The Fourth Year of An Endless War Begins
March 20, 2006 9:23 AM   Subscribe

From on the ground in Iraq, with death squads on the prowl in a nation paralysed by fear, with each mile, the divisions deepen. Some suggest Iraq is about to look a lot like Lebanon. Others think we should be so lucky, that what looms is much worse than mere civil war: an archipegalo of complete and total anarchy, the war of all against all.

As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel may find an acorn now and then, especially one planetary in size--like here: predictions of a better Middle East have evaporated.
posted by y2karl (108 comments total)
 
There is another key difference between Iraq and Lebanon: Scale.
posted by lodurr at 9:28 AM on March 20, 2006


fuck everybody who still supports this war, and fuck everyone who supported it from the beginning, too.

look at what you goddamn idiots have gotten us into. just look at it.
posted by wakko at 9:34 AM on March 20, 2006 [1 favorite]


wakko : "look at what you goddamn idiots have gotten us into. just look at it."

Bill Cosby: "My mother comes in my room and says, "Just look at this mess! This is a pig sty!" Now, I've already been in the room five hours, and she wants me to LOOK at it. "
posted by Bugbread at 9:41 AM on March 20, 2006


Interesting post. I've been thinking that the situation in Iraq isn't really a civil war, but I couldn't quite imagine how to describe it better. Anarchy is a much better term.

I've always thought of a civil war implying a schism somewhere in an existing government and it's military.
posted by butterstick at 9:44 AM on March 20, 2006


i never thought there was a connection between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda, but i did agree with the precident that if osama lives in a cave and can attack us, certainly a leader of a country can attack us or our interests. If we left Saddam alone, maybe we would be still safe but then again maybe we wouldnt. I think what some of the people in government are thinking back to world war 2 the fact that we sat and watched a dictator rise to power and "stay out" of the war in Europe, And when we were finally it took 500,000 U.S. soldiers to help stamp it out..

http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

So, we're in this deep and there is no looking back. And yes, its totally FUBAR just like every other war before this one. And not only are we fighting men but we are fighting ideas. I guess only time will tell.
posted by obeygiant at 9:52 AM on March 20, 2006


And not only are we fighting men but we are fighting ideas.

My ass.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:53 AM on March 20, 2006


If we left Saddam alone, maybe we would be still safe but then again maybe we wouldnt.

That's a hell of an excuse to kill thousands of people and destroy a country, obeygiant. strange that you feel that way, considering the nickname you chose.
posted by NationalKato at 9:58 AM on March 20, 2006


butterstick : "I've always thought of a civil war implying a schism somewhere in an existing government and it's military."

I think that's more along the lines of coup de etat (or attempted coup de etat).

obeygiant : "And not only are we fighting men but we are fighting ideas."

What ideas are we fighting, and how are we fighting them?
posted by Bugbread at 9:59 AM on March 20, 2006


If we left Saddam alone, maybe we would be still safe but then again maybe we wouldnt.

You poor, ignorant sheep.
posted by bshort at 10:01 AM on March 20, 2006


What ideas are we fighting, and how are we fighting them?

The idea that resistance isn't futile, and by shooting people?
posted by rxrfrx at 10:08 AM on March 20, 2006


"maybe we would be still safe but then again maybe we wouldnt"

Please articulate how you think we wouldn't be safer if we'd left Saddam in power. Please. I think this idea is so silly that I'd really like to hear from someone who believes it. Please.

If we had not invaded Iraq we, and the region, would be so much safer now that it's almost horrific.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:15 AM on March 20, 2006


What ideas are we fighting, and how are we fighting them?

The idea that resistance isn't futile, and by shooting people?
posted by rxrfrx


Aren't 'They' fighting same concept?
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 10:30 AM on March 20, 2006


From the last Knight-Ridder link (K-R's a good source of information):

Counterterrorism experts and U.S. government documents seen by Knight Ridder say there are signs that terrorist-recruitment networks created to funnel foreign insurgents into Iraq are being "reversed," with battle-trained militants flowing out of the country to try to destabilize other nations.

