[Crackaces]

First, I think it is an interesting step in our democracy that we can tune in to hundreds of channels and find whomever that agrees with us. The sadness is that the debate has been reduced to Clinton failed to get Bin Laden and Bush Lied people died. The debate in my opinion is far more fundamental and far more important than people getting rich off oil.

Here are the mistakes and miscalculations our president made:

The president assumed that 911 provided infinite political will from the people and commitment from congress to escalate the Light Intensity conflcit that had been secretly engaged for 20 years into a Medium Intensity conflict. The advantage was to compress the time-lines at a cost of political will and beans, bullets and butts. Clearly this country does not want to pay such a cost.Now we are in a MIC again with no public support.

The president badly estimated the reaction in Iraq. Thinking more like how the Ukrainians greeted the Germans not how thousands of years of history in the area. Many very bad decisions came from this including the thought that implementing democracy would have immediate positive effects.

OK that said ...

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO NEXT???? Retreat at this point would embolden our enemies and increase our problems. Can we deescalate this war into a LIC again?

WHAT IS THE REAL QUESTION ON TERRORISM? Is this a legal problem where terrorist are something like the mafia? (Democrats view) Are terrorist agents of the sponsoring country and we escalate the extension of political will to those nations i.e. war? (Bush Doctrine)

Ahhhh so much easier to not think about this and espouse emotional talking points .... :wink:

[golfhobo]

Good post, CrackAces! Bush actually called that "political will" Political Capital! Well... I think it is spent! Bankrupt almost!

I DON'T support any "cut and run" philosophy, and consider those who use it against us "Dems" as disingenous and dishonest. NONE of us want to see us LOSE this war.... but we ARE losing it. Some just won't admit it.

What to do next? I like your "de-escalation" idea. NOT negotiation or capitulation, but some way to get our troops out of the crossfire. I've heard rumblings of ideas about a "Pan-Arab" force to replace us and help keep the peace (such as it is.) These Arab countries are MUCH more agreeable to having some of their OWN types keep order, as opposed to the "infidel" Americans. We aren't doing much in that regard right now, anyway!

What people in general, and Republicans specifically, can't seem to understand or accept, is that the ROOT of their hatred is our PRESENCE on their "holy lands."

Would it not, at least, be worthwhile to TALK to the enemy and find out if there IS some kind of compromise that would ENSURE the freedom and democracy of the newly established Iraqi government, under the auspices of ARAB military forces?

These people are weird. They would rather die and/or live in chaos than have ONE American soldier on their soil! We can poo-pooh it, and fight on.... or we can at least CONSIDER an alternative.

I'm not saying that the DEMS have the answer. Heck, I don't know if ANY of us do. I DO know that Bush doesn't have it! So... let's get together as Americans and get this SETTLED and get out of there!

I think you may have already posted it some months ago, but do you have a link to more discussion on this LIC/MIC stuff? I'd very much like to study it.

Hobo

[Crackaces]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Good post, CrackAces! Bush actually called that "political will" Political Capital! Well... I think it is spent! Bankrupt almost!

Thanks .. the concept of Political will and war is Clausewitz. An interesting extension in my book is the concept of dictatorships and monarchy's where a natural singular thought exists vs. democracies where the political seasons naturally divide political will. No successful war for America has extended across a Presidents term. A very key side effect of a two term limit for a president is that no war can last beyond 8 years.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I DON'T support any "cut and run" philosophy, and consider those who use it against us "Dems" as disingenous and dishonest. NONE of us want to see us LOSE this war.... but we ARE losing it. Some just won't admit it.

It all depends on your defintion of "losing it"

Clearly the domestic view of continued investment in a Medium Intensity conflict is that we need to end this thing now. Thus the public support to achieve the original objectives are not there and thus are not feasible.

Militarily we are achieving objectives.

1. It is estimated that 90% of terrorist investments including Iran's and Syria's typical outlay for one year are going into Iraq. This is what the president wanted.

