This is an Open Book Examination. You may use any materials you can find, including other newspaper reports, and of course you are encouraged to use the work of genuine scholars on Islam, Iraq, the history of Sunni-Shi’a relations and of Arab Muslim relations with Kurds and other non-Arab peoples.
You may even consult with others. But the thinking, in the end, must be yours, and so must the expression, in writing, of your thoughts and analysis.
You have one week to complete this task. Examination papers are due by 5 p.m. on January 31, 2007.
_____________________________________________________________
There are two passages below. One consists of an excerpt from an interview with Vice-President Cheney, conducted and broadcast on CNN on January 24, 2007 and reported in The Bandar Beacon (Washington Post) the next day. The other consists of an excerpt from a report from Iraq in The New Duranty Times [New York Times], written the same day, January 24, 2007, and appearing in that paper on January 25, 2007.
You are asked to comment on both of these passages, and on their usefulness to an American audience in illuminating the reality of Iraq today. Discuss the ratio of fact to mere assertion contained in each. Evaluate their overall usefulness, for the public, in judging what might make sense for American national interests.
Wherever possible, be careful to analyze examples of rhetoric that you feel contribute to, or take away from, the understanding of or expression of reality in each article.
Please be careful to support all your assertions with facts. You are encouraged to apply whatever knowledge you possess of the belief-system of Islam as you understand it, and of the attitudes and atmospherics to which the teachings of Islam may naturally give rise.
You are further encouraged to apply in your answer as detailed a knowledge as you possibly can of the history of Iraq and of its sectarian and ethnic fissures, and of how those fissures arise from the nature and history of Islam. You are asked to speculate on how the further development of such fissures might contribute to, or take away from, the security of the people of the United States and of other countries in what may be called, using the term used in Islam, the Dar al-Harb, or House of War.
The more deeply your answer is based on a knowledge both of Islam’s teachings and its history, and of the history of modern Iraq itself and the relations among the varied peoples who live within the state of Iraq, the better. The more you can bring to bear such knowledge, the more likely it is that you will be able to make an intelligent assessment of the effect, both inside and outside Iraq, of the presence or withdrawal of American troops.
Be sure to write from the viewpoint of one determined to further American national interests, broadly conceived, and also to further the interests of those who, while they may differ on all sorts of matters, share the basic assumptions and hierarchy of values of what may be called the West, or Western civilization, or perhaps, even more broadly and more accurately, the non-Islamic world or Camp of the Infidels.
Here are the two passages for comment:
I. When Blitzer asked whether the administration's credibility had been hurt by "the blunders and the failures" in Iraq, Cheney interjected: "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."In fact, Cheney said, the operation in Iraq has achieved its original mission. "What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said. "The world is much safer today because of it. There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed. His sons are dead. His government is gone."
"If he were still there today," Cheney added, "we'd have a terrible situation."
"But there is," Blitzer said.
"No, there is not," Cheney retorted. "There is not. There's problems -- ongoing problems -- but we have in fact accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off." He added: "Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes."
Cheney said Blitzer was advocating retreat. "What you're recommending, or at least what you seem to believe the right course is, is to bail out," the vice president said.
______________________________________________________
II. BAGHDAD, Jan. 24 — In the battle for Baghdad, Haifa Street has changed hands so often that it has taken on the feel of a no man’s land, the deadly space between opposing trenches. On Wednesday, as American and Iraqi troops poured in, the street showed why it is such a sensitive gauge of an urban conflict marked by front lines that melt into confusion, enemies with no clear identity and allies who disappear or do not show up at all. Skip to next paragraph Readers’ Opinions Forum: The Transition in IraqIn a miniature version of the troop increase that the United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own.
When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns. As the morning wore on and the troops came under fire from all directions, another apparent flaw in this strategy became clear as empty apartments became lairs for gunmen who flitted from window to window and killed at least one American soldier, with a shot to the head.
Whether the gunfire was coming from Sunni or Shiite insurgents or militia fighters or some of the Iraqi soldiers who had disappeared into the Gotham-like cityscape, no one could say.
“Who the hell is shooting at us?” shouted Sgt. First Class Marc Biletski, whose platoon was jammed into a small room off an alley that was being swept by a sniper’s bullets. “Who’s shooting at us? Do we know who they are?”
Just before the platoon tossed smoke bombs and sprinted through the alley to a more secure position, Sergeant Biletski had a moment to reflect on this spot, which the United States has now fought to regain from a mysterious enemy at least three times in the past two years.
“This place is a failure,” Sergeant Biletski said. “Every time we come here, we have to come back.”
He paused, then said, “Well, maybe not a total failure,” since American troops have smashed opposition on Haifa Street each time they have come in.
With that, Sergeant Biletski ran through the billowing yellow smoke and took up a new position.
The Haifa Street operation, involving Bradley Fighting Vehicles as well as the highly mobile Stryker vehicles, is likely to cause plenty of reflection by the commanders in charge of the Baghdad buildup of more than 20,000 troops. Just how those extra troops will be used is not yet known, but it is likely to mirror at least broadly the Haifa Street strategy of working with Iraqi forces to take on unruly groups from both sides of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide.
The commander of the operation, Lt. Col. Avanulas Smiley of the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Second Infantry Division, said his forces were not interested in whether opposition came from bullets fired by Sunnis or by Shiites. He conceded that the cost of letting the Iraqi forces learn on the job was to add to the risk involved in the operation.
“This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges and risks,” Colonel Smiley said. “It can be organized chaos.”
The American units in the operation began moving up Haifa Street from the south by 2 a.m. on Wednesday. A platoon of B Company in the Stryker Brigade secured the roof of a high rise, where an Eminem poster was stuck on the wall of what appeared to be an Iraqi teenager’s room on the top floor. But in a pattern that would be repeated again and again in a series of buildings, there was no one in the apartment.
Many of the Iraqi units that showed up late never seemed to take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, breaking dishes and rifling through personal CD collections in the apartments. Eventually the Americans realized that the Iraqis were searching no more than half of the apartments; at one point the Iraqis completely disappeared, leaving the American unit working with them flabbergasted.
“Where did they go?” yelled Sgt. Jeri A. Gillett. Another soldier suggested, “I say we just let them go and we do this ourselves.”
Then the gunfire began. It would come from high rises across the street, from behind trash piles and sandbags in alleys and from so many other directions that the soldiers began to worry that the Iraqi soldiers were firing at them. Mortars started dropping from across the Tigris River, to the east, in the direction of a Shiite slum.
The only thing that was clear was that no one knew who the enemy was. “The thing is, we wear uniforms — they don’t,” said Specialist Terry Wilson.
At one point the Americans were forced to jog alongside the Strykers on Haifa Street, sheltering themselves as best they could from the gunfire. The Americans finally found the Iraqis and ended up accompanying them into an extremely dangerous and exposed warren of low-slung hovels behind the high rises as gunfire rained down.
American officers tried to persuade the Iraqi soldiers to leave the slum area for better cover, but the Iraqis refused to risk crossing a lane that was being raked by machine-gun fire. “It’s their show,” said Lt. David Stroud, adding that the Americans have orders to defer to the Iraqis in cases like this.
In this surreal setting, about 20 American soldiers were forced at one point to pull themselves one by one up a canted tin roof by a dangling rubber hose and then shimmy along a ledge to another hut. The soldiers were stunned when a small child suddenly walked out of a darkened doorway and an old man started wheezing and crying somewhere inside.
Ultimately the group made it back to the high rises and escaped the sniper in the alley by throwing out the smoke bombs and sprinting to safety. Even though two Iraqis were struck by gunfire, many of the rest could not stop shouting and guffawing with amusement as they ran through the smoke.
One Iraqi soldier in the alley pointed his rifle at an American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed at his joke.
