Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The 10% of Doubt
This post at Welcome to Pottersville resonated with me because I've been in a similar predicament before, and I know the feeling. But Iraq is long, long past its diagnosis stage. These words haunt me, even as I prepare to go back there:
But I understand why that seems like a good option and I can't fault people for wanting the whole thing to be over and done with. It's certainly a better option than "more of the same."
Every day we keep our troops there, another two or three soldiers die. Ten more died over the Easter weekend. We don’t need surges and another hundred billion depleting our treasury or fancy strategies long on goal and short on policy. The backdrop of four plus bloody years tells us at 100 decibels that we don’t need any hi tech solutions to tell us what over 26,000 dead, maimed and injured bodies can at a fraction of the cost:I'm not ready to withdraw just yet, if only for the reason that this will tell the Islamists, the criminals and any other enemies of America that all they have to do is stir the pot and make things miserable for a while and we will abandon everything we said we stood for. I wish we hadn't gotten into this war, but we're there, and we can't afford to bow out disgracefully.
It’s time to pull the plug on Iraq because not only can we not solve the problems that we’ve created, not only can we not wait for the next administration to competently attack these problems, we are the problem. We are the cancer and we need to cut ourselves out regardless of the prognosis. Iraq believes that it’s strong enough to continue without American involvement.
I do, too.
But I understand why that seems like a good option and I can't fault people for wanting the whole thing to be over and done with. It's certainly a better option than "more of the same."
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
http://www.forret.com/tools/trackback.asp?title=The 10% of Doubt&blog_name=Decline and Fall&url=http://www.declineandfall.net/2007/04/10-of-doubt.html
D&F,
I admire the way you can give time to arguments you don't support. I can't imagine another blogroll that would list me along with JihadWatch. :)
"I wish we hadn't gotten into this war, but we're there, and we can't afford to bow out disgracefully."
The disgrace is not in how America ends the war.
America has lost credibility not because insurgents have refused to kiss ass, but because no-one believes the war is about anything other than American influence in an oil rich region.
PNAC -- "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."
No. You're 300 million people. That's your voice. Live within your rights, not your might.
I admire the way you can give time to arguments you don't support. I can't imagine another blogroll that would list me along with JihadWatch. :)
"I wish we hadn't gotten into this war, but we're there, and we can't afford to bow out disgracefully."
The disgrace is not in how America ends the war.
America has lost credibility not because insurgents have refused to kiss ass, but because no-one believes the war is about anything other than American influence in an oil rich region.
PNAC -- "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."
No. You're 300 million people. That's your voice. Live within your rights, not your might.
Thank you. I don't think any side has all the answers. I have found that people get too involved in the arguments from their own side and begin to miss the forest for the trees. I've been on more than one side on the GWOT and many other issues, so I can see the value in dissenting opinion, even if it (like Jihad Watch) is often overblown and more than a little offensive.
As for the disgrace side, I probably didn't explain myself very well (a topic for a future post?). I'm not concerned that the world doesn't think we're here to pass out candy and make everyone happy and wealthy; I'm concerned that the bad guys--the Jihadists, the dictators and the international crime syndicates--will get the message that if they can just fight for a while and score some major p.r. victories, the "paper tiger" will quit and run home to mommy. I think that the world would be a demonstrably worse place were there no real sense that if you screw up too bad America (or whatever the biggest country is) won't be able to stop you. I wish we were more interested in toppling regimes in, say, Zimbabwe, but as you noted, it's ultimately all about oil.
As for the PNAC quote, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but some country (political entity, whatever) always leads. This is even more true now that the world's all interconnected and stuff. I'd rather the world look to the country of Jefferson for its big ideas and ways forward than to the country of Mao or Putin. I just wish we acted more like the country of Jefferson.
As for the disgrace side, I probably didn't explain myself very well (a topic for a future post?). I'm not concerned that the world doesn't think we're here to pass out candy and make everyone happy and wealthy; I'm concerned that the bad guys--the Jihadists, the dictators and the international crime syndicates--will get the message that if they can just fight for a while and score some major p.r. victories, the "paper tiger" will quit and run home to mommy. I think that the world would be a demonstrably worse place were there no real sense that if you screw up too bad America (or whatever the biggest country is) won't be able to stop you. I wish we were more interested in toppling regimes in, say, Zimbabwe, but as you noted, it's ultimately all about oil.
