« Virginia Polls | Main | CFL » Awakening Versus the State10 Feb 2008 12:16 pm Anbar Awakening forces and the official security services of Iraq appear to be going at it in Diyala. Now as long as neither of these contenders are shooting at US troops, which neither of them seem to be, that's fine for us as long as you think an indefinite occupation of Iraq serves American interests. But that's what this is about. We're not preventing civil conflict in Iraq, or helping the Iraqis to build a coherent state. Comments (27)
but this strategy of letting them have a go at it will last for a long time, at least till the good general is chosen as a nominee for a higher national office. Nah, after the election, those voices triumphantly shrieking that teh Surge is a success will suddenly decide that the new President (even better it's McCain!) is guilty of 'mission creep' and have ruined the glorious Bush war in Iraq and stabbed the heroic general in the back. 
Too bad the writers strike seems set to end. A new reality show called "Iraqi Gladiators" would totally kick ass.
Matt, If the central government in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait fell tomorrow, do you think it would be in our interests to remain uninvolved and let neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc., determine the future of the country? If not, than why do you think it's realistic to wash our hands of Iraq now? "Looks like Petreus has a British advisor." Petraeus has had a number of expert advisers, including the Australian counterinsurgency expert Col. David Kilcullen, Ph.D. One of Petraeus's admiral and effective qualities is that he isn't afraid to surround himself with folks smarter and more experienced than himself.
"If the central government in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait fell tomorrow, do you think it would be in our interests to remain uninvolved and let neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc., determine the future of the country?" The question of an absolute moron, only worse, a war-mongering moron. Rave on, Moron.
"If not, than why do you think it's realistic to wash our hands of Iraq now?" Heh. We already have, if our hands were meant to be turned to the task of uniting the Iraqi people around a representative central government. That was the stated goal for the occupation and the surge. The US military occupation of Iraq is a failure by any criteria other than propping up the military-industrial complex. We are merely presiding over a civil war. When we leave, people will die violently, just as they are dying violently now. We are not protecting American national interests by occupying Iraq, and American national interests will not be further degraded by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.
The United States shouldn't "wash its hands" of any place in the world where the American people have an interest in political developments. But I think it is fairly obvious that if the government of Saudi Arabia fell, the United States would have very limited means to influence political developments in the country, and that it is highly unlikely it would try to advance its interests by, say, invading Saudi Arabia, since such an invasion would likely produce disastrous political consequences precisely the opposite of those desired by the US government. Instead, even the foolish Bush government would most likely rely on much more subtle techniques to advance the prospects of those Saudi figures most likely to produce policies that promote, or at least don't dramatically harm, US interets. Recognizing the failure of the military occupation of Iraq, and moving to end that occupation, is not at all the same things as ceasing to care about what happens in Iraq.
Petraeus has had a number of expert advisers, including the Australian counterinsurgency expert Col. David Kilcullen, Ph.D. One of Petraeus's admiral and effective qualities is that he isn't afraid to surround himself with folks smarter and more experienced than himself... And the Australian army, as we all know, is simply the best in the world at conducting counterinsurgency operations. Or did Fred read somewhere that Col. David Kilcullen was a Very Smart Person?
Gee, perhaps as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are tottering even as we speak, perhaps they could use their own armies... except, well, if the House of Saud actually arms and trains an army, instead of merely bribing western governments by loading up on useless military hardware, the House of Saud would soon be looking at the point of a gun. Nothing is stupider than the American foreign policy elite's affection for governments that have to be propped up against their own people. From South Vietnam to Iran to Iraq, it has only gotten America in deep shit. Especially because, as a sort of supererogatory exercise in American stupidity, the warmonger set always throw a lot of contempt on the very idea of negotiations, the one way out of ill conceived and executed projects. Although from a purely shark-ish point of view, I suppose, this isn't stupid at all. If you are planning on growing fat on military welfare, being a hardline hawk serves your self interest very well. It just doesn't serve anybody else's.