2. The Americans have bases next to Iran and Syria and can put pressure on these countries.

However .. again the Americans do not agree with these objectives or the costs paid.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

What to do next? I like your "de-escalation" idea. NOT negotiation or capitulation, but some way to get our troops out of the crossfire. I've heard rumblings of ideas about a "Pan-Arab" force to replace us and help keep the peace (such as it is.) These Arab countries are MUCH more agreeable to having some of their OWN types keep order, as opposed to the "infidel" Americans. We aren't doing much in that regard right now, anyway!

Yes this would be a good solution. Unfortunately moderate Arab nations are very much afraid of a radical Islam revolution in their countries. Do not think so .. ask Sadat .. oh he is dead ...

Originally Posted by golfhobo

What people in general, and Republicans specifically, can't seem to understand or accept, is that the ROOT of their hatred is our PRESENCE on their "holy lands."

It is the creation of Israel from the former colonies of France that has these people ticked off.

1. They think that France never had any rights to their land. WW1 and all only reminds them of the Crusades of the 11th and 12th century.

2. The plan proposed by the US for the creation of Israel and executed --simply moved people into "concentration" I mean refugee camps that in the view of Arabs is no different than what Germany did ..

Then it gets very very complected if you add in the Soviet Union and China meddling in these affairs. (if somebody is interested I would be happy to post my thoughts.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Would it not, at least, be worthwhile to TALK to the enemy and find out if there IS some kind of compromise that would ENSURE the freedom and democracy of the newly established Iraqi government, under the auspices of ARAB military forces?

In my view I think our best opportunity was(Afghanistan against the soviets) 1980. We were actively involved positively in this area. Our failure to bring resolution to this problem means we either kill millions of people or capitulate. The radical Islam expects nor will give no quarter.

Originally Posted by golfhobo

These people are weird. They would rather die and/or live in chaos than have ONE American soldier on their soil! We can poo-pooh it, and fight on.... or we can at least CONSIDER an alternative.

I'm not saying that the DEMS have the answer. Heck, I don't know if ANY of us do. I DO know that Bush doesn't have it! So... let's get together as Americans and get this SETTLED and get out of there!

I think you may have already posted it some months ago, but do you have a link to more discussion on this LIC/MIC stuff? I'd very much like to study it.

Hobo

On the MIC/LIC stuff I am only quoting what I learned as a green beanie .. I spent time in Lebanon in 1980 and got to understand both points of view. The gap is sooooo wide that I am thinking now that the point has been reached where the Arabs will discover how to split atoms and I am not sure it is as "weird" as determined to impose their solution at any cost.

[geomon]

Couple of points… and I’ll be brief cause I’m hungry…

1) Israel didn’t put them into “concentration camps” aka refugee camps….at the time of the creation of Israel all of the Palestinians (which incidently have NEVER had their own government and nation) had an offer to become Israeli citizens. The surrounding Arab nations convinced 50% of them that Israel will never last and they (pan-arabs) will annihilate them. Well the 50% that did agree to live are living (for the most part) peaceful lives inside Israel. Granted they can’t vote and serve in the military…but they are much better off than the camps and those in that corrupted place called Gaza.

2) Iraq….Post WWI somebody drew some lines and called it Iraq. Nobody paid any attention to the ethnic groups inside those lines. So you ended up with the Kurds in the north and the Shiites and Sunnis splitting the south. The boundaries make no cultural sense and they never coexisted. It was only under the brutal hammer of Saddam that sectarian violence was muted.

3) If we de-escalate now, we will leave a total vacuum in that country and allow militai groups like Muqtada al Sadr to gain ever more power. His Mahti Army is being formed in imitation of Hezbollah (and probably funded by both Syria and Iran). He would step into a vacuum and the results would be horrific.

4) Like CA said, we are there and we can’t go back in time. I wish we had finished our business in Afghanistan before dealing with Saddam. Unfortunately that is not the case and I feel we need more troops, not less, to gain control in areas like Baghdad and other cities….or partition the country and I don’t see that working with all the oil money in the north.

5) I tell ya, it’s a damn political and strategic maze over there. We are dealing with a culture that respects power and force not polite “let’s all just get along” politically correct negotiations. There is no easy answer.

