Pulled out of comments from an earlier post, and expanded -
I’ve been hearing a lot of talk lately about how people are tired of the war, tired of looking at the scenes of destruction on TV, tired of the flag-draped caskets and what they represent in human costs, tired of the expense and frankly, tired of talking about it. We want to move on, we want it over, we want to change the channel, talk about something else. Get back to full-time Britney and her sartorial choices, the next news blitz about the next telegenic blonde co-ed that goes missing, single-payer health care and Our Crumbling Infrastructure.
People are war-weary, and that’s only natural - no one likes a long, protracted fight. The lines get blurry, goals are re-defined, eventually someone you care about will get caught behaving very badly, casting doubt on the rightness of the entire enterprise. There is so very much misery. But war weariness can be a dangerous indulgence. Partly for political reasons, people have been lulled into thinking that the choice on whether or not to continue the fight is a simple one. It isn’t.
People have been told what they long to hear, that we can bring the troops home and all the killing will stop. Or at least the killing of people we care about will stop. And we do have a choice of course, just as we had a choice on deciding whether or not to go to war. But those choices aren’t of the same weight - it is much easier to decide to go to war than it is to decide to lose one. Most countries don’t get the choice of whether or not to lose their wars - it is imposed upon them. Almost uniquely in human history though, we’ve made a recent habit of picking fights we eventually decide not to win. As we spin up to do it one more time, it’s important that we carefully weigh our choices against the potential outcomes, with those consequences in turn weighed against the likelihood of their occurrence.
Because as tempting as it might be for some to see Mr. Bush lose his little war, it doesn’t end that cleanly. In order for him to lose, someone or something else has to win. And just because things are bad now does not mean that they can’t get worse.
It’ll be a pity, of course, about those poor, benighted wogs. Lied to again, disappointed again, left to be slaughtered again. But they ought to have been used to it by now, wot? After Beirut, after Iraq in 1991, after Somalia, they should have known better than to trust us. With all our talk about democracy and freedom, and the rule of law. That’ll never happen again.
Not to worry though. Eventually enough of them will have been murdered and many of the rest will disperse across porous borders in every direction. There will be enough displaced persons to create yet more of the region’s already all-too-common refugee camps, places of misery and squalor that breed hatred like swamp water breeds mosquitoes. The most brutal killers - and we already know who they are, which takes some of the mystery out of it - will rise to the top of the 21st century Golgotha left behind to rule over cowered masses who lack the resources to escape.
And that’s when it starts to get interesting again, at least from our own parochial point of view: Having consolidated their power - with the help of some friends to the east perhaps - will they be content at home within their self-imposed blanket of smothering oppression? Or will they instead turn their attention elsewhere? To the south perhaps, where lies a land of great natural resources inhabited by impoverished millions ruled by thousands of indolent princes? Will the House of Saud - bin Laden’s true enemy, and the foundational reason for his struggle with the US - stand against this newly victorious combination? They might choose the path of accommodation for as long as they can, to prolong their existence. But at what price, that accommodation, and for how long?
Just wogs though, again. Nothing to do with us. Apart from prices at the pump.
Except that one quarter of the world’s population has been taught, as an article of faith, that their religion is final and perfect and they themselves should be given dominion over the world, to spread the word as it has been given to them. Peacefully, if possible, but spread in any case.
And yet, maddeningly, that promised dominion - so obvious for hundreds of years - has evaporated, never to return. With every passing decade the rest of the world marches on impressively, new technologies creating ever-higher standards of living, happiness, and yes, decadence. That progress is vividly resented by many in an umma that falls further and further behind in every measure of human achievement, stewing in comparative misery, corruption and inefficiency under tyrannical oppression.
Having dabbled unsuccessfully in western concepts such as nationalism and socialism, true believers who ask themselves “what went wrong?” are now faced with only two possible answers: Either their faith is not final and perfect, or they themselves are imperfectly faithful. Down the first path lies reason and the potential for peaceful co-existence. Down the other path, not for the first time, lies the conquering sword of jihad - and the forces of existential reaction.
We should strive to encourage reason. Our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere are busily promoting the alternative. If we abandon Iraq to them, one billion people will observe our humiliation there and decide for themselves which is the “strong horse” and which the weak, which philosophy has a future and which does not. The fact that we do not think in these terms is meaningless - our foe most certainly does.
And do you not wonder, as you follow the branches of possibility down their darkest corridors, how many of us will have to die before we decide to kill all of them? Will New York and Washington, DC be enough, or will we concede Los Angeles and Denver too? We will draw the line, if it comes to that kind of terror.
But perhaps we will be luckier. Perhaps our decline will be more gradual, our choices ever more constrained by the realities imposed by an encroaching world, a world only too eager to remind us of the sins we committed when our power was at its zenith. Picture the future of nation built on trade held hostage by inimical forces in control of the lifeblood of global commerce. This is the eager promise of al Zawahiri’s new caliphate.
But how likely is any of this? The re-imposition of a tyranny in Iraq after a radicalizing bloodbath is almost a certainty if we permit the indulgence of “war weariness” to cause us to yield the battlefield to the entropic forces now engaged there. Everything after that becomes increasingly theoretical and distant. But there is a non-zero possibility attaching to those final scenarios, against which we must multiply the potential consequences.
These aren’t children’s games we’re playing. This is the long war.
58 responses so far ↓
1
Ernie
// Dec 13, 2006 at 11:10 am
Very eloquent, sir, as usual. And right on target, of course. As usual. Begs the question that stays on my mind, as I’m sure it does yours: how to get this point across to those with the power to actually do something about the course (that came out “curse” the first time-Freudian slip, maybe?) we’re on? I keep thinking, somewhere within the Beltway, there must be someone who sees this, that surely knows we must abide as long as it takes to win. That defeat is, if not now, sooner or later, death.
2
Jason
// Dec 13, 2006 at 11:30 am
In the spirit of this post. I found a place to express support for US Airways after the “Imam” incident in Minneapolis.
http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/contact/generalform.aspx
3
Trias
// Dec 13, 2006 at 11:30 am
Very well written. A long war indeed.
4
Marvin
// Dec 13, 2006 at 11:47 am
Well said, sir.
Our troops take an oath to protect an idea, The Constitution of the US, a system design to give the ruling power to the people.
Lincoln fought his war to free the slaves.
Wilson fought his war to spread the ideals of freedom.
FDR fought his war to stop the tyrants.
Truman fought to protect freedom.
JFK and LBJ fought to protect freedom.
GWB is following a fine tradition, and hopefully this nation will re-find the will to win this struggle.