There's serious trouble ahead. Whether the US stays or retreats, nobody really knows how to stabilize Iraq.

bugbread: What ideas are we fighting--

That the West seeks to destroy Islam, for one. The invasion and shattering of Iraq has only confirmed this idea.
posted by russilwvong at 10:31 AM on March 20, 2006


(Er, I'm actually curious about what idea obeygiant says we are fighting. That wasn't a barbed question, just a straightforward one)
posted by Bugbread at 10:34 AM on March 20, 2006


Maybe we could turn the entire country into something of a theme park, call it 'The Kill Zone.' You step off the plane, are given how ever much ammo you pay for, and just go kill crazy! If you make it back in a week, you'll be airlifted back home to suburban Maryland. Kill, baby, kill, make your mother sigh.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:07 AM on March 20, 2006


The Fourth Year of An Endless War Begins

The Fourth Year of y2karl's Endless Post Begins
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:09 AM on March 20, 2006


Maybe if Saddam had stayed in power he would have created a nuclear bomb and used it to attack Israel.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:17 AM on March 20, 2006


In other words - y6y6y6 please, please, stop being so intentionally obtuse.
It's not hard to come up with an excuse to attack Saddam based on the potential of a chance of a shadow of a threat somewhere off in the future.

Maybe he'll give money to terrorists! Maybe he'll give them guns and camps to work out of! Maybe he'll make a giant cannon that will be able to fire nuclear payloads great distances! Who cares? None of these things actually came to pass. But the potential exists. The argument that, "Someday Saddam would become a threat to us," is childish and silly. But it's not complicated.

You comment implies that you believe any answer to the above question could hold water.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:20 AM on March 20, 2006


Maybe he'll make a giant cannon that will be able to fire nuclear payloads great distances!

The cool thing is that he actually did try to do that. Thing was made out of sections of pipe with about 1.5 inch walls, by the look of the tape I saw. I can't help but think that if they'd finished the thing, it would have killed everyone within a quarter mile when they tried to fire it.

Not that I disagree with you, though.
posted by lodurr at 11:34 AM on March 20, 2006


bugbread: "(Er, I'm actually curious about what idea obeygiant says we are fighting. That wasn't a barbed question, just a straightforward one)"

That's actually a very interesting question - to the best of my knowledge the Bush administration has always called the whole complex (actual combat, logistics, psy-ops, security measures) "war on terror" without ever specifying what exactly the goal was, who the enemy was or when it could be considered "won".
To consider just the abstract component:
What concrete measures are put into action to "fight" those ideas? What ideas exactly are considered to be inimical?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 11:35 AM on March 20, 2006


IraqFilter, how I missed thee.
wakko writes: look at what you goddamn idiots have gotten us into.
This is going to sound insensitive (cuz it is), but the majority of the American population hasn't "gotten into" anything. We're over here, Iraq's over there. 130,000 men on the ground at any given time, 300,000 or more total over the last 3 years. Maybe 1-2 million affected if you count families? That's 1% of the population. What's more important is that the U.S. maintains its policy of pre-emption, and thus its superpower status, which is very good for world peace.

Regarding affordability of the war, go to this page and scroll down to "Why I voted for George Bush":
In 1945, 55 percent of the US GDP went to the war effort. In 1960 defense got 10 percent of the GDP. The Iraq war is costing one percent of the GDP, and overall military expenditures are 3.3 percent as of 2004 February. The commentators who say the US can't afford the Iraq war are deluding themselves.

Regarding the reasoning for war:
The US could not maintain the military forces surrounding Iraq indefinitely. If we didn't attack we would have to withdraw them, and it would be politically impossible to bring them back almost regardless of the provocation. Therefore, I think we had to attack about when we did if we were to prevent Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is not total hell for our men in the armed forces, either. New recruits get $20,000 signing bonuses (read that in Texas Monthly) plus great benefits (reported to me by a former soldier). My friend told me that his brother (who is in special forces, top secret stuff) feels like he's making a difference in the lives of ordinary Iraqis, and the locals in his village appear to think so too, having cooked him dinner on occasion.

The handling of the war, on the other hand, has been complete shit. It boggles my mind that Bush actually thought people would simply sit down, sing koom-bay-yah, and let democracy flourish. In an amazingly tragic turn, the neocons adopted the vision of the anointed and chose not to plan for anything at all, thinking the jigsaw puzzle would assemble itself! Dumbasses didn't pay the Iraqi army, just cut them loose. Rumsfeld didn't resign after Abu Ghraib. After Katrina it has become painfully obvious that Bush can't plan a birthday party, let alone a war. Which raises the question: How the fuck did he win re-election? Oh.

