The UN, US and Iraq IV

From today's "Daily Mis-Lead"

PRESIDENT'S LACK OF EXIT STRATEGY IN IRAQ UNDERMINES CLARITY OF POSITION

President Bush has not articulated a clear exit strategy for American forces in Iraq, saying simply that "our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done." Back in 2000, however, candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration's military deployments and touted the "Powell doctrine," which he articulated as, "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined."

The critical concerns are internal security and border control. Defense against imaginary boogeymen is not a factor.



Control by faction is not to be. That is the entire point.



That is precisely what is intended, and what is being accomplished. The Iraqi's are rebuilding their own nation. Indiginous contractors, employing locals, already are performing much of the actual work, and doing so competently and in increasing proportion.



Of course. And it will work, and it will not take as long as some suppose.


What many perceive as a strengthening of resistance is in fact the opposite; it is a reaction by the insurgents to an offensive against them by Coalition Forces. The insurgents are being sorely pressed, and are meeting with both military disaster and erosion of local support. This is a new phase in the war, and may be expected to be successful. Most of the intelligence used by Coalition Forces now comes directly from Iraqis themselves. This is a necessary evolution, and will bear ever more fruit.

timber's quote, "The critical concerns are internal security and border control. Defense against imaginary boogeymen is not a factor." This is almost funny if it weren't so serious. GWBush and company chased this "boogeymen" to get us involved in this war, and succeeded in many negatiives for which you refuse to acknowledge. 1. There are no WMD's, 2. We killed over 15,000 Iraqis to overthrow one tyrant, 3. We have sacrificed almost 300 lives, 4. Terrorism has increased, and 5. We are spending billions for which our own needs are being sacrificed. The worst part of this major blunder is we don't really know how many more American lives will be sacrificed for this endeavor, and how many billions more.

It is altogether fitting that today mcgentrix should post the wonderful tribute to our miltary veterans. In the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour on November 11th, the guns of the Great War fell silent. That was the War to end all Wars, and pretty much the whole world looked forward to peace without end. Surely, after the carnage and the senseless deaths in the trenches that stretched from Switzerland to the Atlantic, Mankind had entered a new era. The power of the old aristocracies were broken, and the Common Man was just beginning to flex his muscles. The Merchants of Death were exposed, and banished as industries would everafter be dedicated only to producing goods to benefit humanity. It was a heady time.

Of course, the dream didn't last long. Out of the ashes two of the deadliest socio/political movements of all time rose up. Both fascism/Naziism and communism were fundamentally based on paranoia. Both proclaimed their high ideals while murdering millions. Both were aggressive and determined to reshape the world in their own image. Both were given a boost into power by economic instability and social chaos. There are still, in the 21st century, some who fitfully dream totalitarian dreams forged by 20th century idealism.

The military professional also dreams, but more often of glory, duty, honor and country than his more pampered civilian brothers. While the nation wrestled with the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, men like Marshall and Eisenhaur were doing their best to insure a military capable of defending the nation when Fascism must finally be faced head-on. The inevitable happened, and the "Greatest Generation" defeated the enemy on two fronts. Thousands died in a day, many thousands more were wounded and maimed. Sacrifices were made, and fear overcome in the face of assaults that often meant almost certain death. WWII was so clearly a war that had to be won if freedom was to survive. Bless them all, our fathers and uncles who bled in that great conflict.

A different sort of war then developed, the Cold War. Neither the West nor the Communist Block could risk spasmatic nuclear war by direct confrontation. The Cold War was fought largely by proxy, and on the peripheries of power where the stakes could hopefully be limited. North Korea attacked South Korea with the blessings and support of the USSR and China. The UN responded and, with the US providing the bulk of the force, first drove the North back to verge of defeat and finally agreed to a cease fire along the previous border. When the North attacked, our occupation forces were woefully unprepared. Our weapons and munition stocks were inadequate and it took only a brief time to drive us into the Pusan Pocket surrounded by a victorious DPRK army that was gleefully executing civilians with abandon. The US military met the challenge because the GI is resilient and innovative. Few in the military really expected the peace to last, but no one thought at the time that the cease fire would last long; we all expected a final peace to be only a matter of a few weeks, perhaps months, to conclude. We were less sophisticated then and unused to the idea of continual war.

