Anniversary

[Sand]

I am mostly thinking about the Middle East, and not Japan. Japan no longer hates us because we keep buying their crap over priced electronics. What they couldn't do militarily they are doing through economics.

[metadigital]

Your grip of reality is as loose as your grasp of world politics.

[Sand]

Reality is how you define it, but sometimes I get a syntax error.

 

 

 

[Walsingham]

Azarkon, you make a fair point which is that I can come across too strong in favour of the US administration's given reasons. For e the entire concept - and entirely worthwhile concept - was the removal of the Hussein dynasty, and the liberation of Iraq. On teh other hand thsi does not mean that we should ignore the mental challenge of debating whether WMDs really were present.

 

However, on this particular occasion I was wasting my time trying to draw Sando into a logical debate. Which is as fruitful as trying to beat a fox terrier at poker. He doesn't appear interested in playing the game.

 

Any man who argues we should get out of Iraq should first (in my opinion) acquiant himself with the details of what happened in Rwanda. Because a full ethnic war in Iraq will make Rwanda look like a rough Friday night on the town. I find it unbelievable that anyone could face the reality of what that would mean without outrage and an insistence that something be done. Except of course it will be too late.

 

The behaviour of a few thousand insurgents should not mean you abandon the millions who are NOT attacking the authorities, and are in fact daily providing intelligence that permits counter-insurgency strikes. Or would you like your own country's destiny to be decided by the 'free' militia nutcases up in Wyoming?

 

Moreover any line of logic which will take you into war with China is completely redundant.

[Sand]

Any ethnic war in Iraq would be the responsibility of the Iraqis to get into or out of. If the Sunnis, Kurds, and the Shiites can't find a common ground and get along, and aim on killing each other for stupid reasons they will do so regardless if we are there or not. Our troops are stopping nothing. Our troops are just getting in the crossfire. Until the Iraqis see that violence and murder, as a culture and a nation, is not the answer to solve differences death and destruction will continue. The only sane course is to get out of the way.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Reminds me of how stupid religious conflicts are. Fighting for things that dont exist...

[Walsingham]

Any ethnic war in Iraq would be the responsibility of the Iraqis to get into or out of. If the Sunnis, Kurds, and the Shiites can't find a common ground and get along, and aim on killing each other for stupid reasons they will do so regardless if we are there or not. Our troops are stopping nothing. Our troops are just getting in the crossfire. Until the Iraqis see that violence and murder, as a culture and a nation, is not the answer to solve differences death and destruction will continue. The only sane course is to get out of the way.

 

 

There is no shortage of examples of countries left to 'get better on their own', such as Somalia, Afghanistan (prior to the invasion), Cote D'Ivoir, to name a few. They don't get better. They stay locked in an endless cycle of violence, and total degradation. The only way they ever escape is by imposition of order. If that order is imposed domestically it occurs through some bastard hauling himself up to the point where he has sufficient military strength. This typically occurs through the most brutal means, and often collapses under its own rapacity.

 

The alternative, as was demonstrated in the balkans, and as we were doing in Afghanistan (before we became confused about the importance of civilian aid), is armed intervention in the conflict, regime change, and gradual stablilisation. This collapses when the apathetic fidgety masses get distracted by a new pair of shoes, and demand a pull out.

 

To use an analogy, you are advocating what amounts to a Christian Science approach to teh health of countries, whereas I recognise the facility of surgery and medicine. What we are witnessing in Iraq is the consequence of our opening up a patient, then - because they're having a crisis - we just walk off without even suturing them up.

 

Azarkon, you will no doubt have noticed this is not a million miles away from the Neocon position on Iraq in the first place.

[Azarkon]

It's pretty close to how they imagine it, except you have to realize that helping people is a secondary concern for the "surgeon" in the picture. The neocons want, foremost, to the rule the world, which in less extravagant terms means that they want the US to dominate in every sphere of power and never be told "no." They want nothing less than full spectrum dominance on this earth and beyond - and that's straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Inherently, there's nothing special about what they want. The Romans and the Persians wanted the same thing. So did the European powers. And in the process of achieving what each empire imagined to be its destiny, they accomplished great things that are instrumental to modern history. The Romans did build roads through barbarian lands, and the Persians did bring a sophisticated culture. The European powers did force the world to modernize, and science did become the sway of day. If we were to bracket the evils each empire committed and focus only on the good, why, we'd all be imperialists.