I apologize for being OT. I haven't seen this story discussed yet, probably because there has been a glaring lack of information about the nationality/religious affiliation of the persons involved:
Fox News had a photo of Oleg Khinsagov; I cannot judge his ethnic background based on his face, but he didn't look like any of the Russians I have known. Can any Caucasus experts tell anything from his family name? [Not that I think he may be a practicing Muslim, or that that would in any way be relevant to the story].
Isn't North Ossetia where the Beslan massacre took place? It is majority Christian, but seems to be adjacent to several Islamic majority republics.
But, based on the little information that has leaked out so far, the thing that definitively ties this to JW/DW is that Fox News also said that the ambiguous "rich foreign buyer" that the police used in the sting was more specifically (a policeman posing as) a Turkish Islamic extremist who wanted to buy the uranium for use in terrorist attacks. Mr. Khinsagov believed he was selling the Highly Enriched Uranium to an Islamic terrorist. This was only briefly mentioned in the Fox report, and the entire story has dropped off the radar of all other media. Another thing they mentioned in passing was the number of Highly Enriched Uranium (not just uranium, or radioactive material, but weapon-grade HEU) has been intercepted by police. I believe the number of times was in the 20's.
OT indeed.
Richard Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney are American patriots. They are pursuing our enemies who will defeat us, and have attacked us, even while the nation has contempt for them. They have lost 3000 lives in Iraq compared to 50000 in Vietnam and Korea and over 300000 in WWII.
Defeating Iraq and occupying let them surround Iran and reduce our deaths to invade it. It lets them go in any direction against our enemies including Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9-11 with its hired mercenaries from Pakistan's ISI.
Never has one man done so much to defend such an ungrateful nation as Dick Cheney. Cheney will go down with Jefferson and Washington as a great American who saw the truth and did what was needed. One day there will be a Dick Cheney memorial for intellectual courage in a sea of error.
Comments against Richard Cheney in Bandar Beacon
Bandar Beacon 122 and counting pages of attacks on Liz Cheney
I apologize in advance, I have not attended all the classes this semester, and have other responsibilities outside of school. But here is my brief summary:
Cheney is arguably correct here. Setting aside discussion of the existence of WMD's, and setting aside the ethnicity and religious affiliation of his victims (hint: the majority were fellow Muslims, mainly Shi'ites), Saddam was a "bad guy". If it is a good thing to get rid of bad guys, then it was the right thing to do, as Cheney claimed. But,
If Cheney is correct, and we did the right thing, then why do we have to stay there? Mission Accomplished, bring the boys (and girls) home. There have been relatively few (that is to say, none) instances in 1,350 years of Islamic history where Muslims have responded to non-Muslim assistance with appreciation and gratitude. Anything we did or do to assist the Iraqis after deposing Saddam is a waste of our national resources. When did our goal change from "deposing Saddam" to "turning Iraq into a Shining Beacon of Light Unto the Muslim Nations"?
[A much longer reply is called for here than can be given at the moment. This will have to be part of a make-up exam to be written at a later date, after my apopleptic fit subsides]
How can I spend my time writing essays in my nice comfortable office on my nice comfortable computer while our soldiers are being thrown headlong into a precarious fight-for-survival by leaders who understand nothing of the situation? The closest analogue I know is The Battle of Gallipoli. Blundering leaders sent wave after wave of British, Australian, Indian, and New Zealand soldiers to be mowed down in piles by Turkish machine gunners. Those blundering leaders did not adjust their strategy, or learn from their mistakes; they just kept repeating the same failed tactic over and over.
Before the invasion, they trained their troops in Cairo Egypt, never considering the possibility that loyalty to religion would trump loyalty to the British Empire, and that Egyptian citizens would pass on the full planning of the coming British invasion of Gallipoli to the Turkish Ottomans so that they, the Turks, were the ones with the element of surprise, not the Allies.
They relied on trawlers to sweep for mines laid in the ocean. When those trawlers predictably fled when they came under Turkish fire, and left the mines in place, the British went ahead without their assistance. This lead to the sinking of three battleships, and heavy damage to three others.
The only success of the Gallipoli campaign was the skillful retreat under fire. Amazingly few casualties were suffered by the Allies during the withdrawal. And, more importantly, the Allies prevailed in WWI, and the Turkish Ottoman Empire was destroyed.
I can only hope that the same will be true of Iraq.
Why do I need a week to formulate an answer? This is unbelievable!!
Way back in 2000, we Americans figured any well-connected idiot could be Prez. Ronald Regan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dhimmi Carter, shit, anybody could be President. My kid could do it.
A little money, a few connections and BAM, you too could be president.
Way back in 2000 we Americans were so innocent and clueless that we elected a president who cannot speak the English language and cannot recall his thoughts from one moment to the next. A complete moron is George Bush. But we trusted him to lead the most powerful nation on earth.
George Bush flunked History 101. He flunked every test and quiz he ever took. But that didn't stop Yale University from graduating him and it didn't stop the American voters from electing him TWICE!
And now this idiot we couldn't be bothered with has created the greatest American foreign policy quaqmire in history....
Surprised?
Have we learned anything since then?????
Pardon me for being an alarmist. But the 'final' part of this exam scares me a little.
Do you (Hugh) know something the rest of us don't?
Aunt Bea
Hugh said
I apologize again. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think the significance justified it. It's not being covered elsewhere.
"... and it didn't stop the American voters from electing him TWICE!"
Remember the alternative? Never mind...
"Richard Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney are American patriots."
-- from a posting above
Does the word "patriot" cover everything? Does it make one immune to criticism for policies that make no sense, and are based on ignorance both of Islam (and the full scope and nature of its menace and threat) and on a detailed knowledge of the attitudes of Muslims, so obviously on display in Iraq, and a knowledge of the specific history of ethnic and sectarian hostlities within Islam and especially within Iraq? Should Cheney be given a permanent pass?
Why?
And is "Richard Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney," who are "American patriots," more "American patriots" than, say, James Webb, who wants the American troops out now? Are they more "American patriots" than Tom Tancredo? Are they more "American patriots" than General John Abizaid, who will be speaking unconstrainedly soon enough? Are they more "American patriots" than I am? Why? Because Cheney served in a previoius administration, then went into what is demurely called the "private sector" to make many tens of millions of dollars that he could never have made had he not first gone into "public service" and then traded on it (like Kissinger, like Clinton, like Scowcroft, like so many of the Great and Good who remain in Washington, or at the head of companies heavily dependent on government business and government goodwill, so want to hire as heads or as "consultants" those who have the contacts necessary for the pursuit of profit -- for those who hire them and, above all, for themselves.
Everyone and his brother is an "American patriot" for god's sake. Who is truly disinterested? And above all, who expresses his patriotism through fulfilling the duty of finding out about matters before making policies that depend on real, as opposed to false or non-existent or pseudo-soothing half-baked knowledge?
A real "American patriot" would stop prating and by this time have learned a thing or two about Islam, and about how to weaken the Camp of Islam. Cheney has done no such thing. Nor have many others.
"Do you (Hugh) know something the rest of us don't?"
-- from a posting above
Possibly.
Hugh, if you look at the WaPo links I posted above, they show comments of the most extreme personal kinds against Liz Cheney and Richard Cheney.
Your comments go to substance, not to villify these two individuals.
In WWII, we would pay far more than 3000 lives to get strategic positions like Iraq. Cheney can hardly come out and say we are at war with Islam, nor can his daughter.
Page 83 in string on Liz Cheney
quote
quote We do not face an existential threat. end quote Tim_G | Jan 23, 2007 12:26:18 AM. Respectfully, Tim, we do. Islam is a threat by immigration and its birth rate. Demography is destiny. We must follow the Wise Virgil Goode and stop Muslim immigration. We must disempower the clerics in the Muslim world. That means Saudi Arabia and Iran.
By OldAtlantic | Jan 23, 2007 4:19:29 PM
end quote.
I have comments posted from a few pages before and up to some where in the 100's on some of the points you make, Hugh. However, as that thread of comments at WaPo shows, those ideas are going down with Cheney.
