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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's strange that conservatives spend so much more time worrying about whether the American people support the war than they do worrying about whether we are doing the right things to win it. We are losing, and it has nothing to do with domestic support. It is because we cannot defeat the insurgency, and because the Iraqi government is ineffective and does not have legitimacy (in the Weberian sense).

First of all we won the war. Full stop. As for containing the insurgency we are not doing as well as we would like. But as insurgencies go, this one could be a hell of a lot worse. The fact that people say we are losing just undermines the whole war effort.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I say that this is strange, but part of the explanation is quite simple. If you go to Iraq right now, you have a very good chance of getting killed, particularly if you leave the Green Zone or U.S. bases. For all the happy talk about how the number of deaths is quite low compared to Ypres and Verdun, everyone -- everyone -- understands that for an American to go and walk the streets of Baghdad is akin to suicide. So it's for preferable for conservatives to stay in this country and complain about Democrats than it is for them to go Iraq and get killed.

You are not talking about Iraq you are talking about Baghdad. There is a lot more to Iraq than Bagdad. Bagdad happen to me in the middle of the one part of the country that didn't support the invasion. The rest of the country overwhelming thinks the fall of Saddam was a good thing. Less than half in the Sunni areas agree with that. It certainly is safer for an American to walk around Kurdistan than it is in certain places in Detroit.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The polls says your math is wrong.

I was not talking about the average voter I was talking about the talking heads.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And what's funny about your complaint here is this: Those of us who opposed the war on prudential grounds were right. We were right, and the rest of you were wrong. Doubtless you were wrong for the best of reasons, just like the Portland Trailblazers surely thought long and hard before they drafted Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan.

Rather than bitch that the war's opponents were right for the wrong reasons, you might devote some bandwidth to figuring out why you guys got it so wrong.

No - we were right and we can still win the game. You guys just want to throw in the towel in quit. And what is crazy is I don't even think we are behind. But even if we were behind we should not leave until we are sure we can't succeed. Are you sure we can't succeed?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While I disagree about the ex ante assessment of risk, I agree that we must now make the best of the situation. (E.g., by letting John Kerry -- who might have fucked things up -- run the war instead of George W. Bush -- who already had.)

Yes that would have a been a good move. Put in a Commander and Chief who says that are troops are harassing the population and are rapists murderer's etc.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But, as I said in another post, the White House and the Pentagon have gotten everything they asked for. The defeat is on them.

Again, your are assuming it is over. It is only over when we decide it is over.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In a concrete way, explain how the war's opponents in the U.S. have "undermined" the cause. What a crock.

You don't think all the crying by the Democrat leadership about pulling out hasn't inspired the insurgents? "Look their own poweful politicians are demanding they pull out, clearly we must do something right". You don't think every time Howard Dean opens his mouth about this immoral war that that clip isn't played over and over again on Al Jazeera? Every time Murtha says we need to pull out, it is not played again and again on Al Jeerza? Those guys study what is going on in American more than they study the Koran.

Like Bin Ladin said. We are a paper tiger and once we get one bloody nose we will cut and run. All those partisan ranting by those idiots just encourages our enemies more and boosts their morale.

The Democrats have never come up with a reasonable alternative strategy. They have just complained and critisized and called for a withdrawal. It has all been absorbed by the insurgents.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't read the National Review, but I agree the left sank us in Vietnam.

Because we were doing so well otherwise?

(No, I really don't want to talk about the Vietnam War.)

I don't support everything that McCarthy did, but his effect has been greatly exagerrated by the left. . . . Most of the people accused of being spies in that era were just that.

I disagree, and I think many, many people who lived through that era would disagree as well. Moreover, as you say, it is not just what McCarthy himself did, but the effect what he started had at the federal, state and local level -- in government, our schools and all segments of our culture.

As to your statement that "most of the people . . . " -- do you have some support for that statement, or are you talking just about a few famous cases?

And what about those who were never accused of spying, but just harmed because of real or imagined contemporaneous association with leftist political parties?

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The point I was trying to make was not about boundaries, it was about the concept of an Iraqi "nation." Europe is full of nations now where other polities once were.

Yes, and as long as there has been an Iraqi nation, there have been contrary movements and approaches to "identity" - panarabism, panislam, and Hashemite dynastic issues, in addition to local nationalisms. The first King of independent Iraq in 1932 was the former King of Syria, the brother of the King of Jordan and the son of the Emir of Mecca (all of them, of course, descendants of the Prophet).

