Ya know, you'd think at some point just the slightest creepings of cognitive dissonance would enter the leftist mind...
(...such that it is).
Posted on 08/06/2006 11:18:20 AM PDT by Republicain
In May, there was an upsurge of killings of people regarded as homosexuals., carried out by Shia death squads. The Times at that time reported that the increase in hostilities against homosexuals had been a result of a statement made by Iraq's Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani (pictured), who is based in Najaf, at the Kawza seminary.
In April last year, the Ayatollah had stated on his website that homosexuals should be killed in the "worst, most severe way". His fatwa had apparently been subsequently lifted, though this did not stop the emergence of death squads. Sistani did not remove an order that lesbians should be killed thus.
Various incidents of killings of homosexuals had happened since then, involving shootings, and grenade killings, but by this spring, the Interior Ministry conceded that Iraqi security forces have been infiltrated by militia extremists.
The death squads would give names of individuals targeted for "execution" and relatives would be threatened to be killed if they did not divulge the whereabouts of their relatives. There is only a small portion of Baghdad where a "gay" culture has been tolerated in the country, but there is male prostitution, and often young boys are kidnapped and forced to work as male prostitutes. In April, a 14 year old boy was shot in the head in al-Dura, a suburb of Baghdad. His father was told he had been shot for "corrupting the community".
The current issue of the UK Observer notes that the executions of homosexuals are not only increasing, but shockingly, the militia are even executing children as young as 11.
The young boys, and older males, are kidnapped and sold on to criminal gangs who then use them as prostitutes, and the murder of these "immorals" is not regarded legally as a serious crime. Apparently section 111 of Iraq's penal code protects those who murder people who act "against Islam", allowing perpetrators of "executions" to remain unpunished.
Last month, eleven year old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from in front of his house. It was known in the neighbourhood that the child had been forced to engage in prostitution. His father searched three days for the boy, only to find his body. Ameer had been shot through the head.
Ali Hili is an Iraqi homosexual rights worker based in London, who claims he has lost contact with half of the volunteers who were based in Iraq. He says: "The government will do nothing to tackle this issue. It's really desperate when people get to the stage they're trading their children for money. They have no alternatives because there are no jobs."
"...the Interior Ministry conceded that Iraqi security forces have been infiltrated by militia extremists."
No shit-ite, Sherlock? Ya think?
A blog posting is not news. Since this is unsourced I suspect it more of the usual made nonsense from the Hate American First Leftists. Curious what are the SOURCES for these claims. I hear accusations, where is the PROOF?
A good example of the total absence of the rule of law and respect for human life. And these people will support a Constitutional Republic ???
Since this is unsourced I suspect it more of the usual made nonsense from the Hate American First Leftists.
-----
You could be right -- but these types of practices are very common in the Arab world.
Saddam was right about one thing...it takes an SOB to run an islamic country. I believe that homosexuality is a foul sin of perversion but not nearly as bad a perversion as fundamental islam.
The links to the sources (The Times and Observer) are on the original site. Click on the link...
Islam is indeed a mental disease like liberalism...
I guess it depends on the propensitys of the MOBSTER(Mullah) in charge that determines the (local) character of Islam.. Tribal governance is indeed democracy... in Kuwait queerdom is accepted freely..
Ya know, you'd think at some point just the slightest creepings of cognitive dissonance would enter the leftist mind...
(...such that it is).
I am about ready to completely give up on Iraq. A failed experiment in nation building? A lesson learned that a tiger cannot change his stripes?
Any more lives wasted and money spent is throwing good after bad, as far as I'm concerned. Or at least that is where my mind is heading.
Do you mean we should as ILLUMINATI we should take action to save these gay children? Or, do you think we should abandon the gay children to their fate because their tormentors are such irretractable savages? I really can't tell from examining your posts. Or, do you just wish to tar the Muslims for no particular reason at all? Please respond.
Some of them will and (clearly) some of them won't. The question is how to strengthen the former. Don't make the mistake of assuming they are all the latter.
This current clip is from the Guardian
Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.
Whatever your hatred may be for "gay" children, these are hetero boys kidnapped and forced into prostitution, then murdered by the religious.
Do you give a damn?
"Giving up on Iraq" is not a method of saving lives. It is a method of enabling us to ignore killings more easily. That's what you want, eh?
As for the money spent, please kindly detail how the military presence in Iraq has measurably affected your pocketbook. Otherwise, why the pressure "give up" when (I presume) virtually nothing that can be said to perceivably affect your life is being asked of you in the first place?
The primary way that our military presence in Iraq is affecting 99% of our population is that it generates news stories which make us feel bad, before we switch back over to America Idol. If that "sacrifice" is enough to make you and others want to "give up", that is pathetic.
There was no good decision about Iraq. Only bad and worse. If Sadam had been left in power, eventually, when the sanctions were off, he would have started building his nukes again and, in five years, we'd have another Iran sitting there (Sunni/Shi'te differences notwithstanding). These people are incapable of democracy. The only reason to go over there was to get rid of Sadam, who did fund terrorism and would have grown as a threat when "the world" got tired of pretending to contain him (thank you, UN). Now, let's just partition the country and let them kill each other.
The problem with Iraq.........Islam.
Yes, no two ways about it. Why have we let them into the US? They just want to take over. It's a fifth column. They breed like rabbits. We're doomed.
One of the most surreal posts I have ever seen on FR.
First, do you or do you not understand that part of the problem here is accusing children of being "gay" because of acts they are forced into? Children, under ordinary circumstances, have no sexuality one way or the other. Children are not "gay" nor are they "hetero". They are children. Those of them forced into homosexual sex acts are not "gay children", they are rape victims.
