Good News and Alternative Plans From and For Iraq
January 16th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |There are two main complaints we hear from the pro-Iraq War Right about the coverage and critique of the war. One – we don’t get enough of the “Good News” from the media, and two – we don’t hear “Alternative Plans” from the opponents and critics of the war.
Let’s take the first complaint. The “Good News” argument holds that the media is deliberately undermining the war effort because they are all peacenik liberals who irrationally hate Bush, so they present the war in a bad light. The end result, the Right claims, is that the enemy is emboldened by this sort of media coverage, inferring, and sometimes blatantly asserting, that the reporters are traitors. But what can the media do? 141 journalists and media assistants have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war. Over 2500 police have been killed, so there’s no cover there. And, as we all know, over 3000 American troops have been killed, many thousands severely injured, and the numbers would be far higher were it not for modern medicine. So, just trying to get out of the Green Zone to report on anything over there is deadly work. It’s hard to write about the “good news” when you could get murdered at any moment trying to get some.
Some on the Right try to spin facts to ring out the “good news.” In the blogosphere, this is a common tack. The Nervous Rodent takes a popular angle by pointing out examples of the endless bloody fighting as if that was a good thing – “Specifically, I recommend Omar and Mohammed, whose blog Iraq the Model has been linked as the first link on my “Good Blogs” sidebar for a very long time. The last three posts have covered an ongoing security operation, which while widely publicized in Iraq, has escaped Western media coverage. It’d be a shame if our media put out any GOOD news for a change.” What he (?) misses, of course, is that the fact that bloody fighting is still going on, four years after the invasion, is not good news. And so far we have never lost any battles on the ground in Iraq – just as in Vietnam.
Another way of squeezing out “good news” is by positing facts in a vaccuum. Amir Taheri, on Say Anything, reminds us that, “…more than 90 percent of the violence that dominates reporting from Iraq takes place in five neighborhoods in Baghdad, plus one of the 18 Iraqi provinces, is neither here nor there. The perception is that all of Iraq is lost.” There are several relative points, however, that the writer conveniently overlooks. Let’s take two vitally integral points. First, a large portion of the Iraqi population is concentrated in and around Bagdad. Second, the Kurds, peaceful though they may be, want to separate from the rest of Iraq, a move that could lead to a wider regional war. There are Shiite separatists as well, and, yet again, their separation may well lead to a wider regional war as well. Taheri continues, “In 2006, almost 200 major reconstruction projects were officially completed and 4,000 new private companies registered in Iraq. But few seem interested in the return of private capitalism after nearly 50 years of Soviet-style control.” This in a country of 25,000,000 people with an estimated 30-50% jobless rate. That’s not good news.
So, there are two problems with the “Good News” complaint – there isn’t much good news and where there may be good news, it’s very hard to get. And that takes us to the second complaint – the “Alternative Plan.”
“Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” said Bush last Saturday. Leaving aside Bush’s apparent lack of understanding of the rules of debate regarding positing negatives, there is a reason why realistic alternative proposals are hard to come by – there aren’t many good options to be had. This war has been so mishandled, so bungled, so poorly planned, so wrongheaded in the first place, that cleaning up this mess is beyond daunting – in fact, it may well be impossible. Much like the “Good News” argument, it’s hard to see an alternative through the fog of this war. Just the same, there have been alternatives offered.
There’s the 5-point Biden-Gelb plan:
1: Keep Iraq together by giving its major groups breathing room in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of common interests like defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
2: Secure the support of the Sunnis — who have no oil — by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue.
3: Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that the oil-rich Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a massive jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
4: Hold an international conference to enlist the support of Iraq’s neighbors and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
5: Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, with a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.
The Murtha plan:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
There’s the Kucinich plan, and all sorts of other plans. There are plenty of alternative plans. So, either Bush and the “Alternbative Plan” complainers are liars, or they just arrived on Earth this past Saturday. But again, the fatal flaw of the “Alternative Plan” complaint is basically the same fatal flaw of the “Good News” complaint – there just aren’t many good options or good news for and from Iraq.
I hate to say it, but it looks like things are only going to get worse. Shooting the messenger is not going to make things better – and it’s literally what the insurgents are doing in Iraq. The complainers should remember that.