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think all the crying by the Democrat leadership about pulling out hasn't inspired the insurgents? "Look their own poweful politicians are demanding they pull out, clearly we must do something right". You don't think every time Howard Dean opens his mouth about this immoral war that that clip isn't played over and over again on Al Jazeera? Every time Murtha says we need to pull out, it is not played again and again on Al Jeerza? Those guys study what is going on in American more than they study the Koran.

Yeah, if only the right could have silenced all domestic dissent and debate about the war I'm sure a stable, secular, modern democracy would be flourishing in Iraq at this very moment.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You think the left misguidedly focuses on McCarthy's effect on popular sentiment, as opposed to the few people he himself got fired?

There were spies everywhere, America was complacent, so he was right about that. As far as people he got fired? How many government workers did he get fired? In Hollywood the people that got fired were blacklisted by the studios. The government did not do anything to them, the studios did. And they were all communists. All they had to do was denounce the communist party. A party that was promoting the violent overthrow of the United States government and that was the arm of a foreign hostile government.

It is your right to belong to a party that is being controlled by a forign government, that wants the violent overthrow of the United States government, but if you are a member of such party I don't have to employ you.

If I find out someone in my employ is a member of Al Queda, they will be fired immediately and I will encourage everone I know not to hire them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Yeah, if only the right could have silenced all domestic dissent and debate about the war I'm sure a stable, secular, modern democracy would be flourishing in Iraq at this very moment.

Obviously we can't silence them, but it would have been nice if the people that held positions of power had showed some interest in the future of America and Iraq and not used the war as a partisan tool thereby encouraging the insurgency. And what makes you so sure that if America had showed a united front on the war, that the insurgency wouldn't have been discouraged and not nearly as strong now as it could have been?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Because we were doing so well otherwise?

(No, I really don't want to talk about the Vietnam War.)


I disagree, and I think many, many people who lived through that era would disagree as well. Moreover, as you say, it is not just what McCarthy himself did, but the effect what he started had at the federal, state and local level -- in government, our schools and all segments of our culture.

As to your statement that "most of the people . . . " -- do you have some support for that statement, or are you talking just about a few famous cases?

And what about those who were never accused of spying, but just harmed because of real or imagined contemporaneous association with leftist political parties?

S_A_M

It is my understanding from what I have read, that people that denounced the communist party and said they detested it never ran into trouble. It was the people that refused to denounce it. And these people were not jailed, they just lost their jobs.

But for all the famous prosecutions: Rosenburges, the Chambers case etc: we now know they were all paid spied of the soviet union.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The conversation we've been having about Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't piss me off in the slightest, and I think it's been very interesting.

OK, I was being a little sarcastic (or is it tongue and cheek?). You caught me.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The conversation we've been having about Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't piss me off in the slightest, and I think it's been very interesting.

And believe me, Hank knows how to piss people off.

But on the substantive point you raised Hank (went back and looked), I'll try to think about it more and post something tonight. Nothing interesting occurred to me when I first skimmed it or now.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's strange that conservatives spend so much more time worrying about whether the American people support the war than they do worrying about whether we are doing the right things to win it. We are losing, and it has nothing to do with domestic support. It is because we cannot defeat the insurgency, and because the Iraqi government is ineffective and does not have legitimacy (in the Weberian sense).

There was an interesting piece on NPR Monday (pointing out that as of Tuesday we've been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII) that had some commentary fom a retired General who served in Vietnam. He said that the army was pretty much decimated after Vietnam, and he thinks it's holding together because the Sergants haven't given up yet. They gave up in Vietnam.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(all of them, of course, descendants of the Prophet).

I am also.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there are no "others." you've won! congrats!

Ty has destroyed the GOP?!?!

Whoo Hoo! I didn't get the memo.

S_A_M

eta: :cheers:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Yes, and as long as there has been an Iraqi nation, there have been contrary movements and approaches to "identity" - panarabism, panislam, and Hashemite dynastic issues, in addition to local nationalisms. The first King of independent Iraq in 1932 was the former King of Syria, the brother of the King of Jordan and the son of the Emir of Mecca (all of them, of course, descendants of the Prophet).

Europe eventually coalesced along ethnic lines (by that I mean linguistic lines). I belive that is the natural pull. Eventually I think there will be a Kurdish state, and that when the Arab states go Democratic they will start unifying politically.

I think eventually the political boundaries in the middle east will relfect linguistic boundaries just like they do in Europe today. I even drew a map.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
and he thinks it's holding together because the Sergants haven't given up yet. They gave up in Vietnam.

Will he let us know when they give up? Seriously, did he give an indication of how much longer the seargents will stay committed?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
First of all we won the war. Full stop. As for containing the insurgency we are not doing as well as we would like. But as insurgencies go, this one could be a hell of a lot worse. The fact that people say we are losing just undermines the whole war effort.