Second, nobody is tarring "the Muslims". Posters here are tarring those Muslims who murder children for being "gay". And rightly so. Why on earth would that make you or any non-murdering Muslim defensive, provided the shoe doesn't fit?
Third, you say you "can't tell" what the poster "thinks" from the news story he posted. It's a news story and Republicain posted it without comment. What difference what he "thinks"?
In other words you advocate for us illustrious westerners to abandon these gay children victims to to their tormentors and cut and run? Is that your position? I just can't tell what you would do?
1. What does illustrious Westerner mean?
2. These are not gay children.
3. Who said anything about 'cut and run?'
4. I get the impression you think you are replying to Americain. You're not.
Neither do I believe that children are --can be-- gay --homosexual-- I hate PC. That's just the premise of the post. In fact it's in the title. I'm just trying to ascertain what action or consequence is contemplated by the poster based on his indictment of the perpetrator that's all. Whattaya gonna do about it?
It's not the premise of the post, or the title. It's the premise of the murderers. Note that "Being Gay" is placed in quotes, in standard headline lingo.
I'm just trying to ascertain what action or consequence is contemplated by the poster based on his indictment of the perpetrator that's all.
Why? How about we first all agree that these murders are wrong.
Perhaps we shall decide that they are wrong, without quite knowing or being able to do anything about it. Such is life.
You seem to be implicitly arguing from an instrumental position of news analysis, i.e. news events ought not to be discussed until we can "do something" about them. Anyone who posts a news event without simultaneously stating what they will "do about" it, is placed under suspicion.
Like I said, surreal.
ping
I figured my post would elicit such a response from some.
"As for the money spent, please kindly detail how the military presence in Iraq has measurably affected your pocketbook."
How Iraq affects my pocketbook is this: The United States is spending and incurring debt at an unprecedented rate. These bills will fall due someday. If the US decides simply to print more money to pay it, we will all suffer the comensurate inflation. I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't say HOW these debts will eventually play out. Perhaps we will be blessed with a future fiscally conservative president and congress and they will have a saner approach to the finances. That remains to be seen.
"why the pressure "give up" when (I presume) virtually nothing that can be said to perceivably affect your life is being asked of you in the first place?"
Let me ask you this: What is being GAINED by being there? And is this advantage worth the lives and capital being expended? And will these gains be fleeting, as they appear to be now, or permament?
Extemist infiltration in the Iraqi military and police force. The cancer of fundamentalist islam spreading throughout the culture. Sectarian violence unabating. The people unwilling or unable to wrest control of their nation from the terrorists. Hundreds of thousands burn American and Israeli flags in the streets.
These are all VERY REAL obstacles to achieving the goals we have set for ourselves in Iraq. I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve these goals, but I am willing to state that we are not currently on track to meet these goals anytime in the foreseeable future. without a MASSIVE escalation in tactics and strength.
I was never in favor of a nation building exercize in Iraq, preferring to simply bomb, capture Saddam, input advisors to help in the transition, seek out the WMD's and quickly escape if the country fell to civil war. We were not obligated to fix their country-- only obligated to destroy their ability to produce and transfer WMD's.
THAT WAS OUR ONLY OBLIGATION.
There should be no obligation to "help" the people. Rebuild the country. Kill the bad guys who create chaos. Or even establish democracy.
If out of the chaos, another fundamentalist regime emerged that threatens our interests with WMD's etc, then we are only obligated to obliterate them yet again, preferably through air power, until the threat no longer exists.
Yes, this is a sucky thing for the innocents who are caught up in the middle of it, but it keeps our boys safer, gets the job done and costs a fraction of the treasure to undertake.
This is the truly conservative approach to dealing with the threat from the Middle East, and it goes for all of the offending countries. With this strategy, we insure our security. With your strategy, we spread oourselves thin and spend a boat load of money and guarantee nothing.
I’m not sure I totally agree or disagree with many of these posts.
If we cut our losses and run now, Iraq will fall into complete anarchy before being taken over by the Iraqi Taliban. Not a good option for us or anyone in the region.
If we stay much longer, the extremists will still hate us and in the end everyone will resent us not to mention the economic, emotional and political toll it takes here at home.
We are not just fighting a political party but an entire culture that dates back thousands of years.
Nation building of this sort has never worked as far as I know. Note that we re-built Germany but Germany was and is a western culture and we re-built Japan, but in many ways the Japanese were not all that dissimilar to us in the West and they understood and were willing to embrace capitalism; a component that is lacking in the Middle East.
And these children are not Gay, it is neither an orientation nor choice but they are being molested and raped. And I don’t think I’d ever be so desperate as to sell my children into prostitution – myself maybe but my kids – no way and I don’t even have children.
And finally, given the choice between a Gay Pride parade and Death Squads roaming the streets of my neighborhood…
I didn't really mean to stick my head in the Cuisinart, but I guess I did. There is no better place in the world to get high quality, unimpeachable news and information than FR. But, I have just often wondered about a marginal few posts that seem to be just simply intended to rake up the coals of intolerance. Usually I just ignore --being a lurker-- or I look at the posters profile and in forum. Today I guess my cup runneth over and I had to ask. If we are not prepared to be the Globo-Kop, what's the point of eavesdropping on everybody else and hectoring incessantly just to inflame. It's not like our own alleys and ponds and dumpsters are not littered with our own tawdry little secrets. Maybe we just think nobody else is looking in on us.
Well it seems they have that in common with the Democrats in America who want to withdraw prematurely from Iraq so I guess the case is closed.
In other words, a complete hypothetical. Some point in the future, the economy might go bad, you think. And you think that withdrawing troop presence from Iraq will avoid this hypothetical future event? Regardless of what sort of power structure emerges in Iraq in our absence? Surely you understand that there are plenty of hypothetical which flow from exiting Iraq, as well....
