Facing Facts

by hilzoy

Megan McArdle thinks that liberal bloggers need to acknowledge the good news coming out of Iraq:

"Lately, however, the anti-war side is beginning to sound a lot like the boosters they were so angry at. This is the particular example that caught my eye, but there is an increasingly rich body of blog posts and other writing that are the collective equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!""

Since I have only begun to catch up on the blog reading I missed while I was playing dead, I have no idea whether McArdle is right about the liberal blogosphere (though I can't see what she thinks is wrong with Thoreau's piece.) However, speaking only for myself: consider the good news acknowledged. As Charles noted, casualties, both coalition and civilian, are down. Moreover, things like electricity are up:

"For the week ending December 8, availability of electrical current rose in all but one of nine sites where Slogger's sources estimate average daily power supply from the grid each week.

While no Baghdad area reports a full and uninterrupted power supply, the increase is remarkable in some areas when compared to the data from previous weeks."

Obviously, this is good news. Even one fewer casualty would be a blessing; drops of a thousand a month are really wonderful. That said, it would be nice if more conservative bloggers acknowledged some of the following:

First, it should not surprise us that casualties are down. We have an excellent army. Our soldiers are good at what they do. It is predictable that putting more of them in places where armed groups are fighting one another might cause an initial rise in casualties, as more of those combatants are engaged, but would ultimately cause those combatants to at least defer their conflict until we leave. That would bring civilian casualties down.

Second, that is not a good enough reason for us to deploy our troops somewhere, especially if the result of deploying them is simply to postpone conflict, rather than bringing it to an end.

Third, for this reason, reducing casualties was never the point of the surge. The point was to provide the breathing space needed for political reconciliation. This hasn't happened:

"The U.S. troop buildup in Iraq was meant to freeze the country's civil war so political leaders could rebuild their fractured nation. Ten months later, the country's bloodshed has dropped, but the military strategy has failed to reverse Iraq's disintegration into areas dominated by militias, tribes and parties, with a weak central government struggling to assert its influence.

In the south, Shiite Muslim militias are at war over the lucrative oil resources in the Basra region. To the west, in Anbar province, Sunni Arab tribes that once fought U.S. forces now help police the streets and control the highways to Jordan and Syria. In the north, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens are locked in a battle for the regions around Kirkuk and Mosul. In Baghdad, blast walls partition neighborhoods policed by Sunni paramilitary groups and Shiite militias.

"Iraq is moving in the direction of a failed state, a highly decentralized situation -- totally unplanned, of course -- with competing centers of power run by warlords and militias," said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. "The central government has no political control whatsoever beyond Baghdad, maybe not even beyond the Green Zone."

The capital's Green Zone mirrors the chaos outside. Once the base of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime, it is now the seat of Iraq's fractured and dysfunctional representative government. The U.S. troop buildup was intended to help Iraq's national leaders overcome differences and give them space to pass compromise measures to end the country's sectarian war, but lawmakers remain divided and continue to harbor suspicions about each other's motives.

In the summer, the country's Sunni Arab minority quit the coalition government, leaving Shiites and Kurds with a razor-thin majority in parliament. They appear unable to push forward any solution to the country's problems, whether a national oil law, a review of Iraq's new constitution or legislation defining the powers of provincial councils. All efforts to define relations between Baghdad and outlying regions are stalled."

Fourth, noting that political reconciliation has not happened is not the "equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!"" It's more like this: suppose I had a friend who insisted that he couldn't kick his crack habit because he was under too much financial pressure, so I agreed to pay his bills for a few months, on condition that he use that time to actually try to quit. Liberal bloggers thought this was a bad idea: my friend had no apparent interest in kicking his crack habit, and thus it seemed pretty likely that I was just throwing my money away. No, I assured them: I have made it clear that my commitment is not open-ended. I've said: it's time for you to perform, and I will judge you now less on your words and more on your performance. I'm not just giving this money blindly; my friend has adopted benchmarks for success, and I plan to hold him to them, though I won't say how.

Now suppose that while I paid my friend's bills, to no one's surprise, his financial problems got better, but he made no effort to stop smoking crack. Liberal bloggers said: well, of course it's good that your friend isn't feeling as much financial pressure, but the fact remains that the whole point of this was to let him kick his crack habit, and not only has he not done that, he hasn't even tried. That would not constitute sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!", or refusing to take yes for an answer. It would just be basic common sense.

Finally, one major difference between the example I just made up and the actual surge is that the surge doesn't just involve spending a lot of money. It involves sending people off to fight and die. If we are going to ask our soldiers to risk their lives, the very least we can do is make sure that we are doing so for a good reason. In the case at hand, that means asking not just whether our troops can reduce casualties in Baghdad -- which, of course, they can -- but what strategic goal that reduction is supposed to serve. Are we planning on keeping our troops in Iraq forever, at their present levels? Of course not: we don't have that many troops, and this administration has shown no interest in taking the steps it would have to take to change that basic fact. Is there any reason to think that once we reduce the levels of troops, and even more so once we leave altogether, the violence we have damped down won't just resume? Not really: that was what political reconciliation was supposed to achieve, and it hasn't happened. Moreover, as best I can tell, one reason why casualties have dropped is simply that various parties have decided to wait us out, and to spend the surge retooling their militias, jockeying for position, and preparing for the coming civil war.

Megan McArdle may think that liberal bloggers who point out that while the surge has reduced casualties, it has not achieved its stated goals, are just refusing to acknowledge good news. As I've said, I disagree. But conservative (or other) bloggers who point to the reductions in casualties as though they made the surge worthwhile, without asking whether the surge is likely to achieve any lasting improvements in Iraq, look to me as though they were more interested in being able to point to something that looks like success for their side than in the actual outcome in Iraq. But those who go further and belittle people who ask what strategic goals the surge was meant to serve, and whether it is achieving them, are doing something worse.

As I've said, we owe it to those we ask to fight and die for us to make sure that we never ask them to do so without a very good reason. Anyone who tries to paint the question what strategic goals an undoubted tactical success actually serves as a sign of a politically motivated inability to acknowledge good news makes it more difficult for the rest of us to try to live up to that responsibility. Given a choice between "sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!"" and undermining our ability to ask the questions we need to ask if we are to do right by our troops, I know what I would choose.