5
Barb
// Dec 13, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Yes, yes, yes, yes — say it again, Lex. It is a long war, and we can’t just say ‘go away’ to the islamo-terrorists. They’ve already proven that they’ll come here to take us out when they can. No end but Victory.
6
Kris, in New England
// Dec 13, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Lex - make no mistake, I agree 110% with all that you have said. Being one of the original commenters who agreed with the idea that we are a “war weary” world, it was within the context that it’s the sheep among us who feel that way. The ones who would rather sit back and complain about what they hear from their ONE news source and blame the woes of their life on the current administration.
It is a long war - no one ever told us it wouldn’t be. What the hell did people think when Bush kept saying “We shall stay the course” - that it was going to be a Sunday drive thru the big city? Sheep.
We live in a society where instant gratification isn’t fast enough, where what Paris Hilton wore yesterday is front page news, and where the lowest common denominator is the one served first.
“…will they be content at home within their self-imposed blanket of smothering oppression?…” Not on your life - these people really are the first empire builders of the world and they appear to want to be the last. And if the politicians in power cave to the sheep, and bring our troops home too early, I shall start to build a bunker in my backyard the likes of which the world has never seen. It will be HUGE and well-stocked, and you are all invited to stay there.
7
Kris, in New England
// Dec 13, 2006 at 12:39 pm
And to further expand on the idea that the House of Saud “…might choose the path of accommodation for as long as they can, to prolong their existence…” go here:
http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/12/wheres_the_amba.html#
and here
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008688.php
and see what Smash and Captain’s Quarters has uncovered about the Saudi ambassador and his sudden, silent and unexpected departure from Washington DC.
8
PeterGunn
// Dec 13, 2006 at 12:40 pm
…only that everyone could understand the truth as it is so very well written here.
9
John G.
// Dec 13, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Frankly, I’m tired of the whiners. One soldier recently stated it eloquently to Sean Hannity about why he’s there in Iraq. (Paraphrasing)”It boils down to this; I love my country.”
10
Agricola
// Dec 13, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Lex,
So good, so clear, so right that I shamelessly cut and paste the whole thing.
at my site
If you haven’t already seen it, Tony Blankley has some encouraging words in today’s Washington Times…..
11
Skippy-san
// Dec 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Ok fine, these wogs are somehow worth saving. This administration still does not seem committed to getting it done with the resources necessary. It never was. The other question that should have been asked at the time is why now? Why not finish one war at a time?
Two central premises of your arguement bear futher scrutiny: a) that Islam is somehow a monolithic block-its not. and b)that Iraq’s violence is totally the doing of outside agitators. -that’s not 100% true either. A portion is, to be sure-however as has been noted by a lot of sources-much of this is fanned by Iraqis themselves.
Perhaps Saddam was the way he was because the Iraqis are the way they are.
Either way, all the current course promises is simply more of the same for a protracted period of time, if not forever. (or at least tyill 2009 when whoever wins the election will pull us out of there). The remaining nations in the region are perfectly content to let that happen that way, because it works to their advantage. It serves as a personal, military, and economic drag on the Western Superpower, kills of a lot of fellow Muslims they don’t like, and insulates them from threats to their own border.
From their equation its fine if the United States choose to distract itself in this way. Just as Algeria distracted France for 8 years. At least the French had a point, they were trying to keep French territory-which was theirs by 150 years of right of conquest. The French were also correct that what would follow them would fold into anarchy quite quickly.
Iraq will do the same-whether we are there or not. A strongman has to arise, because nature abhors a vacuum. So long as it is our strongman it might be ok. If its an anti-American one, of which the odds are good, we will have to deal with the consequences of that. In the meantime though we will have invested a lot of resources for something that paid us little dividend.
And in the interim the real threats to the country grow stronger-Iran, China, and Russia, India, world economic imbalance, and the rest. Thanks to Iraq, our ability to influence those really important issues had diminshed.
12
Pixelkiller
// Dec 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Thank you, Lex. You’re as clear and conceise as ever. President Bush said, back at the beginning, that it would be a long war. (Longer than a 20 second sound bite is too long for some I guess). Why do so many want to forget that he said that? Inconvenient?
However, I think fighting it “hard”, as you suggested a couple of weeks ago, is something he should finally begin…. Is terribly late in beginning…. Down and dirty…. Junkyard dog mean…. A fight the whole world will remember…. A struggle of biblical dimension.
If we fail in this endeaver, the forces of darkness will eventually cover the earth. They will come for us all. If we fall, we will never rise again.
What-the-hell, so few even care to hear. life is short and death is forever. When I leave, I would like to leave knowing it’s better than when I arrived, but why is it have to be such a cliff-hanger?
Sorry.
PS: For Kris in New England…. Bunkers suck. Fight in the open.
13
AW1 Tim
// Dec 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Skipper,
Those are the same points i try to hammer home to my freinds. Islam has been fighting this war for more than 12 centuries. Sometimes it advances, sometimes it falls behind, but it gets up, dusts itself off, and starts up again.
At some point, we WILL have to make the terrible choice of them or us. I have read the Koran. Many times. There is no place in Islam for a Rennaissance. No chance for an Age of Enlightenment. Only for war and conversion at any price.
We dismis the threat at our peril, and if not us, then our children or our children’s children will pay a terrible bill for our negligence, and for the self-centered zeal of our political cronies, who value complacency and denial above reality.
Respects,
14
jpr
// Dec 13, 2006 at 2:51 pm
What is the magic formula that they came up with for having the 135-150K troops in theater? Will we run the risk of more “war weariness” if we suddenly stomp on the gas pedal and flood Iraq and elsewhere with more troops?
What is a solution to bringing the Long War to a conclusion favorable to us?
15
unkawill
// Dec 13, 2006 at 3:01 pm
“I shall start to build a bunker in my backyard the likes of which the world has never seen. It will be HUGE and well-stocked, and you are all invited to stay there.”
Thanks for the invite Kris, but I prefer winters with no snow.
GO HARD! or go home.
16
lex
// Dec 13, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I think the dirty little secret is that the current force package is about the most that can be sustained on a rotational basis of a year in, some down time after re-deploying and a year or so of tailored training before deploying again.
The problem with “Go Big” in a volunteer force is that you put all the chips on the table up front. You fight until you either win or until you break the force, and no one really knows how long that might last. Might be worth trying as a last resort, but as soon as we commit to that the clock is ticking and there’s little if any strategic reserve should something boil over elsewhere.
17
MissBirdlegs in AL
// Dec 13, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Dang, that’s good - and right as rain! Sending the link around.
Kris, I too ‘preciate the invite, but like unkawill, I’m not crazy about snow or really cold weather. Also, like Pixiekiller, I prefer to fight in the open.
