The unblinking Dick Cheney (as we saw in last night's "Colbert Report"), along with various stalking horses, keeps saying we must stay in Iraq "until the job is done."
Now I know it was a long time ago--four years--but as I recall, the job was to get Saddam out of power and to find the WMDs.
Saddam is dead and there's no WMDs.
Mission accomplished. The job, as delineated by the Bush administration, is done. Saying that departing now is "cutting and running" is like saying that punching out the time clock at 5 PM is "bailing out."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 25, 2007 10:55 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingWe cannot leave. Lord I want to leave Iraq. I worked for the United Nations back in the 90s and once I heard that we were Invading Iraq my friends and I said "we are in there for a long long long time". Bush either was too ignorant or he lied to the American people".
When you invade a country you become their government. We have adopted this country till we can fix all the damage we caused. Damage to their government, roads, schools, people. If we leave, its because we are jerks.
Also Bush is not explaining to the people that there are two wars going on now. 1) in Bagdad over different interpretations of their holy book, which is a religious civil war, which we should not be getting involved over and the other is in the rest of the country (yes there is more to Iraq than Bagdad) where there is actual fighting going on between US forces and the terrorist organizations that want us out of their country.
Forget about pulling out of Iraq because the war is over and mission accomplished. We broke Iraq and now we have to fix it. Maybe next time the American people will think more quickly before they vote to over throw another government
"Maybe next time the American people will think more quickly before they vote to overthrow another government.."
Whaaa....?!?
There was no vote. I didn't vote. Peter, did you vote?
There's was only an OK by Congress based on flawed, cherry-picked intel given to them by the Bushies. The American people didn't vote to go into Iraq. Hell, we didn't even vote for Bush as President in the first place, if the 2000 popular vote is any indication. :)
I realize I'm an incredibly scatterminded grad student... but I'm pretty sure, (especially as a Buddhist!), I would have remembered voting to go to war,...
Peter, you are correct that the "job" as originally described to us by Bush & Co. is done. But Bush and his inner circle have demonstrated at best a severely limited ability to gather facts, assess them objectively, and make intelligent decisions based on those assessments. So I don't think it makes sense to let them frame the debate.
When we invaded Iraq, we inadvertantly created another "job:" the reconstruction and rehabilitation of a nation. I do believe that a failure to stabilize Iraq will have far-reaching consequences not only for the other nations in the Middle East, but for the U.S. as well.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to lack intellectual agility. The problem in Iraq is clearly both military and political. A political solution would require us to find a way to get the Sunnis and the Shi'a to reach an accord, and that would probably require us to reach out -- whether overtly or covertly -- to Iran and Syria. Bush won't do that.
I believe we'll be stuck on the same stupid course for the next two years. By the time the next president takes office, I believe it may be too late to do anything to salvage the Iraq War. This is a distressing thought, to say the least.
"job is done" = enough additional troops have been added, blame has been shifted, and blood has been spilled to be able to say "we've done all we can do, it's not our fault it didn't work"
Unfortunately I fear that we're not taking Iraq seriously any more and the administration is simply holding out for an endgame that makes this somewhat less of a disgraceful failure and can't be labeled "cut and run" in any way.
This is just a disaster of mis-management. Went in too early to get international support, went in too light to hold the country together, now doing too little when it's possibly too late.
I didn't vote.... though I was given many dirty looks and a few heated responses whenever I responded aloud against the plan to and execution of the invasion.
Chris: If we leave, its because we are jerks.
Luigi Novi: There are many legitimate reasons for leaving, and being "jerks" doesn't have to be anywhere even near the top. If we leave, it's because we want to do the right thing. Because we're knee deep in the quagmire of a civil war. Because we've lost 3,000 of our citizens, and don't want to lose more. Because the stated mission for which we invaded in the first place has been fulfilled (Remember "Mission Accomplished"?) Even if one can scrounge up legitimate reasons for staying, I don't think that therefore, ipso facto, that means that leaving makes us "jerks".
I suspect that our presence is only making things worse for the people of Iraq.
Part of me really feels that since we made the mess, and came in without a plan, it's our responsibility, as a country, to fix it. The question then becomes if that's even possible or if we're doing more damage by staying. But I do think we have a responsibility.
We have adopted this country till we can fix all the damage we caused. Damage to their government, roads, schools, people. If we leave, its because we are jerks.
I was thinking about the same thing as Matt when I read this, i.e. that while it's our mess and we should at least try to clean it up, the question right now is whether that's even something we're capable of doing.
If it's just impossible, then there's no point in spending any more time on a lost cause. All that's left to be done is to apologize, even though an apology will not make up for the damage done, leave, try to make amends in the future, and above all do our very best to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't ever happen again.
The unblinking Dick Cheney (as we saw in last night's "Colbert Report"), along with various stalking horses, keeps saying we must stay in Iraq "until the job is done."When you invade a country you become their government. We have adopted this country till we can fix all the damage we caused. Damage to their government, roads, schools, people.
Would you like to qualify "fix all the damage we caused," or should we assume you mean us to stay there and fight until we find a way to resurrect Saddam Hussein and install him back into power?
I was thinking about the same thing as Matt when I read this, i.e. that while it's our mess and we should at least try to clean it up, the question right now is whether that's even something we're capable of doing.
I don't think it's even clear what we're doing. For example, if I'm not mistaken, many of the same factions the US is supporting also receive support from Iran; some of the factions that oppose the US receive support from Saudi Arabia. With that case, is staying in Iraq serving even our interests?
"Luigi Novi: ... If we leave, it's because we want to do the right thing. Because we're knee deep in the quagmire of a civil war."
Yes, a civil war which would NOT have occurred had the U.S. not gone stomping in and upset the balance of power. Remember the line "with great power there must come great responsibility"? It doesn't only apply to fictional charaters. The U.S. misused their 'great power' and now have a responsability to clean up after themselves. Either that, or abdicate their standing. And, if they do that, who takes over in their stead? The U.N.? Yeah, right.
I don't think America can fix the crisis in Iraq; it's the U.N. or nothing.
Yeah, I seem to have missed the vote to overthrow Saddam, too. In fact, I distinctly remember someone running for president in 2000 promising to never use our troops on a nation-building exercise. What was his name again?
