This is “victory?”
If so…well, draw your own conclusions:
Talk about a radical shift in policy. On March 25 Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered security forces to attack strongholds of the Mahdi Army loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and other opposition militias in the southern port city of Basra to bring these “criminal gangs” under his authority. The operation would be conducted wholly by Iraqi armed forces, he bragged. President George Bush called the initiative by the Iraq army acting on its own “a defining moment” for the future independence and success of the nation and predicted a “victory” and “rebirth” for Iraq.
One day later, in the face of fierce resistance, the Iraqis were forced to call in the Americans. The U.S.—without substantial ground troops in southern Iraq—could commit only special forces but also substantial air power to support the attack. In response, the Mahdi forces broke Sadr’s self-proclaimed truce and attacked in the northern and central cities of Karbala, Najaf, Kut, Abu Dasheer, Shulla, Diwaniyah, Kafa, three towns near Nasiriyah, towns near Babel, and especially in Baghdad and its Sadr City headquarters. According to the Interior Ministry, 1,100 were killed in Basra and Baghdad alone.
Three days later Premier Maliki admitted he did not appreciate how widespread and fierce would be the resistance—he apparently thought Sadr would wait for him to mop up one area at a time—and went into negotiations. Representatives of his legislative coalition and Sadr’s met in, of all places, the holy city of Qom in Iran! Sadr agreed to tell his supporters to cease fire and Maliki agreed that arrests and detentions would stop and that releases of captured militiaman would be discussed. In other words, the militias broke the joint Iraqi and U.S. operation. It truly was a defining moment.
It’s a victory, all right — for Iran. At this point I can’t say what “course” it is exactly that we’re supposed to be “staying,” to use a Bush-The-Elderism. But it looks more and more to me as if we’re on the wrong track.
And I also think we long ago lost the initiative in Iraq, from the moment “Shock and Awe” turned out to be neither shocking nor awe-inspiring. The best approach to the whole undertaking from the very beginning was the one advocated by Bill Beck, in a comment I saw not long ago on another site (can’t remember which): we should’ve gone through Iraq like botulism, and left a big sign on the place saying “Don’t make us have to come back.”
(Via Bill, whose prediction of Iraq slowly devolving into an Iran-run fiefdom are looking ever more prescient)
- Entries
As I see it this was a clumsy first swing, more notable for the fact that it happened than for the way it turned out.
Obviously they need the US "training wheels" for a while longer - years if not decades IMO, if Japan/Germany are even a rough guideline here - but at least they're willing to make the effort and (hopefully) learn from experience, which is a key baby step.
Every military force needs to first graduate from feudal warlord behavior to freestanding entity status, learn not to do coups on the civvy govt, pull together and so forth before it can even possibly be considered on par with something like the British or Israeli military.
Even then they'll still be a very long way from being as bad@ss as our own boys, but it should be more than sufficient to handle the likes of Sadr as long as they have the political backbone for it...
I'm no more interested in paying for that than I was when this mess started.
No fucking "nation-building". Period. Leave the goddamned dirt-scratching savages to themselves. Kill them when they threaten us. All else is nonsense.
That opinion and a days wages will get you a crappy cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Their civilization is older than ours. That it sunk into barbarity in the recent centuries is no excuse to condemn the unfortunates who cannot escape it to it's continuity for all eternity. That's just fucking evil, Billy, and it's time someone stood up and told you so. When our interests coincide with at least providing an escape route from such barbarity, it is we who would be the savages to refuse.
At least now, if they fail to build a decent civilization, none of them can say they had no chance.
Says you. You don't know what I get out of it.
"Their civilization is older than ours."
So what? Habit is not a value to me.
"That it sunk into barbarity in the recent centuries is no excuse to condemn the unfortunates who cannot escape it to it's continuity for all eternity. When our interests coincide with at least providing an escape route from such barbarity, it is we who would be the savages to refuse."
Hey, kid: they are the ones responsible for their culture in the same ways that we are responsible for ours. You can take your assignment of their responsibility to me and jam it straight up your ass. I won't have it. And I'll tell you the same thing that I have to say to welfare-state commies in this country: if we were living in a free polity and you wanted to go help the downtrodden of Iraq, then nobody would stop you. But you have no right in the world to forcibly rope anyone else into the project. And in the meantime, the word "threaten" in what I wrote conditions it for rational people who can keep the principles straight. That's a crucial discrimination with straight-forward political implications, and if you can't sort them out, then that's your problem and not mine. I'd be happy to help if I could, but you've got some work to do on the thing that nobody else can do for you.
"At least now, if they fail to build a decent civilization, none of them can say they had no chance."
I don't care. Do you understand? I care about America, and sinking what we are now in Iraq doesn't qualify.
Wow. Just wow. I always knew you read a lot of things into other people's words that just weren't there, but that's a new low. Wanna re-read what I said, or would that be too much of a challenge?
Actually, since we're both citizens of a Republic, I do. As does everyone else who lives in the Republic.
Billy, you don't even know America. You're like an anarchist version of all those Leftards who piss us off by being in love with the America of their imagination. The real thing? Not so much.
Stop your stupid gawking. You can be foolish if you want to, but it's not smart to play it out in public.
"I always knew you read a lot of things into other people's words that just weren't there, but that's a new low."
