It's working, so stop it

Before last week, I had a mostly positive impression of Gen. David Petraeus. He seemed to me a smarter-than-average and capable military leader.

This impression was largely shaped by Thomas E. Rick's Fiasco, which still stands as one of the best early histories of America's catastrophic misadventure in Iraq. Petraeus plays a major role in Ricks' account as a capable contrast to the lethal bunglers like Gen. Sanchez and Gen. Odierno, a man who wisely dissents from the brutish foolishness of their if-only-we-could-kill-all-the-bad-people approach.

On the basis of this impression from Ricks, I was somewhat encouraged when President Bush tapped Petraeus to lead the American occupation. I had some slender hope that he might be able to steer us toward whatever the least bad of our very bad remaining options might be and bring the debacle to some kind of soft landing. It was uncharacteristic of Bush to empower someone who had been so critical of his earlier policies, so I was also worried that Petraeus was merely being set up as a scapegoat -- someone to blame for failing to unsoil the bed.

But whatever hopes or positive impressions I might have had of the general, they did not survive last week, when I saw that video making him out to be a fool and a man turning his back on his duty. I don't mean the notorious Move On ad, I mean the C-SPAN video of Petraeus' actual testimony, which was equal parts nonsense and bullshit. That's a rude term, but a necessary one.

But first the nonsense. Petraeus was sent before Congress to argue that, A) the "surge" is working; and therefore B) we should end it. Most of the discussion of his testimony centered on the factual claim A, for which he provided little credible evidence. The many reports contradicting this claim -- from the GAO, from an independent panel of military leaders, from the most recent National Intelligence Estimate -- provided a great deal of evidence, none of which Petraeus seemed able to refute.

But set aside the facts and their bias against Petraeus' testimony -- his argument simply makes no sense. One could argue that the surge was not working, and therefore ought to be ended. Or one could argue that the surge is working, and therefore ought to be continued. But to argue, as both Gen. Petraeus and President Bush did, that it is working and therefore must be stopped is just bizarre. The general and the president both came across like something out of Lewis Carroll.

I can't see how any sense can be made of this. Please try, someone. Play devil's advocate and explain to me why it's reasonable to go before Congress and argue that the new strategy is very effective and therefore must be stopped.

The explanation for all this nonsense, of course, is that the "surge" was just that, a surge -- a temporary and unsustainable increase in the number of troops deployed. It was, from the outset, a 15-month surge. That 15-month period began in January of this year and ends, inexorably, next April. The end of the surge has nothing to do with strategy or with any decision made by anyone in the military or the White House, it is simply a matter of arithmetic. January 2007 + 15 months = next spring. Period.

Which brings us to the bullshit. President Bush knew that the surge, whether or not it accomplished anything, was scheduled to end by next April. Gen. Petraeus knew this. All of the members of the House and Senate committees before which the general testified knew this. All of the media pundits offering color commentary from the wings knew this. Everybody knew this.

Yet Gen. Petraeus and President Bush decided to pretend that they didn't know this. Both of them got up and offered their incoherent "the strategy is working so we must end it" argument, disingenuously claiming that the reason for this step had nothing to do with what they both knew -- and they knew we knew -- was the real reason. Gen. Petraeus said things he knew weren't true. Usually, that's called lying, but Dr. Harry G. Frankfurt makes the case that lying is an attempt to deceive, which involves at least a backhanded respect for the truth. Shoveling nonsense with utter disregard for the truth, not caring even if those who hear it are deceived, is what Dr. Frankfurt classifies, with professorial precision, as bullshit.

Part of the original rationale for the troop surge was to "buy time" for the Iraqi government to become self-sustaining and for the Iraqi army to be sufficiently trained (so that "that can stand up and we can stand down"). But last week's ritualized nonsense had nothing to do with buying time for the Maliki administration, it was all about buying time for the Bush administration -- helping this president to run out the clock, forestalling the inevitable withdrawal so that it happens on the next president's watch in the hopes that this will provide a foothold for the stab-in-the-back legend blaming the whole fiasco on those who opposed it from the start.

This desperate attempt to redeem the political legacy of a failed administration had nothing to do with any military objectives in Iraq, nothing to do with America's national interests, and still less to do with any meaningful benefit for the people of Iraq. Yet Gen. Petraeus was perfectly willing to spend a week in service of that agenda and to say ridiculous things in support of it.

Why?

Comments

[cjmr]

Oh, and Duane, I'll bow to your superior knowledge of just when bulbul started commenting. You did, after all, keep the notebook.

[J]

So, the question we should be asking becomes something like, "What will happen to us if we unilaterally pull out of Iraq. What are the potential ramifications and unintended consequences of such an action."

In March 2003 it was "BOMBS-A-FUCKIN-WAY, WAHOO MOTHERFUCKERS!" to invade Iraq. But now that we actually have a chance of ending this war, suddenly everyone's all cautious and scholarly and shit, "We must consider all possible consequences."

Fuck you. I demand the right to be just as reckless as the pro-war people were five years ago.

"Once such a question is asked, we should examine the responses from all across the spectrum (from the "only good things" to "only bad things") and then begin to make our decisions based upon what we learn from this debate.

GOD DAMMIT; figure it fuckin' out: We've been HAVING that debate for FIVE YEARS. No one who has yet predicted that good things will happen has yet been proven right. How likely is it that you'll be proven right now?

