Tuesday, February 20, 2007
More Carnage In Iraq And What It May Mean For The Surge Policy
So far, Preznut Bush's vaunted troop surge - the security crackdown in Baghdad dubbed "Operation Imposing Law" - hasn't stopped the violence in Iraq. After a very brief respite from insurgent attacks and sectarian violence, the carnage has returned to Iraq in full force:
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A car bomb and a suicide attacker killed at least 11 people across Baghdad on Tuesday as militants show increasing defiance of a major security operation in the capital. More than 100 people have been killed in the Baghdad area since Sunday in a direct challenge to efforts by U.S. and Iraqi forces to restore some authority on the streets and give the embattled government some breathing room.
...
Outside Baghdad, nearly 150 people were hospitalized complaining of breathing problems, vomiting and other ailments after a truck carrying a chlorine-based substance was hit by a roadside bomb north of Baghdad, said Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, a military spokesman.
Two people died in the blast and the others were treated after being exposed to fumes and debris near Taji, about 12 miles northwest of Baghdad, Moussawi said. All those treated were in stable condition.
On Monday, insurgents staged a bold daylight assault against a U.S. combat post north of Baghdad, killing two soldiers and injuring 17. The U.S. military called it a "coordinated attack" _ which began with a suicide car bombing and then gunfire on soldiers pinned down in a former Iraqi police station, where fuel storage tanks were set ablaze by the blast.
The head-on attack in the town of Tarmiyah, about 30 miles north of Baghdad, was notable for both its tactics and target. Sunni insurgents have mostly used hit-and-run ambushes, roadside bombs or mortars on U.S. troops and stayed away from direct assaults on fortified military compounds to avoid U.S. firepower.
It also appeared to fit a pattern emerging among the suspected Sunni militants: trying to hit U.S. forces harder outside the capital rather than confront them on the streets during a massive American-led security operation.
Altogether, nine U.S. service members have been reported killed since the beginning of the weekend, six of them on Monday
Does any sane person with even an inkling of common sense and a history of paying attention to the deteriorating situation in Iraq over the last four years actually think 21,500 additional American troops (17,000 of which are combat troops - the remaining are support) will actually bring peace and stability to the country?
Isn't it patently obvious that the Sunni insurgents were going to split the capital as soon as the U.S. started deploying extra troops there for the "unprecedented" security crackdown the military and the administration have been bragging about since the plan was first announced last month and wait out the surge and/or take their insurgent attacks elsewhere?
Isn't it even more obvious that the Shiite militias and death squads (many of whom are actually working on the same side of the sectarian divide as Prime Minister Maliki's government) were going to lay off the killing and mayhem while the joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown is ongoing?
It seems to me that adding 21,500 additional American troops to Baghdad and expecting the security situation in both the capital and the rest of the country to stabilize is like adding a thimble of fresh water to Utah's Great Salt Lake and expecting the lake water to become drinkable.
The chances of this surge working are not very good.
You can see the pattern already. Like past security crackdowns, violence drops for a brief time while the insurgents get acclimated to the new normal. Then it explodes once again.
Politicians in Washington and the members of the news media covering them are still acting like the debate around the troop surge should focus on a Pro-Surge vs. Anti-Surge argument. Should the preznut be allowed to send additional troops (or in this case, extend the deployments of soldier and marines already there and send troops scheduled to go to Iraq earlier than their listed deployment dates)? Should the Congress cut off funding for the surge directly and if so, what will happen to the members who vote to cut off funding in the next election? Should the Congress try and limit the funding through more obscure parliamentary maneuvers like the Murtha plan, thus giving themselves some political cover for the inevitable attacks from administration apologists that they voted to defund the troops? Should the Congress simply register its disapproval with non-binding resolutions and let events on the ground dictate the next course of action?
I have a feeling that while this Pro-Surge/Anti-Surge argument goes on for the next month or so and occupies all of Washington like a bouncing ball occupies a puppy, events on the ground in Iraq will essentially render it meaningless.
I mean, if the violence continues to rage unabated both inside and outside of Baghdad after the U.S. adds 21,500 troops, what's the point about arguing whether you're Pro-Surge or Anti-Surge? It will become obvious to even the dumbest Washington observer and/or font of conventional wisdom that the surge will have failed and it will be time to try something else.
In the past, I have advocated either sending in 300,000 additional troops for a REAL SURGE (and starting a military draft to do it, since the Pentagon doesn't have anywhere near enough numbers to pull that kind of surge off) or pulling back to the borders and letting the civil war run its course (as seems to be happening with U.S. troops there anyway.)
An additional school of thought has the U.S. taking sides in the civil war and backing the Shiites against the Sunnis in the fight to control the country. That option seems particularly unsavory, as it means U.S. troops would essentially be working on the same side of the Shiite death squads in their ethnic cleansing campaigns. Another option is to break the country in three along the lines of the Biden Plan.
Not one of these options is a good one.
Obviously the Bush administration doesn't have the guts or political will to call for a military draft to get the numbers necessary to throw in 300,000 additional troops into Iraq long-term(a move that wouldn't guarantee peace and stability in the country but sure would go a long way toward ending the violence.)
Pulling back to the borders and letting the civil war run its course seems like a particularly bad option as well since it was the United States that helped launch the civil war in the first place by taking out Saddam and allowing the insurgency and the sectarian violence to rage mostly unchecked until they became unstoppable.
Backing the Shiites over the Sunnis is sure to create problems for the U.S. both inside and outside Iraq as Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia and Jordan will not look kindly upon such a sectarian policy.
And the Biden plan to split the country into three may create problems too if Turkey decides to grab the Kurdish north for its own and/or if the Sunnis decide they want more of the oil-rich Shiite south for themselves.
