Un-natural

On Monday in London, appearing at a press conference with President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown endorsed Bush's strategy for the ongoing occupation of Iraq. And Brown did so using one of Bush's signature absurdities.

Here is Brown from the official transcript:

Can I just say that in Iraq there is a job to be done and we will continue to do the job, and there's going to be no artificial timetable.

"Artificial timetable" is one of Bush's favorite phrases when discussing the occupation. It appears more than 800 different times in the speeches, press releases and official statements posted on WhiteHouse.gov. Yet for all of that, I still have a hard time accepting that the president really means what he's saying here, because what he's saying here is insane.

To say that America's strategy in Iraq must not be based on an "artificial timetable" means that America must not have a strategy in Iraq. It is to say that we're just sitting back and watching events there unfold according to some natural timetable, some organic timetable unshaped by art or artifice. America is not acting according to a plan or a strategy but is, rather, a spectator to this serendipitous, windblown timetable. Que sera sera.

Military intervention is, by definition, artificial. It means you are relying on military force to force events to occur that would not simply occur naturally without such an emphatic application of artifice. If you're not willing to force a particular outcome, then you shouldn't be sending in forces. If you're not willing to set "artificial timetables," then you have no business sending in the Army.

To say, as Bush has repeatedly and Brown has now parroted, that "We will continue to do the job, and there's going to be no artificial timetable" is the same as saying that there is no military solution -- that the military is powerless to affect or effect the hoped for outcome. If the military is not capable of producing that outcome, then why keep them there? What "job" is there for them to continue to do?

How many years must the soldiers stay there? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Comments

[McJulie]

If the military is not capable of producing that outcome, then why keep them there? What "job" is there for them to continue to do?

I was against the original invasion, but once we did invade, I briefly fell for the "well, we broke it, now we gotta stay and fix it" argument.

Then, after a while, I stopped buying that argument -- it seemed to me that if the Bush administration strategy were capable of bringing peace and stability to Iraq, that it would already show signs of doing that. I saw no signs that we were moving in the right direction. So obviously we should just get out.

Bush makes use of the button-pushing rhetoric of war. He is counting on people's purely emotional reactions to words like "surrender" and "win." That has been astonishingly effective. But if you ask "surrender to whom?" or "win what?" there's never an answer.

[Tonio]

What "job" is there for them to continue to do?

Turn Iraq into a US colony?

US seeks to maintain 60 bases in Iraq indefinitely

[Bernhard]

Actually you did break it so you have to fix it.

creating a civil war and then abandoning it is not a tenable situation for the US IMO and would do huge damage to the reputation of the US as an honourable ally. As a German I would be concerned about that.

What do you think a retreat is going to achieve? To me it looks like it will create exactly what the US have been warned about before y'all went in: A long drawn out bloody civil war.

"The Surge" has significantly reduced the levels of everyday violence. It may well be that even more troups are needed on the ground to make live liveable again for the people of Iraq. If that is going to increase your taxload because you have to recruit a few more divisions, well. You pays your money and makes your choices.

The fact that the shrubbish government hasn't a strategy for winning this situation doesn't surprise me. But my trust in the US of A is such that I hope that a smarter government might find one. Occupations have been won before, not least in my home country.

If you break it and are too cowardly/cheap/unimaginative to fix it, well poor old US, there went what little moral high ground you had left. Because again, if the US leave now, Iraq will make Lebanon in the 70s/80s/90s look peaceful. And no Arab state will ever listen to the US again.

[ohiolibrarian]

Occupations have been won before, not least in my home country.

Well, there's our occupation of Germany after WWII (and Britain's and France's) and then there's the Soviet occupation. Which one(s) are you talking about?

Given what I've heard about the SOFA* that was in the works, I'm not sure if such an occupation of Germany would have succeeded.The SOFA apparently included immunizing both American soldiers and contractors from Iraqi prosecution for pretty much anything and the right of our soldiers to keep on bombing and kicking in doors without notifying Iraqi authorities (let alone asking permission).

*Status of Forces Agreement (but SOFA sounds SO much more cozy)

[Tonio]

What do you think a retreat is going to achieve? To me it looks like it will create exactly what the US have been warned about before y'all went in: A long drawn out bloody civil war.

I suspect that a civil war is unavoidable, or at least beyond the ability of the US to prevent.

[cjmr's husband]

A long drawn out bloody civil war.

In what way is Iraq not already in a long drawn out bloody civil war?

[MikhailBorg]

"The Surge" has significantly reduced the levels of everyday violence.

According to a quick Googling, the levels are going down even more now that our troops are leaving and handing the responsibilities over to Iraqis.

