"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." -William F. Buckley

[Zardoz]

Buckley's column in The National Review

We'll be hearing this from many other prominent conservatives in the near future. Only the most desperate PNAC types will continue to try to deny it.

(If you're not familiar with William F. Buckley, Jr., suffice to say that he is the Godfather of American conservative thinkers. Learn all about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr. )

"Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements."

The situation in Iraq will only get worse, and we Americans have no good options. We truly are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

 

[niky]

I don't think defeat is the right word... not just yet... there is the possibility of defeat, but it all depends on how the US moves within the next five years in Iraq.

A lot of conservatives have had that tone... of "cutting losses", or pulling out. Maybe they need another shot of jingoistic Kool-Aide... it's been lacking lately.

I was of the opinion it would be better for them to continue to support Bush, and to pour more funds into stabilizing Iraq. But I don't know if this is a job that America can accomplish on its own... maybe it's time to ask for help?

The current situation in Iraq is definitely volatile, but still manageable (except for Al Quaeda and the insurgents), maybe it's time for America to pose the question to the rest of the Middle East, "who's got to police this mess, Arabs or outsiders?"

 

[Keef]

We should give the job to that conpany from UAE.

But seriously, the plan(?)will work, but it'll take a very long time. This is going to rival the Cold War in length, and is comparable to that time of distress, because we are on the defensive now. I don't think the Steelers could pull of this kind of defense, though.

 

[Kylehnat]

Screw the Steelers.

Among all of the other problems with Iraq, it's just turning into a big money pit. What are we up to now? $500 billion? I couldn't possibly think of anything better to do with that money.

 

[niky]

We should give the job to that conpany from UAE.

But seriously, the plan(?)will work, but it'll take a very long time. This is going to rival the Cold War in length, and is comparable to that time of distress, because we are on the defensive now. I don't think the Steelers could pull of this kind of defense, though.

Yup... it's going to take a long long time. And money pit is the operative word I think. When the American public is tired of the taxes and the losses, they're going to vote in any admin that promises to pull out of Iraq, whatever the consequences. I don't see how they can keep this up for the decade or two it would require to stabilize the country.

 

[a6m5]

Screw the Steelers.

Somebody's still sore.

Among all of the other problems with Iraq, it's just turning into a big money pit. What are we up to now? $500 billion? I couldn't possibly think of anything better to do with that money.

This is what people against going in Iraq was saying in the first place. I still remember the sign from NY demonstration saying how billions for the war should be spent on schools.

I think it would be kind of irresponsible for the U.S. to take over a country, make a big speech about democracy in Iraq, and when it looks like it's gonna hit the fan, just pulls out..............

The situation in Iraq will only get worse, and we Americans have no good options. We truly are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Indeed.

 

[niky]

This is what people against going in Iraq was saying in the first place. I still remember the sign from NY demonstration saying how billions for the war should be spent on schools.

Funny, those of us against the war outside the US just saw it as an unnecessarily destabilizing move. You had me at Afghanistan, George, you should have stopped there.

 

[a6m5]

Funny, those of us against the war outside the US just saw it as an unnecessarily destabilizing move.

That, too.

You had me at Afghanistan, George, you should have stopped there.

Somebody said that maybe U.S. should have invaded UAE, because of their involvement in 9/11, even at the goverment level.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

What? How can they say the objective failed. Bush got richer off the whole thing, which is basically what led this war. I say "Objective Complete".
Now his daughters can afford to get drunk every night and wake up with the satisfaction that if they get preggers from the one night stand gang bang they had the night before, they can afford to get the fetus flushed and do it all again without breaking the bank account!

 

[Zardoz]

Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low

"The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high."

His approval rating will get lower. His troubles have just begun.

 

[niky]

What? How can they say the objective failed. Bush got richer off the whole thing, which is basically what led this war. I say "Objective Complete".
Now his daughters can afford to get drunk every night and wake up with the satisfaction that if they get preggers from the one night stand gang bang they had the night before, they can afford to get the fetus flushed and do it all again without breaking the bank account!

Let's keep that to other threads please. We don't want this one becoming a twenty page flamefest.