You people keep saying, "Time will tell", blithely ignoring the time that has already passed. You keep saying, "This war will take years", as if it just started and hasn't already been going on for years.

[cjmr's husband]

J wins the thread.

[Jeff]

You people keep saying, "Time will tell", blithely ignoring the time that has already passed. You keep saying, "This war will take years", as if it just started and hasn't already been going on for years.

Not to mention that when someone says, "We're buying time", remind them that the currency they're using is people.

[Jim]

In March 2003 it was "BOMBS-A-FUCKIN-WAY, WAHOO MOTHERFUCKERS!" to invade Iraq. But now that we actually have a chance of ending this war, suddenly everyone's all cautious and scholarly and shit, "We must consider all possible consequences."

Like I said, a shouting match and the loudest shouter will win.

But, unlikely as it may be that this will make a difference, there are some errors in "J's" post which I would like to correct. First of all, who the fuck made him God so that he knows exactly where I'm coming from? For what it is worth, I have been against the war from the first time the possibility of invading Iraq was brought up by Bush. It was always a colossally bad idea/policy/action. However, now we are neck deep in the place, and I think what we have to do is figure out the best way (ie: the way that, in the long run, will cost us the least in blood) to get the hell out.

Second, we have not been having a "debate" about this. While a number of people have always said this was a bad idea, having a debate implies that the opposition is actually listening. I would submit that the evidence shows the White House et al have not been listening to their opposition, and, thus, there has been no debate.

Third, to the best of my recollection, I have never said, referencing Iraq, that "time will tell." I think the answer(s) were patently obvious before the first American soldier set foot in Iraq.

Finally, it would seem to me that responses such as J offered do more to move us away from consensus and, thus, to further polarize (and weaken) our polity. The only way democracy works is by reaching consensus, and flames like that post certainly do not help.

[Ursula L]

(ie: the way that, in the long run, will cost us the least in blood)

I have to take issue with this.

We're the ones in the wrong here. If there is a choice in getting out between costing Iraqi blood, versus US blood, justice demands that the decision be made that best protects the Iraqis. Limiting US losses can be a secondary goal, but the moral obligation is to limit the harm our wrong has done, not to protect ourselves.

[$85 Duane]

Yeah, what J and Jeff just said. Wow.

[Ecks]

now that we actually have a chance of ending this war, suddenly everyone's all cautious and scholarly and shit, "We must consider all possible consequences."

Fuck you. I demand the right to be just as reckless as the pro-war people were five years ago.

And how did that recklessness work out the first time?

Plus what Jim said.

[jd]

I can't believe no one has said this yet: The surge is working. . . in my pants.

[Brian J.]

Jim, democracies do not work by producing consensus. We had the Articles of Confederation that tried to work via consensus, and they were ineffective. That's why we have a Constitution, even if no one follows it any more.

J has your number and that of the other "sensible liberals." You want the war to go on, you're just afraid to say so.

Coward.

[Ursula L]

Consensus building only works if everyone involved is working for a consensus.

But the Shrub administration hasn't been willing to compromise, so every effort in consensus building winds up with the sane/liberal people giving more and more in a futile attempt to negotiate until he gets what he wants.

The only thing that would work is to have the Democratic majority in congress stand up to him, fiscally. No more money for his war. Period. Giving him the money to continue only drags it out, it doesn't produce any benefit for anyone.

Call him on the "support the troops" BS. It isn't support to keep giving him the toys to keep the troops in an illegal, immoral occupation. And if the choice is between doing what is right or making the people carrying out an immoral policy feel happy and supported, then doing what is right has to win.

[Ecks]

Sensible liberal: "woh, maybe we should figure out what we're doing before we rush to the emotionally satisfying answer here."
Person B: "Coward."

Is person B here Brian or Rush Limbaugh? Depends whether we're talking about precipitously starting or ending combat.

Don't get me wrong, decisive action is sometimes good. Precipitously starting and ending wars is sometimes the right thing to do. But usually it's better if based on, y'know, reality than "Omigod, im so mad, we gots to do somefing teh NOW!!1!".

Yeah, I know, reality is confusing sometimes. Sucks to be us.

[Ecks]

Call him on the "support the troops" BS. It isn't support to keep giving him the toys to keep the troops in an illegal, immoral occupation. And if the choice is between doing what is right or making the people carrying out an immoral policy feel happy and supported, then doing what is right has to win.

For the record, I brook no argument with this sort of analysis. I just think it needs to be *analysis* that we base our decision on. Then we can get on with twisting shrub's arms, legs, fingers, whatever it takes.

[Ursula L]

For the record, I brook no argument with this sort of analysis. I just think it needs to be *analysis* that we base our decision on. Then we can get on with twisting shrub's arms, legs, fingers, whatever it takes.

Is there any analysis where our presence as occupiers in Iraq isn't illegal and immoral?

We went to war based on lies.

We've got the first two of the charges at Nuremberg right there - participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace, and planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace.

We have about as much chance of making things right there as the Germans did in France or Poland - even without all of the atrocities, mere presence as an invader and occupier ensures that a significant section of the population won't accept the invader's presence, and won't stop fighting until the invader is gone.

We managed to win that fight in the US proper - but look at what that wining took, in its effect on the Native American population. And that took several centuries, plus some horrible luck in terms of comparative immunity to certain contagious diseases.

[Emily]

A virgin can understand sex -- can learn the mechanics, can appreciate the feelings, can just plain "understand" it (I understand the basics of how to fly a plane, even if I've never done it). So too, a civilian can understand war without having to undergo it. (Experience helps, but it's not the only way to learn.)