No - there are no good options for bringing peace and stability to Iraq. But the current troop surge plan isn't REALLY an option either. It's nothing more than a cynical political maneuver by the Bush administration and the GOP leadership to try and pass off blame for the Iraq war debacle onto war critics and delay the inevitable ignominious U.S. retreat.
I wish the news media would mention that when they getting around to talking about the politics of the war here at home. But they don't. They're too busy reading off the talking points from both sides to reveal the reality of the situation.
Comments:
<< Home
There was an editorial in the local Sunday paper by Zbigniew Brzezinski with what sounds like a rational plan in four parts.
(1) The US must state unambiguously its intent to leave Iraq in a relatively short period of time.
(2) The US should announce it is undertaking talks with Iraqi leaders to set a firm date. (This does not mean Malaki as sole Iraqi party -- it would have to include anyone who's willing to come to the table with the stones to stick with a decision.) This date, presumably about a year in the future, would be announced to the world.
(3) The Iraqi leadership would issue an invitation to their neighbors, and perhaps other Muslim nations, to discuss how best to insure Iraqi stability after the SU withdrawal.
(4) The US should activate a credible, energetic effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Sounds like a plan to me, except for a handful of obstacles to any rational action in the White House and Congress.
(1) The US must state unambiguously its intent to leave Iraq in a relatively short period of time.
(2) The US should announce it is undertaking talks with Iraqi leaders to set a firm date. (This does not mean Malaki as sole Iraqi party -- it would have to include anyone who's willing to come to the table with the stones to stick with a decision.) This date, presumably about a year in the future, would be announced to the world.
(3) The Iraqi leadership would issue an invitation to their neighbors, and perhaps other Muslim nations, to discuss how best to insure Iraqi stability after the SU withdrawal.
(4) The US should activate a credible, energetic effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Sounds like a plan to me, except for a handful of obstacles to any rational action in the White House and Congress.
# posted by 
: 3:01 PM
: 3:01 PM
You're right - there are no good options. But the best starting point would be to take the major irritant - US presence - out of the equation.
# posted by : 9:10 PM
: 9:10 PM
It appears our good buddies in Britain are going to withdraw completely. Does that mean the surge will be a wash, but that we'll continue having the same general success level we've come to expect?
kicksiron, Zbigniew is lost when it comes to middle-east policies and strategies. You might want to consider what he advocated in the Carter years:
"Iran
"Facing a revolution, the Shah of Iran sought help from the United States. Iran occupied a strategic place in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, acting as an island of stability, and a buffer against Soviet penetration into the region.
"He was pro-American, but domestically oppressive. The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully," however these reassurances would not amount to substantive action on the part of the United States. On November 4th, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt."
"At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. Brzezinski, and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford), continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily.
"Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution came to be, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to stabilize Iran.
"President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force, opposed a U.S. coup, ordered the Constellation aircraft carrier to the Indian Ocean, but soon countermanded his order.
"A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government, but this plan fell apart when Khomeini and his followers swept the country, taking power 12 February 1979.
"Failed Nojeh Coup
"In July 1980, Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini.
"King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning.
"The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan).
"The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein.
"However, Khomeini learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France and Latin America. Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr quietly rounded up 600 of the loyalist plotters within Iran, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup.
"Saddam decided to invade without the Iranian officers' assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980.
Zbig, in short, is out of his mind if he thinks any of his ideas will lead to anything but utter disaster.
The worst of all are his vague and useless comments about Israel and the palestinians, who have made it as plain as can be that it is their goal to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
Keep in mind there is no such person as a "palestinian". There was never a nation of Palestine. It is a region, no different in its sovereignty than the North Pole.
Most of these particular muslims are best described as Jordanians. But even that description is lacking because there were no true sovereign nations in the middle east until the 20th century.
I suppose it's possible to treat them like the US treated the Indians. Of course those self-destructive muslims will accomplish very little on any land they are given. The Gaza Strip is a good example of how quickly they can turn productive real estate into nothing.
"Iran
"Facing a revolution, the Shah of Iran sought help from the United States. Iran occupied a strategic place in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, acting as an island of stability, and a buffer against Soviet penetration into the region.
"He was pro-American, but domestically oppressive. The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully," however these reassurances would not amount to substantive action on the part of the United States. On November 4th, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt."
"At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. Brzezinski, and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford), continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily.
"Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution came to be, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to stabilize Iran.
"President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force, opposed a U.S. coup, ordered the Constellation aircraft carrier to the Indian Ocean, but soon countermanded his order.
"A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government, but this plan fell apart when Khomeini and his followers swept the country, taking power 12 February 1979.
"Failed Nojeh Coup
"In July 1980, Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini.
"King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning.
"The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan).
"The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein.
"However, Khomeini learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France and Latin America. Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr quietly rounded up 600 of the loyalist plotters within Iran, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup.
"Saddam decided to invade without the Iranian officers' assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980.
Zbig, in short, is out of his mind if he thinks any of his ideas will lead to anything but utter disaster.
The worst of all are his vague and useless comments about Israel and the palestinians, who have made it as plain as can be that it is their goal to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.
Keep in mind there is no such person as a "palestinian". There was never a nation of Palestine. It is a region, no different in its sovereignty than the North Pole.
Most of these particular muslims are best described as Jordanians. But even that description is lacking because there were no true sovereign nations in the middle east until the 20th century.
I suppose it's possible to treat them like the US treated the Indians. Of course those self-destructive muslims will accomplish very little on any land they are given. The Gaza Strip is a good example of how quickly they can turn productive real estate into nothing.
