A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're not responding to me. Europe's map hasn't changed all that much in the last 100 years, relative to prior centuries. If what you say is true, then all of this suggests that states become more homogenous, not that world maps are going to change more and more as they develop.

?!?!. Just because it has not changed as much as prior centuries does not mean it has not changed that much. There have been significant border changes in the last hundred years. And in fact the ethnic map of europe has not changed much in the last hundred years. The political map has changed more.

I have an ethnic map of Europe from 1850 right in front of me. Since that time the political borders have moved a lot more to conform to the ethnic boundaries than people have moved to conform to political boundaries. The only major exception to that rule was Stalin's ethnic cleansing.

So in the last century the homogenity has come more from borders moving than people moving.

In addition, if the break up of the soviet union does not count as ethnic borders being created because the borders were already there as soviet states, then the same holds true for the United Kingdom. Scotland, Ireland and Wales are already separate states.

In the last undred years you had the break up of the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Ottoman empire. You also had the break up of Yugoslavia. Those were major border changes that all made the political borders move closer to ethnic borders with out people having to move much at all. Yugoslavia did have some movement of people but most of those people have moved back now.

[Spanky]

Recommendation 16 of the Iraq Study Group's report calls upon Syria to agree to a peace deal with Israel in return for the Golan Heights. It further suggests that Syria be persuaded to end its interference in Lebanon, cease aiding Hezbollah, convince Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist, and intervene to obtain the release of two captured Israeli soldiers.

Elsewhere the report declares that "Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation." The authors of this report are supposed to be the foreign policy realists? These goals make President Bush's ambition to germinate a democracy in Arab soil look positively minimalist by comparison.

President Bush, right, holds a copy of the Iraq Study Group report as Group Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton looks on, following their meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) Instead of a sober new look at our options in Iraq, this report consists of platitudinous, utterly naive wishful thinking. No wonder it is being so rapturously received by the media. At a press conference the morning after the report was released, a Los Angeles Times reporter asked the president whether he didn't really agree that the ISG report was much more important than any other reports (from the State Department and the Pentagon) the president was expecting to receive.

"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability." A reliable old saw, but is it true? Since 1945, the Middle East has experienced 40 wars, including civil wars and wars of attrition. Of these, 10 have involved Israel (including the first and second intifadas). The remainder have included border wars between Egypt and Libya, two civil wars in Lebanon, a war between Jordan and the PLO, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Iran/Iraq War, several civil wars in Yemen, and the Dhofar rebellion in Oman. It is chasing a shadow to imagine that "settling" the Arab/Israeli dispute will pacify the region.

But the group chose a particularly inapposite moment to seek a solution to the Israeli/Arab dispute. In the first place, its relevance to the Iraqi conflict is remote at best. Shiites and Sunnis are not going to stop killing each other because the borders of the West Bank are redrawn. But further, the Assad family in Syria has already rejected a bona fide offer of the Golan Heights. The sticking point in 2000? Syria declined to make peace with Israel. If Syria wouldn't accept a deal that included getting back the Golan in 2000, why should she agree now?

No, in order to obtain Syria's help (if it is purchasable at all), we would have to agree to cease investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, drop our objections to Syrian influence in Lebanon, and agree that Hezbollah deserves a free hand in the south of that country.

What about Iran? The ISG seems to imply that our relations with Iran and Syria have been sour due to insufficient diplomatic effort -- thus the "new diplomatic offensive." That's wrong. Our relations are poor because our interests are diametrically opposed.

Former Secretary of State and ISG co-chair James Baker reminds us that the Iranians were helpful when we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yes, to a point. But that wasn't because we asked nicely. The Taliban (Sunnis) had made themselves obnoxious to the Iranians (Shiites), including by kidnapping and killing a number of Iranians. Iran was glad to see them toppled, but that didn't stop Iran from harassing our troops in Afghanistan.

We are told that instability in Iraq is not in Iran's interest either and that therefore we can sit down and reason together. But judging by Iran's behavior -- and it's usually more reliable to read a nation's motives by its actions than by its declarations -- instability is just great. The Iranians are arming and equipping some of the most violent factions inside Iraq. They seem to think a Shiite Iraq subservient to Tehran would be an ideal outcome, particularly since the road to this nirvana has included loss of American life, limb and prestige.

If this document were not so unrealistic it would amount to suing for terms and is thus a net drain on our national conversation about the "way forward" in Iraq.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by nononono
Arguably. But it seemed to fit Spanky's prognostcations.

Careful now, or Hank will call you bad names.

Originally posted by nononono
Besides, when I posted on the FB earlier today you ignored me completely and gave credit to Slave for my Lohan "news." ::sniff::

I'm not there too often, and only read so far back. My apologies.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the number of troops was the mistake, what would be wrong with bulding up our troop strenght to 500,000 in Iraq now? Leave a skeleton crew every where in the world (including the United States) except for Korea and Afghanistan?

If your question was serious, you've answered it yourself.

Bottom line is that we really don't have 500K deployable active duty ground forces any more -- could barely get there by scraping the bottom off the reserves. We've made no effort to spend the resources and political capital to increase our forces to match our new commitments. War quick and cheap -- that's our motto. oops.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
So why not throw in 500,000 now?

