Senate Rejects Regulating Iraq Combat Tours

[Wags]

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerEd Of course he didn't listen to any of those folks...GOD himself spoke with George W and told him to invade Iraq...if GOD spoke to you, wouldn't you do what he says?

If God spoke to me of course I would listen and do what he said. But in Old George W's case I believe that he is using GOD as the fall guy(SOMEONE TO BLAME). But then again that might have been Cheney talking to him and he thought it was GOD. Let's get real if GOD is a loving GOD, then why would he tell Old George W to attack and invade Iraq in which thousands if not millions of people would be killed, wounded and maimed. It just does not make any sense.

What happened to the compassionate conservative Republican that Old George W portrayed himself to be? I forgot he is using his compassion by allowing Osama Bin Laden to run around FREE and make videos which mock America and the world.

Out of the billions of people in this world, why would GOD choose such an incompetent person to fullfill this prophecy? Surely there must have been somebody else in this world that could have done a better job for God? Again I do not think that GOD would tell anyone to kill, wound and maim the innocent.

Old George W is a CAPON. Being a farmer I hope that you know what a CAPON is.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR TROOPS, OUR FALLEN TROOPS, OUR VETERANS, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

[genghis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem We are in Iraq now. An examination of the decisions which led to that circumstance should definitely be part of our national dialogue as we approach our elections. But, how we got into Iraq has almost nothing to do with choosing the proper way ahead now that we are there. We need to choose a course of action that is most likely to lead to a situation that advances our national interests (which will likely also be in the best interests of Iraqis). The selection of an appropriate course of action for the future has almost nothing to do the circumstances and decisions that led to our involvement there.

This is classic conservative act when dodging fault. When wrong - put off the discussion for another day (remember after Katrina how we shouldn't play the "blame game" - even though Bush, Brownie, and Chertoff were clearly flat on their asses). Unfortunately it worked - and the only scapegoat for the incompetance was Brownie.

Why is it still important to remember HOW we got into Iraq? Because the same brainiacs that charted our course into Iraq are the ones predicting the apocolyptic future if we leave Iraq. They lost their credibility 3800 US lives ago. The conservative fear mongering is a bunch of BS. The war companies and oil companies have made enough money on our kids' blood - it's time for it to end. Now.

[genghis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem For clarity, when you say "good reasons that we are winning" do you mean "evidence that the present approach is being successful" or do you mean "factors that are contributing to our success"? If it is the former, then the primary things that come to mind are the decreasing US and Iraqi casualty counts, the (virtually undisputed) reduction in Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq, and the growing stability in Baghdad, al Anbar, and Diyala provinces If it is the later, then things that come to mind are the continued demonstrated consistency of US national will in Iraq, killing/capturing a lot of folks who need to be off the streets for a long time, increased number of US troops present, our enhanced understanding of the mechanics of tribal power structures in Iraq ,and our effective use of this knowledge. Obviously there are many major challenges to go: Development of an effective internal Iraqi political structure, sharing of oil revenues, heading off Iranian and Syrian efforts to create a surrogate state/sub-entity. Recognizing that the road ahead is long does not mean that we're on the wrong road.

By the way - these things you cite are not evidence we are winning ("increased number of US troops present" - as a sign of success I hope you're joking...).

To provide evidence of winning, you must first define what constitutes a "win". There has never been any definition of what a "win" in Iraq would be.

In the absence of such a definition, let's take a little more fact based look at how things are going, like the non-partisan GAO review of progress made by the Iraqi gov't to the agreed upon benchmarks when the surge was started:

David Walker -comptroller of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)-said the Iraqi government has achieved three of the 18 benchmarks that its own leaders established, partially met four and has not met 11. Asked if he would give the Iraqi government a failing grade, Walker replied, "It's obviously not acceptable progress as of this point."
He also questioned administration reports that sectarian violence in Iraq has declined. Walker told committee members that there are internal disagreements within the Bush administration about the figures.
He said a classified version of the GAO report details some of the reasons for his agency's skepticism. In his public testimony, he said: "Let's just say there are several different sources within the administration on violence. They do not all agree."
Walker acknowledged that this year's military build-up has quelled violence in some areas of Iraq. Yet, he questioned how long those gains can be maintained. "I think there's a significant question as to whether or not the Iraqi security forces will be able to maintain safety and security absent the direct involvement of U.S. troops," he said.
The GAO chief acknowledged that his agency's assessment is considerably more negative than one produced by the Bush administration in July; the White House rated the Iraqi government as having made "satisfactory progress" on eight benchmarks and "mixed results" on two others.

