Redstate

Thanks for your comment. The only reason I brought up the timetable was as a comparison to a temporary surge in troops. My question remains "why is a temporary increase in troops any different" as far as the insurgency waiting it out?

As for why there would be a temporary surge, I have not seen anything related to this being for training only. In Bush's own words yesterday:

I will tell you we're looking at all options. And one of those options, of course, is increasing more troops. But in order to do so, there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops. And that's precisely what our commanders have said, as well as people who know a lot about military operations. And I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.

Per reports in various other sources (Washington Post, MSNBC, etc.), any talk was about combat action, not training. See here

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq.

---snip---

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

Mind you, this is from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Or this article:

Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months. The idea has the support of important figures such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and has been pushed by some inside the White House, but the Joint Chiefs have balked because they think advocates have not adequately defined the mission, according to U.S. officials.

And here is McCain's proposal which is being cited:

Sen. John McCain took his controversial proposal for curbing Iraq's sectarian violence to Baghdad on Thursday, calling for an additional 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops and joining a congressional delegation in telling Iraq's prime minister he must break his close ties with a radical Shiite cleric.

If you have a source that indicates this temporary surge would be for training Iraqi troops, I would like to see it, because that is something that I have not come across in my research.

Could work under a limited set of conditions.

1) They have a specific target. (eg. Let's help Maliki serve the arrest warrant vs al-Sadr and destroy the entire Mehdi Army.)

2) There is a replacement force ready to fill the vaccuum that results when the 50K surge force gets pulled.

If they just do what the other guys are doing, and don't have a targeted mission, the surge isn't a necessary policy.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

although if the 50,000 are replaced, then it isn't really a surge - it is more of a permanent buildup. And if that is the goal/case, then I would think that 50,000 isn't really sufficient.

Which leads to the other questions of how/where do the troops come from and other logistical issues.....

The Clarification...

>>>>although if the 50,000 are replaced

I meant to imply the replacements would come from Iraq's armed forces, as they continued to stand up. (That, of course, brings up your logisitical questions and some training and doctrine issues as well)

The Point (Re:overwhelming force.) By the doctrine of overwhelming force, we never would have deemed Operation Overlord (6 June 1944) as militarily feasible. We never would have outnumbered the German Forces in Northern France by enough to satisfy a WWII version of Colin Powell. It would have been wrong to subject our soldiers to such danger. Also, as seen during the US Marine assault on Iwo Jima, where we had a huge numerical advantage over The Japaneese, overwhelming force will not necessarily suppress an enemy that shoots back irregardless of their own casualty rate.

My reason to point this out is to make the point that The Doctrine of Overwhelming Force seems to be aimed more at preventing operations, rather than guiding them to successful conclusions. The place to debate either the morality or the feasibility of a war is on the floor of Congress. The deliberate 'slanting' so to speak of our planning constraints so that we prevent ourselves from acting, is a political rather than a military calculation.

All that having been said, I might find myself agreeing with the Daily Kos about the whole surge concept, but for a totally different set of reasons.

didn't realize that you meant replace w/Iraqi soldiers. Thx for clarification.

And to be honest, I figured that I wouldn't be met with as harsh a reply on this issue than some others - that may be an underlying reason why I picked this one as my initial post.

where we had the POLITICAL support of most of OCCUPIED Europe who WANTED liberation. Germany was the overstretched occupying power fighting in too many places without enough men or supplies (sound familiar?)

Like it or not, WE are now being viewed as the OCCUPIERS. This is NOT a conventional war and is MUCH harder to "win" - in fact, impossible without the support of at least a portion of the population. We HAD that support for a time but have increasingly lost it. I don't think ANY amount of additional troops can win militarily what we already lost politically.

The French situation in Algiers is an apt parallel - and they had advantages we will never have in Iraq: local supporters in the form of French colonial settlers, overwhelming and controlling military force and no limits on how to use that force. The French managed to "win" militarily for a while - after becoming a pariah in the court of world opinion for their methods - but they STILL lost in the end. The US should look at THAT example.