JMJ
47 Responses to “Good News and Alternative Plans From and For Iraq”
By Dusty on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Jers..this is a good writeup..IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE Front Page m’dear..uncheck the “Dairies” box on the right when you edit it.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Okee dokee! And thanks!
JMJ
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Excellent points Jersey! The idea that there are no alternative plans is a smoke screen for the truth. If they claim that there are no other plans, then they don’t need to actually argue the points of the alternative plans. But, what frustrates me more than anything else is that they had an alternative plan, it was created by the Iraq Study Group. It goes into quite a bit of detail, making about 90 points. How is that not an alternative plan?
By Dusty on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
There are no less than half a dozen different plans for getting out of Iraq. As the good Doctor points out ignoring them means BushCo doesn’t have to address them.
I have Iraq the Model linked on my blog as well Jers
By ken grandlund on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
When Bush calls for “other plans” what he is really saying is “other plans that coincide with my own.”
He has been given alternatives aplenty and chooses to ignore them.
You are right, and there may well be no good outcome.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
I disagree. What he means is, other plans that don’t amount to conceding we’ve lost and skipping out of the country, leaving it to the terrorists and the warring factions. Let’s be honest here. Bush is the only one even talking about winning in Iraq and none of the other plans amounts to anything other than “We’ve lost, let’s cut our losses”.
The alternate plans he’s looking for don’t have to coincide with his. They merely have to take seriously not loosing in Iraq.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Dusty put it exactly right:
Just so. That’s what’s wrong with them. They aren’t plans for winning; they’re plans for losing.
By ken grandlund on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig- Do you really believe that the US can find a way out of Iraq that leaves Iraq as a stable (somewhat) democracy? Do you believe that the US should expend ever more lives and treasure to do so?
What do you define as winning, and under your definition, do you think that the US can be successful? And what are you willing to commit to achieve such?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
A Central Government…Is this plan prefaced with “First we overthrow the present government, scrap the Constitution and any statutes that have passed since the Iraqis took over governing and impose the following:”?
A commonsense thing, although I think the beginning part, “Secure the support of the Sunnis…” sounds a bit overly optimistic. First of all, this is nothing but the sine qua non of a solution, hardly the only Sunni concern so doing this will not “secure” Sunni support. In fact, how does one “guarantee” Sunnis a proportionate share of oil revenue” after the US and Coalition forces leave the country? The Sunnis will rightly be suspicious of any guarantees because they will have a shelf life of about a week after the last troops have left Iraq.
Who’s talking about ending reconstruction assistance, anyway? That next part, though, is a hoot: “insist that the oil-rich Arab Gulf states fund it”. I’m still giggling at that part. That’s about the least “reality based thing I’ve heard in, well, possibly ever.
I have no objection to talking to people like Iran and Syria, the Saudis and so forth but it’s the presumption that Iran and Syria want anything that we have to offer them to do anything other than foment the chaos and destruction that they are both currently funding and assisting that gets the biggest guffaws from me.
“[A] small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest”???? Hell, we can’t do that now, with the forces we have currently. How is
a small force going to do that? What are they planning on doing? Whining? Because that’s the sum total of what that small force will be capable of doing. And do they really think that deposing the current government, scrapping the Constitution and laws of Iraq and setting up a new strong-arm government to enforce this plan can be accomplished by the end of 2007 when, we’re supposed to be entirely out of the country?
Sorry but “A hoot” is the sum total of my reaction to this plan.
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
So, does that mean that if you dis’ a plan, then it isn’t a plan? If so, I offer a dis’ to the Bush “Stay the Course Plus Twenty” plan.”
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
I don’t know but the President believes that we can and I’m not willing to concede we’ve lost yet.
Obviously. So far, almost four years of war and we’ve lost a grand total of 3,000 (and a little more) soldiers. Name me another war we’ve fought with ground forces for over a year that even approaches that number? You say “ever more lives” like this has been the worst war we’ve ever fought in terms of lives lost and injuries sustained. Not even close. The question isn’t can we afford it. Can we afford not to. I don’t think we can.