My 02…

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by geomon

Couple of points… and I’ll be brief cause I’m hungry…

I'm no "scholar" of Middle Eastern affairs. Like many of you of my own age, I took a few classes in High School and maybe one in college. I have NOT learned all I know from the Main Stream Media as SOME would have you believe, but with the advent of the Internet and Google, I am STILL learning. I DID, however, spend some time in the area analyzing the intelligence we were gathering "at the time."

1) Israel didn’t put them into “concentration camps” aka refugee camps….at the time of the creation of Israel all of the Palestinians (which incidently have NEVER had their own government and nation) had an offer to become Israeli citizens. The surrounding Arab nations convinced 50% of them that Israel will never last and they (pan-arabs) will annihilate them. Well the 50% that did agree to live are living (for the most part) peaceful lives inside Israel. Granted they can’t vote and serve in the military…but they are much better off than the camps and those in that corrupted place called Gaza.

And don't forget, that the PLAN was to have them settle in the western regions of what is now Jordan. But, some wouldn't settle for that, and I THINK Jordan failed to live up to the bargain.

2) Iraq….Post WWI somebody drew some lines and called it Iraq. Nobody paid any attention to the ethnic groups inside those lines. So you ended up with the Kurds in the north and the Shiites and Sunnis splitting the south. The boundaries make no cultural sense and they never coexisted. It was only under the brutal hammer of Saddam that sectarian violence was muted.

I believe you are absolutely correct. This may have been the first REAL screw-up of the "colonial" powers. In fact, the Kurds, who are of Turkish decent, wanted to be part of Turkey, but someone objected. This ONE mistake may have led to the morass we now find ourselves embroiled in.

3) If we de-escalate now, we will leave a total vacuum in that country and allow militia groups like Muqtada al Sadr to gain ever more power. His Mahti Army is being formed in imitation of Hezbollah (and probably funded by both Syria and Iran). He would step into a vacuum and the results would be horrific.

Unfortunately, this "vacuum" exists even WITH our limited presence. Our troops have been "marginalized" by the very government we established due to their fear AND allegiance to this Shiite "Warlord." (Not unlike the early days of Afghanistan.) We are not there to WIN or CONQUER or OCCUPY. We are but a police force, stripped of our authority by the very government we have put in power.

4) Like CA said, we are there and we can’t go back in time. I wish we had finished our business in Afghanistan before dealing with Saddam. Unfortunately that is not the case and I feel we need more troops, not less, to gain control in areas like Baghdad and other cities….or partition the country and I don’t see that working with all the oil money in the north.

No, we can't go "back in time." We ARE there. The question is: Where to go from here? We are NOT going FORWARD with the required troops to eradicate the insurgents and solve the problem. And we will NOT change our "course" to do just that as long as Bush keeps Rummy in charge. And we ALL know that if you are not part of the solution.... you are part of the problem. I am regretably coming to the conclusion that THIS administration doesn't have the B*lls to finish the job... OR they have ulterior motives for "staying the course."

5) I tell ya, it’s a damn political and strategic maze over there. We are dealing with a culture that respects power and force not polite “let’s all just get along” politically correct negotiations. There is no easy answer.

Well... if you are right, then a Democracy will NEVER work there, so what are we fighting and dying for? We refuse to use the required force, (as if FORCE could install a Democracy) and refuse to talk about "getting along." Is THIS the kind of stalemate/quagmire that Bush wants as a legacy? It doesn't really matter what he WANTS... it IS what he will GET. You are correct that there is no EASY answer. But, there might BE a difficult one. We just have to be willing to explore the possibilities to FIND one. And the fact that ONE party in this country continues to insult and accuse the other of being unpatriotic, weak, and "appeasing," does NOT help the situation. Bush promised to be the "uniter," but he has stood on his bully pulpit and done just the opposite. He has accepted neither the counsel of his own advisors, nor his people, nor that of other nations. You disdain the concept of "let's all just get along," and I agree that it is a simplistic ideal. But, as it concerns the situation in Iraq AND the entire world, unless you plan on world domination, (ONLY achieved after winning a third world WAR) it is the ONLY "concept" that makes any sense. Can you describe a THIRD alternative?