Kervick - The US stands by ready to protect KSA (and it's oil fields) in event of an invasion from Iraq or Iran. Have for 40 years. ********************* Australia has done quite well in that area in East Timor, in Papua counterinsurgency, Malaysia, back in the Vietnam War when Australia fought with us the whole way. They also have done impressive anti-piracy work, done assist visits to liaise with the Philippines, Thais in Muslim insurgencies. And, in conventional war, they field some of the best Special Ops forces on the planet. And anyone that has seriously studied counterinsurgency, as opposed to little ignorant Lefty you, Gary, has read a Dr. Kilcullen essay or book on the matter and knows not only is David Kilcullen a "Very Smart Person", he is one of the top intellects in the field. Sometimes lefty ignorance is spectacular. James Gary combines it with lazy ignorance, as he just couldn't be bothered to read up on who Kilcullen was - or what Australia has done in counterinsurgency work.
ps - Fred's comment does bring into light the true and utter dysfunction of Bush's response to 9/11. Not only did he fail to do a half assed job of suppressing al qaeda when he had a chance in the winter sand spring of 2001-2002, but he has engaged us in a proxy war, again, on behalf of Saudi Arabia - who, along with Pakistan and Afghanistan, was the biggest enabler of the 19 hijackers who destroyed the WTC. That we ended up fighting for their enablers is a sick joke, and a symptom of the sick joke of our policy in the Middle East, a Republican-Democrat fiesta of privileging special interests over American interests. Amazing, really, that Bush has gotten away with this in front of the American public, which passively accepts the idea that Osama bin Laden magically "got away". You really can't do worse than this administration.
Australia has done quite well in that area in East Timor, in Papua counterinsurgency, Malaysia, back in the Vietnam War when Australia fought with us the whole way. Oh, sorry, Chris. I'd forgotten that our Australian allies were the reason the Viet Nam war was such a brilliant success for the US.
Here is guerrilla warfare expert John Robb's latest post on this: OPEN SOURCE COUNTER-INSURGENCY?
Words matter. The US "occupation" ended when Iraq elected its own government in a process that was a landmark event in the very long history of the region. Currently US forces are in Iraq at the express request of this government, which is arguably the most legitimate in the history of the nation, and certainly more so than any of the others in the region with the exception of Israel and Turkey. Our support for this government is operating under a unanimously-approved Security Council mandate, which one would think to be significant to those who have been howling in indignation for years because we opted to enforce the various relevant Security Council Resolutions on Iraq without a permission slip from Bono and Jacques Chirac. Iraq will be sorting out its power-sharing arrangements for a while, but we have a dog in this fight--and spare me the Michael Vick wisecracks. Fortunately for the US, all three of the possible Next Presidents know it and will certainly be acting accordingly. Those who just want to switch the national agenda to Animal Planet should feel free to use their remotes, and shouldn't be surprised when national policy doesn't follow.
Australia has done quite well in that area in East Timor, in Papua counterinsurgency, Malaysia, back in the Vietnam War when Australia fought with us the whole way. Oh, sorry, Chris. I'd forgotten that our Australian allies were the reason the Viet Nam war was such a brilliant success for the US. The sorry truth, Gary, which the Left has run from for 40 years, was that Nixon's Vietnamization and counterinsurgency program was a success. Military historians now are coming to agree on that, and see the loss of Vietnam as a function instead of the Left undermining morale in the West and the remorseless will of the Northern Communists. The "stab in the back" is now believed mostly true, and the big sources of that are the declassified files we got our hands on when the Societ Union fell, and the objective memoirs of NVA regulars and generals. Their main points: "1. Nixon's military beat our side to a pulp. His transition away from US doing ground fighting was complete by 1971. Vietnamization worked with US air cover. That's history for you, Gary. Aussies did a brilliant counterinsurgency working with ARVN and US forces. A majority of US Vets and S Vietnamese believe we stabbed S Vietnam in the back, and now we know the Soviets and NVA generals also believe the liberals in America backstabbed their client. The VC were largely a myth. Almost all the combat was with North Vietnamese invaders. The protests, Jewish anti-war media, the Left appear to have emboldened the N Vietnamese not to capitulate in 1970, but hang on to the talks and their POWs another 3 years..
"Oh, sorry, Chris. I'd forgotten that our Australian allies were the reason the Viet Nam war was such a brilliant success for the US." Chris Ford's comments about Jews qua Jews are unfortunate, but he is right about the success of the counterinsurgency in Vietnam, under the leadership of Gen. Creighton Abrams. The Viet Cong insurgency was defeated, and had to be replaced with NVA infiltrators, who were also stymied by American-led counter-insurgency efforts. South Vietnam was ultimately defeated by a conventional invasion, with tanks and mechanized infantry. The first time North Vietnam attempted this sort of invasion, it was stopped cold by a combination of American air power (featuring the then-new laser guided bombs) and South Vietnamese ground forces. The same combination could have stopped the 1974-75 invasion that defeated South Vietnam, if the Democrat-dominated Congress hadn't signed South Vietnam's death warrant by cutting off U.S. military support to the country. Ford's also correct about you parading your ignorance about Kilcullin and the Australians in general.