My definition is fairly minimalist. It does not insist on a unified country. If it becomes, either de facto or de juris a tripartate state or three distinct countries, that can still be considered a win but at a minimum, (1) the state or states that is/are left will be inimical to the presence of terrorists in their region (ala Afghanistan pre-invasion). There’s no sense leaving only to have to either invade again or bomb the heck out of them to disrupt terrorists. (2) The state or states be committed to maintaining peace with their neighbors.
What cannot be considered a win is a regional war, an all out genocidal civil war, a safe home for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations/training camps.
I am willing to commit what it takes to achieve this. Frankly, I don’t think we’ve committed enough and may need a draft, something I advocated some time ago here when we were discussing Rangle’s reintroduced draft bill. It is extremely unfortunate that we have squandered many billions of dollars in the way that we have. It should have been (a) much more carefully handled and accounted for and (b) involved far fewer American/Coalition corporations and contractors and far more Iraqis.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Dr.,
Fair enough, although I’ve given a much more detailed dissing than you have of Bush’s. Frankly, I might join you in dissing portions of Bush’s plans. In fact, I’ve done a fair bit of dissing of Bush’s execution and planning to date so dissing Bush’s plans isn’t anything new or objectionable to me.
But if you disagree with my dissing of the Biden-Geld plan, you really need to answer some at least of my main giggles.
For instance, how do they plan to institute their plan when we no longer rule the country? Short of overthrowing the government and scrapping everything, their plan is no more than a suggestion that we have no way of enforcing or bringing into being. Is pissing everybody, including those who are cooperating to the degree that they can, the plan? How is this, realistically, even a plan if it cannot be implemented?
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Actually I would suggest that the ISG plan makes more sense on a practical level. It is something that is both politically acheivable and morally sound. The ISG plan admits that only the Iraqis can save their country and it also admits that the war is only going to get worse as long as the US is there. And, it offers solutions to the real problems in Iraq. It also admits that Iran and Syria need to be part of the solution and if they aren’t they will be part of the problem.
As far as not being in control of the country, that is certainly true. But, at that level, no one is in control of the country. The only people that have any control are the independent militias running around the streets. They continue to amass more strength and power, while our puppet government can do little or nothing while we stand there and push them into oncoming trucks at every chance. We can basically make any idea that we have work by simply telling the government that we want them to do it. If they don’t then we need to have the real threat ready, which is to leave a sector to the Sunis, or support the Sunis in some local conflict. We, after all are the refs in this Civil War…
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know. I think the ISG has been thoroughly discredited. But are we really going to join the Iranians in supporting and arming and helping the Sunnis? They’ve killed more of those 3,000 and wounded more of our troops than anyone. But if you think that’s a moral choice, try to sell it and see if there are any buyers.
I agree we don’t have control. That’s the point. We need to gain control, including disarming or smashing the militias for the Iraqis to be able to work out their own political solution.
As I said, I have no objection to talking. It’s the expectation, the insistence by the ISG that Iran and Syria want anything other than chaos in Iraq that has done the most to discredit the ISG report. It’s fantasy. We have nothing to offer them except, maybe, a guarantee that we’ll let them go nuclear (and I don’t mean for their energy “needs”) and promise not to retaliate when they nuke Israel out of existence.
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Let me see, we put together a bipartisan group of wise men and they spend six months going into the problems and finding solutions. Then the Neo-cons claim that it has no merit. So, that means that the plan is discredited? Oh, I forgot, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly don’t like it either. At least the Bush plan has been tried for four years and we are sure that it doesn’t work. The only thing different between the old Bush plan and the new Bush plan is that we slightly increase the number of troops and we beg the Iraqis to help us do the job that they should be doing anyway….
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Well, the fact that it was all that you say it was doesn’t guarantee that it’s product is sound. I’m wondering where all the Middle Eastern Studies scholars were, where the military experts were, and what the hell O’Connor, an admittedly nice broad but, face it, no expert on ANY area pertinent to the problem they were faced with, was doing on the ISG committee.
If the ISG is such a stellar plan, why haven’t the Democrats rallied around it and, much as they did the 9/11 commission’s suggestions, insist that it be implemented in its entirety? Is it perhaps because they don’t need Rush Limbaugh to point out its weaknesses?