 

[Zardoz]

Iraq makes terror 'more likely'

"People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.

"Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

"In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision."


Arch-conservative Pat Buchanan warned against this fiasco back in 2001:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-09-27-ncguest1.htm

"The war Netanyahu and the neocons want, with the United States and Israel fighting all of the radical Islamic states, is the war bin Laden wants, the war his murderers hoped to ignite when they sent those airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"If America wishes truly to be isolated, it will follow the neoconservative line."


Reading that now is as heartbreaking as it is infuriating. Anyone who was thinking straight could see this coming.

 

[Kylehnat]

All this war has done is to stir the ****-pot.

 

[niky]

Iraq makes terror 'more likely'

"People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.

"Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

"In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision."


Arch-conservative Pat Buchanan warned against this fiasco back in 2001:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-09-27-ncguest1.htm

"The war Netanyahu and the neocons want, with the United States and Israel fighting all of the radical Islamic states, is the war bin Laden wants, the war his murderers hoped to ignite when they sent those airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"If America wishes truly to be isolated, it will follow the neoconservative line."


Reading that now is as heartbreaking as it is infuriating. Anyone who was thinking straight could see this coming.

For the first, no duh. Except maybe for some people in the US's closest allies, the UK (in Europe) and in the Philippines (in Asia), not many people were that enthusiastic about it. I think we can all agree that Osama is probably happy with what's happening right now, with Arab-World relations at an all-time low, protesters in the streets in many countries, and unrest in Iraq... but strangely enough, he didn't even try to precipitate the Iraqi situation.

But he was very happy to take advantage of it when it fell into his lap.

How interestingly insightful Pat Buchanan was... he must be a liberal propagandist...

 

[ledhed]

What war ? Iraq is a war....???? Seems more like the afterbirth of a war still laying around ...And here we still have some who are dying to see it all go to hell after the desperate act of the Al Queda types to flame up a civil war...BTW a civil war that still hasnt happened and NO leader has called for from either side ...hmmmmmm....so all we have is a democratically elected government trying to form a coalition with the minority while its holy shrines are both under attack by outside terrorist elements who cant let democracy in Iraq happen .
The people of Iraq have decided they like having a democracy it seems ....any other place this crap happened in would have had a two month long riot followed by a military dictatorship and a taliban style of government .
So WTF ?? All we see is Sunni and Shiite leaders saying it is better to unite ???

Somehow that cant be right .....it doesnt fit your picture .

 

[Zardoz]

What war?

This war:

Iraq’s deadly surge claims 1,300

""And they say there is no sectarian war?" demanded one man. "What do you call this?"

 

[Danoff]

^^ That's unrest not war. That's terrorism not war. There is a difference and I would like to see people maintain a more strict use of language about these issues - because it's important.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm sorry, danoff, but it looks like war to me too... for me, 'terrorism' is the use of threatening language and behaviour to achieve an end in an asymmetric environment - 'unrest' implies that the country is in a state of rest (peace) and that minor aberrations (protests, riots) etc. are occuring. The mass slaughter and bloody mayhem we are watching in Iraq hardly qualifies as either of those things... and it looks very like the beginnings of a civil war.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sorry, danoff, but it looks like war to me too... for me, 'terrorism' is the use of threatening language and behaviour to achieve an end in an asymmetric environment -

Yup.

'unrest' implies that the country is in a state of rest (peace) and that minor aberrations (protests, riots) etc. are occuring.

Unrest does not imply a state of rest.

The mass slaughter and bloody mayhem we are watching in Iraq hardly qualifies as either of those things... and it looks very like the beginnings of a civil war.

Civil war is impossible. War in general is impossible in Iraq. We're too dominating a presence for war to happen. Our opposition in Iraq is so hopelessly outmatched in open combat that the only thing possible is "unrest" and "terrorism".

 

[Zardoz]

^^ That's unrest not war. That's terrorism not war. There is a difference and I would like to see people maintain a more strict use of language about these issues - because it's important.

