Christ, I've been to the Middle East. I've lived in Saudi Arabia.
Not everyone wants to be like the Western world. We cannot force our culture upon others. Anyone in international diplomocy not an absolute retard knew this before we went in.
I honest to god still find it hard to belive that we actually went into Iraq. It has to be the most utterly retarded decision in the field of international politics in the last 100 years.
(And people made a bit deal about Clinton getting a BJ) :roll:
((Seriously, that guy actually scores points in my books for having the kahunas to do that))
I just finished my IR class, and I have to say, "Realism" is such a loaded term it's ridiculous to even use it. Perhaps even more so than "Liberal".
The neo-con (read: fanatically pro-Israel) faction of the administration got into this war making claims that appealed to "Realists" who still think like we're in the Cold War, even though neo-conservativism is about as "Liberal" and idealistic (and as far away from "Realism") as a political philosophy can get.
It's a confusing alphabet soup of semantics, engineered to manipulate the various political factions and marginalize dissent. After all, if you're not a "realist" you obviously don't understand the reality of the situation. :roll:
Sometimes it seems like every aspect of American politics is ridiculously loaded with absurd names for things. Pro-life vs pro-choice? Designed to make it look like the choicers hate life and the lifers hate freedom. Even the party names. Republicans and Democrats? What, do the Pubs totally ignore public opinion in favour of totalitarian theocracy?
I just finished my IR class, and I have to say, "Realism" is such a loaded term it's ridiculous to even use it. Perhaps even more so than "Liberal".
The neo-con (read: fanatically pro-Israel) faction of the administration got into this war making claims that appealed to "Realists" who still think like we're in the Cold War, even though neo-conservativism is about as "Liberal" and idealistic (and as far away from "Realism") as a political philosophy can get.
It's a confusing alphabet soup of semantics, engineered to manipulate the various political factions and marginalize dissent. After all, if you're not a "realist" you obviously don't understand the reality of the situation. :roll:
Sometimes it seems like every aspect of American politics is ridiculously loaded with absurd names for things. Pro-life vs pro-choice? Designed to make it look like the choicers hate life and the lifers hate freedom. Even the party names. Republicans and Democrats? What, do the Pubs totally ignore public opinion in favour of totalitarian theocracy?
...oh, wait.
The (more :roll:) conservative party in Australia are called the Liberals.
We can't win they we're fighting this conflict, we need to change the rules and the technology. Maybe we can fall back to Saudi Arabia, see what happens and in the meantime train and develop new techniques to fight terrorism.
Fall back to Saudi Arabia? Maybe call it "Operation Our Political Retardation Will Always Surprise You... Oh Wait, Shock You, Right? Hehe. Testicles."?
And let me guess, does the changing of the rules have anything to do with the media, or people's attitude to casualties?
Elks, it's not like there's a downside to putting more troops in Saudi Arabia.
We should get an all-female brigade to march through Mecca.
Considering the fact that getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia was Osama's primary goal, I would question the wisdom of such a decision.
I just finished my IR class, and I have to say, "Realism" is such a loaded term it's ridiculous to even use it. Perhaps even more so than "Liberal".
The neo-con (read: fanatically pro-Israel) faction of the administration got into this war making claims that appealed to "Realists" who still think like we're in the Cold War, even though neo-conservativism is about as "Liberal" and idealistic (and as far away from "Realism") as a political philosophy can get.
It's a confusing alphabet soup of semantics, engineered to manipulate the various political factions and marginalize dissent. After all, if you're not a "realist" you obviously don't understand the reality of the situation. :roll:
Sometimes it seems like every aspect of American politics is ridiculously loaded with absurd names for things. Pro-life vs pro-choice? Designed to make it look like the choicers hate life and the lifers hate freedom. Even the party names. Republicans and Democrats? What, do the Pubs totally ignore public opinion in favour of totalitarian theocracy?
...oh, wait.
The (more :roll:) conservative party in Australia are called the Liberals.
I know. I am, as Howard would say, a "fellow Australian." I'm also deeply disappointed that there's no longer a proper left-wing party in Australia any more. Sure, there's the Greens, but they're not left or right so much as up.
We can't win they we're fighting this conflict, we need to change the rules and the technology. Maybe we can fall back to Saudi Arabia, see what happens and in the meantime train and develop new techniques to fight terrorism.
Fall back to Saudi Arabia? Maybe call it "Operation Our Political Retardation Will Always Surprise You... Oh Wait, Shock You, Right? Hehe. Testicles."?