Maybe the reason why Darth Cheney didn't blink so much is because the movement puts too much strain on his tiny heart.
Anyway, we have to separate the real mission from the marketing plan. We're not there to create democracy but to sercure our oil supply. Note that Chimpy even made a point of saying that they threaten "America's oil supply". But if it's our oil supply, why is under foreign countries?
Did the US break Iraq? No, it was full of violent people willing to kill each other long, long before we got there. Like, hundreds of years long ago. We did, however, remove the govnerment that had managed to keep most of those faction in check for the past 2 decades. Yet another misfire by Bush, assuming that simply because the average American wouldn't chop his neighbor's head off for professing a different religion, the rest of the world must be like that, too.
Do we need to stay to protect all the innocent Iraqis that aren't violently acting out? Well, it seems that even with us there, those folks are still in lots of danger. We don't have enough troops to personally protect every single Iraqi. And so long as we're there, any Iraqi government won't be able to do what it needs to in order to secure order. And what people don't seem to want to acknolwedge is that it took Hussien to control the violence in Iraq. And it might take another violent leader willing to be ruthless to control them now.
Democary only works when everyone agrees to let it work. Iraq has a long time to go before reaching that point. The US can't wait that long.
Actually, I don't think the job is done -- Iraq's oil is not completely owned by American petroleum companies yet...
--R.J.
Somehow the mission morphed, so that it is now to establish a moderate non-sectarian democracy. There doesn't seem to be a lot of support for that idea among actual Iraqis these days though (if there ever was). Nor does their current constitution exactly encourage that. In fact, in the last election, the kind of candidates the US supports went down in flames. And that was before things REALLY hit the fan. Bush's goal may be laudable, but it's not necessarily achievable, and 20,000 troops isn't going to make any difference in that.
True, Starwolf, but just because we created the mess doesn't mean that staying there will clean it up. By removing Saddam, we unleased a religious schism that goes back close to 1,400 years. It's a bit presumptuous, IMO, to think that if we stay (what, a year or two longer? Five? Ten?) will somehow resolve it. It's not a matter of knocking down a vase and sweeping away the pieces, mopping up the water and buying another vase of equal value. What we did may have been to open a Pandora's Box (cross the Rubicon, unscrew a lightbulb, pick whatever metaphor you want) that can't just be "undone". But if you can explain what we can do in another year or number of years to end the Sunni-Shiite schism (to say nothing of the terrorism problem that our invasion only helped escalate), I'll listen. :-)
Luigi: Captain Naraht has in prrior threads advocated a regional diplomatic solution that I believe would give us our best chance, albeit a slim one, to salvage something from the Iraq fiasco. I believe the idea has much merit.
I'd like to see us make some kind of good-faith effort to correct our mistakes in Iraq. By "good-faith," I mean one that takes into account the cultural, social, economic, and political realities of the region; that relies on accurate intelligence; and that builds sound strategies based on clear-eyed assessments of the facts. If such a good-faith effort failed, I think we could leave with a clearer conscience.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the Bush administration will allow for any such good-faith effort. I am at a point where I believe a swift withdrawal may be the best we can do at this point. I just wish I believed we could do better.
But if you can explain what we can do in another year or number of years to end the Sunni-Shiite schism (to say nothing of the terrorism problem that our invasion only helped escalate), I'll listen. :-)
I think there might be things. But they'll be things this administration will never do in a million years.
Huh.
See, what cracks me up right now is that there are idiots out there so desperate to praise Bush that they're saying that his SOTU the other night was his admission that he got things wrong before and that means we should now trust that his new plan is what he is going to use to fix those mistakes. We should just give him the chance to do it.
I'm sorry, no. There are two reasons that his plan will fail miserably.
The first is that the troop numbers he wants to use just won't cut it. 200,000 might be enough to get the job done. His surge won't even get close to doing the job.
The second reason is the idea behind the new plan. If we secure Baghdad, then we fix Iraq.
????????????
How much brain power does it really take to see the idiocy in this. That's like saying that all we need to do is pour all of California's Law Enforcement Agencies resources into L.A. and that will stop crime in the entire state.
Either do what you have to do and send in the proper number of troops needed or get out.
And even if they use the numbers needed, it's only a short term solution. I still don't believe that Iraq will be Bush's shiny new Middle East Democracy, even if we do everything right, for more then a year after we leave. They'll certainly not be happy with the U.S. over our selling off something like 70% of their oil fields to oil companies and thus gave away what used to be 80% or more of Iraq's revenue source.
I really wanna see us do the right thing in Iraq, but two more years of disastrous Bush leadership may create a situation where we have no chance left to do the right thing there. Congress either has to push Bush to follow the military advice of those who know what's needed and where it's needed or we have to get out. We can't continue to jog along on the wrong path like this. Course correct now or get out now.
Bush will do neither. The newly Democrat Congress will do neither. We're screwed. The troops are screwed. Iraq is screwed.
I hate Bush.
And about this SOTU speech.
Bush has shown previously that he will say one thing, yet do another.
Why do people continue to believe him?
"But if it's our oil supply, why is under foreign countries?"
I knew it should'a taken that left toin at Albaqoique...
If we don't stay the course, we are traitors.
If reason is treason then let us all be traitors.
Why do people continue to believe him?
Have the last 5 years not been Halliburton's most profitable? Did the medicare revision not dedicate $1.2 trillion to drug companies over 10 years? Haven't the wealthy been greatly relieved of the burden to repay these expenses, sapping middle-class savings? Do the readers of Moonie periodicals and Lennie Green Footballs not get to keep celebrating the deaths of Arab Muslims? Hasn't the kill ratio turned out to be 100-200 Iraqis per US soldier? And we still have over 100,000 soldiers to go. What isn't there to like about George W Bush?
Unfortunately we can`t turn the clock back. Yes, I absolutely agree with what PAD said. I also remember very well the "Mission accomplished" celebrations after Saddam`s fall. Already then I wondered, are the Americans really so naive and arrogant to believe that? I had a very bad feeling about this.