Zbig's plan is good one, kicksiron. But as you note, the Repubs in Congress and the WH will think it's a pussy plan (diplomacy???? that's for pussies!!!!), so I doubt it will see the light of day.
nyc, the numbers the Brits have in Iraq (7000) and the numbers they're talking about pulling out (1600) are fractions of the 21,500 we're sending in, but yeah, I bet Baghdad could have used the additional help from the Brits.
nyc, the numbers the Brits have in Iraq (7000) and the numbers they're talking about pulling out (1600) are fractions of the 21,500 we're sending in, but yeah, I bet Baghdad could have used the additional help from the Brits.
kicksiron, the saddest and morosely most humorous item in Zbig's list of middle-east palliatives is this one:
"(3) The Iraqi leadership would issue an invitation to their neighbors, and perhaps other Muslim nations, to discuss how best to insure Iraqi stability after the SU withdrawal."
In most of the world, including the middle east, there's a word that decribes "an invitation to their neighbors...to discuss how best to insure Iraqi stability..."
The word is: SURRENDER.
Zbig is a dunce if he believes his idea would result in anything but the shredding of Iraq into pieces by Iran and the various battling factions in Iraq today -- with the exception of the US.
"(3) The Iraqi leadership would issue an invitation to their neighbors, and perhaps other Muslim nations, to discuss how best to insure Iraqi stability after the SU withdrawal."
In most of the world, including the middle east, there's a word that decribes "an invitation to their neighbors...to discuss how best to insure Iraqi stability..."
The word is: SURRENDER.
Zbig is a dunce if he believes his idea would result in anything but the shredding of Iraq into pieces by Iran and the various battling factions in Iraq today -- with the exception of the US.
n_s, I don't remember liking Zbig's policies (or the policies he advocated during the Carter admin) very much, but that doesn't disqualify him as an expert in the current situation. Kissinger, whose policies were nuts back then and still are, has been a frequent visitor to the WH, so if you grant K a pass, Zbig ought to have a red carpet and a fanfare.
Two very important points -- (1) It is very much in the best interests of the other players in the Middle East to push/lead Iraq to some form of stability. The Kurds have both the Iranians and Turks to fear, the Syrians and Saudis (and likely, the Jordanians) have the Iranians. The remainder of the Islamic world is concerned about the radical Islamists, because they could well destabilize governments all the way to Indonesia. It is in all their best interests to put an end to the civil war, put a lid on the radicals, and send al Queda somewhere else, like the moon. Why would you imagine they would not be ready to sit down at the table (secretly, if necessary) if they could sit across from a US and Europe that might honor their promises?
(2) Granted that Palestine is a construct, and that most of the people called Palestinians are of the same ancestry as Jordanians (also a construct). However, they (or their parents and grandparents) were living in what is now Israeli territory, and they were forced out. That piece of dirt is as much their homeland as other dirt in the area is Israelis'. They can be dragged kicking and screaming to peace talks, or they can go on killing each other until they're ALL part of that dirt, Jew and Muslim alike. While the Likkud party considers it a heresy, peace between Israel and the Muslim residents of the general area is in their better interest as well as ours. There -- I've said it. I suppose now I'll be branded as an anti-Semite. Like I give a s_it.
You call it 'surrender' -- I call it waking up to the fact that the neocon pipe dream of an American colossus astride the world with them as the head, was, is and always will be bulls_it.
Two very important points -- (1) It is very much in the best interests of the other players in the Middle East to push/lead Iraq to some form of stability. The Kurds have both the Iranians and Turks to fear, the Syrians and Saudis (and likely, the Jordanians) have the Iranians. The remainder of the Islamic world is concerned about the radical Islamists, because they could well destabilize governments all the way to Indonesia. It is in all their best interests to put an end to the civil war, put a lid on the radicals, and send al Queda somewhere else, like the moon. Why would you imagine they would not be ready to sit down at the table (secretly, if necessary) if they could sit across from a US and Europe that might honor their promises?
(2) Granted that Palestine is a construct, and that most of the people called Palestinians are of the same ancestry as Jordanians (also a construct). However, they (or their parents and grandparents) were living in what is now Israeli territory, and they were forced out. That piece of dirt is as much their homeland as other dirt in the area is Israelis'. They can be dragged kicking and screaming to peace talks, or they can go on killing each other until they're ALL part of that dirt, Jew and Muslim alike. While the Likkud party considers it a heresy, peace between Israel and the Muslim residents of the general area is in their better interest as well as ours. There -- I've said it. I suppose now I'll be branded as an anti-Semite. Like I give a s_it.
You call it 'surrender' -- I call it waking up to the fact that the neocon pipe dream of an American colossus astride the world with them as the head, was, is and always will be bulls_it.
# posted by : 4:18 PM
: 4:18 PM
kicksiron, you wrote:
"Two very important points -- (1) It is very much in the best interests of the other players in the Middle East to push/lead Iraq to some form of stability."
"Stability" is a relative term. Everyone wants the oil, but not for the same reasons. On one hand, the US wants to ensure that Iraqi oil flows unrestricted to WORLD markets, bringing huge cash payments into Iraq. Others see oil as a lever by which to coerce the West.
You, wrote:
"The Kurds have both the Iranians and Turks to fear,..."
Not really. The Kurds have oil which will buy them plenty of friends, including the US, which, again, aims to keep the oil flowing to the world and the cash flowing to Iraq, or some part of it.
You added:
"...the Syrians and Saudis (and likely, the Jordanians) have the Iranians."
Apparently you don't know that Iran already controls Syria. Syria is a poor police state that gets by on aid from Iran and whatever it can extract from Lebanon.
As for Saudi Arabia, well, it fears only al-qaeda and perhaps a few other stateless terrorist groups. The US will not stand by while the world's largest oil source is attacked by a sovereign nation, especially if its Iran. Iran's leadership isn't so insane that it's forgotten how easily the US routed saddam when he invaded Kuwait and when the US simply rolled over his hapless military in 2003. The Iranians would have no more luck defending Iran against an American assault than did Iraqi forces.
You added:
"The remainder of the Islamic world is concerned about the radical Islamists, because they could well destabilize governments all the way to Indonesia."