Let me ask you this: What is being GAINED by being there?
Iraqis have voted in a democratic government and that government has requested our continued military presence to help ensure its survival. What is being gained is preventing the emergence of a failed-state and/or warlord situation, which could have horrendous ramifications for us long-term and Iraqis short-term.
You are going to say "but things are already bad in Iraq". Of course, they could be much, much worse.
And is this advantage worth the lives and capital being expended?
I believe so. Our leadership believes so. You don't? Why not? Based on what?
Oh right, your hypothetical fears about, uh, future inflation or something. Got it.
And will these gains be fleeting, as they appear to be now, or permament?
One thing's for sure, they'll be fleeting if we give up.
The people unwilling or unable to wrest control of their nation from the terrorists.
Therefore, you abandon them because of this inability? I have never understood this approach. Let's try it in some other scenario: "Hey, kidnap victim, you seem to be unwilling to escape [for fear the kidnapper, who's pointing a gun at you, will kill you] or unable [because you're bound, there's too many of them, etc]. So why should I help you?"
*boggle*
We were not obligated to fix their country-- only obligated to destroy their ability to produce and transfer WMD's.
Actually, having toppled their prior government and created a power vacuum, we did and do have some obligation to serve in a "caretaker" role and usher in a new one, IMHO.
There should be no obligation to "help" the people. Rebuild the country. Kill the bad guys who create chaos. Or even establish democracy.
Ok, there's no "obligation", perhaps. Still the right thing to do. And the ONLY way it's affecting you is News Stories Make You Feel Bad, but that's enough to incur whining and griping and "let's quit".
Do most of our soldiers want to "quit"?
It's odd, it's almost as if the amount of whining over Iraq is inversely proportional to how much it personally affects the life of the whiner. Very weird phenomenon.
If out of the chaos, another fundamentalist regime emerged that threatens our interests with WMD's etc, then we are only obligated to obliterate them yet again, preferably through air power, until the threat no longer exists.
Easier to do if we actually have air bases there, n'est-ce pas?
This is the truly conservative approach to dealing with the threat from the Middle East, and it goes for all of the offending countries. With this strategy, we insure our security.
Yes, like staying out of Afghanistan all those years (hey, if a threat emerges, we'll just bomb... like Clinton did!) insured our security.
With your strategy, we spread oourselves thin and spend a boat load of money and guarantee nothing.
"spread ourselves thin" is crocodile tears. Where would you rather our military be?
As for the "boat load of money", gee it's too bad that you've lost so much money due to The Iraq War. What's your internet connection by the way, DSL? cable? you typing this lament about money lost from a PC or a Mac? Just curious....
From the Western Resistance Blog.
Next time link to Daily Kos.
but, but, but - Islam is a religion of mercy...
I concur with that course of action. Had we utterly destroyed them, especially fallujah, outlawed fundamental Islam and did other drastic things, THEN we could be in a position of strength today.
But we didn't do that. We could try to play "catch up" today, but I doubt that will happen.
Personally, I see few realistic options and predict that we will turn tail sooner or later before our lofty goals are met there.
I think the Iraqis actually wanted us to do the things you suggested, and were disappointed when we didn't.
That said, I'm not convinced it's a failure, but for other reasons. Maybe Iraq won't be functional as a nation, but we have a strategic base - with infrastructure - in a strategic spot, ready for phase II of WWW (World War Whatever).
You don't think we have to repay these debts we are incurring now without raising taxes, printing money or some other way-- well, that's your opinion, but it doesn't square with reality.
As one poster commented above, Iraq MIGHT have been salvagable early on if we had taken a far more drastic approach to the initial campaign. I can agree with that possibility.
The reason I don't think we can meet or goals in Iraq today, is because we have NEVER tried to break up the cancer cells of corruption, fundamentalism, terrorism, tribalism, sectarian connections and cultural mores that are CONSTANTLY working against us.
I want to WIN in Iraq as much as you do. I want to feel proud about a job well done there as much as you. But show me where after three years we seem to be closer to the finish line than we did at the beginning of the war. If anything, we are further from the finish today.
And an elected government is NOTHING if there is no way for the nation to protect itself internally and externally.
I expect that we will remain in Iraq for at least a few more years. Fine. So be it. I truly hope that you are right and it all magically gets better and we can leave victorious.
But I have my doubts-- as you know.
Ultimately, I have begrudgingly come to the conclusion that radical Islam and it's associated tribalism is a cancer that cannot be subtly nudged into the 21st century.
IT CANNOT BE DONE!
The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we can forget all of this business about helping our enemies and get down to the business of defeating them.
I don't buy into chicken-little doomsday scenarios based on back of the napkin hand-wavy economics-free arguments about "the debt" made by people who obviously don't understand such notions any more than I do, no.
Again, you have raised a hypothetical, not-very-well-supported future scenario involving, like, higher prices and stuff as a reason to "give up" on current, real, actual people. Again, I don't find this persuasive.
I want to WIN in Iraq as much as you do. I want to feel proud about a job well done there as much as you.
Actually, this may be where our disagreement stems from. "WIN"ning, per se, and "job well done", in the sense of Victory parades and momentous declarations that we are "done", may not ever be in the cards. That would be okay with me, because this is the real world and not a Star Wars movie, and I am interested in realistic incremental improvements, not Fixing Everything With A Big Bang (which isn't possible, is not how wars happen, particularly nowadays). We may be there for a long time and insurgency may gradually die down over a period of time on the order of decades. The military presence may gradually shrink and at some point 10? 17? 29? years from now, the last US troops may exit from Iraq with little fanfare, no one really noticing.
