Quote:
What is really costs:
As we begin a long Memorial Day weekend, the least we can do is finally, even at this late date, be honest about how difficult and costly the war in Iraq is going to be for the men and women fighting and dying for us there.
Niall Ferguson gave us a measure of that reality this week in a New York Times op-ed piece. Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard, argued that to defeat the insurgency in Iraq and establish a modicum of stability there would take one million U.S. soldiers and possibly 30 to 60 years. That contrasts to the 138,000 soldiers there now and a prevailing belief that we will start to draw down troops next year - before the midterm elections.
Ferguson bases his estimates partly on the British experience in Iraq after World War I. The British, he says, put down an insurgency with a troop to population ratio of 1 to 23. The ratio there today is 1 to 174. He points out that the overwhelming number of British troops came from India, a type of manpower resource Washington doesn't have. And Ferguson says that many liberals in the United States don't grasp how high a price the United States will pay, in terms of its own security, if the mission fails and Iraq falls into civil war and chaos.
Even if you believe that Ferguson's estimates of manpower and time are high, the overall point is sobering: There has been and continues to be a tragic mismatch between the Bush administration's reach and its grasp. The administration grossly underestimated what it would take to make Iraq whole after the invasion. In fact, there were reports this week from a top meeting of U.S. military officials that the plan to start withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq next year is premature given the deteriorating military situation.
[URL=file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/G/Application%20Data/Mozilla/Firefox/Profiles/li81h334.default/chrome/sage.html]Source[/URL]
Prof. Ferguson's "analysis" sounds like a rather superficial examination of the historical record. On what basis does he implicitly assert that a successful (or moderately successful) suppression of an Iraqi insurgency by the United States (and Britain and others) will require the same military to civilian population ratio as the failed British attempt in the 1920s?
In the first place during the 80+ year period that has elapsed since then the values of these ratios have been significantly changed in all types of warfare. In the second, both the nature of the insurgency and the perceived intention of the occupying power are quite different, comparing, as we are, the British attempt to impose Imperial rule on the debris of the Ottoman Empire which it had brought down, and what is happening now.
It would also be interesting to hear Prof. Ferguson's analysis of the comparative costs and effects of the contemporaneous operation in Afghanistan compared to the two centuries of British and Russian efforts there.
The Professor has hardly scratched the surface in his "analysis" of the problem. His conclusions carry little weight.
Ok, argument accepted. Let us say he is off by 50 to 60 percent. Do those figures validate the harm that has been done not just to Iraq, but to the entire world? You do the analysis ... what are your results? What would be an appropriate ratio of 'dead' to 'democratised', in your view, that would justify the amount of carnage that has taken place?
The historical data for warfare suggest he is off, not by 50%, but rather a factor of ten to twenty!
What is your standard for the relationship between carnage and the benefit received? Was our war against Japan worth the carnage it caused? We certainly inflicted much more damage against Japan than we suffered at Pearl Harbor. Would we (or the world) have been better off if we simply chose to accommodate Japan, resume shipments of oil and steel to feed their fighting machine for conquest in the Pacific?
Was the war in Europe against Nazi Germany worth the carnage it caused? Far more horrific damage was inflicted on Germany, both relatively and absolutely than in the case of Iraq. The difference here is so great as to preclude comparison.
What about the injury inflicted by Saddam's Iraq on Kuwait? What about the mutual slaughter during the ten year war between Iraq and Iran. These were wars initiated by the very regime we took out in out Iraqi intervention.
By historical standards the "carnage" in Iraq is hardly detectable. Certainly far less than Europeans recently inflicted on each other in Bosnia and Kosovo. It isn't even of the same order of magnitude as was done in the Communist revolutions and repressions in Russia, China and Cambodia.
It is necessary to think seriously about such things, put them in the real historical contexts in which they arise, and consider thoughtfully the alternatives and their often awful consequences, before launching off into vapid riffs about the bad effects of actions taken to oppose tyranny.
Quote, "Ok, argument accepted. Let us say he is off by 50 to 60 percent. Do those figures validate the harm that has been done not just to Iraq, but to the entire world? You do the analysis ... what are your results? What would be an appropriate ratio of 'dead' to 'democratised', in your view, that would justify the amount of carnage that has taken place?"
Good question, Gels. The ultimate question is "what is the price Americans are willing to pay for this chaos created in Iraq by Bush and Company?" How much of the lives of our parents and children are we willing to sacrifice? How much more of our treasure are we willing to sacrifice?
