Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can't Win

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

Your attitude is more of the same-o lib inability to see the nuances in military/geo-political situations and apply an appropriate, even if not perfect, strategy. Any military action that lasts more than 3 months obviously must be wrong. Tell that to the insurgents whose objective is to allow us to defeat ourselves by losing our will and withdrawing before the Iraqi government is capable of handling the situation on its own so that they can impose a non-democratic government on their fellow Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that "the insurgency" will impose a non-democracy on Iraq if we leave is incredibly simplistic and ignorant. The insurgency is made up of many, many different groups. Some Shiite islamists, some sunni saddamists, and a small minority of outside terrorists (these are the suicide bombers). Their fight has been waged under the banner of "resistance" to an occupation and they have often worked together in this fight.

Do you seriously suggest that these diverse groups, ideologically different in many ways, will manage to stay cohesive following a full US withdraw next year AND mount a coup over a government which according to Bush controls 100+ army batalions? EVEN with an over the horizon marine presense left in Kuwait?

The idea is so ridiculous. The presence of the US keeps the insurgency together. The absense of the US will be different for every insurgency group, its hard to say what they will do:
A) Saddamists might shift to trying to take over the government (gl with that) or actaully negotiate with them,
B) Shiites may try to cooperate with the Shiite lead gov which now appears much less collaborative with no US troops around (hard to believe that many of these guys will continue to attack the government),
C) the outsider terrorists may either declare the Iraqi govornment is still colaberating with the US and continue to fight the government with suicide bombing OR they may declare victory in expusion of US troops and try to gain a foothold in Iraq via negotiation (gl with that)

Once we withdraw, there is no doubt the terrorists will declare victory. I hate to break it to them: our goal of regime change was achieved; our goal was never to control the country indefinitely or secure dominance of their oil. Of course, this is assuming we do withdraw and these are not in fact our goals!

What scares me is the talk of "victory" which almost implies that we need to stay until the insurgency is completely subdued. Clearly, this is impossible with the US there and killing terrorists and insurgents itself is not reasonable justification for sticking around if withdrawing will marginalize them. This implies our goals has not been achieved since Bush has some other goals in mind, perhaps to draw this out and secure our interests in the Middle East with a few garrisons in Iraq. This is where comments like "we can't win" (Dean) and "we can't do much more in Iraq" (Mertha) come from, they respond to Bush statements that we will "stay the course", "stay till the job is done" etc. Because if our goal is to completely subsue the insurgency, then I agree with Dean: "we can't win!"

We are almost at the point where our presence is not enhancing the Iraqi governement prospects for stability and legitimacy. If we stay until 2008, will the Iraqi government really have a better chance of sucess than if we withdraw in 2006? I don't think so, the governemnt will be older of course but on the other hand every day of US troops about worsens the perception that they are collaborating with western imperialism. Two, three, or five more years of US presence will lead to: more insurgents dead, more terrorists dead, more innocent Iraqis dead, and more Americans dead. Doesn't seem worth it when our goal is achieved (right?) and withdraw clearly spells the end for the insurgency as we know it.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
You really don't have a clue yourself do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know more than you can probably imagine about the historical difficulties of building democracies in the developing world, the variables that lend themselves toward making democratic development difficult, and thus the immense challenges faced by the administration in keeping the country together under a democratic regime. This is at its core an issue of political and social development, not military victory. Since internal violence is one of the obstacles to political and social development, a security component is needed. But security is not the larger problem, and "victory" in the military conflict is not going to achieve our overall objectives nor is it likely even to occur without a much better answer to the political/social problem, about which the administration is clueless.

[ QUOTE ]
Your attitude is more of the same-o lib inability to see the nuances in military/geo-political situations and apply an appropriate, even if not perfect, strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh. Where is the nuance demonstrated by the Bush's administrations "strategy" in Iraq?

[ QUOTE ]
Tell that to the insurgents whose objective is to allow us to defeat ourselves by losing our will and withdrawing before the Iraqi government is capable of handling the situation on its own so that they can impose a non-democratic government on their fellow Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Losing our will" - I love it when people adopt the same language and talking points of the administration. Truly revealing in many respects. BTW, do you think the Shiites really want a truly democratic regime in a unified Iraq?

