Why We Should Stay in Iraq

Keven Drum puts the piercing question:

So: if you do believe we can win in Iraq, let's hear what you mean by "win" and how you think we can do it, and let's hear it in clear and compelling declarative sentences. "Stay the course" isn't enough. What Bush is doing now obviously isn't working, so what would you do that's significantly different?

But the premise to Drum's question is wrong.  Note his key assumption:  "[w]hat Bush is doing now obviously isn't working" and will inevitable result in defeat in Iraq.  In his formulation, our choice is thus between staying and losing or going and losing:  now, choose, friendly hawk-o-sphere. 

This is a false choice.  Indeed, it's a mistake to presume that if we stay in Iraq that we'll inevitably suffer a long and slow defeat.  Crystal balls are wonderful things, yet, sadly, this does not mean that they exist.  We may yet win -- even if Bush merely "stays the course."  (What would victory look like?  I prefer McCain's vision:  "[t]he day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq.")

Look, I've made clear (ad almost naseuam) that I'm disatisfied with Bush's handling of the war.  I've also laid out what I think we should do in order to give us a better shot at victory.  But declare defeat?  Understanding the unfortunate parallel to Grand Moff Tarkin, "I think you overestimate their chances."  A lot of things have gone right in Iraq.  We've had a successful election.  We may yet get a Constitution. The nascent Shia revolt of last summer is no more. 

Are we there yet?  No, of course not.  Have we made terrible mistakes?  You know it.  Is either of these things the same as losing?  Not by a long shot.  It's trite and it bears an uncomfortable resemblence to a soundbite, but it's true:  Democracy is a process, not an event.   

We can make a good guess, however, what will happen if we withdraw.  It almost certainly won't involve "winning" (however defined).  It will more likely involve the government collapsing, and Iraq slipping into anarchy.  It's also likely to result in more alleged chemical weapons laboratories being found in places like Mosul, where terrorists (it seems) were almost ready to begin manufacturing chemical weapons by the truckload.  Do you think that those chemical weapons, if made, will only be used in Iraq? 

The choice is between a policy (Bush's current policy, my proposals) that might result in defeat but that might also result in victory, or a policy (withdrawal) that will almost certainly result in defeat.  In either case, a defeat will have devastating effects for the world -- and us. 

The United States is facing the moment for which we foreign policy realists endlessly prepare:  the moment when there are no good options.  When there is only bad and worse.  We may very well be in a quagmire in Iraq; we may continue to lose young lives and still lose the war.  But the other option -- pulling out -- is worse.  Our troops are all that are keeping Iraq from slipping into chaos; our troops are the only ones that are keeping Iraq from becoming the terrorist Wal-Mart for WMDs (the second time as farce, natch); our troops are providing the Iraqis' sole shot at democracy. 

It is too early in the day to declare defeat.  Let's wait, at the least, until we've actually lost.  Our troops should remain.

Comments

[Tad Brennan]

hard facts won't budge him, and you think light verse will?

[xanax]

"writing like that's easier than it maybe appears."

with all due respect, rilkefan, the hell you say.

[Slartibartfast]

i'll make it simple: when you heard their speeches in 3/3, did you assume they meant we'd be there 2.5 years later, losing dozens of soldiers every month ?

I couldn't tell you what I thought, exactly, two years ago. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't thinking it was going to be easy, and I wasn't thinking we could just walk in, kick Hussein out and walk out.

It'd be dishonest, though, to represent myself as being fully aware of every last possible consequence of invading Iraq, or even a decent subset of consequences. What didn't occur to me, honestly, is that we'd be seeing quite so much imported insurgency.

[Slartibartfast]

hard facts won't budge him, and you think light verse will?

Hard, relevant facts might. The pointing-out of irrelevant things that were news eighteen months ago, though: not so much.

Sorry about the eighteen months thing; irrelevance is catching, maybe.

[Tad Brennan]

how about light, relevant, verse?

[Catsy]

What didn't occur to me, honestly, is that we'd be seeing quite so much imported insurgency.