There might be spiders! (shudder)
18
kat-missouri
// Dec 13, 2006 at 4:14 pm
I have to agree with Lex on the last. I don’t see the military value of putting all our chips on the table for an insurgency. I don’t think it would guarantee the “win” that we’re looking for. In fact, it implies that Iraq is all and everything to the war, which it isn’t. In the end, you might get a military victory and finally crush the insurgency, but politically, it could be a bigger disaster since it would very much change the concept of the “war on terror” to “the war against Muslims” considering the damage to people and infrastructure. It also implies that the insurgency/terrorists have a greater presence and political impact than we want to give them in Iraq.
For all the hoopla in the past about “creating terrorists” with our presence there, I think a ramp up to forces capable of (and usually used for) total war, would solidify the opposition and propel an even larger recruitment of those who would “defend Islam”.
Basically, turning this into a really big war (either regional or possibly “world war” as we understand it from WWI and II) instead of a long, small war where countries and people maybe politically motivated to give in without firing a shot or not participate at all, thus, actually saving lives. Long, small wars are not about gaining land in the end, but controlling and motivating politics.
In regards to many who profess the idealism surrounding Iraq might be sound, but the lack of forces or whatever, keeps us from winning… most people, including skippy, have been against the war for one reason or the other since the beginning. I have thought for a long time that this is just one way to keep one foot in the defeatist camp and a toe in the “win” camp, just in case it works out in the end.
But, really, from the beginning, these folks had already “decided to lose” as Lex said. Whatever is said, it still smells like defeat. It is defeat.
19
unkawill
// Dec 13, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Capt, By GO HARD I mean relax the ROE and get after the bad guys.
I mean Jeez, are we at WAR or not?
How about some offense? Hell, we cleaned out Ramadi once, we can do it again. Baghdad too. No one can stand up to our Infantry or Marines. Let em get after it and get it over. Why DRAG this out. We have the resources. I say use em.
Sorry about the rant, I just get so frustrated-I want to rip my hair out.
20
unkawill
// Dec 13, 2006 at 4:50 pm
“For all the hoopla in the past about “creating terrorists” with our presence there, I think a ramp up to forces capable of (and usually used for) total war, would solidify the opposition and propel an even larger recruitment of those who would “defend Islam”.”
With a 50-1 Kill Ratio I say Bring em on.
Be good to rid the earth of such scum.
21
CPT J
// Dec 13, 2006 at 5:23 pm
“They are faced with two options: Either their faith is not final and perfect, or they themselves are imperfectly faithful.”
This is the key.
The first option implies reason, self-reflection, a willingness to compromise. A chance for the good in our fellow humans who happen to be Muslim to seriously question exactly how and why their religion has condemned their cultures to centuries of backward squalor. A chance to renounce the barbaric practices of a tribal hate cult and live in harmony with the rest of humanity.
Nah. Ain’t gonna happen. Because the radical Islamists have already chosen the second option, and must prevent any Muslim from ever chosing the first. Because they must have and be perfect, no failure is their fault, no defeat is ever final. Any Muslim who is not as pure as they in their hatred can and must be butchered. In their circular logic there is no end to this. The hate and the war goes on forever. That’s their victory condition. Even a “peace” under a global Caliphate is an illusion, because someone will always be ‘impure’, and must be crushed. Perfect Totalitarianism has led them into a perfect mental trap.
Only a mountain of corpses is going to change some minds. Impatient for their self-delusions to come true, they’re going to keep pushing us. And just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, we’re going to give them all the destruction they seek.
Only by then we won’t care which option they want.
22
kat-missouri
// Dec 13, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I think that you missed the important part:
Basically, turning this into a really big war (either regional or possibly “world war” as we understand it from WWI and II) instead of a long, small war where countries and people maybe politically motivated to give in without firing a shot or not participate at all, thus, actually saving lives. Long, small wars are not about gaining land in the end, but controlling and motivating politics.
Let me add “as well as controlling and limiting the consequences” of war.
What most are advocating when demanding the big stick be brought in and thoroughly applied to Iraq, is not simply a change in strategy or tactics, but a change in defining the war. A change that has consequences beyond whether you “win” Iraq or not. While unkawill may be ready to change it and kill all the “scum” that are ready to die and others are lamenting the will of the people to conduct and sustain long wars, I really don’t believe that people are ready to commit another world war that will require even greater sacrifices than our grandparents had to give. Or, could equally result in a polarization of the world that leads us back to cold war where even some of the players remain the same (such as Russia and China).
Further, as much as our “allies” hate this war, what exactly do you think they’d feel about being commited, more or less without say so, to a world war? Because that is what would happen. While it might feel good to try to force people to “choose sides” and participate, how it shakes out in the end, might not look like or feel like the “righteous” wars of our recent past.
Are you ready to bargain away the long term future and our continued dominance for a short term gain?
That is the question.
23
CPT J
// Dec 13, 2006 at 5:38 pm
So for all of this we must stay in Iraq long enough to midwife Reason. Victory there won’t be a visible photo opportunity or neat lines on a map. Iraq will eventually be overshadowed by something far worse, on another unexpected front of the global war that will crush the last of the naive “give peace a chance” hopes.
Something much worse that invites comparison with the slow, hidden, bloody, yet real progress that has been made. Only then will we see how much we’ve actually won.
24
CPT J
// Dec 13, 2006 at 5:46 pm
kat raises an important point: people naturally would want all this to go away and not have to choose sides, an end to the “righteous” wars of the past.
The Islamist strategists would do well to follow that advice, and only gradually strangle our liberties with Sharia, and not with violent attacks. Then they could subdue us in a generation or so, without destroying their prize, Europe or even America.
But the Islamists have their very own “righteous” fanatics who won’t be patient. So people will be forced to choose.
25
unkawill
// Dec 13, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I did not miss the important part.
We already are in a worldwide war.
And have been,IMO since 1979.
We didn’t start it, but we must win it.
The Arab and Persian minds only respect strength. I say quit pussyfooting around and flex a bit for them.
26
kat-missouri
// Dec 13, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Basically, you’re saying you’re ready to go to war, not only with a huge part of the middle east, but possibly Russia and China, among the nations that may feel compelled to protect their own interests and join the fight, not necessarily on our side.
Or do you believe these nations would not participate directly?
27
unkawill
// Dec 13, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Yes I am prepared to go to war with all nations and/or states that sponsor terrorists. I am going back to Iraq next year. Convoy Duty. Fun.
I was not aware that China and Russia were involved in supporting terrorism.
Kat, I looked at a couple of your old blogs, you seem reasonable and well educated.
You have very valid points.