Where do you suppose the mu-slime radicals get their funding? From the Catholic Church? From the Japanese government? The muslims of the world support the mu-slime radicals. Is this news to you?
You wrote:
"It is in all their best interests to put an end to the civil war, put a lid on the radicals,..."
It is always in the best interests of dictators to kill the dissidents. But muslims manage to self-sabotage everything, including this. The mu-slime radicals are supported from within. They are not a fifth column funded by Western interests. What solution or escape is there for the middle east despots? Only brutality and repression, which, of course, encourages muslims to continue funding terrorist groups. Of course, the terrorists are mostly concerned with destroying Israel, killing Jews and ridding the world of non-muslims, which, once again, accomplishes none of what would actually improve the lives of muslims.
You wrote:
"...and send al Queda somewhere else, like the moon. Why would you imagine they would not be ready to sit down at the table (secretly, if necessary) if they could sit across from a US and Europe that might honor their promises?"
You must be joking. Apparently you've never dealt with muslims. It is not the US and Europe that renegs on promises or fails to honor them. You've got it backwards. Remember, these are the people who killed 1,000 innocent Americans BEFORE 9/11. These are the people who cut off the heads of Americans for viewing on the internet. These are the people who have killed thousands and thousands of innocent people around the world for NO reason.
No European of US government can structure legitimate agreements with muslim tyrannies that tacitly employ stateless terrorist groups to carry out murderous attacks on innocent civilians around the world.
You wrote:
"(2) Granted that Palestine is a construct, and that most of the people called Palestinians are of the same ancestry as Jordanians (also a construct). However, they (or their parents and grandparents) were living in what is now Israeli territory, and they were forced out."
Here's a number for you. When Israel was granted control over its territory, about 500,000 residents were pushed out. Meanwhile, the tone of your comment suggests you think Jews arrived en masse in the new country of Israel in 1948. In fact, the Jewish population in the region had been growing rapidly for decades, not to mention the fact that Jews, particularly that Jew otherwise known as Jesus, had been in the neighborhood a lot longer than muslims.
You wrote:
"That piece of dirt is as much their homeland as other dirt in the area is Israelis'."
Really? Did they own it? Did they have title to the land? Was there any recognized legal structure to support your claim?
We thoroughly kicked the Indians off any land we wanted in the US. Despite the occasional expression of sympathy, I have yet to meet anyone who has vacated his home and given it to some needy Indians. However, to compensate the Indians, the US government has given them the right to operate casinos. They've also been granted mineral rights to lots of land. Nevertheless, many Indians remain outside the mainstream of the US. Oh well.
The muslims displaced by the creation of Israel are almost all dead. Only those who were quite young when Israel was formed are still around. In other words, a couple generations of muslims have wasted a lot of time anticipating they would reclaim land they never owned.
You wrote:
"They can be dragged kicking and screaming to peace talks, or they can go on killing each other until they're ALL part of that dirt, Jew and Muslim alike."
Israel supports the creation of a "palestinian" state, and even offered about 97% of the territory the so-called palestinians demanded as a condition for its creation. However, as we all know, muslims don't want an Jewish Israeli state to exist. So there was no deal and the muslims have shown repeatedly by their actions that they don't want a deal. They want a Jew-free middle east. Period.
You wrote:
"While the Likkud party considers it a heresy, peace between Israel and the Muslim residents of the general area is in their better interest as well as ours."
Likud? Peace? Heresy? I don't know where you got that one. I can only guess that it popped out of your head half-baked. The muslims have got your ear.
You wrote:
"There -- I've said it. I suppose now I'll be branded as an anti-Semite. Like I give a s_it."
Not yet. At this point, I think you just don't know any better.
You wrote:
"You call it 'surrender' -- I call it waking up to the fact that the neocon pipe dream of an American colossus astride the world with them as the head, was, is and always will be bulls_it."
Not a colossus astride the world, but a force that stops the worst of the bad guys from throwing wrenches into the gears of the machinery of the world that actually carries most of the burden of mankind.
"Two very important points -- (1) It is very much in the best interests of the other players in the Middle East to push/lead Iraq to some form of stability."
"Stability" is a relative term. Everyone wants the oil, but not for the same reasons. On one hand, the US wants to ensure that Iraqi oil flows unrestricted to WORLD markets, bringing huge cash payments into Iraq. Others see oil as a lever by which to coerce the West.
You, wrote:
"The Kurds have both the Iranians and Turks to fear,..."
Not really. The Kurds have oil which will buy them plenty of friends, including the US, which, again, aims to keep the oil flowing to the world and the cash flowing to Iraq, or some part of it.
You added:
"...the Syrians and Saudis (and likely, the Jordanians) have the Iranians."
Apparently you don't know that Iran already controls Syria. Syria is a poor police state that gets by on aid from Iran and whatever it can extract from Lebanon.
As for Saudi Arabia, well, it fears only al-qaeda and perhaps a few other stateless terrorist groups. The US will not stand by while the world's largest oil source is attacked by a sovereign nation, especially if its Iran. Iran's leadership isn't so insane that it's forgotten how easily the US routed saddam when he invaded Kuwait and when the US simply rolled over his hapless military in 2003. The Iranians would have no more luck defending Iran against an American assault than did Iraqi forces.
You added:
"The remainder of the Islamic world is concerned about the radical Islamists, because they could well destabilize governments all the way to Indonesia."
Where do you suppose the mu-slime radicals get their funding? From the Catholic Church? From the Japanese government? The muslims of the world support the mu-slime radicals. Is this news to you?
You wrote:
"It is in all their best interests to put an end to the civil war, put a lid on the radicals,..."
It is always in the best interests of dictators to kill the dissidents. But muslims manage to self-sabotage everything, including this. The mu-slime radicals are supported from within. They are not a fifth column funded by Western interests. What solution or escape is there for the middle east despots? Only brutality and repression, which, of course, encourages muslims to continue funding terrorist groups. Of course, the terrorists are mostly concerned with destroying Israel, killing Jews and ridding the world of non-muslims, which, once again, accomplishes none of what would actually improve the lives of muslims.
