Helpful, so helpful
The Washington Post headline: “Experts: Syria, Iran willing to aid USA.” Article by the AP, naturally.
What alternative universe do headline writers live in, I wonder? Reporting on the fact that the Iraq Study Group believes that Syria and Iran would be willing to help the needy US, as though this is some sort of newsworthy item, ought to be risible. But unfortunately, the AP is not the Onion. They are serious.
The Arab world, of course, is taking note of our breastbeating festival. Al Jazeera, according to the article, repeatedly aired Gates’s testimony that we’re not winning in Iraq.
Oh, perhaps al Jazeera’s viewers will watch and envy us for our ability to be humble, and to speak truth to power. And then again, their being an honor/shame culture and all, perhaps they’ll just take it as a sign that we are giving up, and they are winning. But we all get to feel good about ourselves in the meantime–isn’t that the important thing?
And if you detect more than a hint of sarcasm here, you’d be correct.
Yes, what we really need is a Defense Secretary who will tell us we are winning no matter what.
Hey, how about an article on cognitive dissonance?
UB:
The difference between “telling us we are winning no matter what” and telling the TRUTH may not be so far apart. I’ve heard from several soldiers returning from Iraq who cannot believe what’s printed here about events there—the facts are so much more optimistic than the spin that the MSM pumps out. Recent developments involving Reuters and the AP have led me to believe that *no* information from the region can be trusted, unless it’s provided by someone I know who’s been there.
People like you, who seem content to allow the ME to fester the way it has for decades absolutely stump me.
Here’s some more positive analysis for you to read, Neo. Breath of fresh air, I promise. Unless of course, you’ve been reading my comments and Sergey’s comments on the war, recently. If that, then it would be stale, but still invigorating, air.
Link
Here’s my strategy for… well, whatever. President Bush has a very narrow timeframe to pursue the victory that he still claims to want in Iraq. He is outta here in two years and nobody but nobody who gets elected President will have a mandate for anything other than total withdrawal from Iraq. In other words, act now, while supplies last. The best chance that the Iraqi military will be able to take over control of its territory is if that territory has been purged of terrorists and militias. I say that we begin that purge… in earnest. The Iraqi Army is not ready for that kind of intense and complex operation so let’s just allow them to sit back in reserve while we commence the bombardment of areas like Sadr City and Ramadi and other areas where undesirables are concentrated. I’m not talking a Fallujah style takedown either-I’m talking a Dresden/Tokyo style deal. Surround the city/neighborhood, tell the military age males who don’t want any trouble to depart the city to the west, the rest to the east, wait a week, and bu-bye. Linebacker III
What will this accomplish? First of all, these kind of definitive tactics when used against a Sunni (Ramadi) town and a Shia (Sadr City) town will have a profound psychological impact on non-al Qaida enemy elements in Iraq.
Wars are about psychology, Neo. I think you know this, and I learned just as much about war from you, as you might have learned from other sources.
Here’s my strategy for… well, whatever.
I’ve got a better idea. What we do is go into our “Enduring Stockpile” of nuclear weapons, and drop 22 9 MT bombs, one on each of the following sites.
1 BAGHDAD Baghdad 5,605,000
2 Mosul Nineveh / Ninawa 1,739,000
3 Basrah Basrah 1,337,000
4 Irbil Arbil 839,000
5 Kirkuk At-Ta’mim 728,000
6 Sulaymaniyah As-Sulaymaniyah 643,000
7 Najaf An-Najaf 563,000
8 Karbala Karbala 549,000
9 Nasriye Dhi-Qar 535,000
10 Hilla Babylon [Babil] 524,000
11 Ramadiyah [Ar Ramadi] Al-Anbar 423,000
12 Diwaniyeh Al-Qadisiyah 421,000
13 Kut Wasit 381,000
14 Amarah Maysan 340,000
15 Ba’qubah Diyala 280,000
16 Fallujah Al-Anbar 256,000
17 Samarra’ Salah ad-Din 201,000
18 Az Zubayr Basrah 168,000
19 Tall ‘Afar Nineveh / Ninawa 155,000
20 As-Samawah Al-Muthanné¡ 124,000
21 Bayji 120,000
22 al-Ké»fah An-Najaf 115,000
It is an absolutely CERTAINTY that after we do this, we will have won the war in Iraq.