There are already a lot of troops in present day Iraq that do their very best to fight the symptoms here and there but that is no cure. Giving a so-called "new" strategy a chance is ridiculous because sending more people is not a new strategy whatsoever. You are just sending more people into a wild jungle that is getting constantly more dangerous and unstable.
I wish I had an answer but I am afraid, the damage is done and there is no way out. I see no reason for optimism. I certainly see no justification for sacrificing more lives in this mess.
The unfortunate truth is, you can`t enforce peace. Remove the dictator and all the conflicts that were suppressed come back to the surface. What happened in Iraq is no surprise, this pattern is nothing new. You can give advice, you can use political pressure, too but at the end, Iraq has to sort itself out.
Sending LOTS of troops in order to suppress the violence is not a solution unless you want to occupy Iraq forever.
Already then I wondered, are the Americans really so naive and arrogant to believe that?
Sadly, many of us are. But, when reality came home and it was painfully obvious that the "Mission Accomplished" celebration was premature, the Nero II administration did what any responsible government would do:
They blamed someone else for the banner.
Dude, it's not 5PM. It's five minutes to friggin' midnight. Time to go home already.
Bobb Alfred assumes Irak "was full of violent people willing to kill each other long, long before we got there. Like, hundreds of years long ago" and that Saddam's regime kept things in check while truth is quite the opposite.
Even tho shiite and sunni dont like each other, most muslim countries have a presence of both versions of Islam and they dont kill each other. Irak has been the military playground of Turks and Persians on many occasions, one a sunni empire, the other shiite, but neither ethnically nor culturally arab. On top of that, the Baaz party is a panarabist one, founded by an arab christian and open to all arabs no matter the religion.
Until Saddam came along.
During the war with shiite Iran, he became suspicious of iraki shiite population, purged them of any power in the military and politics and went so far as to forbid their religious practice. He tortured and killed them, allways as suspects of cooperating with Iran, wich they of course started to do. Saddam was not the glue keeping that place together, as many said about Tito. Saddam was the axe chopping it down to pieces.
Even so, most of the violence comes from salafist/wahabist fanatics that come from all over the world, eager to take on the chance to fight the USA. I heard some retired american general a few years ago complaining that this war only gave the terrorists a place where they can expect to find US soldiers easily.
...As to the subject of PAD post, I agree with Chris, the first commentator, as well as with many that followed in the same general direction.
If Cheney wants the job done he should do it himself...Oh wait he's got Helliburton lackies over there to support no-bid oil contracts...maybe Lynn Cheney can go do daddy's dirtywork.
This is what we get when we let the "Illuminati" pull the strings.
Ever notice you never see a smiling picture of Dick.
Last Dick we had in the White House didn't work out so well either.
".. is like saying that punching out the time clock at 5 PM is "bailing out."
Which - seriously - sounds like the mentality at far too many places I've worked over the years.
Or - jokingly! - shows what an easy life writers have :P
Seriously again, it's time to dodge out of Hell and bring the troops home.
"If we don't stay the course, we are traitors."
Sigh. NUTPOHS.
Cheers!
Whether the hatred between the Shia and the Sunnis in Iraq is centuries old or merely decades old is largely immaterial at this point. So is the fact that their counterparts in some other Islamic countries may get along better. That's like saying the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland don't have a long history of hating each other because Catholics and Protestants in other countries have been able to live peaceably together for centuries. The fact remains that they do hate each other and are killing each other in a sectarian civil war.
If the idea of sending more troops into Iraq shows one thing, it's that the people in charge aren't adaptable. I don't think all the troops that have ever worn an American uniform COMBINED being sent over to Iraq would solve the problem. This is only partially a military problem. It's more a cultural problem, and I think that's the biggest problem with all this. The people in charge just don't understand the Iraqi people. They AREN'T just like Americans that talk funny. IT's a whole different set of ideas and ideals. Until they DO understand this, and take steps to either fix their own misunderstanding of the situation or turn the reigns over to someone who DOES understand, I can't see much progress being made.
Now, as to the whole "Until the job is done" philosophy--until it's done to whose standards? How can we expect to know when the job is done when the people managing the job keep changing the job description?
Posted by: Peter J Poole at January 26, 2007 01:10 PM
Or - jokingly! - shows what an easy life writers have :P
Oh, man, you are gonna get PWNed...
On a more serious note, I understand why the U.S. ended up in Iraq: Saddam Hussein was Moby-Dick to George W. Bush's Ahab, and after Sept. 11, 2001, a wide swath of the U.S. public was willing to "drink the Kool-Aid," so to speak. I am less clear about what motivated Tony Blair to go against British public opinion and commit his country to this nightmare.
I'm not expecting you to have all the answers -- after all, I'm guessing you and Blair don't meet for drinks every night at the pub. But I thought I'd throw the question out there for discussion, in case you did have any insights you'd like to share.
All I know is that it's a dumbassed idea to pull an American military presence from a country when that gives nasty Evil Muslims (as opposed to any other kind of Muslim) an opportunity to take credit for defeating said American military.
Which seems to be a large problem with some of our wars. We get to leave just when it when makes us look the most weak or stupid.
The harm to the prestige of the US will be unfortunate, but it will not cuse much direct harm (if any )to the US. Tjis is not a good reason to stay in Iraq, especially considering that staying probably cases as much or more harm to US prestige. Yes, the terrorists will take credit for a victory and will be 'emboldened' but these people tend to be emboldened by anything, loss, victory, stalemate.
But, for those who support withdraw, don't lie to yourselves. The most optimistic scenario may be that the violence will dwindle as a result of US withdrawl. Or a slightly less optimistic scenario that the violence will remain in Iraq and keep the crazies busy slaughtering each other. But in the Middle East hoping for the best is a risk. It is quite likely that the killing and chaos will increase, sending refugees all over the place, and spread beyond Iraq threatening the stability of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and the Persian Gulf states.
The problem, IMHO, is incompetence of leadership. The top levels of government are incompetent to do the job. When a brief spark of actual, clear thought rears it's ugly head, the head attached rolls to be replaced by one that knows it's place.
The current administration is so concerned with staying on message and keeping the population in the dark that the idea of an actual examination of the war and how to get out is impossible.
