Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Kick 'Em When They're Down | Main | A Hundred Years Later »

Speaking Truth To An "Ugly Narrative"

Peter Wehner explains the realities of the war to Jonathan Rauch. And obliquely, the Democrats:

Let’s lay out the logic for Mr. Rauch in an easy-to-follow manner: If jihadists have declared Iraq to be the central front in the larger war we are engaged in—as they have—and if we retreat because we have been bloodied in Iraq—as leading Democrats want—then it’s reasonable to assume that a precipitous American withdrawal, led by Democrats, will embolden the jihadists.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 08, 2007 08:21 AM

Comments

Well, the whole debate seems full of so many
strawmen that it's starting to resemble a
hayride!

The valid argument for leaving would be that we
were just "digging a deeper hole" with our
continued occupation; the valid argument for
"staying the course" would be that no, we're
actually doing some good as far as helping clean
up the mess that was left when we dislodged
Saddam... casting the debate in terms of "will
'they' think 'we' are weak?" reduces it from the
level of realistic operational evaluation (one
way or the other) to a weird sort of neurotic
macho posturing on an international scale - like
a neighborhood bully whose innate sense of
vulnerability leads him to get in fistfights with
anyone who seems to challenge his emotional
territory, in order to prop up his sense of being
perceived as "strong".

The real question is whether military efforts to
"stabilize Iraq" are plausibly effective, or a
mere counterproductive quagmire. This needs to be
looked at squarely. Taking the feelings of "the
jihadists" into account is more than those crazy
hotheads deserve.

-dw

Posted by dave w at September 8, 2007 10:00 AM

Dave W.

Your cost-benefit analysis of keeping our soldiers in Iraq is fine, within very narrow bounds.

The problem we face, however, is far broader.

We are at war with the Persian Empire, and have been since 1979. More precisely, they have been at war with us, and we have not wanted to face up to it.

The problem, as I formulate it, is:

How best do we re-establish our deterrence?

Deterrence is the best sort of military victory. Al Qaeda and the Persian Empire clearly are not deterred. We steadily lost our deterrence from 1975 onward.

How do we best recover it? Can we do it without descending into indiscriminate violence (i.e. Nukes)?

On rare occasions, I wander over to Daily Kos and its fellow travelers. Their utter lack of awareness about how the real world works (wrt international relations) scares the feces out of me.

They are "being" the world they want to exist. Unfortunately, the neck slicers and other misanthropes are, too, and the Kos-acks don't appear to acknowledge that.

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 10:32 AM

Eradicate AQI or AQM? Sure that's a good mission.

And with 1500 - 2000 foreign fighters in Anbar AND with the Sunni chieftans now on our side we should be able to win a decisive victory within a year or less. And we shouldn't need 160,000 troops to defeat 1500 to 2000 AQI/AQM.

Then, to what extent is our mission to forge Sunni / Shia reconciliation? Or do we need to eradicate the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade as well?

160,000 may be too few for that.

Posted by Bill White at September 8, 2007 10:35 AM

MG, so long as Maliki, Hakim or Sadr are major players in the Iraqi government, that hinders our ability to use our forces in Iraq to confront Iran.

And, I agree Iran is causing mischief in Iraq but far far less mischief than they are capable of causing.

Posted by Bill White at September 8, 2007 10:44 AM

Mr. White,

The "mischief" to which you refer are acts of war. However, the legal structures of warfare are a European invention, and the Persians likely do not care to observe them, except in the breach.

Sadr is out of the Iraqi government. His fleeing to Iran probably didn't help. Neither did pulling his reps out of the governing coalition.

Finally, we appear to be doing quite well in taking down Iranian cells / operatives. If the US needs to go kinetic against the Iranian government proper, it won't be through a large invasion by land.

WRT another post, in which you posited that the Administration should publicizfor potential action against Syria or Iran...

Why should ANY President telegraph war aims to our enemies? Ambiguity is a very useful tool in international relations. What do we get in return for shedding it?

IIRC, you propose that a future President gains "legitimacy". President Bush has all the legal "legitimacy" he needs as Commander-in-Chief. The 2003 resolution puts Congressional approval on it.

