Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

If we actually had a real debate before this war started, we wouldn't have started the war in the first place.

So why should things be any different now?

Posted by Bryan Price at March 9, 2007 02:08 PM

Simberg thinks the US Should be endlessly involved in
the Iraqi Civil war.

Posted by anonymous at March 9, 2007 02:34 PM

We had more than a full year of debate before going in. We're still paying for all the preparations and ass-covering on the part of our foes that went on _then_.

Posted by Al at March 9, 2007 02:47 PM

Hmm. We were involved in the Korean civil war, of course, and also more recently in the Yugoslavian, and the Democrats heartily approved of at least the latter involvement (since it was under Bill Clinton). We hear endless talk from the liberal left about how we should be involved in the Sudanese civil war, too. And what about the situation in Palestine? Is that not a civil war in which we're supposed to be heavily involved?

I guess I'm confused about why Democrats think the fact that the war might be a civil war is even relevant. Shouldn't the interesting question be whether the war involves US interests? I don't see how one can assume a war within a state is automatically not relevant, while a war between states is.

Finally, how can the Democrats simultaneously say:

(1) Our involvement in Iraq is a failure, because we haven't kept Iraqis from being killed.

(2) It's no businees of our whether Iraqis are killing each other.

Doesn't it have to be either (1) or (2)? Either the death of Iraqis is an American problem, or it is not. If it is, then whether it's a civil war or not doesn't change our obligations or interests. If it isn't, then, by God, the war in Iraq is going very well, since fewer and fewer Americans are getting killed.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 02:50 PM

The sad thing is that we have no alternative but to win...

but we should have had a real debate on the war before it started...and that was not possible with the Administration misstating everything about it.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 9, 2007 04:10 PM

The sad thing is that we have no alternative but to win...

Did we ever? Will we ever?

Maybe the sad thing is that so many of our modern citizens, having grown fat and lazy on the backs of the labor of our grandfathers, are willing to avoid coming to grips with reality and look for "alternatives" to defeating our enemies.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 04:42 PM

Yeah...

The problem of course Carl is that the people who cranked up this war did so with 1) reasons that turned out to be near or complete falsehoods and 2) ran the war at least for the first four years about as incompetently as they got us into it.

With the exception of WWII and the three internal wars, the US has always "invited" itself to the major conflicts that it has been a part of. A lot of times we have done it on "less" then stellar reasons.

The problem with Iraq is that not only were the reasons less then stellar but it was so fracken incompetently done that the American people are really wondering if this administration can hit the ground with a book.

Bush is having a stronger fourth quarter then he did the first three. We all have to hope he gets it together.

But it is not "unnatural" the political events that are taking place "on the home front"...the administration has forfieted a lot of internal good will.

In the end I hope that it will turn out to be a good thing for us. We are finding out that most of our levers of power (to quote three marriage Newt) are not working all that well.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 9, 2007 05:04 PM

2) ran the war at least for the first four years about as incompetently as they got us into it.

Yeah? Says who? You and the New York Times? John Kerry? Little Orphan Annie?

How about you pony up a fact or two to support this assertion? At least a few major decisions that turned out to be dreadful mistakes, as evaluated by the best military minds on the planet (and not by a bunch of chairbound English majors who don't know which end of the gun goes bang)?

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 10:25 PM

"Is there a civil war in Iraq? Sure."

How big of you to admit it.

"Is that all that is going on there?"

There's also probably some line-dancing happening in the Green Zone.

"There will be no negative consequences to either the region, or our own security, to allow the "civil" war to get worse[?]"

Negative on balance? No.

"or for the Sunni countries in the region (most of whom are at best indifferent to Al Qaeda and their goals, and often supportive) to continue to reinforce their agents of chaos there[?]"

Are you referring to the Sunni countries who receive billions in US military aid every year?

"and allow Anbar and other areas to become uninhibited breeding and training grounds for terrorism[?]"

As opposed to what they are now?

"as Afghanistan was under the Taliban?"

And is becoming again while Bush obsesses on Iraq?

"It would be nice if we could have a real debate over this war, instead of disingenuousness from appeasers."

The appeasers are the ones who allowed the invasion of Iraq, and their influence is rapidly waning.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 10, 2007 05:18 AM

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 10:25 PM

Carl...

says who?

Tram Trainor, Zinni, Owens, several flag officers retired having served in Iraq. Carl all these people have or had "stars" on their shoulders.

That is who says it was run incompetently...oh wait there is more. Rummy was fired...for what? Doing to good a job.

