gumbeau
Pro-Bowler
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 0
Offline
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
when its all said and done you cant say the surge worked until the surge is withdrawn (remove the troops) - they are only halfway into the plan, if the troops are brought back home and the violence returns - surge is a failure
And this claim is just not true:
"Oh, and the left turned out to be dead wrong, as usual. We hadn't created an unlimited supply of terrorists."
One of the problems I have with the assessment of waiting to see what happens if the troops are brought home is that it's probably the wrong metric to pass judgement. I would say a better evaluation would be whether the violence in Iraq can be reduced to levels where there are casualty rates that cause our stationing of troops in Iraq to be relative non-events. If we are able to maintain 50,000 to 60,000 troops in Iraq with low casualty rates, then the surge will be considered a success.
Please elaborate. What is untrue about the statement. It's repeated virtually verbatum by the source that YOU used:
http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2006/10/neocon-ralph-peters-kill-kill-kill_04.html
"But like so many of his neocon cronies, Peters neglects to mention that when you make two or more terrorists for every one that you kill, you're going to have to kill a heck of a lot of people to "win." In fact, you'll have to kill darn near every one of "them," whoever "they" are."
And in reading Mr. Huber (link provided by Reb) it appears to me that Huber's criticism is simply boiler-plate anti-war criticism. Just mindless, boilerplate criticism.
Step 1: Label Opponent As A NEOCON. (Oh those evil NEOCONS)
Step 2: Name Drop The Fact That Said NEOCON Is Member Of The Evil "Project For The New American Century."
Step 3: Associated The Most Emotional, Inflamatory Language As Possible Against The Said NEOCON. In Mr. Huber's case, he likes the word "KILL":
"Neoconservative punditry is following a predictable formula: ludicrous comparisons of the "war" on terror with World War II, fear and hate rhetoric, sloganeering, bandwagonning and, most importantly, blaming their past failures on the usual scapegoats--sissy "defeatists" the "hostile" liberal media, the Clintons, etc.
All of which masks the underlying principle of neoconservative strategy and policy: Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!…"
If there's been a finite number of terrorists killed, and not an endless supply of them produced, why did you just basically admit that keeping 70,000 troops in Iraq is necessary?
The whole Reason D' etre for standing army occupying a foreign power is to be ready for any guerrilla insurgency or violence.
There was an endless number of terrorists created by invading and occupying Iraq, and there will continue to be. So what you're supporting, in a sense is an endless occupation, and open-ended commitment to fight an asymetrical war.
We've had this conversation numerous times, Dapperdan. You think it's worth it, I don't.
I think it's comparable to Vietnam, you'll continue to support whatever policy gets the U.S. to stay in Iraq, I continue to support bringing each and every soldier home. Now.
A. The PNAC is the vision for Neconservatives. The PNAC has an aggressive, arguably imperialistic vision for U.S. foreign policy.
B. This "aggressive" posture will, to them, require more wars, which means more killing. War involves killing.
C. The policy in Iraq is arguably the first step in the neoconservative agenda. We've-already seen many NeoConservatives sabre-rattling against Iran.
You can label it "mindless" and "boilerplate" criticism all you want, but the bottom line is the NeoConservative vision is an aggressive, expansionist foreign policy which invariably calls for more meddling, future wars, more occupations. And they have depicted opponents to this vision as "appeasers" and anti-American.
Sorry, but a lot of what he pointed out is the truf [tm-TPS]
In short, as we mentioned on threads before the war began, and Dadsdream has much more thoroughly and eloquently fleshed out more recently, we are in Iraq to set up forward operating bases. We are going to be operating in Iraq for a long time. Is it an "occupation"; well, it's certainly not a situation where we are directly dictating to Iraq society. So in that respect, it's not an omnipotent foreign power controlling the country, it's not a good comparison with the British empire, for example. But clearly, our presence is going to provide behavioral boundries for Iraq.
Re Viet Nam vs Iraq. It depends on whether you want to use broad brush comparisons to make a political point, or get down to the nitty griity; because when you get down to the nitty griity, the comparisons completely fall apart. Size and scope of the wars are completely different. Iraq doesn't, didn't, have a military power such as China looming in the background as an implied ultimate protector; the number of deaths are different by a factor of more than 10; the cost of Viet Nam was much greater, relative to our budget, than the cost of Iraq. Viet Nam was a much larger war.
Yes, it's the oil. The oil factor is a large component. But it is also more than just oil.
As Dads points out, just look at a map, Iraq is right between Iran and Syria. So there is a geographic component. Placing a democracy right in the middle of a dictatorship and a theocracy is going to have an impact on the region.
And it is about defeating terrorism, that is a big component as well. AQ has lost big in Iraq. It has lost in terms of "hearts and minds" with the Sunnis in Anbar, and it has lost militarily. This is a major defeat for AQ. It's not the end of AQ, because they have been provided sanctuary along the Afghan/Pakistan border, but it is still a major defeat for AQ.
it's certainly not a situation where we are directly dictating to Iraq society.