And let me guess, does the changing of the rules have anything to do with the media, or people's attitude to casualties?
Elks, it's not like there's a downside to putting more troops in Saudi Arabia.
We should get an all-female brigade to march through Mecca.
Naked too. Everyone likes naked chicks, right?
Crimson King; You totally would have loved this family first commercial I just saw on Channel 9. Posted about it in the chat thread. You just can't buy this kind of comedy.
(Also, check out the Dems, I obviously can't do a detailed analysis on your political stance, but if you're sick of Labor's shit and voting for Howard makes you feel guilty like you should be put on trial then maybe the Dems are the party for you. Or at least more so than the other 2)
((I vote green, but I realise it's pretty much a vote for we do what we goddam feel like, I think we're out of it most of the time, but at least we're better than the other guys, mainly... well, because they're better than the other guys.))
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.
The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently.
The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate. But in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
The sources insisted on anonymity because no one at the Pentagon has been permitted to discuss the review with outsiders. The review group is led by three high-profile colonels -- H.R. McMaster and Peter Mansoor of the Army, and Thomas C. Greenwood of the Marine Corps. None of them would comment for this article.
Spokesmen for the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not return calls or respond to e-mails seeking comment.
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
Hybrid plan, too
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000 troops.
That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big But Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said.
The Pentagon official said this short-term boost could be achieved through three steps: extending the tours of duty of some units already in Iraq, sending other units there earlier than planned and activating some Army Reserve units.
Shinto on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited November 2006
"Go big, go long, or go home". It's funny because these were always the three basic options available. The "Stay the Course" thing was basically a "go long" strategy.
So far I'm underwhelmed by the great thinking coming out of these Iraq commissions. They bascially seem like official acknowledgement of what has been blindingly obvious for years.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
I'd wonder about that polling though - think about it, what kind of hell on earth would Iraq plunge into if we left right this second? Maybe they don't understands things could be much much worse.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
You underestimate their sense of hospitality. Seeing their guests leave so soon would be a blow to the Iraqis' morale. And just when they were bringing out a fresh plate of baklava, too.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
I'd wonder about that polling though - think about it, what kind of hell on earth would Iraq plunge into if we left right this second? Maybe they don't understands things could be much much worse.
I find it amusing that "go big" to them is 20,000 more troops.
That's not "going big", that's a garden hose on the 5-alarm fire.
No, the 20K increase is for "Go Long." "Go Big" requires several hundred thousand more troops, though that does include Iraqis. But it would probably require at least doubling our current number.
In other words, something that is almost impossible to maintain for any amount of time without a draft.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
You underestimate their sense of hospitality. Seeing their guests leave so soon would be a blow to the Iraqis' morale. And just when they were bringing out a fresh plate of baklava, too.
You bastard. You didn't have to remind me. If there is one thing I miss from back home, it's baklava.
We need to forbid talking about food on this forum.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
You underestimate their sense of hospitality. Seeing their guests leave so soon would be a blow to the Iraqis' morale. And just when they were bringing out a fresh plate of baklava, too.
Our interpreter used to actually bring us fresh baklava. It was fucking tasty. As was most of the other stuff he brought, most of which I could not name if my life depended on it.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
I'd wonder about that polling though - think about it, what kind of hell on earth would Iraq plunge into if we left right this second? Maybe they don't understands things could be much much worse.
Why should they understand that things could be much worse? All they know is that they've gone from living under a tyrannical, though at least somewhat predictable tyrant, who, for the most part, allowed them to go about their everyday lives, to not wanting to go to the store for fear of being blown the fuck up.
If we had considered that things could be much worse before we invaded, a whole fuckton of this could have been avoided. Of course, it's not like anyone was saying that we could fuck things up royally; oh, no, no one could have predicted that.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
One interpretation of the situation in Iraq is that the interested parties are jockeying for political position while relying on the US to make sure things don't get completely out of hand and simultaneously act the scapegoat for why things suck so much.
Al Malaki's claim that he could resolve the situation if only the US would free his hands smacks of Nixon's "Secret Plan" and probably involves using the Shi'ite militias to escalate a full civil war and purge.
In this sense, both the Shi'ites and Sunnis probably have a reasonably good situation as it stands, from a political point of view. The Shi'ites get to continue to organize their political power base, and the Sunnis get to negotiate through violence. Given the level of historical enmity between the Shi'ites and Sunnis, I find it unlikely that terrorism-as-negotiation would work too well against a Shi'ite government - one of their unstated political ambitions seem to be large-scale payback on the hated other.