As for the PNAC quote, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but some country (political entity, whatever) always leads. This is even more true now that the world's all interconnected and stuff. I'd rather the world look to the country of Jefferson for its big ideas and ways forward than to the country of Mao or Putin. I just wish we acted more like the country of Jefferson.
"I hate to be the one to break this to you, but some country (political entity, whatever) always leads"
Well, there's the answer. The leader doesn't have to be a country.
I'm sure that PNAC quote does great mileage in Iraq. And why should Iraqis want America to lead them? Iraqis have no vote in American elections. Ditto Europe. The EU has 400 million people. We have less effect on world affairs than America. You want to lead us? -- give us the vote.
the message that if they can just fight for a while and score some major p.r. victories, the "paper tiger" will quit and run home to mommy
What do you think the motives are for fighting America in Iraq?
[...] a body called the Al-Anbar Rescue Council, headed by Sheikh Rishawi, has been established to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
I don't think scoring PR points in the WPost is their aim. I think they want to stay alive. I think they want the opportunity to build good lives. I think they want to push out people (American troops, Al-Qaeda, even SCIRI according to some) who they feel do not have Iraq's interests at heart.
And, just as the Romans couldn't defeat Hannibal on the battle field, the Iraqis feel they have to find some other way of getting America out. Even if it means cutting off their own nose to spite America's face.
Well, there's the answer. The leader doesn't have to be a country.
I'm sure that PNAC quote does great mileage in Iraq. And why should Iraqis want America to lead them? Iraqis have no vote in American elections. Ditto Europe. The EU has 400 million people. We have less effect on world affairs than America. You want to lead us? -- give us the vote.
the message that if they can just fight for a while and score some major p.r. victories, the "paper tiger" will quit and run home to mommy
What do you think the motives are for fighting America in Iraq?
[...] a body called the Al-Anbar Rescue Council, headed by Sheikh Rishawi, has been established to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
I don't think scoring PR points in the WPost is their aim. I think they want to stay alive. I think they want the opportunity to build good lives. I think they want to push out people (American troops, Al-Qaeda, even SCIRI according to some) who they feel do not have Iraq's interests at heart.
And, just as the Romans couldn't defeat Hannibal on the battle field, the Iraqis feel they have to find some other way of getting America out. Even if it means cutting off their own nose to spite America's face.
I think you misunderstand me. Their big motive isn't scoring p.r. point in the WaPost, it's scoring p.r. victories in their own neighborhoods. They stir the pot, show that the Americans can't keep the place safe, and then extort the locals to keep them safe. It's the way the mafia took control of neighborhoods in New York; classic power-politics.
The interest of the average Iraqi isn't Iraq, it's local survival and stability. There is certainly an element of resentment at America coming from outside their country and their culture to do the job, but most Iraqis were happy to go along with that during that first year of occupation.
As for the leadership thing, it's not strictly political leadership I was referring to--it's fuzzier than that. It's the whole shining city on a hill metaphor, America as the standard-bearer for liberty and human rights. As presumptuous as that sounds, I'd much prefer the world move toward liberty and human rights than toward something else, and America has been, more than anywhere else, the symbol of that. (And yes, I realize that we owe England a huge debt in this regard.)
The interest of the average Iraqi isn't Iraq, it's local survival and stability. There is certainly an element of resentment at America coming from outside their country and their culture to do the job, but most Iraqis were happy to go along with that during that first year of occupation.
As for the leadership thing, it's not strictly political leadership I was referring to--it's fuzzier than that. It's the whole shining city on a hill metaphor, America as the standard-bearer for liberty and human rights. As presumptuous as that sounds, I'd much prefer the world move toward liberty and human rights than toward something else, and America has been, more than anywhere else, the symbol of that. (And yes, I realize that we owe England a huge debt in this regard.)
I think most Iraqis are trying to protect their communities. From America, from Iran and from other Iraqis.
Most Iraqis were happy to go along at the beginning because they honestly believed their lives were about to get better. They were probably expecting Iraq to be rebuilt and in few decades they'd have an economy to rival Germany or Japan.
