Are We Winning the War?

[Boz]

Those tactics seem odd, uncharacteristic somehow -- not that I am an expert by any means.

I wonder if this incident wasn't more drug-related. (not that the two are mutually exclusive).

No political posturing this time, just musing.

[Z]

Jun 3, 2008 14:18:57 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I think there have been no attacks over the last several years against the U.S. interests both at home and abroad. No USS Cole, no US embassies, no Marine barracks, etc. whereas in prior years there had been. Attacks on US interests abroad seem to have been confined to Iraq. I choose to think the Bush policies were an important factor in this, though not the only factor.

congrats on your foresight, other than the whole "muti-trillion dollar-iraq-debacle-your-grandkids-will-pay-for" thing and the "more-U.S. casualties-in-iraq-than-9-11" thing. but the with respect to the embassies in sub-saharan africa, you have a point.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

[hifigator]

Jul 16, 2008 3:49:05 GMT -5 Z said:

Jun 3, 2008 14:18:57 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I think there have been no attacks over the last several years against the U.S. interests both at home and abroad. No USS Cole, no US embassies, no Marine barracks, etc. whereas in prior years there had been. Attacks on US interests abroad seem to have been confined to Iraq. I choose to think the Bush policies were an important factor in this, though not the only factor.

congrats on your foresight, other than the whole "muti-trillion dollar-iraq-debacle-your-grandkids-will-pay-for" thing and the "more-U.S. casualties-in-iraq-than-9-11" thing. but the with respect to the embassies in sub-saharan africa, you have a point.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

I'd like to tell you to blow it out your a$$, but that probably isn't allowed. In all seriousness, I think your total disregard for the valid points that ed made is ridiculous. If you want your points to have any validity, then at least try to debate in a realistic fashion. Here is an example:

trillion dollar-iraq-debacle-your-grandkids-will-pay-for

War is expensive, no doubt. We are certainly going into debt. No argument here. (Not that such a point in any way refutes anything ed said.)


more-U.S. casualties-in-iraq-than-9-11

I regret the death of every single American (and most others as well). In any case, I regret the death of every American and most certainly, every soldier. They do a tremendous job by and large and deserve every bit of praise and honor we can give them. Yes, the death toll is greater in the 7 years of the war on terror than on the day that ultimately initiated it. (Not that such a point in anyway refutes anything ed said.)


but the with respect to the embassies in sub-saharan africa, you have a point.



So do you, but if you wear a hat no one will notice it. In all seriousness, I think that thinking of the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in uniformity with the USS Cole, WTC 1, disco in Berlin and 9/11 among others, is appropriate. Whether you recognize it or not, there are a lot of very dangerous people out there. Many of them are total nuts. Disregarding each and every single one of them, until he or she successfully carries out an attack has now been proven to be the wrong path. But as you point out, nothing you said refutes anything ed said.

[SirSaxa]

Jul 16, 2008 13:55:12 GMT -5 hifigator said:

In all seriousness, I think that thinking of the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in uniformity with the USS Cole, WTC 1, disco in Berlin and 9/11 among others, is appropriate..

Well, OK.

But Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the attacks in your list.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Glenn Carle:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102710.html

Hey, I think this guy might know something about all this ... (and I eagerly await a classic neocon response).

[hifigator]

Jul 16, 2008 14:09:43 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Jul 16, 2008 13:55:12 GMT -5 hifigator said:

In all seriousness, I think that thinking of the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in uniformity with the USS Cole, WTC 1, disco in Berlin and 9/11 among others, is appropriate..

Well, OK.

But Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the attacks in your list.

Fair enough, and that is certainly a valid point on its own. But it ignores the larger scale picture. The whole point was that we have got to get away from this "criminal justice system" style of approach. We can't treat the war on terror like we do rapists, murderers, crooks or arsonists. In those cases we are looking specifically at what this particular person did. In the war on terror we are looking for who the person is. That is a major distinction that keeps getting neglected. We aren't, and shouldn't be looking at it as which particular terrorist group planned and executed which particular attack. The enemy, are the radicals who would do us -- and much of the rest of the world that don't agree with them -- harm.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

hifi have you seen Minority Report by any chance?

[SirSaxa]

Or have you ever heard of the domestic equivalent? Stopping people for "Driving while black"?

[EasyEd]

To address the subject of this thread - we are on the verge of an outstanding victory in Iraq, thanks mostly to the actions of a democratically-elected government and that of the people of Iraq. And this is being accomplished despite almost universal doubts in this country that it would ever happen. There are still many mountains to climb there but there is much higher than a 50% probability there will be a democratic Iraq behind when the U.S. removes its forces.

As for Iraq, it is also a tremendous accolade to President Bush who, despite many in his own party and almost all of the opposition party - as well as the press - wanting him to pull out a mere 18 months ago. Through the leadership of Gen. Petraeus and the skills of the officers and men under him, they are in the process of gaining not only a military victory but one where the Iraqi government has been given time to function as a real government.