I feel that it is in everybody’s interests to root out the bad guys and establish the rule of Law, not the rule of clan.
People being human, there will be graft and corruption. but we can’t do nation building, till we round up the bad guys.
That goes for most of the second world and all of the third world.
28
Flatlander-
// Dec 13, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Problem is, democracies don’t win “long wars”. They are too messy, and keeping a majority of the people behind the emotional and financial costs was a challenge even before the modern media raised the anti-war bias.
29
Subsunk
// Dec 13, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Wise Father Lex,
A well thought and logically astute piece, sir. I join you in sharing this discussion with the rest of the world and most especially, the umma.
I recently had a long conversation with a very liberal gentleman who spent 7 yrs as a Surface Warrior during VietNam (circa 1968 DE Engineer Officer, from Harvard, no less). There was no question in his mind that what we are engaged in was wrong. His experience in targeting “anything that moved faster than 4 knots” on the river or coast as a hostile contraband runner assured him that folks in today’s military were dumb, bloodthirsty, and wrongheaded in the application of force. “We are making more terrorists”, says he, with assurance.
I used many of these same arguments to explain why Islam must be opposed now instead of later. Particularly, Wretchard’s Three Conjectures discussion adds to this logical post.
When confronted by the possibility of nuclear annihilation of our opposition, given the correct provocation, his answer was that we should die in smaller numbers unilaterally because there are more Muslims in the world and we are so frequently wrong in our actions and misguided in our thoughts that 1.4 Billion Muslims could only do better than 300 million Americans anyway, and thus there would be Peace.
The Peace of the Dead.
These insightful arguments of yours, however logical and thoughtful, will not win out against our domestic enemies unless we hold to the tenets of this post, espouse the principles which brought us Victory in the American Revolution, Civil War, and World War II, and insist that those who would rather retreat from all violence, no matter their military background, be shown for the Defeatists they are and opposed with the same Courage required to take on the jihadis. After all, “The Hell This Ain’t the Most Important Foxhole in the World. I’m In It!” is not just a snappy saying to me. Call it a “Life” or “Death” choice.
CPT J, you are a wise Man, sir. I pray you can keep those of us older than you on the path a strong young Man requires for Victory. Press on, son.
Subsunk
30
Kris, in New England
// Dec 14, 2006 at 5:16 am
For Pixie - I too would prefer an open fight, but I’m a realist. I live in New England, VERY close to the biggest target of 9/11. I’m no fool - I know that should these people take it to our shores again, my beloved area of the country won’t be spared.
For Unkawill: I agree with your comment in #19 above - it’s not about making Iraq all there is, it’s about taking it to them where they are in a way they will remember. Give our guys more leverage and “flexibility” to do the job, instead of all the worry about being P.C. and respectful.
For Pixie & Miss Birdlegs - heck, it’s 60 degrees here today. Come on over!
31
Diplopius Disqualificata
// Dec 14, 2006 at 6:50 am
Lex-
Respectfully, sir, what would you have us do differently? You acknowledge “Go Big” to be impossible, and assuming for sake of argument it is, then what? To win the rhetorical piece of the war, you will need more than exhortations to continue the current effort because the alternatives should be less appealing to the aware.
I can’t believe that, and I’m generally inclined to believe what you write. People tracing a line back to Somalia or GWI or the Embassy Takeover are building a post-hoc fallacy, and I see much of the Lex-view of the future to be a slippery-slope argument that ignores our own ability influence the future, without a presence in Iraq. Too much of the “stay” side of the Iraq debate is predicated on a loss in Iraq being an eternal loss for America, and equates–in a very strict sense–Iraqi and American domestic stability and security. I work in the X Ring on Al Q’s target map, and I’m ready to make the bet that neither assumption is true.
Approach 9/11/01 as a mishap, look at the accident chain leading up to it. How many single points of failure in the enemy’s plan? Look at the picture of the future you paint — how many things have to go right for the enemy to achieve those ends? Would staying in Iraq, with the current force levels you view as our maximum effort, make their success impossible, or just less likely? And, if merely less likley, mightn’t there be other courses available to us that would leave us better equipped to prevent those feared attacks on NY, DC and other domestic places? Because, keeping Americans safe in America is my yardstick.
I asked your preference so I think it’s fair to give you mine. I’d Go Big, and I’d gladly see my taxes go up to pay for it (only contribution Uncle Sam seems willing to accept from me). We must deal in the possible. I know it’s not going to happen, and I don’t think it’s moral or wise to do less. So my suggestion is another Go, Go to Afghanistan. Get out of Iraq, take Maliki up on his promise to handle security starting June ‘07, and go leaving behind as many dead bad guys as possible in the short run and as many good live good guys, snake eaters and spooks as you can spare. Then put every boot in Afghanistan. You’ll have the opportunity to dialogue with an Islamic insurgency on much more favorable terms–with NATO and UN support, but much more importantly with the mass of first world troops required to bring success. Who knows, might even end up with OBL’s or Mullah Omar’s head on a pike! I think this could provide a signal victory to the world, something quite out-of-phase with the Embassy Takeover / Beiruit / GWI / Somalia thing…
If necessary, you can go back to Iraq if the green beanies can’t get their COIN thing done. Sort of a 21st Century Schieffen plan. No Caliphate, no agglomeration in the Persian Gulf of any sort, can carry out any significant extraterriorial action opposed by the US military in any reasonably foreseeable future. And, if it looks like that statement is proving false, then cut the snake’s head off. But don’t say that you can’t Go Big, and you can’t lose, so keep on keepin’ on, baby. Because that’s not going to make friends or influence people.
J.P.S.
32 The Thunder Run // Dec 14, 2006 at 7:30 am
Web Reconnaissance for 12/14/2006…
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….
33
lex
// Dec 14, 2006 at 8:13 am
re: “you will need more than exhortations to continue the current effort because the alternatives should be less appealing to the aware.”
I think that the reason I need this is because the aware have been conditioned to think of Iraq as an on-going disaster. You don’t much hear about Iraqi oil exports anymore, because that is a good news story. Neither do you hear reports about power generation capacity because that has also improved. The security sphere remains troublesome, so that’s what you hear about. The elected government is fractious, but so is ours. The bureacracy is corrupt and inefficient, but at least they show up for work and what bureacracy is not? Things have not gone perfectly, but what ever does? We need a dose of patient realism.
The fact of the matter is that we’ve more or less successsfully fought three consecutive fights there, some of them overlapping. The first was the kinetic fight against the regime’s uniformed forces - that was over in weeks. The second was a low-intensity fight against Ba’athist revanchists allied by al Qaedist jihadis and Sunni nationalists. The Ba’athists are pretty much out of the fight, although the still finance the resistance in the west, the kind of thing that sends knuck. But many of the Sunni nationalists have turned against the QJBR terrorists. What we have left is the third fight, which is really a competition for the national resources between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority.
