The Great and Opportunistic Facilitators

[Jonathan Randall]

This article by Jeremy Scahill thoroughly debunks the lie of a duped Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq. In fact, most were willing, if not eager, participants. I don't know which party I am more angry at; the Republicans for grossly and willfully exaggerating the threat to the United States posed by Hussein's Iraq, or the Democratic party which wants to have its cake and eat it too (support and approve the war while at the same time saying they were really against it). Whether you are for the war or not, Democratic or Republican, this article has some hard truths in it and trashes the current Democratic revisionist history of the Iraq conflict.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jscahill.php?articleid=8084

 

[Makalakumu]

I think anyone who voted for the Iraq war needs a...

:btg:

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I think anyone who voted for the Iraq war needs a...

:btg:

Yes, but I personally have less of a problem with those who believed in the cause and supported the Admin. than I have with those who did not wish it but went along for political expediency. I guess the reason for this is that it gave us the worst of both worlds; a war that was not clearly in the national interest and a war that did not have sufficient support for the powers that be to go in with full force and win it decidedly and decisively in the beginning. Right now all we have is AMBIVALENCE and a death by a thousand cuts. What gets me is that we're continuing to lose young Americans at a steady pace while unable to come to a decision as to whether we want to win the war or withdraw.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Interesting article. I personally supported the war, and I still think it was the right thing to do. At WORST the administration did the right thing for the wrong reasons. We may not have the political desire or military power to ouster every tin-pot dictator on the planet, but at least we got this one. I'd far rather we did the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for all the right reasons.

I'm personally proud of what this country did, and the sacrifices our soldiers have made in that cause. There are those that will disagree with me, and that is fine...One thing we can always count on in the US is the right to disagree and plenty of people willing to use that right. :asian:

One thing that gets overlooked in all the attempt to paint the Iraq war a TOTAL failure, is the fact that Iraq has 18 provinces....15 of them are utterly peaceful and going about the business of rebuilding the country. Only 3 provinces are experiencing armed insurgencies, and are the three that were most loyal to Saddam Hussein. To hear the media tell it, the entire country is engulfed in a civil war. Anyone who thinks i'm lying need only to look at the vast majority of bombings of US troops and Iraq civilians and plot them on a map to show that the insurgency is incredibly localized around Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. I have friends in the sandbox right now, and most of them tell me the same thing, which runs contrary to what those who desire to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory are saying.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Interesting article. I personally supported the war, and I still think it was the right thing to do. At WORST the administration did the right thing for the wrong reasons. We may not have the political desire or military power to ouster every tin-pot dictator on the planet, but at least we got this one. I'd far rather we did the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for all the right reasons.

I wish I could agree with you, but the U.S. (Government, not people) are quite willing to tolerate and SUPPORT just about any dictator, no matter how ruthless, so long as he plays ball with the U.S. When he stops, we "discover" his massive human right's abuses and WMD programs.

Right now the insurgency is localized, true, but if the Shia don't get what they want (an Islamic dictatorship with themselves dominant - which we cannot and will not let them have), the fighting will spread to engulf most regions of Iraq. The fundamentals, IMO, just are not there for a stable, imposed democratic solution. Either we stay indefinitely, install another dictator, partition the country, or allow it to degenerate into total civil war. All of the options suck in one way or another. I wish it wasn't so.

I also think that patriotism entails asking hard questions. My great fear is that we will continue along on the present course with the same likely outcome (see above paragraph) after 10,000 killed as we now have with 2,086 killed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I wish I could agree with you, but the U.S. (Government, not people) are quite willing to tolerate and SUPPORT just about any dictator, no matter how ruthless, so long as he plays ball with the U.S. When he stops, we "discover" his massive human right's abuses and WMD programs.

Oh, I suppose in the long history of the 20th century we tolerated far more tyrants than we should have. However, that certainly doesn't justify continuing on that course. At some point, it's necessary to say enough is enough. If you drove past an accident 10 years ago, and you saw that injured people needed your help, and you DIDN'T stop and help them, is that justification to avoid helping for the rest of your life? Does a lifetime of bad decisions justified continued bad decisions? It breaks down simply as "We didn't do the right thing before, why should we do it now?" The argument doesn't hold water.

