User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 6 guests online.
...Syndicate |
Say my name!Submitted by Prometheus 6 on January 6, 2007 - 8:22am.
on War I hate terms of art. I hate the way this administration uses them to obscure the truth. So I hate this whole "surge" line of bullshit, I hate that the media promugates it and I hate that Democrats use the term when there's an honest word for the latest last chance to get it right. That honest word is 'occupation'. You just saw Sen. McCain tell you what will be necessary to {term of art alert} 'Succeed In Iraq' and there is no implication of any of that in the word 'surge'. And I'll give him this...he said 'Success In Iraq' will cost more American lives. He said 'Success In Iraq' depends on perfection on our part. He said 'Success In Iraq' isn't possible unless those who have already failed at lesser tasks step up and that we hold the ground indefinitely until we do. But he said it at The American Enterprise Institute, where only cranks like me would see it. I wonder how much press McCain's embrace of an indefinite occupation of Iraq will get? "What will this campaign do? unless there is another force to fill the gap, it simply buys time; without a sequential follow through on security and government services it will have no long term effect." How much time will be bought in this insane escalation of troops remains to be seen. What is certain is that it will be paid for in the blood of a lot of defenseless and innocent people. ZP, McCain said the troops will be the "hold" part of "clear, hold, build." That means the will be at least as intrusive as Israel is in Palestine. He said we won't be depending on Iraqis to do this holding. That means it will have an American face. He said until the Iraqis can handle it themselves. When do you think that will be when the troops are also the militias and the militias are the anchors of each faction's power? They're not going to want to change any more than America wants to give up its plutocracy. That's an occupation. No matter where the plan came from or what you want to call it. LATER:
Okay, read the whoile thing before flipping off a quick one... It's a escalation of an occupation.
I think Somalia was a test case. The utter folly of Bush's Iraq policy reminded me of a song that I used to hear quite often during the time of the American War in Vietnam. It was written by Pete Seeger. The "big fool" he was referring to was President Lyndon Johnson. Waist Deep in the Big Muddy It was back in nineteen forty-two, "How much time will be bought in this insane escalation of troops remains to be seen. What is certain is that it will be paid for in the blood of a lot of defenseless and innocent people" It's not insane at all. In the right context it is a very sensible military strategy, one that actually would reduce the number of casualties for civilians. The problem is that things have slipped in Iraq to the point where this is highly unlikely to work for a number of reasons. Except to buy a time period usually known as " a decent interval". How that interval would be used and for what is another matter "In the right context it is a very sensible military strategy, one that actually would reduce the number of casualties for civilians." The problem, Zee, is that this "right context" that you allude to don't exist anymore in the age of global guerillas. The policy is insane because it is predicated on assumptions about the opposing forces and the totality of the authorizing environment in which they operate that bear no relationship to the existing reality of Iraq and the Middle East. There are no rabbit's left in Bush's hat and anyway the so-called insurgents have already seen our stage show live and on television. They are not impressed. The chickens are not only coming home to roost; they are sitting on the fence waiting for dark. PS - The general who will presumably be put in charge of the American ground forces in Iraq is constantly being referred to as being an expert in counterinsurgency warfare. Does anyone know what was the last counterinsurgency war in which he led his troops to victory? "It's not insane at all." We're talking about a warplan drawn up by George Bush, aren't we?
"We're talking about a warplan drawn up by George Bush, aren't we?" No. The last president who could draw up a warplan was Eisenhower. If the senior Army brass had not been so resistant to COIN and the political appointees reluctant to admit the extent of the insurgency, this might have been done at a time when it could have made a significant difference. Don't be misled by political noise that " it can't work". It will though there will be pockets of bloody house to house fighting.The "surge", properly done, will clear Baghdad of fighters. But then what ? Well...nothing because there is nothing the Iraqi government can put on the table. And when we "de-surge" the militias and terror cells and death squads will return. "The problem, Zee, is that this "right context" that you allude to don't exist anymore in the age of global guerillas" Score one convert for John. With all due respect to Mr. Robb, whose work I much admire, the "surge" plan isn't in trouble because of global guerillas but because there isn't an endgame available that the administration finds politically palatable. If we had one then we could start worrying about the most sophisticated end of the insurgency spectrum that could be classified as " global guerillas" ( most, the p/t tribal fighters, aren't). We won't get to that stage unless there is something waiting in the wings we don't know about that can fill the gap.
All of which, in context, means it won't work.