If people are shocked by the daily death toll over there, well they ought to consider the alternative if our troops withdraw. That’s all I’m talking about.
Look, no one wants to lose this thing - if the ground forces commander over there thought that another 15-30k trigger pullers in Bagdhad could make a sustainable difference, he’d ask for them.
We are making progress, just not as fast as people would like. The more impatient we become, the more we transmit our intention to leave, the more we give heart to our foes, the more destruction they wreak, the more impatient we become. But if there was a simple - or even complex - solution to all of this, we’d have tried it already.
As to the rest, I agree that I’ve pointed out the worst set of possible consequences, but that’s kind of what I’ve been trained to do, that and weigh those consequences against their probabilities. Anytime one of the consequences reaches a level of “lose New York,” I can get pretty agitated over some fairly small Po’s.
Afghanistan exports heroin and has no industry to speak of - staying and winning there has less to do with preventing further terror attacks than it does preserving NATO and the UN’s reputation. And if it’s SOF you want, that place is a snake eater’s dream.
Leaving an industrial Arab state like Iraq in the hands of either Iran or Al Qaeda brings on a whole new level of risk. Leaving SOF there unsupported by mechanized infantry as a QRF is a good way to lose some very valuable operators.
34
CPT J
// Dec 14, 2006 at 12:43 pm
“We are making progress, just not as fast as people would like. The more impatient we become, the more we transmit our intention to leave, the more we give heart to our foes, the more destruction they wreak, the more impatient we become. But if there was a simple - or even complex - solution to all of this, we’d have tried it already.”
In all these places, we failed and suffered–but learned. Except for those who were there, few now remember:
Bataan
Kasserine Pass
Iron Bottom Sound
Schweinfurt
Peleliu
Slapton Sands
Hurtgen Forest
Our current foes should go to these places, a jihadi staff ride if you will, to see what kind of will power overcame these bloody setbacks. Hidden now, in disarray, it will return. It never left.
They have no idea who they are dealing with.
35
badbob
// Dec 14, 2006 at 2:19 pm
It’s interesting to read all y’alls comments. I’ve made my position clear before so’s I won’t bore ya. Personally,I’ll never grow war-weary until we win. What’s the alternative? Losing to them? UN-friggin-acceptable!
Generally we are are a frustrated bunch vice a war-weary bunch on this blog. Frustrated for the most part because as sheepdogs we know that a good number of our flock are too stupid to see the nature of the wolf.
Some nuances between opinions up thar, but a real will to win! That’s something. Ain’t it?
Personally, I like it.
CPT J- you’ll love this, but you probably already read it. It nails war weariness:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061212-110844-1615r.htm
B2
36
Zane
// Dec 14, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Today, I won’t be Cassandra, but will risk a contrarian view. We have already won in Iraq. We removed a regime that supported international terrorist groups in their actions against the West, and the USA in particular. If they had significant WMD, it was either destroyed or scattered to the winds (or a particular valley in Lebanon a little SE of Damascus), and no longer poses an immediate threat to us. How Iraq pulls itself together or apart is, for us at this point, of little concern. Will mujahideen build camps in Iraq? Of course. But they have all across Africa, too, and I don’t see a battle group sailing for Somalia.
Remember that old adage, never interfere with your enemy when he’s busy self-destructing? Well, what’s happening in Iraq is our enemy is busy self-destructing, and we’re missing the opportunity to take advantage of it. A collapsing Iraq will dissolve into a civil war between Sunni and Shia that will distract tens of thousands of young men from attacking the Great Shaitan. It will consume Saudi oil wealth, and keep them from funding new mosques and other efforts in America, Europe and elsewhere. Not to mention that it will keep those precious Sauds terrified of losing to the Shia, who seem to be gaining a serious upper hand in military affairs.
Let a Kurdish nation appear, supported by the USA. Sure, they’re not a whole lot better anyone else in the region, but at least they’re not at war with us. No, they’re at war with our enemies–Turkey (well, they ain’t our friends, that’s for certain), Syria, and Iran. How about we remind the Alawite minority (about 12% of the Syrian population) that, being Christian, they are extremely vulnerable to a dedicated Sunni effort. Hell, I’d back the Muslim Brotherhood on that one. Likewise, it might do to remind the Saudis that most of their oil fields are in traditional Shia-held regions. Don’t think the oil ticks up and down the Emirates haven’t forgotten that–and Iraq hasn’t, either.
Iraq, by the way, is only about 40% Persian. The rest are Kurds, Baluchis, etc. The Baluchis have been fighting a long, low intensity conflict in their part of the world, which used to be backed by Saddam (which is the strongest link between Saddam and both WTC attacks). Okay, we knocked off that sugar daddy, and the Baluchis aren’t really pissed at us, they just were serving their master. Let’s take advantage of our presence in Afghanistan and stoke up a little Baluchi independence movement in Iraq.
Let’s be very, very real about this–we are in grave danger of losing a “long war,” because we lack the population and the will. The Ummah is exploding, demographically, that is, the USA is at maintenance level (not counting the Hispanic influx, we reproduce at 2.2 children per woman, and 2.1 is the base replacement rate), and what’s left of Europe will be gone in a generation. Yes, we will get a population boost from fleeing Europeans, assuming we ever develop a sane immigration policy, but by 2050 we will have lost most all of Europe, lost Japan, and Russia will have completely imploded, and like a drowning man grabbing desperately, it’s bound to drag a lot with it. Who gets the nukes in France in twenty years? In Russia? Even India has population growth under control, so that its non-Muslim population grows at a fraction of the rate its Muslim population grows. Do the math. We don’t have time for a “long war,” based on whatever fad of the moment is floating around the Pentagon or the White House or Capitol Hill. We don’t need to resort to nukes to change the picture, but we can get sober about what faces us, and that is that in less than a generation, as Mark Steyn notes, it will be America alone against the rising Islamic tide. We don’t have time to build a liberal, democratic identity in a people who history and religion militate so strongly against it. We need to get serious, now, about identifying our enemies, ceasing their immigration to the West, and about causing them great, great pain every time they act against us, overtly or covertly. We don’t have time for anything less.
37
Zane
// Dec 14, 2006 at 2:23 pm
“Don’t think the oil ticks up and down the Emirates haven’t forgotten that–and Iraq hasn’t, either.
Iraq, by the way, is only about 40% Persian.”
DOH! IRAN, not Iraq.