Try the situation at Walter Reed...you think that this is "competence"?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 10, 2007 07:29 AM

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 10:25 PM

And then Carl there is the American people who think that the war is being run incompetently...you know the soverign of the country.

I know they are not all as smart as the "It is bad to have lied but he really should not have had to lie" defenders of Scooter...but heh...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 10, 2007 07:30 AM

Al, I would be asking for a real debate. Pushing misinformation (or as some would call them, lies) that points only one way, to war, for a whole freaking year doesn't make it a real debate. There is debate going on that Rand doesn't think is real. Neither do I (so yes, I agree with Rand on this). I just don't think it happened four years ago either.

2) ran the war at least for the first four years about as incompetently as they got us into it.

Yeah? Says who? You and the New York Times? John Kerry? Little Orphan Annie?

I've got two MPs that have become quite convinced that GWB isn't competent. They can't say why (that's classified information of course), and these are men that voted for Bush (while they were in the Army, but before they had been deployed) last time.

I wish we would win this war. It's not likely. We don't have enough bodies to actually do anything useful (IMHO). Then there's the fact that guerrilla warfare is notoriously hard to fight against. The conventional war in Iraq was over in days. The guerrilla part? Four years and counting.

I'm still confused as to what is going on in Afghanistan. My son's days seemed to be finding weapon caches and avoiding mines when he was there. I still don't understand why there isn't more active mine removal going on in that country.

It's going to be a few decades before the historians will have their say. Results will definitely be a factor, but even if we do win this war, Bush 43 may still be found to be incompetent. And as Robert says, there seem to be a lot of people who should definitely know that are opening their mouths about it.

Posted by bytehead at March 10, 2007 01:44 PM

Rand, comments are wonky. It changed my name to bytehead, and even with remember info checked, it never does. But then, I've been having other issues with Firefox, so it may not be your end.

Posted by Bryan Price at March 10, 2007 01:46 PM

The appeasers are the ones who allowed the invasion of Iraq, and their influence is rapidly waning." Brian Swiderski

If by this you mean the Democrats who voted for the war based on intelligence believed by everyone including Bill Clinton and our allies then do you expect the DailyKos wing of the Democratic party would do any better? We would be a laughingstock to the rest of the world. Russia, France, NK and others would be licking their chops.
If you mean the Republicans then let me ask do you think just fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan was going to settle anything? This is a global problem. It really is a world war. I'd rather it happened now than when a menace like Iran or Iraq thought they were ready to fight. A stable Middle East would be great but not because countries like Iran and Iraq were holding a nuclear sword of Damocles over everyone else’s head.

Posted by at March 10, 2007 05:05 PM

For some reason my name did not attach to the above comment

Posted by Bill Maron at March 10, 2007 06:43 PM

None of the other civil wars mentioned were catalyzed by us. So we really don't know whether the civil war, if you call it that, will abate when the catalyst is removed. Maybe we shoudn't be so sure that our presence isn't fanning the flames. If we leave and it does abate, the Shia will very likely get rid of Al-Qaeda in Iraq for us, not beacause they are doing us a favor, but because they hate them anyway.

Posted by Offside at March 10, 2007 06:57 PM

Is that all that is going on there? Really?

Absolutely.

And if we were honest and called it a civil war instead of this GWOT fearmongering crap, we might see more public acceptance of our efforts there.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 10, 2007 10:51 PM

In todays WaPo, Kagan writes that the surge is working. This is part of the reason I think the neocons don't have a clue. It is clearly much too early to make such a judgement, but this neocon can't resist another pronouncement!

Posted by Offside at March 11, 2007 06:02 AM

Carl

Please define how the Korean war was a civil war?

Posted by anonymous at March 11, 2007 09:48 AM

Well, it was by Koreans against Koreans, anony-moron, so exactly how is that NOT a civil war?

What, b/c the two sides believed different things? Guess them Union and Confederate soldiers all believed the same thing, which was why they fought, eh?

BTW, Bruce Cumings, noted Korean historian (and fairly left-wing at that) was one of the first to characterize the Korean War as a civil war. Read his two-volume "Origins of the Korean War" for further discussion thereof.

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 11, 2007 11:14 AM

Reasonable points,

Posted by anonymous at March 11, 2007 06:31 PM

Good. NOW will you FOADPAA?

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 12, 2007 05:15 AM

I can't believe everyone who voted for the war and later said they made a mistake or didn't debate it enough or were lied to was ever reelected. They are admitting they are fools or easily led by peer pressure and probably not smart enough to serve the nation.

Or they are admitting they think the voters are fools and relection just proved them right.

Posted by rjschwarz at March 12, 2007 11:47 AM

Post a comment