That would be ok with me, because, unlike you, it's not the whole "pride" thing that really interests me. It's reality. Clearly it's understandable why you are so upset and ready to "give up on" Iraq now, it's because it's not giving you that injection of Pride that you crave. (All those bad news stories and all.) Clearly, we want different things from our foreign policy. I want us to proactively effect worthwhile change on a long-term ongoing basis, you want "Victory" to come quickly to your TV screen so that you can feel "pride".
But show me where after three years we seem to be closer to the finish line than we did at the beginning of the war.
Three+ years ago, Iraq had a dictator. Now she doesn't. Three years ago, Iraq had no democratic government. Now she does. That's not closer? If that's not closer then I don't want to be closer.
If anything, we are further from the finish today.
Says who? Based on what? What is your objective basis for making such a statement?
It's easy to write sentences, huh. "We are further from the finish." What does this mean? What's your metric, where is your data coming from? What's "the finish", how are you definining Distance from it, and how are you measuring it? How Far From The Finish were we in, say, 2005? And how Far now? What are the numbers?
It's not just a made-up thing you're spouting, is it?
I expect that we will remain in Iraq for at least a few more years. Fine. So be it.
Good, then we agree.
I truly hope that you are right and it all magically gets better and we can leave victorious.
Straw man. Never said "magically gets better" and never said "leave victorious". See above, re: incrementalism and little-fanfare.
But I have my doubts-- as you know.
Duly noted.
I don't like your condescending attitude.
I refrained from commenting on it after your 2nd reply, but I must make note of it now. If you want to persuade me to the righteousness of your views, you would do well to address me as something other than an idiot.
We are expressing opinions, here. We probably have a lot more in common than not, but you would make me out to be your enemy because I am tending to see our work in Iraq from a slightly different point of view.
And, yes, the difference is slight, though you make it out to be vast. We both want the same thing in the end, though you mock what I call "victory" as a scene from Star Wars. My definition of victory is the same as yours, ultimately: a world free of the threat from radical Islam.
That is your definition of "victory" is it not? If not, then it should be.
It's nice that you see the task of rebuilding Iraq, healing the wounds we wrought, and improving our image in the region as the "right thing" to do. But there is no evidence that this approach has yielded anything of beneficial consequence to us or our allies.
Witness the hundreds of thousands who recently marched in favor of Hezzbolla, burning American flags and demanding our exit from the region. The hatred for the west is unfathomable to us, but I am starting to wake up to it now.
As said before, though apparently ignored by you, I see Iraq currently as a stalemate or worse, not because we cannot win, but because we are not engaging this fight in the way that will lead to a win.
A change in tactics is warranted to begin seriously combating the laundry list of obstacles that I outlined in my previous post. Do you seriously think we are getting the upper hand on ANY of these great problems?
Do you seriously think that a stable and democratic Iraq can be forged without addressing these issues in a more dynamic way than is currently being undertaken?
THIS is my main complaint about our work in Iraq.
We have used brute force to accomplish two things-- to topple the Saddam regime and establish a government. But as said previously, what is to be gained from an elected government that has no power to control it's own country?
Are we to garrison a permanent force of 100,000 or more soldiers in Iraq to prevent it's collapse in perpetuity? All the while losing several of the best of us every day?
Brute force is needed here again, to stamp out the laundry list of issues above if there is ever going to be even a ghost of a chance at winning in Iraq Does America have the stones to take it to the next level? I hope so, but I doubt it.
But time will tell.
My prediction: we will either escalate this conflict dramatically or we will go home in disgrace and the country we established will fall. America will not tolerate this kind of war where we are nibbled away at by a pack of Piranhas.
Sadly, I do not believe that your intention of staying the present course will yield anything more than what we have seen already. Can you show me the evidence of a sea-change in Iraq that heralds a future of stability and peace?
Actually, I doubt it's realistic to hope for the world to be "free" from the threat of radical Islam. My hope would be for the threat to be minimized and pushed to the margins as much as possible.
It's nice that you see the task of rebuilding Iraq, healing the wounds we wrought, and improving our image in the region as the "right thing" to do. But there is no evidence that this approach has yielded anything of beneficial consequence to us or our allies.
We no longer have to worry about the person called Saddam Hussein and what he might do. Is that or is it not a beneficial consequence?
Witness the hundreds of thousands who recently marched in favor of Hezzbolla, burning American flags and demanding our exit from the region.
This is nothing new.
As said before, though apparently ignored by you, I see Iraq currently as a stalemate or worse, not because we cannot win, but because we are not engaging this fight in the way that will lead to a win.
Much here depends on our definitions and assumptions. You say "Iraq [by which I assume you mean, the Iraq war?] is a stalemate". In one sense, to me this is nonsensical. The goal of the Iraq invasion was to oust the government of Saddam Hussein. We succeeded. Iraq was therefore a victory, past tense.
Now we are there to perform a task (=help safeguard a democratic government) which simply doesn't map so easily into "victory" or "defeat". It's not even really a "war"! (I don't understand why people even refer to "the Iraq war" in present tense..) It's just not that kind of task. So, even if we succeed (which success may only be evident many years from now, after the fact), we may never - in fact, probably won't - achieve what can be described or recognized as "victory" per se (like I said), on the other hand there is no real way we can be "defeated" (unless we give up). It's not even easy to define what "victory" is, because we are not waging a straightforward war there at the moment. I'm ok with that, it sounds like you aren't.
A change in tactics is warranted to begin seriously combating the laundry list of obstacles that I outlined in my previous post. Do you seriously think we are getting the upper hand on ANY of these great problems?
I suppose we are getting the upper hand on some problems and not on others. I don't have enough information to get into a detailed breakdown of it. Do you? Which great problems in particular (i.e. something more specific than "cultural mores") do you see that we're not getting the upper hand on? You might be right in such a diagnosis!