Meanwhile we continue to ignore Afghanistan as that WINNABLE war drags on and gets worse. We let Pakistan - our supposed ally - negotiate a defacto "peace" with the Taliban providing a protected zone for our enemies. What gives?

IMO, we NEEDED to clean up Afghanistan, COULD have done so but have made a mess of that by being distracted in Iraq. The oil isn't worth it because we're never going to get control of it. In the mean time we risk alienating the Saudis who we NEED for oil.

Oh... and Algeria was ultimately about oil too.

ah for the good old days when government was small and competent, budgets were balanced, our rights were intact and we were respected in the world. What on earth has happened?

Is this really Bill Shatner?

THANKS.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

No it's not. It's about converting the heathen Muslims to Christianity. And keeping Israel safe.

We have a policy here against personal invective so I am unable to note that you are absolutely dumb as a box of rocks. The rocks would complain and I would be rightly disciplined, so I won't mention it.

And just for grins, what might be the timeframe your signature refers to?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

in answer to your question.

We SHOULD have had McCain in 2000 - instead we got .......

a dearth of fiscal responsility, government sticking its nose into everything (and screw the Constitution in the process) and an embarassing lack of competence and refusal to listen to those that KNOW their jobs...... our military, intelligence services, etc.

I believe in separation of church and state, responsible government and accountability.

All that we were promised in 94 seems to have been abandoned for what again?

I've done pretty well in life, don't begrudge the substantial taxes I pay (when they're spent responsibly) and am from a family that's fought to found and defend this nation. Duty Honor and Country are NOT mere words - they have meaning.

Six years ago we were - without rival - the most powerful nation on earth. Now, our military has been run through a meatgrinder we have NO credibility on the world stage and we're destined to leave the Middle East in a mess. The only question is "how bad a mess?" We squandered the good will that the world felt towards US after 9/11, and have lost any moral authority we once had by our own behavior. The Republican Party sat by and applauded while things got worse and worse - and the Democrats hid and cowered.

Count me as an independent "libertarian" with conservative fiscal values. The Republican party I once knew is gone.

Now we're stuck with ultra-partisan politics with nobody caring about what's best for the US (and absolutely no consideration given to the rest of the world).

ah for the good old days when government was small and competent, budgets were balanced, our rights were intact and we were respected in the world. What on earth has happened?

who have your closely held beliefs.

Idiot.

I'm amazed you think the "permanent campaign" was not a partisan adventure. I'm amazed you think that ignoring and empowering terrorists is a good foreign policy. I'm amazed you think we should turn our foreign policy decisions over to the international community.

You represent a pathetic slice of America. Maybe one day you'll pull your head out of the sand and confront reality. Today obviously wasn't that day.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I suspect I am far more familiar with the corridors of power than you - and to think that it's not about oil, and energy and even water, is sticking one's head in the sand.

And as much as I have benefitted from recent tax cuts (have you?) I think it's ridiculous to run up this country's deficit to the levels we're at, put out military through a meatgrinder and not even manage to get any oil out of Iraq..... Meanwhile China is buying up supplies in Africa and Central Asia using the dollars they've gotten making Happy Meal toys for us. The intent of having a strong presence in this region is based on a centuries old premise - given more impetus by the presence of oil in Central Asia. We - like so many other western powers before us, have failed miserably at projecting our influence in the area.

It took decades tfor our military to recover from Vietnam, and will take decades to ecover from this. We are losing senior NCO's and junior officers - as well as key special ops troops. You can't put people through four tours in seven years - volunteer or not - and expect them to be happy and beg for more when things are only getting worse and they're not getting the support they need. And at this point we're not capable of providing the support and manning levels needed to control things much less win them.

We are the catalyst for violence in Iraq now. We need to back away and win Afghanistan.

ah for the good old days when government was small and competent, budgets were balanced, our rights were intact and we were respected in the world. What on earth has happened?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

He's not an idiot and he's far from alone in his sentiments.

It's very disappointing to see reactions like this to valid comments.

_Don't tread on me._

of agreeing on a policy--even if people have different reasons for it, is a good thing.