You wrote:
"...and send al Queda somewhere else, like the moon. Why would you imagine they would not be ready to sit down at the table (secretly, if necessary) if they could sit across from a US and Europe that might honor their promises?"
You must be joking. Apparently you've never dealt with muslims. It is not the US and Europe that renegs on promises or fails to honor them. You've got it backwards. Remember, these are the people who killed 1,000 innocent Americans BEFORE 9/11. These are the people who cut off the heads of Americans for viewing on the internet. These are the people who have killed thousands and thousands of innocent people around the world for NO reason.
No European of US government can structure legitimate agreements with muslim tyrannies that tacitly employ stateless terrorist groups to carry out murderous attacks on innocent civilians around the world.
You wrote:
"(2) Granted that Palestine is a construct, and that most of the people called Palestinians are of the same ancestry as Jordanians (also a construct). However, they (or their parents and grandparents) were living in what is now Israeli territory, and they were forced out."
Here's a number for you. When Israel was granted control over its territory, about 500,000 residents were pushed out. Meanwhile, the tone of your comment suggests you think Jews arrived en masse in the new country of Israel in 1948. In fact, the Jewish population in the region had been growing rapidly for decades, not to mention the fact that Jews, particularly that Jew otherwise known as Jesus, had been in the neighborhood a lot longer than muslims.
You wrote:
"That piece of dirt is as much their homeland as other dirt in the area is Israelis'."
Really? Did they own it? Did they have title to the land? Was there any recognized legal structure to support your claim?
We thoroughly kicked the Indians off any land we wanted in the US. Despite the occasional expression of sympathy, I have yet to meet anyone who has vacated his home and given it to some needy Indians. However, to compensate the Indians, the US government has given them the right to operate casinos. They've also been granted mineral rights to lots of land. Nevertheless, many Indians remain outside the mainstream of the US. Oh well.
The muslims displaced by the creation of Israel are almost all dead. Only those who were quite young when Israel was formed are still around. In other words, a couple generations of muslims have wasted a lot of time anticipating they would reclaim land they never owned.
You wrote:
"They can be dragged kicking and screaming to peace talks, or they can go on killing each other until they're ALL part of that dirt, Jew and Muslim alike."
Israel supports the creation of a "palestinian" state, and even offered about 97% of the territory the so-called palestinians demanded as a condition for its creation. However, as we all know, muslims don't want an Jewish Israeli state to exist. So there was no deal and the muslims have shown repeatedly by their actions that they don't want a deal. They want a Jew-free middle east. Period.
You wrote:
"While the Likkud party considers it a heresy, peace between Israel and the Muslim residents of the general area is in their better interest as well as ours."
Likud? Peace? Heresy? I don't know where you got that one. I can only guess that it popped out of your head half-baked. The muslims have got your ear.
You wrote:
"There -- I've said it. I suppose now I'll be branded as an anti-Semite. Like I give a s_it."
Not yet. At this point, I think you just don't know any better.
You wrote:
"You call it 'surrender' -- I call it waking up to the fact that the neocon pipe dream of an American colossus astride the world with them as the head, was, is and always will be bulls_it."
Not a colossus astride the world, but a force that stops the worst of the bad guys from throwing wrenches into the gears of the machinery of the world that actually carries most of the burden of mankind.
n_s, you need to remember the reasons given for not sending troops on to Baghdad during the first Gulf War -- an independant Kurdistan might well inspire Kurds in Turkey (an ethnic minority occupying a large south-eastern part of the country, who have been treated like dirt by Turks for generations) to push for their own independant state or to join their southern brethren. The Turks are not at all receptive to the idea, and have threatened to invade Kurdistan at the first sign of independance. The Iranians have much the same problem with the Kurds in their north-western border areas, but have not been so beligerant as yet. Yes, the Kurds have both the Turks and Iranians to fear should they emerge with the independant state they so fervently desire.
The Saudi monarchy has to fear any sort of instability. I suspect one reason they haven't mounted any significant military effort in Iraq is that they are worried about an eventual military coup in their own country, should they allow for the development of a powerful military officer corps.
As far as the state of Israel is concerned, prior to 1947, Jews and Muslims had been living together in Palestine in, if not exactly peace, then acceptance of the status quo. There are only two solutions to current tensions: return to some pre-1947 idyl (which ain't gonna happen because of the blood that's been spilled in the interim), or set up state boundaries that both Muslim and Jew can live with and respect. Neither Hammas nor Likkud are interested in that one. That does not mean, however, that the idea is impossible -- only that cooler heads are going to have to do some serious arm-twisting. The primary reason for the emnity toward Israel is that many of the Arab societies suck, and it's easier to blame someone else (Israel and the Great Satan) than it is to admit their own short-comings.
Much of your thesis fails because you ignore one critically important distinction -- most people, regardless of nation, ethnicity, religion or political party, are moderates. They want things to be better for their children, they want full bellies and clean water, and they want to be allowed as much a measure of freedom as circumstances will allow. There are radicals who want a strictly religious state, there are despots who want to control everyone, there are terrorists who hate everybody. The freaks seem to be in control in large parts of the world, but it is not inevitable that they will continue to be -- which brings us back to a strategy that actually has a chance of working: get the heck out of Iraq, and stop making people mad enough to drive suicide bombs around; forget the idea of bombing the crap out of people and get everyone to sit down at the negotiation table; tell the Israeli governmet that they are going to make nice with the Palestinians or we're going to leave them entirely to their own fate. Pelosi in '07.
The Saudi monarchy has to fear any sort of instability. I suspect one reason they haven't mounted any significant military effort in Iraq is that they are worried about an eventual military coup in their own country, should they allow for the development of a powerful military officer corps.