The ugly, sad, fucked up truth is that to leave now would replace one giant disaster with another. The Bush League and it's crew of yes-men/women and well trained and assorted apologists and butt wipers have created such a weakened state that it can only get worse. The only thing keeping some really crazy people from rolling into Iraq now is the large US military presence.
In an ironic twist, it is that very military presence that makes the military presence necessary.
By the by, I'm thinking that May 1st should be declared "Mission Accomplished Day", dedicated to the memory of all half assed, unfinished, and unnecessary missions.
Piss off a Neo-con! Send a card!
Bill Myers raises the interesting point:
"I am less clear about what motivated Tony Blair to go against British public opinion and commit his country to this nightmare"
There are a couple of schools of thought on that one.
One is that Blair and Bush - despite being leaders of supposedly left and right wing parties - have a lot in common personally, agreeing on religious and pragmatic agendas. There certainly seems to have been a meeting in July 2002 where much of what was to come was thrashed out between them:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11050
A - possibly - deeper view comes when you look at Blair the person, who again and again seems like a man obsessed with making his mark on history, determined to be as close to centre stage as he can be, convinced of his own infallibility, ever eager to jump on the coat tails of people or events that he thinks will further this. He's currently a lame duck PM, supposedly due to hand over power to Gordon Brown 'real soon now' and potentially facing arrest over the 'cash for peerages' scandal:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1995512,00.html
One of my favourite quotes is: "The invasion of Iraq; the first time reporters have been imbedded in the front lines, the first time a British Prime Minister has been imbedded in the US president.."
Personally, I think pretty much everything Blair and New Labour have touched in 10 years of unchalleged power has turned to poop around them, and the sooner they are kicked out the better.
Cheers!
"I am less clear about what motivated Tony Blair to go against British public opinion and commit his country to this nightmare"
I think there is a certain appeal to the idea of taking action against dictators. In the past the west was criticized for accomdating murderous dictators in the name of pragmatic diplomacy, economic motives and so forth. In the 90s you already had attempts to use military force to deal with 'bad guys', first in Iraq and then in Somalia and Kosovo. It is much more appealing than the kind of pragmatism that is all too often necessary in international diplomacy. In a way it is a left wing kind of an idea. Some of the neo-cons were leftists who turned right.
yeah but are the Tories any better at this point? Nothing I've seen from them fills me with any hope--if anything they seem to be more nanny-state than New Labour. I'm not jumping up and down about the prospects here either but I sure don't envy your choices.
Ah well, maybe the world will come to it's senses and hand itself over to the Guy Party.
Peter J. Poole, thanks for a very illuminating response!
Bill Mulligan, never underestimate the Guy Party! We'll take the government by storm in '08!
Or we'll just fall asleep in front of the T.V. One or the other.
Posted by: Micha at January 26, 2007 09:51 PM
The harm to the prestige of the US will be unfortunate, but it will not cuse much direct harm (if any )to the US.
I'm not as confident as you are about that. Remember, a single assassination in the Balkans was the flashpoint that led to two World Wars. One can draw a number of parallels to the Middle East: the warring ethnic factions and the tangled mess of alliances come readily to mind.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the U.S. should only be concerned about our own safety. We're the cause of the current instability in Iraq, and if that instability spreads to neighboring countries, that too will be our responsibility. I'm just saying, I think the U.S. has a more direct stake in this than you believe.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at January 27, 2007 07:43 AM
"yeah but are the Tories any better at this point? Nothing I've seen from them fills me with any hope--if anything they seem to be more nanny-state than New Labour. I'm not jumping up and down about the prospects here either but I sure don't envy your choices"
Fair comment. The Tories have made a truly dreadful job of opposing New Labour and the latest leader, David 'call me Dave' Cameron sems determined to market himself as Blair-lite, which in a way is a pretty damning indictment of what you seem to need to be to win popular support.
I'm half hoping that if they do get in it'll be a case of "Right, now we're here let's drop the nonsense and get back to basics.."
I'm in an even more interesting situation as an Englishman living in Scotland, where there's a good chance the Scottish Nationalist Party will gain power in May, as one of their manifesto promises is to call a referendum on splitting the Union, making Scotland a seperate nation again after 300 years as part of Great Britain/the United Kingdom..
Cheers.
You tell them -- Scotland is FREE!
(Oh, c'mon. Like there weren't dozens of you tempted to post the same damn thing.)
Posted by: Micha at January 26, 2007 09:51 PM
"The harm to the prestige of the US will be unfortunate, but it will not cuse much direct harm (if any )to the US."
Posted by: Bill Myers at January 27, 2007 08:38 AM:
"I think the U.S. has a more direct stake in this than you believe."
Americans went to Iraq as a result of a Republican spin. I would prefer it if you decide to remain or leave Iraq based on reliable considerations. It is also very important for me to be truthful in presenting these things, since I'm not an American, I have my own vested interests, and there has been too much spinning, lying, and wishful thinking both from the right and left on this issue as on many others.
As I see it, the only direct risk to the US as a result of withdrawl from Iraq is that oil prices may rise ever further.
Yes the terrorists will be extremely proud of their victory, but it's not like they lacked motivation to attack US targets before, and the tools to prevent such attacks remain the same. So I don't know if there is much of an increased direct threat to the US. There is an increased threat to its moderate Muslim allies, and to a lesser degree to Israel.
A withdrawl from Iraq will alsi decrease the preception of power of the US, and may make it more difficult to pressure other countries diplomatically. But only to a certain degree. The US still has much power -- military, and more importantly, economic. Despite the disaster in Iraq, some strange things have been happening on the Syrian and Iranian fronts lately. I think some of the Iraninan elite are concerned about to economic harm that the sanctions will cause them, and they are a little fed up with Achminagad. So the direct harm to the US is not that great from that point of view either.
Former Iraninan president Hatami made comments to an Israeli journalist criticizing Achminagad. Of course, like everything else in the Middle East, this too should be taken with a grain (or a whole cup) of salt, and everything has double and triple meanings, but still, it is strange.
"I'm in an even more interesting situation as an Englishman living in Scotland, where there's a good chance the Scottish Nationalist Party will gain power in May, as one of their manifesto promises is to call a referendum on splitting the Union, making Scotland a seperate nation again after 300 years as part of Great Britain/the United Kingdom."