I don’t know, just a guess. Is anyone in the Democratic leadership seriously suggesting that the ISG is the way to go?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
It being bipartisan does not, of course, guarantee that it is wise. First of all, where were the experts in Middle Eastern Studies to tell the group what was likely to work and what wasn’t? Where were the military experts to tell them what was likely to work and what wasn’t? And what was Lady O’Connor doing on the committee. A nice lady she is but she has expertise in exactly no area of any importance to the task set before them.
The other thing I wonder is, where is the unified Democratic support for the ISG? The Democrat leadership went into the most recent Congress promising (and then reneging upon that promise) to enact into law all of the remaining suggestions of the 9/11 commission. Where was the similar demand that all of the ISG commissions suggestions be implemented. Why are there a half a dozen suggestions if the ISG report is the definitive plan?
Is it perhaps because they don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them the weaknesses of the report?
That would be my guess.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Oops. I didn’t realize my first version of my comment had made it through. I thought it had been lost. Sorry for the duplicated effort.
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Why do we need one party or the other to rally behind any plan. If you notice some Republicans have distanced themselves from the Neocon plan. Maybe its because they don’t believe that we should be remaking the Middle East like the Neocons proposed at the beginning of the War. The War should not be a partisan effort. That is why a bipartisan plan should be established and followed by the majority, instead of following a plan created by the right wing fringe of the Republican party. Maybe there are some flaws in the ISG plan, but it has been thought through by moderate folks from both parties. And these people studied it in more detail than Bush did his plan.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Me? I don’t need anyone to rally behind a plan I think has potential. I have to actually believe it has potential.
Again, mere bipartisanship is meaningless. The fact that they are moderates, while a good quality to possess, doesn’t make them qualified to produce a workable plan. I mentioned the qualities that would have made for a good, workable plan. I find that the committee lacks those qualities. I find that the ISG plan shares some of the same unrealism that I pointed out in the previous plan that I commented on. It depends upon the good will and cooperation of two nations that have more to gain from continuing support for chaos than they have to gain from anything we should be willing to offer them.
Since I’ve already mentioned the fact that I find many weaknesses in what Bush has done to date, and since I have questioned whether the current way forward commits enough resources to victory in Iraq, I have my doubts about Bush’s plan but I believe it has better chances than any other plan I’ve seen of actually bringing about anything but defeat, as I have defined it above.
In short, we disagree. There’s no surprise there.
Unfortunately, I’m going to be away from the Computer now for an indeterminate period of time so I’m going to break off here.
It’s been good talking, Doctor.
By tammara on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
here is a novel idea.
senators, representatives, and the like are not military strategists. their job is to order an exit pan be made, specify the date that it needs to be done, allocate the funds and get on with business.
it is the job of the generals and military strategists to accomplish that goal in the time line provided with the budget they are given.
then voila, mission accomplished…. only this time for real, not chimpanzee posing.
one of these days you war supporters will wake up and smell the coffee. a third generation war force will not win a fourth generation war on the home soil of the enemy, unless they are willing to spend a lot more blood on both sides than the american people have clearly said they are unwilling to spend.
stop whining, and start planning on how to change this country from an out of control two year old on a temper tantrum to a responsible world party. that is something military strategists will not figure out, nor congress people, so real people need to do that job.
By Liberal Army Wife on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig – only 3000. ONLY?? I don’t think they were ONLY to their families. I don’t think they are ONLY to their friends, co workers and lovers. ONLY… strange way to put that, don’t you think? Well, we can wait until it’s ONLY one of your friends, family, acquaintances… there’s the problem. we sit here and type away, and pontificate and postulate and think… well ONLY 3000. I’m going to help bury one of those children on Friday. I’ll tell his mom, his dad, his friends… it’s ONLY one more. Until the pain hits more people in this country, you won’t see a change. Sacrifice.. it’s just a few of us who are doing that. The rest sit back and shop (like we were told by our Chicken in Chief). Defeat/winning… I can’t think that way anymore. I’ve been to too many funerals of children. we are in the middle of someone else’s civil war, that we helped start by NOT having enough men and material when we started this mess. Getting out would be enough for me now.
ONLY… how sad to be an ONLY>
LAW
By Dusty on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Craig, Your line here: “We need to gain control, including disarming or smashing the militias for the Iraqis to be able to work out their own political solution.” Like we can actually “gain” control without the help and support of the Iraqi government, and we aren’t getting that. Maliki is a lapdog for the militias. He refuses to allow the US to enter Sadr City and clean it up.
