We are losing Iraq. Do you think by refusing to acknowledge this fact you can somehow alter this reality? As though just by uttering the words "onward to victory" you can somehow make it victory more possible?
It's worth noting the article you link has absolutely nothing to say about how to achieve victory, or what victory even is.
Maybe we have been through all this before. But I'm still a bit surprised at the intellectual detachment. You pro-war guys are getting stomped in the public debate, and the best you can do is shrug and say, a la Austin Bay, that 20 years from now people will realize the wisdom of this war and wonder why we gave up so soon.
You are saying we shouldn't give up on the war while at the same time, by bailing out of discussions like these, you are giving up on even making a case for the war. Maybe 20 years from now they'll also wonder why you guys lost your nerve.
Perhaps it's because you "pro-war until it got difficult and now anti-war" guys are more concerned about winning the debate than winning the war. you focus all your energy on trying to prove something that is at best - unknowable...that we're "losing" whatever that means.
you're more concerned with getting everyone to agree george bush is an idiot and la de da da.
let's take your premise as correct - that the war was mishandled and being there is not helping out. fine, i get it, you support troop withdrawal. big deal. i disagree. what's there to debate. i understand your position and maybe it's more popular, but that doesn't mean i think it's right.
and further "bailing out of the argument" doesn't make any sense. the argument has been made - very clearly - a troop surge is a change of strategy that has the best chance at quelling the violence in baghdad to allow civil society to grow.
that's the argument. you argue that by either pulling out to kurdistan or the shiia south or out all together that it will make iraq and the US more secure. i don't buy it. and frankly, neither do any of the senators who won't support cutting funding. they know that either policy has the potential to succeed or fail...and frankly, just trying to cover their own ass.
and personally, i think the reason the reason "we're getting stomped in the public debate" is that it's real easy to list off the reasons any movie sucks....and real easy to talk about how this war sucks....but it's much much harder to make a movie, let alone a good one....and much harder to think about how to use our power in the world to make things better for us in the future.
but that's a discussion the anti-war people aren't interested in having
"a troop surge is a change of strategy that has the best chance at quelling the violence in baghdad to allow civil society to grow."
This is debatable. For one thing, it isn't a surge, it's a plus-up, and it isn't sustainable for the long-term. The problems I see are more serious than can be dealt with in a six-eight month time period, which is why a real surge would include more troops for a longer period of time. I would support a real surge far more than I do this plus-up.
"you're more concerned with getting everyone to agree george bush is an idiot and la de da da."
I wouldn't agree that this characterizes my concern at all, but forget George Bush then. Let's just talk about war policy.
My argument would more accurately be described as that we won the war but are losing the peace. Thinking of the situation in Iraq as a war muddles our thinking, because we aren't necessarily seeking victory in the context of a war, but rather a reasonable preservation of peace and stability in the country.
I think people would have a lot more sympathy for your line of thinking if you didn't couch it in terms of victory in war. Take the question: "Is this recent plus-up the best possible strategy for American interests in Iraq at the moment?" I think not, but it's possible. I think you could hold your own in that discussion.
But as for the question "Is this recent plus-up the best possible strategy for achieving victory in Iraq?" Not a chance, because the victory you are looking for is gone. I think I protest against this whole paradigm of victory/defeat more than I do against your actual views on the troops. So I suppose when you say I'm against winning the war you are in a sense correct, but I'm more against using that kind of unhelpful language, because it hampers our ability to come up with a better strategy.
well, it seems we have hardly a difference of opinion at all...yet it amazes me that you have a problem with talking about victory in war, but no such qualms talking about defeat. i believe that is what people mean by...defeatist.
i'd be down to send more troops as well if the generals and the administration thought it would "win the peace." but realistically, i'm pretty sure public opinion wouldn't support it. it's a compromise brought about by the administrations loss of political capital and anti-war movements strong appetite for losing.
Fact: there are no troops available to do a surge. The only way to do a real surge would be to recruit more people for the army and train them, which would take at least a few years. The fact that Bush could only propose 20,00 for a short-term plus-up has nothing to do with political capital or the anti-war climate in the country, so you can't use that BS excuse. It has to do with facts on the ground.
It isn't a war anymore, it's a conflict that we are attempting to stabilize. If people are embracing the language of defeat it is the war-language folks who have themselves to blame, for they cast the die of the narrative of war. Since the war architects can't provide victory they force people to come to their logical conclusion that defeat is the alternative.