And on a sober note, how did they convince the country you can spread peace by starting a war? How did they convince me? I'm going to sit in the corner and think about it for a while.
posted by MarkO at 11:38 AM on March 20, 2006


Calculating the price of the war as a percentage of GDP is pure spin. GDP doesn't fund the military, the federal budget does, and the government is already borrowing to the hilt.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:06 PM on March 20, 2006


How did they convince me?
posted by MarkO

Probably by posting the same info you just did. You know, signing bonuses, home-cooked meals, and GDP.
posted by NationalKato at 12:10 PM on March 20, 2006


Remember when we were debating the word "quagmire"? Oh, how 2004 of us!

Sure, Iraq's a cock-up, over a hundred thousand civilian Iraqi casualties, completely destroyed cities, perhaps over a trillion dollars spent before it's over (a lot of it unaccounted for), over 20,000 US casualties (including killed and maimed), and a 21st Century Crusade to galvanize and recruit a whole new generation of terrorists.

But at least we're liberating Afghanistan!
posted by darkstar at 12:16 PM on March 20, 2006


Three years ago today, March 20, 2003, the Republic of Iraq was suddenly and deliberately attacked by land and naval and air forces of the United States of America.

President Bush told us we had to attack Iraq because there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Vice President Cheney told us that "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But there was doubt, and it turned out that Iraq never had any weapons. Maybe it was just a joke.

We were told the war would last six months and would cost $50 billion, but that wasn't true.

We were told "there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms." But that wasn't true.

His father could have told him invading Iraq was a bad idea, but President Bush listened to "a higher father."

Now, after over 2300 US miltary people have been killed and over 16,000 wounded, and who knows how many thousands of Iraqis have been killed, is Iraq still what President Bush once called a "catastrophic success"? Does freedom reign?

Turns out, not so much. Iraq's in a civil war. Daily life's a nightmare. The Interior Ministry runs death squads. Iraq now exports terror. As the US talks about standing down, Iraqis are standing up to be killed. It seems like a catastophe.

Or maybe that's just "a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad." Maybe we should accentuate the positive. Maybe there's an upside to civil war. I mean, we have painted a shitload of schools. And the president says we're making progress, and the president is an honorable man.

Welcome to Year Four.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:27 PM on March 20, 2006 [1 favorite]


Dubya says everything is going fine and dandy over there and I wish you whiny unpatriotic doomsayers would just shut the hell up and stop messing with the enjoyment of a perfectly fine little ass kicking pre-emptive war. Jeezus, I would think by now people realized reality is no longer reality. So click your heals thrice, repeat "there's no place like home, there's no place like home Toto" and be optimistic fer cryin' out loud!!

When all is said and done, will anyone be held accountable? Francis Fukayama, Wolfie, Perle (too little too late pal) and the rest of the deeply deluded PNAC crew? Rove, Rummy, Cheney and Bush??
posted by Skygazer at 12:27 PM on March 20, 2006


What about the notion that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq instead of on our own shores. Yes, terrorists are now an export from Iraq, but isnt that what we are fighting. What is the alternative? Sit and wait? I guess reacting to an attack would have clearer moral and politcal objectives, but if you are trying to limit civilian causualties in America then how else would you fight an enemy who can't be negotiated with? If you were sworn to protect the people of this country how else would you do it? If you had to chose between us or them, your family or their family who would you choose? (hint: save your own family.)
posted by obeygiant at 12:45 PM on March 20, 2006


Oops. 'Too little too late' refers' to this about face by Fukuyama. and so we add the Neoconservative movement to the junk heap of history, along with soviet communism and the hippie movement of the 60's. (Neoconservatism will seem as deluded and superficial in time.) WHo was it who said, Beware of those who would promise you a perfect world? Voltaire maybe...
posted by Skygazer at 12:47 PM on March 20, 2006


If you were sworn to protect the people of this country how else would you do it?

Not lying about the presence of WMD's or creating a bogus connection between AL Queada and Saddam would help. So would ...you know securing Afgahinstan, catching Osama Bin Laden...creating a viable international coalition...you know. Small stuff like that.
posted by Skygazer at 12:51 PM on March 20, 2006


obeygiant:

What ideas are we fighting with, and how are we fighting them?
posted by Bugbread at 12:51 PM on March 20, 2006


What about the notion that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq instead of on our own shores.

Please explain how American soldiers invading Iraq prevents terrorists from entering the United States.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:52 PM on March 20, 2006


What is the alternative? Sit and wait?