Walker said his auditors used tougher standards, checking to see if the goals were met rather than whether progress was made. He also attributed the difference between the two reports to the fact that the first report was produced by administration officials.
"They're not independent, and we are," he said.

From the USA Today 9-04-07 Critical GAO review starts series of reports on Iraq - USATODAY.com

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genghis By the way - these things you cite are not evidence we are winning ("increased number of US troops present" - as a sign of success I hope you're joking...).

Please re-read my post. I did not cite the increase in the number of troops as evidence of success there. I cited it as one factor that may be responsible for that success.

Obviously, the Iraqi government is not making progress at a pace that is satisfying. This could be due to several factors--incompetence on their part, a fundamental flaw in the way the government is structured, unrealistic expectations on our part or their part, etc, etc. This is a problem that is fundamental and clearly needs to be addressed. Is it more likely to be fixed in an environment of enhanced security that only the US can provide, or is the best course of action to withdraw support and let the radicals in Iraq and their supporters in Iran and Syria seek the solutions that best fit their needs?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genghis This is classic conservative act when dodging fault. When wrong - put off the discussion for another day . . .

No, don't put it off. If you believe it is that important, make retrospection your life's work. Wallow in it. Have inquiries, commission studies, march in the streets to highlight the mistakes that were made, and help everyone factor it into their decision at election time.

All this may be productive in some ways. Just don't make the mistake of believing that it will shed light on the best way forward in Iraq. If you want to make progress there, it will be most productive to look at the situation as it is now, the capabilities and interests of all the players (including the US), and then craft a productive course.

[ladelfina]

samclem

Quote:

Is it more likely to be fixed in an environment of enhanced security that only the US can provide, or is the best course of action to withdraw support and let the radicals in Iraq and their supporters in Iran and Syria seek the solutions that best fit their needs?

But even with all that we have committed, the "environment of enhanced security" has not developed. As occupiers, it's likely that essentially NO level, however high, of blood, money, and manpower, is going to "create" that environment. I think the Iraqi gov. in some ways is biding its time until we leave the scene, whether that's tomorrow or in 50 years. They don't have our short-term view.

Quote:

At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons. When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled. Porter confirmed the incident, although he tried to paint the scene in the best light, noting that at least they had electricity. "I don't disagree it was an odd moment, but I did take a deep breath and say, 'Wait a minute, at least they are using the latest technology, and they are monitoring the world,' " Porter said. "But, yes, it was pretty annoying."

washingtonpost.com

The "step up / stand down" meme is confusing.. it's kind of like two people going through a doorway: "you first", "no, you first", "no, YOU first". Saying they have to get their act together BEFORE we leave is only one way of looking at it. Maybe if we LEAVE, they will get their act together. In the meantime, we will only be a catalyst.. a flashpoint for more violence. To make matters worse, at this point anyone having collaborated with our forces has essentially a death sentence. And by all measures except those narrowly defined by Petraeus and the administration, the level of violence has increased - despite, or due to, the "surge". I think the course of action that would enhance our interests would be to leave; I might be wrong but that would be my choice.

The meth-head example IS "we"... "We" are hooked on the crack, the meth, the oil. We will do stupid things to get our fix.

Going back in time, what was Saddam's big mistake? Invading Kuwait. WHY did he invade Kuwait? He thought they were stealing Iraq's oil from across the border. HOW could that happen? Ask James Baker (of the Iraq Study Group/Baker-Hamiliton report), whose company (Baker Hughes) at the time was selling Kuwait their sideways (slant) drilling technology. Also on the scene was Santa Fe International, a subsidiary of Kuwait Petroleum. On the board of SFI was one Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to GHWB [bios of Scowcroft skip over his private sector positions, even on wiki and in the NYT]. The Bush dynasty is just a revolving door of oil friends and oil family. Despite their incredible power and influence, as a nation we choose not to examine this too closely because it would offend. Better to keep howling about Whitewater and HRC's cattle futures.