 

My problem with the neocons is not, thus, that their imperial ambitions are unusual - but that as imperialists they are incompetent and cruel. Not only have they failed to achieve their geopolitical quest, but they have dragged down millions of lives and a nation's reputation with them. Worse, they are apathetic and show no remorse, believing that the ends will justify the means, even when the ends are out of reach. As politicians they are closer to the bureaucratic Mandarins than the popular Caesars, and while Mandarins are practical for the rule of an empire, they cannot bring it about. That requires people with greater charisma and force of character than is currently present in the Bush administration. It also requires a clear and realistic vision of peace amidst the shock and awe of war, which again the current administration lacks with its constant backpedalling on what the job "is" and when it will be "done."

 

History remembers the great conquerors, sometimes as heroes - but history has only scorn for the great failures, who in their ineptitude and ignorance of their ineptitude have caused atrocities such that the world trembles beneath. Power in hands that do not deserve to wield them is the cause of true villainly. But my grief is not reserved for the neocons and their tragedy. No, what's more tragic is the nation they've tricked to do their bidding, which must bear the consequences of their failures.

 

I'm also frustrated that society itself has become apathetic, of which political apathy is but a part - that's a different topic, however.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

An interesting perspective. Note that I do not call myself a neocon. In fact I would suggest tentaively that Sando is closer in spirit to what the Neocons are trying to do: 'Protect' the US by any means necessary. Which in the view of Wolfowitz (if I recall) includes getting rid of 'sick man' regimes that breed unrest and violence. Enlightened self interest.

 

The lack of attention from the heart of the Washington machine might also be a product of the byzantine intrigues everyone is required to engage in instead of doing their job. Or am I taking devil's advocate too far?

[Azarkon]

There's that. This wouldn't be the first time "protecting the homeland" has led to "invading someone else's land." Far from it.

 

Ultimately, I think it comes down to a question of competence. I find it difficult to assign the sort of moustache-twirling evil that one would have to do if they assumed a cunning, cognizant, and most importantly *successful* power behind recent events. The neocons are not, I believe, psychopaths - the thought that they deliberated all that had occured just to benefit their oil buddies and geopolitical goals is a bit of a stretch. More likely they, in their hubris, underestimated the resistance they'd face and the sheer chaos of Saddam's fall. They thought that the job could be done in a clean and relatively painless manner, with minimal casualties resulting from maximum "shock and awe." They probably expected some risks and surprises - always possibilities during war - but nothing that'd endanger their long-term goals.

 

After all, what could possibly stand against the peerless US war machine?

 

Unfortunately, arrogance has always been a key flaw of Americans. The neocons even moreso than the rest.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

I think a lot of the blame falls at Rumsfeld. He was left in charge of the "operation" (and he had some pretty impressive credentials); it was his decision to dismiss the Iraqi armed forces, for example, and keep the British forces at arms'-length (and not involved in any decision-making), etc.

[Azarkon]

Sure, Rumsfeld is easy to blame, but most of his policies were right in line with the neocon philosophy of US hegemony. I wouldn't be surprised if Gates was cut from the same fabric.

[metadigital]

It was Rumsfeld's direct control of the Pentagon I was talking about.

[Azarkon]

Well, you might find it interesting then that reports claim Rumsfeld had been trying to end his reliance on the CIA by creating a new espionage branch within the Pentagon... And that the new Secretary of Defense was the Director of Central Intelligence within the CIA. Coincidence? Who knows.

[Sand]

Walsh, it isn't our place to rebuild countries when our own country is in the crapper.

[Walsingham]

Walsh, it isn't our place to rebuild countries when our own country is in the crapper.

 

In the crapper? What on Earth are you talking about? Have you ever actually been abroad? Look, get your skinny patuchas over to ...I dunno... Mozambique. Get some sun, get some exercise, get some prime seafood, witness a country struggling with 10% HIV infection, get your legs blown off by a landmine, then we'll talk about crapper.

[Sand]

Mozambique's problems are for Mozambique to solve. US problems are for the US to solve.

[Walsingham]

Mozambique's problems are for Mozambique to solve. US problems are for the US to solve.

 

You appear to be stuck.

[Sand]

Nope, not at all. The problem with the world today is that hardly any nation is self-suficient. Until a country is completely self-sufficient its in the crapper.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Its like the earth is floating in the crapper, then. And the only part thats not expose is the northern hemisphere.

[Walsingham]

Nope, not at all. The problem with the world today is that hardly any nation is self-suficient. Until a country is completely self-sufficient its in the crapper.

 

*Enters systems science frenzy of rage*

 

No country is self-sufficient because we happen to be interdependent. Moreover it is perfectly possible for countries to exist in peaceful and largely amicable interdependency, rather than committing the grand equivalent of hiding in the closet sucking their thumb. Indeed I would go further and suggest that embracing our interdependence is at the heart of every major advance in the human condition of the past 2000 years!

