[teodaschwartia]

Not a particularly intelligent column for someone with his education and experience, IMO. Then again, I'm no genius myself...

[herrdwq]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Then again, I'm no genius myself... QFT!

I agree though, he's essentially rehashing stuff I've been saying all along - but then, I am a genius...

[BCVB9SOc]

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists. This is the one I've been struggling with. I used to think that "staying the course" might help stave off disaster, but I've been coming around more & more to his position.

-Arrian

[RobsShow]

"We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists."

its not "double think". the fact that our invasion caused the mess does not logically imply that our staying their isnt necessary to keep it from getting worse. And thats true whether it was inevitable or (as many think) contingent. Certainly most Iraqi leaders, including the Sunni Arabs, seem to think it (the civil war, the blood bath, etc) would become worse if we left now. As do our military leaders in Iraq. Obviously prolonging the US presence does not prevent what exists now - but it could prevent things from getting worse, and it could make possible some improvements.

Now it can be argued that given our limited resources, and our ability to contain any consequences to ourselves from Iraq getting worse, that it is in our interest to withdraw and accept that things there will get worse. But lets not try to make ourselves feel better by pretending that it wont.

[wallyfindme]

"Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening "regime change," using the hysterical rhetoric of the "global war on terrorism" -- all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East."

thats the core of this arrian.

1. Going back to the old policy of supporting dictators without question to maintain "stability". That has in the past created instability. That policy gave us the Islamic Rep of Iran, and it gave us the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Is our reaction to the current situation in Iraq going to lead us back there?

2. Iranian nukes. The Europeans tried for years to stop them with negotiations. The mullahs jerked them around and humiliated, which is why they are now supportive of using sanctions. Sanctions that have led to growing discontent with the regime. Is it wise to stop that now? And what exactly does the situation in Iraq have to do with this?

3. Regime change. We have not threatened regime change by force anywhere except Iraq. Thats one of the big lies around. Does Mr Odom want us to promise to never have anything to do with the Iranian or Syrian opposition? He doenst like war (understandable) he doesnt like sanctions - does he want to take away any tools we have to effect change? Makes sense if you dont want change. (are we still allowed to talk to opposition folks in Russia or China, is this a ME only policy?)

4. Rhetoric. A rose by any other name will smell as sweet. Pretending we are not fighting a global war on terrorism wont change facts. What does Mr Odom want to call what happening in Helmand Afghanistan, in the Sahel, in the Arabian Sea, etc. Global law enforcement? Mazel tov then. Or a global war on Al qaeeda, so we can make it clear that terrorism by Hamas and Hezbollah is OK? After all thats directed against the evil Zionist Occupation, which has the nerve to be destabilizing by its presence.

[zawhmqswly]

Does this mean we'll see Democrats talk seriously about cutting off the funds and backing their professed opposition with something more concrete than paper?

[pheelixoss]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
its not "double think". the fact that our invasion caused the mess does not logically imply that our staying their isnt necessary to keep it from getting worse.

Good, cause that's not what he's saying. He's asking what is the difference between loosing a son in a war vs. loosing a son in the aftermath of that war? The argument wants the U.S. forces to stay so people don't get killed but if we stay people are going to keep getting killed. That's double-think, look it up.

And thats true whether it was inevitable or (as many think) contingent.

A situation that exists cannot be contingent or innevitable. He is not addressing the invasion of Iraq, he's addressing the continued occupation of Iraq. Yes, the outcome of the invasion could not have been predicted. The situation that currently exists doesn't need to be predicted - it just needs to be looked at.

Certainly most Iraqi leaders, including the Sunni Arabs, seem to think it (the civil war, the blood bath, etc) would become worse if we left now.

Again, not his argument. His argument is that if we don't leave it can only continue on it's current course. In other words, the insurgents can't be angered at U.S. pressence if the U.S. isn't present. You can call it "assiting forces", you can call it "stengthening support"... whatever. For over 4 years the presence of U.S. soldiers has not calmed nor stabalized the country. What line of logic has them doing so in the next 4 years?

Certainly most Iraqi leaders, including the Sunni Arabs, seem to think it (the civil war, the blood bath, etc) would become worse if we left now. As do our military leaders in Iraq.

Our military leaders have spoken out, almost to a man, that the situation, as it currently exists, will most likley never improve.

Obviously prolonging the US presence does not prevent what exists now - but it could prevent things from getting worse, and it could make possible some improvements.

There are two schools of thought we need to be concerned with - those that proclaim they are acting out against the U.S. occupation and those that are not.

If they are not, our being there or leaving should not affect their violence in any way. Otherwise they are lying and will expose themselves to the world theatre.

If they are acting out against our being their and we leave they will stop acting out. If they do not, again, they will be exposed as liars to the world theatre and delt with accordingly.

Our presence is not keeping anything in check. If it were, people and soldiers wouldn't be getting blown up on an almost daily basis.

Our withdrawl, however, will provide for either the reduction of violence or the exposure of senseless violence. This will lead to exposure on a global scale and we can then deal with the problem, unclouded by rhetoric and lies.

Now it can be argued that given our limited resources, and our ability to contain any consequences to ourselves from Iraq getting worse, that it is in our interest to withdraw and accept that things there will get worse. But lets not try to make ourselves feel better by pretending that it wont.

