So, Just How Bad Is It in Iraq? as per Christian Science Monitor (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

>>Who are you trying to be obnoxious too, and why?

:moderation-on:

TPS

 

[RebSaint]

group

Not to quibble about the meaning of partisan, but I think the second part of the definition in a political context is most important. I have not arrived at my position because I'm part of some "group," whether it be liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat.

Again, don't try and claim that my position stems from pure partisanship. I'm anti-war for many different reasons, many of which I'm sure your well aware of, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with party affiliation or some other ideology.

Secondly, sure it would be reason to be "optimistic" but optimistic towards what? Iraq sovereignty? An eventual drawdown of American troops? Again, it goes back to that dicey issue of a real, intangible, or untangible set of goals and missions. It's been completely open ended, as with all nation-building projects. And I might I remind everybody that many other nation-building projects looked great, only to fall apart eventually.

Really, I do see reasons to be optimistic, but we've been told so many times before that there's always been reason for optimism in Iraq, yet it seems that Iraq is no closer to achieving the political benchmarks *cough* oil law--it couldn't even agree on basic election laws.

Yes, optimistic from a security standpoint, but politically? I don't know. Financially and militarily, frankly I doubt we can or will last much longer. With the declining dollar, credit crunch, balooning deficit, and priorities like education, basic infastructure, the more $$$ we *** away trying to fix Iraq the worse I think we'll be.

 

[Shawn]

No.

Not that much money.

No, as in that's not where our tax money should be going.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Every single supporter of the current occupation of Iraq lacks objectivity?

I asked a very detailed question that I don't dare answer myself.

BUT:

Hey guess what, I support the surge! If the American people really think it's THAT important, either institute the draft or DRASTICALLY increase pay and incentives for armed forces, go in with OVERWHELMING force (500,000, like Colin Powell suggested) and get this thing DONE.
THAT kind of force CAN overcome a thousand years of sectarian hatred. But will the so-called supporters of the surge commit their sons & daughters, their tax dollars and THEMSELVES to do what it takes?? This isn't a rhetorical idea. I stand behind it 100%. I was against the war, and basically I still am, but if we're going to put money and lives at risk, do it RIGHT, not half-a&&, and clean up our mess.
By the way, I'm non-partisan enuff to know that if this would have been our original strategy, this war would be a relatively popular decision and second guessing would be at a minimum. Americans will support a war, even a frivilous one, if the powers that be seem to know what they're doing as they wage it.
Gotta go, but I'd sincerely like to hear what others think of this idea, so I'll check back later....2:20 pm

 

[LSSpam]

Not to quibble about the meaning of partisan, but I think the second part of the definition in a political context is most important. I have not arrived at my position because I'm part of some "group," whether it be liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat.

The Iraq War is a partisan issue in that it spawns very well defined camps quite entrenched in their positions. How you arrive at one of those camps is inconsequential (through politics, personal experience, etc). Whether you consider yourself one of the "partisans" in regard to it is inconsequential. It, like abortion, the death penalty, or a variety of other issues has devolved into "partisanship" where there is very, very, very little "middle ground" or "give and take" between the two well defined "sides".

Again, don't try and claim that my position stems from pure partisanship.

I didn't. In fact I didn't even refer to you at all. I will now though. I think you are partisan about the Iraq war. But not because of any affiliation to any US political party.

Secondly, sure it would be reason to be "optimistic" but optimistic towards what? Iraq sovereignty? An eventual drawdown of American troops?

Yes. My personal hope, and what I believe we can achieve in shorter order then most seem to assume, is that the security situation will improve to a point that most of these "groups", or, at least, the popular support networks for said groups, throws their lot in with the central government recognizing they have more to offer then any of the individual militias or terrorist or bandits or what have you. At which point the process becomes more political then military and we can begin to draw down troops to a South Korea/Germany style occupation rather then the "active" occupation we have now.

 

[RebSaint]

I didn't. In fact I didn't even refer to you at all. I will now though. I think you are partisan about the Iraq war. But not because of any affiliation to any US political party.
.

Based on your definition of the word, then everybody who has an opinion on Iraq is partisan, and everybody is a partisan. Really, I don't think your using the word correctly--at least in this context.

 

[LSSpam]

Based on your definition of the word, then everybody who has an opinion on Iraq is partisan, and everybody is a partisan. Really, I don't think your using the word correctly--at least in this context.

"1 : a person who is strongly devoted to a particular cause or group"

Obviously if you're unsure about what to do in Iraq, open to some "middle ground solution" or at least to the possibility that you're wrong, no, you wouldn't be very "partisan" about things. But you seem pretty entrenched against the Iraq war, which makes you partisan in regards to Iraq.

So not everyone who has an opinion is partisan, and certainly not "necessarily". I would say, by this point however, most people are pretty partisan about the issue, which is why the discussion around it has devolved so badly.

Most people would say "Iraq has become 'politicized'" in order to say the same thing I am. I don't agree though. "Politicized" implies peoples motivations for digging in so much is political in nature. I don't believe that and certainly am not accusing you of it. I consider "partisan" a much more fitting word because, technically speaking, it's apolitical. It's only in our infotainment culture that "partisan" has become so inextricably linked to "politics" (i.e. partisan politics). But I feel that's unfortunate.