38
Zane
// Dec 14, 2006 at 2:25 pm
“Let’s take advantage of our presence in Afghanistan and stoke up a little Baluchi independence movement in Iraq.”
Yes, IRAN not Iraq. Where is that JO proofreader, anyway?
39
Skippy-san
// Dec 14, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Thank you Zane for proving my point- our work in Iraq is essentially done and now its time to look at the larger picture. How Iraq devolves from here on out is really secondary to keeping the real powers that need be in the right alignment. And we will have less and less control over those events.
There is so much to chew on in all of these comments. I’ll just point out 2:
1) Being opposed to the war from the start is not wanting to have a foot in both camps. It does not make one a “surrender monkey” either. There are a lot of sound minds who asked pertinent questions in the lead up to the war and subsequent. The main one being “Why now?”- I have my own particular opinion on that and its not a popular one in these parts-namely that Bush thought he could have the whole thing sewn up by the 2004 election. After all his NSC team was pretty much telling him that and squashing any voices who said other wise. When it did not turn out that way, the stage was set. The blunders of the CPA helped lay the foundation for the current mayhem as well. However Bremer’s boys had the advantage of being from the right side of the political tracks-if not technically compentent. They have all gone off to nice 6 figure salaries back in the private sector-none of them could be bothered to “stay the course!”.
Then there is the progress arguement. “Look at how much improvement there is in the country as a whole.” Its like the old violence in only 4 of 18 provinces theory-neither stand up to the facts and objective scrutiny.
Re:Oil-from a 2006 report:
-”Almost 36 months after the occupation of Iraq, we can describe the current state of the oil industry briefly as follows:
- The rehabilitation program (RIO I, RIO II) initiated by the US through some of its companies has not resulted in notable improvements. There are still some projects initiated in June 2003 that await completion.
- The Ministry of Oil, for its part, has had limited success in rehabilitation and maintenance due to security reasons, lack of funds, foreign EPC companies leaving the country, bureaucracy and other reasons.
- There has been only a limited program to assess the status of reservoirs. One major study, expected to be completed in 2006, relates to Kirkuk and Rumaila oilfields.
- There has been very limited drilling and workover activities for the oil wells. ”
And if one looks at an Iraqi map in terms of demographics the results are equally dismal.
Now my final point. The Turks are far more important than the Kurds. Always have been, always will be. For one reason alone-the geography. And truth be told, Turkey has been a better ally than most-given the culture and the fine line she walks. I’ll remind you that much of our Israel policy has been enabled in one sort or another by Turkey.
As for Iran? If it has not fallen apart in 20+ years of religious oppression-its not going to do so now. Plus within Iran’s borders their nut job of a President strikes a chord with ideas of a Persian resurgence.
Somewhere in heaven Winston Churchill must be smiling. Most of his reasons fro preserving the British Empire have been proven true………….
40
Diplopius Disqualificata
// Dec 14, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Lex-
Some of what’s going on out there is decidedly impatience. For many of us, it’s gut-wrenching inquiry, every morning, noon and night when we think about troops in the field and enemies plotting our doom. What’s the best way to beat them?
I’ve seen the oil production stats, the electrification stats, santiation, health care, hospitals–all sorts of the good news. I take news from all quarters, the most cherished of which is that from the closest of friends, in uniform, in theater. Some of that’s positive, some of that’s negative: but the only conclusion I can draw is that I know that I don’t know.
What I do know is that, as a nation, we’ve reinforced defeat, and that it’s folly to assume that a commitment to action precludes withdrawal prior to achieving the objective. That’s not consistent with “the spirit of the bayonet” or the more nuanced fighter-pilot version of that attitude, but some degree of reticence and detachment is required in this discussion. I don’t want Iraq to be a Gallipoli.
I’ve enjoyed your voice on this topic since finding your blog about a year ago. I might want to dig in and talk about Iraq v. Afghanistan as the best ground for a showcase win, or explain that I wasn’t exactly saying we’d leave the special forces trainers with their asses in the wind, but it’s not my blog.
I’ll content myself to write that I’m not afraid of the big, bad Caliphate, and I think we’re worse off when writers like you use it as a counterweight to impatience.
J.P.S.
41
lex
// Dec 14, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Skip, I don’t know that Zane “proves” your point, although I’ll concede that you have found someone to agree with. And I will point out that if stepping aside and letting the Iraqis slaughter each other is what passes for “realist” thinking, then thank you, but for my own part I’ll have none. I understand the impulse, but the idea is dehumanizing.
“Why now” was blindingly obvious. The 9/11 murderers provided us with both a wake-up call and an apparent window of opportunity. It was a wake-up call because, while the Taliban may have harbored the “Glorious 19,” none of those goobers were from Afghanistan. If you think we got ourselves in trouble with the Arab street by invading Iraq, just imagine how a run against the Saudis would have looked. On top of all that, the sanctions regime was crumbling, leaving Saddam only to bide his time before getting back to work on his infernal devices. Waiting until Summer to launch the invasion was a non-starter, and waiting until the fall or winter of the year would have injected the war into the political cycle and given Saddam another whole year almost to prepare for the assault and/or bribe more people at the UN.
If you honestly believe that something has to be done, you do it at the best opportunity. Some people may remain unconvinced, and if they end up being right and you were wrong, you’ll never hear the end of it. You press on anyway.
Another look at Iraqi oil production numbers, which are surprisingly hard to find an official source for. Doesn’t seem all that gloomy recently, and in fact, given the security environment, seems pretty impressive.
Now, all of that said, I won’t for a moment pretend that we have landed at our preferred destination here. Many mistakes were made before, during and after the invasion. But if our metric on action is that nothing may be attempted unless it can be perfected, then you’ve set the bar pretty high for action. And as I pointed out earlier, the fight has changed at least twice since major combat ops ceased, and we’ve adapted our tactics as it did so.
JPS - it’s great to have this kind of discussion without all the usual rancor that attends to it elsewhere. But I don’t know that maintaining current force levels means reinforcing defeat. In fact, the lesson I have in mind is from Vietnam: After we’d crushed the Viet Cong as a fighting force during Tet, we convinced ourselves that we had lost and started to sidle towards the exit. Even then the South Vietnamese managed a credible job of defending themselves against naked aggression from the NVA. It wasn’t until a fickle Congress shut off their aid that the south collapsed under the weight of a Soviet-sponsored NVA assault.
We’d won, convinced ourselves we lost and left our allies hanging out to dry.
I’ve been consistent on this all along: We cannot be militarily defeated in Iraq, there will be no “Gallipoli.” Any force that assembles in a size large enough to have operational capability would quickly be destroyed in detail, and you can only harrass an enemy will small unit tactics.