Comments

[cleek]

How about we leave and then Iran dominates Iraq. Sure, the mullahs will impose law and order, but will women and gays and Jews and...be better off? Or will our leaving result in a return to those great "free" times under Saddam?

yes, all terrible things. nevertheless, we are probably not capable of turning Iraq into a place where those things don't happen.

there comes a time for each of us, where we take a deep breath and come to terms with the real-life limits of our country's capabilities - i had mine a few years ago. wishing we could turn Iraq into the Netherlands, or even Turkey or Iran, is a noble goal. but are we capable of making it happen? looks like the answer is No.

[John Thullen]

"And who will pick up the garbage in their brave new world?"

I think we can find clues to answering this conundrum by observing how Rand afficianados handle Ayn's garbage in this world.

They bind her garbage, as in a reliquary, between hard covers (or paper) and place the product, not in the bodice-ripping section, but in the philosophy section of the bookstore, where they outnumber the volumes of Plato, Kant, and Barbara Cartland by a fair margin.

Readers of her garbage pore over and underline key passages and when a discussion of one's favorite novels comes up, they brightly chime in with "Atlas Shrugged" to parry others' suggestions of Joyce, Tolstoy, and Austen, though there is always some wag in the crowd who believes Barbara Cartland is better at character development.

If all of that wasn't enough, readers (mostly 12-year olds sequeing their reading habits from Nancy Drew to Tolkein with a little pubescent objectivism) of Rand
turn their chiseled visages into the harsh wind of egalitarianism (actually, they set up a fan to blow their hair back) and stand next to a lifesize cardboard image of Fabio, otherwise known as Howard Rourke (sp?) or John Galt, who is depicted as stepping over his garbage collector with a look of revulsion on his face.

Worse, Rand lovers set up blogs to discuss how it is that an individual could aspire to be the best writer they can and end up giving the world barely warm tripe, but strongly earnest ideological tripe none/nevertheless. Worse yet, tripe that becomes the model of how the world should live. I'd call it Soviet-style agitprop but Dagny Taggert would accuse me of not fulfilling the virtues of selfishness.

Speaking of the horny Dagny, who gazes longingly at the Chrysler Building for reasons known only to architects and Larry Flynt, I've often wondered how Randers will handle their sewage in the brave new world.

But then I noticed Dagny never goes to the potty in "Atlas Shrugged", so I guess there will be no need for a sewage and sanitation district with taxing privileges, which will be a relief to the congenitally constipated Ayn Rand Institute.

Speaking of trains running on time, the problem with Mussolini and Hitler is that certain trains to unfortunate destinations ran too much on time.

On the other hand, I've never understood our society's reluctance with having trains running on time, as if trains running on time
might conflict with other freedoms.

I might even let Rudy Guiliani be the Czar of Trains if they would run on time. But that's all he gets to run, because he would inevitably start doing Mussolini gestures and sticking his chin out and deciding that I should be put on a train to a final destination to finally solve our problems.

[Jesurgislac]

Crimso: Do you take that distinct possibility into account when you suggest "we leave?

Yes. Which is why I think the US (and the UK) ought to be opening doors to Iraqi refugees/asylum seekers. Because the fact is, things in Iraq will get much worse whether or not the US stays or goes, and indeed there is a strong probability that the US military occupation staying will help things get worse. That's precisely what has happened so far, after all. The presence of the US military has not protected women, LGBT people, or Christians: you can't therefore argue that the US military ought to stay on that basis.

At the moment, Crimso, all anyone can certainly say is that when the US leaves, the people who worked for the US military occupation will very likely be killed. Which is why Americans who profess a concern for Iraqis really ought to focus their attention on the one thing their country can do, and isn't doing: ensure every single Iraqi who wants to leave Iraq before the US goes can do so, especially if they've worked for the US military over the past few years.

[gwangung]

At some point, the US military HAS to leave. It is fair to neither to the US nor to Iraq that they stay.

What we're arguing about is the conditions under which they leave. And many people are arguing that there is no way they can get to a situation where there is relatively little violence or bloodshed when US troops leave.

[Eric Martin]

The better question is, Crimso:

Do you have a better alternative to leaving?

Do costs enter the equation (not just financial, but strategic, military, opportunity, etc). Remember Afghanistan?

[Crimso]

So since the way forward is unclear, we should at least ACT? And the only obvious ACTion we can take is to leave?

"we are probably not capable of turning Iraq into a place where those things don't happen."

By what measure? I see a lot of "It's hopeless, we should leave." How about we stay and TRY? I can just as easily assert that it is possible for the U.S. to stay and make things better. My crytsal ball is just as good as anyone else's.

"Do costs enter the equation (not just financial, but strategic, military, opportunity, etc). Remember Afghanistan?"

Just out of curiosity, any idea how much it's cost us to have troops in any other countries? And before anyone bleats that post-war Germany didn't have an insurgency, can I argue that it's not "post-war" in Iraq? I take issue with the assertion that Iraq is a Gordian knot. If we can stay and help, we should. And I think that is at least possible.

[dogrose]

Crimso: So, what do we do NOW?

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, all the options are bad. Barring some deus ex machina (Space aliens invade and all humans unite against a common enemy! The Iranian leaders become obsessed with WoW and resign en masse to spend more time with their guilds!), every single "what next?" involves massive costs, in blood and treasure. Plus, the risks and benefits are so uncertain that it's very hard to decide which is the "least bad" among the choices.

But someone has to make that decision, and it should NOT be the same people who created this disaster.

And, yes, we were using different definitions of "freedom." I tend to rank "freedom from cholera" and "freedom from anarchic violence" pretty high. Is that just Mussolini Lite?

[cleek]

How about we stay and TRY?

we've been trying for almost five years.

[dogrose]

Crimso: So, what do we do NOW?

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, all the options are bad. Barring some deus ex machina (Space aliens invade and all humans unite against a common enemy! The Iranian leaders become obsessed with WoW and resign en masse to spend more time with their guilds!), every single "what next?" involves massive costs, in blood and treasure. Plus, the risks and benefits are so uncertain that it's very hard to decide which is the "least bad" among the choices.

But someone has to make that decision, and it should NOT be the same people who created this disaster.

And, yes, we were using different definitions of "freedom." I tend to rank "freedom from cholera" and "freedom from anarchic violence" pretty high. Is that just Mussolini Lite?

[dogrose]

[sorry about the double post]

Crimso: How about we stay and TRY?

Try HOW? What, specifically, are you proposing we do? How long will that take? How much should we be willing to pay? Is it even possible, given the current state of our military?

[Crimso]

"Is it even possible, given the current state of our military?"