And that said, I'm not exactly a philologist, so I could be way off in my interpretation of the word.

 

[RebSaint]

"1 : a person who is strongly devoted to a particular cause or group"

Obviously if you're unsure about what to do in Iraq, open to some "middle ground solution" or at least to the possibility that you're wrong, no, you wouldn't be very "partisan" about things. But you seem pretty entrenched against the Iraq war, which makes you partisan in regards to Iraq.

So not everyone who has an opinion is partisan, and certainly not "necessarily". I would say, by this point however, most people are pretty partisan about the issue, which is why the discussion around it has devolved so badly.

Most people would say "Iraq has become 'politicized'" in order to say the same thing I am. I don't agree though. "Politicized" implies peoples motivations for digging in so much is political in nature. I don't believe that and certainly am not accusing you of it. I consider "partisan" a much more fitting word because, technically speaking, it's apolitical. It's only in our infotainment culture that "partisan" has become so inextricably linked to "politics" (i.e. partisan politics). But I feel that's unfortunate.

And that said, I'm not exactly a philologist, so I could be way off in my interpretation of the word.

Actually, it seems your just as partisan because you seem to be just as intent on staying in Iraq as I am leaving. Your cause is your opinion on Iraq, and my cause is my opinion on Iraq. My understanding of the word is that it connotes more of a dedication to a group or larger ideology than one particular issue. But enough of this digression, it shouldn't prevent a dialogue here. In short, I really don't agree with your use of the term "partisan" here. Now, if I voted Democrat or was a die-hard party person, or classified myself "liberal," I can see where you have a point.

Yes. My personal hope, and what I believe we can achieve in shorter order then most seem to assume, is that the security situation will improve to a point that most of these "groups", or, at least, the popular support networks for said groups, throws their lot in with the central government recognizing they have more to offer then any of the individual militias or terrorist or bandits or what have you. At which point the process becomes more political then military and we can begin to draw down troops to a South Korea/Germany style occupation rather then the "active" occupation we have now.

Arguably although we can all hope this will indeed happen, the recent surge stategy both politically and militarily has fractured the hope for a strong central government, which is why there's been so much trouble politically.

The recent surge strategy relied on giving more local tribal autonomy, in exchange, these political factions are partially responsible for almost eliminating AQ-Iraq. The peace is based more on a decentralized mode of government and security, which militarily has worked brilliantly, but politically, it's been an impediment for the development of nationalism and national legislation being passed. Furthermore, I don't see any military "solution" save for handing security over to the Iraqis. The United States has done all it can do; save for prolonging the occupation, I'm not sure what else here can be done, because the ball is now mostly in Iraq's court.

And as I said many times before, post war Iraq is really nothing like post-war Germany. Too many different variables/elements at work, which means it may take that much longer a commitment. Can we afford it militarily and financially? I doubt it.

 

[LSSpam]

Actually, it seems your just as partisan because you seem to be just as intent on staying in Iraq as I am leaving.

I like to think I'm not, but if I were being honest with myself I'd say you're probably right. I'm not exactly the most objective person about myself though, am I?

The recent surge strategy relied on giving more local tribal autonomy, in exchange, these political factions are partially responsible for almost eliminating AQ-Iraq. The peace is based more on a decentralized mode of government and security, which militarily has worked brilliantly, but politically, it's been an impediment for the development of nationalism and national legislation being passed. Furthermore, I don't see any military "solution" save for handing security over to the Iraqis. The United States has done all it can do; save for prolonging the occupation, I'm not sure what else here can be done, because the ball is now mostly in Iraq's court.

There's a fine point here. It appears to me that the recent surge strategy is based more on dealing directly with local tribes, and so no, we aren't trying to go through the central government.

So in a way I can see that it's "weakened" the central government, but it's done so largely by earning the trust of local populations directly, meaning they'd rather deal with us then the national government. Conducive to our occupation but not necessarily conducive to our ultimate objective.

Nonetheless, security was the #1 barrier. That had to be solved because it was the root of all problems. So long as we couldn't control violence, people would have to continue to fall back on locally strong militias/groups, even if they honestly didn't like them that much (as appears to have often been the case). The secondary problem, of re-establishing (really establishing for the first time) the authority of the central government is a much more manageable problem. Unfortunately earning "trust" is very much a function of time/ability. Iraq doesn't have the ability yet to "make good" on much of anything and we're getting pretty impatient about the time.

The positive however is, as the security situation has improved, we've also started to gain more time domestically as Iraq has faded into the background some. Further, now that we've established better security the functionality of the Iraq government should also improve.

This was always a winnable war. My key problem before the war was the cost. My key problem at the height of the occupation was how far American patience would extend. But, in "theory", the country wasn't going to just exist in perpetual anarchy. At some point some equilibrium would have to be reached, and as long as you're exerting outside pressure on it, that will be on the positive side. There just had to be a "bottoming out" of sorts.