Rare, in America, these days.

There's nothing to suggest that there's any specific target. We could cross our fingers and hope, hope, hope that there was some clever plan... but seriously, does the prosecution of this unravelling occupation lead you to really think that's likely?

And, alas, taking out al-Sadr seems like a nice, simple solution, but I doubt it would be effective. It's not as if there aren't other Shi'a who could or would step in--and they'd get to do so with a fresh new martyr and a bloody shirt to wave (if you're not familiar with the history of the Shi'a, I urge you to read up on the importance of martyrs. It's hard to imagine anything that would be worse than to create another one). Frustrating? Yes. Remember also that you're talking about a part of the Shiite majority. We offend them enough, and there's no chance of our working out any sort of government in Iraq that's even neutral to the US, in the end.

Maliki has little or no underlying support of his own. He's a creature of the Iraqi coalition at this point--and that coalition is fractured, fractious and shaky. The Sunni aren't offering him much support at this point, even boycotting some key meetings. Now, throw high explosives into the Shiite community and how long do you think he'll last?

As for the replacements from the Iraqi force... well, I wouldn't hold my breath. The history there is extremely depressing. They've trained up very slowly, and those that have been declared ready to take the lead end up being withdrawn from that status, because they're not. The administration keeps talking about how there are more... but they seem like Soviet-era consumer goods. Shoddy to the point of useless when you get them, and mostly not even available.

Before I'd start believing in Iraqi replacements, I'd like a signed affidavit from Santa that they exist, and a personal promise from the Easter Bunny that he (she?) will deliver them.

As a historian... Iraq looks like a lose-lose-lose to me. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, damned anyway. And so is anyone involved. One thing's for sure though; killing a bunch of people there won't make it all resolve. The Nazis weren't able to suppress resistance groups, and they were vastly more willing to be brutal and inhumane than we are. If there's a tactic to be used, it needs to be new, and clever... not old, blunt and brutal. The results are in on those already.

if all we do is kill him, I agree. Kill him and 40 or 50,000 of his army and you've got a different situation.

With respect to tactics, the problem is that we aren't being brutal or blunt.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

what killing 40-50,000 Iraqi Shiites would mean.

Remembering that these are not an army in any traditional sense, and they're not organized or dressed as one. How many other people would be killed--accidentally or mistakenly? How many other Iraqis will be outraged in the process, and form another even more explicitly anti-American militia?

I'm guessing that killing 40-50,000 people who are hard to target and can hide among the population will mean at least a quarter-of-a-million deaths.

Brutal and blunt doesn't work in suppressing insurgencies.

It's not a military operation in the classical sense. It's more akin to treating a disease; you can remove the primary tumor (which used to be Saddam, and then Zarqawi and now, I guess that Sadr's the current bogeyman). But the real problem is dispersed.

In theory, one could emulate the Romans and obliterate the population and state of Iraq. Cartago Delenda Est.

In theory.

In reality, we're not going to. So we have to imagine a solution that won't result in more people hating the US even more than they do--because such a population isn't going to want to sell oil to us, and will look the other way while terrorists recruit among the really angry. Desperate people are willing to do desperate things. Fat, happy, prosperous people aren't. People who have lots to lose are more worried about losing it, or even some of it, than people who have little... or nothing.

Right now, the Iraqi people have very little of the most basic human needs, which include food and security. As a result... they're willing to take outlandish risks to lash out. What's to lose?

Making their situation worse--which an all-out assault on anything we think looks like the Mahdi "Army" will inevitably do--won't help.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Shi'a regions that have recently been turned over to Iraqi security are those that critical supply lines for our forces run through. We should be wary about outraging the people who are related to those we'd like to exterminate.

is less than a few thousand real fighters.
How many of those are actually Iranian agents and military advisors?
Who really cares.
Killing a few thousand thugs and murderers and their foreign puppeteers is very different from killing X tens of thousands of Iraqis.

reports put Sadr's army at 30,000 to 60,000. That information was the basis of my comment. If you're numbers are correct, we would still probably end up killing 15,000 plus people. Which is fine with me, as long as Sadr and the bulk of his army are dead in the process.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

NT

Unfortunately, I think that the Baker report is looked at as largely crap (from both the left and the right - although for different reasons).