Whether the Kuwait oil-theft dispute was valid I don't know.. but we were the nanny at the time on all sides, arming Saddam and giving him cash, while supporting Kuwait's stepped-up production (despite this flouting OPEC and making Saddam's oil worth less).

Why do we keep poking these Rottweilers with sticks? Because they're guarding the bone we want. The run-up to the Iraq war is not JUST about the Iraq war.. it's about a whole panoply of pretexts (many or most false) that are used to incite war and that we see being repeating in the case of Iran, another Rottweiler whose bone we want. We can either learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

[bosco]

hey, Dick Cheney said it years ago...

check out

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheney...2508203-fO0sgO

I know many are mistrustful of moveOn, but this is a video of Cheney ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE. Of course, that was many years ago...

[genghis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem All this may be productive in some ways. Just don't make the mistake of believing that it will shed light on the best way forward in Iraq. If you want to make progress there, it will be most productive to look at the situation as it is now, the capabilities and interests of all the players (including the US), and then craft a productive course.

In general, your point is correct. The problem is that in this case - the same people that lied to get us into this mess are the ones giving us optimistic "progress" reports (which are not in agreement with other unbiased reports) and are trying to convince us that they are capable of developing a productive course for the future. Their lack of credibility from the past is what hurts their chances of getting support today.

[hpbob]

The best thing the Congress could do for this country is to begin regulating the length of tour duty for the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either the country would have to return to the draft to continue military operations or we would have to get out. The draft was a major factor in mobilising public concern about the effect of the Vietnam war on our troops. Not having the draft now allows the vast majority of Americans to support the troops in a vague patriotically feel-good way without having to confront the actuality of what is happening in their personal lives. If a war is worth supporting then it is worth the lives of ALL able-bodied Americans.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hpbob The best thing the Congress could do for this country is to begin regulating the length of tour duty for the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either the country would have to return to the draft to continue military operations or we would have to get out. The draft was a major factor in mobilising public concern about the effect of the Vietnam war on our troops. Not having the draft now allows the vast majority of Americans to support the troops in a vague patriotically feel-good way without having to confront the actuality of what is happening in their personal lives.

Wow, no offense but I think that is phenomenally bad advice and pretty ignorant of history.

Virtually every historian of the Vietnam war faults LBJ for use of the draft, instead of calling up the reserves. The reason LBJ used the draft was pure politics, drafting an individual and shipping him of to Vietnam doesn't generate a news story. Sure you may know Ted, Bill and Bob were drafted, but that is function of 2-4x more troops in Vietnam (300-600K) in a nation with 2/3 the population. However, Ted, Bill, and Bob going to Vietnam didn't make the local newspaper unless they were killed, wounded or did something heroic.

In contrast sending a unit of 1000+ soldiers to Iraq or Afghanistan generates at least 1/2 dozen newspaper articles a couple before they leave, several while they are deployed, and one when the unit returns, complete with a side bar listing the casualties the unit sustained. It is even worse PR when a National Guard unit is activated since a couple more stories are generated about how tough it is for the families and co-worker to cope with a guy or gal being overseas. LBJ being a very shrewd politician understood this and used the draft instead guard unit activation to supply manpower for the war It wasn't until the 4th and 5th years of the war after 300-450K were deployed, 20,000 were killed, that college students started serious protests. In fact the Pentagon was so pissed off at LBJ tactics that the reshaped the National Guard (by putting critical support units in the Reserves) that they forced future President to activate reserve units in order to fight a large scale war.

As for Congress regulating troop tours. I will say as fairly serious amateur military historian, I don't have a f*ing clue as to how long the length of tour should be. Some of the members off the House, and Senate armed service committees are pretty well informed about military matters, but the average Congressman I believe has less clue than I do. I think it is very complicated and I feel confident that manpower specialist in the Pentagon are in the best position to judge.