If the senior Army brass had not been so resistant to COIN and the political appointees reluctant to admit the extent of the insurgency..." Zee, even Stevie Wonder could see there was armed resistance to our (illegal) invasion of Iraq. Anybody who regarded the Iraqis as being as fully human as the rest of humanity could have predicted that they would have resisted our attempt to subjugate them and make bend to our will. The only folks who appear to be surprised at this fact are white Americans. What you are proposing is the implementation of a "dirty war" in the style of El Salvador and, if necessary, Chile and Guatemala. France may have "won" the Battle of Algiers by using torture, illegal detentions, targeted assassinations, bombings, forced relocations and other methods that violated international law but, in the end, it was forced to abandon its hold over Algeria. I take the long view. The seeds of our defeat in Iraq were planted long ago. Western nations or, as they are euphemistically referred to by Dr. Rice and others, "the international community" is slowly losing its ability to dictate and control seemingly less powerful countries in the world. Securing the capital of Iraq means little if the area outside the capital is endlessly contested by those Iraqis who have taken up arms against the American forces. Bush's plan exactly fits Albert Einstein definition of insanity, which is the hope that by doing the same thing over and over again you will get different results. There was never any chance that the Bush Administration and its supporters could have won this war in Iraq.
they win as soon as they get those oil leases enacted by force of law...,
they win as soon as they get those oil leases enacted by force of the original correction...the force of arms has already been assured. i would submit that 'W' was correct when he stated that all "major combat operations" had ceased. i mean, given the recent nyt headline about 3,000 US casualties contrasted with 655,000 iraqis, this can hardly been viewed as catastrophic from an american point of view. fox had a general on last month who stated as much by noting that if soldiers have time to eat steak and lobster and watch football games, the big fighting is over. when the US claims it controls the green zone and iraqi ministers can walk out of prisons in the green zone, someone is not really "at war." it might look like a war, but 3,000 body bags certainly would not be enough for any great military leader to walk off the field of battle. cats are staying out of harm's way to the greatest extent possible. restricted areas of engagement, and all that. the legal standing of the leases is critical because theat is what will stand after the surge is over and iraq descends into unmitigated chaos in all areas except where the work of extraction is going on. phuk baghdad...it's entirely irrelevant at this point - except to secure these agreements and provide operational/informational cover and plausible deniability. seems to me like the end game could result in some mass killings in iraq and a pretext for another "intervention" in later years. the question of force around iraq's natural resources has been settled. the US is the dominant force. the question of force around protecting iraqi lives is wide open - and that's the way it's supposed to be. "how better to rob you blind, my pretty!" The oil leases will not ensure America's abilty to protect the pipelines that carry the oil. We don't have enough soldiers to protect the capital, secure the pipelines and prevent the natives from being perpetually restless. See, for example, John Robb's entry Losing the Battle for Baghdad on his Global Guerillas blogsite dated Wednesday, December 20, 2006.
ptcruiser wrote: "What you are proposing is the implementation of a "dirty war" in the style of El Salvador and, if necessary, Chile and Guatemala. France may have "won" the Battle of Algiers by using torture, illegal detentions, targeted assassinations, bombings, forced relocations and other methods that violated international law but, in the end, it was forced to abandon its hold over Algeria. " No, that is NOT what I am proposing and that isn't what good COIN doctrine calls for nor is the "surge" plan representative of what happened in, say Guatemala or even Algeria. In fact, it's 180 degrees different. Everything that ever happened in wars against guerilla forces anywhere does not = COIN tactics of the U.S. military. Or COIN in general. What you are describing, which would involve systematically unleashing Shiite militias and Peshmerga on Sunni neighborhoods, has been rejected by the Bush administration with a fair amount of consistency, despite calls for it from Iraqi Shiite leaders. are irrelevant - and the capital will be irrelevant soon as well. i believe there are enough "troops"/mercs to protect the pipelines...don't you?
The problem is, this phase of the war isn't cleanly divisible from the earlier ones. A single historically accurate narrative of this war with this as the period will sound really bad. And the next phase is an American occupation or Durfurian levels of violence and a Somalian collapse.
I don't think so. Those things are very fragile, and very exposed. My apologies, Zee. I should have written that the reposting of John Negroponte to the State Department is what causes me, in part, to think that sooner or later the U.S. will support the use of "death squads" as it did in El Salvador when Negroponte was the ambassador to that country and continually denied having any knowledge of the existence of these goons. Nonetheless, Zee, the U.S. has no right to carry out counterinsurgency tactics of whatever quality and severity in Iraq because our presence in that country is illegal under international law. The current government of Iraq is a puppet government that the U.S. more or less created. Worse, critical elements of this government are aligned with Shia militants many of whom have organized themselves as death squads. because it provides the international figleaf necessary and sufficient to legitimately implement whatever levels of force escalation are required to protect our National Security interests. i.e., bombing muhfukkas back to primordial soup if necessary. gotta preserve the appearance of compliance with international law. b'lee dat the U.S. and Israel will use nuclear weapons to pacify Iran as soon as it's legally feasible to do so.