[theBruiser500]

You hawks are absolute [censored] retards.

[BluffTHIS!]

No I don't think the Shiites left to themselves really want democracy. All the factions except the Kurds would like to dominate the country. But if we leave, we risk another chaotic situation occurring there like in Somalia, or 1 of the factions installing a non-democratic theocratic state like in Iran.

And TwoWords: your use of the term "western imperialism" just shows you to be another liberal tool/fool.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think the Shiites left to themselves really want democracy. All the factions except the Kurds would like to dominate the country. But if we leave, we risk another chaotic situation occurring there like in Somalia, or 1 of the factions installing a non-democratic theocratic state like in Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. There are no good options in Iraq right now and that is the result of massive policy failure on the part of the Bush administration. The only thing we can do is stick around and keep up hope for a bit longer, but the situation is very, very likely just to deteriorate and eventually implode. It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi people would have been better off with Saddam, in that it depends on what kind of regime eventually takes power, but it is pretty clear that the American people, in so far as our security interests are concerned, would have been a lot better served if we had stayed out to begin with.

[BluffTHIS!]

It should in fact be clear that the Iraqi people can do no worse than if Saddam had been left in. The torture and use of chemical weapons on his own people showed that.

And our security interests cannnot be served by allowing such regimes to exist when they have shown a willingness to develop WMDs whether we found any or not, and which also had previously caused us to have to honor defense committments to a neighboring country of theirs at great cost.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
TwoWords: your use of the term "western imperialism" just shows you to be another liberal tool/fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear. Nice removal from all context!

The insurgency, some other Iraqis, and much of the Arab world percieve our occupation as western imperialism and the current Iraqi government as collaborationist a la Vichy France. Would you seriously argue with that analysis?

It would take a massive breakdown of the Iraqi government and army for any insurgent group to take power after we leave. That's where Mertha's over-the-horizon force comes in, to ensure stability and protect the regime.

Of course, the government could indeed fall apart, but how will that be different than if we withdraw in 3 years? In 3 years we would have an even better trained Iraqi army if we stayed, but how can you change allegiences and force nationalism on the army? If they fracture and fall apart next year when we leave, won't this happen when we leave in 3 years? What can we do to stop this if it will happen.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
It should in fact be clear that the Iraqi people can do no worse than if Saddam had been left in. The torture and use of chemical weapons on his own people showed that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't defend Saddam. But his enormous crimes against his people peaked in the 1980s and tapered off drastically afterwards. The recent revelations about the Badr militia indicate that its entirely within the realm of possibility for a regime to emerge that would approximate the level of human rights abuse in Iraq circa 2001.

[ QUOTE ]
And our security interests cannnot be served by allowing such regimes to exist when they have shown a willingness to develop WMDs whether we found any or not, and which also had previously caused us to have to honor defense committments to a neighboring country of theirs at great cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the Bush administration line. The other interpretation, forwarded by most Iraqi and Middle East experts, is that Saddam lost his appetite for foreign aggression after the Gulf War, was a die-hard secularist at heart who hated the Wahabbis, and was having substantial trouble maintaining internal order, all adding up to him being content to rule his little fiefdom and not attempting to restart the weapons program in earnest or posing a stubstantial external security threat anymore.

Would you rather have Saddam puttering around in his little fiefdom or have part of that fiefdom turn into a stateless and uncontrollable breeding/training ground for Al-Qaeda? Because that almost describes the present, and is a very realistic future, for the Sunni provinces in a divided Iraq.

[BluffTHIS!]

By your same logic, a serial killer who has spent 5 years in prison should be considered no danger and eligible for parole since he hasn't killed anyone lately. A snake is still a snake even if it isn't rattling as loud as it used to.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
By your same logic, a serial killer who has spent 5 years in prison should be considered no danger and eligible for parole since he hasn't killed anyone lately. A snake is still a snake even if it isn't rattling as loud as it used to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, the goals and strategies of leaders and states never change.