Here are some of the trade offs. Prior to send to sending a unit overseas they go through several months of training. If you train them for 3 months and send them overseas for 6 months, you have 33% overhead, If they stay for 15 months your overhead is cut in 1/2. Second there is logistical cost to ship a unit oversea and bring them back. The longer they stay the less logistical cost. Next and most important is value of combat experience.
We all know that anytime you move into new job, there is a steep learning curve, which is why most companies don't give brand new employees a real important task without close supervision. Combat tours are no different, you lean a lot your first few months. Needless to say the consequences of a making a mistake while learning the job in Iraq are far worse than at MegaCorp.

All of these factor would lead one to lengthen the combat tours. In fact, in WWII the combat tours for almost participants were "for the duration". The US Army Air Corp had a policy of rotating aircrew out after so many combat mission, although the odds against you actually completely all 25 or 30 mission were well under 50%. Once again Vietnam gives a good example of one NOT to do, the one year tour of duties in Vietnam are widely regarded as a disaster.

On the other hand soldier in combat suffer combat fatigue and once they reach their breaking point they aren't effective. What the point is varies by individual and is hotly debated. In summary, the ideal length of tour minimized the overhead cost deployment, maximized the amount of time an experienced soldier spends in the theater of operation, while minimizing the psychological stress on the soldier and his family. I am curious why you think that Congress is in a good position to make this determination?

Quote:

If a war is worth supporting then it is worth the lives of ALL able-bodied Americans.

I guess this sounds good and it is "fairer" to spread the pain. However, I like most Americans want to be successful in Iraq. (I'll define success later). Furthermore, I want to be successful while spilling the least amount of American blood and treasure. We have a very professional armed forces, these guys are well trained, very well armed, and by historical standards well paid. Lets say it takes 1,200,000 man years of America soldiers in Iraq to win the war. I respect but disagree with those folks who think the war is unwinnable, and understand that people think that this McNamara-like spreadsheet thinking is what happened in Vietnam.

The question is is better to have A. 1.2 million American spend 1 years in Iraq B. 400,000 spend 3 years or C. 300,000 spend 4 years. I don't know if B is better than C, but I do know that Option A, which is the draft option will result in thousand if not tens of thousands additional American casualties.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by genghis To provide evidence of winning, you must first define what constitutes a "win". There has never been any definition of what a "win" in Iraq would be.

I am to lazy to google for this. But various members of the adminstration at various times have said that sucess looks like this.

Iraq is able to defend it is own borders. It doesn't support state sponsored terrorism. It Isn't engaged in developing weapons of mass destruction, and doesn't threaten its neighbors. The government is reasonably democratic not by western standards but middle east/3rd world standards. The people enjoy a rising standard of living, and aren't living in fear of being rapped by the government, or feed to dobermans, or put through a paper shredder.