Because we don't really have them. And it would require us to formally abandon the doctrine that we've already tacitly abandoned -- that of being ready and able to fight one and one-half wars at any one time. (one large, one medium)

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't know this. You only say this because you want us to lose. It is possible that the only way to win this war is the way we did it. No one knows anything for sure. More troops could have made it worse, caused more resentment. Taking more time on the diplomatic front, and postponing the invasion may have made it harder for us to conquer the country.

While you're preaching, you should at least that you, too (or especially), are monumentally ignorant on this subject.

Read what you've written. Jesus fucking christ.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
And why rotate them out? We didn't rotate troops out of WWII?

(a) If you don't rotate units out of combat situations eventually, you destroy them. In terms of morale, fighting ability and combat effectiveness, if not literally. Our policy had been one year in, two years out. Now we've had to make it one in, one out. that is placing severe strain on some units now entering their third Iraq deployment, because of problems with training time, maintenance, etc., etc. (Not to mention their personal lives.)

(b) Yes, Spanky, we certainly did rotate units in and out of theater in WWII.

(c) P.S. Spanky, we did NOT rotate units in and out of Vietnam on a regular basis. Instead, we rotated the individual soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, etc. in and out of the deployed units (one year tours). THAT was a big problem, and helped destroy unit cohesion. it is much better to have the same group start and finish together.

So, you really think we should just deploy all our forces into Iraq with no rotations -- just tell them that they are in Iraq until we're done or their enlistment contract expires (if we even let them go then)??

I repeat, Jesus Fucking Christ.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you and I talkinng about the same report? I admit I only read the executive summary, but I thought the report said just the opposit.

Nope.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you predict the future accurately? If so, how come you are posting here and not reveling in the trillions of dollars you have made off the stock and real estate markets?

There is a difference between: (a) being able to accurately predict the future, and (b) analyzing and understanding various possible eventualities and preparing for them.

Our military and civilian professionals do both of those all the time, with varying degrees of success. They are supposed to be good at (b). In this instance, many senior staff proved to be very bad at it.

Whoever said "stupid and incompetent" is wrong. There is a big difference between intelligence and wisdom, and the folks involved tended to be damn smart. There seems to have been some pretty serious competency issues, though.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think the report, including the executive summary, said we could/should probably pull most US military out by mid-2008. I don't consider that immediate.

Yes, but it will be pretty damn surprising if conditions are good enough to permit that by mid-2008.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
While you're preaching, you should at least that you, too (or especially), are monumentally ignorant on this subject.

Read what you've written. Jesus fucking christ.

S_A_M

I never said I was an expert. I have never said we can win for sure. I have never said we are going to lose for sure. I have always talked in probabilities and risk.

Its the people that say, becauase Bush did this we are in the situation we are in. If he had done this we would be in such and such a situation. We can't win this now. It is a broken egg and increased troops can't fix it. Any one who makes statements like that is totall full of it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) If you don't rotate units out of combat situations eventually, you destroy them. In terms of morale, fighting ability and combat effectiveness, if not literally. Our policy had been one year in, two years out. Now we've had to make it one in, one out. that is placing severe strain on some units now entering their third Iraq deployment, because of problems with training time, maintenance, etc., etc. (Not to mention their personal lives.)

(b) Yes, Spanky, we certainly did rotate units in and out of theater in WWII.

(c) P.S. Spanky, we did NOT rotate units in and out of Vietnam on a regular basis. Instead, we rotated the individual soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, etc. in and out of the deployed units (one year tours). THAT was a big problem, and helped destroy unit cohesion. it is much better to have the same group start and finish together.

So, you really think we should just deploy all our forces into Iraq with no rotations -- just tell them that they are in Iraq until we're done or their enlistment contract expires (if we even let them go then)??

I repeat, Jesus Fucking Christ.

S_A_M

Are you listening to yourself? I was making proposals. McCain is saying we should put in more soldiers. So did some Democrat that is going to chair some committee. Are they speaking out of their derriere because we can't commit more troops or because are we are fully committed right now? We should commit as many troops as we can. Of course, we should let the military commanders decide how to do it. I,unlike other people on this board, don't think I have perfect knowledge of what is happening in Iraq.

Another difference between me and other people on this board is I understand it is really important we succeed and that we should do what is necessary to succeed. And people that say it is broke and we can't succeed are full of it. They don't know that because no one does. By assuming that we can't win, or that we can't possibly succeed, these people are assuming something that they possibly can't know. They are making the decision irrationaly that we can't win. Yet they say they really want us to win?

If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. What has the Iraq study group come up with that if done earlier would have made any difference? The only thing that I can see that may have helped earlier is sending more troops. But who knows it may have worked.

So if things are not working now as well as we would like. This may be unfixable, they may be fixable. They make work out on their own, or it may be necessary for us to do something to fix it. No one knows the answer to those questions, we can only make educated guesses. The only significant thing that we can change right now that may help us succeed that we are not doing now is sending in more troops. So why not send in as many troops as we can? What is wrong with trying that?