Like it or not, Richard Cheney and his daughter Liz are personalized by the left and MSM as identified with any fight in Asia or the Middle East. To the left, once Cheney goes, we do a full retreat back to the US.
Why don't you try posting comments in one of the above two threads of comments at WaPo and dealing with the comments thrown at you. Its quite an education. I recommend it to everyone. Rawstory is good for that too.
Link back your comment pages so people can see what we are dealing with.
Cheney comes from the recent Era of the Ice Age when Muslims were considered to be rational human beings.
That Era, of course, is still with us, still freezing flexible analysis and open-minded study, still numbing our limbs of action, but it is finally beginning to show signs of thaw, and here and there we see the green patches of receding glaciers. That Ice Age's retreat may yet be considerably speeded up by the fire of horrible attacks in the near future, or it might continue to shrink, one seemingly asymptotic increment at a time. Either way, dinosaurs like Cheney and Bush will be extinct, or hopefully will evolve into cleverer reptiles to join the nimble and intelligent mammals, like Spencer, Fitzgerald, Bostom, et al.
Raw story timeline Iran planning
For them this is a conspiracy theory, not the required duties of the government.
Last 6 years of Iran planning "expose"
For rawstory and antiwar.com, these are exposes of secret conspiracies. These are identified with Cheney, Bush, etc.
You can post comments without registration at each place, you go down to comments in blue and click on it.
@Joseph
You say: "Remember the alternative? Never mind..."
Who the hell knows what the alternative would have been. Gore or Kerry were at least of normal I.Q. level and had the ability to read books, do homework, take tests, consult with officials, engage in governmental processes.
That jackass George Bush just wants to outside and play with his motorbike. He's having too much fun being president or being whatever he is at the moment ("I am a war president") to be bothered to do his homework or go to Vietnam or even show up for R.O.T.C. requirements that allowed him to dodge his responsibilities.
Well, the loser George Bush got what he deserved, a losing war, a lost Republican majority, the loss of voters support, loss of American presitige, loss of vast blood and money...and the losing is still mounting.
Eventually, Joseph, even a Bush-lover like you and others will finally get it.
If Iraqi law/constitution is derived from Islamic jurisprudence, then the answer about whether to withdraw troops is a no-brainer. The issue before us is not whether to waste time in Congress, the White House, or within the United Nations arguing the next step if the democratically elected government is based upon Islamic law.
If that is the case with any country, we should get out and not shed another drop of our blood or money on their cause!
"I would like to comment on the story from the New York Times... did the reporter ever leave the 'safe zone' and/or his hotel? What person did he receive his news from."
-- from a posting above
It should be obvious from the details, and the quotations, in the article that one or both reporters were with the soldiers during the time that they were attempting to clear Haifa Street, and to do so with almost no help from those Iraqis, so busy "aughing at the Americans" Iraqis, so busy refusing to lend any useful support, regarding it all as a lark where the Americans first risk their lives, and then the Iraqis enter just a few places (the ones that they thought looked safe enough) in order apparently not to search them but to check out, and no doubt help themselves to, collections of CD's.
And at the very end, when that Iraqi aims his rifle at someone described "as an American reporter" and pulls the trigger -- ha! ha! it wasn't loaded after all -- who do you think that "Ameridan creporter" was? For god's sake, you cannot dismiss the dozens and hundreds of reports of how poorly, how outrageously, the "Iraqi" soldiers have performed, and that includes sometimes turning on, and even shooting at, even killing, the Americans with whom they are supposedly fighting side-by-side, or who are, in some cases, actually training them. Very few American soldiers come home with any respect or love of any Iraqis, despite all the propaganda and brainwashing they have been subjected to. And if the families knew more, they would be more outraged at the behavior of these Muslims, as of other Muslims, elsewhere, receiving American aid and support and goodwill of every kind, and offering nothing in return, save hostility and hatred, and in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and all of the "Palestinian" groups, Slow and Fast Jihad, even murdreous hostility expressed, not unnaturally, by murder.
special_guest:
You owed no one an apology for your post above.
It's perfectly fine to question authority and to bring your pov to the table. If you've been paying attention, you'll note the teacher does it all the time.
There is more than one valid opinion justifying US involvement in Iraq as well as US involvement in the War on Jihad throughout the world.
One last comment before I leave: Never confuse loquacity with sagacity.
"One Iraqi soldier in the alley pointed his rifle at an American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed at his joke"
.......apparently the reporter did not have a weapon,...
@yankeedolittle
my goodness sir we woud have been so much better off with Al Gore running the US, just hold your pants up, you may well get your wish in '08
Anyone want to have a brainstorming session here for this "essay". Let's take this as seriously as a real college essay assignment.
@yankeedoddle dandy
You think Al Gore has a "normal I.Q."...? that's the funniest thing I've heard...apparently your hate for Bush has caused your own "normal" IQ to take a nose dive. Vote for Hillary or John Edwards, they are sooooo smart.
Cheney said, the operation in Iraq has achieved its original mission. "What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said.
Original mission? Achieved? So, what is the current mission?
There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government…
So then democracy as you see it is apparently the same as sharia law, since their constitution enshrines Islamic shariah law.
but we have in fact accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off." He added: "Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes."
Doing what exactly? Our mission has been accomplished you just said?
What you're recommending, or at least what you seem to believe the right course is, is to bail out,"
Is that unreasonable if the objectives are completed?
Forget this worthless debate; I’ve read enough!
My response to the first article is too droll, so I'll attempt the second:
I really feel sorry for the troops; they are put in a rock and hard place, and for what? Chasing an illusion of a liberal democratic Iraq?
An illiberal democracy is what you get in Gaza and the West Bank, where sure, there are elections (!) but there aren't trappings of a real democracy, such as the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, equal rights and protection, separation of church and state, political problems not spilling into the streets, etc. There can be no liberal democracies where political Islam is afoot, i.e. Islam in general.
Alright then so more of our troops will die including those that will be a part of the troop surge (I feel that this is just a sop before the pullout) and this surge, of 20,000 over 5 months, will be just right back to where we where after the invasion.
Why can't we win the peace? Because we haven't won the war? Why haven't we won the war?
Cheney is right, we did defeat Saddam, and the Coalition of the Willing crumpled his state so easily that we put the fear of Allah into everyone.
Then there were the armed militias. Can anyone name any occupation ever where the victorious nation allowed the local populace to carry arms and form militias? Allowing others to usurp the monopoly of power and force was a big mistake.
Anytime a person is carry a gun or manning a roadblock that isn't American should be killed and destroyed.
Those now fighting us in Iraq were not defeated when Saddam was toppled, they just sat back and watch the show, and these people are the jihadists.
Before we can win hearts and minds of our enemies, we have to destroy what now controls their hearts and minds. And destroy with a vengeance- truly subjugate them like we did with Saddam, discredit their feelings of invincibility. And only after we beat the sense into them, then we could educate them on the mores of democracy and the failures of Islam as a political and social framework.
And seeing that most Muslim Iraqis (excluding the Kurds) support attacks on our troops, we need to bring back Sherman to do his March to Anbar Province. As much as the Confederates recognized this march as the end of the South's drive for independence, so it will be for the jihadists.
I don't think that we've not yet begun to fight the true enemy. Something Cheney does not really get the grasp of.
"... and it didn't stop the American voters from electing him TWICE!"
I KNOW Americans didn't elect "arbusto" twice. Even once. - it's the voting machine scam, REMEMBER? And there was the Ohio voting debacle.
It was all over the internet.
The shame is that the world believes we voted the creatures in.
“…….and there is a new regime in place that's been here for less than a year…..”—from Hugh’s selected passages.
Well, I am not taking the exam, but oh, the statement made me laugh so hard that my side hurt. Oh, I thought, being not an English speaker, my English is bad. To say “there is a new regime in place” is to say, “Yes, we have failed in Iraq!”
It’s unbelievable how a native born of such caliber takes the word, “regime,” so carelessly.