A significant portion of that can be laid squarely at the feet of whoever was and continues to be responsible for securing neither Iraq's borders nor its conventional weapon stockpiles. These, respectively, have ensured a continued supply of fresh recruits and weapons for the insurgency.

I am cognizant of the fact that securing these objectives would require a far greater commitment of troops than we have available. Nevertheless, the consequences of failing to do so were predictable and predicted. On whose shoulders does that failure lie, and what does that say about our chances to stem that tide, given that our manpower situation is worse than it was going into the war, and the total lack of enthusiasm for "more troops" from the Bush administration?

[Morat]

What didn't occur to me, honestly, is that we'd be seeing quite so much imported insurgency.

Last I checked, we weren't. The vast bulk of the insurgency is native Iraqi. Rumsfeld has made several claims to the contrary, but I've never seen any hard data to indicate there's even a significant percentage of foreigners.

[Catsy]

Last I checked, we weren't. The vast bulk of the insurgency is native Iraqi. Rumsfeld has made several claims to the contrary, but I've never seen any hard data to indicate there's even a significant percentage of foreigners.

I think there's truth to both positions, and that both sides (in general) tend to overstate the percentage of foreign/native insurgency based on what impression better serves their agenda.

[Morat]

I think there's truth to both positions, and that both sides (in general) tend to overstate the percentage of foreign/native insurgency based on what impression better serves their agenda
Well, that's the thing -- you'd think the US could categorically state, or at least eyeball -- the percentages. Instead you get vague phrases from Rumsfeld and Bush designed to give the impression that we're fighting a bunch of Iranian and Saudi terrorists, but are very short on actual figures and such.

Meanwhile, judging by the utter lack of human intel on the ground, and the casual ease with which the insurgency operates in urban enviroments, the best you can assume is that the natives pretty heavily support the insurgents.

Foreigners wouldn't be able to penetrate the police and Army units we keep setting up, and from all accounts, much less operate so openly.

[rilkefan]

Hey, don't get too anxious, xanax, truth to tell is rilkefan acts as if words were not a plague, as if one rhymed "vague" and "Hague" without a dictionary handy, as if one could easily bandy rhyming couplets without care, grabbing trochees from thin air, something that all English schoolkids learned to do for finals and mids, as if Greek and Roman poets didn't versify extemporaneously (off-show-its).

(Actually, that first almost-rhyme took me a while. Feminine rhyme in English isn't quite so easy, and someone without work calling will have to clean up the last bit.)

[Slartibartfast]

Last I checked, we weren't.

Any? Please.

The next dispatch will explain how Deuce-Four has captured nearly one-hundred insurgents in the past three weeks, and how three drugged-up foreign homicide bombers were caught last night.

Not that three is anything to hang even a rhetorical hanky on, but if you go through Yon's archives you'll note more discussion on foreign jihadis. Exactly how many of these guys there are, I have no idea, but the fact that they're there at all isn't something that I expected.

[abb1]

What would victory look like? I prefer McCain's vision: "[t]he day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq."

Two words: neutron bomb. It'll kill the ungrateful insurgents while preserving the highway for Mr. McCain's victory ride.

[trilobite]

How about the Kerry definition: victory is when it's just a nuisance, not a real threat to the society.

Remember, every society has its share of riots, mad bombers, etc. Early on, we had the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Uprising; more recently we've had the Weathermen, Watts, Crown Heights, the Montana Militia, Tim McVeigh, etc. Iraq, for obvious reasons, is always going to have it worse than us. But if it can be kept to an acceptable level, that's a victory.

Seems to me that the real question is, do we have to stick around until that point? I don't think so. I call for Iraqization. Same as Vietnamization, but this time it will work, because the enemy has relatively little local support in most of Iraq or outside funding. Once an Iraqi army is trained and ready, we leave. Period. We send funding if the Iraqi government keeps playing nice with us, but basically we leave.

What we can't do, in any kind of good conscience, is leave before that. That really would start a bloodbath, one that we carefully set the groundwork for.

So, no timetable (which does nothing but encourage the enemy to hang on), but a clear and simple exit strategy.