Also true in that there are a number of virgins who, appreciating the mechanics and some of the physical, emotional, and emotional implications by hearsay if not experience, decide not to do it until they get married (or never if they go into monastic life or the Catholic priesthood). I do not think this is a bad postion, although I know a lot of people disagree, but it's FAR easier to make the case for abstaining from war despite not having personal experience fighting it!

[J]

We're the ones in the wrong here. If there is a choice in getting out between costing Iraqi blood, versus US blood, justice demands that the decision be made that best protects the Iraqis. Limiting US losses can be a secondary goal, but the moral obligation is to limit the harm our wrong has done, not to protect ourselves.

Uh huh. Except that that analogy falls down once you realize that it's the Iraqis themselves who are doing the bloodletting. And they're doing it in equal measure on all sides. Like I said, this is a regular ol' civil war, not a genocide. Or at least, it's a "mutual genocide" or "total civil war" in which all parties have both the willingness and the ability to try and wipe each other out to the last (wo)man.

And the social liberal in me can't help but asking "What for?" If we did what McCain suggests and stayed in Iraq for the next half-century, then what would we be facilitating? Peace and freedom...so that all the wretched little reversionary sects can go on honor-killing their teenage girls and fatuously believing rumors that the Jews escaped from the twin towers and make matzoh out of blood and that all their lives would be better if Israel was gone and on and on ... Pardon me if I don't consider these people and their belief system worth fighting or dying or paying for.

[Brian J.]

Jim:

George Bush and the Republicans recognized that they could change reality, and they did. Yes, they changed it for the worse, but by the dead Jayzuz Gawd, they don't sit and whine about life the way liberal Christians do.

"Sensible liberals" recognize that they are incapable of acting in any fashion, and thus are forever justifying their inaction. This war could be ended tomorrow by cutting off the funding, but it won't be because "sensible liberals" like you don't want to change anything or do anything at any time.

Warmongering coward.

[Barry]

The whole purpose of the surge was clear back in January, after the 2006 election lost the GOP Congress, and the Iraq Study Group basically gave up the war as lost. At that point, Bush could have just sat tight, endlessly repeating the sort of BS that he had used for the past year or so.

However, that BS was clearly stale, and so fresh BS was called for. Not to win the war, but to 'kick the can down the road' until he left office.
Thus, the surge was born.

Petraeus' real job was to help with that - note that he's dramatically revved up the propaganda machine, bringing in many VIP's, 'revising' last year's statistics, setting up a fake marketplace for VIP tours, etc. He's also benefitted from the GOP/elite media desire to spin him as the latest saviour, the strategic genius who'll pull off a win. For those who remember their history, he's the third or fourth such guy.

By next spring, the presidential campaign season witll be heating up, and Bush can start steering things towards 'let the next guy wrap it up'. I'm not sure what Petraeus will do. He could go down with the ship if he's a fool. Personally, I'd quit after the November election, during the transition between administrations, leaking a story about how the Evul DemonokRat president was intent on losing the war, and had forced him out.

[ohiolibrarian]

We really ought to stop calling it the Iraq War. The Iraqis are having a war, a Civil War. We are having an occupation. It's more and more obviously a colonial type occupation with a long, if not permanent time horizon.

Ambassador Crocker said during his testimony that we should all be 'patient' and understand that Iraqis need time to work out their differences just like we (the U.S.) needed time to work out the Revolution, civil rights, and Civil War.

Somehow, I can't see how those conflicts would have been improved by the presence of a large foreign army sometimes siding with one side and sometimes the other.

[rampancy]

In March 2003 it was "BOMBS-A-FUCKIN-WAY, WAHOO MOTHERFUCKERS!" to invade Iraq. But now that we actually have a chance of ending this war, suddenly everyone's all cautious and scholarly and shit, "We must consider all possible consequences."

Fuck you. I demand the right to be just as reckless as the pro-war people were five years ago.

That immediately brought me back to the exuberance of Get Your War On.

"Oh yeah! Operation: Enduring Freedom is in the house!"

[Ursula L]

... Pardon me if I don't consider these people and their belief system worth fighting or dying or paying for.

A human being is a human being. Even if they disagree with you. The lives of these people are not one bit more, or less, valuable than your own life, the lives of your parents, siblings, or children. No more or less valuable than my own life, or those of my family.

Any other understanding can only lead to disastrous policy, cruelty and inhumanity. Taking less care with the lives of humans that could be labeled "other" than with our own interests in oil and Shrub's desire for revenge is what caused this mess in the first place.

If you discount the humanity of the other side, any diplomacy or attempt to coexist is bound to fail, because the lack of respect makes them rightfully distrust you.

Our policies were doomed to fail, because they started with the assumption that Iraqis would not have the same human reaction to an invader that we would have if we were invaded. Things got worse because we turned around and treated the Iraqis as "Sunni" "Shia" and "Kurd" increasing the cultural divisions and making it easier, perhaps even inevitable, for them to start to define the other groups as a not-quite-human "other."

Any solution is going to require starting out by recognizing and treating others as our equals in humanity. Otherwise, there is no basis for trust, and no way to progress.

[ako]

Peace and freedom...so that all the wretched little reversionary sects can go on honor-killing their teenage girls and fatuously believing rumors that the Jews escaped from the twin towers and make matzoh out of blood and that all their lives would be better if Israel was gone and on and on ... Pardon me if I don't consider these people and their belief system worth fighting or dying or paying for.