Plus, it is clear that Bush doesn't think too highly of the conclusions there either.....

But its there and it still will be used to justify policy. It does demonstrate why bad ideas need to be stopped early and often.

al-Sadr is a big problem, in my mind, and the new developments about Sistani could be good - that is if he can get the wider support here.

What really bothers me about al-Sadr is that he holds seats in the Iraqi parliament, his political party holds much sway as well, and he has up to tens of thousands of people who are willing to blindly follow him and create havoc (to say the least) or go on killing sprees on his whim.

On one hand, he needs to be dealt with strongly but also smartly as he can nearly singlehandedly destroy any political progress.

Your point on the protection of civilians is one of the biggest ones as well - but trust is also an issue to overcome (our trust of them, their trust of our troops).

It is a [poopy] situation all around and I just think that a surge should either be off the table completely or should be overwhelming - both with force where needed and on a humanitarian level to stop the violence from becoming more of genocide.

We take it seriously around here. Be careful what you type.

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

my bad. Sorry. Didn't mean it as anything other than as casual talk.

I see a new sheriff is in town. Good catch Mark. I'm wondering where our big "PROFANITY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED" warning on each comment box went. Hmmm...

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

if you don't use it?

-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

Sadr needs to be killed, along with as many of his "army" as we can find. If we need to kill 30,000 civilians to wipe out Sadr and his band of not-so-merry-men, that's a small cost. A dead Sadr, with his army wiped out, will have no political force anywhere.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

if its purpose is to wipe out Al-Sadr's militia, in cooperation with a political re-alignment in the Iraqi government.

Al-Sadr's group holds 30 seats in the 275-member Parliament. Shiite members not aligned with Al-Sadr hold 100 seats, leaving Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and others with 145 seats. If al-Maliki's group can be convinced to join forces with at least 38 other non-Shiite MP's (or have such a coalition vote no confidence for al-Maliki and form a new government), there would be political support for taking out al-Sadr.

From information coming from the troops themselves, the nature of the enemy is shifting. Many of the Sunni Arab sheiks have turned against al-Qaeda, and the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq is weakening, while most of the violence has become Shiite vs. Sunni or Sunni vs. Shiite. The ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of most Iraqi Shiites, has consistently urged restraint by Shiites, NOT to get "revenge" on Sunnis for the outrages they suffered under Saddam, but al-Sadr has been provoking sectarian violence.

A temporary "surge" of American troops could be instrumental in taking out al-Sadr's group, and the Iraqi Army forces know who's who, and could provide useful intelligence. If Iraqi Shiites can be convinced that al-Sadr is a troublemaker, and that their best interest lies in a united Iraq, al-Sadr's group can be crushed, then Iraqi forces can maintain order. Some of the American troops should probably be stationed along the Iraqi side of the Iraq/Iran border, to interdict the flow of weapons and fighters into Iraq, and also as a deterrent to adventurism by Iran's President Ahmadinejad.

Liberals are fond of quoting General Shinseki's recommendations of 300,000 to 500,000 troops, but among the advice given by many generals before the war, Shinseki's figure was an outlier, and the consensus view was adopted.

We used a comparable number of troops during the first Gulf War, but this was before President Clinton tried to reap the post-Cold-War "peace dividend" by cutting military spending, and Saudi Arabia asked our forces to leave. Turkey's refusal to allow American troops to attack from the north then forced the entire invasion to be launched from Kuwait. Massing double or triple the troops we actually used, in Kuwait with limited port facilities, would have been a logistical nightmare, and if Saddam launched some Scuds laced with chemical weapons (as was feared before the war, even by Hans Blix), American casualties would have been huge if a half million troops were congested in tiny Kuwait. Spreading fewer troops through Kuwait meant less targets for Saddam while the United Nations dithered over resolutions.