It's amazing that the Scots and English have kept seperate identities for so long.
...there has been too much spinning, lying, and wishful thinking both from the right and left...
What spinning, lying, and wishful thinking on the left are you referring to?
Posted by Micha at January 28, 2007 12:05 PM
"It's amazing that the Scots and English have kept seperate identities for so long"
Not entirely... It's arguably more amazing that the relationship hasn't had the same problems as still beset Northern Ireland.
Even with a simplistic version of British history, the Scots have been a distinct race for over 2000 years, while the English have been forged over the same period by layers of Romans, then Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and then Normans.
The Union was very much a marriage of mutual convenience, and the religious ups and downs of the last 300 years have been more within both nation than between nations.
As for Braveheart... I live 12 miles from the site of the Battle of Stirling. It was fun at the time the film came out, mentioning it to a local and watching him get totally locked between the absolute outrage at the liberties taken with history and the thought of all that Yankee tourist money...
Though it has recently been one in the eye for all those who said Mel Gibson couldn't play a convincing Scot. Ten years on, and he's a drunken loud-mouthed religious bigot... :)
Cheers!
I usually ignore Mike for obvious reasons, but I think I should address this because I misspoke, and I should correct myself.
I wrote:
"there has been too much spinning, lying, and wishful thinking both from the right and left"
The experience with left-wing politics comes from my support and later involvement with the Israeli left. Although I still support its positions, the Israeli left have been guilty at times of wishful thinking and intellectual dishonesty that greatly harmed our credibility (especially with regard to taking terrorism seriously). This has made me very wary of certain left wing attitudes, if for no other reason because I find the right wing spins easier to spot. I've also encountered some intellectual dishonesty and naivity coming from left wing circles outside Israel, but I'm not that familiar with the American left, so I was wrong to use such a wide brush, especially since my point was that we should analyze the threats and benefits of withdrawl in Iraq cautiously and rationally with intellectual honesty.
On the general level my experience has taught me that intellectual dishonesty can occur both in the left and the right. I'm very cautious with the left because this is the side I usually instinctually support.
Micah, I have to ask because I can't seem to lock down a reliable answer: What happened to the captured Israeli soldiers who were the trigger for the war six months ago?
PAD
Anyone who thinks their side doesn't engage in some spinning, lying, and wishful thinking is probably simply too dumb to recognize it or too dishonest to admit it.
A thinking person has the responsibility to at least try to see the falsehoods even when they come from the side that has one's sympathies. Some partisans on both sides will refuse to do this but that's part of what makes it hard to take them seriously.
And I think in the long run it opens an opportunity--right now a candidate who is able to come across as a straight shooter, willing to speak what they see as the truth even if it goes against the conventional tenents of their party has a good chance of appealling to the independents and thinkers on both sides--a hard combination to beat.
"Micah, I have to ask because I can't seem to lock down a reliable answer: What happened to the captured Israeli soldiers who were the trigger for the war six months ago?"
Gilad Shalit, the soldier who was taken into Gaza is still captive. There are talks involving the Hamas, Israel and Egypt about prisoner exchange going on all the time, with one side or the other making optimistic proclamations. But the soldier is still captive, and it seems that the reason we have not been able to get him back in exchange for Palestinian prisoners has more to do with internal Palestinian politics than anything else. It is also a great embarassment for Israel that no intelligence is available for a rescue attempt. For all we know they could have smuggled him into Sinai.
The two soldiers that were taken by Hizballa are also still captive. We have some (not many) Hizballa prisoners from the war, but I don't know of any negotiations. Both Nasseralla and Olmert have their hands full right now. The Hizballa is a very tight organization, so a rescue attempt does not seem to be an option (not that I would know if it was).
Of course the reason for the war wasn't really the kidnapped soldiers, any more than a murder in Sarajevo was the reason for WWI. There were two interrelated reasons for the war:
1) The HIzballa has built a mini state in Southern Lebanon, armed to the teeth, and were attacking across the border (in a disputed area) repeatedly without impunity ever since the unilateral withdrawl from Lebanon.
2) The Israeli prime minister won the elections on a platform of unilateral withdrawl. The fact that in a brief time after his victory Israel was attacked from both areas it withdrew from, put him in a very difficult situation.
Since the war was conducted badly now he is in a very bad situation, and the support for withdrawl or peace has diminished.
Peter, I should also add that the families of the soldiers have been capaigning in Israel and abroad to get something moving, including a demonstration, I think. But the truth is there is little that they can do except extort promises from European politicians that they will try to do something.
Peter J. Poole, don't let the Scots put you down. The Scots were not a distinct race 2000 years ago.
Here is what the Britannica has to say:
"From about AD 400 there was a long period for which written evidence is scanty. Four peoples--the Picts, the Scots, the Britons, and the Angles--were eventually to merge and thus form the kingdom of Scots.
The Picts occupied Scotland north of the Forth. Their identity has been much debated, but they possessed a distinctive culture, seen particularly in their carved symbol stones. Their original language, presumably non-Indo-European, has disappeared; some Picts probably spoke a Brythonic Celtic language. Pictish unity may have been impaired by their apparent tradition of matrilineal succession to the throne.
The Scots, from Dalriada in northern Ireland, colonized the Argyll area, probably in the late 5th century. Their continuing connection with Ireland was a source of strength to them, and Scots Gaelic and Irish (Goidelic Celtic languages) did not become distinct from one another until the late Middle Ages. Scottish Dalriada soon extended its cultural as well as its military sway east and south, though one of its greatest kings, Aidan, was, in 603, defeated by the Angles at Degsastan near the later Scottish border.
The Britons, speaking a Brythonic Celtic language, colonized Scotland from farther south, probably from the first century BC onward. They lost control of southeastern Scotland to the Angles in the early 7th century AD. The British heroic poem Gododdin describes a stage in this process. The British kingdom of Strathclyde in southwestern Scotland remained, with its capital at Dumbarton.
The Angles were Teutonic-speaking invaders from across the North Sea. Settling from the 5th century, they had by the early 7th century created the kingdom of Northumbria, stretching from the Humber to the Forth. A decisive check to their northward advance was administered in 685 by the Picts at the Battle of Nechtansmere in Angus."