What confuses me however is how "giving up" would help us get that upper hand that we lack and which you claim to seek. Remember, the reason I responded to you was because you were "about ready to completely give up on Iraq", not because you Think We Should Do Better. Giving up is not a means of doing better, it's giving up. More specifically, you had written that you were about ready to give up in response to a news item stating that there are Islamists in Iraq who murder children for having been forced into sex acts. Once again, "giving up" is not a method of fixing that great problem. It's ok if your opinion is that we should "give up" but how can you frame that opinion as if it comes from someone who cares about great problems that exist in Iraq?
Do you seriously think that a stable and democratic Iraq can be forged without addressing these issues in a more dynamic way than is currently being undertaken?
Which issues, precisely? I still have only a vague idea of what you're talking about. "Corruption"? How do you know what our military is or isn't doing to fight corruption? Maybe they are doing various things. Do you have detailed knowledge of the ins and outs and daily decisionmaking of the Iraq operation? Your claim was "we have NEVER tried to"... (break up corruption, tribalism, etc). That claim is almost on the face of it ill-informed and baseless, meriting no serious response. Of course we (=those who constitute our military presence in Iraq) have tried to do many, many things. Some with success, some not. If you want to make a valid critique, then dig into what we have tried and what we haven't and problems we've left unaddressed, and then show that on balance, we're in the loss column. But what you're doing is just making sweeping statements that on the face of them lack substance and cannot be taken seriously. (And then you wonder why I don't.)
We have used brute force to accomplish two things-- to topple the Saddam regime and establish a government. But as said previously, what is to be gained from an elected government that has no power to control it's own country?
"What is to be gained"? What exactly is the alternative?
I don't even understand the sense of the question. When Germany invaded France, I suppose one could say the French government lost the ability to control its own country. Would it have made sense to therefore ask: "What is to be gained from the French (non-Vichy) government?" What is the premise of this question?
Are we to garrison a permanent force of 100,000 or more soldiers in Iraq to prevent it's collapse in perpetuity?
Not in perpetuity. No prescribed exit date is not the same thing as perpetuity. The answer is yes, I'm ok with garrisoning our military there for time being. Why aren't you? Where would you rather our military to be?
Brute force is needed here again, to stamp out the laundry list of issues above
Sounds nice, almost like it contains a concrete suggestion. But your laundry list, if I read correctly, contained nouns such as "tribalism", "corruption", and so on. Can you explain exactly how "brute force" could be brought to bear to "stamp out" these items? What exactly would this consist of doing? I really want to agree with your solution(s) but it's hard to tell what precisely you're suggesting be done, if anything.
America will not tolerate this kind of war where we are nibbled away at by a pack of Piranhas.
Don't take this the wrong way, but: why not?
You said we lose "several" per day. Precisely, I believe the real statistic is between One and Two. Every soldier lost is one too many, but, with all due respect, have you ever looked at the history of, for example, the US in the Phillipines?
"nibbled by pack of Piranhas" = we have an ongoing garrison and (yes, unfortunately) someone explodes an IED every once in a while and they get one of our guys. You're presenting this ("America will not tolerate") as if it's Gettysburg every single day. Frankly, I don't even know how it makes sense to call it "war" as you do. Like I said, from where I'm standing the "war" (to oust Hussein) was fought and won in 2003. We have an occupation force in Iraq. That's not "a war" per se.
And what I don't understand is why you, or someone like you, find it so intolerable? Don't get me wrong. You absolutely could be correct that "America won't tolerate" this "war" (=occupation where soldiers lose their lives at a rate slightly higher than they do in training exercises in peacetime). Maybe America just doesn't have the stomach even for this sub-Phillipines level of losses anymore.
My question, again, is why not.
Sadly, I do not believe that your intention of staying the present course will yield anything more than what we have seen already. Can you show me the evidence of a sea-change in Iraq that heralds a future of stability and peace?
re: "yield more than we have seen" Actually, to some extent I don't either. I expect (barring Democrats forcing the issue by surrendering of course) slow, maddeningly slow, progress, and an occupation on the order of 10-25 years, and the last US troops (or, the last big presence anyway... may still be troops at the embassy or some airfield we rent, etc) exiting at the request of a future Iraq gov't, with little/no fanfare.
re: "sea change"... the "sea changes" are all under our belts. Get rid of Hussein, ratify a constitution, elect a government. I don't really expect nor require any more. Actually, there is one more test, the "2nd election" test; namely, will the elected government step down if not re-elected? If not, then I'll freely admit there's a big problem. But again, I don't see how "quitting" is supposed to decrease rather than increase the odds of that - or any other negative - outcome.
"We no longer have to worry about the person called Saddam Hussein and what he might do. Is that or is it not a beneficial consequence?"
Actually, it can be easily construed to be a negative consequence if one is to recall that Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies who kept each other occupied and in check. Witness Iran's accelerated and blossoming prestige in the region-- the result of it's lack of a local foe. Saddam was certainly evil, and I was and still am in favor of his defeat, but we have to be realistic: his WMD program was not as great as we thought, his military was denuded and his capacity for aggression outside his borders was comparatively minimal. Still and all, it is possible that we could not have known that until we took him out, unless our intelligence and/or administration truly did "gin up" the evidence.
"It's not even easy to define what "victory" is, because we are not waging a straightforward war there at the moment. I'm ok with that, it sounds like you aren't."
I define a victory in Iraq (at THIS stage of the game) as achieving a permanently stable and democratic nation of Iraq, without the perpetual infusion of sacrificial soldiers and $1.5 billion a week in funding. That is an incredibly lofty goal, and possibly should not have been attempted-- precisely because it IS SO difficult to achieve and maintain. You're absolutely right that we did meet the first milestones on the path to ultimate victory-- toppling of the regime and establishment of a government, but I maintain that these are proving to be the easier goals. Stability and self-sufficiency is proving to be very elusive.
