Comments on: Think of a wonderful thought…

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:57:54 +0000

I expect the quagmire to begin real soon. Possibly any day now. It is obvious from the latest Iraqi poll that with only 50% of the Iraqis on our side we are losing the war. Especially when you consider that the political dissent in Iraq is armed. What a clever way to determine elections. I hear this was the electoral method of the last regime. They never get near enough credit these days. Well no dollars for oil I always say. Or is it no oil for blood? Or no blood for dollars? No oil for plastics. Besides with all that oil why aren’t we rich? Oh, I see. We didn’t steal enough yet. I will be really glad when Iraq becomes a paying proposition like the American German and Japanese colonies. Why should Americans be taxed to make Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people? It is so unprogressive. Globalism has gone too far. It is all the fault of the Republicans and the Democrats who vote with them. And Dean. The waffler.

By: citizen k

citizen k — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:50:42 +0000

“K seems to forget that everybody pointed to all those Iraqi ‘street’ demonstrations before the war as proof that Arab world was ‘united’, ‘would fight to the death’, etc…etc… Right.” This is a lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. The opponents of the war have been shown right. The liars and their marks dragged our country into a disaster and now seek to blame the lack of cheers for their monumental failure. See:http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=scheer20030304 Or read:————In addition to possible ongoing guerrilla action by Saddam Hussein’s supporters, American occupation forces would likely be faced with competing armed factions among the Sunni Arab population, not to mention Kurdish and Shiite rebel groups seeking greater autonomy. This could lead the United States into a bloody counterinsurgency war. Without the support of other countries or the UN, a US invasion could leave American forces effectively alone attempting to enforce a peace amid the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=zunes —————-

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:43:15 +0000

Sigivald:

I think you’ll find that casualty figures were overestimated by opponents of the war, not underestimated by proponents.

Whatever estimates were put forward by opponents of the war aren't relevant here; we're talking about the architects of the war in the Bush administration. And in fact, Rumsfeld did underestimate the forces needed: over the objections of senior officers in the Army and Marine Corps, Rumsfeld wanted—and got—a drastically ground force. Effects based operations, popularly dubbed "shock and awe," were supposed to be sufficient not only to win battles but destroy psychological resistance. Rumsfeld's disgard for what his senior officers were saying should become the textbook example of underestimating resources needed. The Wall Street Journal was reporting on this tension between Rumsfeld and military commanders even back in November.
If the casus belli were a tissue of lies, it’s odd that the world intelligence community was as a whole so very, very sure that Iraq still had Those Bad Weapons

This is false, plain and simple: the divisions in just our own intelligence community were quite deep before the war: see the article Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence at the Washington Post.

I would accept a valid argument showing that the Bush administration is honest and competent. Merely stringing together transparent falsehoods is not even an argument, and will convince no one.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:46:28 +0000

Bob said: "if there is enough to dissent to give hope to the “terrorists” then obviously there was enough dissent that those in charge of our side should have been concerned with the support of such an endeavor in the first place." Really? How's that follow? If a small minority scream really loud, that can quite easily enough to encourage terrorists, ba'athists, and their ilk... while at the same time being effectively insignificant in terms of domestic support. Plus, well, the implication that "anything that is loudly disapproved of shouldn't be done" (ie, they should be "concerned" about it - but what's the point of that concern if you think they should go on and do it anyway? Hmm?) is itself foolish, especially since it's become transparently clear that a good number of the loudest protestors will reflexivly naysay anything done by either (depending on the protestor, this could be an either/or/and situation) the US or by President Bush. Reflexive political blinkers don't make for good policy decisions, or even constructive, useful dissent. Curtiss said "The human and monetary costs of the war were underestimated, the casus belli a tissue of lies, relations with former allies badly damaged in the run up to the war: these show that the Bush administration is inept and dishonest. It is our continued presence there that is destablizing not just Iraq but the entire region: that means that we need to get out. " Say what? I think you'll find that casualty figures were overestimated by opponents of the war, not underestimated by proponents. If the casus belli were a tissue of lies, it's odd that the world intelligence community was as a whole so very, very sure that Iraq still had Those Bad Weapons, and that Iraq itself, if it had in fact disarmed voluntarily, refused to admit it and thus both disarm US wrath and get out of UN sanctions. How, please, do you explain this proposition you're making? As for former allies, well, they (France, Germany) haven't actually been allies, properly speaking, in decades. Allies, you see, act like allies, not leeches or enemies. France and Germany, indeed, damaged their relations with the US, by their actions. Intersting that you blame this on US actions alone, and pretend they were Really True Blue Allies before That Bastard Bush ruined everything by actualy asking them to act like it. For an administration you think is inept (I imagine no argument will convince you of its relative honesty), they sure seem to have managed pretty well so far. (And why this fetish for "stability" in a region run by dictators and oppressors?)

