You may have missed the thread, but Paladin recently admitted that the war was a mistake. He correctly noted, however, that mistake or not, we are faced with the fact of war. I am certainly interested in hearing how we will know we have won, but I see no point in furthering the debate over the invasion. Everybody now acknowledges it was a mistake.
Why is three years the arbitrary magic number? What if it's four years? Or five? I'm sure you could've found a Cindy Sheehan-like character who lost her son at El-Alamein who could've mounted a passionate argument about how years of conflict had produced nothing but dead American soldiers. Then shouldn't the surge be given the same three years (if that's the magic number)? How do you know the surge isn't this war's D-Day Landing, the move that puts us over the top? Arbitrary. And does not take into account that insurgencies usually last longer than wars. A war usually ends when a capitol is taken or an army is defeated to the point it can no longer function. An insurgency never really dies; it can just be continually reduced. How do you know that in June 2010 people won't be saying "Man, it's a good thing they did that surge or Iraq would've gone under?" You don't. And they didn't in June, 1944 either. Remember, Eisenhower had the "failure" speech already written. So, if you think the war is wrong (even though it was overwhelmingly supported at the outset), you should be in a hurry to lose it? Different topic. And to quote Winston Churchill: "History shall be very kind to me for I intend to write it." We're in the midst of trying the surge. Shouldn't we at least give that a chance to work before proclaiming failure?
Many still deny that. And the further point of bringing up the mistake that was the invasion is in trying to guard against repeats of such mistakes.
Actually, even the media is reporting the tide is shifting there. 30 tribes in Anbar allying to run Al Qaeda out because they were tired of AQ targetting Iraqis, the same happening in Ameria in Anc's thread.... And still not a single new attack on American soil. That counts for something over here. AQ as an exporter of terrorism is functionally done. All they've been shown to be able to do in recent years is cheer on internal disaffected fundamentalists - once they are done, AQ lacks the capability to export violence outside the Middle East. For one thing, there is a fatwa stating that you have to drive the infidel out of any land held by Islam - hence the unreasoning hatred of Israel, and the fact that almost all of their resources have gone into trying to get the US and coalition forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
History will not look kindly on Gitmo, but it's not even a comparison to the Japanese internment camps (or for that matter the camps run by the UK in Canada). What would be equivalent would be if the US round up every Arab descended citizen and put them in prison for years and seized their property. Gitmo isn't even close to that.
Pimping Dave's Insanity is hostile? Seriously, I can't pass up a chance to pimp Dave's Insanity. Even if it means having to say something that shouldn't be taken seriously. [action=Liet]hands Paladin some free hemorrhoid cream, hopes it helps.[/action]
Uh...NO. I said I wouldn't have supported it if I'd known it was going to cost as much as it has. I still support the ideas behind going to war and I believe that the good intended can be still be achieved. Good idea or not, we must make the best of where we are now. If staying the course is the better idea, we should do it. If withdrawing is the better course, we should do that. I feel, given our enemy's ability to turn a perceived victory into greater influence, that we should stay.
What I'm always astonished at is how little faith we have in our troops now. NPR had a discussion on Wed that talked about how no less than 2 four star generals said that due to 'stress' on the troops the surge was completely impossible. Obviously they've been proven wrong. I keep hearing how the army is going to break at any time now. They seem to think that wear and tear on the vehicles is equivalent to the Army breaking. Just more self-defeating attitudes. Our military is well trained, well equipped and incredibly well motivated - they aren't inductees, but men and woman that have chosen to be there. It just totally amazes me that so many pansies think that Iraq will break the military when things like the Khe Sanh, the Tet Offensive, the Battle of the Bulge, Anzio, Iwo Jima, Belleau Wood and a thousand other conflicts didn't. I'm not saying are servicemen aren't sacrificing. They are. But they chose to do so, and the sacrifice they are making isn't one that hasn't been asked of soldiers before. The fact they chose to make those sacrifices is why they should be respected, and the fact the sacrficies are there choice is why they can be born.
More specifically, it goes to the credibility of the people who decided to start this war in the first place, the same people now surging and staying the course, on matters of military and diplomatic judgment. Given how clear it was all along that the invasion and occupation was a mistake, it goes very strongly to that credibility. People who have been wrong about every diplomatic and military prediction of any significance in Iraq for the last 4+ years don't get to decide what to do now, or at least they don't in a hypothetical sane society.
Well, they wouldn't if they were voted out in the last election, but they weren't. So they do get to decide for more than another year. I know, I know, you don't like democracy because it doesn't always put those you favor in power, but I like to think of it as sane a system as exists.
Depends on how high the cost. A quick twenty grand would be worthwhile, but would it be worth doing a gay porn to you?
Oh, and in the meanwhile a Lebanese group that claims to be part of the AQ network is getting pounded by the Lebanese government with backing from both Shia Arab governments and the United States for robbing a bank in Lebannon, no doubt to fund future attacks. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/01/lebanon.conflict/index.html Oddly enough, the Lebanese government claims AQ is using civilians as human shields.
Thus explaining Dicky's absolute refusal to keep a day job AND his never having slept with a woman. It's all so clear now!