The Cold War dragged on, fought in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Southwest Asia and the Middle East, and in Africa. Communist movements appealed to the downtrodden and poverty wracked populations only recently freed from Colonial rule. War in those dark corners of the world came to be increasingly redefined. We might still have to face armored columns in the Fulda Gap, but the real combat was taking place out of sight in the jungles. Special Forces and Ranger battalions had to develop new doctrines, and in retrospect they did pretty good given the challenge.

Low-intensity wars waged by "civilians" was, and remains, a very difficult proposition. In that sort of conflict there will always be errors, and innocent casualties. Irregular warfare doesn't have the clarity of traditional war. There often is no clear starting point, and endings may sometimes sputter along for decades. (In another place I expressed my regret that our troops in Iraq will be there longer than they expected. The troops thought that they would be home shortly, but military professionals have always known, or should have known, that this sort of operation has no clear ending and might require US forces for some time to come. I don't believe that anyone in the administration, or in the military ever predicted when the troops would be home.)

Let's raise a glass to honor them again, our soldiers who won our freedom and have defended it ever since. Here's to GI Joe, and to Tommy Akins! We pay you poorly for you blood and sacrifice, and curse you as too expensive when the bullets have ceased to fly. We ask you to leave your families and serve in the hellholes where wars are always fought. To the best of us, and those who do their duty.

Tartarin, I should have emphasize that point. But I did post the entire piece with OP-ED at the top.

And I did say "I hope" it is true or even partly true.

I think of the soldiers who won our freedom as those barely armed and clad ancestors who did, indeed, win our freedom over 200 years ago.

What our military forces have become is a kind of imperial guard who have been used "as if" they were defending our freedom but who in fact have been used -- not always but nearly so -- as conquerors and as political pawns, chasing "demons" and "evil" around the world. so on Veterans' Day, my feelings include that twinned pair "pity and terror" and also (as an American adult) shame for what we have allowed our politicians to do to our young soldiers over the years.

Thanks, Kara! These days a lot is being written about the mixing of fiction and fact in the news media, so we have to take great care to look for the distinction!!

Good post, Ashman.

Asherman,

You are the only person I know who can make my die-hard "GI Joe" cringe with bathetic military praise. I don't think you realize how off-putting it is when you do this.

My brother found it patronizing to the point of writing off the right wing here as "even more loony than the left" (which is saying a lot given that my brother IS a right-wing nut himself). When you were trying to "help" me when I wanted to join the military you actually managed to make the military look bad through your drippy maudlin ramblings. It was enough that I was willing to take the opposite course from what you suggested simply because you managed to make it sound so pathetic.

I honestly think it (the maudlin act) sounds good only to yourself. I don't know of a more "GI Joe" blowhard than my brother and he wrote you off as a nut for the stuff you said to him (for damn good reason as everyone on the thread made subtle note of how patronizing and pathetic it was and you were the only one who didn't notice).

In short I really think you do a disservice to the military with balmy praise. I know that when I was considering the military it disgusted me.

But hey, if you disagree, "stay out of the rain and keep your feet dry son". Just don't expect the poor, soft, pink, and helpless civilians to share the balmy nostalgia.

Veterans' day
Asherman, wonderful post. I, too, honor our troops in war and in peace.

Those I despise are the political leaders who are so inept, corrupt and despotic that their grandiose schemes and leadership failures leave no alternatives but war fought by our young men and women. The depth of disconnect between those in their protected world and the young people they send to their deaths and maiming is obscene and cannot ever be forgiven. Damn them to hell!

BumbleBeeBoogie

Well it obviously sounds good to others as well. Not to me, I find it pathetic and insulting.

