Blame the Dems for Iraq

[steverino]

I came across this in a blog. From this article.Granted, I realize that Iraq isn't World War II isn't Vietnam isn't any other war. I also realize that World War II was going on long before the US got involved and the Allies probably occupied Japan and Germany for long after the war as well.

But it still amazes me that, in the same amount of time it took to stop Hitler and Hirohito, we've made very little headway with the issues facing Iraq. I wonder what things would be like if we were really committed to winning there?

I can't find the link but did hear about it on talk radio today. I think we "stopped" Saddam Hussein more quickly than the world "stopped" Hitler.

 

[Upchurch]

I'll go with what someone else said in this thread.

We could be as committed to that end as much as you like. It still wouldn't make it a reasonable outcome.

 

[Garrette]

We could be as committed to that end as much as you like. It still wouldn't make it a reasonable outcome.

I take it you mean a "reasonably likely outcome?"

If so, you're probably right, but not definitely so.

 

[Upchurch]

edit: And as others have pointed out, I'm not sure "winning" was ever a real possibility,

d'oh.

but I personally feel like the administration didn't execute this war in a way that gave us the best chance for success. More troops and creating infrastructure were, in my mind, the keys. We needed to create a realitively safe environment were Iraqis saw significant improvements in their quality of life.

All those options are pretty much gone now. What are our possible goals that could constitute a "win" now that doesn't involve Cut-N-Run?

 

[Garrette]

It has less chance of succeeding then Cut-N-Run^TM. Both options, I think, will cause Iraq to fall apart into total chaos and anarchy, after which it will eventually reform into some form of order. Staying the course just delays the entire process.

Okay, I can understand that line of reasoning. I don't agree with your apparent assessment of the small likelihood of success if we do those things required to maximize it.

 

[Garrette]

All those options are pretty much gone now. What are our possible goals that could constitute a "win" now that doesn't involve Cut-N-Run?

Again, I disagree. Those goals are certainly more remote now, but not gone. At least not in a practical sense.

In the sense that includes political will and diplomatic skill, then, yes, you're probably right.

 

[Upchurch]

I take it you mean a "reasonably likely outcome?"

Yes, although I can't imagine the sequence of events that could bring that outcome about that doesn't involve George Washington, et al, being reincarnated as Iraqis 20-30 years ago.

 

[senorpogo]

All those options are pretty much gone now. What are our possible goals that could constitute a "win" now that doesn't involve Cut-N-Run?

Do you have proof, or at least a reason, that makes you believe that we cannot increase troop levels or ensure increased creation of an Iraqi infrastructure?

 

[senorpogo]

Yes, although I can't imagine the sequence of events that could bring that outcome about that doesn't involve George Washington, et al, being reincarnated as Iraqis 20-30 years ago.

So your argument is that there is nothing we could do now, nothing realistically possible, that would lead to a stabilized, democratic Iraq? And because the collapse is a forgone conclusion, we may as well pull out or at least minimize the loss of American people and treasure?

 

[geni]

I am shocked that neither the GOP or Democrats can get the Sunni/Shiites to stop killing each other. I mean what the hell, do we have to install a murderous dictator who favors one side and represses the other militarily to bring "peace" to that place or what.

It has a reasonable tract record and worked for the last lot of imperialists in Iraq (eventualy).

 

[Upchurch]

Do you have proof, or at least a reason, that makes you believe that we cannot increase troop levels or ensure increased creation of an Iraqi infrastructure?

I didn't say we couldn't do that. We could throw enough troops into Iraq so that every man, woman, and child, couldn't make a move without our having them covered. And that's pretty much what you'd have to do to keep anyone from attacking elements of the infrastructure.

I'm saying that we, a foreign power, can't force them to build a democracy at gun point.

 

[Garrette]

I didn't say we couldn't do that. We could throw enough troops into Iraq so that every man, woman, and child, couldn't make a move without our having them covered. And that's pretty much what you'd have to do to keep anyone from attacking elements of the infrastructure.

I'm saying that we, a foreign power, can't force them to build a democracy at gun point.

No. If that were the case we'd have had no success in the Philippines and the British would have had no success in Malaya.

Even CORDS in Vietnam was beginning to pay dividends with far less a commitment than you're suggesting.

In the US there are not enough police to monitor every single person or even every single criminal, were they all identifiable and trackable, yet crime, while high, is not so rampant as to destabilize the community. This is because the community itself, as a whole, has bought in to both the idea of stability and the idea that the current government is the one that can bring it and maintain it.

Impressions matter, particularly in counterinsurgency.

I can't remember which general said it, but sometime in 2004 (I think), he said: "Al Jazeera kicked our butt."

He was right.

 

[corplinx]

We can't force them to build a republic at gun point. However we can help keep the sides at bay while the leaders sit at the table. If we leave Iraq we are doomed to come back in as peacekeepers methinks.

I think a stable middleeast needs an infusion of democratic ideals. At one time Bush communicated this reasoning in his runup to the war and it was understood as a neocon idea for peace in the long term vs peace in the short term.

I still think it is the right way, I just wonder what more can be done to bring the Sunni/Shiite factions to vote with levers and not bombs.

 

[Upchurch]

So your argument is that there is nothing we could do now, nothing realistically possible, that would lead to a stabilized, democratic Iraq?