"Viking raids on the coasts of Britain began at the end of the 8th century, Lindisfarne and Iona being pillaged in the 790s. By the mid-9th century, Norse settlement of the western and northern isles and of Caithness and Sutherland had begun, probably owing largely to overpopulation on the west coast of Norway. During the 10th century, Orkney and Shetland were ruled by Norse earls nominally subject to Norway. In 1098 Magnus II Barefoot, king of Norway, successfully asserted his authority in the northern and western isles and made an agreement with the king of Scots on their respective spheres of influence. A mid-12th-century earl of Orkney, Ragnvald, built the great cathedral at Kirkwall in honour of his martyred uncle St. Magnus.
The Norse legacy to Scotland was long-lasting. In the mid-12th century there was a rising against the Norse in the west under a native leader, Somerled, who drove them from the greater part of mainland Argyll. A Norwegian expedition of 1263 under King Haakon IV failed to maintain the Norse presence in the Hebrides, and three years later they were ceded to Scotland by the Treaty of Perth. In 1468-69 the northern isles of Orkney and Shetland were pawned to Scotland as part of a marriage settlement with the crown of Denmark-Norway. A Scandinavian language, the Norn, was spoken in these Viking possessions, and some Norse linguistic influence is discernible in Shetland to the present day."
"Up to the 11th century the unification was the work of a Scots Gaelic-speaking dynasty, and there is place-name evidence of the penetration of Gaelic south of the Forth. But from then on, the Teutonic English speech that had come to Scotland from the kingdom of Northumbria began to attain mastery, and Gaelic began its slow retreat north and west. This is not obscured by the fact that, from the 12th century onward, Anglo-Norman was for a time the speech of the leaders of society in England and Scotland alike."
"David I was by marriage a leading landowner in England and was well known at the English court. He was, nevertheless, an independent monarch, making Scotland strong by drawing on English cultural and organizational influences. Under him and his successors many Anglo-Norman families came to Scotland, and their members were rewarded with lands and offices. Among the most important were the Bruces in Annandale, the de Morvilles in Ayrshire and Lauderdale, and the Fitzalans, who became hereditary High Stewards and who, as the Stewart dynasty, were to inherit the throne, in Renfrewshire. (After the 16th century the Stewart dynasty was known by its French spelling, "Stuart.")"
The Scots have their layers too. Just like the English. Everybody does.
It seems to me that the divide with Ireland is the result both of the religious difference -- Ireland was subjugated at a time where the difference between Catholics and Protestants was an important political issue -- and the socio-economic difference -- English landlords dominated Irish pesants.
I've visted Scotland 5 or 6 years ago. The tour guides sure like to make fun of Mel Gibson even then. One of them mentioned that next to the William Wallace monument there is now a monument for Mel.
You tell them -- the Scots were not a distinct race 2,000 years ago!
Huh. Doesn't have the same ring to it...
Bill, it works better if you say it in a fake scotish accent while wearing a kilt and brandishing a big sword. Everything said under these circumstances sounds tough.
Bill, it works better if you say it in a fake scotish accent while wearing a kilt and brandishing a big sword.
You could also hold a weapon. F'nar! F'nar!
I'm also told the Scotts did not do the blue makeup stuff by the time of Wallace either. Too bad. Don't know why they would have given that up. Frankly, we ought to be trying it in Iraq.
Sigh... Micha, I really should be at the drawing board right now. But I really feel compelled to respond to one of your posts (or I feel really compelled to procrastinate; it's one or the other).
Posted by: Micha at January 28, 2007 12:03 PM
Americans went to Iraq as a result of a Republican spin.
That's overly simplistic.
The U.S. was not the only nation to believe that Iraq may have had secret stockpiles of W.M.D.s in violation of the terms of its 1991 surrender to the U.S. And it's not like the suspicions were unreasonable. Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past; and he had either refused arms inspections or played games with U.N. inspectors on several occasions, making it difficult at best to know for sure whether he continued to have such an arsenal.
Soon after the fall of Hussein's regime, I read a newspaper article about an Iraqi scientist who was either captured or surrendered. He told an interesting story, claiming that he and his fellow scientists were basically bullshitting Hussein. They allegedly fooled him into believing they were working on chemical and biological weapons for him, while he indulged a new hobby of writing romance novels. If they could fool Hussein into believing he had an active W.M.D. program, it's reasonable to believe they could have also fooled foreign intelligence agencies as well.
(As an aside, the whole bit about Hussein writing romance novels to this day still cracks me up.
("He took her in his strong, sinewy arms. His firm yet gentle hands removed her veil, revealing her supple and firm... uhm, face.")
Anyway, it is true that George W. Bush cherry-picked intelligence to exaggerate the evidence of W.M.D.s. The evidence we had of W.M.D.s prior to the invasion was certainly nowhere near as strong as Bush portrayed it. But neither did the evidence disprove their existence.
After Sept. 11, 2001, people were scared. Moreover, I believe there was a desire for national unity that led many Democrats to rally 'round the president and give him the benefit of the doubt. These two were part of the mix that resulted in the U.S. once again marching off to fight a questionable war.
The argument, by the way, that we cannot wait for a "smoking gun" that may come "in the form of a mushroom cloud" was not entirely without merit. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were made possible in part by the inability of our law enforcement, intelligence-gathering, and military organizations to foresee an attack using commercial jetliners as weapons. At the time of the attacks, all of our responses were based on the idea that an attack would come in the form of missiles fired from ships near our shores. In fact, when those in command attempted to instruct U.S. fighter jets to protect the capital many pilots mistakenly flew towards the ocean, because all of their training conditioned them to expect a conventional attack. Cheney soon gave the order to fire on any civilian jets that did not obey orders to make an emergency landing, but that order never made it to the pilots, because no one could wrap their mind around the idea that such a thing could be necessary.
The point is that we were taken unawares. And in the age of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, we can't afford to be taken unawares again. Because the next attack could be even more devastating.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, however, let me be clear: I opposed the idea of an invasion from the very day Bush first began talking publicly about it. Moreover, I believe Bush's distortion of the evidence -- whether it was a calculated act or the result of being blinded by an obsession with Iraq -- was unconscionable. We should never have gone to war over evidence that was so thin. It wasn't sensible, and it wasn't moral.