Wait for what? We are actively destroying ourselves by creating terrorism every day we continue to occupy Iraq and kill civilians. HELO STUPIDS, YOU CAN'T SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM BY KILLING PEOPLE

The whole PNAC Iraq fantasy was based on the idea that the sheer awesomeness of our military power would cause people who hated the US to lay down their guns and worship us. Of course, this was a dumb idea from the start.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:55 PM on March 20, 2006


I guess reacting to an attack would have clearer moral and politcal objectives, but if you are trying to limit civilian causualties in America then how else would you fight an enemy who can't be negotiated with? If you were sworn to protect the people of this country how else would you do it? If you had to chose between us or them, your family or their family who would you choose? (hint: save your own family.)

Well, considering that none of the terrorists involved in any of the attacks on US were from Iraq, a good start would be focusing on a correct fucking country. Oh whait, but that's for pussies. Let's just nuke the whole world, who knows where the threat may come from next.
posted by c13 at 12:55 PM on March 20, 2006


What skygazer said, basically.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:56 PM on March 20, 2006


What's more important is that the U.S. maintains its policy of pre-emption, and thus its superpower status, which is very good for world peace. != ...how did they convince the country you can spread peace by starting a war? How did they convince me?
posted by prostyle at 12:59 PM on March 20, 2006


obeygiant, following your logic, an invasion of Saudi Arabia would have made perfect sense.

It couldn't have led to a worse situation than this one.
posted by bardic at 1:06 PM on March 20, 2006


how else would you fight an enemy who can't be negotiated with?

Exactly what enemy are you talking about, Obeygiant? Osama? Sadam? We're not fighting Osama. And Sadam had exactly Zero power to attack us. So who is this enemy? Please explain.
posted by octothorpe at 1:10 PM on March 20, 2006


Thanks for the post y2karl.
Pay no attention to the troll from the over the hill NC tobacco worm senator dissing you.

I protested this war BEFORE it started. I posted here that BushCo was lying and got called bad names. No joy in being proven correct. If only BushCo paid for the lies and the deaths, with their soulless lives in solitary forever... while listening to ANSWER chants, and kissing Toby Keith's ...
posted by nofundy at 1:16 PM on March 20, 2006


(btw, the arrogance of the "Fight them over there so they can't make it over here" is just so fucking ridiculous. Why should "they" bother with the complexities of visas and cover stories when they've got plenty of targets (2,300 dead Americans, 17,000 wounded ones, many crippled for life) in addition to the fact that they are destroying a formerly popular president and his administration? Like the insurgents aren't accomplishing more than they ever dreamed of previous to 2001. Stupid is as stupid does.)
posted by bardic at 1:18 PM on March 20, 2006


Boy, that whole "flypaper" meme really had some...er...sticking power, didn't it? It'd be great if it actually made sense. It's got to be one of the most specious arguments I've ever heard to justify a war, and it's been roundly exposed as the frightful horseradish it is, yet every now and then, someone will sincerely offer it up as legitimate reasoning.

obeygiant, terrorism is not a steady state equation. The number of terrorists is not required to be constant over time and they are not all required to stay in Iraq just because we happen to be trying to kill some of them there. What this means is that:

1. By engaging in pre-emptive war on false pretenses (and all of the concomitant horrors that entails, including Abu Ghraib, destruction of whole cities, 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, etc.), you can actually INCREASE the number of terrorists and borderline radicals, overall, while also INCREASING the overall militant volatility of those inclined to radicalism,

...and also...

2. You divert resources away from diplomatic, development and benevolent initiatives in the world which might more ably defuse much of the animosity among borderline radicals, so that they not only never become terrorists, but might have become passive, even if they never become sympathetic.


Both of these factors can GREATLY INCREASE the risk to the US of terrorist attack. Indeed, that's what pretty much everyone is admitting right now: tens of thousands of disaffected Muslims have been freshly radicalized, in great part, by our actions in Iraq. A whole new generation of terrorists, which WE have helped Al Qaeda to create. A while new horde of people who would LOVE to make their way into our country and blow up a building or run amuck with a knife on a city bus. And you'd better bet, they're trying to do just that.

The "flypaper" meme, that we are engaging the terrorists there, so they don't come here, is lunacy. Instead, we're playing a central role in the Great Satan Jihad Recruitment Drive of the 21st Century.

It reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who was searching for his wallet under a lamppost. When accosted by a police officer, he admitted that that he'd actually dropped his wallet further down the street, but "the light's better here."
posted by darkstar at 1:20 PM on March 20, 2006


"What about the notion that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq instead of on our own shores."

If this was the justification for invading Iraq, then we picked the wrong country didn't we? Everyone seems pretty sure Pakistan is harboring Bin Laden (or at the very least they aren't trying very hard to catch him).

And if this is the justification for staying in Iraq, then we're not getting the job done. By fighting in Iraq we are creating more terrorists, not less.

Not to mention the fallacy that killing a lot of presumed terrorists in Iraq will prevent other terrorists from coming here. That idea seems pretty silly to me. It seems like our efforts to confront Al Qaeda in Iraq would simply cause more Al Qaeda members to bring the fight to US soil.

"What is the alternative? Sit and wait?"

Well, that's easy. Build global consensus. Support Moslem groups who seek peace. Make obvious security precautions. Embrace the virtues of liberty, and discourage fear. Build intel networks to hunt Al Qaeda members.

And it wasn't a choice between invading Iraq or sitting and waiting. Remember that 9/11 could have been prevented by just changing a few airline regulations, or taking Al Qaeda's threats just a bit more seriously. Invading Iraq was totally ancillary to fighting Al Qaeda.

"I guess reacting to an attack would have clearer moral and politcal objectives, but if you are trying to limit civilian causualties in America then how else would you fight an enemy who can't be negotiated with?"

Well, we could have fought the enemy where they were. And we didn't. In the light of history we can see that the Bush administration launched a war of opportunity that had little to do with fighting Al Qaeda. The "NeoCons" had been wanting to take out Saddam since the mid 90s.

This urge to "fight the enemy" is a problem. If we need to go to war then so be it. But it ended up being a very bad idea in this case. And indeed, all of the objections made by those opposing the war before the invasion have turned out to be true. So just fighting for the sake of fighting doesn't work.

"If you were sworn to protect the people of this country how else would you do it?"

Simple. Remove the Taliban from power and rebuild Afghanistan (for real, not just for show). Leverage global good will after 9/11 against Al Qaeda. Reform security and intelligence. Rebuild covert networks to hunt down actual terrorists.

"If you had to chose between us or them, your family or their family who would you choose? (hint: save your own family.)"

When was that ever a choice? How does killing random Iraqis make my family safer? Doesn't that make my family less safe?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:18 PM on March 20, 2006


"..worse than a civil war, it could be violent anarchy, with islands of comparative stability scattered across the country in a sea of violence."

It's like Europe after the fall of Rome. There will arise pockets of self-governing self-policing communities - fiefdoms.
posted by stbalbach at 2:52 PM on March 20, 2006


Counterterrorism experts and U.S. government documents seen by Knight Ridder say there are signs that terrorist-recruitment networks created to funnel foreign insurgents into Iraq are being "reversed," with battle-trained militants flowing out of the country to try to destabilize other [Muslim] nations.

Cynical Thought for the Day: For some reason I can't help but imagine that this turn of events warms the cockles of whatever passes for hearts amongst many members of the pro-war establishment. Maybe that's the point. If the nutters in that part of the world are busy blowing each other up then they won't have the energy to direct their attacks outward. Either that or they get a taste of their own medicine.
posted by Fezboy! at 3:02 PM on March 20, 2006


Yeah but who's going to win American Idol?

I mean, let's talk about something America cares about.
posted by AspectRatio at 3:03 PM on March 20, 2006


Just a note:

If we left Saddam alone, maybe we would be still safe but then again maybe we wouldnt.

You poor, ignorant sheep.


Actually, stating "if we had done something different, we do not know what would have happened" is pretty darned enlightened in this day and age. Just sayin'.
posted by davejay at 3:08 PM on March 20, 2006


The upcoming election of Kadima will herald an Israeli withdrawal from major areas of the West Bank, and the (unfortunately unilateral) establishment of a permanent border between Israel and Palestine, which will lead to eventual stability in the region. I really believe this. I hope I'm not proven fantastically wrong.

As for Iraq, prospects are far, far bleaker, but phrases such as "an archipegalo of complete and total anarchy" and "an endless war" sound either like a Hieronymus Bosch painting or, alternately, demagogy and rhetoric borrowed from the book of Revelations. Secterian violence is not the apocalypse: the situation in Darfur is much worst, and yet it rears its head only occasionally on the blue since no significant number of Americans are involved.