[Morat]

Not that three is anything to hang even a rhetorical hanky on, but if you go through Yon's archives you'll note more discussion on foreign jihadis. Exactly how many of these guys there are, I have no idea, but the fact that they're there at all isn't something that I expected.

First, I was unclear. I thought your post implied we were seeing MUCH imported insurgency. I was disputing "much", because from what I can tell, it's like standing outside in a hurricane and complaining because someone spilled some of their Evian on you. It's just not enough to really matter.

As to "not expect it". Umm, why not? The US force deployment was clearly insufficient to seal the borders, and it's not like we weren't going to be pissing off the neighbors, especially when Rumsfeld started darkly warning Syria and Iran about how they should watch out.

[Morat]

Same as Vietnamization, but this time it will work, because the enemy has relatively little local support in most of Iraq or outside funding. Once an Iraqi army is trained and ready, we leave. Period. We send funding if the Iraqi government keeps playing nice with us, but basically we leave.

Hehehehe...oh wait, were you serious?

[xanax]

Anxious I wasn't, though taken i was; where others "can" rhyme it seems rilkefan does; with such style and grace and withering wit, makes that which I conjure sound just like ca-ca.

(rilkefan for poet laureate!)

[Slartibartfast]

Umm, why not?

Oh, I don't know. Who, besides us (well, maybe Iran, too), would want to get IN to Iraq? Granted, this is probably more a failure of my imagination than anything else.

It's just not enough to really matter.

I've seen estimates of five to ten percent (for example). Depending on how relatively effective those five to ten percent are, they could be relatively negligible or fairly important. I'll listen to a case for either. The influence of Zarqawi, for example, was anything but dismissable.

[Stan LS]

Morat,

More than 40 percent of the suicide bombers dispatched by terror leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi to attack Iraqis and U.S. troops hailed from Saudi Arabia, according to a new study.

Only 9 percent of the bombers were Iraqis, said the report by the SITE Institute, a counterterror group.

Hmmm..

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

with such style and grace and withering wit, makes that which I conjure sound just like ca-ca.

Ha ha ha! I have barely conceled my amusement from my coworkers.

[Morat]

Stan: "Suicide bombers" and "insurgents" are the same thing? Wow! Heck, I didn't even realize all the insurgents reported to Zarqawi!

Silly me. I was under the impression -- and this is going to sound truly dumb -- that the ACTUAL problem wasn't the suicide bombers but the rather impressive and practiced guerilla tactics being employed be the guys who DON'T have to blow themselves up to kill Americans.

The ones that manage to ambush a Marine sniper team, or plant roadside (not SUICIDE) bombs so powerful that they're killing soldiers every day. The ones that can mount assaults on US positions and such.

But if it's just suicide bombers that's causing all the unrest, we only need to wait until they kill themselves off. Of course, if we knew how many legs Zarqawi had, maybe we could catch him.

Slarti: Yeah, actually, his influence IS dismissable. He's not "leading" anything -- he certainly doesn't have anything like, say, the numbers Sadr can put on the street. The problem is all the angry ex-Army types running around, with all that training in infantry tactics and explosives. The suicide bombers are good at killing Iraqis, but the ones killing the US are ex-soldiers.

If the insurgency had half their current numbers, we still couldn't pacify Iraq with the troops we have there. 5 to 10% of untrained foreign fighters is a blip -- the real issue is trained infantry with access to all the guns and explosives they could ever need.

Zarqawi ISN'T that important. We could kill him tomorrow, and all his top aides, and it'd have all the effect that killing Saddam's sons had -- or capturing Saddam for that matter -- in short, none.

We aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq. We're fighting a guerilla insurgency against trained infantry with access to a great deal of modern weaponry. One of our early failings WAS to dismiss this as "terrorists" or "Saddam loyalists" and pretend that one man -- or a small group of leaders -- were the linchpin of the insurgents.

We removed all the early "linchpins" (Saddam, his sons, top generals and top military officials) and things didn't improve.