"What confuses me however is how "giving up" would help us get that upper hand that we lack and which you claim to seek. Remember, the reason I responded to you was because you were "about ready to completely give up on Iraq", not because you Think We Should Do Better."
Well, now you see that I am not monolithic in my thnking, but attempting to REALLY work out some extraordinarily difficult questions and arrive at a position that I can find tolerable to my own convictions. I am not talking with you to change your mind or hear myself talk-- but to actually investigate my deepest thoughts on this subject.
"Once again, "giving up" is not a method of fixing that great problem. It's ok if your opinion is that we should "give up" but how can you frame that opinion as if it comes from someone who cares about great problems that exist in Iraq?"
I am leaning toward abandoning my concern for the people of Iraq, as callous as that sounds. I only care about the problems that exist in Iraq in that they frustrate our path to a satisfactory conclusion.
"Which issues, precisely? I still have only a vague idea of what you're talking about. "Corruption"? How do you know what our military is or isn't doing to fight corruption? Maybe they are doing various things. Do you have detailed knowledge of the ins and outs and daily decisionmaking of the Iraq operation?"
Of course not. None of us do. But we have a pretty good idea of the successes and failures in Iraq, and we can point to them as examples of the effectiveness of our methods. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than the laundry list of issues that I've given you-- detailing any one of them would be a big post in itself. But, I will say this, the US military is not trained or intended to be a police force or governing body that delicately roots out political "corruption, fundamentalism, terrorism, tribalism, sectarian connections and cultural mores," as stated above.
If you do not believe that these are the true reasons for our troubles in Iraq, then I cannot help you to see it more clearly here.
The military is only good at killing, breaking things and using fear and intimidation to achieve it's goals.
In order to achieve a stable and self-sustaining Iraq (victory), the above issues must be adressed.
However, the only capability we have in the region to achieve these goals is through brute-force of our military. Therefore, a massive escalation of brutality MUST be undertaken-- essentially a campaign of terror that dominates the region into stability-- much in the same way Saddam maintained control of the country.
This technique is anathema to the west and Americans. We will not tolerate this course of action (possibly to our detrement?) anymore than we will tolerate being nibbled away at by terrorists for 10 to 25 years.
I fear we lost in Iraq the moment we tried to convert it to democracy and rebuild it as a nation.
America has possibly stumbled into a truly unwinnable conflict by bringing to this conflict the loftiest of goals and the best of intentions-- and we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me and give me your thoughts.
If Iran was doing such a good job of "keeping Iraq in check" then why did the United States have to expend so much energy on the job? Between continually neverendingly patrolling the "no-fly zones" and the Saudi Arabia military contingent and "inspections" and neverending diplohaggling at the UN and lord knows how many Experts semipermanently assigned to churn out Expert CIA Analyses of (i.e. guesses about) this or that aspect of the inner goings-on of, predictions about, and wargaming strategies vis-a-vis Iraq, by my wild-a** guesstimate we were devoting some 40% (give or take 20%) of our Foreign-Policy Energy, our military and geopolitical capital & brainspace, to the single issue of the 12-year "contain-Iraq" extravaganza. How long were we supposed to keep on doing this? We may as well have just made it official and created a permanent cabinet-level Department Of Containing Iraq.
Yet you're speaking now as if
-Saddam Hussein was no net worry whatsoever, and
-Iran kept him in check anyway
So why was all that necessary then?
I define a victory in Iraq (at THIS stage of the game) as achieving a permanently stable and democratic nation of Iraq, without the perpetual infusion of sacrificial soldiers and $1.5 billion a week in funding.
I kinda-sorta agree, except a lot here depends on definitions. What is "permanently stable"? Is Israel "permanently" stable? Does it survive without our funding? If not then have we "lost" in Israel?
I think the real answer on these and other similar issues is "only time will tell". My quibble is with your urge to throw in the towel. Why on earth do that? What is the rush?
I maintain that these [i.e. winning the war, constitution, election] are proving to be the easier goals.
Ok, "maintain" all you like. It's pretty dicey to define Difficulty Of Goals either way, so how can I argue? What cannot be disputed is that the current goal (more or less stable, more or less democratic Iraq) is and will take longer than the actual war did. Of course, that is not a surprise to me, I expected it. If you are equating "taking longer" with "more difficult" then that's where I would raise an objection....
I only care about the problems that exist in Iraq in that they frustrate our path to a satisfactory conclusion.
Actually, me too. I seek and long for a satisfactory conclusion. I am not a caring saint who cares about the people of Iraq per se.
But how on earth is "we just up and exit" going to lead to anything like a satisfactory conclusion? On the contrary, it is almost inevitably destined to lead to one of the following endstates:
-failed/splintered state run by various warlords, terror shelter
-highly authoritarian rogue state run by a charismatic dictator with expansionist designs
So, to recap, (1) you want a good end state (stable democracy whatever that means), (2) you're frustrated about this or that problem in Iraq because it makes that end state harder to achieve & you think we're not getting there fast enough, so your conclusion is (3) we should "give up" (=remove our military presence).
Is (3) not in contradiction with (1)? Pick one, (1) or (3). Don't tell me both.
But we have a pretty good idea of the successes and failures in Iraq, and we can point to them as examples of the effectiveness of our methods.
Well, sure, it's possible to do that, and then to summarize those successes/failures quantitatively in some way to draw a conclusion that we're either doing well, or poorly, in this or that area.