And if I am more acomodating of defeatists, I suppose that is because there is real losing going on- lives, money, rule of law. Victory delusionals don't bother to discuss these things, because anything is a price worth paying so long as we get this elusive victory.
i'm still not really sure i understand you position. from the series of posts, you are saying we won the war - we achieved the goals we set out: remove saddam per the UN resolution, established there are no WMDs from iraq that can get into terrorist hands, replace a fascist dictatorship with a democracy, and more broadly, change the calculus in the Middle East which was severly f--- up.
What we are "losing" is the peace...and the infant democracy in Iraq is on the brink of falling into an Iranian surrogate or general chaos and civil war and that in 20 years we could be worse off than had we left Saddam in place and kept the general calculus the same.
And by recognizing that, we need a massive troop escalation to bring about stability, avoid civil war, and counteract Iranian influence.
So what you are in favor of is either a) Massive growth of our military (which Bush indicated in the State of the Union or b) A draft.
In absense of either of those options, you favor....I'm not really sure - keeping the status quo? Removing the troops altogether? Limited troop withdrawal? Or maybe just recognition that it was all a mistake. Because, it seems to me, that's all the domestic war opponents seem to care about. I could be wrong, I just don't see any evidence to the contrary.
I would in theory be open to the idea that we send a couple hundred thousand more troops to Iraq to stay for 5-10 years. I say in theory because it's not an option, so I don't know how much good it is to discuss this.
I think Bush's gamble (or Rumseld's) that Iraq could be patched together hasn't borne fruit, and I don't see things changing if we continue with the status quo troop levels. To my mind, adding 20,000 doesn't change the equation much at all.
I suppose where we disagree most is the degree to which US soldiers, in the given numbers we have to work with, are able to influence Iraq in a positive way. I see our mission as clouded by a number of issues- issues which we are powerless to deal with.
I favor a phased withdrawl that leaves a presence in key areas like Kurdistan but leaves the rest of the country on its own. Or even overseeing a soft partition. But the fact is withdrawl doesn't change the situation that much- it's not like we have a substantive presence right now anyway. We live in the Green zones and do missions against bad guys, but we aren't able to combat corruption and localized militia violence.
Final thought: it doesn't matter who put this current policy into place. I don't think it is working, and I support discussion of policies that are substantively different from the one we have been pursuing. We can disagree about how effective the latest wrinkles will be. But speaking diplomatically, it would be nice if both sides stopped talking about winning and losing and instead tried to figure out the best thing of us and Iraqis.
11 comments:
We are losing Iraq. Do you think by refusing to acknowledge this fact you can somehow alter this reality? As though just by uttering the words "onward to victory" you can somehow make it victory more possible?
It's worth noting the article you link has absolutely nothing to say about how to achieve victory, or what victory even is.
snooze. what's there to say that hasn't already been said.
if we're losing - whose winning?
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_2072.php
Maybe we have been through all this before. But I'm still a bit surprised at the intellectual detachment. You pro-war guys are getting stomped in the public debate, and the best you can do is shrug and say, a la Austin Bay, that 20 years from now people will realize the wisdom of this war and wonder why we gave up so soon.
You are saying we shouldn't give up on the war while at the same time, by bailing out of discussions like these, you are giving up on even making a case for the war. Maybe 20 years from now they'll also wonder why you guys lost your nerve.
Perhaps it's because you "pro-war until it got difficult and now anti-war" guys are more concerned about winning the debate than winning the war. you focus all your energy on trying to prove something that is at best - unknowable...that we're "losing" whatever that means.
you're more concerned with getting everyone to agree george bush is an idiot and la de da da.
let's take your premise as correct - that the war was mishandled and being there is not helping out. fine, i get it, you support troop withdrawal. big deal. i disagree. what's there to debate. i understand your position and maybe it's more popular, but that doesn't mean i think it's right.
and further "bailing out of the argument" doesn't make any sense. the argument has been made - very clearly - a troop surge is a change of strategy that has the best chance at quelling the violence in baghdad to allow civil society to grow.
that's the argument. you argue that by either pulling out to kurdistan or the shiia south or out all together that it will make iraq and the US more secure. i don't buy it. and frankly, neither do any of the senators who won't support cutting funding. they know that either policy has the potential to succeed or fail...and frankly, just trying to cover their own ass.
and personally, i think the reason the reason "we're getting stomped in the public debate" is that it's real easy to list off the reasons any movie sucks....and real easy to talk about how this war sucks....but it's much much harder to make a movie, let alone a good one....and much harder to think about how to use our power in the world to make things better for us in the future.
but that's a discussion the anti-war people aren't interested in having
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
"a troop surge is a change of strategy that has the best chance at quelling the violence in baghdad to allow civil society to grow."
This is debatable. For one thing, it isn't a surge, it's a plus-up, and it isn't sustainable for the long-term. The problems I see are more serious than can be dealt with in a six-eight month time period, which is why a real surge would include more troops for a longer period of time. I would support a real surge far more than I do this plus-up.