We're not facing "Terrorists" in Iraq. We're not facing "suicide bombers". We're not facing an "Army" either. There are, to be sure, some terrorsits and suicide bombers floating around Iraq now, but they're not the problem -- compared to the insurgency, they're small potatoes.

[Happy Jack]

According to this, less than 5% of prisoners are foreigners. On the otherhand, the military believes the foreign element is taking a role now that is not commensurate with their numbers.

[DDR]

Morat:Zarqawi ISN'T that important.

Interesting. Do you feel that way about bin Laden?

[Jesurgislac]

DDR: Do you feel that way about bin Laden?

Don't you? Bush does.

[Morat]

Interesting. Do you feel that way about bin Laden?

Yes and no. Since Osama WAS rather thoroughly involved with 9/11 and Zarqawi was not, I'd rather have him safely in prison or safely dead, rather than running free.

However, given the cell-like nature of terrorism and the fact that killing or capturing Osama OR Zarqawi wouldn't do very much as a single act, if faced with an "either/or" I'd rather roll up an entire cell or two, or freeze assets if I had to choose.

I know you love your strawmen, but it's time to put down the toys and face some facts: This ain't James Bond, and killing Dr. No doesn't end the problem. This stupid obsession -- starting with the White House PR and filtering down into the warfloggers -- that if we just kill or capture the right person we'll be "safe again" is part of what's causing the problem.

Add in the fact that the White House appears to be believing it's own spin, and you can understand why Iraq has gone so badly.

For the record:
1) Killing/Capturing major terrorism figures will not end terrorism. Terrorism is a means not an organization you join.
2) Terrorists don't perform terrorism because they "hate freedom".
3) Not everyone who hate the US is a "terrorist", nor is everyone who attacks US soldiers in Iraq "terrorists"

I realize it helps Bush sell this to pretend that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism and that we're fighting terrorists over there rather than over here -- but that's bullshit through and through. It was fairly true about some regions of Afghanistan, and had we actually devoted effort there -- rather than yanking out critical men and equipment as soon as we could to focus on Iraq -- we could have put a serious dent in the number of radicals willing to use terrorism abroad. WE did not, however.

Iraq, despite the fact that it's military dictator won the "World's Biggest Asshole" award five years running, was NOT a threat to the US, was NOT a hotbed of terrorism (Zarqawi, the man with an unknown number of legs, remains the only 'terrorist' we identified in Iraq. And he was hiding out from Saddam under our own no fly zone, and we knew it), and -- in fact -- wasn't even unique in handing out the occasional death benefit to Palestinian suicide bombers.

[bob mcmanus]

Digby

Djerejian

Miss me? Been busy. Beat up on Ezra Klein last night on this, fun being a troll. Just kidding, Ezra. Fierce doogies say hi, on kitty friday.

I am exhausted with this topic. Not that it or I will go away. I agree with all the fine comments above, each and every one. Have a good weekend.

For the record I am not now, nor have I ever been, Kinky Friedman.

[dmbeaster]

But the premise to Drum's question is wrong. Note his key assumption: "[w]hat Bush is doing now obviously isn't working" and will inevitable result in defeat in Iraq.

This is a pretty reasonable assumption by Drum, and he does not assume it is "inevitable" -- it is a more reasonable than the assumption that continuing the same strategy by Bush is going to work.

So the premise of your post is what is off. And Drum's point is "come up with something new" that will give us a shot at "wininng" or make plans to start getting out. The third option -- continue the same screwed-up strategy, makes little sense.

[Dismayed Liberal]

Von,

I see you ducked Phil's questions. Let me repeat them for you..."what does losing look like? What does the situation look like, Von, when you can no longer say that pulling out, cutting and running, is no longer worse than staying? Or do you believe that that can NEVER be the case?"

Rather than dismissing Kevin's question as a "Gotcha!", why not take a run at the question from the other side of the coin? Or do you consider those above to be "Gotcha!" questions as well?

[Anarch]

von: To put Phil's question another way, in what way would you allow your belief in "We may yet win" to be falsified? If it cannot be falsified -- if you are unwilling or unable to dictate reasonable criteria under which you are willing to say that we cannot win -- then how does this differ from an article of faith, and why should we pay it any heed?