"While a recent British Parliamentary Report estimates that over 300,000 people have already died, the United Nations estimates that 180,000 have died in the past eighteen months of the conflict. More than 1.8 million people had been displaced from their homes. Two hundred thousand have fled to neighboring Chad." (Wikipedia)

Allawi estimates that "at least 50 people are killed in Iraq every day."; if you do the math for Darfur (based on the UN statistics), it comes to about 330 dead per day: you might visualize this by imagining six Iraq wars going on concurrently.
posted by ori at 3:42 PM on March 20, 2006


Think Progress has a timeline of the Iraq War.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:09 PM on March 20, 2006


Skygazer writes "Oops. 'Too little too late' refers' to this about face by Fukuyama."

Wasn't Fukuyama against the invasion from the beginning?
posted by mr_roboto at 4:20 PM on March 20, 2006


Ori I would agree with you if Kadima is also able to allow if not a Palestinian border with Jordan, then stable and equal access to the border. One problem with the Kadima unilateral withdrawal is that the Jordan River Valley security area looks massive with the potential to stifle any economic development, which would be probably the biggest factor in stability.

Is the thinking that Kadima will form their coalition with Labor?
posted by cell divide at 4:25 PM on March 20, 2006


rxrfrx writes "The whole PNAC Iraq fantasy was based on the idea that the sheer awesomeness of our military power would cause people who hated the US to lay down their guns and worship us."


But, but... this works in all MMORGs, First Person Shooters, and comic books.

Nobody could have predicted it wouldn't work in Algeria, uh, Viet-, uh, Lebanon, uh, Iraq.
posted by orthogonality at 4:26 PM on March 20, 2006


One quibble with your Darfur comparison, Ori, is that the articles you linked to (or rather the articles Wikipedia link to) is talking about deaths from starvation, malnutrition, and disease, caused by extremely poor people being forced to leave their homes. The actual number of combat dead seems to be a very small fraction of that.

Not to minize deaths by malnutrition and disease in refugee camps (!), but it's really not like 5 Iraq wars going on at once.
posted by cell divide at 4:28 PM on March 20, 2006


I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:37 PM on March 20, 2006


But, but... this works in all MMORGs, First Person Shooters, and comic books.

America's Army. Free to start playing, of course.

I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

Yes, but I think we established long ago that we're not really that interested in what you have to say about politics, because it rarely makes any kind of sense, even from the standpoint of internal logical consistency. [/resumes ignoring]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:43 PM on March 20, 2006


I think darkstar and y6y6y6 have made excellent counterpoints to what i was saying. just fyi, i'm not a foxnews/billoreilly watchin kool-aid drinkin Republican, i just like to hear and understand dissenting opinions.
posted by obeygiant at 4:49 PM on March 20, 2006


Who are you addressing, Paris? Everyone?
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 4:50 PM on March 20, 2006


Skygazer writes "Oops. 'Too little too late' refers' to this about face by Fukuyama."

Wasn't Fukuyama against the invasion from the beginning?
posted by mr_roboto at 7:20 PM EST on March 20 [!]


Fukuyama had been calling for pre-emptive military action against Saddam since 1998. See HERE.

Was in fact one of the "architects" of the Project for the New American Century which was like the NeoCon last supper. Check out the names on this Statement of Principles. (You know you're on the right track when Dan motherfucking Quayle lends his name to your cause.)

See this letter from PNAC pleading allegiance to Da Fuhrer. That letter is so bombastic it should be staged as a Wagnerian opera. Fukuyama drank the Kool-Aid every chance he got. Oh yeah!!

Now in February of 2006 he finally realizes he's pinned his star to a troupe of incompetent clowns (Link to NYTimes Magazine essay). He's the Albert Speer of the NeoConservative movement.
posted by Skygazer at 4:57 PM on March 20, 2006


Not to be outdone, PP, but I not only support the war, I think we should increase the number of soldiers, expand it to include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, North Korea, and China. We should employ nuclear weapons and level any country that looks at us cross-eyed. Then, and only then will we be a free, independent nation with complete autonomy to rule the world. Hey, Putin, is that a sneer on your face...?
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:14 PM on March 20, 2006




Who are you addressing, Paris? Everyone?