Yes, because "these people" are just a single homogeneous lump of America-hating, woman-hating, Jew-hating evil. It's only the Collective Islamic Hive-Mind that molds them into separate bits and makes them wander around pretending to be real people.*

If you don't care about the teenage girls who will get killed when the country goes to pieces, why do you care about the ones getting killed in honor-killings?

*Because the world is sufficiently bat-shit insane that people really do believe this kind of crap, allow me to specify that was sarcasm.

[Rozzen]

Things got worse because we turned around and treated the Iraqis as "Sunni" "Shia" and "Kurd" increasing the cultural divisions and making it easier, perhaps even inevitable, for them to start to define the other groups as a not-quite-human "other."

Though I agree with the rest of your post you shouldn't go too far the other way like you seem to do there. The "Shia", "Sunni" and for Iraq, "Kurd" divisions were already there before we came and were already strong. Just look at how it is in other Muslim countries, and how the Kurds fare in Turkey.
The US did start the whole sectarian thing *in practice* by removing the dictator who held it under wraps (not that he kept it under wraps using nice methods, mind), and replacing him with democracy/chaos which is very fertile ground for sectarian violence. But the sects and factions were already there.

[Ecks]

Somehow, I can't see how those conflicts would have been improved by the presence of a large foreign army sometimes siding with one side and sometimes the other.

Such as perhaps the French army that effectively won the American war of independence for the Americans?

In any event, it's true this war immoral, wrong and stupid to start with, absolutely. It's true that there is a small scale civil war going on there currently, with strong genocidal tendencies. But it's also a lot more complicated than that. There's various groups that want peace, there's more groups who want peace, but don't feel they can trust other of the groups, and there's a few other groups that want nothing but violence, bloodshed, and total victory. If we leave, those guys probably get their way. On the other hand there are OTHER groups who just want the Americans out, and if we don't leave, THEY will keep on with the violence and persecution.

So yes, it was a total fuckup of an idea that was executed in a total fuckup of a way to get us into this mess, but that doesn't change the fact that we ARE here, and one way or another a lot of innocent people are going to end up dead. Quite how you minimize the size of the pile of bodies, I do not know. Maybe by withdrawing pronto, now, decisively... Probably by doing that... I don't have nearly enough information to be able to predict that, and I doubt anyone here does either... even the good media we get over here only gives us tiny fragments of a big messy picture. So while i was quite comfortable making strong statements that we shouldn't start now, I am not so comfortable making strong statements about where we go next.

You know what it's like. I feel like we've smashed through the china shop, and are currently weaving through the chaos trying to catch plates. It's an open question whether we're smashing more in the process than we're saving, even if we got better at catching them. The impulse is to just GTFO, but who knows if that's the right thing to do. I want to hear from some experts who really understand this thing - assuming we can find such people.

Petreaus is the John Paul Vann of Iraq.

[Jim]

Some of the people commenting on here are beginning to piss me off.

Brian...Tell you what; You go out in the streets protesting this war like my contemporaries and I did thirty-mumble years ago. Get your ass kicked by cops and...oh wait...it was the guys building the World Trade Center who were all for continuing that little war. No, you go out there and put your ass on the line like we did, then you might have a right to call any of us "cowards". Until then, while you keep yourself safe by protesting mightily out here in cyberspace, it would behoove you not to cast that particular epithet around.

Also, Brian, Democracies do work by producing consensus. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but that is the basis of politics...at least politics as practiced in this country. In fact, it is when politics are not concerned with producing consensus that we get leaders like Bush and policies like the Iraq fiasco.

Ursula: If what we are supposed to do is lessen the cost in terms of Iraqi lives, and if the surge is, in fact, reducing the amount of sectarian violence to 12 month lows, then maybe our moral obligation is to stay there at least for a while...bullshit. I don't believe that, you don't believe that. However, if we just pull out, what happens? Sectarian violence surges until one side or the other wins...on top of a mountain of bodies. And then the winners, who will also have taken huge casualties, will turn and look in our direction...and by our I mean western democracies...and figure now is a good time to use all they have learned at home in our backyards. I think about that kind of future, and I shudder.

I was going to post some more, but WTF...it seems most of the posters, at least, have already decided who and what is correct. So, I'll just say "what Ecks said", and, Ecks, if you're ever in Central Jersey, I'd be happy to buy you a beer and shoot the breeze for a bit. You sound like an interesting person...

[85% Duane]

Sectarian violence surges until one side or the other wins...on top of a mountain of bodies. And then the winners, who will also have taken huge casualties, will turn and look in our direction...and by our I mean western democracies...and figure now is a good time to use all they have learned at home in our backyards. I think about that kind of future, and I shudder.

I'm not willing to let fear of what might happen influence me, Jim. And I've seen some pretty good evidence that the boogeymen are already looking in our direction. (Behind you!) I think we're in this mess now because of bedwetters and fearmongers.

I'm willing to take a chance that peace will break out in Little Iran when we leave and if it doesn't I'll be the first in line to hold Republicans accountable, to hold up Little Iran as an object lesson on why we can't trust Republicans.

It's all I can do. I didn't vote for this war, and I didn't vote for the people that started it. I'm certainly not willing to give up my kids or ask other parents to sacrifice their kids so you can sleep better feeling like we did the right thing.