Right now the insurgency is localized, true, but if the Shia don't get what they want (an Islamic dictatorship with themselves dominant), the fighting will spread to engulf most regions of Iraq. The fundamentals, IMO, just are not there for a stable, imposed democratic solution. Either we stay indefinitely, install another dictator, partition the country, or allow it to degenerate into total civil war. All of the options suck in one way or another. I wish it wasn't so.

Are we predicting the future now? The insurgency has been localized the entire time. The vast majority of Iraq,15 provinces, is as peaceful as it can really get in the middle east, they are operating schools and businesses, and rebuilding. 3 provinces desire to maintain Sunni AND Baathist dominance and are cooperating with al-Qaeda elements to attack US troops and (increasingly) Iraqi citizens themselves in a desperate attempt to prevent democratic reforms.

What's more, contrary to popular opinion, terrorist attacks on civilian targets are not, historically, indicative of a successful robust guerilla campaign. What indicates a successful guerilla campaign is unrestricted attacks against military and civil authority at will. The fact that, increasingly, guerilla's are turning to softer, civilian targets, is telling. By and large, with few exceptions, they are indications of a failing and increasingly desperate campaign. As evidenced by al-Qaeda's attacks on civilian targets recently, and the reaction in the rest of the arab world, this seems to be the case. Lets not forget, guerilla insurgencies are, as Carl Von Clausewitz stated, the center of gravity of any insurgency is the population. If the populating turns against the insurgency, it fails. It is telling that the insurgency has only been able to find a foothold in 3 provinces, and has not spread.

It is necessary in those provinces to insure order and build a trust in the local government in order to destroy the insurgency in the remaining provinces. This requires the understanding that we aren't going anywhere.

I also think that patriotism entails asking hard questions. My great fear is that we will continue along on the present course with the same likely outcome (see above paragraph) after 10,000 killed as we now have with 2,086 killed.

Well, for the record, I never invoked Patriotism as a defense. When I said i'm proud, it's not because "We Are America, darn it". I'm proud because I truly believe, after examining the issue, and asking hard questions, that we DID the right thing (Whether or not you or anyone else believes Bush and Co. did it for the right reasons or not).

For the very reasons you listed of America tolerating dictatorships throughout the 20th century, I believe we did the right thing. For those who believe that the US did this for some sort of profit, keep in mind we could have had a FAR better deal had Bush simply went along with Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a murderous thug, but he was also a business man. Had Bush simply allowed US companies to receive the sort of bribes French, Russian and German companies had received, we could have stood to have made a LARGE amount of money. Instead, we invaded and it is COSTING us a large amount of money. Gas prices are high, we are committed to a long engagement, we are SPENDING money to rebuild Iraq.....AND I still maintain it was the right thing to do.

As for those who have died in the course of this conflict, I respect and honor our 2,086 dead, but keep in mind that there were more American soldiers killed before noon on June 6, 1944 trying to take a couple of beaches in Normandy. Had we thrown up our hands and declared defeat then, where would we be? My friends in Iraq aren't concerned that this conflict is going to continue, they are worried they are going to get pulled out prematurely and their sacrifice is going to have been for nothing.

My point is, that if something is worth committing to, it's worth STAYING committed to, so the "Butchers Bill" is a moot issue. You finish what you start. Now, if you want to argue that we should have never started in the first place, we can do that. But we're in this now, and pulling out is far worse than staying the course in the long run.

 

[arnisador]

I think anyone who voted for the Iraq war needs a...

Well...those who voted on it made the best decision they could with the info. provided to them by the executive branch of the govt. So, some empathy is in order.

 

[Marginal]

Oh, I suppose in the long history of the 20th century we tolerated far more tyrants than we should have. However, that certainly doesn't justify continuing on that course. At some point, it's necessary to say enough is enough. If you drove past an accident 10 years ago, and you saw that injured people needed your help, and you DIDN'T stop and help them, is that justification to avoid helping for the rest of your life? Does a lifetime of bad decisions justified continued bad decisions? It breaks down simply as "We didn't do the right thing before, why should we do it now?" The argument doesn't hold water.

So, you routinely stick your bare hands into wasp hives?

 

[sgtmac_46]

So, you routinely stick your bare hands into wasp hives?