My 02…

I've only got a nickel.... you can keep the change.

[geomon]

Good points GolfHobo....

Is there another option? Maybe....maybe we partition the country. Divide the country into a Kurdish north, a Sunni center, and a Shiite south. Take the oil money and divide it between the three. Let them all have self governing powers.

Interesting point about the dividing of Iraq after WWI...Winston Churchill was the guy who drew the lines and created Iraq from the remains of the Ottoman Empire. He was Britain's Colonial Secratary then (I had to go research this tidbit). He later said that this forced unity in Iraq was one of his biggest mistakes. A mistake that we are all still paying for!!

[Crackaces]

Israel didn’t put them into “concentration camps” aka refugee camps….at the time of the creation of Israel all of the Palestinians (which incidently have NEVER had their own government and nation) had an offer to become Israeli citizens. The surrounding Arab nations convinced 50% of them that Israel will never last and they (pan-arabs) will annihilate them. Well the 50% that did agree to live are living (for the most part) peaceful lives inside Israel. Granted they can’t vote and serve in the military…but they are much better off than the camps and those in that corrupted place called Gaza.

My putting concentration camps in quotes is because that is how the Arab Street views the situation. Why would you displace millions of Arabs for the sovereignty of a few Jews?

They believe they would be much better off on their own land living the way they did just before 1948, when the United States sponsored and executed a plan to create Israel and "relive the crusades of the 11 century".

Just like this thread, where a spectrum of belief systems that span the realm of reality are expressed (Republican vs. Democrat), there too in the middle east is a spectrum of reality that various depending on your view.

Thus my attempt to see this problem through the eyes of my opposition.

[Useless]

The problem is that in that part of the world, there will be no peace if there is more than one man left standing. Democracy can not work, because the only thing they're culture knows is oppression.

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by Crackaces

My putting concentration camps in quotes is because that is how the Arab Street views the situation. Why would you displace millions of Arabs for the sovereignty of a few Jews?

They believe they would be much better off on their own land living the way they did just before 1948, when the United States sponsored and executed a plan to create Israel and "relive the crusades of the 11 century".

Just like this thread, where a spectrum of belief systems that span the realm of reality are expressed (Republican vs. Democrat), there too in the middle east is a spectrum of reality that various depending on your view.

Thus my attempt to see this problem through the eyes of my opposition.

Crackaces,

Could you clarify your statement that the US sponsored and then executed a plan to create Israel. You may be refering to the same thing I am thinking but with different terminology.

Going back to my Mid-East and African History classes it was the United Nations, with a great deal of input from Great Britan, that actually sponsored and then executed the creation of Israel. Mainly for two reasons with the first being that Jews had been returning and settling in the areas for years prior and actually started armed insurrection against the British who held the area as a protectorate after WWI to gain some self autonomy. The Brittish were tired after WWII and ready to divest themselves of colonial holdings such as Palestine (originally part of the Ottoman Empire). Along with the horror of the holocaust revealed against the Jews by the Nazi's the world powers at the time were ready to re-establish a Jewish homeland by dividing the land between Jews settled in the area and Arabs who lived there.

The history I researched and reviewed seemed to indicate that Pres Truman was undecided about the new state of Israel and was reluctant at first to even acknowledge them as a legal state. After the 1948 UN resolution that set the boundaries between the Jews and Arabs, and the Arabs immediately attacked Israel it was then that the US stepped up as a supporter of Israel.

Since the US was the major power at the time in the UN it could be said that they were the ones responsible for the creation of Israel. I just did not recall major US involvement from my history class.

[geomon]

Whenever I think deeply about the middle east situation....I always get a headache... :?

There is no easy way out, for anybody involved over there including those who live there. It has been, still is, and apparantly will always be....a focus and flash point for the worlds major western religions...of course unless you are of the Eastern beliefs in which we will eventually realize that all of this (including ourselves) is nothing but an illusion.

A side note....but if EVER there was a city that should be called a world city and be protected by the UN...it is Jerusalem. It is the center for three major religions (excluding Mecca) and should not be controlled (or even perceived to be) by any one of them.