We can choose to persevere, or we can choose to lose. Both choices have costs that we should tally up with our eyes wide open. If we choose to walk away from this, I predict it will be another quarter century before we can credibly pretend to project military power in that part of the world.
I wonder if we have that much time.
42
Diplopius Disqualificata
// Dec 14, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Am quite familiar, albeit by second and third hand, with Tet and the divergence between actual progress and reported disaster thereafter. “A Better War” by Lewis Sorely is best book on point, I think. Concur with your conclusion about the way that played out…but it’s the dog that didn’t bark that’s most telling.
Much of the “better” part of the war, post-Tet, was a shift to reliance on Vietnamese forces (we are trying that now) and a radical reshaping of Vietnamese rural society to ensure that the Vietcong stayed dead after Tet(e.g. strategic hamlet program). I don’t see anything analogous to that (in terms of creativity) coming out of the ISG, the JCS group, or anyone else paid to talk thoughfully about the war. But, I can’t read everything…
Another “better” part of the war was a rather weighty US tactical air commitment to keep down the NVA’s weight, and an analog to that here might be more conventional forces in theater on the borders, in the desert away from the populations but along the supply routes for bad guys and bad things. No desire for such commitment here.
But, to the dog that didn’t bark. 1975 came and went and the dominos didn’t fall (in fact the rat-eating commies actually started a border war with each other)! I’m familiar with the argument that the weight of US effort in Vietnam and the protracted period of time was the reason why, but perhaps the danger might have been a wee bit understated.
I find a great deal of distance between your comments that “we cannot be militarily defeated in Iraq” and “I wonder if we have that much time.” I think we are a great and powerful nation and, should we go and should an unacceptable power reassert itself, we will have the power to cut it down. Nation-building, quite tough, but nation-wrecking: I thank God that we’re the best in the business.
J.P.S.
43
Flatlander-
// Dec 14, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I think the American people have already lost interest in winning in Iraq. I think we will start to disengage in 2007, and start significant troop force withdrawals over the course of 2008. The Democrats will probably win the election and accelerate the exit.
In the meantime, Iran is going to continue to thumb its nose at the West and move ever closer to developing the bomb. Their influence in Iraq and the rest of the region is going to grow, especially in Lebanon and among the Palestinians.
Sometime around 2012-2016 we are likely going to face into a real nightmare scenario. The Iranians, flush with cash and weapons from expensive oil, and with a ring of allied camps around Israel, will set off a nuclear test.
We’ll be on the edge of a nuclear war, or a conventional war that will make Iraq look like child’s play.
44
FbL
// Dec 14, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I was talking about these kinds of issues with a friend last night and was hit with the realization that it’d be nice not to have to live through the next 10 years or so, ’cause it’s gonna get real ugly. Wake me when it’s over, okay?
45
unkawill
// Dec 14, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Damn, you guys are eloquent.
All I want to do is quit effin around and GET ER DONE.
We are the 800# Gorilla. We can sit or s!it wherever we want. Who is gonna stand up to us?
46
Zane
// Dec 14, 2006 at 8:09 pm
I think it fair to note that I was strongly in favor of the 2003 invasion, for most all of the reasons that Lex still cites. But my judgement of the wisdom of the effort changed for two reasons.
First, after a lot of study of Islam, I came to understand that the Bush administration is just plain wrong in its repeated assertions that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has been “hijacked by a small minority.” Respectfully, that’s a load of bulls**t, and even if it may have sounded like a good political thing to say in late 2001, in the long run it is harmful because it is not the truth. If this is indeed a “long war,” then it behooves the President to prepare the American people, and to have the temerity to name the enemy. Al Qaeda is chump-change in this war. Our enemies are the self-loathing of our misbegotten liberalism, which leaves us weakened and divided at a time we most need to be united as the heirs and defenders of liberty, that long and bloody line that comes down to us from Marathon; and resurgent Islam, which is a political ideology first and foremost. As Mohamed said, Islam is to rule and not be ruled.
The second was the sequence of catastrophes that followed us the first year in Iraq. We failed to kill Sadr the first time he raised his pimply head. We failed to level Najaf. Instead, we gave in and negotiated. Unwilling to be hard up front when we needed to be hard, we have now invited unceasing conflict. Shock and awe? After Fallujah was cleared of civilians, we shouldn’t have sent in the Marines. We should have sent in the B-52s, and not stopped until we were doing nothing more than making the rubble bounce. Do we have enough iron bombs to do that anymore? I’m doubtful, knowing what we went into OIF with. Do we have the will to use them if we do? Absolutely not, and our enemies know it. Whatever Bremer’s faults, he was dead on target in his original approach. Everything Iraq knew or did was wrong. Government by Sharia? Voting by tribal affiliation? Nationalized oil assets? Not on your life, Bremer was going to bring Iraq into the 20th c. no matter how it kicked and screamed. Then he learned that the President didn’t really mean it, and the military wasn’t going to back him. All that talk of what wonderful successes we made of Germany and Japan just… stopped. We pissed away our chance to build a new Iraq in the first year, no matter how noble or unyielding our efforts at this late date.
I well understand the good Captain’s reluctance to step out and let the Iraqis slaughter each other. Dehumanizing, though? Sorry, that conflict precedes us by 1500 years. We are not responsible their mutual hatred, and if we are somehow liable for keeping them from killing each other, then we must be liable for keeping every other warring party in the world apart, too. My oath was to defend the Constitution of the United States, not various warring parties in foreign lands, either of whom would just as gladly kill those whom I am sworn to defend were they not killing each other. If the enemies of my nation are determined to kill each other, I can’t see any reason why I should do anything to stop them. For all the reasons above and more, it is in our interest to let them do so.
Iraq is only one battlefield. This is a wide war, and must be fought on literally all continents at this time, even in South America (talk to some SOCSOUTH guys if you get the chance, they’re desperate for someone to listen to them when they explain how the jihad has spread to our southern borders, even as Muslims are now Canada’s largest immigrant group). As I noted in the original post, in twenty years the question of who controls France’s and Russia’s nukes is going to be crucially important to us, because in fifty years there will be nothing left of the French or Russian peoples. Resurgent Islam doesn’t have shit to recommend itself in this war except for two things. They have will, and they have the excess population. Do we have the will? Not if we’re already talking about “war weariness.” Do we have excess population? Not that I can see, but we have huge welfare states that require foreign labor to maintain themselves (yes, even America, if the numbers claiming 10-11 million illegals in the USA are accurate). So instead of jamming that excess population up in the hellholes the Ummah calls nations, where it would eventually explode and force Islam to come to grips with reality, we let our enemies (and they are our enemies) export all that excess population to us. That is to say, we let our enemies plant colonies within our borders.