 

You insistence that the US should ignore the rest of the world completely ignores its dependence on the rest of the world for marketing its goods and securing its raw materials. Taking an active, and at times even unwelcome interest in other countries is precisely what has underpinned your growth from a marginal colony to the World's greatest power. Every time you have goen into isolationism we have had a World War. Need I continue?

 

This is quite beside the initial point of this thread which was to observe that we are in danger of losing everything that was promised by the fall of one of the 20th century's most odious dicatators. And if that does not move you there is the small matter of our being undeniably the instigators (but not the perpetuators) of the mess Iraq is now in. Can you honestly be so bereft of both honour and compassion that you can calmly turn your back?

[Sand]

No country is self-sufficient because we happen to be interdependent. Moreover it is perfectly possible for countries to exist in peaceful and largely amicable interdependency, rather than committing the grand equivalent of hiding in the closet sucking their thumb. Indeed I would go further and suggest that embracing our interdependence is at the heart of every major advance in the human condition of the past 2000 years!

 

Is it possible for there to be peaceful interdependency? Yes, it is possible. Is it probableto happen? Not bloody likely. In the world today very nation is trying to subjugate another nation either through military might, religious doctrine, or through economic means in order to get ahead.

 

You insistence that the US should ignore the rest of the world completely ignores its dependence on the rest of the world for marketing its goods and securing its raw materials. Taking an active, and at times even unwelcome interest in other countries is precisely what has underpinned your growth from a marginal colony to the World's greatest power. Every time you have goen into isolationism we have had a World War. Need I continue?

 

I never said we shouldn't trade goods. Keep trade going by all means, but lets limit our involvement in other nations only to trade. No aide to other countries. No taking loans from other countries. No military excursions, or try to change their political system. And so forth and so on.

 

This is quite beside the initial point of this thread which was to observe that we are in danger of losing everything that was promised by the fall of one of the 20th century's most odious dicatators. And if that does not move you there is the small matter of our being undeniably the instigators (but not the perpetuators) of the mess Iraq is now in. Can you honestly be so bereft of both honour and compassion that you can calmly turn your back?

 

It has nothing to do with honor or compassion. The president fooled congress to have our forces invade Iraq. We invaded on false pretenses which is costing the US billions of dollars and cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Not a damn thing. All we got was a civil war and nearly every nation on this mudball hating us. Way to go Bush! There will be no peace in Iraq unless the Iraqis want it. That is the bottomline. There will be no clean way out of Iraq because Bush and his idiotic administration went in without an exit strategy. The only viable solution is to leave so that we don't waste more resources and lives in that sinkhole.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

But then Bush would use his president vetto and voila! No one can do a thing.

[metadigital]

Nope, not at all. The problem with the world today is that hardly any nation is self-suficient. Until a country is completely self-sufficient its in the crapper.

Can you honestly be so bereft of both honour and compassion that you can calmly turn your back?

Point of order: Sand can't be bereft of honour, as bereavement implies that he had the quality to begin with, then lost it. "Devoid" is a much better adjective.

 

It has nothing to do with honor or compassion. The president fooled congress to have our forces invade Iraq. We invaded on false pretenses which is costing the US billions of dollars and cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Not a damn thing.

Supposition. If nothing else, the US is getting a crash course in armed conflict in urban environments.

All we got was a civil war and nearly every nation on this mudball hating us. Way to go Bush! There will be no peace in Iraq unless the Iraqis want it. That is the bottomline. There will be no clean way out of Iraq because Bush and his idiotic administration went in without an exit strategy. The only viable solution is to leave so that we don't waste more resources and lives in that sinkhole.

Your myopic philosophy doesn't allow for the introduction of a steady-state via some force external to the system, for example providing Marshall funding to the post-war German nation to ensure that they could use their efforts to become useful members of the international community, rather than disappear into a self-destructive, Hobbesian pre-civilization anarchy.

 

Also, creating an exit statement isn't restricted to before the conflict. (It is certainly advisable to have it beforehand, but its absence is does not prevent one from being devised during the engagement.) Your "get out NOW!" bleating is an example of a post-invasion exit statement, for example. Other, more sober voices, are just trying to incorporate other factors, rather than your single dimensional approach, namely "harm to US soldiers and cost to US Balance of Payments THIS YEAR". Like the fate of the innocent women and children who just happen, by accident of birth, to live in Iraq. Just like you, by accident of birth, happen to live in Iowa.

[Sand]

Yes, and we each deal with the hand we are given, Meta, and do the best we can.