[bulbul]

However, if we just pull out, what happens? Sectarian violence surges until one side or the other wins
You know what, Jim? It's pretty goddamn clear who wins. The shiites will win, superior numbers and all. This is something those in charge who are against pulling out know very well and it's the only thing they care about. They don't give a shit about the mountain of bodies.

And then the winners, who will also have taken huge casualties, will turn and look in our direction...and by our I mean western democracies.
Translation: we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
Jesus, you are so full of shit. How many Vietnamese invaded the US? How many Afghanis invaded the Soviet Union? Do all of us a favor, get a library card and go read up on civil wars in post-colonial countries.
Oh and as for "our direction", fuck you. Your mess, you clean it up. We might help, but only if you ask nicely. And if you're so serious about all of this, I have a suggestion for you: there's almost 3 million Iraqi refugees in Syria. How about you take care of one family?

[bulbul]

However, if we just pull out, what happens? Sectarian violence surges until one side or the other wins
You know what, Jim? It's pretty goddamn clear who wins. The shiites will win, superior numbers and all. This is something those in charge who are against pulling out know very well and it's the only thing they care about. They don't give a shit about the mountain of bodies.

And then the winners, who will also have taken huge casualties, will turn and look in our direction...and by our I mean western democracies.
Translation: we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
Jesus, you are so full of shit. How many Vietnamese invaded the US? How many Afghanis invaded the Soviet Union? Do all of us a favor, get a library card and go read up on civil wars in post-colonial countries.
Oh and as for "our direction", fuck you. Your mess, you clean it up. We might help, but only if you ask nicely. And if you're so serious about all of this, I have a suggestion for you: there's almost 3 million Iraqi refugees in Syria. How about you take care of one family?

[Ecks]

Ecks, if you're ever in Central Jersey, I'd be happy to buy you a beer and shoot the breeze for a bit. You sound like an interesting person...

cheers :) I'm way out in the midwest for the next few years, but when I get outta here, who knows.

For the record, I'm not overly worried that the Iraqis will come after us once they've sorted themselves out. Even if they had the resources to take on a super power (which they don't), they'd probably be far too exhausted from slaughtering the crap out of each other. I'm not that worried about Sudan invading any time soon either.

To me it hinges on whether American troops being in Iraq means more people are getting killed or less. If more then hey, put the financial whammy on Bush, break his toes one at a time, whatever it takes to get his ill-advised and illegal war over with ASAP. If less, THEN you have a dilemma on your hands. We're spending American lives to keep Iraqi's alive in some sense... So it's like a Somalia or Sudan where atrocities happen because we don't have the balls to stop them, except this time we're the ones who took the lid off the pot in the first place.

But that all hinges on a big IF, about which I have no idea (I know what I *want* to believe, but not what I *should*). If we walk out tomorrow is it going to be like Vietnam where everyone calms the fuck down and lives happily ever after... Or is it going to be a free for all, unrestrained Bosnia, with both sides intent on an orgy of wholesale slaughter... I haven't heard anyone say anything that makes me come close to thinking I know.

[bulbul]

Ecks,

there's a few other groups that want nothing but violence, bloodshed, and total victory. If we leave, those guys probably get their way.
Congratulations, Ecks, by this you have earned an honorable place on my "fucking stupid" list with an optional note reading "probably evil".
First, EVERYONE over there wants total victory. It's all about what they're willing to settle for.
Second, there is no group in Iraq that wants nothing but violence and bloodshed. In case you didn't know, violence is used as a means to end, whatever that end may be. It's pretty goddamn easy to view your enemies as bloodthirsty monsters, isn't it?
Oh and small scale civil war? How fucking big does it have to be to get your acknowledgement?

Rozzen,
The US did start the whole sectarian thing *in practice* by removing the dictator who held it under wraps ... and replacing him with democracy/chaos
What's that, the soft version of Rumsfeld's "free people are free to make mistakes"? Shove it.
What US did to make this worse was a) disband the army whose role as a unifier cannot be overestimated, b) give preferential treatment to the majority Shiites and c) give almost unconditional support to the Kurds at the expense of everyone else. There was a few days when they had a chance to avoid a civil war, but they blew it, because they a) didn't know shit about Iraq, b) didn't give a fuck about Iraq.

[Ecks]

It's pretty goddamn clear who wins. The shiites will win, superior numbers and all.

Well yeah, but then you get other arab countries worried that the Shiites would be an Iranian client, so they might want to send extra guns to the sunni's, and so then maybe you get some fucked up proxy war... I don't know. If I had to guess I'd say they ethnically cleanse themselves into two bitter enemy countries. But maybe they just chill out and the sunni's just grumble about the Shia, and in 30 years time all they care about is their stock portfolios and not which sect your Daddy is from. Who knows.

This is something those in charge who are against pulling out know very well and it's the only thing they care about. They don't give a shit about the mountain of bodies.

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that BushCo are an arrogant bunch of pricks who see this whole exercise as a chance to lock in an oil rich client state, and get some big army bases set up next to Iran. That, and as a political hot potato that needs to be punted to the democrats ASAP so that they can be held responsible. Nobody doubts shrubs motives.

What we *SHOULD* do, though, is an orthogonal debate.

[Ecks]

Congratulations, Ecks, by this you have earned an honorable place on my "fucking stupid" list with an optional note reading "probably evil".

Yaaaay! Bulbul called me eeevil, bulbul called me eeeevil. Everyone else gets stupid, but I get evil too. Joy.