Steve, you are such a fop at a cocktail party, man. When are you going to get your hands dirty and stop worrying about civilian casualties that, civilian casualties, this?
What are you afraid of here, being called a baby killer? Will that stop you from doing your duty to protect America?
This isn’t a game where you can play and fiddle with the numbers and the lives of women and children. Get tough, get into the fight, and talk about things that actually, you know, matter and help the war effort. Not this ditzy entertainment small talk, you seem to indulge in.
I sure as hell ain’t following you into hell, steve. But I will follow soldiers, warriors, and leaders like froggy.
Steven:
You don’t have to waste all that fire power.
Baghdad: Why Not?
Locations in Sunni Areas; Sure Thing.
Locations in Kurdistan: Not Needed.
Locations in Shia: It Depends.
Remember: Screw your enemies; help your friends.
After one or two go off, you’ll find yourself with lotsa friends…
Here’s an idea that might appeal to both Steve and Ymar:
Simply find a wide-open space in the Iraqi desert; build a few “demonstration” houses, and then drop a MOAB, film the result, and inform residents of the afflicted neighborhoods in Iraq that they have a week to get their houses in order, or the same will happen to them. Hopefully, a real, demonstrable threat might induce folks to behave.
IIRC, Truman wanted a “demonstration” drop of the atom bomb before nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but of course our stockpiles were rather limited at the time.
Rumsfeld’s memo is not “ME” spin:
“The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”
If we are winning, why would your beloved Defense Secretary call for a major adjustment?
You so strongly believe in the rightness of the Iraq war and the certainty of our victory there that you cannot accept facts that contradict those beliefs. Cognitive dissonance. Tell him, Neo!
Simply find a wide-open space in the Iraqi desert; build a few “demonstration” houses, and then drop a MOAB, film the result, and inform residents of the afflicted neighborhoods in Iraq that they have a week to get their houses in order, or the same will happen to them. Hopefully, a real, demonstrable threat might induce folks to behave.
They shot that idea down because “demonstrations” that don’t actually “demonstrate” anything, will still require you to actually Kill People in the end.
Killing people is a demonstration. Blowing up some “inanimate” objects is what is known as “demonstrating that you are weak and care about casualties and international opinion”. You don’t really want to be demonstrating that to people who have demonstrated that they enjoy hacking the heads off of children and putting them in baskets at the market for women to find.
It is an idea, stumbley, that has been considered before, and deemed unfit. I’ve thought about it in the context of now, and I concur with the previous analysis in WWII. I don’t know whether Truman wanted a demonstration or not, I do know that that idea was shot down in the decision making process. Israel has demonstrated their capability many times. The Arabs don’t care about your “airpower” or “conventional army”, Stumb. They have terror. Terror trumps weapons.
The only weapon that can be guaranteed to cause psychological shock amongst our enemies is using a nuclear device on Iranian soil or Syrian soil. Because they don’t expect it. Do they expect the US to conduct weapon tests and boasts? Yes. Why? because Iran does it too. Does Iran expect us to use a nuke on their side of the border? No. Psychological shock comes from the unexpected, the one thing you thought was not going to occur. Iran believes the US is held down by the UN and public opinion not to use a nuke. It believes the US is held down in terms of casualties and civilian deaths.
Dispel these notions, Stumb, and victory will come at a lower cost. Go with steve’s desires, and I guarantee you that millions will die. Whether here or because the ruthless Democrats sterilized the MidEast. When the rich and useless feel threatened, they will wipe you out with as much feeling as when they do their manicures.
So now that Rumsfield is out, people are saying they agree with him? Wow, isn’t that convenient. What happened to agreeing with Rumsfield when he was in office? Oh, I forgot, that would have meant sacrifice and integrity. Never mind.
