Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

As far as America's "defeat" if the tribal uprising analysis presented by David Kilcullen is accurate then I am willing to conclude that American cannot lose in Iraq no matter how incompetent we are.

Rand, you blogged this same article with apparent approval a few days ago. Anyway, here is a key paragraph:

Some tribal leaders told me that the split started over women. This is not as odd as it sounds. One of AQ’s standard techniques, which I have seen them apply in places as diverse as Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, is to marry leaders and key operatives to women from prominent tribal families. The strategy works by creating a bond with the community, exploiting kinship-based alliances, and so “embedding” the AQ network into the society. Over time, this makes AQ part of the social landscape, allows them to manipulate local people and makes it harder for outsiders to pry the network apart from the population. (Last year, while working in the tribal agencies along Pakistan’s North-West Frontier, a Khyber Rifles officer told me “we Punjabis are the foreigners here: al Qa’ida have been here 25 years and have married into the Pashtun hill-tribes to the point where it’s hard to tell the terrorists from everyone else.”) Well, indeed.

Kilcullen reports that the Sunni chieftans have grown angry at AQI's intermarriage tactics and he offers cogent reasons WHY such tactics will fail in Iraq.

But a corollary of that is that Iraq simply doesn't offer AQI fertile soil to grow and thrive.

Thus, we will win pretty much no matter what we do or do not do. Kinda like "driving" a steering wheel on a roller coaster car. No matter what you do (or don't do) you end up in the same place.

= = =

More worrisome, Kilcullen reports that this intermarriage tactic does seem to work in places like Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia which suggests that al Qaeda may be busy today digging in deep roots elsewhere within the Islamic world.

And therefore, victory in Iraq will merely be a tiny, tiny step towards defeating al Qaeda globally.

Posted by Bill White at August 31, 2007 10:36 AM

The bar... it's moving!

Every time good news comes in, the yabbits come to the fore.

We're winning the war - but we will just end up with more terrorism. The Iraqis are rejecting the terrorists - but the Afganis are not.

Look, every once in a while, it is OK to admit you were wrong.

(Not necessarily you aimed at you in particular, Bill - but you have to admit, a pattern is forming here...)

Posted by David Summers at August 31, 2007 10:45 AM

Bill, I was referring to America's defeat in Iraq (which is the the place that Harry and Nancy have been clamoring for us to get out of, and apparently the only place that many Dems seem to think that we're actually at war, since the "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 31, 2007 11:03 AM

Bill is just prepping the stage for the "we had to win, it was inevitable despite George Bushs bungling of the war. Therefore he should get no credit for the win" defense by democrats.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 31, 2007 11:09 AM

Bill, I think you need to ponder the second quote from Mark Twain here, the one that ends One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Every time Rand ticks off an interesting fact and observation about things going our way in Iraq, you construct a massive tower of theory and conjecture about how it actually means (according to Diagrams A through G) that things are actually headed the wrong way in some really subtle fashion that will become apparent Real Soon Now, or that what appears to be a spade is really nothing of the sort.

By me all you're proving is the old saw that "Logic is often merely a way of going wrong with confidence."

Posted by Carl Pham at August 31, 2007 11:17 AM

I am simply persuaded that Kilcullen makes some excellent arguments. Arguments I was previously unaware of.

I have long asserted that Iraq was not fertile territory for al Qaeda to set down roots and thrive and Kilcullen's observations about Sunni chiefs being unhappy with AQI's intermarriage tactics simply makes sense to me.

Posted by Bill White at August 31, 2007 11:22 AM

The American people want the same thing as the Democrats apparently. and by a ratio of over 2:1

I say we should call them traitors, cowards and defeat lovers:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Which is why I repeat that the low numbers for Congress are due to its failure to implement the wishes of the American people, whatever Rand may think to the contrary.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 31, 2007 11:26 AM

Once US forces and Sunni chiefs unite to eradicate AQI, what will the purpose of further occupation be thereafter?

What missions remain?

Posted by Bill White at August 31, 2007 11:34 AM

What missions remain?

To have a base from which to continue to attempt to keep Iran and Syria on a short leash, and to prevent further attempts on their part to subvert Iraq.

And it's not an "occupation," Bill. You're sounding like your leftist Bush-deranged friends.

No, T'n'T. The American people are just tired of the war. They don't want us to lose.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 31, 2007 11:39 AM

To have a base from which to continue to attempt to keep Iran and Syria on a short leash, and to prevent further attempts on their part to subvert Iraq.

This strategy, of course, is consistent with current calls to replace the Maliki government.

Brain-dead Hillary Clinton played right along by calling for Maliki to be replaced just as Haley Barbour's GOP lobbyist firm began a full court press to install Allawi as the new leader of Iraq.

George Bush of course embraces Maliki which gives him political cover yet IF we are to use Iraq as a staging base against Iran then Maliki must go.