Gandhi expressed that civil disobediance has its limits in application to unconscionable regimes. I suspect that similar could be said of terrorism.
I find it amusing that they're scared the Iraqis might think we're leaving.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
You underestimate their sense of hospitality. Seeing their guests leave so soon would be a blow to the Iraqis' morale. And just when they were bringing out a fresh plate of baklava, too.
You bastard. You didn't have to remind me. If there is one thing I miss from back home, it's baklava.
We need to forbid talking about food on this forum.
There's this greek deli right outside of NAS P'cola, called the Hip Pocket Deli. They make thier own baklava, and the guy uses white chocolate, and this sweetened brandy sauce with fresh ground almonds. It's also stacked high enough to eclipse the sun - all for three bucks. Good shit.
I blame everything on the oil, if it wasn't for the oil the country could just be split in two and there probably wouldn't be any problems once america pulled out. I wonder in how many years america will learn that invading a country, especially tactically bombing a country, to make it democratic don't work too well, maybe if you had infinite money and some other impossibilities sure, but fuck.
I have to quote the Hives
"hate to say i told you so"
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I wonder in how many years america will learn that invading a country, especially tactically bombing a country, to make it democratic don't work too well, maybe if you had infinite money and some other impossibilities sure, but fuck.
I wonder in how many years america will learn that invading a country, especially tactically bombing a country, to make it democratic don't work too well, maybe if you had infinite money and some other impossibilities sure, but fuck.
If we could enact democracy by bombing countries, half of Africa and a third of Asia would be feeling our gravity delivered TNT love.
From a realpolitic angle, global Democracy isn't really in our national interests. Global consumerism, on the other hand, probably is.
Democracy in countries we have a national intrest in, sure. Of course, Neo-Con's are idealouges though. Some genuinely believe that democracy at the point of a bayonet is the only dyed-in-the-wool way to bring about meaningful change. Example: During the 60-80's, we actively supported regimes that were not even faintly close to a democracy in the intrests of combating the spread of the commies.
Actually, we're still doing that.
3lwap0 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If we could enact democracy by bombing countries, half of Africa and a third of Asia would be feeling our gravity delivered TNT love.
From a realpolitic angle, global Democracy isn't really in our national interests. Global consumerism, on the other hand, probably is.
Democracy in countries we have a national intrest in, sure. Of course, Neo-Con's are idealouges though. Some genuinely believe that democracy at the point of a bayonet is the only dyed-in-the-wool way to bring about meaningful change. Example: During the 60-80's, we actively supported regimes that were not even faintly close to a democracy in the intrests of combating the spread of the commies.
Actually, we're still doing that.
Why is democracy in our interests? As was illustrated by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, it's fairly easy to negotiate with dictators, but nigh-impossible to negotiate with an actual democracy.
I think you might be making the mistake of conflating capitalism and democracy.
I wonder in how many years america will learn that invading a country, especially tactically bombing a country, to make it democratic don't work too well, maybe if you had infinite money and some other impossibilities sure, but fuck.
Or more precisely, "bringing democracy to the Middle East" is only the goal when the neo-cons want to make all opposition to the war look like anti-democratic, unconscionable pro-Saddamists. When you actually compare what's going on in Iraq with what was in the plans, then no, bringing democracy to the Middle East is most definitly not what this war was about. Because if it were, that would mean that the neo-cons' plans have failed miserably.
If we could enact democracy by bombing countries, half of Africa and a third of Asia would be feeling our gravity delivered TNT love.
From a realpolitic angle, global Democracy isn't really in our national interests. Global consumerism, on the other hand, probably is.
Democracy in countries we have a national intrest in, sure. Of course, Neo-Con's are idealouges though. Some genuinely believe that democracy at the point of a bayonet is the only dyed-in-the-wool way to bring about meaningful change. Example: During the 60-80's, we actively supported regimes that were not even faintly close to a democracy in the intrests of combating the spread of the commies.
Actually, we're still doing that.
Why is democracy in our interests? As was illustrated by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, it's fairly easy to negotiate with dictators, but nigh-impossible to negotiate with an actual democracy.
I think you might be making the mistake of conflating capitalism and democracy.
No no, i'm saying in the past we didn't care. Now it seems to matter, but more along idealogical lines, as opposed to a means to an end. I'm sure capitalism is woven itself neatly in with it as well.