What appears to be happening in Iraq is what the much-despised "neo-cons" had in mind all along - that of transforming Iraq into a near-democratic society that will serve as a beacon to the rest of the area. It is sure to trigger a desire for some of the same by the Iranian people.

The war in Afghanistan is a different story because defining victory is much more difficult. We will never gain what could be called victory because of the situation where Pakistan shields much of what remains of Ben Laden and company. There will always be a Taliban and always those who believe Islam demands destruction of all infidels. So the most that can be hoped for is to reduce the level of violence to a smaller level and give the government of Afghanistan a more peaceful country. There will never be a "Mission Accomplished" sign posted there.

[hifigator]

c2c, No.

Sir, I think you are taking it way too far now. Certainly there have been instances of racial profiling as you suggest and I have a black friend who is always telling me about assorted driving while black instances. Sometimes when he's riding with me he will point out that I did a "rolling stop," and didn't come to a complete stop. Then he throws in something like "white people can get away with that, but not us." I honestly don't know how much of that is a legitimate concern and how much is a hangover from such racial issues in the past. In any case that isn't remotely what I was talking about.

What I was talking about was that for decades there were organized followings of radicals who would talk bad about America and the west in general. They would threaten all kinds of things. They would preach hate speach. That was fine when words were their only weapon. Then real attacks started. Primarily they were in the form of isolated and relatively minor variety. But they have systematically gotten more and more severe. We are well past the time to look the other direction and wait until each of these assorted groups grows to the point where they can carry out serious attacks such as many of the ones mentioned. I think the strategy of trying to wait until there is an attack. And then trying to determine specifically which particular group carried out the attack and which particular source funded the particular attack is looney. That is what I am talking about. I'm not saying we should irradicate all muslims or any of the sort. But we do need to take the radical groups seriously immediately and view them all in the same light. Do you see the difference?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Jul 17, 2008 13:08:59 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

To address the subject of this thread - we are on the verge of an outstanding victory in Iraq, thanks mostly to the actions of a democratically-elected government and that of the people of Iraq. And this is being accomplished despite almost universal doubts in this country that it would ever happen. There are still many mountains to climb there but there is much higher than a 50% probability there will be a democratic Iraq behind when the U.S. removes its forces.

As for Iraq, it is also a tremendous accolade to President Bush who, despite many in his own party and almost all of the opposition party - as well as the press - wanting him to pull out a mere 18 months ago. Through the leadership of Gen. Petraeus and the skills of the officers and men under him, they are in the process of gaining not only a military victory but one where the Iraqi government has been given time to function as a real government.

What appears to be happening in Iraq is what the much-despised "neo-cons" had in mind all along - that of transforming Iraq into a near-democratic society that will serve as a beacon to the rest of the area. It is sure to trigger a desire for some of the same by the Iranian people.

The war in Afghanistan is a different story because defining victory is much more difficult. We will never gain what could be called victory because of the situation where Pakistan shields much of what remains of Ben Laden and company. There will always be a Taliban and always those who believe Islam demands destruction of all infidels. So the most that can be hoped for is to reduce the level of violence to a smaller level and give the government of Afghanistan a more peaceful country. There will never be a "Mission Accomplished" sign posted there.

I think that there are several problems with your analysis. I think that the claim that the surge is working is premature. For a democracy to flourish you need several things: a government that has a monopoly on force, trust in the judicial process, organizations that contribute to civil society, the ability to peacefully transfer power between opposing groups, and a workable economy. Currently Iraq has none of those things. Elections and a semi-stable Prime Ministership do not mean that Iraq is an emerging democracy or on the right track.

While there are more US troops in the area, they and the Iraqi forces do not have a monopoly on force in the area. There are still bombings and many militias are simply separated from one another by walls. This is not a victory, its a temporary cease fire amongst rival groups. Until these groups start dismantling their capacity to muster their forces in short order. This use of force to solve disputes also shows a lack of faith in the judicial process.

Groups comprising civil society are also not contributing to its growth or building a democracy. The majority of Iraqi society is still divided along retrenched ethnic lines. The walling off of portions of Baghdad have done little to help this. This also makes it difficult for Iraqi political groups that represent these groups to form the coalitions critical to democratic government.

We also have not come up with a workable solution for how distribute the oil revenues in Iraq. Without a compromise on how these revenues are distributed, there are likely to be resource driven conflicts amongst sectarian groups if this compromise isn't reached.

We were wrong to go to war in Iraq. We failed to manage the country shortly after we defeated the Baathist government - and as a result we were hit with a spate of violence. The lack of a political and social resolution to the violence means that we are only in an ebb in the violence, not a resolution to an ill-advised war.

[Boz]

Jul 17, 2008 16:38:14 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

We were wrong to go to war in Iraq.

Allow me to break out an old chestnut from the early days of Hoyatalk.......

....OPINION, NOT FACT!!!
;D ;D

Who was it who used to say that all the time? I can't remember. Was it PBR?

[Bando]

Everyone realizes that "winning the surge" and "winning the war" are not, in fact, the same things at all, right?