At least you're asking.

"Try HOW?"

Another excellent question. I'm not Henry Kissinger (or Warren Christopher). I'm in no position to answer these questions as I'm as big an idiot as anybody.

"But someone has to make that decision, and it should NOT be the same people who created this disaster."

But of course it should be. They were duly and legally elected to take such decisions. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with whether you agree with those decisions, though.

[ThirdGorchBro]

a look at Matthew Yglesias' blog (with whom I agree on many things, just not these issues) might be instructive, as his general outlook is quite close to what I'm criticizing, in that he continually pushes a rather amoral, utilitarian realpolitik angle that doesn't seem to be concerned much with human rights, but more with not rocking the boat out of fear that this would embolden the neocon wingnuts to embark on new adventures.

That's one of the things I like most about Yglesias. Making human rights a centerpiece of fooreign policy is a luxury that we can't afford in the wake of Bush's diasters. What we need right now is stability.

To answer Crimso's question about what to do now, I would suggest a gradual withdrawal of American forces from the field combined with intensive diplomacy with the various Iraqi factions, with Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and with our allies, in various combinations as needed, to try and achieve some kind of settlement in Iraq.

Maybe we ought to bring Kissinger and Scowcroft out of retirement first, though.

[Crimso]

"I would suggest a gradual withdrawal of American forces from the field combined with intensive diplomacy with the various Iraqi factions, with Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and with our allies, in various combinations as needed, to try and achieve some kind of settlement in Iraq."

Great if it works. But then, I guess any path (even immediate withdrawal) has the same uncertainty in terms of how you define "works." In which case we might as well write all of our options on pieces of paper and draw one out of a hat. I really hate equations that can't be solved.

[Eric Martin]

Another excellent question. I'm not Henry Kissinger (or Warren Christopher). I'm in no position to answer these questions as I'm as big an idiot as anybody.

Here's the thing Crimso:

People that are smarter than me, you and them haven't been able to figure it out either. If no one can come up with a viable plan with even modest chances of succeeding, then we should assume such a plan does not exist.

As cleek pointed out, in a few months we will have entered our sixth year of STAYING and TRYING. And at the end of five years we are all irrationaly exuberant at the prospect that we might reduce the levels of horrific violence to the absolutely unconscionable levels witnessed in one of the previous years.

Trying is not a plan. A plan is a plan. And if none exists that can achieve our objectives within our given means, then the other option is to leave. The reason that no plan exists is that we cannot alter the types of societal forces unleashed with roughly 150,000 troops spread thin over a country that size.

Ergo.

Speaking of which, here is what I believe is the best argument for leaving, and the best plan wrapped into one:

(You don't have to pay money to order it, you can download the pdf):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12172/

Highly recommended.

[Anarch]

Gary: God, I wish people would quit saying that. Pro-fascist urban legends suck.

Fine: Mussolini made the trains run on Italian time.

(:

Your point is well-taken, of course, and I was being lazy. The point underlying "making the trains run on time", though -- that despite the horrors fascist and totalitarian governments do occasionally have benefits, suitably localized -- is still valid, despite your description of the sentiment as, I dunno, anti-lacunary.

novakant: Talking about the freedoms enjoyed by some people living in fundamentally unfree societies flies in the face of the very idea of human rights, which are universal, inalienable and indivisible.

On the contrary, in my case (at least) it highlights the distinction between a right and freedom. The existence of a "freedom" to me implies either the absence of a restriction -- in the case of an active freedom, like the freedom to worship -- or the absence of effect -- in the case of a passive freedom, like freedom from violence -- without making any further claims. One can parse this finer, between de jure freedoms and de facto freedoms, and so forth; one can talk about the freedoms of various groups, or the contingency of a freedom, or the statistical likelihood of a freedom (bizarre though that may be), and so forth.

To wit, I have no problem whatsoever saying that many of Saddam's subjects were de facto free in many ways in the sense that, for the most part, he simply didn't rape/kidnap/torture/annihilate most of his citizenry. They were not, however, de jure free -- nor were the de facto freedoms guaranteed by much of anything other than chance -- and the freedoms which they did, um, "enjoy", did not encompass all the freedoms to which we usually refer when we talk about a "free society".

Or, to summarize:

1) Saddam's Iraq was not a free country, lacking several of the essential prerequisites. Yes, I know, be still my beating heart.

[Ditto the GDR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc.]

2) Iraqis nevertheless had a number of de facto freedoms under Saddam.

3) Said de facto freedoms are now non facto (?) in the current anarchic "regime".

4) A number of freedoms that did not exist under Saddam's regime now exist de jure in Iraq...

5) ...but said de jure freedoms are rarely de facto.

6) On balance, then, Iraqis now have less de facto freedom than they did five years ago.

Does that strike you (and Donald Johnson, come to that) as an adequate description of what's going on?

[Crimso]

"then we should assume such a plan does not exist."
I question that assumption. By that logic I spent quite a few years looking for something that doesn't exist. The fact that I haven't found it (nor have many other thousands of people who were also looking) is evidence that it isn't there? I submit that nothing is unknowable, except that which is by definition unknowable. I don't think the answer to the question "What do we do now in Iraq?" remotely approaches unknowable. If you argue that it's unknowable to the present "deciders" you may be right. Who would you suggest be the new "deciders," and how should we select them?

[Randy Paul]

And the effect was... maybe only to the Bronze Age?

And the larger point was that simply using brute force could not win that war.

Gary,

I'm sure Megan's a nice person and probably fun to be around, but I've read her stuff from time to time and I don't think it's anything particularly interesting or substantive.

[ThirdGorchBro]

Great if it works. But then, I guess any path (even immediate withdrawal) has the same uncertainty in terms of how you define "works." In which case we might as well write all of our options on pieces of paper and draw one out of a hat. I really hate equations that can't be solved.

Well, you can never know for sure how things are going to turn out, but I think some options are more obviously (to my mind) likely to fail than others. I agree with the neocons that an immediate, unconditional American pullout would probably be followed by open civil war and the temptation for Iraq's neighbors to intervene. However, an indefinite American troop presence (especially as combatants) isn't likely to get us any closer to "victory" than we are now. As long as we are here in force, Maliki and the Kurds have no incentive to negotiate a real settlement with the Sunnis.

A settlement may not be possible, but everybody wants something, and the US (as well as Iran, the Saudis, and Europe) all have much to offer the various Iraqi factions, and each other. To my mind, a gradual "Vietnamization"-style pullout combined with some adroit horse-trading is probably the best solution avilable to us.