Why is democracy in our interests? As was illustrated by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, it's fairly easy to negotiate with dictators, but nigh-impossible to negotiate with an actual democracy.
They're easy to negotiate and work with, but dealing with them does haveconsequences. And no long term upside.
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.
The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently.
The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate. But in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
The sources insisted on anonymity because no one at the Pentagon has been permitted to discuss the review with outsiders. The review group is led by three high-profile colonels -- H.R. McMaster and Peter Mansoor of the Army, and Thomas C. Greenwood of the Marine Corps. None of them would comment for this article.
Spokesmen for the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not return calls or respond to e-mails seeking comment.
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
Hybrid plan, too
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000 troops.
That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big But Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said.
The Pentagon official said this short-term boost could be achieved through three steps: extending the tours of duty of some units already in Iraq, sending other units there earlier than planned and activating some Army Reserve units.
Vietnamisation?
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Why is democracy in our interests? As was illustrated by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, it's fairly easy to negotiate with dictators, but nigh-impossible to negotiate with an actual democracy.
They're easy to negotiate and work with, but dealing with them does haveconsequences. And no long term upside.
Oh - right. I'm not going to bat for bankrolling dictators or employing them as puppets. I just don't believe for a second that the US invasion of Iraq had much, if anything, to do with "exporting democracy," nor do I think that establishing a democracy in a part of the world on the brink of civil war is in much of anyone's interests.
Though, to be fair, most of the reason America's still stuck over there is because we couldn't install a workable political alternative to "strongman" post-invasion.
Why is democracy in our interests? As was illustrated by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, it's fairly easy to negotiate with dictators, but nigh-impossible to negotiate with an actual democracy.
They're easy to negotiate and work with, but dealing with them does haveconsequences. And no long term upside.
Oh - right. I'm not going to bat for bankrolling dictators or employing them as puppets. I just don't believe for a second that the US invasion of Iraq had much, if anything, to do with "exporting democracy," nor do I think that establishing a democracy in a part of the world on the brink of civil war is in much of anyone's interests.
Though, to be fair, most of the reason America's still stuck over there is because we couldn't install a workable political alternative to "strongman" post-invasion.
I agree.
But I also don't think all of the Middle East is as prone to civil-war as Iraq was. It's like their criteria for invasion was to to pick the least homogeneous country whose name wasn't "the Sudan."
Posts
Christ, I've been to the Middle East. I've lived in Saudi Arabia.
Not everyone wants to be like the Western world. We cannot force our culture upon others. Anyone in international diplomocy not an absolute retard knew this before we went in.
I honest to god still find it hard to belive that we actually went into Iraq. It has to be the most utterly retarded decision in the field of international politics in the last 100 years.
(And people made a bit deal about Clinton getting a BJ) :roll:
((Seriously, that guy actually scores points in my books for having the kahunas to do that))
Sometimes it seems like every aspect of American politics is ridiculously loaded with absurd names for things. Pro-life vs pro-choice? Designed to make it look like the choicers hate life and the lifers hate freedom. Even the party names. Republicans and Democrats? What, do the Pubs totally ignore public opinion in favour of totalitarian theocracy?
...oh, wait.
The (more :roll:) conservative party in Australia are called the Liberals.
Considering the fact that getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia was Osama's primary goal, I would question the wisdom of such a decision.
That, and I'm tired as fuck. When chugging 2 Redbulls fails to wake me up, it's time to go to bed.
I know. I am, as Howard would say, a "fellow Australian." I'm also deeply disappointed that there's no longer a proper left-wing party in Australia any more. Sure, there's the Greens, but they're not left or right so much as up.
Naked too. Everyone likes naked chicks, right?
Crimson King; You totally would have loved this family first commercial I just saw on Channel 9. Posted about it in the chat thread. You just can't buy this kind of comedy.
(Also, check out the Dems, I obviously can't do a detailed analysis on your political stance, but if you're sick of Labor's shit and voting for Howard makes you feel guilty like you should be put on trial then maybe the Dems are the party for you. Or at least more so than the other 2)
((I vote green, but I realise it's pretty much a vote for we do what we goddam feel like, I think we're out of it most of the time, but at least we're better than the other guys, mainly... well, because they're better than the other guys.))
Turns out that was a gigantic load of horseshit.
Who knew?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15773985/?GT1=8717
So far I'm underwhelmed by the great thinking coming out of these Iraq commissions. They bascially seem like official acknowledgement of what has been blindingly obvious for years.