Getting rid of the militias and the Mahdi army are critical to getting anything done in Iraq. Its not going to happen on Maliki’s watch.
Next, in the same comment #14, you suggest its fantasy to talk to Iran and Syria. Iraq is not only talking to them, they are allowing them to open offices in Iraq and encouraging it. How does this fit into Bush’s plan? It doesn’t.
Iraq is giving Bush’s plan weak lip service, They have no intent on implementing much of what they are required to do in it,since many of the benchmarks and demands are the same ones that have been expected for years now. Iraq also doesn’t see the need to do any more than they have to..and so far, we are evidently powerless to force them to give in to many of the things needed to secure Baghdad and Sadr City. To quote Maliki’s spokesman the day after Bush’s grand speech:
“The plan can be developed according to the needs,” Mr. Dabbagh said. Then he added tartly, “What is suitable for our conditions in Iraq is what we decide, not what others decide for us.”
Sounds like they are going to fight us tooth and nail on many of the “conditions” that they don’t like..by they I mean the Shia’s to whom Maliki has allegiance.
You find many weaknesses in Bush’s plan yet support it? Sounds like your covering your ass to me. Winning in Iraq starts with the Iraqi’s stopping the civil war, or allowing us to do so..I don’t see them doing either at this point..do you?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
LAW,
No fewer than three friends of mine are presently in Iraq.
I don’t see any point in saying anything else.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
The most recent comments by Maliki amount to “Militias: disarm or deal with the Americans; in that, you are on your own”. This, it seems to me, assuming this remains the stance of the Maliki government, is progress in the right direction. We have warned the Maliki government that, should they interfere again, he and his government are on THEIR own. I don’t know what the future holds, as my crystal ball has been on the fritz for some time now but both of these seem to be positive developments regarding the militias.
It isn’t fantasy to talk to Iraq and that’s not what I wrote. In fact, I said I have no objection to talking with them.
I wrote that it was fantasy to suppose that we, the US, had anything to offer them that we should be willing to offer them to gain their cooperation. We don’t. If the Iraqis are talking to them, good. They should be. It may be that the Iraqi government has something to offer that would move them to back off. I hope so. I never said Iraq shouldn’t talk with their neighbors. In fact, they need to. Their neighbors are going to be their neighbors forever.
They are opening up offices and their agents are being arrested by us. As I have suggested, we are not in control of the Iraqi government, nor should we be. But there is dissonance here. Either the Maliki government is a puppet of the US or they aren’t. By your own account, they are not. This is in perfect alignment with what I have said above. We are in a position to put pressure on the Iraqis. We are not in a position to direct their actions.
Then you say we are apparently powerless. No. We are not. We are able to put pressure on them and we are and, as I just suggested, that pressure is bearing fruit.
I support the President’s plan because it is the only plan that takes seriously the consequences of losing in Iraq and tries to do something attainable about making sure we don’t.
On this we disagree. Granted. I am not yet ready to give up.
By Dusty on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
We have been putting “pressure” on them for years now Craig. When do remarks by Maliki that hold no water just become lipservice to Bush? He can tell the militias to disarm until hell freezes over..unless and until he gives the US troops the ok to move into Sadr City and clean out the scum.it will only be lipservice as it has so far.
By tammara on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
craig,
write us again if one of your friends die, so you can tell us what his ONLY number is. after that, you might feel differently on this.
here’s another idea. what are you doing on 1/27? because you could come to washington dc and i can introduce you to the gold star family members that will be there for the protest, and you can find out what ONLY number their children were in this mess, and see what happened after that.
that only shit- that’s insulting.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Tammara,
I wrote that I didn’t see any reason to say more. I find I was wrong.
I apologize for the insult.
As for my friends, they are mine. I won’t be sharing with you what happens to them. My fears, my hopes, and if it comes, my grief, is and will be and remain mine and that of their families. I’ll share it with them. It sounds like you have a wide support system. I’m glad for that. Everyone should have that.