Well, as a person with a long lineage of military people in my family I find the disdain of the military by the left to be both disgusting and disheartening. I will just keep thinking that all the men in my family who have served in the armed forces and sacrificed so much for my country, did so to protect your ability to be so disgusted with them.

I'll be sure to thank them for you.

Craven
Craven, my honoring of our troops separates them from the political idiots whose actions place them in harms way.

I often dream of a military whose leadership refuses to send the troops to fight when such political leaders offend humanity's morality. If such leaders have no troops willing to fight for them, perhaps reason could prevail. Unfortunately, such world-wide ethics are lacking.

These political leaders use our young to fight their wars and then abandon them when they are no longer needed.

I've lived long enough to see several deadly wars and felt their impact on my family and friends. So I honor the troops who had no choices.

BBB

McG,

It's the self-importance like that that is off-putting.

Your family did not a damn thing for me so please do not forward thanks. None is offered or derserved.

The only reason a military ever has to "protect" is because the balmy idiot on the other side's military is waxing maudlin about themselves.

It's not a distain of the military. It's distain for the people who are self-important enough to think the world is somehow in their debt.

No Veterans' Day holiday for the Senate; poor babies
No Holiday for Senate
(What a bunch of arseholes --- BBB)

While the House and the rest of the federal government take today off to observe Veterans Day, the Senate will remain in session in hopes of finishing its work in time to adjourn for the year by Thanksgiving.

But, with tensions running high between Republicans and Democrats, especially over the GOP's plan for a 30-hour debate this week on judicial nominations, even the question of working on Veterans Day became a partisan issue. Democrats say they were duped into agreeing to work on the holiday to help wrap up spending bills, only to discover that Republicans were planning the judicial talkathon for the following evening.

Republicans denied any connection between working on Veterans Day and scheduling the debate over judges. They blame Democrats for delaying action on spending bills.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats conducted a talkathon of their own. Minority Whip Harry M. Reid (Nev.) held the floor all afternoon and into the night with a speech deploring President Bush's record on job creation and urging the GOP to engage in more bipartisan cooperation.

Vietnam Veterans against the war. 2001 statement

Don't really have time for a long post, but did want to take a minute to wish each of our veterans on A2K (and everywhere else) a good Veterans Day.

Here's hoping that on this day next year, we'll be looking forward to a new Commander-In-Chief who shows our veterans more respect than the current one.

Much respect to American veterans of all eras.

Craven
Craven, asherman and I (and his son) argue about the military all the time, to no avail. I fear I may be at risk when I arrive at his house for Thanksgiving dinner, ending up with the turkey gizzard as punishment. His son may get a wing because of familial love.

BBB :wink:

Didn't realize today was veterans day but the day doesn't change my opinion.

Romanicizing war and lauding one's military are things that make war more common.

It's not a lone politician doing stupid things with soldiers, they can only acheive this because of the romanticized notion the nation as a whole accepts.

If the militaristic can claim that the world is in their debt for "protecting" the "pampered" then the pacifists can make the same silly claim, their efforts "protect" everyone.

I don't see that honoring an obligation imposed by one's own circumstances and/or ethics in any way places anyone else in that one's debt. Perhaps those who draw such an inference are reacting to their own guilt. No one owes me a damned thing for my military service. I owed it to all who have gone before and to all who are yet to come.

Oh, and c.i. , you keep hammering on the "!5,000 dead Iraqi civilians" (a figure at the high end of various estimates, BTW). By Amnesty International, Oxfam, and UN estimates, a figure of 1.5 Million Iraqi civilian deaths attributable to Saddam and his Ba'athists over the 30 years of their regime would be a conservative tally. That works out to some 50,000 per year, a somewhat more disturbing count than 15,000 over a 9 month period, or do I have the math wrong? Of course every unnatural death, not just civilian death, is lamentable. Still, 15,000 over 9 months is 1667/mo, whereas 50,000 per year is 4167/mo. I'd say the Iraqis, while certainly not well off, are less badly off in that regard presently than they had been prior to the latest intervention.