Nevertheless, I believe that saying the invasion was solely the result of a "Republican spin" is far too simplistic.
Posted by: Micha at January 28, 2007 12:03 PM
I would prefer it if you decide to remain or leave Iraq based on reliable considerations.
So do I. As I have repeatedly stated in multiple threads in this blog, I believe the decision to invade Iraq was based on flawed premises resulting from a failure to gather the necessary facts and assess them objectively.
Posted by: Micha at January 28, 2007 12:03 PM
As I see it, the only direct risk to the US as a result of withdrawl from Iraq is that oil prices may rise ever further.
I doubt many people predicted that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would have been the domino that led to two World Wars. Or, if you prefer a more recent example, I don't think many people predicted that the assistance we gave to resistance fighters in Afghanistan would eventually come back to bite us in the ass in the form of Sept. 11, 2001.
History is to me like a game of chess, only much more complicated. One move can have many unforeseen ramifications. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that a rapid pullout from Iraq could in fact have significant consequences for the United States.
Posted by: Micha at January 28, 2007 12:03 PM
Yes the terrorists will be extremely proud of their victory, but it's not like they lacked motivation to attack US targets before, and the tools to prevent such attacks remain the same.
Again, in my view you're being too simplistic. Iraq was not a "third world" country when we invaded. Granted, we trashed a lot of the infrastructure when we invaded. But there's a lot there that terrorists could use. If Iraq were to be taken over by a radical Shiite government sympathetic too -- or controlled by -- Iran, I believe there could be deadly repercussions for the U.S., especially in light of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I believe our invasion of Iraq was an abuse of our power. We have put an already unstable region of the world at risk of further destabilization. We had no business doing so. The world is not our playground. But what'd done is done. The question now is whether we'll cause more damage to Iraq, to the Middle East, and to our own national security by pulling out rapidly.
I wish I knew the answer.
Peter J. Poole: As for Braveheart... I live 12 miles from the site of the Battle of Stirling. It was fun at the time the film came out, mentioning it to a local and watching him get totally locked between the absolute outrage at the liberties taken with history...
Luigi Novi: Yeah, kinda hard to have the Battle of Stirling Bridge..........without the bridge.
It's still one of my favorite war movies though.
Watching the (apparently realistic) depiction of the killing power of the long bow it's a wonder to me that the gun ever had the chance to take off. Until fairly late in the game guns were innacurate, took a long time to load and pretty vulnerable top the elements--factors the longbow didn't have to face.
Then again, the gun had psychological impact, required far less training and skill and after seeing the way compound bows are made I'm not so sure that the guns were even more difficult to build. I guess the impact of the solid ball bullets also did more damage than the arrows did.
But damn, that had to be terrifying, hearing those things coming at you.
("He took her in his strong, sinewy arms. His firm yet gentle hands removed her veil, revealing her supple and firm... uhm, face.")
An aspiring graphic storyteller -- especially with the comics industry in decline -- may do well to acquaint himself with the 1,001 (Arabian) Nights.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were made possible in part by the inability of our law enforcement, intelligence-gathering, and military organizations to foresee an attack using commercial jetliners as weapons.
I don't buy this at all.
We knew such an attack was possible, we just preferred to remain ignorant of it.
Bill Myers, you're preaching to the choir when it comes to the justifications for Iraq. I've used the same arguments myself.
But do you think the word 'spin' is too strong a word to describe a situation in which certain considerations (supporting war), combined with the understandable fears of a nation, are highlighted, while other important considerations (why going to Iraq is a mistake) are ignored? It may not be out right lying -- Bush and the neocons were probably sincere. Perhaps you feel the word 'spin' creates to strong an impression of lying. But my intent was not to be oversimplistic (in the constraints of posting in a blog), but to warn about considering different considerations of an issue, and that different groups have a tendancy to highlight one consideration while ignoring others. What would be a better word than 'spin'?
As for the fact that other countries supported the war. That's true, but Bush lead and they followed. So they accepted Bush's arguments or had other considerations, but the initiative and justifications/spin came from the White House.
"History is to me like a game of chess, only much more complicated. One move can have many unforeseen ramifications."
That's true. It is very difficult. But you have to play the game. What the right (especially in Israel) sometimes does is play on justified fears of negative forseen and unforseen ramifications in order to paralyze the willingness of the people to examine other options. In the US you call it "stay the course." Of course the left is sometimes guilty of ignoring possible negative ramifications of their actions (just like the right), so it is important to take all considerations into account, which is very hard, and be willing to take risks, but not too much. It's a hard game, especially when, aside from all the wishfull thinking and spinning you have people who outright lie (like Saddam and his people, or Shalabi).
It is in the spirit of taking all considerations into account that I try to examine the different ramifications of withdrawl from Iraq.
"Iraq was not a "third world" country when we invaded. Granted, we trashed a lot of the infrastructure when we invaded. But there's a lot there that terrorists could use. If Iraq were to be taken over by a radical Shiite government sympathetic too -- or controlled by -- Iran, I believe there could be deadly repercussions for the U.S., especially in light of Iran's nuclear ambitions."
What would radical Shiites gain after capturing Iraq (assuming they can do that) except oil and coming closer to the other Arab countries, that they don't have in Iran right now? The military equipment they might gain will not be a direct threat to the distant and better armed US. anymore than the arms of other nations. Although the US should try not to leave expensive US equipment behind. There is the threat that oil revenues might purchase more weapons, but even that is not such a great direct threat to the US, although you may want to pressure Russia and China not to sell weapons to such a regime, assuming the Shia are actually able to take over and fix the country enough to rebuild an army. When I try desperatly to look for a silver lining in all of this, I hope Iraq will become an economic drain on Iran.