Ripping a wasp nest down, and destroying it, beats ignoring it so it can grow more wasp and sting your children.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well...those who voted on it made the best decision they could with the info. provided to them by the executive branch of the govt. So, some empathy is in order.

Keep in mind several of them were on the Senate intelligence committee.

 

[Marginal]

Ripping a wasp nest down, and destroying it, beats ignoring it so it can grow more wasp and sting your children.

You're not tearing the nest down. You're just knocking it around a little in this case.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You're not tearing the nest down. You're just knocking it around a little in this case.

Well, if you call killing terrorist with YEARS of experience and expensive training, who are then replaced with poorly trained and poorly motivated terrorists, "knocking it around" i'll settle for that. Keep in mind, it takes more than just a warm body to replace the kind of experienced operatives who can run a terrorist operation. Deaths and capture take a toll that can't be made up for by just finding a few replacements.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Well, if you call killing terrorist with YEARS of experience and expensive training, who are then replaced with poorly trained and poorly motivated terrorists, "knocking it around" i'll settle for that. Keep in mind, it takes more than just a warm body to replace the kind of experienced operatives who can run a terrorist operation. Deaths and capture take a toll that can't be made up for by just finding a few replacements.

Exactly! That's what happened in Vietnam. We captured and killed so many experienced Vietcong and NVA leaders during the Tet Offensive that they were no longer an effective fighting force and ultimately lost the war...

No, IMO, the Iraq War is having the same effect upon Islamic fundamentalism as the Soviet-Afghan War did - taking disparate groups of fundamentalists who before the war would just have soon slit each other's throats and unifying them and hardening them in a battle where the stupid don't last long.

Sgtmac, while I respect your sentiments and I know that they come from love of country, I think that the situation needs a reanalysis and reevaluation.

Freedom is not on the march and the war is having, in many respects, the OPPOSITE effects intended. I think that we must seriously look outside the box to possible solutions such as partition before support drops so far that we end up withdrawing under the worst possible conditions. I wish it were otherwise.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Exactly! That's what happened in Vietnam. We captured and killed so many experienced Vietcong and NVA leaders during the Tet Offensive that they were no longer an effective fighting force and ultimately lost the war...

Just a clarification of a few points in History. I find this coming up all the time by people who don't really understand what happened in Vietnam and draw parallels with Iraq. First of all, Iraq is only like Vietnam IF we were in Vietnam fighting ONLY the Vietcong. The Tet Offensive most definitely broke the back of the Vietcong, and they were never again an effective military organization. Had we only been fighting the Vietcong, the Vietnam war would have been effectively over in 1968.

However, we weren't just fighting the Vietcong guerillas, we were fighting the North Vietnamese army (who were also supplying and arming the Vietcong) who, in turn, were supplied and armed by another super-power. Furthermore, because of that other super-power involvement, we restricted our forces to small scale, limited conventional holding actions and counter-insurgency operations. The enemy was given a safe-haven from which to operate from.

Again, what we have in Iraq is a far different situation than in Vietnam. The only thing in common is the insurgency, and the Vietcong were far from invincible.

No, IMO, the Iraq War is having the same effect upon Islamic fundamentalism as the Soviet-Afghan War did - taking disparate groups of fundamentalists who before the war would just have soon slit each other's throats and unifying them and hardening them in a battle where the stupid don't last long.

That's a good theory, except it ignores the different dynamics. Iraq has a long history of order and society, Afghanistan has a centuries long history of disperate brigandage.

What's furthermore, talking about the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, devoid of including any other group, misses the entire point. There are several dynamics present in the Soviet defeat that you are ignoring. Not the least of which was the fact that, as with the US in Vietnam, another super-power was undermining their efforts by arming and supporting the insurgents. Add to that the effort made by Saudi financers to fund the whole endeavor with Billions of dollars. Again, the insurgents in Afghanistan did not succeed by their own efforts...They were on the verge of collapse prior to the introduction of US shoulder fired missiles that started shooting down Soviet helicopters.

Add to that the different social dynamics present in either country....Iraq has a long history of civil government control, Afghanistan has NEVER had that, and have been fighting civil authority for centuries.