But, instead, it turns out that the Bush admin had made little or no plans for post-victory. Or at least that's what we're supposed to believe. Memo to Blair: notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."
I would not blame any Iraqi who thinks that the chaos in Iraq WAS the plan. Riverbend has become one of them.
As for the city on the hill... Hasn't NCC-1701 taken on that roll now? :)
I remember Netanyahu saying that Iranians love American culture... Films, music, etc. He thinks that means they'd love to be "liberated" ala Iraq. But what he misses is that the Iranians love the ideals that America no longer lives up to.
It isn't strange that everyone in the world can watch Star Wars/Trek and agree on who the bad guys are. But that doesn't mean the Iranians want to be invaded and "liberated".
Most Iraqis were happy to go along at the beginning because they honestly believed their lives were about to get better. They were probably expecting Iraq to be rebuilt and in few decades they'd have an economy to rival Germany or Japan.
But, instead, it turns out that the Bush admin had made little or no plans for post-victory. Or at least that's what we're supposed to believe. Memo to Blair: notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."
I would not blame any Iraqi who thinks that the chaos in Iraq WAS the plan. Riverbend has become one of them.
As for the city on the hill... Hasn't NCC-1701 taken on that roll now? :)
I remember Netanyahu saying that Iranians love American culture... Films, music, etc. He thinks that means they'd love to be "liberated" ala Iraq. But what he misses is that the Iranians love the ideals that America no longer lives up to.
It isn't strange that everyone in the world can watch Star Wars/Trek and agree on who the bad guys are. But that doesn't mean the Iranians want to be invaded and "liberated".
Sorry I dropped this thread. Travel, general busyness, blah blah.
I don't think that chaos was the plan, but it's hard to criticize those who do. Our Administration really was that short-sighted., and they really seem to have believed all of that "greet us as liberators" bs.
No one really wants to be "liberated," except in the shortest of possible terms: get rid of the evil guy making our lives miserable and we'll take it from there. The particular problem in Iraq, and in any other place America or whosever decides to "liberate" in the future, is that it is in the interest of the insurgents to create chaos, thereby sowing distrust in the occupier's ability to keep the peace. This is how they win the hearts and minds war, and why enterprises such as Iraq are so fraught with danger.
It's been said before that in a situation where a big, powerful millitary is up against a small, decentralized indigenous force, that all the little force need accomplish is for the big guys to not win, and that will constitute a victory for the small guys. There's no such thing, in terms of perception, as a draw in these cases. Which is why we will never win the war in Iraq. Short of killing all of them and creating a situation where no one else rises up against us, we can only lose.
I don't think that chaos was the plan, but it's hard to criticize those who do. Our Administration really was that short-sighted., and they really seem to have believed all of that "greet us as liberators" bs.
No one really wants to be "liberated," except in the shortest of possible terms: get rid of the evil guy making our lives miserable and we'll take it from there. The particular problem in Iraq, and in any other place America or whosever decides to "liberate" in the future, is that it is in the interest of the insurgents to create chaos, thereby sowing distrust in the occupier's ability to keep the peace. This is how they win the hearts and minds war, and why enterprises such as Iraq are so fraught with danger.
It's been said before that in a situation where a big, powerful millitary is up against a small, decentralized indigenous force, that all the little force need accomplish is for the big guys to not win, and that will constitute a victory for the small guys. There's no such thing, in terms of perception, as a draw in these cases. Which is why we will never win the war in Iraq. Short of killing all of them and creating a situation where no one else rises up against us, we can only lose.
D and F,
From what little I know of you, you seem like a guy with a conscience.
These words haunt me, even as I prepare to go back there:
I haven't commented on you going back to Iraq because, frankly, I don't know what to say. I disagree with the war but (regardless of what I think of your leaders) I can accept you have good intentions.
Do as much good as you can. I'll leave it at that.
Post a Comment
From what little I know of you, you seem like a guy with a conscience.
These words haunt me, even as I prepare to go back there:
I haven't commented on you going back to Iraq because, frankly, I don't know what to say. I disagree with the war but (regardless of what I think of your leaders) I can accept you have good intentions.
Do as much good as you can. I'll leave it at that.
Links to this post:
<< Home