[Jesurgislac]

Crimso: How about we stay and TRY? I can just as easily assert that it is possible for the U.S. to stay and make things better. My crytsal ball is just as good as anyone else's.

Your crystal ball patently doesn't even work in hindsight.

As others have already noted, the US has been staying and continuing to smash up Iraq for nearly five years now. To argue that the US should continue to do this because it will "make things better" when doing so has in fact continued to make things appreciably worse, is... well, at some point, the bull just has to be made to leave the china shop.

[Anarch]

Cleek said it already but it bears repeating:

How about we stay and TRY?

we've been trying for almost five years.

[OCSteve]

Doesn’t matter anyway. Republicans like this war and want to keep it up and Democrats are completely helpless to do anything about it.

“They like this war,” she said. “They want this war to continue. That was a revelation to me. I had thought they would listen to their constituents and change their position.”

Uhm Nancy? They didn’t listen to their constituents when they were in power! What made you think losing the House was going to be some kind of revelation to them? And all in all IMO they did not lose due to the war. They lost by ignoring their constituents, but the topic wasn’t the war. The last thing on their mind is what the bozos back in their district think about anything.

[Crimso]

"And the larger point was that simply using brute force could not win that war."

Of course it could. That it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. And even that assertion presupposes that what was used constituted "brute force." Was more tonnage dropped on North Viet Nam during the war or on the Soviet Union during WWII? Anybody want to try to argue that the damage done to NVN was greater than that suffered by the USSR? By even an order of magnitude?

[liberal japonicus]

Crimso,
you seem fixated on my comment about the Vietnam bombing campaign, which you think counts as a knock down argument against everyone at ObWi and their notions about Iraq. If you revisit comment, you may note that the comment had nothing to do with Iraq, it had to do with McArdle's blog posts on Vietnam. (two post titles 'Travel in the time of Cholera' and 'Isn't it Quaint') That you want to make it some sort of defense of our Iraq policy suggests that you have a few issues you need to work thru.

[Crimso]

"To my mind, a gradual "Vietnamization"-style pullout combined with some adroit horse-trading is probably the best solution avilable to us."

Perhaps. Let's hope it turns out better if we do.

"well, at some point, the bull just has to be made to leave the china shop."

Precisely why I currently live in the Confederate States of America.

"Republicans like this war and want to keep it up and Democrats are completely helpless to do anything about it."

So because Pelosi says they like it you believe her? And you believe the Democrats are helpless to do anything about it? They are quite capable of doing something about it.

[Crimso]

"That you want to make it some sort of defense of our Iraq policy suggests that you have a few issues you need to work thru."

Question your assumptions. Please. Such as: "which you think counts as a knock down argument against everyone at ObWi and their notions about Iraq."

[Randy Paul]

The estimates of civilian deaths in Vietnam range from 2.1 to 5 million. USSR was about 20 million. I think on an order of percentage of civilian population it's probably an edge to the USSR, but if you throw in Cambodia and Laos, the Indochinese Peninsula probably suffered a lot more in the 1960's and 1970's than the USSR did, especially given the unequal duration of the wars.

I also neglected to mention that they attempted to defoliate much of Vietnam, both North and South.

Brute force also didn't conquer the USSR in WWII.

IIRC, the brutality of the Soviet-German phase of the war was in the ground war.

[Catsy]

DNFTT.

[liberal japonicus]

Crimso, you've made any number of comments in this thread concerning the fact that we could have but didn't and related it to the discussion of Iraq. Read my comment again, and explain to me how it relates to anything other than McArdle's ability to report accurately about Vietnam, a country she traveled thru.

[Crimso]

"the Indochinese Peninsula probably suffered a lot more in the 1960's and 1970's than the USSR did, especially given the unequal duration of the wars."

I disagree. Some estimates make 20 million look conservative (I've seen twice that). Either way, I assert that the war in the USSR was far worse. Do you think 20 million SE Asians died during that time frame? If so, would the number have increased or decreased if we had stayed, and why? Should we have deposed the Khmer Rouge? Would that have made the number increase or decrease?

[Crimso]

Well, having been branded a troll, I bid you goodbye.

[trilobite]

Crimso, I want to make sure I understand your rhetorical question. You seem to mean something like, "if at least ten times [an "order of magnitude" is a factor of ten] the tonnage dropped on the USSR in WWII had been dropped on North Viet Nam, they would have lost, therefore brute force could have won that war." If that's wrong, let me know.

Not sure if you mean absolute numbers, or proportional to population, land size, or urbanization index, but let that pass. Also, of course, the Eastern Front in WWII was not primarily an air front, for logistical reasons - the attacks were mostly made with artillery, tank rounds, and rifles, which makes it a little difficult to compare. And let's assume that the increased tonnage you suggest was expended intelligently rather than, say, all dropped in an unpopulated region. All that aside, I still don't exactly see your point.

Taken at its broadest, you seem to say that if you beat down a country enough, it will surrender and you win. Well, yes and no.

Taken a look at Ireland lately? Beaten down by brute force, it surrendered, more than once, and yet the war never really ended. Decimated, starved, blighted, mortgaged, occupied by foreign rulers and crofters...it kept rising. The writing is now on the wall, the Irish will probably have a united country again within our lifetimes.

The lesson to learn: in an age of nationalism, you cannot conquer. You can either limit your aims (war as extension of diplomacy), ethnic-cleanse (genocide or displacement), or lose.

In Viet Nam, we wanted to conquer or convert: keep the population there, but make them stop trying to be Communists. We poured billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and a decade of changing plans down that hole, and failed. We could have exterminated the Vietnamese with more force, but there is no reason to think we could have converted them if we had only bombed harder.

[OCSteve]

Crimso: So because Pelosi says they like it you believe her? And you believe the Democrats are helpless to do anything about it? They are quite capable of doing something about it.

Heh. Full disclosure – I’m a (somewhat) reformed Republican. Independent now. That was all snark. I forget we have a lot of newer commenters around. My bad. I’m more on your side than theirs dude. You’ve fought the good fight here – don’t go away! I need some help here!

Well, having been branded a troll, I bid you goodbye.

Again – you are not and I will defend you against that. You ain’t no troll. These are good people, highly intelligent, as a group extremely formidable. I think you held your own. Don’t go away please.