That's not "going big", that's a garden hose on the 5-alarm fire.
Personally, given the polling coming out of Iraq, I'd be more scared they'd think we're staying.
I'd wonder about that polling though - think about it, what kind of hell on earth would Iraq plunge into if we left right this second? Maybe they don't understands things could be much much worse.
You underestimate their sense of hospitality. Seeing their guests leave so soon would be a blow to the Iraqis' morale. And just when they were bringing out a fresh plate of baklava, too.
Worst case, we could just reinvade.
No, the 20K increase is for "Go Long." "Go Big" requires several hundred thousand more troops, though that does include Iraqis. But it would probably require at least doubling our current number.
In other words, something that is almost impossible to maintain for any amount of time without a draft.
You bastard. You didn't have to remind me. If there is one thing I miss from back home, it's baklava.
We need to forbid talking about food on this forum.
Our interpreter used to actually bring us fresh baklava. It was fucking tasty. As was most of the other stuff he brought, most of which I could not name if my life depended on it.
If we had considered that things could be much worse before we invaded, a whole fuckton of this could have been avoided. Of course, it's not like anyone was saying that we could fuck things up royally; oh, no, no one could have predicted that.
One interpretation of the situation in Iraq is that the interested parties are jockeying for political position while relying on the US to make sure things don't get completely out of hand and simultaneously act the scapegoat for why things suck so much.
Al Malaki's claim that he could resolve the situation if only the US would free his hands smacks of Nixon's "Secret Plan" and probably involves using the Shi'ite militias to escalate a full civil war and purge.
In this sense, both the Shi'ites and Sunnis probably have a reasonably good situation as it stands, from a political point of view. The Shi'ites get to continue to organize their political power base, and the Sunnis get to negotiate through violence. Given the level of historical enmity between the Shi'ites and Sunnis, I find it unlikely that terrorism-as-negotiation would work too well against a Shi'ite government - one of their unstated political ambitions seem to be large-scale payback on the hated other.
Gandhi expressed that civil disobediance has its limits in application to unconscionable regimes. I suspect that similar could be said of terrorism.
There's this greek deli right outside of NAS P'cola, called the Hip Pocket Deli. They make thier own baklava, and the guy uses white chocolate, and this sweetened brandy sauce with fresh ground almonds. It's also stacked high enough to eclipse the sun - all for three bucks. Good shit.
I have to quote the Hives
"hate to say i told you so"
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
You would be right, except bringing democracy to the Middle East was not the goal.
If we could enact democracy by bombing countries, half of Africa and a third of Asia would be feeling our gravity delivered TNT love.
From a realpolitic angle, global Democracy isn't really in our national interests. Global consumerism, on the other hand, probably is.
Democracy in countries we have a national intrest in, sure. Of course, Neo-Con's are idealouges though. Some genuinely believe that democracy at the point of a bayonet is the only dyed-in-the-wool way to bring about meaningful change. Example: During the 60-80's, we actively supported regimes that were not even faintly close to a democracy in the intrests of combating the spread of the commies.
Actually, we're still doing that.
Why is democracy in our interests? As was illustrated by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, it's fairly easy to negotiate with dictators, but nigh-impossible to negotiate with an actual democracy.
I think you might be making the mistake of conflating capitalism and democracy.
Or more precisely, "bringing democracy to the Middle East" is only the goal when the neo-cons want to make all opposition to the war look like anti-democratic, unconscionable pro-Saddamists. When you actually compare what's going on in Iraq with what was in the plans, then no, bringing democracy to the Middle East is most definitly not what this war was about. Because if it were, that would mean that the neo-cons' plans have failed miserably.
No no, i'm saying in the past we didn't care. Now it seems to matter, but more along idealogical lines, as opposed to a means to an end. I'm sure capitalism is woven itself neatly in with it as well.
Vietnamisation?
Though, to be fair, most of the reason America's still stuck over there is because we couldn't install a workable political alternative to "strongman" post-invasion.
But I also don't think all of the Middle East is as prone to civil-war as Iraq was. It's like their criteria for invasion was to to pick the least homogeneous country whose name wasn't "the Sudan."
Apparently, I'm not the only one who picked up on the Domino Theory-esque rhetoric of this administration.
If you have a slow connection:
[spoiler:71717da9f5]U.S. troops are taunting Iraqi children with a bottle of clean drinking water.[/spoiler:71717da9f5]
Steam: pazython
Kissenger is a political advisor. He has never made sense, just backed certain choices we can make.