First, EVERYONE over there wants total victory. It's all about what they're willing to settle for.

Oh, you're an expert. Spent a lot of time there have you?
I was reading recently about one of the women legislators there who was, I think, Shiite, and famous as a moderate. She was talking about how hard it is to stay moderate when your friends and relatives are getting assassinated by the other side, you're forced to leave your neighborhood, etc. She struggled with it.

Believe it or don't, Iraqi's are people too. They cover a complete spectrum of opinions and feelings. I would bet anything that there are literally millions of Iraqi's who want nothing in the world more than all of the killing to stop, and life to just move on. How many of the elites, I don't know. But definitely millions of sons and daughters and mothers and fathers.

Oh and small scale civil war? How fucking big does it have to be to get your acknowledgement?

You're European, you should know about all the good ole' fashioned ones, where entire cities get burned to the ground, looted and destroyed over a week or two. Even the American civil war killed some ridiculous percent of the population.
Don't get me wrong, they're having a civil war over there, but it ain't a fully mobilized total war. Yet, anyway.

What US did to make this worse was a) disband the army whose role as a unifier cannot be overestimated, b) give preferential treatment to the majority Shiites and c) give almost unconditional support to the Kurds at the expense of everyone else. There was a few days when they had a chance to avoid a civil war, but they blew it, because they a) didn't know shit about Iraq, b) didn't give a fuck about Iraq.

Totally. I agree with every single word there. But what's that got to do with what we do next?

[bulbul]

Well yeah, but then you get other arab countries worried that the Shiites would be an Iranian client
Why? What they're worried now is the slaughter of Sunnis, the influx of refugees and the instability. Not necessarily in that order. Stop playing the Iran card, nobody is that scared of Iran. And if someone expects that Iraqi Shiites will dance to the tune from Tehran, they are seriously deluted.

If I had to guess I'd say they ethnically cleanse themselves into two bitter enemy countries.
More like four.

But maybe they just chill out and the sunni's just grumble about the Shia, and in 30 years time all they care about is their stock portfolios and not which sect your Daddy is from.
Look at Lebanon. Never gonna happen.
And doubly so if some self-righteous asshole on a mission keeps intervening.

[Rozzen]

Rozzen,
The US did start the whole sectarian thing *in practice* by removing the dictator who held it under wraps ... and replacing him with democracy/chaos
What's that, the soft version of Rumsfeld's "free people are free to make mistakes"? Shove it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I do agree that the US probably made things worse, or at least didn't make them better when they could have. But they didn't invent the Shia/Sunni/Kurd divide nor did they cause it by "treating the Iraqis as 'Sunni' 'Shia' and 'Kurd'" which was Ursula seemed to say (I don't think she meant it that way but I like to correct inaccurate statements when I see them, I'm weird like that)

Unless that phrase actually meant "playing the sides one against the other ineptly" which I guess could have been Ursula L's intention. If it is I apologize for misunderstanding.

[bulbul]

Oh, you're an expert.
A degree in Oriental Studies says fucking aye.

Spent a lot of time there have you?
No.

was reading recently about one of the women legislators there who was, I think, Shiite, and famous as a moderate.
What's that got to do with a) your previous question, b) anything else? The adjective "moderate" is a pretty meaningless one in our context (wtf is a moderate Democrat), let alone over there.

Believe it or don't, Iraqi's are people too.
I know that. But you, Mr. "and there's a few other groups that want nothing but violence, bloodshed" apparently needed reminding.

Don't get me wrong, they're having a civil war over there, but it ain't a fully mobilized total war.
Again, wtf is a "fully mobilized total war"? This one looks just like Bosnia did back in the nineties: a bunch of small armies fighting each other.

You're European, you should know about all the good ole' fashioned ones, where entire cities get burned to the ground, looted and destroyed over a week or two.
What you describe fits your 'normal' wars between nations - the Thirty Years War, Napoleonic wars etc. In some civil wars there are two sides (English Civil wars, American Civil wars), usually the legitimate governments and the rebels, in some there's more of them - Yugoslavia/Bosnia, Lebanese civil war - there are more sides. In civil wars of the latter type, the structure of casualties and damages is a whole lot different.

Even the American civil war killed some ridiculous percent of the population.
According to the wikipedia "The [American Civil] war produced about 970,000 casualties (3% of the population)". Iraq has a population of 27 million. If you believe the Lancet report, over 655.000 Iraqis have died since 2003, that's almost 2.5%. And that's not counting the internally (2 million) and externally (2.5 million) displaced. Your point being?

[bulbul]

Rozzen,
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Sorry, let me clarify.
The US didn't cause the civil war by removing Saddam. They caused it by doing what I listed above.

[Ecks]

Look at Lebanon. Never gonna happen.

Yeah, ok, so maybe they'll calm down to the point that they only have a smallish civil war every 30 years or so. It's a pretty depressing best case scenario.

In any event, thanks for the analysis. It's good to have some actual realistic debate about what Iran, Syria, etc actually want and are willing to put up with that's more informed than "OMG, teh Arub wants 2 pwned us," or "Arabs just want to kill everyone all the time, GTFO before they get us too"... Frankly most of the news I get here is better than that, but not by much.

Like I said before, what I really want is some expert type people to lay out the realistic scenarios before I thump my chest too much over what we should do next. Is that so much to ask. <sigh>

[Ecks]

Oh, you're an expert.
A degree in Oriental Studies says fucking aye.