I'll give a simpler definition. If all of Iraq looks like the Northern Kurdish controlled 1/3 of Iraq has been like for the last decade, we have won. I think it is worth noting that this required more than decade of US Military power and aid via the food for oil program to achieve sucess in the Kurdish area.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Wow, no offense but I think that is phenomenally bad advice and pretty ignorant of history. Virtually every historian of the Vietnam war faults LBJ for use of the draft, instead of calling up the reserves. The reason LBJ used the draft was pure politics, drafting an individual and shipping him of to Vietnam doesn't generate a news story. Sure you may know Ted, Bill and Bob were drafted, but that is function of 2-4x more troops in Vietnam (300-600K) in a nation with 2/3 the population. However, Ted, Bill, and Bob going to Vietnam didn't make the local newspaper unless they were killed, wounded or did something heroic. In contrast sending a unit of 1000+ soldiers to Iraq or Afghanistan generates at least 1/2 dozen newspaper articles a couple before they leave, several while they are deployed, and one when the unit returns, complete with a side bar listing the casualties the unit sustained. It is even worse PR when a National Guard unit is activated since a couple more stories are generated about how tough it is for the families and co-worker to cope with a guy or gal being overseas. LBJ being a very shrewd politician understood this and used the draft instead guard unit activation to supply manpower for the war It wasn't until the 4th and 5th years of the war after 300-450K were deployed, 20,000 were killed, that college students started serious protests. In fact the Pentagon was so pissed off at LBJ tactics that the reshaped the National Guard (by putting critical support units in the Reserves) that they forced future President to activate reserve units in order to fight a large scale war. As for Congress regulating troop tours. I will say as fairly serious amateur military historian, I don't have a f*ing clue as to how long the length of tour should be. Some of the members off the House, and Senate armed service committees are pretty well informed about military matters, but the average Congressman I believe has less clue than I do. I think it is very complicated and I feel confident that manpower specialist in the Pentagon are in the best position to judge. Here are some of the trade offs. Prior to send to sending a unit overseas they go through several months of training. If you train them for 3 months and send them overseas for 6 months, you have 33% overhead, If they stay for 15 months your overhead is cut in 1/2. Second there is logistical cost to ship a unit oversea and bring them back. The longer they stay the less logistical cost. Next and most important is value of combat experience. We all know that anytime you move into new job, there is a steep learning curve, which is why most companies don't give brand new employees a real important task without close supervision. Combat tours are no different, you lean a lot your first few months. Needless to say the consequences of a making a mistake while learning the job in Iraq are far worse than at MegaCorp. All of these factor would lead one to lengthen the combat tours. In fact, in WWII the combat tours for almost participants were "for the duration". The US Army Air Corp had a policy of rotating aircrew out after so many combat mission, although the odds against you actually completely all 25 or 30 mission were well under 50%. Once again Vietnam gives a good example of one NOT to do, the one year tour of duties in Vietnam are widely regarded as a disaster. On the other hand soldier in combat suffer combat fatigue and once they reach their breaking point they aren't effective. What the point is varies by individual and is hotly debated. In summary, the ideal length of tour minimized the overhead cost deployment, maximized the amount of time an experienced soldier spends in the theater of operation, while minimizing the psychological stress on the soldier and his family. I am curious why you think that Congress is in a good position to make this determination? I guess this sounds good and it is "fairer" to spread the pain. However, I like most Americans want to be successful in Iraq. (I'll define success later). Furthermore, I want to be successful while spilling the least amount of American blood and treasure. We have a very professional armed forces, these guys are well trained, very well armed, and by historical standards well paid. Lets say it takes 1,200,000 man years of America soldiers in Iraq to win the war. I respect but disagree with those folks who think the war is unwinnable, and understand that people think that this McNamara-like spreadsheet thinking is what happened in Vietnam. The question is is better to have A. 1.2 million American spend 1 years in Iraq B. 400,000 spend 3 years or C. 300,000 spend 4 years. I don't know if B is better than C, but I do know that Option A, which is the draft option will result in thousand if not tens of thousands additional American casualties.

clifp:

This is a very cogent and well reasoned response to the wrong point. You are quite correct that a draft is probably not the best military solution, but the issue that hpbob raises is not how best to fight the war in Iraq, but the fact that the people in this country will too easily allow the children of someone else be led to the slaughter when they would scream bloody murder if it were their own children being used as cannon fodder. In my view, the president and his cronies have gotten away with this incredibly misguided adventure so far because your average American does not feel the pain of the war. If everyone's children were at risk, maybe we, as a nation, would think twice about engaging in these foreign adventures.

I don't care if we "win" in Iraq. We never should have gone there in the first place (it was, in my view, the commission of a war crime), and if I had my way, we would leave tomorrow. I don't care who runs the place and whether they all kill each other after we are gone. If they ever get into the position where they legitimately threaten our safety (as opposed to the lies and fearmongering of the White House in 2002-2003), we are quite capable of handling the situation at that point.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I don't care if we "win" in Iraq.

That says an awful lot.

How we got there has nothing to do with the way forward in Iraq(though I think it is a legitimate item for our upcoming election).

As clifp mentioned, the real eye opener to the public is largescale mobilization of the Guard and Reserve. There's been plenty of that. And, I don't think anyone can honestly say the press has ignored US casualties in Iraq--every enemy attack makes the news.