If you can think of something, please let me know. Better yet, let Washington know.

Oh, sure. We could set up something that looks like a democratic government, but that would be a house of cards that would colapse the moment we removed our military backing of it.

And because the collapse is a forgone conclusion, we may as well pull out or at least minimize the loss of American people and treasure?

At this point, yes, that is my argument.

 

[senorpogo]

I didn't say we couldn't do that. We could throw enough troops into Iraq so that every man, woman, and child, couldn't make a move without our having them covered. And that's pretty much what you'd have to do to keep anyone from attacking elements of the infrastructure.

Agreed. But I think there could exists a happy medium, a number of troops where we stabilize the country enough so the violence is kept to a minimum and so we can create some infrastructure that improves an Iraqi's daily life.

I'm saying that we, a foreign power, can't force them to build a democracy at gun point.

Again, agreed. But I also think that if people are given a stable country that provides rule of law and daily necessities - fresh water, roads, electricity, etc.- then maybe people would want democracy and we could put the gun down.

Seems like most Iraqis have only known death and destruction since America deposed Saddam. Maybe that's not true, I don't know. But if it is, how can we expect support for the US or democracy when they're associated with such suffering? Now, if Iraqis associated the US and democracy with fresh water, good schools, safe streets, and so on, then "winning" may not be such a pipe dream.

Is that possible now? I do not know.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you have proof, or at least a reason, that makes you believe that we cannot increase troop levels or ensure increased creation of an Iraqi infrastructure?

The political will to do so is lacking. If it was lacking with both houses behind the Executive, I don't expect the political will to up the deployment will arise ex nihilo in Congress.

Lyndon Johnson played escalatio on Viet Nam from 1965-1968, "just a few more troops, and we can win this thing in a year." For three straight years. It not only did not work, it was a political disaster.

I suspect Rumsfeld was extremely sensitive to that political fact. So too Cheney. Since the generals have been given a mission, they sure as hell want to accomplish it. That is their nature. The ones who have been over there on the ground, and those with Bosnia experience (lots of those folks around) are fully aware of how hard nation building is with a structure in place and full support of NATO friends and the UN. Those last two are absent from Iraq.

Look at how long it took to get the last soldier, US, out of Bosnia. Nearly 11 years. Bosnia a much smaller "problem to solve" than Iraq, particularly as Clinton and the gang agreed to the lines on the map (Dayton) before the US went in to add to multinational troops on the ground already. There is no Dayton agreement, no agreed partition, no agreed revenue sharing, not much of anything concrete to work towards in Iraq. Some of that may be a work in progress as we discuss this, but nothing concrete has been signed up to yet.

There is Kurdistan lite, and there is Central Iraq, which is the logistic/rail/transportation hub for the whole bloody country. There is the increasingly Shia south, as the slow ethnic cleansing of Sunni (reported in some papers and news organs, grain of salt) continues. There is also the reported exodus from Iraq, a brain drain of the intelligensia, reported between a half a million and a million people. (Not sure how concrete those numbers are.)

Is a Democratic Congress going to come out in support of 7 more years in Iraq to stabalize it? (Are they willing to take the political risks that come with that? )

When Satan skis. Their eyes are on 2008.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

No. If that were the case we'd have had no success in the Philippines and the British would have had no success in Malaya.

The Philippines? The one that took nearly 50 years for us to withdraw from and (source):

Since 1946, the newly independent Philippine state has faced economic and political instability and various rebel groups. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw the rise of student activism and civil unrest. Ferdinand Marcos was, then, the elected president. Barred from seeking a third term, Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972 and ruled the country by decree. Marcos extended both his power and tenure by force. His authoritarian rule became marred with unmitigated, pervasive corruption, cronyism and despotism.

{snip}

The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 was hampered by massive national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a communist insurgency, and a Muslim separatist movement. The economy improved during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, who was elected in 1992. However, the economic improvements were negated at the onset of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. The 2001 EDSA Revolution led to the downfall of the following president, Joseph Estrada. The current administration of president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been hounded by allegations of corruption and election rigging.

You consider this a good example of a democracy at gun point? I'd say this backs my argument more than yours.

 

[senorpogo]

When Satan skis.

I'm inclined to agree. No political will to do so.

This leads me to wonder:
Can we "win" in Iraq with troop levels at their current levels? If not, does it not logically follow that removing ourselves from Iraq as quickly and completely as possible is the best option we currently have?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm inclined to agree. No political will to do so.

This leads me to wonder:
Can we "win" in Iraq with troop levels at their current levels? If not, does it not logically follow that removing ourselves from Iraq as quickly and completely as possible is the best option we currently have?

Back to the question: what does "win" mean? What political aim, achieved, constitutes "win?" With the current forces in place, I could offer a few ideas on what can be achieved, but that may not match the image, vision, or saleable political commodity of "win."

DR

 

[senorpogo]

Back to the question: what does "win" mean? What political aim, achieved, constitutes "win?" With the current forces in place, I could offer a few ideas on what can be achieved, but that may not match the image, vision, or saleable political commodity of "win."

DR

Maybe if you provided your definition of winning that would help. I'll go with the stock answer, stablizied democratic country that isn't overrun in civil war or foreign invasion.