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:17:10 +0000

Andrea: The current coalition—if you want to call it that—can't continue doing what it's doing; that's why Dubya is asking for the 87 billion, why Powell is trying to mend relations with "Old Europe," and why Paul Wolfowitz of all people told the Senate Armed Service committee yesterday "We have no desire to own this problem or to control it." Never mind that the resolution Powell is taking to the UN puts the US in charge of the UN forces there—something I'm sure the members of the committee know—he wants to paint himself as a multilateralist, and anyone with a memory knows that's false. The human and monetary costs of the war were underestimated, the casus belli a tissue of lies, relations with former allies badly damaged in the run up to the war: these show that the Bush administration is inept and dishonest. It is our continued presence there that is destablizing not just Iraq but the entire region: that means that we need to get out.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:57:18 +0000

“the coalition continues to do what they are doing.” You mean like the Flypaper Strategy? Or building bridges to Iraq hearts and minds like this? http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#106208201838841818

By: Andrea Harris

Andrea Harris — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:35:57 +0000

1. Uh huh. 2. No, more like the Clinton-Monica “investigation.” (Yes, I realize that as a “righty”—ie, someone who disagrees with you—I am supposed to be a fan of L’Affaire Blue Dress, but I think it was a waste of time and money.) 3. You can’t be serious. Then again, I guess it’s okay to be all for dropping the Iraqis like hot rocks mid-”quagmire” so long as it makes the Bush Junta™ look bad. Here is my constructive suggestion: the coalition continues to do what they are doing. It’s called “finishing what you started.” It’s not a fashionable stance, apparently, but I’ve never been a slave to fashion.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 05:46:41 +0000

“1) firing people he does not like,” Yup, if yer managers fuck up bigtime – sack ‘em. Even an MBA should be able to grasp that. “2) starting a costly and useless “investigation” of political figures” Like Watergate or Iran-Contra? to find out what went wrong as a first step towards making sure it doesn’t happen again. “3) up and leaving Iraq and the Iraqis to fend for themselves” Works for me. Iraq has the basic infrastructure, a rich source of revenue and one of the region’s most highly-skilled, literate and non-secular middle classes whom I’m sure would love to be left alone to get on with it without being screwed around by homegrown tyrants or imported military-industrial complexes. Nations in worse condition are often left to fend to for themselves and manage to work it out. Your turn now for constructive (for Iraq, not Bush)suggestions.

By: sr

sr — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:56:05 +0000

Baa says that “So let me bleat briefly. Was Rumsfeld “playing politics”? Yes. He’s an embattled cabinet secretary — expect nothing less!” Rumsfeld is not an embattled cabinet secretary as much as he is a thin skinned one. He was riding the gravy train so far with his short sighted policies which won him the war but left gaping holes in the reconstruction effort. He now sustains flak for the first time and he short circuits.

By: Andrea Harris

Andrea Harris — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:34:42 +0000

Let’s see: Curtiss’ idea of “constructive” is 1) firing people he does not like, 2) starting a costly and useless “investigation” of political figures—sounds familiar, and 3) up and leaving Iraq and the Iraqis to fend for themselves, because—oops—Mr. Leung does not think we should be there in the first place. Yup, real constructive.

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:15:41 +0000

Constructive ideas:

Get Rummy, Wolfie, Perle, et al. to resign.
Launch a real investigation into the WMD lies they—and Powell—spewed.
Set a date to get the hell out of Iraq, and do it.

By: Andrea Harris

Andrea Harris — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:22:10 +0000

Okay, now that everyone has finished (I assume) congratulating each other on their cleverness on thwarting that mean ol’ Rumsfeld’s attempts at crushing Dissent™, maybe mithras will tell us what that better, “more effective” policy is to be. Or maybe one of you other clever people have some ideas. Some constructive ideas.

By: Mithras

Mithras — Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:48:15 +0000

If anything, criticism is an indication that a course correction is in order – and that a strategy with a higher probability of success is available. Exactly. Far from being a sign of weakness that encourages terrorists, dissent is the mechanism by which we will abandon a disastrous policy and adopt an effective one! Our enemies want to antagonize us into prepetuating the Bush/Rumsfeld mistake, because that mistake aids Osama et al. There are no costs to dissent to be balanced against its benefits. It’s either dissent or disaster – and Rumseld, ogged and baa seem to be against dissent.

By: Elias

Elias — Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:39:21 +0000

Just testing to see how to post…

By: SCOTT SOLOMON FANETTI

SCOTT SOLOMON FANETTI — Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:18:09 +0000

The idea that criticism of a poorly planned and executed policy is in some way an encouragement of an adversary is ridiculous. If anything, criticism is an indication that a course correction is in order – and that a strategy with a higher probability of success is available. The fools that refuse to take advantage of criticism – and instead choose to vilify critics – cut off any objective analysis of their ideas and look inward for solutions to their problems. Since they created their problem to begin with, they often cannot envision a solution that makes sense to them. Consequently, they continue to plod along in their predetermined direction – hoping that their steely resolve will solve the problem in the long run. Iraq is a great example of this. Iraq has nothing to do with “The War on Terror”. It is a war for strategic control of the resources of the middle east. Before the war, the proponents of this adventure convinced themselves that we could invade and occupy Iraq, while converting it into a jewel of Democracy( an American vassal stste ). They accused anyone who pointed out that this invasion would be far more difficult and costly of being objectively pro Saddam/ terrorist sympathizers/ liberal pacifists/ etc. They stuck their heads in the sand and refused to listen to reason. Now that the chickens have come home to roost – so to speak – these same people are still villifying critics for pointeing out that their policy is not working. This criticism will not cause American resolve to weaken. The poor policy is what causes American resolve to weaken. The criticism is an attempt to convince the people in power that a course correction is in order. If things were going hunky-dory in Iraq, no amount of criticism in the world would affect public opinion. If things were going poorly in Iraq, no amount of propaganda or villification is going to convince critics to be silent and let our leaders throw our children’s lives, money, and our nation’s good name down the toilet. I would support Rumsfeld if his policy was sound. It is not, so I will do my best to let anyone I can know about it. My words do not strengthen terrorists’ resolve – Rummy’s folly is enough encouragement for them.