In fairness, the Bush Administration did make some major mistakes in Iraq, mostly by failing to take out rebel factions (against the post-Saddam Iraqi government) when they had the chance. Not only al-Sadr, but also the al-Qaeda terrorists in Fallujah, which the Marines had cornered in April 2004. The terrorists asked for "negotiations", and a so-called Iraqi "Fallujah Brigade" was sent in, which promptly let the terrorists off the hook, and American troops had to clean out Fallujah AGAIN in November 2004 (after the election, of course). If the Marines had been allowed to crush the Fallujah terrorists in April 2004, they could have been used elsewhere against other enemies later on.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

I do agree on the nature of the violence shifting to Sunni vs. Shiite. My biggest concern is that even 50,000 more won't "wipe out" al Sadr and still secure Baghdad, etc.

I think that there needs to be just as much, if not much more pressure against al Sadr and his militia/followers from the other political factions (especially the Shiites) and Iraqi army - that would do worlds more good long term than it coming from the US military.

Of course, all of this is hypothetical and who knows if these other Shiite factions will get fed up with the escalating violence and follow Sistani and Maliki.

I am not hopeful of that happening but stranger things have happened.

I didn't want to debate the history of this or why we are where we are, so I am glad you kept that part simple. However, I would rather just keep it to the current events - and while I agree that al Sadr's army needs to be destroyed, the issue of al Sadr is tougher. As I commented above (I think it was to Robert1), he is part of the "official" political process and government and how do we deal with that?

I don't have an answer for that one.......

...what needs to be done with al Sadr! Reconciling that within you is the hard part. Some may never be able to do so!

If a so-called religious leader here in the U.S. got himself elected then gathered and armed his followers in order to create a force to intimidate and impose his will, we wouldn't stand for it! Neither should Iraq

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

and thx for the welcome.

it's just having the will to do it.

We're not at war there. It's an occupation, the war--as a war, such as it was--is long over.

And the rules for an effective occupation are very different. Blowing things up--things that are important and significant to people--is precisely how NOT to fight an insurgency. It pisses off the local population, and that fuels the insurgency.

Counter-insurgency isn't combat in the streets (other than in its most desperate, and probably terminal, phases). It's actions that create conditions that make people feel safer, more secure and able to go about normal life--which makes them less willing to support insurgency actions that make things worse. From a ruthlessly pragmatic perspective, what needs to happen is for al-Sadr and other such leaders is to de-fang them, and make people turn from them.

Fighting them and killing them doesn't achieve that, really. Now, if al-Sadr could be caught in bed with a couple under-aged kids, that might. But with the lack of US intel resources, the incompetence that seems rife..., and the infighting between the various agencies, I wouldn't try to do that--odds are high that it'd fail, the perps would be caught, revealed, and things would only be vastly worse.

We're caught in a system that is ratcheting up--what we need are approaches that ratchet DOWN, because the bottom line for anything that could imaginably be called "success" will require that the population be relatively safe, secure and able to go about the business of daily life.

we have to kill, take out, blow up..whatever is the roadblock to the goals in Iraq...........the only way to get to this "safe" you talk about is to take out that which makes it unsafe.

Someone suggesting I've oversimplified things. I'm almost always accused of making things too complex.

We've killed... oh, heck, a lot of people in Iraq. Some large number that people can and do argue over the specific digits of and the number of digits (news flash: wars result in very large numbers of deaths, and most of them aren't combattants or politicians--this is one of the primary objections that the population at large has to war...). If just killing off people could solve the problem, we could do that.

But I've yet to see any reasoned, plausible argument that lays out who those folks are, how we're going to kill them, and how that can be achieved without the bloqback resulting from killing all those other people.

It's easy, so very, very easy, to talk about killing off an individual and some large number of supporters. It's hard to achieve it in a manner that's useful.

Problem solving requires different tools and approaches; not everything can be done with a blowtorch--and a military is a blowtorch. This isn't a blowtorch job--democracy does NOT come from the end of a blowtorch.

If the polling of Iraqis can be relied on, the vast majority appear to believe that our presence is the first, largest obstacle to some peaceful solution. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. But it's their country, and now that Saddam's been removed from power...

the ones I have read have shown we are overwhelmingly wanted there by the populace.