The only weapon that can be guaranteed to cause psychological shock amongst our enemies is using a nuclear device on Iranian soil or Syrian soil.
I am of course, refering to your demonstration scenario where no one dies. A MOAB that doesn’t kill anyone is just the Americans using the Satan given gifts. A nuke means that America has gone insane, better watch out.
UB:
The operative phrase in the memo is “not working well enough or fast enough”. Doesn’t say we’re *not winning*, but recognizes the lack of will to continue the hard slog at this pace. The “adjustment” needs to be made so that the impatient leftists who profess to desire freedom and democracy for the Iraqis—you know, their fair-weather, no sweat friends—can be satisfied sooner. The fact that the rest of the world expects a country whose citizens have not experienced actual democracy for their entire lifetimes to be Switzerland in 5 years simply astounds me.
justa:
You’ve never been in Kansas either, and I’d venture to say you know about as much about Iraq as I do.
Been to Kansas. Beautiful state.
Two million, huh? Sounds like the El Salvador dead civilian count. Up it by 10k each year. That way, you don’t need to actually count. I was there in 1987 and discovered it was, per capita, safer than Detroit. I know, a better standard would be better, but still….
Anyway, just, whatcha gonna do when we win?
Great suggestions about nuking the muzzies, but don’t we have a secret weapon here in the West? take a few thousand of them with relatives in iran and Syria hostage, and kill a few score a day until the regimes there see the light. Harsh, but less deadly than huking Tehran. What do people think?
Neo,
You seemed to have turned to “desparation blame game” lately when it come to Iraq. Let’s just all admit this is a huge mess that needs fixing. I don’t think James Baker is coming from the left, or the evil MSM out to destroy good ‘ol USA. It’s time to get serious about how screwed up the whole situation is. I’d say we could really use Bush 41 in this situation.
I don’t think wordpress.com has a ban feature, but deletion is probably easier. I don’t use haloscan so I don’t know by what mechanism you use to delete the comments.
What strikes me as odd about the whole ISG thing is that people are actually listening to folks who, when they were in charge, were just as powerless to effect change as anybody else in the ME. I mean, really—James Baker? Leon Panetta? What wonderful policy magic did *these* folks work on the Israeli-Pali mess? What ME foreign policy successes can ANY of them point to? The only administration who’s had the grand vision of *really* shaking things up in the ME is W’s…and he articulated from the beginning that it would be a long, hard process. Never said anything different.
When the plug was pulled on “the former Yugoslavia,” ethnic strife raged for years. We sent troops that “would be out by Christmas”.
We’re still there. Nobody said that Clinton was an idiot, or started an “illegal” war, or jumped into a sectarian fight that had nothing to do with America. Kosovo had less to do with our strategic interests than Iraq, and HARDLY ANYONE seems to care that we “killed thousands” or “bombed civilians” or that our “boys died for nothing”.
I really, really am worried about the future.
No Stumbley, they never cared a bit for what “the impatient leftists” thought. Face it: it’s the middle, and even many on the right, who have grown impatient.
Remember at the time of the memo they were *publicly* (Yammer take note) saying that no major changes were needed, merely because they believed that to be the politically expedient choice.
They themselves set up those high expectations. Over and over they have been telling us “we have turned a corner” – The fall of Baghdad, the killling of the sons, the capture of Saddam, the purple fingers, the killing of Zarqawi…and now after 5 years record levels of violence and death. Why should anyone find that acceptable? Why not change strategy?
“change the strategy”
To what? Talking with the very people who are supplying the arms, fighters, and resources that are fueling the insurgency? Including the wackos that have militias and death squads? Agreeing to abandon Israel to “solve” the Palestinian question?
Some strategy. I feel like those who saw the light in 1938 must have felt: we see the bridge washed out down the tracks, but everyone else is urging the engineer to open the throttle full. If you think the Middle East is unstable NOW, just wait. The next decade will be disastrous.
I worry every night that not enough terrorists go screaming loudly into the night to die in mindless agony, Stumb. That is what I worry about every night.