Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Many Iraqis assume it's the natural order of things, and consider the Americans insane, or disrespectful, with all their talk of honest government.

Enter the Squidward for a short (hopefully) dissertation on the general dishonesty of the American government.

Posted by Mac at May 24, 2007 09:06 AM

We won Iwo Jima. Some will argue, of course, that the analogy is more apt than it seems, because it was an unnecessary battle.

The thousands of American airmen who were saved by an emergency landing on Iwo would tend to disagree. Those who were protected by fighters flying out of Iwo would also disagree. More American lives were saved at Iwo than even the horrible toll spent in taking the island. It was also going to play a big role in the planned invasion of Japan.

American military commanders and diplomats continue to remind Iraqi politicians that the biggest problem in the country is corruption.

My wife was living in the Philippines under the Marcos dictatorship. She described what it was like living in a country that was corrupt at every level. We certainly have our corrupt government officials here but nothing to the extent they had in the Philippines. If a cop's salary was too low, he'd stop you on a bogus charge but let you go in exchange for a few pesos. Crooked builders would bribe crooked inspectors to look the other way, so buildings collapsed in small earthquakes due to not enough rebar being in the concrete. Lots of people died in those collapses but who cared?

So, who cares, right? Corruption undermines the trust that's necessary for a civilized society to function. Next time you board an airliner, think of how many people you're trusting with your life. It's like that throughout society, and that's why it's so important to punish corruption where ever we find it. It sounds like the Iraqis are just beginning to learn that lesson.

Posted by Larry J at May 24, 2007 09:23 AM

Larry's comments on trust are the nucleus of my threat assessment of:

Undeterrable non-state actors +
WMD +
Untrackable state assistance

Trust is essential to a liberal republic. What happens to trust, when infrastructure goes "pop". What happens to a metropolitan area, when (say) high tension line support towers collapse?

We Americans have been largely ignorant of the extended networks of trust that enable us to accept a swipe of a magic piece of plastic, in lieu of barter, to "exchange" goods.

Should that trust be betrayed, utterly human feelings of betrayal will -- statistically -- lead to actions of revenge.

Revenge against whom / what? Individuals will get assigned (rightly or wrongly) a group identity, and targeted as such. Government agents, of whatever level of government or responsibility, might also be targeted.

I wrote earlier about fear and hysteria in wartime. The civil and civic infrastructure in WW2 and the Cold War remained intact throughout. What happens if they crack?

That's my nightmare scenario, and I suspect the consequence is have to resume the active fufillment of my oath of office:

"To defend the Contitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign /em and /em domestic."

I would prefer not to renew my marksmanship skills. I am too old, body too broken, eyesight too brittle. I would prefer not to have to shed blood -- the ultimate measure of one's commitment, I think.

And so, I hope the howling sandstorms of hysteria to not visit this land. The zephyrs of hysteria in past wars were bad enough.

Posted by MG at May 24, 2007 09:53 AM

Which is why Brian's assertion that it's not as bad as Pearl Harbor until we lose hundreds of buildings and millions of people just makes no sense. We'll fall apart as a society (or impose martial law) far before we reach that point, and I don't wanna go there.

Posted by Big D at May 24, 2007 12:05 PM

Strategy Page has been declaring Victory in Iraq for 5 years.
Jim Dunnigan has been claiming his brilliant
historical insights have shown victory
has been around the corner after corner after corner.

Citing Dunnigan on Iraq is foolish.

Posted by anonymous at May 25, 2007 07:45 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

Nice ad hominem.

Victory comes to those who stay in the fight. Do you suggest victory is no longer possible?

Posted by MG at May 25, 2007 10:07 PM

Had dunnigan said in 2002.

Invading iraq will be doable, occupying iraq will be murderous,

he'd be on the road to right.

if Dunnigan had said. "After we knock down the hussein government, multiple parties will seize the vacuum,
and multiple feuds will erupt and we will be faced by
challenges from the Badr Brigade, the JAM, the Kurds, the
Sunni, the tribes, etc, etc, etc " then he'd be credible.

remember shinseki? He said "Occupation will require
several hundred thousand troops" He is a credible source.

Remember Laurence Lindsay? He said "The iraq war will
cost 2-3 hundred billion dollars" when Wolfowitz was
saying it could be done for less then 20 billion.
Lindsay is a credible source.

Cheerleaders who have been wrong for 5 years are not credible.
Pointing out their record of wrongheadedness, is not
ad-hominem attack.

As for victory comes to those who stay in the fight?
How long do you think we need to fight to achieve victory?
Also define that victory.

Posted by anonymous at May 26, 2007 06:43 AM

Had dunnigan said in 2002.

Invading iraq will be doable, occupying iraq will be murderous,

he'd be on the road to right.

remember shinseki? He said "Occupation will require
several hundred thousand troops" He is a credible source.

Remember Laurence Lindsay? He said "The iraq war will
cost 2-3 hundred billion dollars" when Wolfowitz was
saying it could be done for less then 20 billion.
Lindsay is a credible source.

Cheerleaders who have been wrong for 5 years are not credible.
Pointing out their record of wrongheadedness, is not
ad-hominem attack.

As for victory comes to those who stay in the fight?
How long do you think we need to fight to achieve victory?
Also define that victory.

Posted by anonymous at May 26, 2007 07:06 AM

Mr. Anonymous,

"Pointing out their record of wrongheadedness, is not ad-hominem attack."

And, had your later post been your earlier one, I would not have accused you of ad hominem. Your later post at least provides some basis for your claim.

Now, are you SURE that Mr. Dunnigan has done what you complain he has done? Is it possible that you have not reviewed the full body of his public utterances (written, spoken, interpretively danced, etc.)? Is it possible that you have applied a narrowly intended statement far more broadly than its intent?