I still believing in this mission and I won’t apologize for that. I would hope that our disagreement on that would not come between us. I have and do value your comments, your perspective, even when we disagree.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
I’m breaking off on this thread. I’m insulting people without intention and threatening online relationships that I value.
We disagree. I am leaving it at that.
Good night!
By Liberal Army Wife on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Craig, that’s not what I meant, and I’m sorry if that is how you read it. I will keep your friends in my thoughts, they deserve that and so do you. You and Dusty and some of the others argue so well, you are very thoughtful and put forward the “egghead” point of view. What I do, and I suspect tammara as well (don’t want to talk for you, T, so jump in if I’m wrong) is make you all look at the human toll. Not just the numbers, the people behind the numbers, the families’ perspective. I know that I sometimes think I’m out here alone, an island of pain in the sea of a country arguing escoterics, and worrying more about Britney’s underwear or Obama’s exploratory committee. The suffering is NOT being shared, and we need to throw it in the faces of those who are calmly arguing about the political ramifications.
So please, don’t stop talking about your point of view. Just sometimes remember that you are talking about my family, my army families and your friends, and consider that toll too.
Respectfully submitted. LAW
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
LAW,
I understand. Every casualty, injury or wound is to a person who suffers, briefly and then is lost to this life or suffers for months, years or for the rest of their lives. Each has family, friends and lovers, acquaintances and comrades both in arms and in beers. Each casualty and wound affects dozens, even hundreds grievously. I am not incognizant of this and it is not without tremendous weight. As an academic, I live largely in my head with logic and reason and thought comprising much of my life. It is, no doubt, largely a dodge to avoid the things of the heart as much as possible. To those who cannot avoid the pangs of the heart, however much they wish they could, my cogitations can seem cold, lacking feeling, insulting.
Please trust me, that is not my intent.
Surely it is not without merit to point out that far fewer are falling in this war than in past wars. That does not make it any less painful for those who do or less grievous for those left behind but it does mean that fewer are so affected. By this time in the Vietnam war, scores of thousands were dead, hundreds of thousands wounded and injured in body, mind and soul. Does this not matter. Is it not just as important to realize that tens of thousands have NOT died and been grievously injured in their body? That doesn’t mean that they aren’t affected in their mental and emotional life. I don’t mean to suggest that either or that the mental and emotional effects are of no importance; they are.
I thank you for the respect you offer and, in return, respect the perspective that you and others provide.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Hey folks. Back to the point. ”Victory” and “defeat” are highly subjective concepts. And in Iraq, they are not even our’s to assess. It’s not our victory or defeat to be had. We have little to lose, little to gain. It is up to the Sunnis, Shi-as, Kurd, Christian Assyrians, Turkomen, and the rest to decide. If it’s not going to be a single federal state, so be it. If it is, so be it. If it’s going to be a loose confereracy, so be it. If it’s going to be a strongman, so be it. But if it’s going to be endless occupation, then call it what it is – colonialism. And that’s scumbaggery. As long as we are there with boots on the ground, giant permanent bases, taking sides, and meddling in their business, we are retarding the progress of the evolution of the new Iraqi state. And we have to consider Iraq’s neighbors – all of them. It’s not “appeasement,” as the fuckin moron stupid dumb asshole Right says. It’s DIPLOMACY – something we’re seriously lacking right now. Iraq’s neighbors have an inherent, natural and obvious interest in the new Iraq. We know, for example, that the Iranians have an interest in the future of the Shi-a/Sunni question and that the Turks have Syrians have an interest in the future of the Kurds. The Jordanians have an interest in the refugee question. There is the oil question. The Water question. The Gulf ports question. Yet the stupid slobs the cons put in office are not even sitting down and talking to Iraq’s neighbors – let alone “appeasing” them!
It’s time to start seriously pressing the ALTERNATIVES. People who say that pulling out is “defeatist” are idiots and liars. People who say that diplomacy with Iran and Syira is “appeasement” are idiots and liars. People who say that there are “no alternatives” are idiots and liars. People who say that the media is intentionally pushing “bad news” are idiots and liars. We have to call them what they are – all of them - IDIOTS AND LIARS.
PERIOD.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
“It’s not “appeasement,” as the fuckin moron stupid dumb asshole Right says. It’s DIPLOMACY – something we’re seriously lacking right now.”