"Currently US forces are in Iraq at the express request of this government . . . " LOL! What government? What does it govern? What choices does it make without Washington's approval? What a silly person you are, Robert Powell, to try and pass off this nonsense as fact. "Our support for this government is operating under a unanimously-approved Security Council mandate . . ." BWAHAHAHA! The Bush Administration didn't care for the UN when it invaded Iraq. Why the phony posturing now, Powell? Didja think we wouldn't notice? The US military occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with UN mandates. Only wingnuts and fools recite such lies anymore.
"We succeeded in convincing the liberal Jews of the American media . . . " Ah, the racist claptrap of Chris Ford raises its noxious stink again on Matthew's blog. Smarter (and less antisemetic) trolls, please.
Fred, what is unfortunate is that it is clear looking at the media in the Vietnam period is that they had many who were the owners and editors that had deep family roots with communism back in the Pale of Settlement, W Europe, and had anti-Western and pro-Soviet sympathies. And without those people declaring the war was lost after Tet and ignoring all successes, the liberal Democrats would have never been able to sell their "All is Lost!" political message. That was recognized by the NVA memoir writers and the Soviets who credited the US media with being their great ally and giving encouragement legitimacy to the anti-war liberal Democrats. You cannot criticize the liberal Democrats without acknowledging the critical role the media played in their rise to power. And you can't duck the role of progreeive Jews in media and the intelligensia in the US's defeat and S Vietnam being backstabbed anymore than you can duck the "Islamist" part of Al Qaeda simply on grounds that it is "hurtful and should not be allowed" to single out Jews or Islam for criticism. No group deserves an immunity amulet from all criticism. Especially powerful, activist groups that seek to call the shots. If we can be brutally honest and objectively discuss all we want about the negative and positive impact of Cuban exiles on immigration policies, our Latin American foreign policy, Florida politics....or Agribiz in the USA...even be honest about Islamic influence on the US through the Saudi lobby and Muslim student groups, we can be honest and objective about the role of transnationalist, communist and post-communist Jews of the media in the Vietnam issue. And that is said with acknowlegement that Jewish media ownership and control of agenda of Hollywood, the book publishing industry, music, TV, and newsprint is not as dominant as it was in the 60s and early 70s. It is weaker as "family" and deep ideology has given way to corporations and pursuit of profit in those industries. And Jews never were close to dominance over talk radio, the Internet.
Matt points at http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/02/more-good-news.html If Matt paid attention to my emails, he'd know this stuff considerably earlier. He might even learn something about what's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and thus avoid making dumb posts like his "substantive post" on Afghanistan the other day.
"If the central government in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait fell tomorrow, do you think it would be in our interests to remain uninvolved and let neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc., determine the future of the country?" Absolutely it would be in our interests to do that. What's the worst that could happen? Basically - nothing. Whoever takes power is going to sell that oil. If they don't sell to us, whoever they sell to frees up their purchases from somebody who WILL sell to us. Meanwhile, we avoid spending another trillion dollars which we can use to convert to alternative energy sources and reduce our dependence on Saudi oil. As for Kuwait - Christ, that tiny country! Who gives a shit what happens to them? They have only ten percent of oil reserves and their production is only 2.5 million barrels a day - the same as Iraq right now.
Powell: "Words matter." Except his. Nothing he said was even remotely true or even relevant. The invasion was illegal by the consensus of every international law group on the planet, the results were deplorable, the Iraqi government is barely hanging on and has little legitimacy outside of the Green Zone. We spent a trillion dollars, four thousand US dead, scores of thousands of US wounded, a million Iraqi dead, and four million Iraqis displaced on this "success". Powell is an utter moron.