It was not long ago that I didn’t believe my British born English teacher’s telling me not to shy away form posting at JW. I used to laugh when she said, “Don’t worry about the native speakers; they have more mouths that speak than there are heads that can think clearly.”
Now, I don’t have to worry too much about my lousy, elementary English skills.
Miss Mae, I hope you read this. Ha-ha-ha!
"special_guest:
You owed no one an apology for your post above.
It's perfectly fine to question authority and to bring your pov to the table. If you've been paying attention, you'll note the teacher does it all the time.
There is more than one valid opinion justifying US involvement in Iraq as well as US involvement in the War on Jihad throughout the world.
One last comment before I leave: Never confuse loquacity with sagacity."
-- from a posting by "omvi" above
The laconic reply "OT indeed" was entirely proper, and the poster himself recognized it. It was not a quick observation but a very long comment, that had nothing to do with the topic --the "Final Exam" -- under which it had been posted. There is a certain desire here to keep poostings more or less on track, and when the very first posting of all goes off on an entirely different tack because a poster impatiently wishes to deliver what he considers to be news that can't wait, then those who run this site are perfectly justified in, for example, simply deleting it so as to prevent the distraction.
In this case I did no such thing. I only picked up on his own "OT" (off-topic) admission, and agreed, and hoped that the laconic agreement would be taken in the spirit in which it was offered -- and it was, by that poster.
"Omvi" is not a close reader. He appears to believe, by his buck-up words of support, that it is "perfectly fine to question authority and to bring your pov to the table." But that is not what the posting by "special_guest" did. It did not take issue with the "Final Exam" -- exactly how, by the way, would one take issue with a "Final Exam" except by writing one's answers and questioning what one suspects are the views of the composer of that exam? That posting by "special_guest" did not offend because of its putative but actually non-existent "POV" nor because it was a way to "question [presumably my self-arrogated] authority" but becuase it was so far off topic: a news item about a sting operation in the Republic of Georgia, involving uranium, and a Turkish-speaking Georgian pretending to be a Muslim. It had nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. It was merely a report in the news. It might well show upat JW as a separate item. It was quoted extensively, when a mere link might, and usually is, given in such cases. I was right to be annoyed, and the poster himself, chagrinned I suspect, knows that perfectly well. In retrospect, I see that I ought simply to silently have deleted it, and written to him about it.
Instead "omvi," having failed to read closely the first posting on this thread, the very one which he purports to be defending ("you owe no one an apology"), apparently can see nothing wrong with interrupting in such a manner, with such an irrelevant matter, the hushed atmosphere of Exam Time (the exam papers are still being passed out to the students who have arrived late), and furthermore, reveals some of his pique and resentment directed at me.
And what am I charged with? I am charged with trying to keep, here and there, a certain intelligent order to things, on what is, after all, a pedagogic site, and not a place for everyone either to simply have their say, or post on some communal bulletin board whatever it is that seems to them, at any point, of such great importance that they feel they simply must, impatiently, post it here and there and everywhere.
No. I am unrepentant, and I think "special_guest" agrees that he does in fact not "owe" anyone an apology, but he, and others, should be careful about when and where they simply must, must, must, put up something that has caught their attention and they just have to post it, right now, without further ado, wherever they can, no matter what. That is unacceptable.
As for "omvi," he has expressed his desire to end posting here ("One last comment before I leave") and I second his motion, and if necessary will even make it easy for him.
One of the more disgusting milestones that the press harped on about (somewhere I believe that they have a calendar with all the anniversaries already prepared) was the one that we have been fighting in Iraq longer than our participation in WW II. All right they did not consider the occupations of Japan and Germany in their math…. But the occupations after WWII were very peaceful compared to this one in Iraq…I wonder why? In Japan, we showed the populace brainwashed to give their live to a god-emperor, that continued resistance would mean death, as shown by incendiary and atomic bombs.
After the peace and war was won virtually simultaneously (as in, there was no more danger for our troops). The Allies wrote the Japanese constitution and dispelled any belief that their emperor was a god. Couldn’t we do the same in Iraq – at least force them not allow Islam as the state religion?
"If the soldiers were doing all the work then they should be reprimanded."
-- from a posting above
If that were true, then you'd have to "reprimand" half of the American army in Iraq -- who deserve only gratitude, and also shared disgust at the general behavior of the Iraqis, both civilians (the ones who smile, and accept that money and that aid and those soccer balls, but magically manage to disappear just before a bomb is about to go off, and never seem able to warn the Americans) and the soldiers (who show up at pay-check time, but intermittently, and lackadaisically, when it is time to actually go out on patrol or, especially, to fight for what is, after all, their country).
You want to blame the American soldiers for the outrageous behavior of the "Iraqi" police and army. I, on the other hand, want to blame the "Iraqis."
Only one of us is right.
Some of the most important pedagogy is taking place right now on those Haifa streets. I pray to God to keep those brave men and women safe and bring them home alive. They will be critical allies in the real battles ahead.
The reason we have suffered "only" 3000 dead is our advanced medical technology. The number of disabled from this war is much higher, as a ratio of casualties, than any other conflict in our history. There is even a new class of injury, "polytrauma", which never existed before, because everyone inflicted with multiple traumas was called "dead". The cost in American lives is higher than it appears, if we count those whose lives are destroyed by their horrible wounds. If we were fighting this war with Vietnam era technology the number of dead would be in the tens of thousands.
Heck, but at least we're fighting for a Sharia government. If it is worth killing for, as so many Muslims believe, is it worth our soldiers dying for it?
"We've had enormous successes"
Cheney makes me retch. His vanity, his face-saving, is more important than the national interest. This is the character flaw that the conspiracy theorists conflate into all sort of crazy tall tales. At least Bush is stupid. Cheney should be able to think his way out of this paper bag.
"[those Iraqi civilians who] magically manage to disappear just before a bomb is about to go off, and never seem able to warn the Americans..."
Actually, Iraqi civilians have been victims of explosive carnage perpetrated by their fellow Iraqi Muslims in far greater numbers than American soldiers have been -- which would not undermine Hugh's point above insofar as the high degree of grotesque mass-murderousness of Iraqi Muslims (so high that it has even reached the comfortably remote radar of Tom Friedman), coupled with the general stupidity of Iraqi Muslims and the social chaos they all nourish, leads to so many of them dying notwithstanding the magical vanishing acts they try to perform and sometimes succeed in performing.
Hugh,
Just for clarity, this thread involves two tasks, correct? The first being the open book exam due in one week and the second being a more immediate response to the two articles you selected, under the parameters you stated?
One more question. If I intend to partake in the examination, in what format and where should this exam be delivered?
Regards,
Awake
omvi said
I assumed that the apology referred to was in the second post by special_guest, the on-topic one, the one drawing a parallel between the second Iraqi war and the Gallipoli campaign against the Turks in WWI:
And I assumed the "authority" that omvi thought I was questioning was GWB, not JW/DW. The "teacher does it all the time" I took as a reference to JW/DW's criticism of GWB.
I apologize for posting (the first post) about Islamic terrorists selling WMD's to each other while our media continues to knowingly cover up, in this case and many others reported at JW/DW, the connection to jihad with such weasel words as "youths" or "East Asians" or "Russian citizen" or "rich foreign buyer".
And I also apologize for the second posting not fulfilling all the requirements (historical references, detailed knowledge of Islamic principles, Iraqi history, Iraqi demographics, U.S. objectives, etc.) of the assignment. The assignment is an excellent idea. As when I was actually in college, outside responsibilities sometimes intrude, even when the fate of the Western world hangs in the balance.
One will see what one can do (heh).
@TheRegulator
Al Gore has a superior I.Q. although his personality sucks! Al Gore was in the library doing his homework while George Bush was swallowing goldfish at keg parties to impress the girls. Schmuck!
Next election, I like Brownback. I'm not a democrat, but I'd change stripes to protect the country from a middle-aged Alfred E. Neuman. "What, me worry?"