Ya’ know, I was just rereading what I wrote and saw these two sentences paired together! I guess I lack diplomacy too, LOL! Thank God I’m not a diplomat!!!
JMJ
By Dusty on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
I am glad I made Jersey put this on the front page..it got a lot of good discussion. As for the deaths being less than other wars..the permanently injured have risen since medical science is better at saving lives. For every death or injury there is at least two or three other individuals affected..family members such as parents, spouses and siblings. I say this Craig to put it into perspective. 3k is really more like 9k when you factor in the families for example. 20k injured is really 80k and so on. Those of us against the war see the deaths and injuries as the most important factor in this war, not something to brush off as a “sacrifice”. The money our Federal Goverment will spend for decades to treat the permanently injured will end up costing us billions.
I know you have a good heart Craig, I just have a hard time understanding your philosophy of “winning”. Its up to Iraq, not us. We are their pawns. We are the ones who must bury our loved ones and care for those with extreme brain damage and missing limbs, not the President, and not the Iraqi’s.
I do have a loved one in the Army, but she is in Afghanistan. She is a beautiful, college-educated fresh-faced girl who hoped to be kept stateside but now that she is over there, she does the best she can, and hopes to make a difference. I would expect nothing less from her. But the fear that grips me daily never leaves..and I am quite sure its mulitiplied for family members who have someone in Iraq.
We can not discount or dismiss the lives ended and maimed for this exercise in futility..in the name of winning. Its not a football game. I am not saying you dismiss them, I am merely pointing out the human cost MUST be taken into account when attempting to rationalize a pro-war stance on this issue.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
I’ve said my piece; LAW and I seem to have made our peace (notice the homophony there, ‘piece’ and ‘peace’?). I’ll just say, I agree that the human cost is great (see comment #31). My comments were never intended to persuade anyone, particularly. After all, nothing I’ve said is particularly novel. It was intended merely to inform. I’ve laid out my case. It stands or falls (and obviously it falls around here) on its own. I wouldn’t be arrogant enough to suppose I could move such staunchly anti-Iraq war people or to say that anyone here who disagrees with me is anything other than principled and well informed and thoughtful.
To all of you, I wish you and yours well.
By Paul Watson on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Just to illuminate another side to this.
I was talking with a colleague of mine from Jordan and we started talking politics (there was documentary on earlier in the week about the extremes of opinion in British mosques was how I think it started, but that doesn’t really matter). Our dicussions basically stalled because even though we both agreed that the war shouldn’t have happened and had been badly mishandled, solutions were a problem. As I tend to oversimplify, I boiled it down to the three basics options:
1) Massively increase the troops and basically lockdown the country, providing security for rebuilding.
2) Keep troops more or less at the current level.
3) Bring the troops out and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves, which was acknowledged to basically be civil war.
Option 2 was quickly ignored as the status quo isn’t working. Option one, he insisted, would result in a massive rebellion and insurgency, including Shia as well as Sunni as that would be a real occupation and the Iraqis wouldn’t accept that. This was based on conversations with Iraqi friends he has and his knoweldge of the country. Option 3 also posed as problem as it would lead to civil war and major bloodletting. But I thought of you when I found myself saying: “We agree that the situation is bad, but we need a solution. Here are the options. Pick one.”
I view option 3 as the least worst option. but definitely not a good option, as option 2 isn’t working, and option 1 would appear to make matters worse. But option 1 is the only way I can see of achieving anything that doesn’t resemble a bloodbath. I don’t think it would, but it is the only option where that is any sort of possibility.
Just throwing this into the debate for a slightly different perspective.
By Jersey McJones on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
That pretty much sums it up, Paul. And 1, 2, and 3 may as well be called the McCain Plan, the Bush Plan, and the Murtha Plan. The trouble is, that there aren’t enough troops for the McCain Plan unless they reactivate the draft, and I don’t see the political will for that. So, that plan is dead on arrival. The Murtha Plan, though politically expedient, might well lead to a broader regional war and yet another failed or theocratic state. We’re just so friggin’ stuck over there.