[Anarch]

You can either limit your aims (war as extension of diplomacy), ethnic-cleanse (genocide or displacement), or lose.

You're missing one of the alternatives: saturation and cultural destruction. See, e.g., China and Tibet.

[Anarch]

And FTR I don't think Crimso is a troll either. Wrong, naturally, but not a troll (:

[liberal japonicus]

That seems to call for a TiO thread

[dogrose]

Crimso, what are you trying to do here?

With your "supercilious condescension" dialed up to 11, you pick a fight over a purely semantic point regarding Iraq now v. Iraq then. When asked to share your informed and informative insights, it turns out you have none.

Now you're trying to goad liberal japonicus into a slap-fight over--what? What, exactly, is your point?

Question your assumptions. Your assumptions will lead you to your ass, Grasshopper. You are wise, Crimso. A thousand thanks for your enlightenment. Seriously: spare us (spare everyone) this preening hubris. You're not the ObWi sensei.

If you want a direct and honest discussion, then state your arguments, define your terms, communicate in a direct and honest way. Your reluctance to do any of these things does give rise to suspicions that you're a t-r-o-l-l.

I'm curious: Does this Crimso persona match up with how you interact with strangers down there in the CSA? If so, you must get punched in the face all the damn time.

[OCSteve]

Well, having been branded a troll, I bid you goodbye.

And really folks… Can we pin this down a little better? Crimso has been around a week or so. H/She has made their points, defended them, responded to questions, clarified when asked, taken a lot of abuse - and been civil the entire time. If that’s a troll then so am I…

Christ. From time to time people will say we need alternate viewpoints around here. Then look what happens when one comes calling.

[Gary Farber]

Crimso is clearly not trolling, in my view. Crimso is conversing. Disagreement is not trolling.

Trolls simply repeat whatever they have to say, without ever responding to what people say to them. Crimso is doing nothing of the kind.

[Anarch]

And FTR I don't think Crimso is a troll either. Wrong, naturally, but not a troll (:

[Gary Farber]

To give an example, Bill simply repeats quotes from the Koran endlessly, and no matter how many times anyone introduces the point that texts are not people, and that the texts of the Old and New Testament are equally filled with lunatic and murderous commandments and anecdotes, he never responds, but simply repeats more quotes, as if it made a point, no matter that it's completely non-responsive. Talking to Bill is talking to a wall. It doesn't matter what one says, the same responses come out. It's a non-interactive experience.

That's a troll.

Crimso, on the other hand, simply engages in normal conversation. There's absolutely no reason I can see why Crimso should be branded a troll.

[dutchmarbel]

I'm not going to be very active in the discussion, due to time-zone and IRL thresholds, but I'd like to add my voice to the choir. I don't think Crimso is a troll, a think he/she has been rather civil at defending the (wrong) opinion.

Though there has been some evasion on his/her part I feel the pile-on was worse.

[crionna]

I think that the only thing that is knowable about pulling out or staying is that if the US pulls out, fewer US soldiers will die in Iraq…right now. As far as women’s, Christians’ or LGBT freedoms/rights are concerned, those won’t get any better, for why should they? I’d guess that Saddam kept those freedoms in place because they were useful to him and if not then they might have been more of a hassle to take away.

But how long did it take for him to get to a point where he could do that? How long did it take for him to be able to stop building schools and start building palaces? How long did it take him to consolidate his position long enough to start putting people into shredding machines; five years, ten? And he had the benefit of being able to be more and more ruthless as he gained power not less and less as we do.

So, let’s say that it’ll take decades to get Iraqis to the point where those that don’t want women to be forced to wear a burka if they don’t want to will have the capability to stand against those who do… even with our help*. It’ll take decades of a gradual dying off of the older hardliners and constant destruction of those younger ones that stick their heads up, by US forces and then, hopefully, gradually, more and more by Iraqi forces. But, and this is key, I think that eventually that would happen. Eventually, given the opportunity, Iraqis would want to give women the rights they once had, to live peacefully with one another and even to decide that LGBT people not only exist; but are valued members of their society**.

And, that says to me that there is a solution, it’s to outwait the fundamentalists and give the secularists a chance to survive and lead.

Is there a historical precedent for this? Maybe just across the border. In Iran, once the Shah was overthrown, a theocracy took hold, a theocracy that is now under a lot of pressure from the young and secular.

The first question I would ask is “Is it possible to get Iraq to where Iran is now (meaning to a point where the populace seems to prefer secularity to theocracy) without the intervening years of theocracy and necessary overthrow of such, and if so, would it take less that 30 years (assuming, wishful thinking alert, an internal overthrow of the theocracy by say 2009)”? The second question I would ask is “Would it be worth it?”

My answers are yes and I don’t know. My first yes answer is based on the speed at which the world moves and information travels now and in the future compared to the ‘70s – ‘00s meaning that I’d guess the same change of attitudes would happen, but in less time. But, would it be worth it? Well, if we assume that our leaving kicks off a civil war that brings Saudi Arabia in on the side of the Sunnis and Iran (along with China and Russia maybe) in on the side of the Shiites and a giant economic meltdown to follow, I’d have to say yes. But I just don’t know, that’s worst case. Thoughts?

*Mea culpa. Someone in a thread (yesterday maybe?) asked for that from a war supporter and so there it is. I thought the war made sense originally for a number of reasons that I don’t want to rehash here, but partly because Iraq had once been a place where people voted (I mean really voted) for things and women could be doctors and wear skirts. I thought that culture would surely be bubbling under the surface ready to show itself once again. And, once others saw that the Iraqis could do it, so might they, in Syria and Saudi Arabia etc. But, and I’m sorry if I sound like I’m blaming the Iraqis for this, it wasn’t there. And I was wrong. Why is that? I don’t recall an argument from anyone that went “With Saddam gone there will be a civil war because all these people really want to do is kill each other”. I honestly don’t. Because if I had heard that from someone(s) brave enough to make the statement, I might not have supported this. And I say “brave enough”, because that sounds a bit like “Democracy? They can’t handle Democracy.”, which sounds kinda rascist to me. I thought Democracy is what they would want, but didn’t realize that it would take 20 years not 2.

**I could be wrong (again). Maybe those people don’t exist there in a large enough amounts. Maybe it was the threat of Saddam that made people accept these things (freedoms) in the first place. But, I don’t want to believe that a majority of those folks support, for instance, the killings of gay people. Rather I’d like to believe that just the hardliners believe that and the difficulty is that they are willing to blow themselves up to make their point. Now’s your chance. If the right answer is that the majority really do want to kill gays, then let’s hear it now and I’ll join the chorus of voices asking us to leave right now, and take the Christians, LGBT, intellectuals and any women with us.