My definition for victory has not wavered since I formed it:

Victory in Iraq =

Two peaceful, election-based transitions of government power (from the incumbent party to its opponent)

I set the bar high, because that is what modernity calls for. There is no room in the world for the status quo ante of "stability".

I note, of course, that many states have yet to fulfill my criteria for victory. Important ones include:

China
Mexico
Russia

So, I am patient.

One other word about General Shinseki's comment to Congress. History has borne out his observation in terms of numbers only. IIRC, he did not comment on WHOSE people those numbers had to be.

Had he stated that the bulk of those troops would have to be indigenous, then I would absolutely agree with his assessment.

By keeping his response to the question very narrow, he did two things:

1. Conceal one important operational pillar for success, thereby (perhaps) making that pillar more likely to form.

2. Concealed important context for the American public, resulting in misconceptions and ignorance.

Contemporary warfare requires a tradeoff between an informed domestic politic and achieving operational and strategic aims. That sucks, that that's the way it is.

Back to you...

Posted by MG at May 26, 2007 11:36 AM

remember shinseki? He said "Occupation will require
several hundred thousand troops" He is a credible source.

Credible because he agrees with you. Let's test this theory.

Remember Laurence Lindsay? He said "The iraq war will
cost 2-3 hundred billion dollars" when Wolfowitz was
saying it could be done for less then 20 billion.
Lindsay is a credible source.

Credible why? Because he agrees with you. Lovely. Any source that disagrees with your position is not credible, and any that mutter gloom and doom is a master tactician and is never wrong....its almost....Oler again.

Posted by Mac at May 26, 2007 07:14 PM

Mac

Credibilit isn't based upon agreement with me,

Credibility is based upon Agrees with reality.

Let's see

Shinseki in 2002 "We need 2 or 3 hundred thousand troops
in occupation in iraq".

Wolfowitz 2002 :"We will need 30,000 troops at most"

Bush 2005 "We need to increase the troop strength to
170,000 troops in Iraq".

Sounds like Shinseki was right.

Lawrence Lindsay in 2002 "This war will cost 2 or 3 hundred billion dollars"

Current expenditures hve exceeded $500 Billion dollars.

Credibility isn't based upon agreeing with me,
it's based upon Reality.

I know The bushites like to make their own reality up,
but, I prefer the facts.

As for MG, i'd suggest he peruse Dunnigan's work,
he's been claiming vicory for 4 years with some
of the stupidest headlines you can imagine.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20060402.aspx

In this article Dunnigan is crowing over the low
casualty rate of March 2006.
He's far quieter on this subject now.

When i was a kid, i was told one robin does not a
springtime make. Well, to dunnigan and the neocons
one peaceful day is victory.

Posted by anonymous at May 26, 2007 09:35 PM

the Iraqi army and police are at over 300,000 men and the
US casualties are higher then ever. One might be
cynical and conclude that the Iraqis we train and arm are
fighting against our troops.

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 10:27 AM

Mr. Anonymous,

OR,

One might be thoughtful and ask,

"How does the optempo now compare with the optempo in prior months?"

"Where are casualties occurring, and what kinds are they?"

And the most important question:

"Are the units succeeding in their tactical mission assignments?"

Thanks for playing, and I await both a detailing of your Vietnam War sources, and your criteria for credible sources for that same war.

Posted by MG at May 27, 2007 02:52 PM

We've been hearing that Iraqis are "finally getting fed up with the violence" since at least 2004.

Just google "iraqis 'fed up' violence" and see what I mean. Sub-search for any year you like--you'll find a story or two. This is an old trope---"they're comin' round! just a lil' more and they'll turn on AQ!"

Who knows...Maybe you'll be right this time....

Posted by Garett at May 27, 2007 03:16 PM

Garett,

Why does "Anbar Awakening" exist?
Has it had an effect?
If so, what?
Does a comparable movement exist elsewhere in Iraq?

There may well be explanations other than, "The tribes got fed up with AQI, and drove them out of Anbar, towards Diyala (and Iran)."

Perhaps you could be so kind as to offer such an alternate explanation that is consistent with the facts.

Iraq is a complicated battle, not easily understood by a layperson, and certainly not based on legacy media reporting.

Need help? Go to Bill Roggio's website, and Michael Yon's, too.

Best Wishes,

Posted by MG at May 27, 2007 03:28 PM

tactical victories do not make a strategic success.

In vietnam we had lots of tactical victories, but, a flawed
hopeless strategy, and Billions were spent, 50,000 killed
for no purpose.

Vietnam has diplomatic relations with america today,
Vietnam is expanding trade with america today,
Vietnam is at peace with it's neighbors.

Certainly the expenditure of US force and treasure in
Vietnam ahd nothing to do with that condition.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 05:08 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

Your most recent post is a revealingly honest portrayal of thoughts.

I note, with considerable sadness, that your mention of 50,000 killed to no purpose ignores the Vietnamese, both of northern and southern tribes.

No wonder the consequences of the Democrat's 1974-5 betrayal of S. Vietnam is worthy of no mention from you.

Our strategy in Vietnam was no more "hopeless" 1969, or 1972, than our strategy of "Germany first" in WW2 seemed in January, 1942. The only hopelessness lies within you.

The relationship we have with the Vietnamese government 35 years on is a result of the revolutionary generation dying out, and of the new generation's realization that they need wealthy, powerful trading partners that are NOT China. Russia just doesn't fit the bill anymore.

So, I shall continue to utter the words, "Never Again!" to the abandonment of people who have placed their faith in us. 1975 and 1991 burden me, and I protest against any repetition in Iraq in 2007, 2008, 2009, or beyond.

Selah.

Posted by MG at May 31, 2007 11:36 AM

Post a comment