(My apologies if there's a better way to embed the links; I'm using what I can find that works...)

First hit on Google:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR200609...
"Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show" (sourced to State Dept & independent polls).

A majority nation-wide, three-quarters in Baghdad, with 65% in Baghdad calling for immediate withdrawal.

Also, a second poll referred to showed 71% wanted the Iraqi gov't to ask foreign forces to leave within a year (this was in Sept).

"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report..."

There's this...
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/25...
I don't know about you, but 61% of Iraqis feeling that it's acceptable to attack Coalition troops is pretty serious condemnation and the desire to see us leave.

Here (a year ago):
http://www.factcheck.org/article366.html
Showed 26% wanted us out right now (then), 19% more as soon as the then newly elected Iraq gov't was installed. So 45% wanted us out immediately or very soon... a year ago.

Three months ago, it appears that was up to 65%.

"Four out of five Iraqis -- including 96 percent of Sunnis and 87 percent of Shiites -- say that the U.S. is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, according to the poll, which found that Kurds still believe Washington's influence is positive by a 48-34 percent margin. "

Ouch.

The WaPo article is very suspect:

The PIPA poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percent, was carried out by Iraqis in all 18 provinces who conducted interviews with more than 1,000 randomly selected Iraqis in their homes.

Using complex sampling methods based on data from Iraq's Planning Ministry, the pollsters selected streets on which to conduct interviews. They then contacted every third house on the left side of the road.

-snip-

The State Department report did not give a detailed methodology for its poll, which it said was carried out by an unnamed Iraqi polling firm. Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said he could not comment on the public opinion surveys.

Heh! nice... check out the Breakdown of Iraqi Responses? got to do better than that!!!

You need to re-read your second link which you found from your first link - doesn't say what you think it says. analysis of the questions asked and the methodology doesn't actually support your claim here.

Sighting these type of polls is useless and unreliable, your argument was flimsy and weak to begin with!!!

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

when SH was caught, and removed from power?

I know how annoying trolls and posers can be, and even though I had no intention of that, I figure that anyone can find out enough about my posts with a quick click or 2 anyway.....plus I think it starts things off on a good footing.

Re: Iran and Syria - you make a good point but what about the Saudis? There have been reports that they had been funding the Sunni insurgency even before their threat to Bush/Cheney about doing so if the US pulls out.

How do we deal with Iran and Syria but not the Saudis?

A few of you have made similar points about al Sadr, and while I agree on the surface, the big hurdle I see here is that he is so involved in the political process and government that I don't know how a military action against his army and him would play out for the rest of the Iraqi political process. This, to me, is the biggest issue facing us and the Iraqis now.

Your points are well taken, and I especially agree with your last paragraph. Rebuilding is key - but of course easier said than done, even moreso when you have pipelines being blown up way too often.....

There have been reports that they had been funding the Sunni insurgency even before their threat to Bush/Cheney about doing so if the US pulls out.

I haven't seen those reports. I saw reports that individual Saudi citizens were providing such support, but that is different from the active involvement of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

We're not going to win as long as we pretend that this is a problem in Iraq. This is why I disagree with your comment that we should have focused on Afghanistan: the problem we are dealing with spans several countries, and cannot be addressed properly using the old nation-state model.

this does span several countries, but those countries include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia as well. It may be a tough comparison, but the UK dealt with the IRA for years (and even Al Qaeda more recently) with police action and intelligence.

How to do this worldwide, when there are "sleeper cells" in other countries like the UK, Spain, etc. requires more than invading every country that has these cells.

You are right that it was Saudi citizens, but I thought they were people aligned with the royal family. If that is not the case, then I stand corrected.

The governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia are not openly supporting terrorists. In fact they are making efforts to suppress them. You may argue that these efforts are not in good faith or are not being undertaken with sufficient vigor, but thats a different matter.

The IRA did have cells in several countries, inlcuding the US. But these countries in no instance were complicit in the IRA'a activities. That seems like a meaningful distinction, and I don't see why so many people from your side gloss over it.

