in 1860. It wasn't because he loved Lincoln or opposed slavery or anything remotely like that, it was because he wanted a Republican victory to drive the South to secession.

Later, after secession was a fact, Yancey became a thorn in the side of Jefferson Davis, as did Rhett and another fire-eater, Louis Wigfall (who insisted on adding a plank to the Democratic platform in 1860 guaranteeing the extension of slavery into the Western territories split the party, guaranteeing Lincoln's election (with a minority of the popular vote).

During the war, people like this constantly fought to limit Davis' powers, including even the powre of appointment, which was lunacy in time of war (but appropriate, since that entire war was an expression of lunacy). Everything Davis tried to do that in any smacked of centralization, they usually fought, even in the face of military common sense.

After the war, Ruffin, who legend credits with firing one of the first shots at Ft. Sumter, demonstrated his Idealistic dedication to his vision by blowing his brains out rather than going on living in a world in which that vision was defeated.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

... Whatever bad things can be said about Boomers, they are -- on a personal level -- a genuinely warm, loving, and caring generation. Especially when it comes to their kids. If they do actually accept an elderhood of Spartan means, it'll primarily be for the sake of their kids and grandkids.

I already sent my hair shirt out to be cleaned. I'm ready.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Originally Posted by Milo

Well, if we weren't dependent on mideast oil there would have been no gulf war I, possibly no sanctions, and probably no Islamist terrorist threat against us (they didn't attack Brazil or Iceland after all). In short we would've regarded as just another fucked up authoritarian backwater in the developing world, like much of Africa, and a good portion of Asia and Latin America.

For the most part, I don't disagree with what you're saying.

What I don't like is the assumption that most Americans make, that the rest of the world is essentially American -- that everyone values the same things we do, that they see events in the same light, and agree with us on the fundamentals. There was a war going on in the twelve years between the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the night that American commandos parachuted into northern Iraq to prepare the way for the invasion. That this war went on in our name while we pretended it was nothing more than diplomacy is significant, and it's important to keep in mind.

Keep in mind that it was largely covered that way, on a day to day basis, by the American media.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.

I wouldn't count on it, if I were the writers at The Guardian.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Now the other question is - do we leave or find endless excuses to stay?

Iraq isn't at the center of the universe. Once we reach a consensus on it we will figure out what kind of post-colonial relationship we will have with that country. I hope it's not like the French relationship with Sierra Leone.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We couldn't realistically arrange a coup, unless we simply replaced Saddam with someone just like him who was (momentarily) more useful. Our need is for an entirely different kind of state there.

Why? Why can't we just replace him with another man like we have done many times before?

Even just replacing Saddam with OurSaddam would be a slim chance. Matters were made far worse by our failure to back up the rebels after we encouraged them, under Bush I (whose errors in handling the aftermath of the first Gulf War competently played a large role in setting up the necessity of the second).

The rebels are irrelevant. We don't need help in deposing him, just as we didn't need help to get rid of Noreiga.

It's hard to arrange a coup against a competent autocrat. They tend (and Saddam did) to have excellent sources of internal intelligence, to govern over cowed populations, and to cultivate external allies who have a vested interest in their continuance. Saddam did all that.

Bullshit. Saddam went down easily, in just three weeks.

Look, we invaded Panama to get rid of their leader. We didn't hang around for years afterward at great expense. We have deposed lots of leaders we don't like, sometimes through invasion when there was no way to foment an internal coup (which I agree was the case for Saddam).

It seems to me that our goal was NOT just to get rid of Saddam. We could have done that with a more limited military intervention designed to force a coup, but which would leave the existing Baathist government in power, simply with another man on top.

The question is why? When the dust settles it is likely Iraq will be an Islamic Republic along the lines of Iran. Why did we decide to replace a secular government with religious one? Do we like the regime in Iran now? Since when?

How is this worth $300+ billion and 1400 American dead?

??But close observers of the case said by telephone yesterday that they thought the men had been prosecuted because the growing popularity of their free-market business practices had made them a threat to the government of President Islam Karimov.

Terror Charges Seen as Anti-Capitalism Tool

Why are the GOPers supporting this guy Karimov? Are they against free-market businessmen if they sport funny hats?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Why are the GOPers supporting this guy Karimov? Are they against free-market businessmen if they sport funny hats?

Well yes. They support their own businessmen, foreign and domestic. As for capitalists in general, look at their fiscal policy.