I've never run across Dave's, but a friend of mine (funnily enough, named Dave) has and has suggested the following: Take one large pot of chili. If you add one drop of Dave's Insanity sauce, it will be quite spicy. If you add two drops, it's ruined. I ain't putting that in my body through any oriface.
You can quibble about the number however you would like. 1 year, 5 years, whatever. The point is, you can evaluate the success or failure of a military manuever or set of manuevers within a shorter time frame than decades from now. And we should be using benchmarks along the way. It may be soldier deaths are the wrong benchmark. Granted, it will not be a full evaluation. Heck, there might be facts only now coming to light about WWII or whatever that might change our appraisal of that. The question we need to be asking ourselves is what the right benchmarks are and how are we doing at achieving them. If the benchmark is winning Iraqi hearts and minds, the answer is pretty lousy. If the benchmark is, our mere continued presence in Iraq and our "showing resolve" to Al-Qaida then I guess we're doing a heckuva job, Pally. That you could cherry-pick one person to oppose the invasion of Normandy doesn't mean that people wouldn't by and large realize that as costly as it was, the invasion was necessary and succeeded in achieving our goals for it. Like I said, there is no magic number. That's something you seized on. Should the surge be given more time? I suppose so. I can't claim to be an expert. The question again is how much more time. And what constitutes "working"? In Normandy, there was a concrete mission objective: take the friggin beach so we could land more troops there. We achieved the mission objective. Yeah us! Now that we've deposed and executed Saddam and given Iraqis the wherewithal to create a democracy, what are our concrete goals beyond just staying? How many Iraqis are we supposed to be training so they can "stand up"? Are we anywhere close to that goal? If so, what can speed us along to it? If not, why not? Is violence overall a useful measure of whether the surge is working? If not, why not? If it is, it seems like so far the surge isn't working. I don't know in June 2010 that people won't be saying that. I do know that the signs to date aren't particularly encouraging, and given what we know about the launch of this war about the incompetence of the Pentagon and the administration in general that there's no particular reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. But, yes, hypothetically no one doesn't know that if we stay in Iraq till 2050 that the turning point won't come in 2049. The best we can do is make an educated decision based on all the evidence. I'm not seeing much evidence that staying will offer much in the way of net benefits than leaving. I freely admit I could be wrong. Do you? All I'm saying is that the two wars aren't comparable. I'm not in a hurry to lose anything. Different topic. And to quote Winston Churchill: "History shall be very kind to me for I intend to write it." We're in the midst of trying the surge. Shouldn't we at least give that a chance to work before proclaiming failure?[/QUOTE] I keep asking you: what basis is acceptable to you to decide whether the surge is working? What timeframe? What measurement? You keep on not responding.
You're the one who's fixated on three. Yes, but the standards of World War II and the Iraq War are very different. They are, for the reasons I've already demonstrated. If saving soldier's lives is the highest measure of battlefield success, then the best one can do is retreat and cede the territory to the enemy. We see WWII with 20/20 hindsight. You can't look at any battle that took place there without knowing that victory was ultimately assured. The people who actually fought it didn't have that knowledge. I'd ask things like: 1. Can the Iraqi government function? 2. Are the security forces in Iraq improving both in number and in quality? 3. Are the insurgents feeling pressure? That may be an unreasonable benchmark. The polls I see say the Iraqis don't like us...but they're not in any hurry for us to leave, either. I'm sorry you're incapable of accepting the historical fact that Al-Qaida has taken strength from the U.S. showing weakness. Your enemy attacks when he thinks you're weak. The truth of an idea is not connected to how many people believe or disbelieve it. No, it's something you seized on. And it's conveniently the same amount of time we've been in Iraq up til now. My idea of a time frame? Six months from maximum surge. What constitutes working? I'd say civilian deaths reduced 50% or more. We didn't execute him. Making sure those successes aren't compromised by a premature withdrawl. I can't say. The latest news (about Iraqi armed forces joining with Sunni civilians to strike Al-Qaida) is pretty encouraging. Violence in and of itself is not a good measure. The whole purpose of the surge is to cause a lot more violence...violence directed against the insurgents, of course. It's too easy to say "The war is dragging on because the Administration is incompetent. The Administration is incompetent because the war is dragging on." While there may well be legitimate points of criticism for the Administration, difficulty in war is not de facto proof of incompetence. If it is, then the Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson Administrations were far more incompetent. We're still in Korea. Of course I can be wrong. But do you really expect the violence in Iraq to decrease if we leave? Do you expect Al-Qaida will not spin it as a victory? Do you expect that the gains we have made will be preserved? I'd give it six months from the surge maximum and define success as civilian deaths from insurgent attacks reduced by 50% or more. I don't believe you asked me that question that way before. I've answered it twice the both times you asked in your last post.
Lofty goals. But that helps. Now you need to connect them with what we are doing. Can you draw a line from our actions in the field to these results? Keeping in mind, of course, the other factors at play.
1. If the insurgents are not kept in check, the government will almost certainly fall. We are fighting the insurgents. 2. We are training the Iraqi forces. 3. We are fighting the insurgents.