[john miller]

Greed, no0t a troll. And there are two reasons I say that.

One, he has, as Gary indicated, stayed around to defend his points, none of which were inflamatory. As OCSteve said, for the most part, he held his own.

Granted, some of his points (possibly her) were vague and non-conclusive, but that happens a lot here. In fact, in regards to Iraq, he/she did point to a part of hilzoy's post that did merit discussion, and it goes beyond mere semantics.

Secondly, he, several times acknowledged that he found some of the responses to his comments thought provoking and worth considering.

In the beginning he/she was somewhat like Gary at times in that he was trying to get people who were making declarative statements to back them up through definition or some degree of data.

The unfortunate part is that the terms being bandied around (free, rights, etc) are by their nature somewhat open to interpretation.

Regarding the Iraq discussion, the only thing I would try to point to (and Gary I don't have the specific cite and don't at the present time have the time to find it) various polls of the Iraqi people which have indictaed, up until the past month or so, and increasing sense of having been "better off" under SH than now. What "better off" means is, again, open to interpretation.

[john miller]

Opening line was supposed to be "Agreed, not a troll."

[dogrose]

Gary Farber: Talking to Bill is talking to a wall. It doesn't matter what one says, the same responses come out. It's a non-interactive experience.

That's a troll.

No, that's a non-interactive experience. A troll posts comments with the sole intention of stirring up a response.

Crimso, on the other hand, simply engages in normal conversation.

Gary, if jesuitical inquisition is your idea of "normal conversation"... I just don't know what to say.

[gwangung]

Meh. When Crimso gets challenged, he often does bring things to the table.

I just think that sometimes he's brings out factoids and doesn't quite take the next step on their ramifications and implications, or hasn't been encouraged to do so.

[Donald Johnson]

Crionna, support for the insurgency grew because of the US reaction to the insurgency--kicking down doors, carting people off to prison, torture, and possibly also a lot more civilian deaths caused by US forces than we hear about in the press. (That last point is controversial). So the Sunnis started supporting the insurgents, and some (not all) of the insurgents began targeting Shia civilians, and then after an especially vicious attack in Feb 2006, all hell broke loose as far as the civil war was concerned.

My point being that it wasn't just that the Iraqis weren't ready for democracy. If there was a right way to invade Iraq and install a democracy, we didn't do it. (I'm conceding more than I actually believe even in implying that Bush seriously meant to install a democracy, or that there was a right way to do it. But we certainly made things worse than they had to be with some of our early actions.)

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, if jesuitical inquisition is your idea of 'normal conversation'... I just don't know what to say."

My family was Jewish, but, sure, exquisite examination of the nuances of language is the delight of my people.

"My people" being defined as those that fit that description, to be clear. I've tended to find them in the world of publishing, of science fiction fandom, of literate fandoms of every sort, of literate sorts on the internet, and so on.

You probably don't want to be on any of the copyediting discussion lists/groups.

Myself, I delight in conversation that dwells on facts and cites and logic, rather than emotion and irrationalism and non-sequiturs. It's why I like ObWi.

[Gary Farber]

Crimso, to be sure, doesn't seem to me to be playing/conversing at a terribly high level, but I'm not seeing any reason to challenge Crimso's sincerity.

I'm, personally, delighted to have any kind of sincere conservative challenging voice to engage in discussion with.

I've been saying since I was of single digit age that I'd rather converse with people I disagree with on a reasonably intelligent basis than hear from folks who agree with me without being at all interesting. The latter is just boring, at best, after all.

[crionna]

My point being that it wasn't just that the Iraqis weren't ready for democracy. If there was a right way to invade Iraq and install a democracy, we didn't do it.

That's certainly a fair enough point. But, is the damage irrevocably done, or did that just lengthen the time required on the back end?

Also, would you say that the Sunnis recent change of heart (such that it is/has been reported) is real change or just waiting us out?

[cleek]

wherever the Sunni's hearts may be, the notion that we have the ability to make them create an Iraq that's open, tolerant, and liberal, even if they don't want to, is silly.

it's unknown right now if we can even force them into making a stable country (and i lean towards No, on that question - it's something they're going to have to work out for themselves, one way or another). demanding that it's also 'free' is a bit hubristic, IMO.

but, of course, i repeat myself.

[Randy Paul]

Do you think 20 million SE Asians died during that time frame?

Let's speak proportionally. Given that the USSR had a larger population (indeed what it once was is now 15 countries) than Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, let's not be disingenuous here and talk in sheer numbers, let's speak proportionally. I believe that porportionally the number of civilian deaths were probably greater. Throw in the French Post-War Colonial war and I would say it surpasses it.

As for toppling the Khmer Rouge, are you not aware that when the Vietnamese toppled the Khmer Rouge, our antipathy towards Vietnam was so great that following happened:

The Khmer Rouge would likely not have survived without the support of its old patron China and a surprising new ally: the United States. Norodom Sihanouk, now in exile after briefly serving as head of state under the Khmer Rouge, formed a loose coalition with the guerillas to expel the Vietnamese from Cambodia. The United States gave the Sihanouk-Khmer Rouge coalition millions of dollars in aid while enforcing an economic embargo against the Vietnamese-backed Cambodian government. The Carter administration helped the Khmer Rouge keep its seat at the United Nations, tacitly implying that they were still the country's legitimate rulers.

PS: I don't think you're a troll.

[russell]

From time to time people will say we need alternate viewpoints around here. Then look what happens when one comes calling.

It's unclear to me whether Crimso is trolling or not. But I can damn sure tell you that I have no idea what his (or her) viewpoints are, because with precious few exceptions, they weren't shared. The exceptions are (a) the USSR took a bigger beating than Vietnam, and (b) we could have decimated Vietnam in two hours.

Other than that, his comments here consist of challenging other people on their statements, then giving them grief when they replied to his challenges. Kind of entertaining for a while, I guess, but it gets old pretty fast.

So, you know, troll or no troll, I don't, personally, find Crimso particularly congenial company. But, that's just me. YMMV.

Thanks -

[Anarch]

Hot damn. Welcome back, crionna; you've been missed.

[Anarch]

On which note:

I don’t recall an argument from anyone that went “With Saddam gone there will be a civil war because all these people really want to do is kill each other”.