Machiavelli stated that the nations with a history of long, civilized leadership are harder to defeat, but easier to rule. Nations with a history of disorganized and disconnected leadership are easy to conquer to hard to rule. This is the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. This is beared out by the fact that, as I pointed out before, ONLY 3 provinces, of the nations 18 provinces, are suffering under an insurgency. This has been true since the beginning. The 3 pronvinces involved in the insurgency are 3 that benefited the most under Saddam and wish to maintain Sunni power and dominance over the country.

Sgtmac, while I respect your sentiments and I know that they come from love of country, I think that the situation needs a re-analysis and re-evaluation.

If it needs those, it needs it from people who aren't politically invested in ensuring failure. Many people have legtimate concerns both sides, and a rational discussion should be had.

But we must seperate rational discussions from disingenuous ones designed only to sabotage and undermine. Many in the DNC have created a situation where they HAVE to force the loss of an appearance of a loss in this campaign. They benefit nothing from success. Moreover, they have an army of radical leftist sychophants more than willing to drive their talking points home at every turn. What's worse, most of the talking points are distortions and outright lies.

Freedom is not on the march and the war is having, in many respects, the OPPOSITE effects intended. I wish it were otherwise.

Maybe you could rund down a list of those OPPOSITE effects. The fact that we are still fighting an insurgency should have come as no surprise. The idea that it is EXPLODING throughout the country is a distortion. Again, 3 provinces.

The idea that we've experienced a total rout is a distortion of reality at best. It comes from an over emphasis on the 'Butcher's Bill'. This has still been one of the LEAST costliest wars in American lives in history...especially if we consider it's 3 years old.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Just a clarification of a few points in History. I find this coming up all the time by people who don't really understand what happened in Vietnam and draw parallels with Iraq. First of all, Iraq is only like Vietnam IF we were in Vietnam fighting ONLY the Vietcong. The Tet Offensive most definitely broke the back of the Vietcong, and they were never again an effective military organization. Had we only been fighting the Vietcong, the Vietnam war would have been effectively over in 1968.

However, we weren't just fighting the Vietcong guerillas, we were fighting the North Vietnamese army (who were also supplying and arming the Vietcong) who, in turn, were supplied and armed by another super-power. Furthermore, because of that other super-power involvement, we restricted our forces to small scale, limited conventional holding actions and counter-insurgency operations. The enemy was given a safe-haven from which to operate from.

You are forgetting that we are fighting not only former members of the regime, but also foreign equipped and trained Jihadists from throughout the region. No, while the analogy is limited, it is still valid.

That's a good theory, except it ignores the different dynamics. Iraq has a long history of order and society, Afghanistan has a centuries long history of disperate brigandage.

Iraq is an artificial nation created less than a century ago by the British to fit their colonial needs. The ONLY stability it has ever known has been under dictatorship.

Also, the point I made of the war uniting and training a new generation of terrorists is valid - even our own intelligence analysts say so. True, the top level toes the political line, but some Google research will find that that a large number of govt. sponsored evaluations reflect this.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

If it needs those, it needs it from people who aren't politically invested in ensuring failure. Many people have legtimate concerns both sides, and a rational discussion should be had.

But we must seperate rational discussions from disingenuous ones designed only to sabotage and undermine. Many in the DNC have created a situation where they HAVE to force the loss of an appearance of a loss in this campaign. They benefit nothing from success. Moreover, they have an army of radical leftist sychophants more than willing to drive their talking points home at every turn. What's worse, most of the talking points are distortions and outright lies. .

There are poltically motivated groups on both sides, both with their own sets of talking points. I agree that there were some on the anti-invasion side who wished for a U.S. defeat. They are matched by their counterparts on the right so determined to support their position, even at the cost of American and Iraqi lives, that they will only see what they wish to see as well.

The idea that we've experienced a total rout is a distortion of reality at best. It comes from an over emphasis on the 'Butcher's Bill'. This has still been one of the LEAST costliest wars in American lives in history...especially if we consider it's 3 years old.

Were the war a truly defensive one and clearly in the best interests of the United States and not justified based upon exaggerations and outright lies even, the support would not have dropped so quickly as it has.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Were the war a truly defensive one and clearly in the best interests of the United States and not justified based upon exaggerations and outright lies even, the support would not have dropped so quickly as it has.