Time to wash our hands of the tar baby. Colin Powell, who said if we broke it we bought it, was wrong, as he was about so many things. Iraq was broke when we bought it, and we have no obligation to fix it. Time to wash our hands of it, and turn to real business at hand: supporting and encouraging our allies, who have endured real trials for our cause and who have gotten pretty much squat from us for their sacrifices; and punishing our enemies, who since 9/11 have seen repeatedly that there is no punishment in store for them for acting against the USA and its allies. Whether or not we like it, the future of liberty, of that long and fretful flame that came to us from Marathon, is now in our hands, and if we fail, if we collapse from within, then who knows what horrors await our children and our children’s children. To quote Abraham Lincoln, My fellow Americans, we cannot escape history…
47
unkawill
// Dec 14, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Fuzzy, It Might get uglyer,(if that is a word). But those of ya’ll in the states prolly wont notice much.
48
Dan
// Dec 14, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Just read this for the first time today sir (instead of studying for a chem final, I know I know, I’ll get on that too), but again, I am just astounded at your level of intelligence and use of eloquent diction. I don’t know how else this can better be said. Thank you for putting so many peoples’ thoughts into words.
49
Kris, in New England
// Dec 15, 2006 at 7:15 am
Zane, you paint a grim picture indeed, but not one that I entirely disagree with. The part that still burns inside is that our troops were never allowed to do what they knew was right - take out Sadr, bomb them to hell and back. And it’s still right, IMO. We are so concerned with being politically correct and religiously sensitive, we’ve missed the point. But I still don’t believe pulling out of Iraq is the answer. But then, what IS the answer? Is there one? Or is this one of those situations where every answer is right & wrong, in the same breath.
Lioness: you can come to my bunker as soon as it’s built. I promise it will be comfortable enough for more than the next 10 years…
50
Kris, in New England
// Dec 15, 2006 at 7:42 am
And you all want to know why I want to build a HUGE bunker in my backyard here in New England? Go here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236337,00.html - to find out just why…
51
Zane
// Dec 15, 2006 at 9:01 am
Kris, the grim picture is demographics. But then again, that just makes for the “target rich environment.” The key is to stop diluting our power, and to force that surplus population of the Muslim world back onto itself so it can practice self-destruction vice destruction. There is a possibility that Europe might rouse itself, but it is exceedingly slim. Consider the consequences in terms of loss of basing, fly-over permissions, local resupply, etc., and of course, those nukes. The Navy has spent a huge amount concentrating its European presence in Italy, and yet demographically Italy is doomed, with something like a 1.15 reproduction rate. That means that in about thirty years, there will be half as many Italians as there are now, without a shot being fired. Italy will be in effect a dhimmi nation, with a large, vigorous and youthful Muslim population, one that never assimilated. How welcome do you think we’ll be then? Most European nations are already unwilling to support the USA and oppose the jihad, because to do so will unleash the lurking “youth” we keep hearing about in what little reporting there is of the ongoing civil war in France. Better not to reveal their impotence, maybe, just maybe it will all get better. Funny how those youths are always North African. Better to just keep sucking at the teat of the welfare state, and don’t attract attention. As for the USA, it better prepare to stand alone, because with the exception of Australia, we pretty much are alone, and liberty, that stubborn flame from Marathon, will stand or fall with us.
52
flatlander
// Dec 15, 2006 at 2:32 pm
There is no reason for us to go it alone, but the people we should be spending big efforts getting closer to are in New Delhi and Beijing, not in Paris or Berlin or Rome.
We certainly have differences with those countries, but we also have a lot in common, and we need powerful friends who will have common cause over the long run.
53
Subsunk
// Dec 16, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Hmmmmmm,
It’s a big world out there. It ain’t friendly to us at all, is it? We’ll never be able to stay on top forever. But I, for one, would like to stay on top for longer than it takes my kids to grow up and my grandkids to do so also.
If the rest of you agree with that sentiment, then please explain why we should retreat from any shithole we haven’t been kicked out of yet? Why should we leave any place that hasn’t told us politely to please move it on back home? If the bar is peaceful, I’ll go home on my own when the bartender says it is closing time. If there’s someone poking me with a stick to leave, I won’t be leaving until the stretcher carries me out, or him. And it is that way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else we have mustered the political cojones to show up.
The only thing which keeps America safe is deterrence. If you poke us, we will eventually beat the snot out of you. And once we’re worked up about it, I don’t think we want to tell everyone we didn’t mean it until they apologize for starting the fight in the first place!
Americans don’t go to war lightly. We shouldn’t leave any place we intend to pacify until it is pacified. Because the next time will take a lot more Men and a lot more money. A lot more wives are going to be widows, and a lot more kids without fathers the next time we have to do this if we don’t finish the job this time.
All our disagreements here are in method or tactic. Lets make sure we all agree that Winning this is necessary. Losing, even once, doesn’t protect you from anybody or anything. It just makes a whole helluva lot of gunslingers come looking for you. They all want to be the one to bring you down and become the new top gunhand.
We’d better decide that it isn’t time to hang up the guns or the badge. Unless we’re ready to end up in Boot Hill. Stay the course is EXACTLY the tack to take. Whatever we choose to do is stay the course. And I don’t think there is a damn thing the insurgents or our own media can do to make us quit unless we all lose heart in the Men in Uniform and the basic goodness of the American People.
That’s not gonna happen in my house. Don’t let it happen in yours.
Subsunk out.
54
Skippy-san
// Dec 17, 2006 at 2:55 am
Stay the course leads us no where. The conflict is now a self sustaining reaction. One either needs to escalate it a lot-and in the process kill a lot of innocent Arabs (if such a word can be applied to any Arab) via Dresden style tactics, or leave. Right now its a chain reaction with the rods set just to keep it going.
Futhrermore, like it or not, stay or not, the US will be less and less able to influence events around the world as time goes on. This is one of the unintended consequences of globalization and the transferrence of American wealth to our enemies ( we call them allies in the case of India and China-enemies none the less).
If the Europeans do not play, we should not be suprised-back when it counted we let them flounder on their own. ( and I’m not talking about WW-II). Accordingly they no longer have a stake and they know it. Plus they are proving less and less willing to sacrifice their youth as we appear to be.
The real model for the “war” on terror is not Iraq. Its the Horn of Africa and PI and what we are doing in non military ways with US power. It will take longer to see the payoff, but it will buy the US more in the long run.
Finally, if Iraq does not fix itself by 2008, the next President will do an Ike and pull us out.-or be impeached.
55
OregonGuy
// Feb 27, 2007 at 11:52 am
I agree.
56 Quick Weight Loss Tips // Mar