Let's analyze Fred's comment. "Chris Ford's comments about Jews qua Jews are unfortunate," I think the word you were looking for is "moronic." "but he is right about the success of the counterinsurgency in Vietnam, under the leadership of Gen. Creighton Abrams." Bullshit. "The Viet Cong insurgency was defeated, and had to be replaced with NVA infiltrators, who were also stymied by American-led counter-insurgency efforts." This is only partially true and it relied on the presence of enormous numbers of US troops in addition to South Vietnam's own army which by 1972 amounted to one million men! "South Vietnam was ultimately defeated by a conventional invasion, with tanks and mechanized infantry. The first time North Vietnam attempted this sort of invasion, it was stopped cold by a combination of American air power (featuring the then-new laser guided bombs) and South Vietnamese ground forces." In reality, what stopped the first invasion was the US bombing of North Vietnam - carpet bombing that of course merely enraged the North Vietnamese and increased their determination to defeat the US in the South. "The same combination could have stopped the 1974-75 invasion that defeated South Vietnam, if the Democrat-dominated Congress hadn't signed South Vietnam's death warrant by cutting off U.S. military support to the country." Wrong again. Sorley makes this argument in his book on the subject, but as a review of that book points out: "Finally, and most importantly to South Vietnam itself, even after all the years and dollars, the U. S. had not succeeded in creating a viable South Vietnamese officer corps to take over command of the situation as we pulled out. There were many dedicated and courageous men, even a few good commanders, as Sorley shows during the fighting in the final North Vietnamese offensive in 1975, but not enough. Moreover, the military, indeed the entire society, was so riddled with corruption that the citizenry generally distrusted them. This, combined with the demoralizing effect of watching us turn tail, left the South poorly prepared psychologically to continue the War." Note the important point: the government was CORRUPT! There was no support for the government among the people. This is the basic truth of 4th Gen War that the US and its supporters in the Vietnam war simply did not get. While the South Vietnamese may not have wished to live under the rule of the North Vietnamese Communists, they didn't like their own government. In short, there was no CREDIBILITY - which every 4th Gen War theorist has said is THE critical aspect to possess in order to win. The main problem after the US withdrawal was the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese government. After the US pulled out, it was reduced to various political wrangling, forming a coalition government with the North, and finally collapsing altogether. Blaming this on "Lefties" in the US is just moronic. The bottom line: Why was the US in Vietnam in the first place? The "domino theory"? That was the same crap as Iraq's "WMDs". The reality was local oil reserves. The result: the same stupid concept as Iraq. Throw a bunch of conventional military types in, bomb everything in sight, kill a million people and hope for the best. Then blame it on the "left" when it fails. Morons. "Ford's also correct about you parading your ignorance about Kilcullin and the Australians in general." The poster's comment about how the Australians didn't help us win Vietnam either is correct. Kilcullen does not understand 4th Gen War as well as others do. He's a classic counterinsurgency guy who, like most of them, do not understand that counterinsurgency can almost never be performed by forces from outside the country involved.
The legal facts of the universally-recognized Iraqi government now holding Iraq's seat in the General Assembly, and the official arrangements under which our forces are operating there, are obviously matters of public record. The legal judgments of the responsible officials in the governments of most the world's most important democracies which approved the liberation of Iraq carry more weight than unnamed cabals of politically-interested "experts", and the idle rambling of fools. Joel and The Amazing Hack don't have a case, so they have to behave like kids. Sorry guys, regurgitating the popular wisdom doesn't produce credibility no matter how rude you are.
Oh yeah. Iraq is not Vietnam. Afghanistan is not Iraq. None of them are Palestine. 2008 is not 1975, much less 1968. We do not yet determine what is legal solely by a show of hands in the Security Council, or determine our long-term national interests by opinion polls. Elections are imperfect, but the best measurement we have for what the people really think about the big issues.
Powell babbles thusly: "The legal judgments of the responsible officials in the governments of most the world's most important democracies which approved the liberation of Iraq carry more weight than unnamed cabals of politically-interested "experts", and the idle rambling of fools." This is just one stupid post typical of Powell's revisionism about the course of events in Iraq. It is now well known to everybody that Britain's highest legal authority initially thought the invasion was illegal, but was pressured by Blair and company to revise his opinion. Meanwhile, when practically every other international legal authority - including the UN - clearly stated that the invasion was illegal, I find it difficult to rationalize Powell's notion that Bush, Blair, Howard, and a few other neocon morons are the ultimate authority on international law. Neither is Powell. "Iraq is not Vietnam." Yes it is. "Afghanistan is not Iraq." Yes it is. You can make random assertions. So can I. Mine can be backed up by facts. Yours can't. Deal with it.
Your "facts" make my case. Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are really exactly the same. Great facts. What is legal for countries like the US, Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy, Poland, Holland, Denmark, etc etc to do is NOT whatever Koffi Annan and some lefty academic hacks say it is. It's what their duly elected and empowered legal officials, including "lawmakers" in bodies like Congress and Parliament, say it is. They usually consult precedent and the body of law that includes things like the UN Charter, as Goldsmith did in his actual finding. That you prefer some gossip and politically-motivated selective leaking of in-house discussion in the yellow press says all that needs to be said about your, and your fellow-travelers', knowledge of facts.
Comments closed February 24, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Looks like Petreus has a British advisor. Nothing lasts for ever, but this strategy of letting them have a go at it will last for a long time, at least till the good general is chosen as a nominee for a higher national office. The British managed with this strategy for hundreds of years.
Posted by gregor | February 10, 2008 12:37 PM