It may well be that even more troups are needed on the ground to make live liveable again for the people of Iraq.

Or it may not. Weasel words.

If that is going to increase your taxload because you have to recruit a few more divisions, well.

That should be "increase your debt to China and other foreign countries." We'd probably have been out of Iraq long ago if Bush had asked us to raise taxes to pay for his war.

You pays your money and makes your choices.

Quick note: this is war, not Texas Hold 'Em. You know, with dead and mangled people?

And no Arab state will ever listen to the US again.

I think we've taken care of that already.

[cjmr]

In what way is Iraq not already in a long drawn out bloody civil war?

It's not yet as bad as Liberia or Rwanda were, or Sudan is?

[Indiana Joe]

If I ever fall behind on my bills, I'll try telling my creditors that, "You'll get your money, but it can't be on any artificial timetable." I'm sure they'll understand.

[Tlnista]

It's not yet as bad as Liberia or Rwanda were, or Sudan is?

America: Lowering the Bar.

[Ursula L]

Actually you did break it so you have to fix it.

The US can't fix it. Impossible.

The invasion was unnatural and illegitimate, US presence there is unnatural and illegitimate, our every act there is unnatural and illegitimate, and anything and everything we do there is tainted by that unnaturalness and illegitimacy.

Can you think of any situation where your home city or state was invaded, and you'd accept any actions of the invaders as legitimate, and be willing to cooperate?

Force can temporarily suppress violence - but illegitimate force, which is all that US actions in Iraq can ever be, will only do so with the cost of enraging those who are suppressed, and feeding future resistance.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Seems to me that creating a civil war and then abandoning it is loads better than creating a civil war and then staying to egg it on.

[The Law Fairy]

I suspect what he's meant all these times is "arbitrary" timetable, which would actually be quite a sensible thing to oppose. An arbitrary timetable would be the equivalent of pin the tail on the donkey, Iraqi-occupation style. Arbitrary would be to take a dart board, put a calendar on it, blindfold yourself and through the dart. The date it lands on is endgame. Obviously you can't and shouldn't do things this way. So I reluctantly agree with Bernhard that we can't just up and leave after going in there and stirring up this bubbling cauldron of angry violence. We do need to develop some kind of sensible exit plan to at least minimize whatever damage is unfixable.

That said, he's the president of the f'ing United States. At a minimum we should expect our leaders to be articulate enough to mean what they say -- hell, to *understand* what they say. But here I start to laugh at myself, as we've been content for the past seven years to sit around and not demand this of our commander in chief.

Slip-ups like that happen to most people every now and then, but one of my pet peeves is when it happens often enough that the problem isn't that the person's wires got temporarily crossed and s/he substituted one word for another; rather, the problem is that the person actually does not understand the proper usage of the two different but similar-sounding words. Examples of this I've actually heard: penultimate instead of preeminent; assimilate instead of insinuate; proliferate instead of pontificate; and of course there's always infer/imply, convex/concave, converse/inverse, etc.

Nails. On. A Chalkboard.

[The Law Fairy]

And as I complain about people confusing words, there God goes and teaches me humility. "THROW" the dart, not "through." lol

[Froborr]

Several years old, but still the best counter: http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly051123.htm

We broke it, and it cannot be fixed. The sooner we begin withdrawing, the sooner the inevitable bloodbath happens and the less violent it will be.

[JayH]

Ursula L: Can you think of any situation where your home city or state was invaded, and you'd accept any actions of the invaders as legitimate, and be willing to cooperate?

Theoretically, sure: if either (1) the situation pre-invaders was significantly worse than the situation post-invaders, or (2) the situation post-invaders was roughly the same or even slightly worse, but with a real potential of changing for the better in an acceptable amount of time.

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not arguing that the Bush-decreed occupation was justified by the evidence, or that it was morally justified, or even that it was an intelligent move in any way - but there are people in Iraq who were and are grateful that we came (and I'm not talking about those terrorists that have taken advantage of the power vacuum created by Saddam's removal).

What I'm arguing is that this statement:

anything and everything we do there is tainted by that unnaturalness and illegitimacy

is bogus. The fact that Bush was thoughtless enough to send in the troops doesn't mean that there aren't things they can do to improve the situation now that they're there. The real question that has to be asked - and has to be continually re-asked - is, "Are they doing so?" If the answer is "no" for too long, or if/when the Iraqis decide we've been there too long*, then I'd say we're morally obliged to leave.

*Or if they ask us to stay so long that we turn into a crutch. That's a difficult issue. There's a longstanding US policy of keeping low levels of troops around for decades to "ensure stability," a policy the morality of which could be legitimately debated, IMHO :-). But, really, nascent democracies are highly unstable things. Just another reason that Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner was such an insult.