Awsum. Then people like you is who I was trying to dial above.

was reading recently about one of the women legislators there who was, I think, Shiite, and famous as a moderate.
What's that got to do with a) your previous question, b) anything else? The adjective "moderate" is a pretty meaningless one in our context (wtf is a moderate Democrat), let alone over there.

Sure, I'm glad you asked. She was a moderate in the sense that she thought that both sides should/could live with each other without violence. That just because someone belonged to the other group didn't mean you were required to hate them, or that you shouldn't be able to work with them.
So basically, the sort of 'moderate' you would need if you were going to arrive at some final equilibrium that doesn't involve most people dead. My point was that, yes, some people like this in Iraq do exist, and some of them are even prominent. This was intended to refute the prior assertion that "EVERYONE over there wants total victory. It's all about what they're willing to settle for." and that "there is no group in Iraq that wants nothing but violence and bloodshed". Bulbul, meet Bulbul's words.
(sorry, the tag on snark is unnecessary, I just couldn't help that one).

Believe it or don't, Iraqi's are people too.
I know that. But you, Mr. "and there's a few other groups that want nothing but violence, bloodshed" apparently needed reminding.

Hey, you were Mr. "EVERY group wants bloodshed." I was only Mr. "some of them do."

This one looks just like Bosnia did back in the nineties: a bunch of small armies fighting each other... In some civil wars there are two sides... in some there's more of them... In civil wars of the latter type, the structure of casualties and damages is a whole lot different.
If you believe the Lancet report, over 655.000 Iraqis have died since 2003, that's almost 2.5%.

That estimate is on the high side, and a bunch of those casualties came from the Americans, but overall fair enough.
Whether you call it a small, big, or middling war, though, the questions are "can it get bigger?" and "if America walks out now, which direction is it likely to move in (relative to where it would have gone anyways)". If you have good answers to those questions, then I'm all ears.

[Rozzen]

The US didn't cause the civil war by removing Saddam. They caused it by doing what I listed above.

I don't really agree with this statement... If the US had removed Saddam and left the country immediately things would maybe not have been as bad as they are now, but you're not going to tell me a power vacuum of that magnitude wouldn't have sparked a lot of sectarian maneuvering. To be euphemistic about it. So I'd say the removal of Saddam was the root cause.

But then given that the amount of sectarian violence depended completely on the US actions afterwards I guess arguing whether the cause is the removal itself or the actions after it is a matter of quibbling...
Sorry of the quibble then :)

[Ecks]

I think what he's trying to say is that if the US had removed Saddam, then promptly turned the lights back on, preserved public order, left the army together, sent the major interest groups on a tour of the world so they could see how diverse groups can life together in federations elsewhere... basically done nation building 101 sutff... THEN we might not be in this mess now.

[Jeff]

Well yeah, but then you get other arab countries worried that the Shiites would be an Iranian client, so they might want to send extra guns to the sunni's, and so then maybe you get some fucked up proxy war.

This actually suggests something of a solution: Propose that Iran take over the Shi'ite portion of Iraq and Saudi Arabia take over the Sunni portion. It's not a great solution, but it allows people to move to a place where their part of the majority population. And the Sunnis don't have to worry about being oil-poor -- being Saudis would make up for it.

The sticky part would be getting Turkey to agree to even a semi-autonomous Kurdistan. That's something that won't go down lightly, and part of the quagmire that usually goes unreported.

I may be wrong about this -- let me know gently, please?

[Rozzen]

Well, I've read more than once that Iraq did have an established national identity so I'm always a bit leery of the "partitioning" solutions... But I'm not really well-informed on the subject.
As for distributing the country between its neighbors I really don't think it would work out. Putting national identity, or Iraqis not liking the Saudi or Iranian governments aside, the leaders of each factions would have the choice between having a chance at leading the country, and becoming nobodies in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

I think they'd prefer to fight for the first option rather than settle for the second :-/
(but I have no source at all for that opinion, I'm just imagining what I would do in their place)

[Ecks]

Rozzen's analysis sounds reasonable to me here.

[bulbul]

Ecks/Alexela,

Hey, you were Mr. "EVERY group wants bloodshed." I was only Mr. "some of them do."
No, I wasn't. Go back and read what I wrote.

She was a moderate in the sense that she thought that both sides should/could live with each other without violence. That just because someone belonged to the other group didn't mean you were required to hate them, or that you shouldn't be able to work with them.
That's the strangest definition of the word "moderate" I've seen to this day. That makes the other guys on both ends ... What?
The trick in a situation like this is not to get the "moderates" to agree, that's easy. You have to make (almost) EVERYONE agree and to do that, you have to achieve some sort of compromise. That's what "settle for" means. The "moderates" don't have to make compromises, since the achieved result - peace, eternal bliss and a grande latte for everyone - is something they wanted all along. It's the hardliners that need to be brought to the table.
Get it now?

. This was intended to refute the prior assertion that "EVERYONE over there wants total victory. It's all about what they're willing to settle for." and that "there is no group in Iraq that wants nothing but violence and bloodshed".
Um, didn't work, cause it didn't refute anything. Especially not the second part.

Rozzen,
Well, I've read more than once that Iraq did have an established national identity so I'm always a bit leery of the "partitioning" solutions.
Same used to apply to Yugoslavia, but we've seen how quickly it all went to hell. Right now, Iraq is broken and all the kings horses etc.