"you're more concerned with getting everyone to agree george bush is an idiot and la de da da."
I wouldn't agree that this characterizes my concern at all, but forget George Bush then. Let's just talk about war policy.
My argument would more accurately be described as that we won the war but are losing the peace. Thinking of the situation in Iraq as a war muddles our thinking, because we aren't necessarily seeking victory in the context of a war, but rather a reasonable preservation of peace and stability in the country.
I think people would have a lot more sympathy for your line of thinking if you didn't couch it in terms of victory in war. Take the question: "Is this recent plus-up the best possible strategy for American interests in Iraq at the moment?" I think not, but it's possible. I think you could hold your own in that discussion.
But as for the question "Is this recent plus-up the best possible strategy for achieving victory in Iraq?" Not a chance, because the victory you are looking for is gone. I think I protest against this whole paradigm of victory/defeat more than I do against your actual views on the troops. So I suppose when you say I'm against winning the war you are in a sense correct, but I'm more against using that kind of unhelpful language, because it hampers our ability to come up with a better strategy.
well, it seems we have hardly a difference of opinion at all...yet it amazes me that you have a problem with talking about victory in war, but no such qualms talking about defeat. i believe that is what people mean by...defeatist.
i'd be down to send more troops as well if the generals and the administration thought it would "win the peace." but realistically, i'm pretty sure public opinion wouldn't support it. it's a compromise brought about by the administrations loss of political capital and anti-war movements strong appetite for losing.
Fact: there are no troops available to do a surge. The only way to do a real surge would be to recruit more people for the army and train them, which would take at least a few years. The fact that Bush could only propose 20,00 for a short-term plus-up has nothing to do with political capital or the anti-war climate in the country, so you can't use that BS excuse. It has to do with facts on the ground.
It isn't a war anymore, it's a conflict that we are attempting to stabilize. If people are embracing the language of defeat it is the war-language folks who have themselves to blame, for they cast the die of the narrative of war. Since the war architects can't provide victory they force people to come to their logical conclusion that defeat is the alternative.
And if I am more acomodating of defeatists, I suppose that is because there is real losing going on- lives, money, rule of law. Victory delusionals don't bother to discuss these things, because anything is a price worth paying so long as we get this elusive victory.
i'm still not really sure i understand you position. from the series of posts, you are saying we won the war - we achieved the goals we set out: remove saddam per the UN resolution, established there are no WMDs from iraq that can get into terrorist hands, replace a fascist dictatorship with a democracy, and more broadly, change the calculus in the Middle East which was severly f--- up.
What we are "losing" is the peace...and the infant democracy in Iraq is on the brink of falling into an Iranian surrogate or general chaos and civil war and that in 20 years we could be worse off than had we left Saddam in place and kept the general calculus the same.
And by recognizing that, we need a massive troop escalation to bring about stability, avoid civil war, and counteract Iranian influence.
So what you are in favor of is either a) Massive growth of our military (which Bush indicated in the State of the Union or b) A draft.
In absense of either of those options, you favor....I'm not really sure - keeping the status quo? Removing the troops altogether? Limited troop withdrawal? Or maybe just recognition that it was all a mistake. Because, it seems to me, that's all the domestic war opponents seem to care about. I could be wrong, I just don't see any evidence to the contrary.
I would in theory be open to the idea that we send a couple hundred thousand more troops to Iraq to stay for 5-10 years. I say in theory because it's not an option, so I don't know how much good it is to discuss this.
I think Bush's gamble (or Rumseld's) that Iraq could be patched together hasn't borne fruit, and I don't see things changing if we continue with the status quo troop levels. To my mind, adding 20,000 doesn't change the equation much at all.
I suppose where we disagree most is the degree to which US soldiers, in the given numbers we have to work with, are able to influence Iraq in a positive way. I see our mission as clouded by a number of issues- issues which we are powerless to deal with.
I favor a phased withdrawl that leaves a presence in key areas like Kurdistan but leaves the rest of the country on its own. Or even overseeing a soft partition. But the fact is withdrawl doesn't change the situation that much- it's not like we have a substantive presence right now anyway. We live in the Green zones and do missions against bad guys, but we aren't able to combat corruption and localized militia violence.
Final thought: it doesn't matter who put this current policy into place. I don't think it is working, and I support discussion of policies that are substantively different from the one we have been pursuing. We can disagree about how effective the latest wrinkles will be. But speaking diplomatically, it would be nice if both sides stopped talking about winning and losing and instead tried to figure out the best thing of us and Iraqis.
Post a Comment