The problem is that you have not done any of this. Instead you have said things like "we're failing" and "we have NEVER tried to" do X Y Z. Like I said, such statements are on the face of them baseless and merit no serious consideration. It would be like me pointing to a story about a poor homeless guy and then saying "we're not doing ANYTHING about poverty!!" or a pointing at a fallen tree and saying "we're losing all our trees!". This sort of remark doesn't even really constitute an actual argument. At best, it resembles one on a very superficial level.
But, I will say this, the US military is not trained or intended to be a police force or governing body that delicately roots out political "corruption, fundamentalism, terrorism, tribalism, sectarian connections and cultural mores," as stated above.
I believe you are right about that, and I believe that's something that's either going to have to change or be otherwise addressed (i.e. by setting up a separate institution which does do those things).
The military is only good at killing, breaking things and using fear and intimidation to achieve it's goals. In order to achieve a stable and self-sustaining Iraq (victory), the above issues must be adressed. However, the only capability we have in the region to achieve these goals is through brute-force of our military.
Actually, I think you're somewhat behind events here. Even given your correct assessment that military isn't historically trained to deal with political/colonial issues such as corruption etc., from numerous news accounts of the past 3 years it is apparent that the military is trying and doing things other than simple application of "brute force". How much success this or that non-brute-force tactic has had is open to debate, but I don't think it's correct to state that brute force is all they can do.
Therefore, a massive escalation of brutality MUST be undertaken-- essentially a campaign of terror that dominates the region into stability-- much in the same way Saddam maintained control of the country.
Hmm. Against whom? Which coordinates?
And what do you expect the outcome to be? Why do you expect positive results from this escalation of brutality?
I fear we lost in Iraq the moment we tried to convert it to democracy and rebuild it as a nation.
We won in Iraq, at the war. Again, what you're talking about is not even actually warfare. I'm starting to see that this insistence on applying the rubric of "won" or "lost" is really misplaced here and obscures more than it illuminates. "You feared we lost Iraq when we tried to convert it into democracy" is so laden with misleading/confusing assumptions, it's almost impossible for me to parse and respond to it. My only response to you is: Having toppled their government and created a power vaccuum, what would you have had us do regarding the nation-state of Iraq? Please try to stop thinking in terms of "won" or "lost" here and just explain things like
-what sort of leadership would you have liked to see emerge in Saddam's place? (some leadership emerges from a vaccuum one way or another, whether you like it or not)
-how would you have arranged for or helped bring this about?
If the answer is not "ask the Iraqi people to choose, democratically" then what is your answer? To me it is the only reasonable answer. That's why "I feared we lost the moment we did it" just makes no sense to me.
It's as if there is a leaky faucet and we're trying to fix it, and you keep saying stuff like "this faucet is still leaky, we should give up", "I fear we lost this faucet the moment we tried to fix it" and "what's the use of a faucet that leaks?" Sure the faucet is still leaky, but how would giving up help that state of affairs? What in the heck is the alternative to trying to fix a leaky faucet?
And what's even more perplexing is that this effort to fix this faucet is basically not touching your life whatsoever, yet you're acting all put-upon. "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" What difference does it make to you? Can you not spare the minutes of prime-time television that this war is taking away from you? Since you believe it's (still) a war, and everyone agrees that we should all sacrifice in a war (saving tin cans and whatnot), why is "hypothetical possibly-maybe some amount of inflation sometime in the future" (the only semi-concrete cost of the war to you that you've been able to cite) so unacceptable to you? Higher mortgage payments, too great a sacrifice? (I guess the "Greatest Generation" is in no danger of losing their title...)
I simply do not understand the impatience, or why it is so all out of proportion to the inconvenience/sacrifice actually being asked of you - which, please admit, is VIRTUALLY NIL.
America has possibly stumbled into a truly unwinnable conflict
Why is it "unwinninable" to achieve the goal of safeguarding a government that has been elected by a majority? How exactly is that "unwinnable"? Thus far, the government still stands, and so we've "won". As long as it stands, we continue to "win". Are losers planting IEDs truly so fearsome to you?
This is why warfare-by-PR-stunts (i.e. "terrorism") has been so effective in the past, because too many people are swayed and swoon over the fearsome might of the unstoppable Terrorist that they buy into the terrorist's bogus preening of inevitable victory. Stop being fooled by vandals posturing before TV cameras; they are not winning, they have no chance of winning, they have no army, they have won no battles, they hold no territory, and there is truly no plausible way for any of that to change.
Unless, of course, we pre-emptively surrender for no good reason, as you seem to advocate. That would allow them to "win" and thereby help make terror continue to pay off. Which, incidentally, is precisely why I am so irritated by your mind-set, and why I come off snide in such posts as these. Because that does impose a cost on me: it places me and mine in danger.
"If Iran was doing such a good job of "keeping Iraq in check" then..."
Actually, my contention was that Iraq was keeping Iran in check.
"What is "permanently stable"? Is Israel "permanently" stable? Does it survive without our funding? If not then have we "lost" in Israel?"
Good questions: Some foreign aid is acceptable (vis-a-vis Israel), but we are not losing soldiers or tremendous amounts of treasure on the enterprise. The American people will tolerate some congress-approved spending on a strategic ally in the region.
"-failed/splintered state run by various warlords, terror shelter
-highly authoritarian rogue state run by a charismatic dictator with expansionist designs"
I agree whole-heartedly, and that's precisely what makes this decision so agonizing. But sometimes when you build a house wrongly, it's better to just tear the damn thing down and start all over than to try and fix every little thing one by one. I will ALWAYS, no matter what, believe we could have fought this war FAR more aggressively and be in a much better position of strength today.
Allow Iraq to fall? Allow her to be reborn as a terorist state? Attack and utterly defeat her before she is able to strike?
"Hmm. Against whom? Which coordinates?"