A draft would have extremely negative military consequences. The US military, in its present form, has no need for minimally-trained personel of uncertain motivation. If the purpose of the draft is to "highlight" some issue or another, then just draft people and lock them up or have them pick up litter along the highways. That way, the draftees won't be getting in the way of military operations.

Let's draft people to fight global warming, that would highlight the problem and make everyone suffer.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby clifp: This is a very cogent and well reasoned response to the wrong point. You are quite correct that a draft is probably not the best military solution, but the issue that hpbob raises is not how best to fight the war in Iraq, but the fact that the people in this country will too easily allow the children of someone else be led to the slaughter when they would scream bloody murder if it were their own children being used as cannon fodder. In my view, the president and his cronies have gotten away with this incredibly misguided adventure so far because your average American does not feel the pain of the war. If everyone's children were at risk, maybe we, as a nation, would think twice about engaging in these foreign adventures.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but are basically saying that the American people are sheep and until something effects them directly and painful, they are content to eat their happy meals, download their itunes, watch American idol, and stress about the careers and kids?

So the reason for the draft is increase the stress level of the American people in the hopes that they will demand an immediate end of the war?

I am curious do you think the people of South Korea say about 1950 or the people of Panama in 1980 share your distaste for foreign adventures.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I don't want to put words in your mouth but are basically saying that the American people are sheep and until something effects them directly and painful, they are content to eat their happy meals, download their itunes, watch American idol, and stress about the careers and kids?

Quite a strawman. I suspect the vast majority of the American sheeple people want to be left alone to pursue Maslow's heirarchy. Self-actualization & altruism can wait until the kids are out of the house, or at least out of diapers. The imposition of a draft would be seen as a frontal assault on their pursuit of happiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp So the reason for the draft is increase the stress level of the American people in the hopes that they will demand an immediate end of the war?

Not a bad idea from a civil-disobedience perspective. Maybe we could achieve the same public response by imposing an additional 10% income "war tax" or intimidating people into buying "War Bonds". Oooh, how about gas rationing? "Carpool so that they can convoy!" Maybe we could bring back CFB's "Do With Less So They Can Have Enough" coffee poster and ship more caffeine to Iraq for the troops, but there'd be even more violence & rioting in the streets than today. I'm talking about American streets.

BTW, who would we be drafting? The same caliber & motivation of the men (and women!!) who are volunteering today? The problem that Gumby and I have with a draft is totally selfish. We entered service in the late 1970s, observed the tail end of its effects, and boy was it scary. We don't want to have to train and depend on people who don't want to be in the service, let alone in combat, any more than they want to be trained & led by us. The draft was a frontal assault on everybody's pursuit of happiness, not just those long-haired dope-smoking college hippies.

Would a draft improve the military's demographics? Would the submarine force finally have a strong component of African-Americans, Hispanics, women, and (*gasp*) Democrats?

I'm not an expert on the period, but I thought the reason LBJ went with a draft was because Congress had refused to approve his little wild-goose chase with the designation of "war". The draft was one of the few alternatives he had to raise manpower without compromising with those former associates who he'd been bribing, jawboning, armtwisting, & backstabbing over the years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I am curious do you think the people of South Korea say about 1950 or the people of Panama in 1980 share your distaste for foreign adventures.

I think they'd much rather have our tourist dollars than our security patrols. Quite a few South Koreans died of the paranoia (including that from American soldiers) that they were infiltrating North Korean guerillas. As for today, imagine having most of your civil liberties revoked, being routed out of your home in the middle of the night for inspections & interrogations, and having armed guards tear up your neighborhood in the name of chasing terrorists. But this time I'm talking about Iraq.

[FinanceDude]

[quote=Wags;558434
In July 2007 the GREAT KEITH OLBERNMAN gave Old George W some advice
"Then take it into your hands, Mr. Bush. Go to Baghdad now and fullfill, finally, your military service obligations. Go there and fight, your war. Yourself."[/quote]

Keith Olberman.....yet another washed up hack journalist that has "all the answers"..........

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem That says an awful lot. How we got there has nothing to do with the way forward in Iraq(though I think it is a legitimate item for our upcoming election).