[Edward]

if you are unwilling or unable to dictate reasonable criteria under which you are willing to say that we cannot win -- then how does this differ from an article of faith, and why should we pay it any heed?

Wow!

What a question!

Impressive reasoning there Phil, et al.

Or is it simply that if we go there...if we say it out loud, we risk making it more likely? (Still seems faith-based, but at least it's a bit more realworld.)

[carsick]

Bush knew how to get of Viet Nam so what's happening in Iraq?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush (addressing Clinton's casualty free Bosnian actions)

[Bruce Baugh]

Morat: I don't think that capturing or killing bin Laden would end all our problems. I do think it would be an act of justice on behalf of the Americans (and all the others) actually killed or injured on September 11, 2001, and that remains my highest priority. I want to stop those who plan and carry out mass murder of my countrymen in my country. Then we can see what to do next.

There's a joke about a drunk looking fruitlessly for something under a street light and teling a bystander that he dropped it up the block, but the light is so much better here. It's not as funny when we're talking about a whole lot of lives, property, and money, while letting the real perpetrator get off. I think that the first goal of American foreign policy should be keeping our citizens safe, and that the second goal should be dealing with attacks on them when the first part doesn't work out.

[carsick]

On CNN recently the ex CIA agent in charge of the binLaden case work said bin Laden was just a terrorist with an operation but our inability to focus on getting him and accomplishing that goal has made him into a philosophy and a movement.

[carsick]

Here's the quote:
"The war in Iraq has broken the back of our counterterrorism effort. I‘m not an expert on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the invasion of Iraq has made sure this war will last decades ahead and it has transferred bin Laden and al Qaeda from being man and an organization into being a philosophy and a movement. We‘ve really made sure that the war against us is going to be a long and very bloody one. Iraq was an absolutely disastrous decision."

[Hal]

Bruce: and exactly how did the war in Iraq make us more safe? Seems that we're a couple of hundred billion in the hole, down 1800+ soldiers, about 10,000 wounded and we're no safer than we were before.

In fact, since we've created Terrorist U, I'd argue we're less safe. And now we're in a position where, if we don't "win", we're going to be even worse off.

Again, what was the reason we went into Iraq?

[Al Hill]

The only thing that I think they tend to forget is that we were lied to in the first place ... and somebody has to be accountable for that ... I do not have any answers but there are lots of ideas here ... and that is what seems to be lacking in this administration .. new ideas on what to do to recover from this god awful mess ... staying long term is going to cost a hell of a lot in terms of people and money ... and in the end I feel that no matter what we do after we let go the Iraqis are still going to fight it out amongst themselves ... to sit in large fortified cities overseeing the government of Iraq for years on end will just make us more of an occupier in the eyes of the Iraqis

[AlanDownunder]

"we foreign policy realists"

Eh? Realism should be made of humbler stuff.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The war in Iraq has broken the back of our counterterrorism effort. I‘m not an expert on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the invasion of Iraq has made sure this war will last decades ahead and it has transferred bin Laden and al Qaeda from being man and an organization into being a philosophy and a movement. We‘ve really made sure that the war against us is going to be a long and very bloody one. Iraq was an absolutely disastrous decision."

This is so egocentric as to be ridiculous. If anything transformed al Qaeda from an organization into a philosophy and a movement other than internal Islamist schismatics it was successfully destroying the twin towers.

[Jesurgislac]

If anything transformed al Qaeda from an organization into a philosophy and a movement other than internal Islamist schismatics it was successfully destroying the twin towers.

Actually, I would think it was fairer to say that while the Bush administration is as responsible as any for turning al-Qaeda into a philosophy and a movement - both its failure to prevent the attack on the WTC and its failure to focus on finding those responsible and bringing them to justice - the war in Iraq is really neither here nor there.