[Froborr]

This is actually an interesting situation. There are strong arguments that each individual soldier is morally obligated to leave, because he's killing people without just cause. However, if the widespread assumption that the U.S. presence is keeping a lid on a horrific civil war is true, then the mass withdrawal of troops may be wrong.

It's like a moral version of the tragedy of the commons...

[JayH]

Froborr: We broke it, and it cannot be fixed. The sooner we begin withdrawing, the sooner the inevitable bloodbath happens and the less violent it will be.

#1) Cite? I mean, we don't respect Biblical inerrancy around here, why should we respect any notions of comic strip inerrancy? :-P

#2) Let's draw a distinction between "we broke it" and "we changed the way in which it's broken."

[SweetCraspy]

I think that an objection to an "artificial timetable" could be legitimate in a different context, and that Fred is going after the wrong half of this idea.

I think that the there are two ways of understanding this usage of artificial. One is Fred's way: that the military timetable is inherently artificial as it is changing the status quo and the course of the country without intervention. That makes perfect sense, but I don't think his conclusion follows from that definition. The other is that a timetable set by Congress without consideration of the "facts on the ground" is artificial. I think that the latter is the meaning that Bush intends to convey.

I can see the second usage being legitimate in the sense that there may be military considerations that Congress is ignoring in setting its timetable. If there is a well-laid-out, sensible plan for bringing this conflict to a close in 6 months, and congress demands good results in 3 months, that's an "artificial timetable".

Unfortunately, as Fred says, there is no sensible long term plan; there's no plan for getting out at all. It seems that when he objects to artificial timetables, Bush is objecting to having any timetable. He is trying to divert attention from that fact with the word artificial. That's the BS we should be calling him on, not the general idea of an artificial timetable.

7 times(table)

[Bernhard]

Ursula L

Germany and Western Allies 1945. We were so glad it was over - the war and teh dictatorship.

Not to denigrate the other points made here.

@Ohiolibrarian: my point was that a different occupation might be needed. What you state is indeed beyond the pale

@MikhailBorg: I'd be seriously in some of the results from your googling. If i was working on wrong premises I'd rather know today than tomorrow.

[inge]

Bernhard: creating a civil war and then abandoning it is not a tenable situation for the US IMO and would do huge damage to the reputation of the US as an honourable ally. As a German I would be concerned about that.

But in WWII, the US didn't start the war. They ended it. Big difference if you have a populance who's sick and tired of war, has taken several million military losses (having an an ally who can serve as the Bad Cop doesn't hurt, either), and come in with a plan to make everything better, implementation starting now -- or people who were going more or less peacefully about their business when some idiots rushed in, started throwing bombs, let every wannabe warlord steal guns and cash, sent the enemy army home with minimal losses but without pay or job prospects and never progressed significantly beyond that.

There's a level of incompetence that is indistinguishable from malice, and whether it's one or the other doesn't matter -- neither will fix a rotten situation.

Well, at least Osama got what he wanted (US troops out of Saudi Arabia) and Halliburton got a metric shitload of money, so it's not exactly an "everyone loses" scenario. More like having WWII won by Krupp and, I don't know, Father Coughlin?

[Raj]

Perhaps Bush wants to use a geological timetable. Oh, wait; there's no such thing - it's just something claimed by us godless evolution-believing types.

[Hawker Hurricane]

We broke it, we bought it logic? That would have kept Russian troops in East Germany until they fixed it, instead of pulling out in the late 1980s. And British troops in India. And Japanese troops in Korea. It'll be a long list, so I'll cut it short.

However, since the "Legitimate Government of Iraq" (tm) has requested U.S. troops set a departure timetable, the problem has been solved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/majority-of-iraqi-legisla_n_105427.html

[Froborr]

#1) Cite? I mean, we don't respect Biblical inerrancy around here, why should we respect any notions of comic strip inerrancy? :-P

There is no cite. I was not presenting the comic strip as a source, but rather as an eloquent presentation of a point I agree with. That point, that Iraq is going to get much, much worse before it gets better, no matter what we do, is a conclusion I came to myself based on what I've learned about the region, the players involved, the fighting so far, the history, and basic human nature.

I am not stating a fact (I thought that was obvious, since it's a prediction), but an opinion. Do I have to source my own opinions now?

#2) Let's draw a distinction between "we broke it" and "we changed the way in which it's broken."

As far as I can tell, the life of most Iraqis was better before the invasion than it is now. That's not true of all Iraqis -- the Kurds in particular are better off -- but it is true for most. Which isn't to say it was *good* before, but it was less bad than it is now.