If I misunderstood "omvi" and the "apology" to which he was referring, then (but only then) would I be happy to eat crow, or pigeon farci as I once did in Tangier, but if possible I'd like instead to eat my raisins of wrath (not to be confused with those other, 72 specially-numbered and hors-de-serie raisins) and I'll even throw in this furry cap sitting right over here on the radiator for good measure -- possibly the very same cap, by the way, from which, in old Pogo cartoons, Albert the Alligator used to withdraw 7 1/2 votes, whenever a vote was taken, much to the chagrin of long-suffering Pogo and others down in Okeefenokeeland.
Still in the dark, but willing to deal.
s_sgt7 said
What would the response of their superior (or their superior) if they just returned to base and reported, "Sorry, they didn't show, so we didn't clear out the neighborhood"? Would the response be "Excellent job!"? I wouldn't blame the officer leading the patrol, he's stuck.
The neighborhood needs to be cleared out of militia members. If the Iraqi army doesn't show, or shows up late, or searches through CD collections, they are passively obstructing the mission. And the article doesn't prove it, but when the Iraqi army disappears into the buildings and then the shooting starts, I would guess that at least some of the Iraqi army is the militia. The Iraqi army is not just incompetent, they are using passive resistance to screw up the mission, so that the neighborhood is not cleared out, so that the militias remain protected.
I would blame the leaders who demand that we "work with" the "Iraqi army" (actually it's just another Shi'ite militia with a veneer of credibility), and who claim that U.S. soldiers cannot leave until that neighborhood is cleared out. I would not blame the officer leading that patrol. And I wouldn't blame the reporter for telling U.S. citizens what is going on there.
"George Bush flunked History 101. He flunked every test and quiz he ever took. But that didn't stop Yale University from graduating him and it didn't stop the American voters from electing him TWICE!"
Ynkedoodl2:
Sounds like the best reason for middle class Americans to refuse to fork over tens of thousands of dollars for a college education at an elite school.
If someone who "flunked every test and quiz he ever took" is allowed to graduate, then what value is there in that degree?
John Kerry doesn't know it, but he was deprived of an education.
Harvard accepted GWB into its MBA program. Obviously a Harvard MBA isn't worth squat, either, since they didn't see how little the man knew and it never became clear as he took and passed course after course.
Al Gore looks like a genius! He dropped out.
... the (Iraqui Moslems) who smile, and accept that money and that aid and those soccer balls, but magically manage to disappear just before a bomb is about to go off, and never seem able to warn the Americans...
Actually, Iraqi civilians have been victims of explosive carnage perpetrated by their fellow Iraqi Muslims in far greater numbers than American soldiers have been...
There are two kinds of IE bombs going off in Iraq these days:
1) Internecine bombs intended to slaughter fellow Moslems, and
2) Insurgency bombs intended to slaughter American troops and troops sent by other coalition nations.
remote_control, your comment alludes to the former Iraqui Moslem activist bomb type, while Fitzgerald's text clearly applies to the latter.
Like rocks, Moslems are complex, hard, can trip you up and even kill you.
Watch out.
"If Cheney is correct, and we did the right thing, then why do we have to stay there? Mission Accomplished, bring the boys (and girls) home."
Special_guest:
One answer: Afghanistan.
We declared mission accomplished after the Soviets left Afghanistan and we went home as well, realizing that our presence wasn't welcome and that "outsiders" were resented.
Lo and behold, that became an error. The PC crowd said our mistake was in leaving chaos behind and not helping Afghanistan build a functioning society after two decades of civil war and occupation. We brought 9/11 on ourselves by allowing Afghanistan to deteriorate to the point where the Taliban were necessary and al Qaeda was given an operating base.
In typical fashion, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan today refighting the last war, attempting to bring peace to a society that has never known it. (The only 'peace' they've had in at least a century has been imposed by conquerors or home-grown autarchs.) In typical fashion, the PC crowd is condemning our "occupation" of Iraq, the very thing they blamed us for NOT doing with Afghanistan over a decade earlier.
PMK said
But we should try to educate, not try to please, the PC crowd. Is Afghanistan's failure our responsibility? And even if we are somehow able to control their success or failure, why should we help them "succeed"? As a reward for what? For being involved with 9/11? We might not be too happy with their idea of "success".
Someone else said here a day or two ago, "We don't need to fight them here IF WE DON'T LET THEM COME HERE". Trying to occupy every place where jihadists could train (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc.) is not possible. We don't have enough troops to cover every hideout in every nation. And playing babysitter is not what our troops do best. Instead, we should stop helping the nations who are actively trying to harm us, and we should make lightning attacks wherever (and I mean WHEREVER, including inside such strong allies as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) jihadists congregate. Kill every single jihadist, then back on the plane and leave.
Likewise, if Iraq breaks down into civil war, is that our responsibility? And even if we could somehow force them to live in peace with each other, would that be in our best interest? See any of Hugh's articles for the answer to these questions and more.
If Cheney, or anyone else in the administration would take the time to actually think about and define precisely what "success" or "victory" in Iraq would entail, that would help. We could then ascertain what is achievable and what is not. Killing the husseins was achievable. Holding an election was achievable. Obliterating the buildings, infrastructure, and inhabitants would certainly be achievable. Conversely, instilling a western-style civilization with the current inhabitants is not achievable. Discretely identifying and killing all "insurgents" or "enemies of democracy" without wiping out everyone there is not achievable. Making shiites, sunni, and kurds act as if they were loyal to some national political entity is not achievable. We need to realistically assess our goals.
(Personally, I agree with Diana West. Our primary goal should be to prevent the spread of sharia to western nations and democracies. The US involvement in hussein's Iraq, in my view, should have clandestine, involving the use of 3 bullets.)
Special_Guest:
"Is Afghanistan's failure our responsibility? And even if we are somehow able to control their success or failure, why should we help them "succeed"?"
I would say it's NOT our responsibility. The only valid reason to help them succeed has a modicum of validity to it and it's that a nation that doesn't support and shelter terrorists will reduce the territory available to such groups and make it harder for them to operate. It's a case of helping them to help ourselves.
As far as Iraq is concerned: the world will throw the Pottery Barn rule back at us. We broke it, we bought it. We wiped out the government of Iraq, it's up to us to build a new one.
I agree with you. We gave them a chance to build a normal society. They chose not to. As a result, Iraq is no longer our problem. If they want to play footsie with Iran, then they'll get what they deserve.
My suggestion is that we give the entire Muslim world a stake in the success of these countries. It's not that difficult. All we need to do is declare an immediate moratorium on ALL travel to the US by Muslims all over the world. It will remain in effect as long as the US is under threat by organized Muslim groups (meaning for the foreseeable future). It won't matter if you're a Brit or a Saudi or an Indonesian or a Filipino. If you're a Muslim, you're persona non grata in the US and you won't even be allowed to board a plane that is making a stopover anywhere in the US.
The "peaceful" Muslims can decide which is more important to them: the success of the universal ummah or their own futures. If they truly outnumber the jihadists by eight or nine to one, as some apologists tell us, then they should have no problem making their voices heard.
In what other war did we allow the people who want to kill us free access to the US?
Alarmed Pig Farmer,
"remote_control, your comment alludes to the former Iraqui Moslem activist bomb type, while Fitzgerald's text clearly applies to the latter."
I know, but I was pointing out that the casualties from the former outnumber those of the latter by 100 to 1. Muslims in Iraq are obviously more intent on killing fellow Muslims than they are in killing American soldiers -- probably to a great extent because the former is so much easier (notwithstanding the stupidity of our commanding officers or the PC limitations imposed on their command from their stupid Commander-in-Chief).
Eventually, Joseph, even a Bush-lover like you and others will finally get it.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
YES YES YES and YESSSS!!!!!
I am afraid to speak as clearly as you have - after all I am here on a permanent Visa for what it's worth.
This has been overdue in its urgently deperate need to be said. And now the idiot child send more of our good people into the fire.. no understandable clearly defined objective.. their hands tied with liberal ROE.. their brave fellow soldiers prosecuted for testimony from enemies??!