Certainly it has accomplished one of al-Qaeda's stated objectives, toppling Saddam Hussein, and looks likely to accomplish al-Qaeda's longest-standing objective, getting US army bases out of Saudi Arabia. And of course it has drained the US of resources that might more usefully have been spent elsewhere, if the US's chief objective during the past few years had been to pursue al-Qaeda and destroy it as an organization.

But Bush and his administration have made so many catastrophic mistakes both before and after September 11 2001, that trying to pick out just one - whether their failure to prevent the attack or their decision to invade Iraq - is a pointless kind of analysis.

[Slartibartfast]

getting US army bases out of Saudi Arabia

We've got (or had) army bases in Saudi Arabia? Do tell.

[CharleyCarp]

It seems to me that AQ has probably gotten more mileage out of its senior leadership (UBL and Z) eluding capture despite full-on efforts by the Superpower than they did from the 9/11 attack. Which better proves the will of Allah in these matters?

And what better proves UBL contentions about the motive of the Crusader states than our proposed transformation of Iraq and the ME? I don't have enough information about the interior workings of the counterterrorism effort to say whether its back is broken. It does seem to me, though, that (a) espousing grand theories for transformation that people sympathetic to UBL's form of Islam would find offensive reinforces his point about our intentions and (b) demonstrating the limits of our ability to use force (and attention span is a significant part of that ability) can't be good. Item (a) is advisable, but you have to win, or it exacerbates the harm. Item (b) should never be revealed.

I don't mind asking, at each juncture in this thing: what would Brent Scowcroft do? I don't know what he's saying in private right now, but somehow I doubt he and von are in sync.

[bob mcmanus]

"what would Brent Scowcroft do? I don't know what he's saying in private right now"

Strikes me that the famous "adult Republicans", Eagleberger and Scrowcroft etc, are being very very quiet indeed. Interesting.

Kissinger can't be shut up, of course.

[Bruce Baugh]

Hal, I'm arguing that the war on Iraq was a complete distraction from what should have been our primary target, Osama bin Laden and his organization and backers.

[matttbastard]

We've got (or had) army bases in Saudi Arabia? Do tell.

Well, sort of:

The United States does not "own" or have sole custody of any military facilities in Saudi Arabia. It has regular and rotational forces at the following joint U.S.-Saudi bases: King Fahd Air Base, Dhahran; King Abdul-Aziz Air Base, Dhahran; Jeddah; Khamis Mushayt; Prince Sultan Air Base, Al Kharj; Eskan Village, Riyadh; Riyadh Air Base; army bases at Tabuk and Taif.

cite

More from GlobalSecurity.org, including a detailed rundown of each facility.

[Slartibartfast]

So, in other words: no.

[Jesurgislac]

Or, in other words: yes.

[Slartibartfast]

Or, in other words, Jesurgislac doesn't understand the words The United States does not "own" or have sole custody of any military facilities in Saudi Arabia.

[matttbastard]

Glad to have cleared this up;)

[Jesurgislac]

Or, in other words, Jesurgislac doesn't understand the words The United States does not "own" or have sole custody of any military facilities in Saudi Arabia.

Or, in other words, Slartibartfast doesn't understand that it's not possible to convince people that US bases do not exist by verbal quibbles asserting they're not "really" US bases.

matt: Glad to have cleared this up;)

Ah, I think Slarti's been disconcerted too often at finding he agrees with me and is determined not to do it this time. ;-)

[Slartibartfast]

by verbal quibbles asserting they're not "really" US bases

Oh, but it's not a "verbal quibble". US bases are US bases; these are Saudi bases. They're not US bases by any possible definition.

[matttbastard]

How about amending 'US military bases' to 'ongoing US military presence'?

Yes, parsing sematics can seem silly, but the amended statement is technically without dispute.

Of course, if you'd both rather waste precious bandwith arguing minutia...
:P:P

[matttbastard]

Er, 'bandwidth, that is.

[Frank]

Slarti- Are they military bases? Yes. Do US military personel get stationed there? Yes. Does saying they aren't US military bases sound like quibbling to me? Yes.

What it sounds like to the average Muslim is more to the point, but somehow I doubt that they are quite as charitable as you about things like this.