As far as the state of Israel is concerned, prior to 1947, Jews and Muslims had been living together in Palestine in, if not exactly peace, then acceptance of the status quo. There are only two solutions to current tensions: return to some pre-1947 idyl (which ain't gonna happen because of the blood that's been spilled in the interim), or set up state boundaries that both Muslim and Jew can live with and respect. Neither Hammas nor Likkud are interested in that one. That does not mean, however, that the idea is impossible -- only that cooler heads are going to have to do some serious arm-twisting. The primary reason for the emnity toward Israel is that many of the Arab societies suck, and it's easier to blame someone else (Israel and the Great Satan) than it is to admit their own short-comings.
Much of your thesis fails because you ignore one critically important distinction -- most people, regardless of nation, ethnicity, religion or political party, are moderates. They want things to be better for their children, they want full bellies and clean water, and they want to be allowed as much a measure of freedom as circumstances will allow. There are radicals who want a strictly religious state, there are despots who want to control everyone, there are terrorists who hate everybody. The freaks seem to be in control in large parts of the world, but it is not inevitable that they will continue to be -- which brings us back to a strategy that actually has a chance of working: get the heck out of Iraq, and stop making people mad enough to drive suicide bombs around; forget the idea of bombing the crap out of people and get everyone to sit down at the negotiation table; tell the Israeli governmet that they are going to make nice with the Palestinians or we're going to leave them entirely to their own fate. Pelosi in '07.
# posted by : 2:59 AM
: 2:59 AM
kicksiron, you wrote:
"n_s, you need to remember the reasons given for not sending troops on to Baghdad during the first Gulf War -- an independant Kurdistan might well inspire Kurds in Turkey (an ethnic minority occupying a large south-eastern part of the country, who have been treated like dirt by Turks for generations) to push for their own independant state or to join their southern brethren."
I've forgotten nothing regarding the complexities of the situation. Perhaps you've just discovered the near-impossible balancing acts that responsible nations must perform when shaping the world. Meanwhile, islamic nations NEVER engage in such considerations.
Your view, however, suggests that you're at ease with power remaining in the hands of the most brutal. Aren't Kurds entitled to the same freedoms at Americans? Or must they swallow their desire and live in oppression?
You wrote:
"The Saudi monarchy has to fear any sort of instability. I suspect one reason they haven't mounted any significant military effort in Iraq is that they are worried about an eventual military coup in their own country, should they allow for the development of a powerful military officer corps."
The Saudi military is a collection of incompetents. There is absolutely no danger of the emergence of a "powerful military officer corps."
The Saudi military has no more striking power than saddam's forces. Meanwhile, it would not take an involvement in an external fight to bring about a military coup in Saudi.
Moreover, a military coup in Saudi wouldn't succeed. The US would very likely crush it, which would take very little because the Saudi military has no armaments capable of repelling an assault by our forces and the price of a successful coup is too high for the world to bear.
Also, Saudi is largely sunni, which you probably know, and that means many in the country see the world as al-qaeda sees it. Meanwhile, lots of al-qaeda money originates in Saudi. The US would have many reasons for crushing a coup, which we all know would be driven by links to al-qaeda.
You wrote:
"As far as the state of Israel is concerned, prior to 1947..."
I don't know why you're referencing 1947. Israel was established in 1948.
You went on:
"...Jews and Muslims had been living together in Palestine in, if not exactly peace, then acceptance of the status quo."
Tensions between the two groups had grown since the start of the 20th century. It doesn't appear that you've reviewed the history of the region.
You wrote:
"There are only two solutions to current tensions: return to some pre-1947 idyl (which ain't gonna happen because of the blood that's been spilled in the interim), or set up state boundaries that both Muslim and Jew can live with and respect."
You seem impervious to the fact that Israel is not the obstacle to a two-state solution. It is the muslims, who openly declare they want to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, that have derailed every effort to settle the issue. The muslims sabotage every peace initiative because they do not want to enter into an agreement that binds them, in the eyes of the world, to accept Jewish neighbors. As long as they reneg at the 11th hour, they can continue to press for the destruction of the country under the guise of SEEKING a solution that always remains slightly out of reach.
You went off the deep end here:
"Neither Hammas nor Likkud are interested in that one."
First, you know nothing about the Likud party, including its spelling. You've probably read a one-sentence description and ignored everything else. IN short, the Likud party does not oppose ceding land to the palestinians.
Second, you know nothing about hamas, including its spelling. Worse, you seem to think that a legitimate and sovereign government (that's the Israeli government) is negotiating with another legitimate government when it deals with hamas, which is a terrorist organization that states its chief goal is the destruction of Israel.
Your tone suggests you would negotiate with hitler if he were around today.
By mentioning the Likud party and hamas in the same sentence you have seemingly established your view that the two are morally equivalent. If that's true, you are an anti-Semite.
You might argue that hamas assumed power through the popular support of palestinian voters, but you can make that claim about hitler too. Meanwhile, if you go down that slippery slope, the popular election of hamas only clarifies how much palestinians hate Jews and how much they want to destroy Israel.
If that's the goal of palestinians, what choices must Israel make? What choices are even possible when the palestinian government and the majority of the palestinian population claim the destruction of Israel is their top priority?
Giving land to people who are expressing this goal seems rather pointless as it will only allow them to access to better staging areas from which to conduct terrorist assaults.
You dreamed:
"That does not mean, however, that the idea is impossible -- only that cooler heads are going to have to do some serious arm-twisting."
Israel is civilized, but the muslim leadership is not. Where are these "cooler heads" to be found if not in Israel? It appears you are suggesting the cooler heads reside in other countries. In other words, the US, which means you support the idea of heavy US involvement in middle east affairs.
You misinterpreted the muslim mind by stating:
"The primary reason for the emnity toward Israel is that many of the Arab societies suck, and it's easier to blame someone else (Israel and the Great Satan) than it is to admit their own short-comings."