Really? Because I remember the specter of Yugoslavia being raised early and often in 2002...

[Bill]

Given a choice between "sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!"" and undermining our ability to ask the questions we need to ask if we are to do right by our troops, I know what I would choose.
--from the well-written article

So I’m hanging out with an acquaintance who has an ownership interest in the local True Value hardware store. The City has a population somewhere around 15,000. It’s a nice place with no real crime. You’ve had stuff delivered to your home from here if you live west of the Mississippi.

He has sold six AK-47s in the last two days. He attributes it to the upcoming election. I think it’s something deeper. I said; ‘you won’t be able to buy these things in ten years’. He said; ‘shorter than that’. He’s smarter than I am, and ended up selling me a 40-round magazine; ‘You won’t be able to buy these much longer’, he said.

Twenty-five bucks for probably a dollar’s worth of Russian steel. It looks cool though. Like a banana.

[Hartmut]

Jes, I did not say that the 3rd Reich was a golden age for women's rights. It was just less bad than is usually assumed. What I wanted to say is that the real step down for women happened AFTER the end of the 3rd Reich in the Adenauer era (except for the right to vote he turned the clock back about half a century and he opposed the equal rights article of the new constitution). To be nasty, the Gestapo was gone but in a number of areas people (especially women) were actually less free up to at least 1968.
This doesn't attempt to whitewash the nazis. Had they been in power longer (and had there been no war) the situation for women would have been much worse.

[crionna]

Really? Because I remember the specter of Yugoslavia being raised early and often in 2002...

Well, I may not have been the best read individual back then (still not as much as I'd like to, so little time) so I'll take your word. But jeez, I really never heard that, at least often enough to break through. And I guess that's where the Iran comparison breaks down a bit too huh, they're primarily Shiite whereas there's a much larger population percentage-wise of Sunnis in Iraq.

Oh, and thanks, been a while, and I don't know how much I'll actually comment (started lurking a while back) but this issue seemed to be an opportunity to say something about "my kind" ;)

wherever the Sunni's hearts may be, the notion that we have the ability to make them create an Iraq that's open, tolerant, and liberal, even if they don't want to, is silly.

I getchya cleek, but I guess what I'm suggesting is not that we can make them do something that they don't want to, but that eventually, given some support, they will want to and the support will have given them the breathing space to do so. If they'll never want to, well that's another kettle of gummi fish and like I said, I'll support us getting out right now. Or are you saying that they may want to, but our presence is stopping them?

[Jesurgislac]

Hartmut: Fair enough. I did say I was no expert on German history! Thanks for making it clearer.

crionna: I getchya cleek, but I guess what I'm suggesting is not that we can make them do something that they don't want to, but that eventually, given some support, they will want to and the support will have given them thebreathing space to do so.

Yes, quite possibly, but how is this an argument against the US occupation getting out of Iraq? It's not as if the US military is providing support.

As for Iraqis not being ready for democracy: they were demanding elections right after the invasion. There could have been elections in 2003. Bush didn't want the Iraqis to be able to vote in their own government, because a freely-elected government would have been highly unlikely to allow the Bush administration to sell off all of the Iraqi nationally-owned industries into foreign ownership.

Let's not forget the US opposition to free elections as a source of support for the insurgency...

[novakant]

Does that strike you (and Donald Johnson, come to that) as an adequate description of what's going on?

I have to say: yes and no. Your distinctions are helpful to an extent and I see were you're going with this, but I have to question even the notion of "de facto" freedom in SH's Iraq: if someone grants me the freedom to do something but can rescind this freedom at a moments notice and furthermore burn down my house, rape my daughters and torture me at any given time - well then I'm not sure if freedom is the right word, even with the qualifier attached. In the case of the GDR we actually had a somewhat opposite case, in that the regime took great pains to appear as a state based on the rule of law with a proper constitution, trials and lawyers for the defense - so you had nominally some sort of de jure freedom. The problem was: most of the oppression happened outside this legal framework and if your case got to the trial stage, they would get at you anyway and lock you up for life for nothing if they so chose.

It all comes back to my fundamental argument, that if freedom is granted and taken away arbitrarily by someone else, I have a hard time calling it freedom.

in a number of areas people (especially women) were actually less free up to at least 1968.

I think you're overplaying the undeniable repression of the Adenauer era a bit here, but more importantly, and this is the other point of my argument, it's hard to call it freedom if it means freedom unless you are a Jewish woman, a lesbian woman, a woman married to a Jew, a socialist woman, a woman who happened to make a joke about Hitler, in which case you were constantly having to fear that you and your children will be carted off to a concentration camp at any given moment. I know you're probably the last person wanting to make excuses for the nazis, but I think there's a problem with your argument, since, as repressive as the Adenauer era was, nobody had to fear anything like this.

But I have to go and am paging our esteemed resident ethics professor to clean up the mess, if she happens to have nothing better to do. I think there are actually quite interesting ethical questions here.

[crionna]

Yes, quite possibly, but how is this an argument against the US occupation getting out of Iraq? It's not as if the US military is providing support.

So, they do want to, but the US's presence is not currently helping? Again, I won't claim to be the most well-read person, but a quick read of Totten in Fallujah and it sounds like we're helping the Iraqis there start to get back to normal lives (compared to when AQI owned the city) and the Iraqi police, do their jobs. Granted, you can't enter the city if you don't live there, so, not so "free", but, not a start? Not better than the last few years?

As for Iraqis not being ready for democracy: they were demanding elections right after the invasion.

Fair enough. So, eventual elections were too little too late and still are. No hope for that opinion to change there?

[Jesurgislac]

crionna: So, eventual elections were too little too late and still are. No hope for that opinion to change there?

Not so long as the US atrocities in Iraq go unpunished, no. A country which regards it acceptable for its military occupation to torture and murder the civilians and soldiers of the country it occupies, cannot hope to present itself as a country acceptable as a source of neutral support. Is it at all likely that Bush and Cheney are going to be impeached for Abu Ghraib, or Donald Rumsfeld put on trial, and on down to each American who committed atrocities in Iraq going on trial for it? Further, the Bush administration has in fact ensured that American mercenaries in Iraq are not subject to any rule of law, and while Americans may have lost track of this, or think that this is all last years news, I somehow doubt that Iraqis have.

[dutchmarbel]

But, is the damage irrevocably done, or did that just lengthen the time required on the back end?