Saddam managed to maintain control of the country through fear and intimidation-- this might be the ONLY way to maintain control throughout Iraq. But as we have seen from Abu Graihb, the west will not allow the use of even mildly unconventional tactics.
"-what sort of leadership would you have liked to see emerge in Saddam's place? (some leadership emerges from a vaccuum one way or another, whether you like it or not)"
This probably should have been a US military dictatorship for the time period marking the end of the shooting war to the point at which there was a complete pacification of the country. All rights suspended. Fundamentalist Islam outlawed. Religious leaders exiled or imprisoned. Political parties outlawed. Borders patrolled with shoot on sight instructions. Weapons and materiel confiscated. Whole areas of the Sunni Triangle demolished. Summary executions for offenders carried out in public.
THEORETICALLY, this would have provided the best chance of cleaning out the scum from Iraq. But, of course, this COA is impossible. Therefore, I conclude that half-measures are very possibly inadequate and certainly expensive.
You have argued passionately and made some good points and found weakness in my points as well.
I am frustrated (obviously) and totally uncertain of this outcome. To me this is a grand experiment carried out at the cost of possibly trillions of dollars and thousands of beautiful young lives in which we may wind up worse off than when we started with a hobbled, rather ineffectual dictator leading a quasi-terrorist state.
It could all so easily end in '09 when that president shrugs and says "Not my war. Not my problem." And out they come.
The bottom line for me is this: I would rather simply destroy the likes of Iraq, Iran and Syria than to attempt to nudge them into the modern age. It's cheaper, simpler and more effective.
And when they rise up again, destroy them again-- and again. and again, if need be, until MAYBE one day, they realize that there is nothing to be gained by using terror against us.
I predict, it will come down to this some day. But, not today. So, for now let's have our experiment in creating a democracy in the Middle East. I'm along for the ride whether I like it or not-- and I PRAY that my fears are wrong and you are right.
I do so hope for that.
I must have misunderstood the phrase "each other"..
Some foreign aid is acceptable (vis-a-vis Israel), but we are not losing soldiers or tremendous amounts of treasure on the enterprise.
We are not losing "tremendous" amounts on Iraq either, either of soldiers (check history please!) or "treasure" (I haven't noticed much rationing... have you?)
(Side note: Why must money be called "treasure" when speaking of Iraq? Was there a law passed about this w/o my knowledge? :)
The American people will tolerate some congress-approved spending on a strategic ally in the region.
2nd time you've made a comment like this; are you the spokesman for what the American people will or will not tolerate? Just curious. It's one thing to have opinions X Y Z, it's a different matter altogether if you have opinions X Y Z because (says you) "the American people" think X Y Z. You might be wrong what what "the American people" think, for one. For another, forming an opinion like "we should quit because the American people won't tolerate this" borders on self-fulfilling prophecy; if you're right that the American people won't tolerate this, it will have been in (tiny) part because you spent time/energy arguing against it. (Purportedly because you don't think they'll tolerate this.) Do you have reasons independent of your estimation of "the American people"'s opinion for thinking we maybe ought to give up?
But sometimes when you build a house wrongly, it's better to just tear the damn thing down and start all over than to try and fix every little thing one by one.
Well, sometimes. Okay, so make your argument that in this case it's better to "start all over" (=exit Iraq, let whatever happens there happen). I have seen no such argument from you. You would have to confront the ramifications of "giving up" and actually compare them to the negatives you're complaining about now. In other words, you'd have to weigh both sides of the equation, not just one.
Saddam managed to maintain control of the country through fear and intimidation-- this might be the ONLY way to maintain control throughout Iraq.
So are you sincerely suggesting we direct our military to run Iraq similar to how Saddam Hussein ran it? Just wondering.
This probably should have been a US military dictatorship for the time period marking the end of the shooting war to the point at which there was a complete pacification of the country.
Believe it or not, I tend to agree (up to a point). I think we should have run Iraq along the lines of how we ran Japan. I think a general should have been appointed to run Iraq. I think we should have written their constitution. However, what's done is done, that's not how we did things, a constitution was ratified and a government elected. So the military dictatorship idea is a dead-letter. And anyway, a US-run military dictatorship cannot seriously be the long-term political arrangement you'd have liked to have seen emerge. So, my question remains unanswered: Having toppled their government [...] what sort of leadership would you have liked to see emerge in Saddam's place?
To me this is a grand experiment carried out at the cost of possibly trillions of dollars and thousands of beautiful young lives in which we may wind up worse off than when we started with a hobbled, rather ineffectual dictator leading a quasi-terrorist state.
All true. All I'm saying is that if we "give up" we will almost certainly wind up worse off. So why do it? And why argue for it? (And don't say "because the American people won't tolerate this.."; even if true that is not a reason for you not to tolerate it.) What is the pressing reason?
I've really appreciated this conversation with you. You are obviously well informed and passionate on the subject. You must understand that to a certain extent, these posts reflect frustration on my part for the progress in Iraq vs. the cost.
I understand you see it a bit differently, and I actually respect that. I too, have felt that optimism at times-- and I sincerely hope I can feel it again. In fact, your posts have rekindled some of that optimism.
I am no moonbat, as I'm sure you can tell. I want nothing but the BEST possible outcome for America and nothing but the WORST for the Islamofascists. America comes FIRST for me.
The decision to give up or not is certainly an agonizing one-- and I don't take the idea lightly. You've articulated the consequences and ramifications well-- and I obviously don't want the work we've accomplished there to be for nought. Nor the sacrifices be for nought.
I choose to stay the course-- with a wary eye to the balance of cost versus benefit.
But I may have a much more prejudiced view of similar enterprises that we will undoubtedly be called upon to undertake in the future, if this enterprise fails to ultimately achieve the intended results.
Thanks for your time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.