Well I was opposed to the war before it started and wary about continuing it as late as 2005/2006. But we've already invested, gosh I guess the 5th anniversary is coming up isn't it? 5 years of ridiculous budget outlays on this. And we've reached, I believe, the "bottoming out" portion of the whole affair. It doesn't make sense to me, at this point, to abandon what equity we've built up in paying for this cluster-****. You don't pay $120k on your $180k mortgage and then just decide to burn the house down because it's too expensive (unless you have really good insurance I guess).

But then I see a tangible "benefit" to "winning" in Iraq and feel that benefit out-weighs our remaining costs. I suppose you feel our remaining costs exceed the benefit to "winning", however you define it, or feel that we have so little chance at winning that the cost/benefit doesn't even factor into it.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

 

[RebSaint]

But then I see a tangible "benefit" to "winning" in Iraq and feel that benefit out-weighs our remaining costs. I suppose you feel our remaining costs exceed the benefit to "winning", however you define it, or feel that we have so little chance at winning that the cost/benefit doesn't even factor into it.

Dude, we've won the war. The war is over. It's the occupation and nation-building part that we're trying to deal with, as the article indicated.

Actually, I have just the opposite view given the long range view considering the cost/benefit analysis. With Iraq as a major supplier of oil (while we're there) I think it'll be a further boon to the oil companies--which will in turn give them more power and influence, and that means getting much further away from alternative energy source.

The cost will come twofold: One, relying on a peaceful Iraq to pump the oil will mean the realistic possibility of military intervention--or a permenant occupation. We're right now about 650 Billion dollars into it. Estimates have the number running into the trillions even with a measured draw down and a large presence. The cost will be in both military resources, nation building, and getting the oil companies back on line after some nut with a car bomb blows up a refinery or a part of a pipeline. I want none of it.

In other words, even the oil that we may possibly get out of the ground won't nearly equal the cost in human lives, nation-building, and an endless, or at least intermittent military commitment to keep Iraq's oil flowing--because once Iraq's oil hits the market, it effects the price, and if there's any disruption, back in goes the military, back in goes more money for nation-building.

Iraq is a tinderbox with awfully complicated problems/issues. This idea that they're all going to coexist peacefully enough to get enough oil out of the ground to make this adventure worth it is noble, and on the surface economically rational, but if history is indication, it's an awfully tall order.

It's not worth it.

 

[LSSpam]

Actually, I have just the opposite view given the long range view considering the cost/benefit analysis. With Iraq as a major supplier of oil (while we're there) I think it'll be a further boon to the oil companies--which will in turn give them more power and influence, and that means getting much further away from fossil fuels.

You know my position on how importantly/directly "oil" figures into the current Iraq occupation..

 

[blackadder]

This article is about a specific region, Nineveh/Mosul


I also reject the idea that Iraq is full of savage beasts who can't be trusted with a representative government. We may not being doing it right, but it's not that it "can't be done". They're certainly capable of having a peaceful democracy under the right conditions.

"Right conditions"

In Iraq and much of the Middle East that probably means split into several territories, which will then lead to the problem of oil wars. History shows the Arab world to be hopelessly cleaved along sectarian lines and beyond the grasp of Westerners with mercenary motives.

It ain't really our fight beyond the individuals looking to attack us here at home.

 

[gumbeau]

I asked a very detailed question that I don't dare answer myself.

BUT:

Hey guess what, I support the surge! If the American people really think it's THAT important, either institute the draft or DRASTICALLY increase pay and incentives for armed forces, go in with OVERWHELMING force (500,000, like Colin Powell suggested) and get this thing DONE.
THAT kind of force CAN overcome a thousand years of sectarian hatred. But will the so-called supporters of the surge commit their sons & daughters, their tax dollars and THEMSELVES to do what it takes?? This isn't a rhetorical idea. I stand behind it 100%. I was against the war, and basically I still am, but if we're going to put money and lives at risk, do it RIGHT, not half-a&&, and clean up our mess.
By the way, I'm non-partisan enuff to know that if this would have been our original strategy, this war would be a relatively popular decision and second guessing would be at a minimum. Americans will support a war, even a frivilous one, if the powers that be seem to know what they're doing as they wage it.
Gotta go, but I'd sincerely like to hear what others think of this idea, so I'll check back later....2:20 pm

The Powell doctrine is considered by many to be the reason we sucked so bad after the major military operations ceased. The American military is going through an internal revolution right now, spurred on by Afghanistan and Iraq. They are having to figure out how to fight a war they never prepared for on the fly.

If you are truly interested in exactly how that is happening read the University of Chicago edition of the new Counterinsurgency manual.

The introductions in that version are thought provoking.

http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-...d_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205362818&sr=8-1

 

[LSSpam]

History shows the Arab world to be hopelessly cleaved along sectarian lines and beyond the grasp of Westerners with mercenary motives.

No it doesn't. Just a few decades ago there was very serious talk of pan-Arabism. Egypt and Syria actually even went so far as to join together for a time and after a fashion (the UAR). Saddam Huessin and his Baath party is a product of that philosophy.

The idea that they're hopelessly divided along religious lines is absurd and an unfortunate product of extremist elements like wahhabism.