Jeff,
This actually suggests something of a solution: Propose that Iran take over the Shi'ite portion of Iraq and Saudi Arabia take over the Sunni portion. It's not a great solution
You're right, it's a horrible solution. That way, you would - among other things - put a bunch of Arabs under a Persian rule and thus add an ethnic dimension to a largely sectarian conflict. And that's if you're lucky. If not, you'd also see Tehran trying to control the local religious leaders who would resists and bang, another conflict right there.
Then you would put a bunch of Hanafi Sunnis under the rule of a bunch of nutjob Wahhabis, possibly creating another sectarian conflict and destabilizing or even destroying Saudi Arabia. Nicely done.
Wait, what's that? Hey Jeff, I got the PNAC headquarters on the phone, they want *you* to head their Middle Eastern department :P

[bulbul]

Rozzen,
I don't really agree with this statement... If the US had removed Saddam and left the country immediately things would maybe not have been as bad as they are now, but you're not going to tell me a power vacuum of that magnitude wouldn't have sparked a lot of sectarian maneuvering.
Maneuvering? Sure. A lot? Depends. Killing at the scale comparable to what's there now? Not a chance. It's all just guesswork now, but back then, there were still some elites who had a chance of keeping it together. Of course, there could be no debaathification, so it would look like the transition to democracy did here back in the early nineties: a bunch of what we called "old structures" still running the show with some new faces put on for show. And most importantly, power vacuum should have been prevented. The fact that the clusterfuckers allowed a power vacuum to be created speaks volumes.
But all of that is just pointless empty talk. You want to make a regime change, you need to work mainly from inside with some external pressure applied. The sanctions would have worked just fine, but nooo, they had to go in with guns. The moment they fired the first shocked, it all went to hell.

Now excuse me, I'm going to hit the shower. All of this self-righteous imperialist bullshit about regime changes and partitioning and fixing countries makes me feel downright dirty. And I'm from a country that's never invaded anyone and never occupied anyone. The rest of you should probably go scrub yourselves with acid or something. And pray for forgiveness.

[Rozzen]

Of course, there could be no debaathification, so it would look like the transition to democracy did here back in the early nineties: a bunch of what we called "old structures" still running the show with some new faces put on for show.

Good point, I'd forgotten about debaathification ! So maybe you're right.

[Ecks]

Just watched Wesley Clark on the Daily Show. His take was that Petraeus wrote the book on how to fight counter insurgencies, but he's been put on 3 years to late, and not given the tools to do what he said you're supposed to do in the book. Wesley's take is that it's already over, we've lost, and that the Iraqi's are already sorting out their ethnic cleansing underneath this veneer of american order. As such, there's not much point sticking around, although he was implying you can't disappear overnight, but have to do it with some sense of order.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. This is the sort of guy I think I need to hear saying these sorts of sensible sounding things. Interesting. I hear more like that, and I'm thinking it's financial thumbscrews for shrub to bring it home. Cos, it's like, totally up to me, right. Hur.

[Ecks]

No, I wasn't. Go back and read what I wrote.

Oh yeah, I did read you wrong. You threw me with the double negative. I *thought* it was odd for you to be claiming that. My bad. Although, now that I see your negation of your negation ("there is no group in Iraq that wants nothing but violence and bloodshed"), I'm mildly skeptical. There's a pretty active Al Quaeda in Iraq group, from the little we get told over here, and it sounds like they're a pretty blood thirsty bunch of killers who aren't exactly out to get extra jelly donuts for every kid in the country.

That's the strangest definition of the word "moderate" I've seen to this day. That makes the other guys on both ends ... What?

Extremists. See, it works pretty good actually. Guys willing to do the violence = extremists / fundamentalists. People willing to work it out some other way = moderates.
Same thing in the states, (albeit with less volence). Guys who want to impose their theocracy on the rest of the country = fundamentalists. Guys who want to run around with rifles in the backwoods till the guvmint is abolished = extremists. People who want to work out some sort of reasonable balance = moderates. Yeah, most people here are moderates.

The trick in a situation like this is not to get the "moderates" to agree, that's easy. You have to make (almost) EVERYONE agree and to do that, you have to achieve some sort of compromise. That's what "settle for" means. The "moderates" don't have to make compromises, since the achieved result - peace, eternal bliss and a grande latte for everyone - is something they wanted all along. It's the hardliners that need to be brought to the table.
Get it now?

Right. But the problem is, how do we get the hardliners to the table? Answer is that a lot of times you can't, but sometimes the way it works is that there become enough moderates sick of all the crap that they end up sidelining the extremists... North Ireland (eventually) ended up something like that. The populace eventually got so sick of the violence, that the extremists eventually ran out of excuses to keep fighting.

In Iraq it's far more likely that violent ethnic cleansing is going to solve things first, I know, but hey, it seems like you have to try to work even the unlikely solutions on even that off-chance (even though your head says it's fat chance).

And I'm from a country that's never invaded anyone and never occupied anyone. The rest of you should probably go scrub yourselves with acid or something. And pray for forgiveness.

Don't look at me, I'm Canadian. We've invaded less people than you guys, and that's saying something.

[Rozzen]

Don't look at me, I'm Canadian. We've invaded less people than you guys, and that's saying something.

"You guys" ? You know Bulbul's nationality ? Because I was wondering about what country (s)he meant !

And Canadians did invade people - themselves. In a manner of speaking.
I don't recall they've done anything bad since though.