This is WORSE than Vietnam!!!!!!!!!!
Bush you are a WORSE President than Jimmy Carter.
God I am so PISSED!!!! This Congress is filled with braying morons. Same all over Europe. All the while our cultural and moral inferiors are playing us via our governments while we sit aside and look.
How much longer till we march in the streets??!!
Islam is a threat by immigration and its birth rate. Demography is destiny. We must follow the Wise Virgil Goode and stop Muslim immigration. We must disempower the clerics in the Muslim world. That means Saudi Arabia and Iran.
By OldAtlantic
And HOW exactly do we Do that? Do we petition our oh-so-responsive guvment to smoke 'em out?
And HOW do we stop moslem immigration? Shall we stand at the airports and link arms with one another - singing Koombayah??!
Of course your analysis of what we MUST do is 100% spot-on. But so is all of our analyses here.
Our problem is not ignorance of the threat nor is our problem one of faintness in the face of what would actually have to be done in order for our nations to free themselves of this daily encroachment by this insidious enemy!!
That, my friends, is NOT the problem!!!
The problem we face is the obstruction from our well-meaning blind and "oh-so-morally-Superior" Left. And it gets worse.. we also face the obstruction thrown our way by the greedy neocons who line their pockets with money paid to them by our coldly calculating enemies. Finally we face the daily manipulations of a collaborationist mainstream media - fueled both by money coming from the enemy and misguided lieberal sentiment of the vast majority of their employees.
Between these two groups.. the foolish Left and the Greedy 'right' .. how do WE accomplish what must be done?!
HOW do we change from our present position of powerlessness to one of being able to act on our superior Knowledge of Fact?
That, my friends, is the issue we must solve here.
PMK, I agree with you too. But a couple of clarifications for the PC crowd:
And if we spend billions more building a shiny new Iraq, a stable Iraq, and they become our good friend and strong ally, then maybe they can rise to the level of Pakistan. Good old Pakistan, who happen to be harboring OBL, supporting the Taliban, and proliferating nuclear weapon technology. So, it's a case of helping them, so they can help us, to be killed, by them.
But what did we break? We got rid of the evil dictator who killed millions of fellow Muslims, set up rape rooms, used nerve gas on his own people, etc. We allowed (forced?) the people to vote for their new government. They were already broken, we fixed it, they broke it again, and now we have to stay and fix it again? Why?
I'm with you, but it won't be so easy for us to take the basic steps to protect ourselves.
"And HOW do we stop moslem immigration"
-- from a posting above
Every country has a right to control its own borders and those who enter to visit or perhaps to stay. The American government can control immigration any way its people see fit. And so can the people of Western Europe. They are under no obligation to admit those whose sacred texts are full of passages about how to treat and how to regard non-Muslims, passages that make clear that for Muslims there is a division between Believers and Infidels, that that division is permanent, that an endless state of war exists between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, and that Muslims have a duty to participate, sometimes collectively and sometimes individually, in Jihad, which can be pursued in many different ways, to ensure that ultimately Islam dominates everywhere, and everywhere Muslims rule.
"the world will throw the Pottery Barn rule back at us. We broke it, we bought it."
-- from a posting above
No, it won't. It won't because the "Pottery Barn rule"-- for which the egregious Tom Friedman insists upon taking credit -- good god, he ought to be embarrassed for coming up with such a stupidaggine -- is by now seen as absurd save for those non-Muslims who are dead set on blaming America for everything that happens, or the Muslims, who are always intent on blaming Infidels for anythhing bad that happens to any Muslims anywhere.
But over the past year and more the world has been observing the spectacle of Sunnis blowing up Shi'a and Shi'a kidnapping Sunnis and both of them engaging not merely in murdering but in fiendishly torturing -- drilling into the bone, eyes gouged out, the whole works. And the American public, including those on the left who might be inclined to insist that "America owes Iraq something" are so eager to have the troops leave, some for the right reason (that is, because they regard it as a squandering of lives and money and materiel, though they may not yet have recognized that such a withdrawal will in fact permit the achievement of precisely the "victory" that is needed -- that is, a weakening of the Camp of Islam, both within and outside Iraq, as an inevitable consequence of the removal of Saddam Hussein's mailed-fist rule and mass-murder of Kurds and Shi'a Arabs.
Just see what happens today, what hoots of derision, if someone were to suggest, in Congress, that we must stay there "because of the Pottery Barn rules." It's a cheap and stupid phrase, worthy of Tom Friedman, but can easily be mocked and torn apart. And if it is used, it will be. The world's Infidels, upon whom certain things are dawning, not because of clever American efforts but despite stupid American efforts, all directed at creaating this goddam Light Unto the Muslim Nations, and pretending or not knowing that there is nothing inimical in Islam to Western-style democracy, when in fact the entire basis of Islam is to elevate the Message of Allah and the man who brought the Message, the famous Messenger of God Muhammad, and to locate political legitimacy not in the will of mere mortals, but in the will, and sometimes the whim, of Allah.
We didn't break it. And we have spent $700 billion, and 3,100 lives, and 24,000 wounded, in order to "fix it" over the past four years. It's quite enough. We've done our bit. They are their own problem. Or rather, we must do ewverything we can to make sure that Infidels around the world understand, and then as many Muslims as possible are forced to understand, that the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of societies wuffused with Islam are to be attributed to the teachings, atittudes, and atmospherics of Islam itself. That is the goal. That is the main goal, along with constantly ensuring and re-ensuring that Muslim states and peoples do not acquire or if they acquire, are unable to use, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological.
And if that is done, all kinds of major wars are completely avoidable, completely unnecessary. But it requires some willingness, by many, to remain alert, and to learn, and to assimilate what they learn, about Islam. But that's about all. No heroics necessary -- merely, perhaps, what might be called mental heroics.
Old Atlantic "Cheney and his daughter are American patriots"
Is that you, Dick? Thanks for the laugh.
"Bush you are a WORSE President than Jimmy Carter."
-- from a posting above
No. That is not possible. That is unfair.
I'm late, but since this is due on January 31, there is still time. I'll post my response to each passage in 2 separate posts, so that they are clear. No comments on any of the OT's, or other analysi above.
- WMD
- Iraqi support to Terrorism
There were also other facts on the ground, such as the sanctions were eroding, and had there been no threat of war, the sanctions on Iraq would have ended up being as effective as the sanctions on Cuba, which only the US enforces. But let's analyze the above stated goals.While the failure to uncover WMD's to the scale that was expected may have been embarrassing, there are several reasons for, or at least theories explaining that. One was that Saddam Hussein was more determined to deceive Iran into believing that Iraq had WMD's and didn't believe that absent an UN authorization, that the US would invade. Another was that they were moved to Syria. Yet another was that the quantities of chemicals that were discovered several months ago was part of the find. Admittedly, this pretext did undermine their credibility.
However, the credibility re: Iraq's support for terrorism had no reason to dissipate. After all, a few weeks before the invasion, Abu Nidal was gunned down in an execution style 'suicide', and shortly after the invasion, Abu Abbas, of Achille Lauro fame, was captured by US forces. Since the war was billed as a war on terror (Bush's quote, "Our war against terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach is found, stopped and defeated"), the fact that these 2 terrorists were proved to be in Baghdad, where nothing happened without the acquiescence of Saddam Hussein, demonstrated that at least for the reason that Iraq was hosting international terrorists, it was the right decision to go into Iraq.