The well-educated middle class population of Iraq, who on average, was most 'secular' in practise, has been the main target in Iraq. I think that a lot of them are amongst the millions of refugees and without them it is hard to build.

[Jesurgislac]

Add to that, Marbel, that there has never yet been a dedicated effort by the Bush administration to do anything about the reconstruction that did not directly entail large profits for big American corporations.

The Bush administration seemed to think that the reconstruction of Iraq was to be a source of profit for large Republican donors. I am not interested into getting into the argument about whether this was a motivation for invading Iraq: but I don't see how anyone could now disagree that - at least - the Bush administration saw this as a useful secondary effect, a good way to reward loyal corporations in the US by giving them fat no-bid contracts.

The obvious problem with that (even Tacitus, at least back in 2004, agreed with me on this one) was that if reconstruction contracts had gone to Iraqi companies with Iraqi employees, using a normal bidding process, each dollar poured into Iraq would have been money spent to get three times its value: one, reconstruction might actually have started happening; two, the money paid to Iraqis would have been spent in Iraq, boosting the Iraqi economy; three, the Iraqis employed on reconstruction contracts would have had a strong motivation to support the new regime and oppose the insurgency.

And again, Crionna, while to Americans the money supposedly poured into Iraqi reconstruction that never left the US may be last year's news, I'm certain that Iraqis living in the middle of it think of this as current news. Any Iraqi with access to the Internet knows how much money Halliburton and its subsidiaries got for "rebuilding", and how little work was actually done.

[Donald Johnson]

"That's certainly a fair enough point. But, is the damage irrevocably done, or did that just lengthen the time required on the back end?

Also, would you say that the Sunnis recent change of heart (such that it is/has been reported) is real change or just waiting us out?"

I don't think the damage is irrevocable. I don't feel comfortable with the antiwar argument I sometimes hear (though not here) that it was stupid to go into Iraq because those crazed Muslims/Arabs couldn't possibly be ready for democracy. (I'm more in the camp that sneers and rolls its eyes at the thought that the Bush Administration was sincere about wanting to install a real democracy.) Saying that damage is irrevocable seems uncomfortably close to that.

Which doesn't mean that we can repair it or that the damage can be repaired quickly. I've never known what should be done once we got into Iraq. For one thing, I've never thought we have sufficient information to be sure how much damage our own forces are inflicting, a point I make ad nauseum and this question is virtually never raised in the mainstream press, with the exception of a couple of articles by Michael Massing, one in Salon and the other in the Dec 20 issue of the New York Review. If Massing and others (like the Lancet paper authors and Andrew Bacevich) are correct, the toll is much greater than we know and yet people in mainstream circles continually talk about the effects of the troops almost entirely in terms of their ability to control Iraqi violence. A great many Iraqis, last I heard (in a poll from August, I think) still think attacks on US forces are justified, so there's obviously something counterproductive about their presence. Are Iraqis just xenophobic, or do they have good reasons for feeling as they do?

I don't know what the Sunnis feel. I suspect most of them still resent us,but at the moment find us useful and dislike the most extreme al Qaeda factions more. I might be wrong.

[Donald Johnson]

Andrew Bacevich writing last year on the subject of US-inflicted noncombatant deaths and the general lack of US interest in this.

Link

[Hartmut]

If I remember correctly there was much talk over here before the Iraq invasion what would happen after Saddam was dethroned (that this would not take long was seen as given). One main expectation was that Bush would simply install the egg-thief and his clique, get favorable contracts and go for the next target (Syria or Iran). The other discussed possibility was that Iraq would blow up in his face because without a strongman the country would fall apart (with the usual side effect of a lot of people dying through ethnic cleansing). I remember nobody (worth listening to) predicting that the Iraqis would become a model democracy. Not because they were somehow incapable but because the tradition was different and actual experience with democratic rules low.
A possible solution could have been a Soviet Republic (in the original sense, not a communist dictatorship) with local councils electing councils on the provincial level and those again electing a federal council. I think something like this was actually proposed but immediately rejected because this would heve interfere with the other war aims that would only work with a top-down approach.
---
On the German analogies
I find it interesting that the GDR was seen by many as actually more oppressive and intrusive than the 3rd Reich despite the latter being without doubt the more dangerous environment. This may have something to do with Hitler's correct assumption that the older generations would be impossible to completely nazify. This resulted in a policy of "qualified tolerance" that allowed people to "not participate" as long as it was not openly oppositional (passive resistance was out of the question though). This was known as the "inner emigration". The GDR on the other hand required the permanent acclamation by everyone and "insufficient enthusiasm" could get one into trouble (even in 1989 children were expelled from school for refusing to sign "petitions" praising the state for mass arrests of and violence against demonstrators). In Western Germany in the early postwar years it was more a generally oppressive climate that was more felt than actually enforced by state violence (despite some McCarthyite activities). In hindsight this was known as the Muff/Mief (fug, stale air).
Sorry, have to leave now.

[John Thullen]

Bill:

"I think it's something deeper."

Do these people need the weapons because they are moving to Belize?

"He attributes it to the upcoming election."

Who's he fixing to kill? Or is his personal banana a little on the small side?

My experience with folks who own weapons is that the real men and women don't talk about their armory, being fairly well adjusted and not requiring the rolled-up socks in their pants for the bulge effect.

Then we have the "Bring 'em on" loud types in the camoflage pants and the erstaz flight suits (like our dear leader) who let everyone know they're ready for ... what? ..... but who require a diaper when "What" comes along.

If I wanted some gun humping, I'd hang at Redstate. But thanks for the effort.

[Quanto]

This exchange has got me to thinking.

Were my forefathers prior to Columbus more free than my Native American brethren are today-cooped up on their reservations with their poverty, casinos, and alchohol?

Is freedom measured soley by the ability to read, undisturbed, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and dabble in the stock market?

Was the death of millions of my forbearers justified to bask today with this freedom?

[russell]

I think it’s something deeper.

Me too.

It looks cool though. Like a banana.

Aha! A clue.

Thanks -

[Bruce Baugh]

Quanto, "was it worth it" is one of the hardest questions anyone can ask about history, I think. Since we can't go back and fix the past, we need to look at what we can do - rejoice in the good, fix the bad, and plan for the future so as to get more of the former and less of the latter. But since that requires acknowledging when we have done or are doing bad things, it's understandably not popular in some circles.

[John Thullen]

"Aha! A clue."

Bill: "He said, 'shorter than that' "

I hate when it when Freud and the NRA pass cigars around.