The muslim world is dominated by the most dogmatic of religions -- islam. The muslim world is largely a failure because islam is not a religion that permits introspection. I suspect you have never even glanced at the koran or read any analysis of it.
In short, it is driven into the heads of muslims that the teachings of islam are above question and that the words of the koran are to be memorized, but never challenged.
Most Christians have the same blind acceptance of Christ. But Christians do question and interpret their faith. No such analysis occurs in islam. Probably the only major question is the issue of what differentiates a sunni from a shiite, which has nothing to do with the religion per se.
On the other hand, there is some debate in islamic circles about increasing the islamic presence in the world. While Christians proselytize, muslims conquer and force conversions. Meanwhile, Jews do neither.
That's one reason there are only 15 million Jews in the entire world, versus billions of Christians and muslims.
You went all dreamy when you stated:
"Much of your thesis fails because you ignore one critically important distinction -- most people, regardless of nation, ethnicity, religion or political party, are moderates. They want things to be better for their children, they want full bellies and clean water, and they want to be allowed as much a measure of freedom as circumstances will allow."
Well, since you said that "most people" want the aforementioned, you're more or less correct. However, you're wrong when it comes to muslims.
If your claims were true, the oil-rich middle east nations would not be the cesspools of suffering and deprivation that they are. Kuwait is an exception. But it's very small.
It is an incontestable fact that muslims have been ruled by brutal dictators since that clown muhammad had his first schizophrenic seizure. If the "majority" of muslims were moderates seeking the life you described, the muslim world would not have recorded 1,400 years of unbroken misery.
Where's your evidence to support your claim? History certainly does not support you. Contemporary muslim attitudes haven't shown any improvements if the election of hamas tells us anything.
You rambled on:
"There are radicals who want a strictly religious state, there are despots who want to control everyone, there are terrorists who hate everybody."
The 1979 Iranian Revolution was quite popular. The Shah was booted and the fundamentalists were elevated to power with much fanfare and huge popular support.
You observed:
"The freaks seem to be in control in large parts of the world..."
It has always been thus in the muslim world.
You said:
"...but it is not inevitable that they will continue to be..."
Really? While your statement is conceptually true, what will make it real?
You dreamed:
"... -- which brings us back to a strategy that actually has a chance of working: get the heck out of Iraq, and stop making people mad enough to drive suicide bombs around;"
In other words, you advocate surrender. You're arguing that terrorism is an acceptable strategy of governments and that governments utilizing this strategy deserve the same consideration as those that recognize human rights.
You went back off the deep end by stating:
"...forget the idea of bombing the crap out of people and get everyone to sit down at the negotiation table;"
Really? How do you impose cooperation when some parties respond to nothing but force? Would you have advised this approach to Japan and Germany in the early 1940s? Korea in 1950?
And ta-da, you've emerged as an anti-Semite:
"...tell the Israeli governmet that they are going to make nice with the Palestinians or we're going to leave them entirely to their own fate."
Of course. Blame it on the Jews.
You've revealed yourself. For reasons that defy reality, you think the muslims will acknowledge and accept a Jewish state in the middle east.
What allows you to believe this fiction?
Meanwhile, let me know when you're giving your home to the Indians. They were here first, and that precedent seems to affect your judgment. Meanwhile, blacks want reparations from whites in the US. Are you ready to cough up all you've got?
You closed with:
"Pelosi in '07."
Fortunately our democracy is a ponderous and slow-moving beast. In other words, our creaking and agonizing national crawl will neutralize lunatics like Pelosi and keep her from initiating too manyy damaging legislative actions.
I predict she will go down in flames as her incompetence achieves its full recognition.
Post a Comment
"n_s, you need to remember the reasons given for not sending troops on to Baghdad during the first Gulf War -- an independant Kurdistan might well inspire Kurds in Turkey (an ethnic minority occupying a large south-eastern part of the country, who have been treated like dirt by Turks for generations) to push for their own independant state or to join their southern brethren."
I've forgotten nothing regarding the complexities of the situation. Perhaps you've just discovered the near-impossible balancing acts that responsible nations must perform when shaping the world. Meanwhile, islamic nations NEVER engage in such considerations.
Your view, however, suggests that you're at ease with power remaining in the hands of the most brutal. Aren't Kurds entitled to the same freedoms at Americans? Or must they swallow their desire and live in oppression?
You wrote:
"The Saudi monarchy has to fear any sort of instability. I suspect one reason they haven't mounted any significant military effort in Iraq is that they are worried about an eventual military coup in their own country, should they allow for the development of a powerful military officer corps."
The Saudi military is a collection of incompetents. There is absolutely no danger of the emergence of a "powerful military officer corps."
The Saudi military has no more striking power than saddam's forces. Meanwhile, it would not take an involvement in an external fight to bring about a military coup in Saudi.
Moreover, a military coup in Saudi wouldn't succeed. The US would very likely crush it, which would take very little because the Saudi military has no armaments capable of repelling an assault by our forces and the price of a successful coup is too high for the world to bear.
Also, Saudi is largely sunni, which you probably know, and that means many in the country see the world as al-qaeda sees it. Meanwhile, lots of al-qaeda money originates in Saudi. The US would have many reasons for crushing a coup, which we all know would be driven by links to al-qaeda.
You wrote:
"As far as the state of Israel is concerned, prior to 1947..."
I don't know why you're referencing 1947. Israel was established in 1948.
You went on:
"...Jews and Muslims had been living together in Palestine in, if not exactly peace, then acceptance of the status quo."
Tensions between the two groups had grown since the start of the 20th century. It doesn't appear that you've reviewed the history of the region.
You wrote:
"There are only two solutions to current tensions: return to some pre-1947 idyl (which ain't gonna happen because of the blood that's been spilled in the interim), or set up state boundaries that both Muslim and Jew can live with and respect."