It may be that this national plebiscite you desire would be immensely helpful in (say) a parliamentary form of government. Thankfully, we have no such thing.

Our existing system of government confers legitimacy at the time of election. There are ample means to revoke legitimacy, and they reside in CONGRESS, and not, between elections, directly with the people.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 10:58 AM

MG,

Does 100,000 troops for 20 years sound about right to you? Apparently that's what Petraeus' adviser thinks:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012018.php

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 12:18 PM

Mr. Offside,

Did 300,000+ troops in Germany sound about right to you?

Heck, I was one of the troops stationed in Korea for 19 months -- just one in a long line of courageous, respectable Americans who helped the Republic of Korea navigate the treacherous waters between Japanese colony and modern, independent state. Do you have a problem with our ongoing, 62 year "occupation" of the Republic of Korea?

So, I have NO problem with 100,000+ troops stationed in Iraq and / or vicinity for 20+ years.
It is in our national interest to have a strong, independent ally in Iraq. And it is a good thing to have an Army corps stationed there, as a forwardly deployed force. That is a much better location for our soldiers than (say) western Europe.

What's your problem with it?

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 01:30 PM

The Hammer of the Krauts (Charles Krauthammer) writing today that partition is the best we can do in Iraq:

A weak, partitioned Iraq is not the best outcome. We had hoped for much more. Our original objective was a democratic and unified post-Hussein Iraq. But it has turned out to be a bridge too far. We tried to give the Iraqis a republic, but their leaders turned out to be, tragically, too driven by sectarian sentiment, by an absence of national identity, and by the habits of suspicion and maneuver cultivated during decades in the underground of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian state. All this was exacerbated by post-invasion U.S. strategic errors (most important, eschewing a heavy footprint, not forcibly suppressing the early looting and letting Moqtada al-Sadr escape with his life in August 2004) and by al-Qaeda's barbarous bombing campaign designed explicitly to kindle sectarian strife.

A new-hatched moonbat gets his wings . . .

Posted by Bill White at September 8, 2007 04:01 PM

I said it first here. Many moons ago. Ahem. Partition the darn place.

Carl Pham, I hope you are reading this. Ahem.
Not that I like the Kraut. But at least he is being honest. And honesty is always good.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 8, 2007 04:54 PM

It is not ours to partition Iraq. The US government should have a position on the question, and should influence the locals, consistent with the US national interest.

If the locals decide to partition, all the US will be able to do is to mitigate the ill consequences (sectarian violence intensity, etc.).

For anyone to say, "we (the US) should partition Iraq" is imperial thinking at its worst.

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 05:09 PM

BW: "I agree Iran is causing mischief in Iraq but far far less mischief than they are capable of causing."

Note also that we have made Iran suffer for their mischief infinitely less than what we are capable of making them suffer. As will be proven soon, I hope.

Posted by at September 8, 2007 05:17 PM

MG,

Was that tongue in cheek? WTF do you think we doing there right now?

Not ours to partition, when we are managing (or trying to) the place from the palace in the Green Zone?

And if anyone says "Oh what are we going to do about Baghdad," this is self partitioning as we speak. You know Manifest Destiny and all that....it's happening if not happened, surge notwithstanding.

Come on, get on the bandwagon, be on the winning side for once, and we can be on the same side too.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 8, 2007 05:21 PM

Mr. TnT,

Partition is a political act. Sometimes it includes violence. The violence, however, does not constitute partition. Refugee outflow also does not constitute partition. Only a political agreement does that.

I am not being tongue in cheek.

Your comments about "for once" being on the "winning side" are not worth further comment.

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 06:57 PM

For anyone to say, "we (the US) should partition Iraq" is imperial thinking at its worst.

Very well stated.

Posted by Leland at September 10, 2007 08:00 AM

> I said it first here. Many moons ago. Ahem. Partition the darn place.

A stopped clock and all that.

I'm still waiting for our European betters to point to anything that they've done that suggests that they're worth listening to.

Moreover, they continue to duck all opportunities to show that they can do things. They're supposedly oh so very rich, but when it comes to actually doing something, they're too poor.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 10, 2007 08:40 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?