It will, by definition, not be worse because it will lack an expanded target. If a car bomb goes of and kill 4 Iraqis and 2 U.S. soldiers and another kills 4 Iraqis the diference should be obvious. Several factions in the Middle East have hated the U.S. for 30 or more years, what makes you think this is an act? Has it occured to you that maybe they actually do hate the U.S.? And maybe if we get out and let them run their own dang country they'd stop trying to kill us? Or at least make them have to get to us. The people that destroyed the Twin Towers at least had to go through the trouble of getting to us. The U.S. death toll in Iraq is now higher than the Twin Towers and they didn't have to go anywhere. We basically GAVE them people to kill at their lesiure.

The thing about the Iraqi invasion that I dislike most is it set the stage for pre-emptive punishment. We now get to act based on what we think might happen if things go wrong. Are we going to apply this new rule of law to private individuals as well now? The street I drive down to get to work is commonly know as the "autobhan of Michigan" because so many people speed down it. So let's just give speeding tickets to everyone on it, because we know what they are doing there, right?

The long and short of it is this: the current situation is not working. What makes you thinkit'll start working in a number of years?

Tom P.

[toreesi]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I see the USA war in Iraq as stepping on an ant-hill, if you continue there, you will not achieve victory, you will just get bitten, the only thing to do is get your foot out and let the thing rebuild itself.
I like that! Can I use it?

Tom P.

[carletoxtrs]

Ok!

But if you make millions of dollars due to it, Ill sue youç

[irrawnWab]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I think the worst mistake US did was abandoning conscription. They'd never have sent an army of conscripts to Iraq. Funny how something that seemed a good idea not so long ago looks so disasterous now. We sent them to Vietnam, why not here?

We sent National Guard troops...for multiple tours. That was kind of a backdoor draft. Heck, we even toyed with the idea of re-inducting soldiers who's enlistments were up.

[Gudronich]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
LOTM OK, I looked and looked and can't find this anywhere. What is it?
Last of the Mohicans?
Little orphans take medicine?
Lethargic Online Type Media?

What?

Tom P.

[HassFks]

Originally posted by padillah
And thats true whether it was inevitable or (as many think) contingent.

A situation that exists cannot be contingent or innevitable. Of course it can be. Given that China had low wages, reasonable infrastructure, and that it opened to world trade and investment, it was inevitable that it would grow rapidly. Givent that the US has run large deficits for the last 6 years, it was inevitable our national debt would grow. Given that there were elections in Italy a year ago, it was contingent which side would win. Given tensions in Paris, it was contingent whether police behavior in response to an incident would trigger riots.

Many folks believe that given the US invasion of Iraq, IF the aftermath had been handled differently (someone more competent than Bremer, less debaathification, more US troops, etc, etc) the situation now would not be the mess it is. In fact even GIVEN all those mistakes, if the insurgents had not gotten lucky and managed to destroy a major Shiite shrine one year ago, it would not have gotten this bad. Thats all I meant by being contingent. If you prefer a different word for that, thats fine with me. I was taking issue with Odoms use of the word inevitable, which you seem to have overlooked.

[pXss8cyx]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
[q]


Lord of the Mark The correct response to that was 100-0. You walked into a big own goal.

[mobiphones]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
A situation that exists cannot be contingent or innevitable.

Of course it can be. No it can't. Only when there is uncertainty can there be contingency. A current state has no uncertainty. A current state need only be observed.

He is not talking about "what might have been", he's talking about what is.

If you prefer a different word for that, thats fine with me. I was taking issue with Odoms use of the word inevitable, which you seem to have overlooked. As I posted before his use of "inevitable" was completely appropriate. That U.S. forces would be in Iraq after invading Iraq is a physical inevitibility. In fact there are several laws, both of nature and physics, that would be broken were this not the case. If you need more proof look up the definition of "invade".

We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!
The absolute unequivocal resolution to prevailing after an invasion is to have troops in the country you invaded.

If you go to the store, where are you? In the store! That is the inevitable conclusion of you prevailing in your trip. Now if you had gotten into an accident you would not have been at the store but that wasn't your plan, that is a contingency. Once you arive at the store, having an accident on your way to the store will no longer be a contingency. It will have been resolved.

Tom P.

[DariushPetresku]

Told us what?

[Kryfamid]

That makes you unique even in the American context in what way?

[N9u9ie4p]

Just imagine if we had said "victory is not an option" in World War 2. This kind of defeatist attitude makes me sick.

[DoterrFor]

Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran. All I have seen is the administration say the exact opposite, in very clear language. Interesting how this myth persists.

We sent National Guard troops...for multiple tours. That was kind of a backdoor draft. Heck, we even toyed with the idea of re-inducting soldiers who's enlistments were up. It was most certainly not a draft, it was the fullfillmet of their agreed upon contract. Just because many thought they would get a pretty much free source of income on the side for minimal risk is irrelavent to military stategy, they went in with their eyes wide open (and most still haven't served overseas).

Ooo, great analogy! Except for the wee fact that, this far into our involvement in WWII, the war had already been over for several months. Not that I agree with the original analogy, but your response is even more retarded. If we are going to use one point of comparison (you chose time), I will go with deaths which is 3% of WWII over the same time period.

Isn't that game fun!!!

[Poohoppesmase]

(If we're going to continue with the stupid WWII analogy) Aren't we still in Germany? Where's the exit strategy?

[Andromino]

(Let's go foward a few years and look at the Korean War) Where's the exit strategy in Korea? We have thousands of troops there who's sole purpose is to die in the face of an enemy attack. Why are we sending our troops to mediate a foreign civil war?