You seem impervious to the fact that Israel is not the obstacle to a two-state solution. It is the muslims, who openly declare they want to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, that have derailed every effort to settle the issue. The muslims sabotage every peace initiative because they do not want to enter into an agreement that binds them, in the eyes of the world, to accept Jewish neighbors. As long as they reneg at the 11th hour, they can continue to press for the destruction of the country under the guise of SEEKING a solution that always remains slightly out of reach.
You went off the deep end here:
"Neither Hammas nor Likkud are interested in that one."
First, you know nothing about the Likud party, including its spelling. You've probably read a one-sentence description and ignored everything else. IN short, the Likud party does not oppose ceding land to the palestinians.
Second, you know nothing about hamas, including its spelling. Worse, you seem to think that a legitimate and sovereign government (that's the Israeli government) is negotiating with another legitimate government when it deals with hamas, which is a terrorist organization that states its chief goal is the destruction of Israel.
Your tone suggests you would negotiate with hitler if he were around today.
By mentioning the Likud party and hamas in the same sentence you have seemingly established your view that the two are morally equivalent. If that's true, you are an anti-Semite.
You might argue that hamas assumed power through the popular support of palestinian voters, but you can make that claim about hitler too. Meanwhile, if you go down that slippery slope, the popular election of hamas only clarifies how much palestinians hate Jews and how much they want to destroy Israel.
If that's the goal of palestinians, what choices must Israel make? What choices are even possible when the palestinian government and the majority of the palestinian population claim the destruction of Israel is their top priority?
Giving land to people who are expressing this goal seems rather pointless as it will only allow them to access to better staging areas from which to conduct terrorist assaults.
You dreamed:
"That does not mean, however, that the idea is impossible -- only that cooler heads are going to have to do some serious arm-twisting."
Israel is civilized, but the muslim leadership is not. Where are these "cooler heads" to be found if not in Israel? It appears you are suggesting the cooler heads reside in other countries. In other words, the US, which means you support the idea of heavy US involvement in middle east affairs.
You misinterpreted the muslim mind by stating:
"The primary reason for the emnity toward Israel is that many of the Arab societies suck, and it's easier to blame someone else (Israel and the Great Satan) than it is to admit their own short-comings."
The muslim world is dominated by the most dogmatic of religions -- islam. The muslim world is largely a failure because islam is not a religion that permits introspection. I suspect you have never even glanced at the koran or read any analysis of it.
In short, it is driven into the heads of muslims that the teachings of islam are above question and that the words of the koran are to be memorized, but never challenged.
Most Christians have the same blind acceptance of Christ. But Christians do question and interpret their faith. No such analysis occurs in islam. Probably the only major question is the issue of what differentiates a sunni from a shiite, which has nothing to do with the religion per se.
On the other hand, there is some debate in islamic circles about increasing the islamic presence in the world. While Christians proselytize, muslims conquer and force conversions. Meanwhile, Jews do neither.
That's one reason there are only 15 million Jews in the entire world, versus billions of Christians and muslims.
You went all dreamy when you stated:
"Much of your thesis fails because you ignore one critically important distinction -- most people, regardless of nation, ethnicity, religion or political party, are moderates. They want things to be better for their children, they want full bellies and clean water, and they want to be allowed as much a measure of freedom as circumstances will allow."
Well, since you said that "most people" want the aforementioned, you're more or less correct. However, you're wrong when it comes to muslims.
If your claims were true, the oil-rich middle east nations would not be the cesspools of suffering and deprivation that they are. Kuwait is an exception. But it's very small.
It is an incontestable fact that muslims have been ruled by brutal dictators since that clown muhammad had his first schizophrenic seizure. If the "majority" of muslims were moderates seeking the life you described, the muslim world would not have recorded 1,400 years of unbroken misery.
Where's your evidence to support your claim? History certainly does not support you. Contemporary muslim attitudes haven't shown any improvements if the election of hamas tells us anything.
You rambled on:
"There are radicals who want a strictly religious state, there are despots who want to control everyone, there are terrorists who hate everybody."
The 1979 Iranian Revolution was quite popular. The Shah was booted and the fundamentalists were elevated to power with much fanfare and huge popular support.
You observed:
"The freaks seem to be in control in large parts of the world..."
It has always been thus in the muslim world.
You said:
"...but it is not inevitable that they will continue to be..."
Really? While your statement is conceptually true, what will make it real?
You dreamed:
"... -- which brings us back to a strategy that actually has a chance of working: get the heck out of Iraq, and stop making people mad enough to drive suicide bombs around;"
In other words, you advocate surrender. You're arguing that terrorism is an acceptable strategy of governments and that governments utilizing this strategy deserve the same consideration as those that recognize human rights.
You went back off the deep end by stating:
"...forget the idea of bombing the crap out of people and get everyone to sit down at the negotiation table;"
Really? How do you impose cooperation when some parties respond to nothing but force? Would you have advised this approach to Japan and Germany in the early 1940s? Korea in 1950?
And ta-da, you've emerged as an anti-Semite:
"...tell the Israeli governmet that they are going to make nice with the Palestinians or we're going to leave them entirely to their own fate."
Of course. Blame it on the Jews.
You've revealed yourself. For reasons that defy reality, you think the muslims will acknowledge and accept a Jewish state in the middle east.
What allows you to believe this fiction?
Meanwhile, let me know when you're giving your home to the Indians. They were here first, and that precedent seems to affect your judgment. Meanwhile, blacks want reparations from whites in the US. Are you ready to cough up all you've got?
You closed with:
"Pelosi in '07."
Fortunately our democracy is a ponderous and slow-moving beast. In other words, our creaking and agonizing national crawl will neutralize lunatics like Pelosi and keep her from initiating too manyy damaging legislative actions.
I predict she will go down in flames as her incompetence achieves its full recognition.
<< Home