In this particular case, when does it become "civil war"? What would it take? How high would the bodies have to be piled? Would the opposing parties have to come up with uniforms and flags, and appoint commanders?

And if we're going to maintain a more strict use of language, we need to apply the same standards to the word "terrorism". Applying that word to factional infighting that leaves 1300 dead in a few days is just flat wrong, isn't it?

 

[Danoff]

In this particular case, when does it become "civil war"? What would it take? How high would the bodies have to be piled? Would the opposing parties have to come up with uniforms and flags, and appoint commanders?

War requires organization. It requires a concerted, organized, effort against an organized opposition. I would say that neither the insurgency nor the current Iraqi government is organized sufficiently to call anything they do a war. Without organization, massive infighting is called anarchy.

The current Iraqi government is getting close to the point where it could participate in a war, but if the insurgency ever got organized we'd crush it immediately - which is why civil war isn't possible in Iraq.

And if we're going to maintain a more strict use of language, we need to apply the same standards to the word "terrorism". Applying that word to factional infighting that leaves 1300 dead in a few days is just flat wrong, isn't it?

Terrorism is about intent, not magnitude. Do you not think that the intent here was terrorism?

 

[Dave A]

I'm sorry, danoff, but it looks like war to me too... for me, 'terrorism' is the use of threatening language and behaviour to achieve an end in an asymmetric environment - 'unrest' implies that the country is in a state of rest (peace) and that minor aberrations (protests, riots) etc. are occuring. The mass slaughter and bloody mayhem we are watching in Iraq hardly qualifies as either of those things... and it looks very like the beginnings of a civil war.

I agree, that looks a lot more like war than terrorism and I agree with the point in the above post on that one, there has to be apoint where it becomes a war and that point is before each side get's flags and a uniform. Also I think that terrorism is often amogst the most organised combat you can find, think of how much planing and organisation went into 9/11. Also for there to be unrest, there has to be rest for the unrest to come from, I think that's the point TM was trying to make, not that unrest means the whole country is in a state of rest, but that it was/is in many area's while theres elements of unrest in others. As it stands, the whole country is in a mess, and on a governmental level..

 

[Danoff]

I agree, that looks a lot more like war than terrorism and I agree with the point in the above post on that one, there has to be apoint where it becomes a war and that point is before each side get's flags and a uniform. Also for there to be unrest, there has to be rest for the unrest to come from, I think that's the point TM was trying to make, not that unrest means the whole country is in a state of rest, but that it was/is in many area's while theres elements of unrest in others. As it stands, the whole country is in a mess, and on a governmental level.

This is getting frustrating. These words have actual meanings, not just whatever it feels like to you.

Wikipedia:

"War is armed conflict between states, organizations, or relatively large groups of people"

Unrest in wikipedia refers to rebellion:

"A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as "rebels". "


War requires organization. Unrest does not require rest to exist.

 

[niky]

Though the root cause is a terrorist act, the effect is that you have mobs in the street forming battle lines and killing each other. The sad thing is that it shows how little hold the Iraqi leaders have over their own people.

It may not grow into a fully blown civil war, as that would require a concerted effort on either side to prosecute and actually win over the other. Right now, they're just struggling to contain their own people. This thing may become a war if leaders of either side stop trying to control their people, and try instead to take advantage of it...

By the end of this unrest, I doubt you can convince people on either side that peace is possible... not for a long time.

This is not terrorism. This is anarchy.

 

[Danoff]

This is not terrorism. This is anarchy.

There is a much better case for that term than "war".

 

[Dave A]

War requires organization. It requires a concerted, organized, effort against an organized opposition. I would say that neither the insurgency nor the current Iraqi government is organized sufficiently to call anything they do a war. Without organization, massive infighting is called anarchy.

Do you think terrorists arn't organised, do you think the bombs in Madrid and London and the 9/11 attack's were all just thought up on the day. Terrorists ARE organised, and are capable of planning complex attacks and carrying them out make no mistake about it. No every war has been well organised, if you look at history theres been a good few examples of this. Look at the Germans against the Russians in WWII, Hitler completely overlooked the supply to their troops and he spread them far too thin. That wasn't good organisation, so was that terrorism, or a war.