It was broken before, sure. We then stomped on it and ran it through a meat grinder.

[Drak Pope]

Another key difference -- the German and Japanese occupations were not as breathtakingly mishandled as this one was. Sort of like the Korean War wasn't quite as horrifyingly disastrous as the Vietnam or the Soviet-Afghan War.

[J]

Actually you did break it so you have to fix it.

Actually, fuck you. I didn't break a thing, and so am under no obligations to do nothing. I am an individual, not a slave of an empire and the crimes and debts of my fellows are not mine to bear. I never supported this war and do no have to do so now.

creating a civil war and then abandoning it is not a tenable situation

Them's the breaks.

would do huge damage to the reputation of the US as an honourable ally

Probably about 5% less than would STAYING in Iraq.

As a German I would be concerned about that.

Well y'know what, Fritz? Don't. Don't worry about it. Seems to me that everyone in the world would be better off worrying about themselves.

What do you think a retreat is going to achieve?

Save seven billion dollars a month. End a pointless and hopeless exercise in convincing religious people not to be so religious.

To me it looks like it will create exactly what the US have been warned about before y'all went in: A long drawn out bloody civil war.

A long drawn out civil war is happening RIGHT NOW. Why pay billions to continue failing to stop it?

"The Surge" has significantly reduced the levels of everyday violence.

No it hasn't.

It may well be that even more troups are needed on the ground to make live liveable again for the people of Iraq.

"The people of Iraq" are the ones making it UN-livable. And if we need more troops, why not yours? Why not YOU since you're so hard for this war?

If that is going to increase your taxload because you have to recruit a few more divisions, well. You pays your money and makes your choices.

I made my choice in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 when I voted, thanks.

But my trust in the US of A is such that I hope that a smarter government might find one.

How about you? You're so smart, why don't you fucking get yourself elected?

Occupations have been won before, not least in my home country.

Who cares?

And no Arab state will ever listen to the US again.

Because they're all listening so hard right NOW, right?

[Froborr]

We broke it, we bought it logic? That would have kept Russian troops in East Germany until they fixed it, instead of pulling out in the late 1980s. And British troops in India. And Japanese troops in Korea.

And U.S. troops in Cuba... oh, wait.

Okay, and U.S. troops in the Phillipines... whoops.

U.S. troops in Japan... no, drat, Okinawa.

Um... have we ever actually withdrawn our troops from ANYWHERE that we invaded?

[cjmr]

Um... have we ever actually withdrawn our troops from ANYWHERE that we invaded?

The island of Grenada?

[Jeff]

"The Surge" has significantly reduced the levels of everyday violence.

From my understanding, al Sadr initiating and enforcing a cease-fire (and getting al Malliki to do the same) is what reduced the violence. The "Surge" did nothing until al Sadr made it clear he had the power, and that he wasn't going to let his followers be killed because they didn't kiss the Americans' feet.

Um... have we ever actually withdrawn our troops from ANYWHERE that we invaded?

Greneda? I think the 50 or soldiers who went there for a PR fluff all came back. (cjmr beat me while I was Previewing. [blows raspberry])

[Hawker Hurricane]

Froborr: U.S. troops did pull out of the Phillipines. I was one of them. The Phillipinos (at least the ones near the base) were sad to see us go. Especially when the volcano erupted and the Japanese businesses who were going to move into the base reneged.

[Lauren]

We gave the Panama canal back...

[inge]

Foborr: Um... have we ever actually withdrawn our troops from ANYWHERE that we invaded?

Kind of. The place where I'm working is built on the land where the US base was, near the ghost of "Anthony's Pizza" where you got the worst beer in town.

[Tonio]

U.S. troops did pull out of the Phillipines. I was one of them...

It sounded like Froborr was referring to the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, when the US troops in the Philippines arrived as liberators and then became occupiers. The war with Spain lasted a mere three months, while the war to "pacify" the Filipinos went on for years.

[Pseudowolf]

The other argument that drives me up the wall is "But if we abandon Iraq then all those soldiers' deaths will be for nothing!"

I've been trying to type about this for 10 minutes and I can't keep calm and coherent enough to do so. Arguments like this just make me furious.

[Pseudowolf]

The other argument that drives me up the wall is "But if we abandon Iraq then all those soldiers' deaths will be for nothing!"

I've been trying to type about this for 10 minutes and I can't keep calm and coherent enough to do so. Arguments like this just make me furious.

[Raj]

Hawker Hurricane: And British troops in India.

Not to mention about 25% of the land area of the planet.