Iran and Syria are openly supporting the terrorists, and have been doing so for generations. They use terrorism as a tool of policy. They will never stop as long as they can get away with it scot-free.

the IRA was sponsored by some states, all in the Soviet bloc. Once the Soviets bloc collapsed the IRA collapsed with it.

We need to defeat the current equivalent of the Soviet bloc in order to defeat Al Queda.

what about the Al Qaeda elements in countries like the UK?

A couple of points. First, you can NEVER stop everybody who wants to commit an independent act of terrorism. Were I so motivated -AND I AM NOT! - I'm very confident that I could commit a terrorist act that would kill a small number of people but really raise a lot of hell. See Columbine HS as an example.

OTOH, if you cut off funding, equipping, high level intel and state sponsored protection of terrorist organizations and terrorists you stop the danger of actions that will disable society.

Individual elements in any country can be dealt with pretty easily (relatively speaking) when they're on their own.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

in #28.

If/when the UK starts sheltering Al Queda instead of combating them, I'll be all in favor of taking the fight to the UK.

Really, I was hoping for better than this from you.

With respect to the last, first, nothing can be rebuilt until there is security. Period. What's the point of building, or repairing, an electrical station if terrorists are going to blow it up next week. Kill the terrorists. Then rebuild.

We have been trying to pacify Iraq in a way that almost nobody pays a real price for the insurgency. That's not working and it won't work, no matter how may troops you put in. That's why you will hear several of us harping constantly on RoE. I'm sure Erick has seen enough from me on that subject he'd like to disable my account. (I'm like a two year old whining for new toy...)

I think killing Sadr causes a really short term political problem in Baghdad, some weeping and gnashing of teeth on the part of politicians - more here than there, and it will quickly be forgotten. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the Iraqi politicos will smile and giggle when they're out of camera range. Sadr is a bigger problem for them than for us. That opinion, plus the fact that I'd rather deal with people who are mad at us for killing Sadr, his army and some civilians than to deal with Sadr.

With respect to the Saudis, very good point. First, I've seen some articles this week to the effect that the King is going to find a way to the Wahabbis "under control". I have no clue what that means, but given the history of the Royal Family, it could mean anything from losing their concubines and jet planes to going permanently missing.

I would go after Iran and Syria first and hard for a couple of reasons. One, the Saudis are sort of our allies. At least we can talk to them. I would pressure the daylights out of the King while bombing the daylights out of Iran and Syria. I would specifically target arms manufacture and distribution channels in both countries (non-nuclear). Those two countries are the major cause of upheaval in the region. They supply money and arms to all of the terrorists that the Saudis aren't funding. I would move quickly before the Iranians get the new generation of Russian SAMs. I would also make it clear that, if they continue to arm and fund terrorists (including Hezbollah and Hamas) that we're just getting started.

The Saudis will get the picture, I believe.

The bottom line in the use of military force is that you have to have credibility with the folks on the nasty end of the spear. If they don't think you will use overwhelming force against them (see Tokyo, March - May 1945) they will fight a holding action until hell freezes over. They think we will lose heart and give up eventually, they're willing to wait. If they think we'll kill them and everybody they know, they'll stop.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

Good luck with that, O King.

The House of Saud came to power in what was a pact with the Wahhabi--they both agreed to support the other to the hilt, and have, largely, ever since.

It's the state sect. Controlling them sounds good--and any serious effort to leash them is going to be very dicey. Betting on the wildly popular al-Saud family versus the religious views of the majority is a bold move.

Long odds. Corrupt monarchy versus puritanical fundamentalist sect, in a state where the sect's been the official religion for generations.

I'd hate to take that bet to the gas station, myself.

this will be interesting to see how it plays out. Sistani is a big key here, as is Maliki (regardless of how strong he is perceived to be).

On a somewhat unrelated note - I have some work that I need to get to, but I will be checking back in on and off.

I really appreciate the generally warm welcome and the respectful replies that I have gotten from many of you here.

...you get what you give here!