Ourstorian: We're talking about a warplan drawn up by George Bush, aren't we? ZP: No. The last president who could draw up a warplan was Eisenhower. Ourstorian: Now that's what I call rhetorical logrolling. Perhaps I should have said: "We're talking about a war plan drawn up by the Bush administration." In any event, your parsing of my comment, ZP, reflects the zeal with which you seem to embrace this current iteration of the Bush juggernaut to destablize the Middle East in the name of freedom and democracy. ZP: "Don't be misled by political noise that " it can't work". It will though there will be pockets of bloody house to house fighting.The "surge", properly done, will clear Baghdad of fighters." Ourstorian: My opposition to this escalation of troops is not based on whether or not such a strategy will succeed. Perhaps it can work. But at what cost? In addition to driving out the insurgents, this so-called surge could clear Baghdad of the majority of its remaining civilians--by slaughtering them in the crossfire, or by turning them into refugees in their own country--if "properly done" with the bloody logic described by you and its advocates in government and the military. But, of course, Iraqi deaths don't count, do they? And ridding the country of the bulk of its population makes the looting of its oil fields a much safer prospect.
not if they can get that law enacted in a timely manner. oh, and if you think the A-rabs are about to be marginalized, wait'll you see what's in store for the persians..., who will have to be hit VERY VERY hard and en masse
almost goes without saying..., welcome to the partitioning that will usher in the era of greater New Kurdistan!!!! I think once the bum rush is on - and the primary survival options are US-led schools (cultural reorientation) and that jobs program, the critical mass of pipeline busters will be dramatically reduced. I like the odds of the mercs to protect an in country cadre of engineers to keep stuff pumping out. I suppose we'll see. In either case, it's a great way to get Dead.
"...wait'll you see what's in store for the persians..." Since the overthrow of the Shah (January 1979), the U.S. has been chomping at the bit to destroy the Iranian ruling regime. They even hired Saddam to fight a proxy war for them in the eighties. But in the past three decades, they have not succeeded in changing the status quo or even putting a dent in it. The current round of sabre rattling on the part of the U.S. and its "ally" Israel, although reverberating loudly through the airwaves, is just so much fearmongering and hyperbole. I doubt that either will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. The costs to U.S. troops in Iraq would be massive. And Israel would find itself sanctioned by and isolated from all but the U.S. America may not need Iranian oil, but Europe and Asia do. Speaking of the Iranian revolution reminds me of the following incident... From the mid-seventies to the early eighties, I worked at a small, private, liberal arts college that was located about six blocks from the White House. In the months that led up to the overthrow of the Shah, the streets near the WH often were the scenes of massive protests by Iranian students and their sympathizers. They would march for blocks chanting "DOWN WITH THE SHAH," surprising most onlookers with the spontaneity of these demonstrations and the fact there were so many Iranian students in DC. One day, when these demonstrations were just beginning, one of my colleagues came in angrily complaining about the students blocking the streets, and demanding to know why they were parading up Pennsylvania Avenue chanting: "GEORGE BERNARD SHAW!" We laughed and told him to get his hearing checked. Shortly after the Shah's regime fell and he and his cronies fled into exile, the DC streets were flooded with cheap, uncut heroin and raw opium. Fatal overdoses became such an epidemic, warnings about the drugs were issued by the authorities during nightly newscasts. "...the critical mass of pipeline busters will be dramatically reduced."
Maybe if the American and Iraqi forces kill every person who lives within ten miles of a pipeline. Maybe if the American and Iraqi forces kill every person who lives within ten miles of a pipeline.and very minor ones at that, no need for quibbling over errata...., I'm thinking a 20 mile kill zone enforced by all manor of nastiness, there are so many area denial options once the pretense of democracy building and all that other happy horseshit is out the window? |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
"That honest word is 'occupation'."
No. This surge business is something from COIN, inkblot strategy to remediate collapsing governmental authority by reestablishing the ability to preserve order and then slowly expanding that zone outward. It already presumes occupation, just an ineffective one.
The problem here is that:
a) The time when this was most likely to succeed in the sense of permanent results was in 2004
b) The Iraqi government does not have any authority to reestablish because it does not have troops who will stand, fight and die for it who can replace U.S. troops after the surge disrupts and drives away terrorist and militia networks.
What will this campaign do? unless there is another force to fill the gap, it simply buys time; without a sequential follow through on security and government services it will have no long term effect.