................................
In Queen Victoria's Day, I was in command of Her Majesty's Own Darjeeling Mounted Rifles! Fought Punjabi rebels in the Khyber Pass, don't you know! Polo in the cantonments and pigsticking in the jungles of Bengal, what!
................................

Oh, sorry! I was momentarily channeling the spirit of a former colonial officer.

[Geds]

creating a civil war and then abandoning it is not a tenable situation for the US IMO and would do huge damage to the reputation of the US as an honourable ally.

There once was a land called South Vietnam
It was ruled from a capitol city named Saigon
Tricky Dick Nixon said he had a secret plan
To bring the war to a most honorable end
Now all Vietnam lives in great unity
And Saigon is known as Ho Chi Minh City

And, nope, I have no idea why I decided to write that as a poem. Something about way I was thinking of Saigon/Vietnam just lent itself, I guess...

The other argument that drives me up the wall is "But if we abandon Iraq then all those soldiers' deaths will be for nothing!"

Some bastard organization known as Freedom's Watch was putting out commercials a few months ago (a year ago?), trucking out crippled soldiers and the mothers of dead soldiers saying that they didn't want the sacrifices made to be in vain. I hated, hated those commercials and was disgusted by them. Then I found out that Freedom's Watch was founded by a Bush campaign staffer...

[Ursula L]

The other argument that drives me up the wall is "But if we abandon Iraq then all those soldiers' deaths will be for nothing!"

"For nothing" would be better than what it actually is - deaths in furtherance of an aggressive war, a crime against humanity.

[Cowboy Diva]

"deaths will be for nothing"

Whoever said death had to have a purpose anyway? or is it only early death that is a problem? Death will happen regardless,to everyone. Why do we see a need to ascribe value to how and when a person dies?
Is it because we ascribe value and purpose to how a person lives?

[Pepper]

How many years must the soldiers stay there?

Forty-two.

[Hawker Hurricane]

"Deaths will be for nothing"
"Did not die in Vain"
Megasigh.
Tell me what they died for. I was a serviceman, I was willing (at least in theory) to die... but I always asked for Something Worth Dying For. What are the men in Iraq risking thier lives for? To keep Iraq from having WMDs? To free Iraq from Saddam's tyranny? Mission Accomplished, time to come home! Rebuild Iraq? Fine, that's a job for a construction worker. Hire locals, I understand that they could use the work. Send the troops home and use local companies to rebuild. We can pay for it, it'll cost less than leaving the troops there. Except the money won't go to KBR, it'll go to Iraqis, and we can't have THAT, now can we....

[Jeff]

Totally off-topic (but isn't that par for the course here?), I found this ad and wondered what others thought. I think that the creatures would have been scared s**tless, rather than enjoying a new experience, but maybe I'm wrong..

[Jeff]

BTW, remember that Abraham Lincoln did not die in vain, he died in Washington, DC!

[smgt]

Hey Bernhard,

When are you headed over to Iraq?

[John]

Jeff @ 7:23pm: Shoes for industry!

[The Law Fairy]

Pepper wins.

[Dash]

Just for comparison:

Days since the U.S. invasion of Iraq: 1,928
Days since "Mission Accomplished": 1,879.
Days in the American Civil War/War Between the States: 1,458.

But on the bright side, we're just over halfway to beating the 3,813 days the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. (How'd that work out for them, anyway?)

OK, now I've depressed myself.

[Dash]

I agree with SweetCraspy that the term "artificial" is an attempt to put a negative spin on the notion of any timetable. Bush has speechwriters and advisors, and he consistently uses the word "artificial," so that must be the word he means to use. The question is what that term buys him.

The obvious alternative, "arbitrary," poses problems, because it invites the response, "but the timetable isn't arbitrary: it's based on the following facts," whether they be facts about the limits of U.S. military capability, facts about Iraq, or whatever. However, since, as Fred points out, any timetable is necessarily artificial, that's not a word that can be argued against. So Bush and his "folks" use "artificial," and it can't be argued against because (again, as Fred points out), it doesn't make any sense in this context.

What Dubya is doing, of course, is finding a way to kick the can down the road to the next president. But then, we've known this for a while.

[bad Jim]

"Artificial" simply means "Nobody can tell us what to do." Not Congress, not the Iraqi people, not the American people. George, fortunately, is facing a deadline, one of those little "artificial timetables" written into the Consitution.

It's definitely disinheartening to learn that Brown is content with the enormous fortresses we've built all around Iraq and our continued occupation of them. Blair's gone, yet his replacement claims: "I MEANT to do that!" A Pee Wee Herman moment for the new millenium.