I think that there are some non-military things we have to do, though. We have to cut out the profiteering contractors. We should be funding Iraqi contractors, not American and other foreign entities. That alone would do more to end the insurgency than anything else. We have to let the Iraqi government behave a little more progressively and socialistically. The flat tax and other failed economic policies are not helping over there. That would help the government gain respect and legitimacy. And we HAVE to engage ALL the neighbor states in the region. We HAVE to. Without their assistance we will fail in Iraq.
JMJ
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Paul,
I agree that the three options that you present are the only real options that exist. Option 1 would require a US draft and sending 200 thousand more troops to Iraq. There is no way that there is any political will to do this. The 21,500 surge that Bush advertised in his speech is basically just doing the same thing. Our current troop level is about 132K and this level has fluctuated between 120K and 160K for the last four years after the “Mission Acomplished” speech on May 1, 2003. So, 153.5K is just more of the same.
As you point out, option 3 is the least worse option. The only better option is to invent a time machine and go back to 2002 and stop Bush from doing this…
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Yes, Paul, those seem to be (in, as you say, oversimplified form) the options. The difference is that I see 1 as the least worst problem. I was reading an article that said, basically, that Sunnis were coming around to the fact that it was the Shiite militia who were the enemy now (along with Al Qaeda, whom they initially worked with but have come to view as having been very bad for the Sunnis as they had brought down the Shiite militias upon the Sunnis). In other words, Al Qaeda is being isolated (a good thing, no?), while they aren’t loving us, Sunnis are coming to view us as their only hope of saving them from the Shiite militias. Maliki is now making sounds that sound like he’s no longer going to defend the Shiite militias, that they must disarm or the Americans will put them down like sick dogs. Under that scenario, the task may become no longer fighting Sunni insurgents but Shiite militias, including the Mahdi army, with Sunni help. With Al Qaeda becoming isolated, getting intel to wipe them out or push them out of Iraq may become easier to do.
I’m not saying that it will be easy. I see it as doable with more forces. Lots more forces would be better but with the strength that he’s considering adding, it will take longer and be more dangerous but can be done, I believe.
Anyway, I’m serious. I’ve said my piece and I have nothing else to add. I do appreciate the contribution you, the good Doctor, Jersey, Dusty, Ken, Tammara and LAW (have I missed anyone) have made and I’ll continue to read and absorb and I’ll respond to comments addressed personally to me but I’m pretty sure I’d just be repeating myself to continue the conversation. Since this is such a personal and painful issue for so many here, the more I say, the greater the chance of my contributing to that pain.
Honestly, couldn’t we debate the pros and cons of bunnies?
By Paul Watson on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
Fair enough. I just wanted to bring in a perspective from someone who’s actually from the region and so has more of a handle on the Iraqi culture than we do.
You also came to mind when I was trying to explain how the AUMF did have reasons that were still valid, even if the press offensive was all about WMD (see, I do pay attention.;) ).
And if we’re debating bunnines, those teeth are very, very painful and if you pick one up they can deliver a serious kick ini the chest.
By Paul Watson on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Forgot to add, that, on balance, I’m in favour of bunnies. If we’re talking about Playboy bunnies (definitely a plus on the pro side), make that very in favour.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Yes, I saw a report on Killer Bunnies on Monty Python. Those things can gnaw right through your neck and behead you in about a half a second flat.
I’m glad to know that my efforts aren’t all falling upon deaf ears. :^)
As a married, former pastor, I guess it would be up to me to take the ‘con’ position on (playboy) bunnies…not an enviable position to try to defend… ;^>
By Dusty on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
craig, would that be the “jimmy carter” stand on playboy bunnies? You know, the lusting in your heart kinda stuff?
I think if the powers that be wish to invoke the draft they can then ramp up to 26 million soliders to take out the remaining 27 million Iraqi’s and then..poof..no more insurgency.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Only my father confessor knows for sure. I’d probably go the “it’s demeaning to women” route; basic women’s lib argument. I figure it would go over better here than the “it’s a sin” argument. Not many “moral majority” types here at BIO!
By Jersey McJones on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Moral Majority? Now, there’s something I haven’t heard in a while! Man, were those guys a pain.
JMJ
By Dusty on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Didn’t they become the “Immoral Minority”?
By Jersey McJones on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, like the song! I guess it became the Christian Coalition. Yeah for us. <s>
JMJ