The above embolded quote would have been a perfect prelude to taking the right fork in the road, when the time arrived. After all, if the operation had achieved its original mission, and it certainly was irreversible once Saddam was captured, it would have been the perfect moment to declare 'Mission Accomplished'. Even after that, once there was a referandum, a vote on the new constitution and following that elections that saw 3 prime ministers in succession (Jaafari, Allawi and now Maliki), there was no reason for US troops to stay. And they could have been withdrawn without anybody being able to claim that the mission was a failure, since the original purpose of the mission - the ouster of Saddam - was achieved.Cheney is partly correct here. Let's say there had been no buildup of US troops around Iraq, the US troops would have had to remain in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and all the GCC countries would have been vulnerable to a potential Iraqi conquest once sanctions collapsed. Not to mention the pretext that al Qaeda would have for attracting Muslims to Jihad (not that it would otherwise not exist, but there is a quantitative difference between the US simply existing, vs US troops being in the Arabian peninsula, which was a definite no-no as per Mohammed).
There is only one scenario where Cheney could have been wrong here, which goes back to 1991. Let's say that after Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait, the US decided to seize the opportunity to recognize and support him, and let him overrun and annex the Arabian peninsula, Jordan and probably Syria (their 20 year treaty with the Soviets was near expiry by then). Saddam did this, and became the largest supplier of oil to the US. However, this scenario would have to assume that Saddam would curb all Islamic forces, and not be hostile towards Israel. There is no basis to believe either of that.
Saddam was hostile to Islamization forces within Iraq because in the Iraqi context, that would have meant Shia supremacy, and thereby no role for him in such a regime. Conquering Kuwait, and later the Arabian peninsula would have been useful not just for the oil, which Iraq had plenty, but more significantly (from a Muslim POV) for making him the head of a country where he'd be a part of a majority, and therefore have a more stable regime, that could even prevail in a democratic election: remember that during the war with Iran, Iraq was opposed not only by Iran, but also by Syria, which was Iran's ally throughout the war, and with Libya, prevented the Arab League from acting in unison against Iran. Why would Sunni Saddam be opposed to Sunni forces that wanted to Islamize the region, such as the Wahabis, when it would be only too easy to co-opt them? For this reason, the theory that many on the Left have offered that the US picked the wrong enemy in Saddam, is misplaced.
Cheney is right up to the point where he states that the original objectives of getting rid of the regime has been achieved. However, the mistake he's making beyond that, which has been made by his boss, is making the definition of US success dependent on the success of the new regime. Once the success of the US is based on the success of a non-US power, its chances of success dwindle; once it's made subject to the success of an Islamic power, it's doomed. Successes are out of the question.The other problem is that there is no unanimous agreement in US circles on who the allies in Iraq now are. While the Kurds have been recognized as allies by all Americans, the question becomes more tricky when it comes to determining whether the US should support the Shia against Sunnis, or Sunni against Shia. If it's the former, the US ends up strengthening Iranian influence, already high in Afghanistan and Lebanon. If it's the latter, the US ends up supporting either the ex Baathists (which contradicts the original objective) or Sunni militants i.e. al Qaeda supporters.
If one can't identify ones allies and ones adversaries, the question of having successes - enormous or not - doesn't arise
Cheney is accidentally right, since the reason Blitzer would seem to be advocating withdrawal is not for the sake of encouraging Shia and Sunni to slug it out, but rather, to avoid any conflicts going forward. This is also the wrong approach to take vis a vis Iran, and it's also the wrong approach to take vis a vis Syria.If Blitzer, or anyone else debating Cheney, were to make the argument that a strategic withdrawal would allow Iraq to become a battlefield of Shia and Sunni armies all over the Mid East, most of whom are anti US, then he'd be right. As pointed out above, Cheney had already inadvertantly provided the best reason for pulling out, and pulling out honorably - the mission has been accomplished. Now, Iran would want Maliki and al Sadr to stay in power, and would provide the Basji, and have Hizbullah divert their own fighters from Sur and Saida to Baghdad. The Saudis and Jordanians would obviously not want Iran on their borders, and neither would their home grown fanatics: as a result, expect Wahabi, al Qaeda and Ikhwan fighters to pour in from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. End result would be a grand battle of Baghdad.
Also, all the Shia in Iraq needn't necessarily be Iran's puppets - there is nothing to show that Ayatollah Sistani is. What can be done in the meantime is Radio Farda broadcasting over Abadan and Khorramshahr to the Khuzestani Arabs (Shia), encouraging them to revolt, and encouraging Sadr's opponents in the Shia factions to support that movement. In the meantime, encourage Kurds to revolt in Iran and Syria, Shia to revolt in Saudi Arabia, Bahrein and Yemen, and watch everything unravel. Hamas, al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad will suddenly find themselves in demand in Baghdad, Manama, Dhahran, Sanaa and plenty of other places.
The difficulty in recognizing enemies, let alone allies, is one of the stongest reasons why this conflict cannot be 'won' in the way it's currently defined. If on the other hand, 'winning' meant levelling Baghdad, that would be a different scenario altogether. But hearts and minds cannot be a part of this strategy.
This is the military equivalent of welfare - the more the US keeps doing the work that Iraqis are supposed to do, the more they delay the day of reckoning of the Iraqis. And what's with dislodging them? Just bomb the fighting Shia and Sunni from the air, and end the fighting right there.Right now, the Iraqi government supposedly wants US forces to remain to quell any opposition to themselves. But the US forces are there to ostensibly reduce the violence, so that they can be withdrawn. As the above account shows, that isn't working, and it wouldn't work as long as the Iraqis think the US are available to do their work for them.
But once the US does things their way, and in the process also damage pro-government militias like the Mahdis, the Iraqi government will want them to leave, not stay. That will be the perfect opportunity to walk away.
Exactly, why would they do a thing, when the US has troops in to do it for them? But once the US starts doing things that these units do not like, they'll want to be ahead of the US troops when it comes to planning these.No, the fact that the US troops have to return every time demonstrates that the task is not done, but the task needs re-defining. But once the enemy is correctly identified as all Iraqis, and the task is correctly identified as letting them kill each other, that place will be a success.
But the current 'small footprint' of troops have been successful every time they fought on Haifa Street, as noted by Sgt Biletski: the only problem is that they had to return every time. One fails to see show having 20,000 more troops there will alter that situation.
Do the Mahdi militia have any trouble dispatching Sunnis, including Baath or al Qaeda operatives? Similarly, do the Sunni militias, who have had control of this area before losing it to Shia several times, have any trouble? How much training did they have before the fall of the Saddam regime?
Big mistake, and if this has been the standard operating procedure, it explains why Iraqi troops aren't up to snuff.
It's their job as well.
Pull all troops out, and the joke would be on them.
so many like Hugh cry out about the expense from fighting the war in Iraq, but at the same time has anyone calculated the cost to the US ( & other Western nations) of the costs of terrorism on the day of 9-11? By ignoring muslim extemists and their terrorists actions during the 90's, it has allowed escalations of attacks, and those costs are even higher than the war on Iraq. the more we wait the higher the costs in both in human lives losts and money.
Don't be an idiot.
The latest low estimate -- I had been using the figure $500 billion -- for the cost, to the United States, of the war in Iraq is $700 billion. And most of that money has been spent --squandered -- by those who have made policy ignorant of Islam, ignorant of Iraq, and devoid of the slightest cunning or the slightest necessary ruthlessness, and instead are messianic naifs who do not dare behave toward the menace that confronts them but are being exploited, and mocked, by the very people that government should be working night and day to defeat and to force into a long-term recognition of the real reasons (hint: it's not the Infidels) for their own awful societies and states, resons which have everything to do with Islam itself.
Do not confuse my opposition to this war with the opposition of others, for other reasons. I am suggesting better and much more effective and much cheaper ways to weaken the Camp of Islam, and to bring about, as well, those Demonstration Projects which the Infidel world needs, apparently, to see what the thing is all about.
You lump me in with others, quite different in their promptings.
You've done it a lot in the past; my memory is good. I suggest you not do it again.
Motives are not the same, l never said they were. the results of relentless attacks on Bush and
Cheny, GOP, Republicans, has weakened the resolve on attacking the camp islam. Hugh's methods may sound logical and cost less money and human lives, but looking at history when has that worked? Peace is achieved through victory, and that is a military one. Let us not tie the hands of our military and allow them to do their jobs. The more we try to contain islam the more time they can PC their way into our countries. The more we wait the more it will cost us in lives and and money. Bush needs to take his gloves off and screw the pc media, and go for the sneak's heads, iran to start with.