[Jesurgislac]

Of course, if you'd both rather waste precious bandwith arguing minutia...

Bandwith! :D

It has been suggested that we simply cut down the topics on which we argue to single words or phrases representative of the whole. As for example, I say "Florida fraud!" and Slarti says "Florida no fraud!" and this saves many, many repetitive posts.

Slarti is really just doing a Gary Farber here, except Slarti does it very succinctly. Which is more amusing, and not really any less inexplicable.

[DDR]

Slartibartfast:They're not US bases by any possible definition.

Maybe a definition of a US base would be handy. Anyone know how the Europeans define a US base versus a British or German base?

Or how Japan does?

[Slartibartfast]

Does saying they aren't US military bases sound like quibbling to me? Yes.

That's because you're you, Frank. My preference is to not call things that which they're clearly not. Quirky, I know, and probably inconsistent, but I do my best.

How about amending 'US military bases' to 'ongoing US military presence'?

If Jesurgislac had said "ongoing US military presence" instead of "US Army bases", I wouldn't have found it comment-worthy. And of course if she'd said something like "has mostly accomplished Al-Qaeda's longest-standing objective" rather than "looks likely to accomplish al-Qaeda's longest-standing objective...but that's probably quibbling, too.

[matttbastard]

Oh dear god...

and here I thought I cut the thread drift off at the pass.

When is a base not a base (and when is a base a 'bass'? When Geddy Lee says so, fool!)

[DDR]

Does anyone here think it means jack to AQ whether we have bases in SA, Iraq or even just have ships of the coast? If we have any presence in the ME it is too much for AQ. To think we will achieve some kind of peace with them if we leave SA completely is just foolish.

Sort of reminds me of the British with Hitler. Let's just give him Czechoslovakia, what harm can that bring?

The stated goal is to get the US out of SA. Fine. Who thinks they will stop there? After the ME AQ's stated goals will be to have all US bases gone from Europe.

With an organization like AQ any stated goal other than a world wide caliphate is really only a stepping stone.

[Jesurgislac]

matt: and here I thought I cut the thread drift off at the pass.

Once someone starts doing a Gary Farber, it is impossible to cut the thread drift off. The only thing to do is to just walk away...

[matttbastard]

...which I shall do, Jes, humming 'Tom Sawyer' the entire way.

[CharleyCarp]

The stated goal is to get the US out of SA. Fine. Who thinks they will stop there?

I agree completely. But then the most important issue isn't figuring out what AQ wants and doing that, it's figuring out what motivates people to support AQ, and finding ways to mitigate it. AQ jabbers on about US military occupation of SA -- and they don't care who owns the goddam base either -- because this resonates with the people they are trying to attract. We're not going to get anywhere with those people either arguing what the meaning of is is, what's a base, whether it's army or air force (which is what I thought Slart's point was going to end up being), or whether it's the only demand. What we do have to do is factor into the cost/benefit analysis of having (OK, using to a significant extent) the bases some additional cost for AQ being able to do this to the approval of some folks not yet members.

Part of an intelligent strategy in this thing -- a big part -- is thinking about what messages we want out there, and which memes of AQ we can take off the board.

With an organization like AQ any stated goal other than a world wide caliphate is really only a stepping stone.

I don't know, but I'm sure that the audience for this kind of thing is much smaller than the audience for 'they're flushing the Koran,' or 'they refuse to hold the trials their own courts have ordered,' or 'the use pig fat in the cartridges.'

[Frank]

CharlieCarp- "pig fat ON the cartriges" :)

[phil bartels]

look iraq is a pivot point to take out every militant mulim scum bag om the earth. we need to be there and in my opinion seeing we "conquered" it we shlould use it use the damn oil. thats my humble opinion, and i think bush did a great thing there

[BrainstormLawrence]

These are just a bunch or ideas about the war in Iraq that I consider to be right. The first of them are from a book called “The Troops Need You, America”:

Can the U.S. still succeed in Iraq?-
Yes. Our troops have made incredible progress, but leaders in Washington and Baghdad need to allow them to finish the mission by embracing some common sense changes. We are running out of time, though, so American citizens need to get involved and the new book, The Troops Need You, America explains how.