You came correct and were treated in kind.

I'm looking forward to reading additional content from you so I hope you stick around...

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

I certainly got a good welcoming treatment here. And I will look for ways and opportunities to find things that we can discuss in the future (I know there are some "taboo" items here and I will try to keep it to things that aren't as likely to degenerate into something that isn't too productive)....

that goes for my comments as well.

...if we (as you say extricate ourselves) here!

Cowardice and or unwillingness to see this though due to some peoples pacifistic tendencies or feelings should be unacceptable and is frankly unbecoming of Americans!

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

continue this until we have 58,000 casualties...for the purpose of not being called "chicken?" Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor.

...were the extent of the repercussion issued by our enemies you might have a leg to stand on here. Unfortunately it was our failure to act or react to attacks that emboldened our enemies and created the appearance of an old, tired, weak nation or paper tiger as OBL put it!

The left's affection for throwing arbitrary numbers of casualties around or saying its taking longer than WWII is a copout and incredibly intellectuality dishonest. The amount of casualties in this war even at a factor of ten or twenty is still dwarfed in comparison to all of our others!

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

idea of diplomacy, in 1973, over a million Vietnamese were murdered. One third of the population of Cambodia was slaughtered. I'm not sure anybody was able to count the dead Laotians.

Still that wasn't as bad as our experience in 1939 when the feckless PM of England brought back from Munich "peace in our time" and sixty million people died.

Like most on the left, you have absolutely no concept of either "discretion" or "valor". And generally, in this case, neither apply. What does apply is the lesson of history from both 1939 and 1973. If we leave Iraq short of total victory, in all likelihood, millions more will die.

I'm sure you will get a snort over the previous paragraph, but the truth will be known in another few years.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

At the current rate, that will take another fifty years or so.

And unwillingness to see this through is an issue -- but not with the stress on the unwillingness, but on the "this." The administration hasn't figured out what "this" is.

My family's served in America's wars starting with the Revolution. My beef is with sacrificing our people on the altar of an unknown cause.

Democracy?

Democracy isn't happening in Iraq unless and until the Iraqis want it and step up for it. That, my friends, isn't happening. There's been time enough for a popular surge, if there were one.

Although toppling the regime of Saddam was done for reasons that were bogus (WMD, support for terrorist threats to America...), one can sympathize with the desire to remove Saddam. Excising a brutal dictator... seems like a good idea. But we seem to have screwed the pooch in the process.

And being the unpopular guys in the middle of a sectarian/policial civil war where almost none of us speak the language, understand the culture... sounds like a bad move.

and this:

Democracy isn't happening in Iraq unless and until the Iraqis want it and step up for it. That, my friends, isn't happening. There's been time enough for a popular surge, if there were one.

Although toppling the regime of Saddam was done for reasons that were bogus (WMD, support for terrorist threats to America...), one can sympathize with the desire to remove Saddam. Excising a brutal dictator... seems like a good idea. But we seem to have screwed the pooch in the process.

Is were responding to your posts becomes an exercise in futility as I see no need in having it again for 899,577,234,231th time!

Good day to you sir!

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

with elders that remember what life was like BEFORE the religious extremists came to power. Having gone to school with many of the Iranian upper class's scions, I can say that a good number of those in Iran are NOT happy with things there. The masses do not want a return to the Shah but the religious extremists got in only because they were the only alternative (since political opposition had been suppressed).

A younger population has parents that openly defy religious rules behind closed doors. They have access to satellite TV and smuggled DVD's. The youth of Iran listen to hip-hop and are as enamoured of American culture as any other country. The hard liners in Iran have a tenuous hold on power. The youth of Iran are NOT ultra religious fanatics.

And ironically Iran is one of the few countries in the Middle East where elections DO matter - as recent ones show.

Iran is also a populous country with a fast growing population - and a country that has seen its own oil production drop - it is past peak. Natural gas remains but is the prime source of export income. So energy experts will say that Iran is being rational inpursuing nuclear plants for electricity generation. There is a legit basis there - and if - coincidentally - it lets hard lineers