The articles are not inconsistent. Everything Cheney said is true. The strategy is fine. The second article shows that at least some of the Iraqi forces are not up to American standards. That is to be expected to. It takes about 12 years to get an army up to US standards from scratch. Iraq has only had 4 years. America's national interests are served by helping the Iraqis to enforce Iraqi law. Iraqi law protects freedom of speech and human rights and democracy so that the required cultural changes can be brought about in Iraq. Which is the only way to prevent another 9/11. Iraq needs to be transformed into a clone of Denmark etc.
I note with interest the ad hominen attack on ZenaWarriorPrincess above. Was it necessary to command her to cease being an "idiot" because she offered an opinion that might differ from the orthodoxy of the good folk that maintain this site?
ZenaWarriorPrincess, whose comments I've been reading for sometime, strikes me as a woman I can count on to be be an ally in The War on Jihad even when I don't agree with everything she says. She strikes me as a woman who gets it. I would never call her an idiot.
Have the keepers of this site ever commanded Naseem, the house troll, to cease being an idiot? If not, why not? Perhaps, I think, because ad hominen attacks are not encouraged at JW/DW.
Good day.
Taking all that Robert and Hugh write about as being the bottom line truth. Then the conclusions become self evident. We Infidels have but 3 choises. Convert, submit to bondage, or defend ourselfs.
Given that reality, then having US Combat Personell in a position to freely shoot our enemy is a good thing. If we can get the Iraqis do do more of it for us, so much the better. Besides, what better to have than trained urban warfare specialsits entering the Police and other Security Professions back home, for a conflict destined to show up here?
Iraq was always the week link in the Axis of Evel.
Iran was always the Belicose one clearly on record of how they felt about the Us and Israel. To not recognise the threat and have planning for it, would be considerd Criminal. Most especially by the liberals, if Iranian finger prints were attached to any major actions directed against the US. Irrespective of any bashing the current ADMINISTRATION recieves for even thinking about actions against Iran. For the last 6 years, what ever policy the Administration has taken, the opposition takes the other, More "enlightened" view.
I agree 100% with Chenny that the "original Mission" was acomplished. Any "change" in the mission I attribute to Colin Powell simply because he was the only one talking about having to fix what one broke. And I do believe the Demoncrats signed on to that way of thinking.
From a military standpoint. Removing our forces out of Iraq is counter productive to a policy of confronting Iran. Considering our history of deploying Troops only to use them in the end, won't allow us the luxury of ever re-deploying those troos again at a time and place of our choosing. It just takes too long to deploy.
The US Military has a long and rich history of being able to conduct Offensive operations from fortified outposts in Hostile territory, sence the first Settlers came here. I see no reason why facilities in Iraq would fair any differently irreguardless if Iraq goes to Hell in a Hat Basket or not.
I contend that Iran, as the Centerpeace of the Axis of Evil, could not be confronted with Conventional means with an openly Hostile Iraq on the flank of our operational area. Especially in light of the Tactical advantages we currently have use of now in Theater.
If Confronting Iran is in fact a matter of policy then any reason to keep troops or to build up their numbers is good enough reason for me.
As far as "fixing what we broke" goes. The only reason I see for it being worth while is to give Islam 2 messages. Reform or die. Promoting Democracy may be the only Vehicle avaliabe to us to try and send a message of the need of reform within Islam. Robert is always making this point about how it is Islam that fuels the Violence. My impression is that He feels little hope in that happining any time soon. While Hugh reinforces that view in a more definitive manor.
I support the Presidents policy in Iraq if only to make sure every effort has been made to Civilize an otherwise barbaric ideology or crystolise the reasons why we need to possibly kill or quarentine 1.2 billion people.
I see it in our best interest to confront those extreamists on both sides of the Islamic Isle and dispose of as many as possibe. We need to show our oponents and those pulling their strings that we are not afraid of killing them. If, in the end, things never improve, then we won't need to consern ourselfs with the loss of Inocents. Simply because it will be clear there arn't any.
As for the plight our Forces face in conducting these joint operations., we can only hope that the rules of engagement will allow our Troops not to worry about who's shooting at them. To just worrying how your going to harm those who are.
I would like to be so bold as to suggest that the devide in Islam is being festered and focused by the middle east policy as a whole. It is just not the time or circumstances where letting the 2 Isles of Islam go after each other. Removing our forces from Iraq now is the wrong reason, the wrong time, and the wrong message.
The Progressives and their social enginering over the last 30 years have made it difficult to frame the actual threat we face. The simple truth of their culpability is how some 150 million American Women are completely clueless about the threat they directly face if we lose. If they knew they were going to lose-completely- all the gains the Womens sufferage movement has made over the last 200 years. They would be forcing their Sons and Daughters ot enlist. While being the largest voting block supporting the President.
It is difficult to get ones mind arround the consept that Progressive Ideology really has no respect for women or their rights. What real credit can Progressives have in the market place of Ideas if defending their position results in the flushing down the Toilet the Basic freedoms of Women they claim to defend.
It take all the partys involved to end a War. All the desire of the Socalists and Communists hiding under the Banner of Progressives are selling a false premmis that their desire to end the war will actually be over if we just leave. Everybody in their right mind would like nothing more than to have it end. Wishing it away isn't going to make it so.
Pulling out of Iraq now is like folding ones hand in a high stakes poker hand when your holding a Royal Flush.
omvi
Naseem isn't an idiot - she's the enemy. She wants us to switch sides, and inflate her microscopic Ahmadiya minority so that it can dwarf the Sunnis & Shia.
Zena, OTOH, is on our side, but fails to get the strategy and the motivation behind the calls to withdraw. It would have been one thing had Hugh been calling for Iraq not to be invaded in the first place, or being opposed to attacks on Iran or destabilization threats on Syria. But to lump him with the peaceniks who don't want dar-ul-Islam to be attacked in the first place is grossly unfair, since he is in the leading edge when it comes to recognizing Islam as a hostile force. Zena's prescription that peace is achieved through victory would only have worked in the scenario where the original Iraq war would have been a complete invasion and annihilation of all of Iraq's armed forces, with no hearts & minds project behind it. But to support the war in the manner it's currently being fought - reconstruction of Iraq, US troops securing and re-securing Haifa street daily, training Iraqi security forces, etc. is an idiotic exercise.
Almost all the public critics of the war happen to be pro-Islam. Which is why Hugh is justified in taking umbrage at being lumped together with them, while champion dhimmis like Bush and Rice go scott free.
omvi for some reason that l do not understand l get Hugh pissed off on a regular basis. oh well its his problem. growing up l had five older brothers and a sister, and so use to being bullied when l did not agree with them, and some of my looney left brothers still dont get it, even with what l think convincing and factual facts they still hide their heads in the sand, and feel all religions are the same, hate or repsect them all. I use to believe bringing in Democracy would tame these muslims, but the more l have learned on this site, the less inclined l believe that to be be true in the short run. l do not believe that containment to cure the problem, but only things these brutes understand is brute force, and perhaps later with a carrot dangling in front might help. I do believe the constant negative attacks on Bush and the GOP weakens our hands against these islamist monsters. l never once said that Hugh had the same motivess as do the Democrats, liberal pc media, but results can produce the same beaten down leader. l have great respect for vp Cheney, l think he gets it, and his
control even with some stupid CNN people, he truly intimidates them. we regular people outside govenments cannot understand all the controls that ties the hands of the government. we wish they could just say the truth outloud, the koran , islam is the cause of terrorism stupid! we cannot wait for a Winston Churchill to save us, but what l have learned as an adult is that we cannot depend on the government but need to depend on ourselves with knowledge. Going back to these attacks on the Bush, GOP, it hinders the military and soldiers, as they the government are so busy fighting back the pc media, that in turns hinders the soldier to fight this war to win.