Dear Abby:

I started beating my wife sometime ago. She is an ill tempered and mean spirited wench and I knew it was just a matter of time before she bought a gun and shot me. So, you see, I really had no choice. It was easy enough at first; I quickly overpowered her and broke her arms. The problem came after that. She simply will not submit to me and continues to bite, kick and scratch whenever she gets the chance. I also find it quite annoying that her culinary output is greatly reduced now. Some of my friends have told me I should just stop and leave her alone, but I've lost too much blood as a consequence of her bites and scratches and I feel I must see this through to the end. If I just step up the punishment routine, I think she may ultimately realize what is good for her and do things my way. Besides, if I stop now, the other guys in my neighborhood will think I'm a wimp. So I'm wondering what you would advise . . . oh, wait. You mean I never should have started beating her in the first place? Nevermind.

Sincerely,

Perplexed

Yes, samclem, it does matter how we got there. Being the best wife beater around is no prize.

[samclem]

wife (in example) = single entity
Iraq (in real life) = Not a single entity. External actors, various internal factions, government, etc.

Does anyone think we are at war with Iraq (as a single entity)?? What would that even mean in the present circumstances??

I like allegories, parables, and examples as much as the next guy, but this one obfuscates more than it illuminates.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I like allegories, parables, and examples as much as the next guy, but this one obfuscates more than it illuminates.

I must say I don't even understand the beaten wife = iraq allegory.

What a lot of people seem to forget was that in dealing with Rogue states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea the situation is and was AOS. (All options stink or suck)

There wasn't a magic silver bullet for dealing with Iraq from pretty much the day Saddam took power in 1979 to today. For every clip the Democrats/liberals can provide of Dick Cheney explaining why we shouldn't go into to Baghdad, I can provide a clip or an op ed of Senator John Kerry advocating the use of ground forces (circa 1998) Senator Bob Kerry saying having been at war with Saddam for a decade we need to go in and finish the job (circa 2002) or President Bill Clinton or Sen. Hillary Clinton,or the Cohen, Sec. of Defense under Clinton, explaining we need to stop Saddam from getting WMDs. The Iraqi liberation act passed under Bill Clinton passed with only one no vote.

A similar situation exists with North Korea pretty much from 1953 to the present day. While its fun to score partisan points and say the other guy screwed up negotations with North Koreas the truth is the North Koreans have screwed over and out manuevered both political parties.

We are in Iraq and we need to figure out a way creating a stable situation for economic and national security. Unlike Gumby, as matter of morality I care about what happens to Iraq and the Iraqi people. Just as important we have lots of example (Afghanistan, Lebannon, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea)of the dangers to US interest and our lives when we allow either anarchy to exist or nut case dictators to rule countries.

Finger pointing may very well win elections, but it does not do crap for fixing a serious threat the country faces from radical islamic groups.

[Gumby]

Hey, I thought it was clever.

I understand well those who adopt the realpolitik view -- we're stuck now, how can we make the best of it? But really, you cannot divorce the current situation from its genesis, which was and is a continuing violation of international law. Those principles, as established at the Nuremburg Trials and memorialized in the U.N. charter and resolutions, are that crimes against peace, including waging wars of agression, are war crimes.

The Nuremburg tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

To give some context, Robert Jackson, the chief American prosecutor stated that

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations' Charter, states in article 2, paragraph 4 that
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

UN Resolution 3314, Annex A, states as follows

Article I

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,

Article 2

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

Article 3

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.


In the prefatory paragraphs, the resolution notes that it is necessary,

.....

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,

Reaffirming also that the territory of a State shall not be violated by being the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State in contravention of the Charter, and that it shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from such measures or the threat thereof,

.....


Our invasion, which was not in response to an attack or even a legitimate threat of attack from Iraq, as well as our continued occupation, clearly violates these international principles in that we have violated their sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. (I won't even get into the extraordinary rendition and torture, which is a separate war crime). A number of high ranking Nazi officers and political figures were indicted, convicted and executed for precisely these crimes.

Sometimes the issue really is this simple -- We broke the law. We continue to break the law every day. We should stop.