People on this board say they want to win. That they understand that it is important to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. But how come these same people were concerned with the lack of WMDs? If winning this war is so important that then why did it matter that there were no WMDs? It is these same people that were so concerned about the lack of WMDs, that say we can't win, Bush screwed it up (discounting that the situation may have been beyond Bush's control), if more troops may have worked it is too late to send them in now etc. This does not sound to me like the statements of someone who really wants us to succeed.

But whether Bush screwed up, or whether we should have put in more troops before, or whether or not Bush lied about WMDs is all irrelevent. Either you think it is important to succeed in Iraq or you don't. If you think it is important to succeed in Iraq then you should want our government to give its best shot to win.

But I don't hear that from people on this board that say they want to win. People that really want to win say things like what do we need to do to succeed? or maybe if we did this we could succeed? If Bush would do this we could succeed. If we tried this, this might work. But all I hear is this was screwed up, we can't do this or that, or it is so expensive, we are losing lots of soldiers, Bush lied, its a mess, etc.

What is irrational or crazy at this point in time is to decide that we can't win. We should realize that it is really important that we succeed, and if we want to win we should do everything we can to win and stop the crying over spilt milk or second guessing previous decisions?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
...
2050 will most certianly be more aligned than 2000. In fact Montenegros split from Serbia has accomplished this.

Caveat: I ave not read most of what preceded this.

That said: If you are talking languic differences between the Montenegrins and the Serbs, Croats, or Bosnians, you are smoking crack. They all fundamentally speak the exact same language - they just rename it and kill each other over it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Its the people that say, becauase Bush did this we are in the situation we are in. If he had done this we would be in such and such a situation. We can't win this now. It is a broken egg and increased troops can't fix it. Any one who makes statements like that is totall full of it.

Sorry for the tone. It was late last night and I was generally crabby.

I agree that we can't know with certainty what would have happened had we acted differently.

I agree that we don't know whether or not we can still "win" -- and that we have to still try.

Increased troops might help in some ways, and maybe we could try that if we come up with a useful plan for them. But it is useful to remember that there are important things they could have done in 2003 that we can't do now because it is just too late (e.g. securing WMD sites and protecting them from destruction; stopping looting and intentional destruction of government ministries by Saddam's forces; minimize/reduce infrastructure destruction).

As the situation has deteriorated, our options have narrowed. But it really wasn't the point of the Iraq Study Group to focus on what _should_ have been done. As Blair said when he and Bush discussed the issue at the press conference (paraphrase): "the situation in Iraq is not really debatable, the issue is to find a way forward." That is what they are trying to do.

So, I'm a bit surprised that you keep busting on the Report of the Iraq Study group (which neither of us have read in full) -- and I think it is for political reasons.

No one should have expected anything other than high-level summary reccommendations from what was/is a blue-ribbon bipartisan panel of non-subject matter experts aessentially asked to just think about it and report back.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was making proposals. McCain is saying we should put in more soldiers. So did some Democrat that is going to chair some committee. Are they speaking out of their derriere because we can't commit more troops or because are we are fully committed right now? We should commit as many troops as we can.

OK -- but it can't be half a million, and we have to have troop rotation.

Originally posted by Spanky
Another difference between me and other people on this board is I understand it is really important we succeed and that we should do what is necessary to succeed.

I agree with that point. I think that if the situation in Iraq deteriorates further, and/or remains at this level of mess for the next few years, we'll probably be worse off than if we had never invaded.

Originally posted by Spanky
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. What has the Iraq study group come up with that if done earlier would have made any difference? The only thing that I can see that may have helped earlier is sending more troops. But who knows it may have worked.

Like I said, I don't think that was their point or purpose. Still, I'd also point to their reccomendations on increased resources for the training of Iraqi units.

Originally posted by Spanky
So if things are not working now as well as we would like. This may be unfixable, they may be fixable. They make work out on their own, or it may be necessary for us to do something to fix it.

You're hedging too much. They aren't working now, period. I don't make absolutist statements, but I'll also say that they won't work out on their own.

How we handle the politics and diplomacy is as important as the military aspect (or more so), becasue the consensus on the military and (even in the administration) is that we can't "win" by strictly military means.

Originally posted by Spanky
But how come these same people were concerned with the lack of WMDs? If winning this war is so important that then why did it matter that there were no WMDs? It is these same people that were so concerned about the lack of WMDs, that say we can't win, Bush screwed it up (discounting that the situation may have been beyond Bush's control), if more troops may have worked it is too late to send them in now etc.

I'm not sure where this point came from, but the reason the presence of WMDs mattered to a lot of people, including the adminstration, was that they were the major justification for starting the war. That matters, because there was a risk that a situation like this would develop.

Originally posted by Spanky
What is irrational or crazy at this point in time is to decide that we can't win. We should realize that it is really important that we succeed, and if we want to win we should do everything we can to win and stop the crying over spilt milk or second guessing previous decisions?

Fair enough, but it is also fair to allow the opposition a few minutes to spit on the performance to date before trying to help fix the problem.

S_A_M