As Charles Krauthammer tell us, today.

Posted by Bill White at August 31, 2007 11:47 AM

No, Rand. Read the poll.

The American people want us out of Iraq. It is very clear.

You have chosen to define that as losing . I don't.

Not to say that you aren't right about the fact that they are tired of the war. Not unexpected when we've only just restored Anbar to it's condition under the late you know who, and in a manner that even the Krauthammer questions its long term merits.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 31, 2007 12:01 PM

The American people want the same thing as the Democrats apparently. and by a ratio of over 2:1

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Try scrolling down and reading the poll on Democrats in Congress.

Posted by Leland at August 31, 2007 12:06 PM

T_n_T,

It is amusing to watch you attempt to lecture us on what american's really mean from the other side of the Atlantic.

As I have said before: "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Rand,

As T_n_T has demonstrated, British journalism is apparently righ up there with British oral hygine and culinary arts in its contribution to western civilization.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 31, 2007 12:21 PM

"The American people want us out of Iraq."

Ah, governance by poll. Since when have we formulated war strategy via poll? Most Americans have no idea who General Petraeus is much less what he has accomplished in Iraq.

Plus given the anti-war propaganda pumped into American skulls by the liberal dominated, left wing biased media, what could one expect?

Thirty percent of Americans think Bush ordered the attacks of 9/11, and I will bet that 99% of those think we should leave Iraq. In other words, a huge percentage of the anti-war left are MORONS.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 31, 2007 12:26 PM

Leland, of course I have.

Which is why if you can add 2+2 to make 4, you take the fact that 2/3 of those polled want us to reduce our presence in Iraq with the near 2/3 who say they are unhappy with what the Democrats have done on Iraq to infer that they are unhappy because their wishes are not being met.

Are you possibly trying to insinuate that if 2/3 of the public want us out of Iraq, while Iraq remains the number one issue of concern to the public, and if the Democrats were to act in opposition to this wish, the Democrats poll numbers would rise?

Good Lord, what ridiculous logic. Hopefully you aren't writing any important equations for the space program.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 31, 2007 12:31 PM

British journalism is apparently righ up there with British oral hygine and culinary arts in its contribution to western civilization.

Well, Mike, you would have to admit that the oral hygeine of at least some in your party, such as the dearly beloved Sen. Craig has demonstrated, is, shall we say somewhat inadequate? ;-)

As for the culinary arts, you should try the curry in London. It is truly superb.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 31, 2007 12:41 PM

How do you know about his oral hygine? You don't know what service he was trying to procure. He may have been seeking the one that sounds like a large SUV.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 31, 2007 01:08 PM

"Winning" in Iraq would be like getting Concorde in the air after the development costs had been written off: even when you win, you still lose.

Saying that we should keep fighting now to justify the money and lives we've already spent is just the sunk-cost fallacy. In my opinion, the benefits of "winning" in Iraq don't even exceed the marginal costs we have yet to pay. Also, even if a majority chose to spend American dollars and lives on this venture, they have no right to spend Iraqi lives. Even if we think the sacrifice is worth it, they're not our assets to dispose of.

Posted by Ashley at August 31, 2007 01:28 PM

Ashley:

You have that exactly backwards. The concorde may have been a terrible idea, but once the development and production costs were spent it was a profitiable business on a forward-basis; marginal investments were profitable.

Posted by Mike Earl at August 31, 2007 02:04 PM

Mike: Really? Hmm, wikipedia agrees with you. I had heard that Concorde was unprofitable even after the development costs were paid and it entered revenue service. I stand corrected.

Posted by Ashley at August 31, 2007 02:57 PM

The American people want us out of Iraq. It is very clear.

Who gives a damn? In case it has escaped your notice, the United States is not a straight democracy, subject to the whims and follies of mob rule.

We live in a Republic. That means we elect a government, leave them alone to run things for a while, then reconsider, decide whether to re-elect the same crowd again. This strikes a nice balance between the consistency (but occasional delusional obsession) of an autocracy and the fads and reckless swings (but strict accountability) of a pure democracy.

Sheesh, read up on your civics. Or get a copy of the Federalist Papers and dig into some serious political thinking before you sound off like a wild-eyed pitchfork wavin' French peasant farmhand circa 1788.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 31, 2007 03:47 PM

Carl, I presume you looked at the poll and couldn't find a loophole, hence the tangential diatribe.

Yes, the poll shows very clearly that if you want to label the Democrats as defeatists then the American people, or a good two thirds of them deserve the same label. That was the point being made.

Of course, to comment on your silly little harangue, if as Petraeus says we need at least 10 years to get this straight in Iraq, that will be 10 years in opposition to the public will. Think about that Hector.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 31, 2007 04:01 PM

Nope. I didn't look at the poll, TnT, because I don't give a damn about polls. There's only one poll that counts, and that's every four years in November. Most others (and all the political ones) are just mental masturbation for the chattering class.