The America gross national attention span is roughly 2 hours. It doesn't matter how clear the need, if it can't be accomplished in a 2 hour made-for-TV format, we lose our resolve. Our enemies count on that, and they aren't usually disappointed. We, as a people, are spoiled by our own success. Nothing short of a truly epic catastrophe would convince is to maintain a long course without wanting to cut and run as soon as it got hard. Anyone who believes otherwise, simply hasn't been paying attention. American's don't like 'difficult' or 'complicated'. We are not the "Greatest Generation", nor are we even the baby-boomers that followed. We're the generations raised on instant gratification, fast-food and too much TV.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The America gross national attention span is roughly 2 hours. It doesn't matter how clear the need, if it can't be accomplished in a 2 hour made-for-TV format, we lose our resolve. Our enemies count on that, and they aren't usually disappointed. We, as a people, are spoiled by our own success. Nothing short of a truly epic catastrophe would convince is to maintain a long course without wanting to cut and run as soon as it got hard. Anyone who believes otherwise, simply hasn't been paying attention. American's don't like 'difficult' or 'complicated'. We are not the "Greatest Generation", nor are we even the baby-boomers that followed. We're the generations raised on instant gratification, fast-food and too much TV.

The point is, the need WASN'T clear. Most of the areas we've left, such as Beirut, Somalia, etc. were places where we didn't have a clear interest and our "enemies" there were our enemies precisely because we were there. I understand what you mean about the short attention span of Americans - we should never have allowed Osama to have continually gone on television, with impunity, to announce attacks upon our country - and follow through with those attacks. I agree absolutely and completely that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball during the 1990's in not decidedly addressing the Al Quaida and Taleban threat, particularly after the U.S.S. Cole attack. I also believe that an earlier generation of Americans would NOT have allowed him or any other administration to ignore such a threat. However, I think that it is insulting to dismiss the sincere and patriotic questioning of the war by so many simply as a case of Americans not being able to "persevere". My grandfather fought in WW2 (a member of the Greatest Generation), under horrible conditions, and he is NOW asking hard questions himself.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The point is, the need WASN'T clear. Most of the areas we've left, such as Beirut, Somalia, etc. were places where we didn't have a clear interest and our "enemies" there were our enemies precisely because we were there. I understand what you mean about the short attention span of Americans - we should never have allowed Osama to have continually gone on television, with impunity, to announce attacks upon our country - and follow through with those attacks. I agree absolutely and completely that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball during the 1990's in not decidedly addressing the Al Quaida and Taleban threat, particularly after the U.S.S. Cole attack. I also believe that an earlier generation of Americans would NOT have allowed him or any other administration to ignore such a threat. However, I think that it is insulting to dismiss the sincere and patriotic questioning of the war by so many simply as a case of Americans not being able to "persevere". My grandfather fought in WW2 (a member of the Greatest Generation), under horrible conditions, and he is NOW asking hard questions himself.

It's ironic, first you said those places are breeding grounds for terrorists, but now we didn't have a clear enemy? The cut and run attitude allowed those places to become breeding grounds. If we cut and run here, we certainly haven't learned our lessons.

Secondly, I can make whatever comment about America I want...I live here too, and I know the character of this country. Your grandfather has the right to ask those questions, but you already acknowledged the fact that I am correct in my overall assessement of the increasing inability of the American populace as a whole to stay committed to a task.

As evidence, I present people's exhibit A: Despite protests that we were "lied too", nothing we've found out since the Iraq invasion, save for a few points that are only clear in hindsight such as the absence of WMD, has changed. Those who were for the war then, haven't found any NEW information to change their mind other than the period of time and cost.

The idea that some "new developments" have cast any real change in why we went to war is absurd. We all knew we were going their to remove Saddam Hussein, and most people agreed with that decision. Now, 3 years later, we are still involved with Iraq, and many people have lost patience. Had the Iraq war been settled nicely and neatly in 2003, it wouldn't have mattered WHAT documents, statements or reasonings were alleged by to have been uttered or written by the Bush administration, no one would care.

It's the fact that the situation isn't resolved nice an neatly that is the sticking point of the MAJORITY of Americans. Those that have been unwaivering in their position, on both sides, are a vast minority.

So again, before you start getting righteously indignant because I stated Americans have a short attention span, you might want to contemplate if it's true.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

It's ironic, first you said those places are breeding grounds for terrorists, but now we didn't have a clear enemy?

Clear interest, not enemy (miscommunication).