Shut the fuck up and stop your complaining. If you don't understand what you wrote, then I'll help: "condemn the unfortunates" Do you see that? I did not "condemn" anyone, and your insinuation that I did implies a necessary responsibility for those peoples' straits. Well, it's not true: I'm not responsible for any of it, no matter what you write when you're not thinking.
"Actually, since we're both citizens of a Republic, I do. As does everyone else who lives in the Republic."
Try it, you punk little bitch. Get yourself up on your hind legs and come get some. Write a letter to your favorite presidential candidate. I'm sure they'd be happy to help.
It's been so long since I've thought down to this level of maturity, I can't quite remember how it goes. Bear with me. Is a simple "No." sufficient, or do I have to break out the "You're not the boss of me!"? Help me out here, willya?
Yep. Or I can poke fun at pretentious blowhards.
The day I come to you for a briefing on smart will be the day after I cast my vote for Hillary. Frankly, you ain't got the chops for that particular gig.
Or?
I understand just fine. The difference is, I understand it all and you're still not trying.
Tell it to the IRS.
Incidentally, if you're looking for a fight of a more physical nature, I'm afraid I'll have to beg off. Fisticuffs isn't my style. May I suggest you visit your local bar?
First we give them Saddam, starve them through 12 years of sanctions then we give them 5 years of a brutal occupation and then allow their contry to devolve into complete choas you say......"At least now, if they fail to build a decent civilization, none of them can say they had no chance."
you're shittin me ....right?
I have, in fact, many years ago. You don't count.
Oh, do spill. The details of this I simply have to hear.
I'm sure. Which is why you just spent so much of your time, which you will never get back, arguing (after a fashion), swearing, and being an asshole in my general direction.
Logic never was your strong suit, was it? The projection of a facade of absolute moral certainty, yes. Logic? Sadly, no.
No, I don't think so. It may be fashionable in certain circles to claim so, but the proof just doesn't seem to be there. I am of course open to you providing such proof.
Wrong again. Those sanctions did not deny the Iraqi's food. That Saddam denied his political opponents food and then blamed the sanctions is a matter of public record.
Our occupation has been anything but brutal. It's almost like you have exactly zero familiarity with the concepts behind the words you're using. Shall I point you to an online dictionary?
Four for four. Man, you're on a roll! Say, this online political debate thing doesn't seem to be your bag, baby. May I suggest that you take up a more enjoyable hobby? Table tennis? Photography? Sodomy, perhaps?
Do you know what a context is? My dismissal runs to your reference to IRS. It's all right there in front of you.
You haven't the least standing to lecture anyone about "logic", because you're fucking stupid.
At the end of the day, that's really all you have isn't it? I'm not thinking like Billy Beck, therefore I'm stupid.
Most of us outgrew that kind of "thinking" back in grade school. But you just keep on keeping on, Billy. Tell yourself every day that Billy Beck, big badass Internet philosopher, put another plebe in his place. Maybe then you won't have to face what an utter failure you are at your chosen mission in life. Ye gads, you advance the cause of freedom like Jimmy Carter advances the well-being of Isreal.
But don't take my word for it.
You're the one who writes your stupid shit. It's yours. Your link is nothing but evidence of what I'm talking about. This is like dealing with a mynah-bird. Consider: if "the man" isn't responsible for the stupidity, then who is?
Jeez, I betcha thought that was reeeeally hip the first time you saw someone else link it.
#2. That's how sanctions are supposed to work....those that are starving are supposed to rise up and remove Saddam. We starved to death 200,000 children so I guess by your standards that each dead child brings us 1 Iraqi closer to Saddam. Unless of course you believe that the sanctions themselves were going to cause Saddam to kneel over from starvation. That would just be stupid
#3. Tell me again how many Iraqis have died in the occupation? How many Iraqis have fled Iraq?
#4. If it's not choas and everything is hunky dory we can leave now.....right?
Oh my. I'm sorry, Billy, but I just can't keep a straight face any more. You are such fun to tease.
Stop by any time.
Everything I've ever been able to read about Saddam Hussein indicates very little (most read: none) U.S. involvement in his rise to power. If you have any contradictory evidence to present, as opposed to the bald faced assertions you're putting forth here, I'd love to hear them.
That we saw his sterling anti-Communist/anti-Iran work and were briefly allied is a matter of public record, as is our lack of involvement in his rise.
Well, no, that's not how those particular sanctions were supposed to work at all. The Iraqi's were supposed to be deprived of everything but the essentials of life, and they were then supposed to rise up and depose Saddam. Sanctions are a pretty profoundly silly idea, I'll grant you. They've never worked.
No, Saddam claimed that many children starved. I find the number dubious, as I do most of his claims. As I pointed out, we were allowing enough food shipments to feed Iraq. Saddam denied that food to his political opponents, then blamed us for their deaths, attempting to cause in us a confusion of responsibility of actors, thus prompting guilt. Most adults weren't taken by this rather transparent sham, but sadly I see at least one got played for a sucker.
Far fewer than Saddam was torturing to death every year.
Last I read, Iraqi immigration was on the rise. Who cares how many fled, if they're all either back or on their way back?
No, Junior, we're not there yet. Here's your sippy cup and coloring book, now let Daddy drive.