As for your point, that if one labels the Democrats as defeatists you might as well label x% of the American people as defeatist, too...well, in part I quite agree. I've no problem with that.

Perhaps you thought I would hesitate to call a large fraction of my fellow citizens buffoons, or at least wildly mistaken? Perhaps you thought my convictions would be shaken were I to find that large numbers of people disagree with them? Phoo. What do I look like, some loser running for office? I don't need to poll my neighbors to know what I think.

However, in defence of the American people, one's responsibility to think out very seriously what should be done on a subject is quite different when you are (1) an elected leader who will actually implement the decision, and (2) a random harried mother trying to make dinner while the baby wails and you mistakenly picked up the phone for a pollster. Responders to polls are entitled to a little bit more frivolity in their thinking than, say, Speakers of the House of Representatives.

If as Petraeus says we need at least 10 years to get this straight in Iraq, that will be 10 years in opposition to the public will. Think about that Hector.

Fair enough, although why 10 years should impress me is a little unclear. I only care about the final outcome, and there's plenty of stuff that has gone down in the US for much, much longer than ten years against the will of the majority. Federal enforcement of equal rights for black people comes to mind, for example. Why you worship the majority as the source of the Good and Right is beyond me anyway. If history teaches anything it's that the majority is more often selfish, short-sighted and wrong than otherwise.

But you should think about the opposite case, then, if George Bush and his team make it work in Iraq. You do realize this has never been done before? The closest you can come, historically speaking, is the Boer War, and that was unbelievably expensive and (cf. Mandela, prison term of) not in the end completely successful. If Bush wins his gamble, your entire political philosophy goes on the ash heap of history, along with Communism, mercantilism, and the divine right of kings.

Frankly, this is one reason I argue against folks like you. The more you stake your credibility on this one narrow issue, the more we risk the madding crowds throwing your baby (the valuable things you say) out with your bathwater (being spectacularly wrong on Iraq). The US is not now a one-party state, but it could become one, if the Democrats tie themselves so firmly to the helm of the USS Iraq Is Another Vietnam, sister ship to RMS Titanic.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 31, 2007 04:33 PM

If Bush wins his gamble, your entire political philosophy goes on the ash heap of history, along with Communism, mercantilism, and the divine right of kings.

I'll allow you the luxury of assuming whatever you apparently have divined, absent polling me, about my political philosophy.

If by Bush's winning his gamble you mean, a peaceful united (Sunni-Shia-Kurd) democratic, pro-American Iraq his chances of winning this gamble I would place at about 10,000 to 1. To be fair, the probability exists, but is about equal to my chances of winning the Tour de France, or yours presumably.

If you had odds that were that bad, the least you would require is to have the polls support you. Apparently this is wisdom that you lack, since you have advocated marching in defiance of the popular will for the next ten years at least.

You can, of course, define some ever wandering lesser goal, such as eliminating Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which never was the original problem, and throw a big self-congratulatory party when it's done. Which of course explains all the current hoopla about Anbar.

It is actually quite remarkable that the middling masses you scorn haven't swallowed the Anbar line hook, line, Sheik and sinker and have actually had the guts to view it all with skepticism as evinced in the poll.

After all, after four years, if all you can pull out of the hat is a grinning Sheik who hasn't a clue about democracy and does tricks for goats, and whose only benefit to you is that he has stopped blowing you up, the magician is surely running out of tricks.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 31, 2007 08:04 PM

Toast, curry is an East Indian contribution to world cuisine, not British.

Posted by Andrea Harris at September 1, 2007 06:56 AM

TNT wrote:

The American people want the same thing as the Democrats apparently. and by a ratio of over 2:1

and then showed he is a complete moron by adding:

If you can read, you will see that 2/3 of Americans do not agree with Democrats (just like 2/3 don't agree with the President... again, scroll freakin down). You're first point is wrong. You're second point is idiotic. It's not a math problem moron, it's reading comprehension, and you are not up to the task.

Posted by Leland at September 1, 2007 01:57 PM

curry is an East Indian contribution to world cuisine, not British

It's now the most popular food in Britain and the form curry takes in the UK is pretty different to that in India.

To be accurate though, most British curry is actually Bangladeshi or Pakistani food rather than Indian.

Also, British cuisine has changed pretty dramatically over the last 20 years. I'd give Mike his rather pathetic rant in 1987, but not in 1997 and certainly not now. You may have noticed Gordon Ramsey on the TV screens here, he's the most vocal of a huge vanguard of world leading British chefs who run some of the best restuarants in the world.

I think Heston Blaumenthal is currenty considered to be about the best there is and his place is in Berkshire to the NW of London.

Then again, inaccuracies on Rand's blog? Never! Never I say!

Posted by Dave at September 3, 2007 01:35 PM

Post a comment