War with Japan was a completely defensive act; Iraq was a preemptive aggression against a sovereign nation. The war in Europe doesn't equate to our war with Iraq. Except for Iraq's attack against Kuwait which was stopped, Germany overran Europe by force.
Your comparisons simple stinks.
georgeob1 wrote:The historical data for warfare suggest he is off, not by 50%, but rather a factor of ten to twenty!
What is your standard for the relationship between carnage and the benefit received? Was our war against Japan worth the carnage it caused? We certainly inflicted much more damage against Japan than we suffered at Pearl Harbor. Would we (or the world) have been better off if we simply chose to accommodate Japan, resume shipments of oil and steel to feed their fighting machine for conquest in the Pacific?
Was the war in Europe against Nazi Germany worth the carnage it caused? Far more horrific damage was inflicted on Germany, both relatively and absolutely than in the case of Iraq. The difference here is so great as to preclude comparison.
What about the injury inflicted by Saddam's Iraq on Kuwait? What about the mutual slaughter during the ten year war between Iraq and Iran. These were wars initiated by the very regime we took out in out Iraqi intervention.
By historical standards the "carnage" in Iraq is hardly detectable. Certainly far less than Europeans recently inflicted on each other in Bosnia and Kosovo. It isn't even of the same order of magnitude as was done in the Communist revolutions and repressions in Russia, China and Cambodia.
It is necessary to think seriously about such things, put them in the real historical contexts in which they arise, and consider thoughtfully the alternatives and their often awful consequences, before launching off into vapid riffs about the bad effects of actions taken to oppose tyranny.
Your answers to my questions borders on non sequitur. Once again, the question ......' What would be an appropriate ratio of 'dead' to 'democratised', in your view, that would justify the amount of carnage that has taken place?' George Bush's carnage, not Sadam's.
My point was that your question can't be answered without an historical context, and without seriously considering the alternatives. A poorly posed question does not merit an answer.
My point was that your question can't be answered without an historical context, and without seriously considering the alternatives. A poorly posed question does not merit an answer.
The historical context must have relevance; otherwise it's meaningless. You can't keep making comparisons of apples and oranges, not only the skins are different, but the inside too.
It wasn't that long ago when the neocons on this thread kept telling us that Bush and Company increased funding for our vets. Well, in today's San Jose Mercury News, there's an article written by Joseph L. Galloway which gives "another view." 1,000 residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington DC has filed a class-action suit against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to restore all the medical benefits that have been reduced or eliminated. Some people just like to believe the fairytales expressed by this administration, but the realities speak another language. We're talking about WWII, Korean, and Vietnam veterans who have served our country in wars. This administration talks good, but spits in their eyes, and stabs them in their backs.
georgeob1 wrote:My point was that your question can't be answered without an historical context, and without seriously considering the alternatives. A poorly posed question does not merit an answer.
I will try to be as helpfull as possible as it appears you are 'challanged by questions that you recognize as 'poorly posed.'.
For historical context since the subject is Iraq ..... how about using the Iraq war. For the question, how many Iraqi deaths should occur so that one Iraqi can vote? What would be an alternative that you feel should b considered
I can't make it any more simple.
The meaning of your words is clear enough - that has never been the issue. The problem is that your question is, itself, absurd.
Can you tell me the value of the ratio between Iraqi deaths and potential votes that you would use to differentiate between a result that is OK, in some sense, from one that is not? How many significant figures might we find in your answer - if you can give us one? If you can't answer this question, (and I doubt that you can) then there is no reason whatever to consider an answer to yours.
There is another factor here too. Who is inflicting deaths on Iraqis now?
Can you tell me the upper limit on the numbers of Japanese and German deaths that were (or would have been) justified in the effort to take out their regimes? Can you offer us a suggestion as to how this limit might have been practically enforced once the wars had begun?
Yea, but they wouldn't be inflicting death on Iraqis now if we didn't go to war with Iraq on false pretenses. Not only that but a lot of Iraqis are simply caught in cross fires of our so called friendly fire that we use to fight the insurgency which we wouldn't have to if we didn't invade Iraq.
Just so one person can vote is not a reason to go war or else we would be invading undemocratic countries all over the world.
revel, Aren't we glad Bush has only a couple of years left in the wh? He wants to bring "democracy" to the whole world. The only thing stopping him is the reduction of volunteers into the army.
"A poorly posed question does not merit an answer. "
HUH?
Is that a load of crap, or what? Or are we talking about something like art, or social value, or pornography, etc.; that will be instantly recognizable when seen?
And what they have been through since his capture .....
Aren't we the angels sent from heaven?
Gelisgesti wrote:
And what they have been through since his capture .....
Head attached? ... Check.