Describe success in Iraq.-
The key to victory is security, since democracy is already moving ahead. Security will be a reality when the Iraqi people have an effective nationwide neighborhood watch program that identifies insurgents and terrorists, and are able to quickly contact well-trained Iraqi Security Forces to stop them.

What is the fundamental problem?-
There is still too much bureaucracy, a defensive mindset, inadequate training and intelligence, and a near-absolute fear of the media. These factors have undermined the substantial success the troops have achieved on the ground.

What is the solution?-
We need to listen to the commander of units at the lowest echelons, such as battalions, because they face the localized insurgency every day and know what is really going on in their neighborhoods. If we don’t start listening to the troops, and changing the way we support them, we may lose in Iraq.

Should we “Cut and Run” or accept “More of the Same?”-
Neither. That was a false choice presented in the 2006 election. We need to remain committed to succeed in Iraq because failure would be a disaster for our military and for security of the Middle East and the United States. At the same time, being committed should not preclude making some common sense changes based on the fact that what we are already doing is not leading toward victory.

I am against the war. Why should I support this plan?-
This plan will help the troops succeed so they can come home sooner, which means saving our nation’s blood and treasure. Four years ago, our national leaders cast a decisive bi-partisan vote to send our troops to remove Saddam Hussein by force. Once those troops came under fire, it is our duty to support them and the mission our nation sent them to do. At the same time, our leaders must be humble enough to make course corrections now, and once the mission is complete we need a thorough review of the effectiveness of our intelligence community.

Quote by John Stuart Mill who was a British Author. He said: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice,—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

Excerpts from “The Iraq War” by Major general Robert H. Scales Jr.:

“At the end of the day the Iraqi war was not just about oil or the stability in the middle east, though these were important factors, to be sure. Nor was it primarily about the liberation of the Iraqi people or even about the need to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Rather like the operations in Afghanistan, the Iraq war is a clear demonstration to the entire world that the United States, in the wake of September 11, has the capacity and will to defeat rogue states and confront those who threaten vital interests of the American people.”

We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. Dwight D. Eisenhower

I have never advocated war except as a means of peace. Ulysses S. Grant

And by the way: “If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer.”-Ronald Regan

George Orwell was right when he said “The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” But I might add the quickest way to lose this war, is to end it.

[Phillius]

We need to stay in Iraq. Of course we are going to lose soldiers. Thats the risk they took when they signed up. But if we leave now ten times as many people will die. There will be more refugees. Terroists will use Iraq as a safe house to build all types of weapons. Yea Bush has lead this war the wrong way and we shouldnt pull out because of that. We need to find a better strategy. Its not much of a war right now. All that is really going on is suicide bombers. Our soldiers need our support. This support is one of factors in war. Troops need support from the Home Front.
For all of you who just read the newspaper for info and events in Iraq. All the media show is suicde bomber after suicide bomber, they dont tell you some of the progress being made in Iraq. Yea they might show some of it but they dont show all of it.
Peace in Iraq wont be easy to achieve. It needs some time. We have had lots of sucess over there. Yea we will lose more troops. But if we pull out now, peace in Iraq will never come. People will die by the hundreds. We need to saty in Iraq and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

[Phillius]

Have we forgiven the terroists for 9/11? I havent and probably wont. If this war in Iraq is helping us fight terroists then lets keep fighting it. Terroists need to be stopped. We cant let keep killing people and destroying countrys. If we pull out, terroists will have a safe house country thingy place,where they can build weapons to use on us and other Western Powers. We need to keep on fighting.

[da man]

ur a fuckin idiot lets get the fuck out of iraq, its not gonna get any better, u r all dumbasses if u think it will.
OBAMA FOR '09

[erk]

that was too long

[erk]

Mccain for 09

[Dusti]

Your calling us dumbasses? Look at you... you can't even spell out YOU or ARE correctly.

MCAIN FOR '09