The lesson of wars like Iraq and Vietnam is that guerillas armed with light weapons can cause many problems to a large and heavily armed army like the US's. Such tactics can be used against other American targets abroad, and maybe even reach the US. But since the US is so distant, the advantage diminishes the furter they get from Iraq. Anyway, the ability of terrorists to reach you is not significantly diminished by being in Iraq except that they have closer targets in the form of American soldiers. And worrying about the fact that they may have more guns or more missiles or more bombs, considering the amount of weapons terrorists around the world have, seems pointless. Maybe a year from now a plane in Italy will be shot down by a rocket that will originate from Iraq. Or an American diplomat wil be murdered by an Iraqi. But is it worth remaining in Iraq to keep this missle or this terrorist busy hitting Americans in Iraq?
You should note that I speak of direct threats to the US to distinguish them from threats to countries in the Middle East. As a person living in the middle east it is probably better for me if the US stays, but it is important to me to seperate my considerations as an Israeli from your considerations as Americans.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were made possible in part by the inability of our law enforcement, intelligence-gathering, and military organizations to foresee an attack using commercial jetliners as weapons.
That's simply untrue as, like Bush's infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US" memo, it has since come out that Rice was briefed on such a scenario. In the news it was contrasted with her televised statement that no one predicted the use of planes as weapons.
In July 2001, flight schools were reporting Arab students who weren't interested in learning how to land airplanes, local FBI offices were asking to do surveillance, and the DC office arbitrarily told them no.
Here is a good example for the spins, the counter-spins, the chess game, the risks and so on.
We had a little sucide bombing in Eilat (Southen tip of the country). 3 dead. First suicide ttack in quite some time. The guy came from Gaza. Since he couldn't get directly into Israel he probably went to Sinai and from there crossed to Israel, althogh his organization -- the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad -- claims he came throgh Jordan, and that this was a the result of 7 months of perparations. The Jordanians deny. Apparently there was no specific intelligence of the attack. It seems that he operated the bomb earlier than planned, maybe bercause he thought he was spotted, resulting in less deaths. I don't know if he acquired the explosived from the 30 tons allegedly smuggled into Gaza from Sinai.
These are the facts, now begin the spins:
Why was the border with Egypt not better secured?
Why did we withdraw from Gaza?
Why did we withdraw from Sinai?
Peace s impossible?
If we negotiated peace the attack wouldn't have happened?
The attack is legitimate resistence to the occupation?
The attack is by the an extremist minority?
The attack is by Iran?
And so on....
Posted by: Micha at January 29, 2007 08:19 AM
But do you think the word 'spin' is too strong a word to describe a situation in which certain considerations (supporting war), combined with the understandable fears of a nation, are highlighted, while other important considerations (why going to Iraq is a mistake) are ignored?
No, I don't think it's too strong a word. Not at all. I was just trying to point out that the "spin" existed in a historical context that one must consider in order to truly understand how we got to where we are today.
Posted by: Micha at January 29, 2007 08:19 AM
It may not be out right lying -- Bush and the neocons were probably sincere.
I suspect there was some outright lying, actually, including some by George W. Bush himself. But I also believe there were many --
including some in Congress -- who truly believed, albeit foolishly, that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Posted by: Micha at January 29, 2007 08:19 AM
As for the fact that other countries supported the war. That's true, but Bush lead and they followed.
Actually, what I was referring to was the fact that even some of the countries that opposed the war believed that Hussein may have possessed stockpiles of W.M.D.s.
Posted by: Micha at January 29, 2007 08:19 AM
What would radical Shiites gain after capturing Iraq (assuming they can do that) except oil and coming closer to the other Arab countries, that they don't have in Iran right now?
Greater influence in the region, for one thing. Iran, Iraq, and Syria could form a true "Axis of Evil" and one that could be dangerous to the U.S.
Posted by: Micha at January 29, 2007 08:19 AM
As a person living in the middle east it is probably better for me if the US stays, but it is important to me to seperate my considerations as an Israeli from your considerations as Americans.
Why, exactly, should that not be a consideration for the U.S.? We blundered into Iraq, unprepared for consequences that were easily foreseeable. We created a mess that endangers people in your region. Why should we not at least consider staying to clean up the mess we made?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at January 29, 2007 01:01 AM
I don't buy this at all.
We knew such an attack was possible, we just preferred to remain ignorant of it.
You have a point there, Craig. It would probably be more accurate to say that our leaders weren't agile enough to adjust their thinking in response to evidence of the threat of an unconventional attack. I think my basic point still stands, though: we got caught with our pants down because all of our defense strategies and tactics were geared toward repelling a more conventional attack. I believe one of the lessons of Sept. 11, 2001, is that we cannot discount the possiblity of certain types of attacks merely because they haven't happened before.
Unfortunately, Bush took this very reasonable assertion and spun it into a not-so-reasonable rationale for invading Iraq.
"Micah, I have to ask because I can't seem to lock down a reliable answer: What happened to the captured Israeli soldiers who were the trigger for the war six months ago?"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3358831,00.html
Reuters Published: 01.30.07, 13:30:
"Nasrallah says Israel prisoner swap talks still on
Hizbullah chief tells supporters in Beirut that negotiations are underway to liberate kidnapped Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Nasrallah stresses 'resistance has not weakened,' as crowd chants 'Death to Israel'
UN-mediated indirect talks for a prisoner exchange between Israel and Hizbullah are still going on, the Hizbullah's head Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday.
The secretive negotiations are designed to secure the release of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, whose capture in a cross-border raid on July 12 last year ignited a 34-day war between Israel and Hizbullah, in return for Lebanese and Arab prisoners.
"The captives, we are negotiating and the negotiations are underway to liberate them," Nasrallah told a large crowd attending the annual Shiite Ashura religious ceremony in Beirut's southern suburb.
Nasrallah, who had claimed the war was a divine victory for Hizbullah, reiterated that Hizbullah's will to fight Israel would never be weakened.
"I stress that the resistance is ready... And those who think that the resistance have been weakened or it's now in despair or tired, those are delusional," he said to chants of "Death to Israel".
Nasrallah announced in November that indirect talks, through a UN-appointed German negotiator, had begun to broker an exchange deal.
Very little have been heard on the talks since. Israel says the soldiers were seriously wounded when they were seized and Hizbullah has refused to say whether the men were dead or alive."
-------------
Of course, Nasseralla has his own internal political considerations -- he must also explain to his people where are their captives, and what the war has acheived for them. So, as usual, you have to take his words with a grain of salt.