The current Iraqi government is getting close to the point where it could participate in a war, but if the insurgency ever got organized we'd crush it immediately - which is why civil war isn't possible in Iraq.

At what point is it decided that it is a war, a war is an act of combat to another faction, race, country ect. Heres a dictionary definition of war A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Terrorism is about intent, not magnitude. Do you not think that the intent here was terrorism?

Yet the same tactics terrorists use, have been used in many wars, and they've been used to get the same results, such as to strike fear into the opposing side.

 

[Dave A]

This is getting frustrating. These words have actual meanings, not just whatever it feels like to you.

Yes, and the dictionary definitions of war fit exactely what's going on in Iraq right now.

"A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as "rebels"."

And is it impossible to have a war against rebel parties?

War requires organization. Unrest does not require rest to exist.

I dissagree totally with the first comment, if the US army had a complete dunce in charge who couldnt organise anything, yet what he said wen't, and he engaged another nation in combat, that would still be war. War doesn't require uniforms a flag and marching parades. It requires two sides or more engaging each other in combat.

 

[Danoff]

Do you think terrorists arn't organised, do you think the bombs in Madrid and London and the 9/11 attack's were all just thought up on the day. Terrorists ARE organised, and are capable of planning complex attacks and carrying them out make no mistake about it. No every war has been well organised, if you look at history theres been a good few examples of this. Look at the Germans against the Russians in WWII, Hitler completely overlooked the supply to their troops and he spread them far too thin. That wasn't good organisation, so was that terrorism, or a war.

I'm not talking about quality of strategy here, don't mistake strategy for organization. I'm talking about structure, I'm talking about everybody belonging to the same group with basic strategy practiced by all. Terrorism is splintered, yes they have to do some rudimentary planning to accomplish terrorist acts, planning like getting your bomb ahead of time and deciding which target to hit. Maybe even some strategy - but that's not centrally organized, it's split off into cells which makes the most sense for terrorism but it doesn't make for a war. Especially since it isn't an armed combat AGAINST the opposing force. It's armed combat against civilians for the most part.

I'll repeat myself, terrorism is about intent not magnitude. If the intent is to disrupt social order and use fear to erode the support of the established power - then it's terrorism. That doesn't necessarily make it bad, but it usually is highly immoral.

At what point is it decided that it is a war, a war is an act of combat to another faction, race, country ect. Heres a dictionary definition of war A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Yet the same tactics terrorists use, have been used in many wars, and they've been used to get the same results, such as to strike fear into the opposing side.

There you go right there, your quoted definition requires organization - it's a conflict between organized entities - NOT between a cell and the general population, and not with end goal of inciting anarchy.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, and the dictionary definitions of war fit exactely what's going on in Iraq right now.

Which dictionary definition? All the ones I've seen require war to be armed conflict between two organized factions rather than between disorganized cells a civilians.

And is it impossible to have a war against rebel parties?

Only if they have a single sturcture and are massive enough. Otherwise it's unrest.

I dissagree totally with the first comment, if the US army had a complete dunce in charge who couldnt organise anything, yet what he said wen't, and he engaged another nation in combat, that would still be war. War doesn't require uniforms a flag and marching parades. It requires two sides or more engaging each other in combat.

Like I said in the above post, it's not about the quality of strategy but the command structure itself.

 

[niky]

I actually agree with danoff... it's not a war until the leaders on either side see an advantage to prosecuting this B.S. and start organizing their followers.

Right now, it's just people sniping at anything that moves, or anyone who doesn't smell right.

Questions of semantics aside, though, what should the US and Iraqi leaders do about it? It seems the curfews do help a bit, but how are you going to police these people, or even arrest them?

It seems ironic to me that mobs in the street seem to be almost as well armed as Iraqi Security Forces. How do you arrest a man with an AK47? Or a gang with a couple of those and a RPG Launcher, to boot? Do you appoint militia or deputize civilians?

And in the meantime, how are we going to prosecute the US war against the insurgents that started this whole mess? If we can't get a handle on them soon, this **** is going to just keep happening over and over.