"War effort"? You were just saying that we won the war. How can there be a war effort?

The insurgency could be a lot worse, if it involved genocide, or nuclear weapons, or the exportation of violence to places like Connecticut. As insurgencies go, it's a mess. We all know that if the U.S. military pulled out of Iraq, the current government wouldn't last two weeks.

You are not talking about Iraq you are talking about Baghdad. There is a lot more to Iraq than Bagdad. Bagdad happen to me in the middle of the one part of the country that didn't support the invasion. The rest of the country overwhelming thinks the fall of Saddam was a good thing. Less than half in the Sunni areas agree with that. It certainly is safer for an American to walk around Kurdistan than it is in certain places in Detroit.

I agree that much of Kurdistan is peaceful right now. But Americans are not safe walking around the rest of the country, and I think you know this.

I was not talking about the average voter I was talking about the talking heads.

You'd be well on your way to arguing that the cultural elites were undermining America if it weren't the case that the war is far more popular among the talking heads than it is with the rest of the country. Whatever the talking heads have been doing for the last several years, they haven't been driving public opinion, since most people in this country think we should get out of Iraq and most talking heads aren't willing to say that.

No - we were right and we can still win the game. You guys just want to throw in the towel in quit. And what is crazy is I don't even think we are behind. But even if we were behind we should leave until we are sure we can't succeed. Are you sure we can't succeed.

Setting the fringe left aside, the people who think we should get out of Iraq generally do so because they think that our presence there is making things worse -- in the sense that much of the insurgency is directed at getting us to leave -- and they don't see us making things better -- in that the Iraqi government isn't getting it done, isn't about to get it done, and has less incentive to get it done while we have more than 100,000 troops there protecting them.

Count me as someone who would be willing to stay in Iraq if I thought there was a realistic chance of success. I haven't seen it.

Yes that would have a been a good move. Put in a Commander and Chief who says that are troops are harassing the population are rapists murderer's etc.

Had John Kerry been elected President, I have little doubt that you and other Republicans would have had no qualms about undermining the country in a time of war by repeating this sort of crap, inter alia.

Once again, you have a strange focus on the sort of message a President sends, and a complete disinterest in his policies. Which has been Bush's problem with Iraq, in a nutshell.

In the future, the question for historians will be whether our invasion of Iraq was doomed from the start or whether it was irredeemably screwed up by the President and his subordinates. (I posted this a couple of years ago the PB, and only wish I could find that post now, since I see this meme all over the place now.)

Again, your are assuming it is over. It is only over when we decide it is over.

If only this were true, and a simple commitment of willpower on our part were all it took.

If it's all up to us as deciders, are we having so much trouble in Iraq because Bush et al. didn't have enough willpower?

You don't think all the crying by the Democrat leadership about pulling out hasn't inspired the insurgents. "Look their own poweful politicians are demanding they pull out, clearly we must do something right". You don't think every time Howard Dean opens his mouth about this immoral war that that clip isn't played over and over again on Al Jazeera? Every time Murtha says we need to pull out, it is not played again and again on Al Jeerza? Those guys study what is going on in American than they study the Koran.

No. I think this is unmitigated horseshit. I think insurgents there care very little about what Democratic leaders are thinking. I think they don't even watch Al Jazeera that much, because I suspect that much of the population lacks the requisite electricity and satellite dish. I also suspect that Al Jazeera doesn't devote a lot of time to the thoughts of Howard Dean et al., although since neither you nor I speak Arabic we're both just shooting in the dark when we speculate about Al Jazeera's programming. And you have to work pretty hard to imagine an Iraqi insurgent who is so well informed about American politics that he knows that Howard Dean is saying about Iraq but who is so ignorant that he thinks that what Howard Dean says will have anything to do with the way George Bush and the U.S. military prosecute the war.

Like Bin Ladin said. We are a paper tiger and once we get one bloody nose we will cut and run. All those partisan ranting by those idiots just encourages our enemies more and boosts their morale.

Obviously, bin Laden was wrong.

The Democrats have never come up with a reasonable alternative strategy. They have just complained and critisized and called for a withdrawal.

We had an alternative strategy under Clinton. It was called containment. It looks much better than the fiasco of the last several years, notwithstanding that Hussein might still be in power.

Nor is that the only alternative strategy. For example, Peter Galbraith has proposed dividing Iraq into three states. But you're not interested in discussing alternative strategies -- what you care about is willpower, and finding a way to blame the mess that George Bush has made on the Democratic Party.