Anyone who bites, I'd guess.
posted by pompomtom at 5:21 PM on March 20, 2006


ParisParamus: I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

Yet once again:
"If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

-- posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29
posted by ericb at 5:23 PM on March 20, 2006


I bit just this once. His credibility on this issue is shot.
posted by ericb at 5:24 PM on March 20, 2006


Zing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:28 PM on March 20, 2006


[Republican Sen. Chuck] Hagel [of Nebraska], in an interview [today], ...said many of the predictions and promises made by the administration have fallen short, such as that oil revenues would pay for the war and the conflict would be short. He also pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion last May that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.'

'There's been a credibility erosion for three years,' Hagel said."

[The Associated Press | March 20, 2006]
posted by ericb at 5:31 PM on March 20, 2006


Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details
"Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?"
posted by ericb at 5:37 PM on March 20, 2006


Iraqis Think U.S. in Their Nation to Stay
"Are the Americans here to stay? Air Force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad.

'I think we'll be here forever,' the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa., told a visitor to his base.

The Iraqi people suspect the same. Strong majorities tell pollsters they'd like to see a timetable for U.S. troops to leave, but believe Washington plans to keep military bases in their country.

[The Associated Press | March 20, 2006]
posted by ericb at 5:44 PM on March 20, 2006


ParisParamus writes "I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not."


If we're spineless for not supporting the war, what are you for supporting the war but not signing up? The Army is accepting enlistments up to age forty, largely because of the manpower shortage created by the war. If the war's so important, why isn't PrivateParisParamus on the march?

Or is it just your job to cheerlead (cough*Trent Lott*cough), while poorer men's son do the dying?
posted by orthogonality at 5:59 PM on March 20, 2006


Or is it just your job to cheerlead (cough*Trent Lott*cough), while poorer men's son do the dying?

It's his self imposed title of Petulant Shit Throwing Primate, Esquire. If you have a problem with that, look to the fact that he has yet to be permanently removed from MeFi for comments of this nature. Apparently his vast reserves of fecal matter and their ensuing propulsion is a necessary fact of life here on the blue.

PSTPE, reporting for duty, sir!
posted by prostyle at 6:09 PM on March 20, 2006


All of Metafilter is shit-throwing. Y'all are just pissy it's not all going in the same direction.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:13 PM on March 20, 2006


All encompassing reductive assertion for the win! PP is dead, long live PP!
posted by prostyle at 6:15 PM on March 20, 2006


Apologies for flogging the stinking, liquified corpse of a horse painted on the walls, but: And not only are we fighting men but we are fighting ideas.

You fight ideas with ideas, not bullets and bombs.

I'll leave the horrifying facts and contentious debate of fighting men with men to everyone else who cares to.
posted by loquacious at 6:19 PM on March 20, 2006


prostyle writes "If you have a problem with that, look to the fact that he has yet to be permanently removed from MeFi for comments of this nature."

He writes the same obnoxious shit that a lot of people do, he just supports the opposite position from the majority here.

That's not to say that he shouldn't get the boot; it's to say that either he and a good 10% of folks who post in poli posts should get the boot, or none of them should get the boot. (I favour the former over the latter, but that's just me)
posted by Bugbread at 6:20 PM on March 20, 2006


he just supports the opposite position from the majority here.

Ohh yes, I forgot this is the deciding factor. Somewhere a long the lines it was decided that the entire scope of MeFi was an "echo-chamber" of "groupthink" and that these strident, honest voices must rise through the garbage and float to the surface. Amazing that we're so willing to write ourselves off in the name of the principles our self professed "opposition" is so willing to relieve us of. There's a fine line, and he has crossed it multiple times - and he will continue to do so until he's perma-banned. What more do you need to know?
posted by prostyle at 6:26 PM on March 20, 2006


I think its the good flight, the fight that will eventually see results so tangible that even you won't be able to deny them (actually, the typical Mefi poster--the TMP--will simply stop discussing the issue at that time). In your vulgarity, your insecurity and weakness is showing.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:29 PM on March 20, 2006


Yeah, tell me more. Really, it's so enlightening! I would have had no idea you consider your "fight" to be "the good one" - what an eye opener! Let me repeat: you are a worthless piece of shit, and everything you type on here is meant to inspire strife and dissonance and garner attention for yourself - no more, no less. My vulgarity has nothing to do with it, you fucking douchebag.
posted by prostyle at 6:35 PM on March 20, 2006


How can we get the Bush junta in front of a war crimes tribunal? Is there any conceivable way that could happen, as it surely should if there were any semblance of justice and fairness in the world?

I do like to dream. Sorry.
posted by Decani at 6:37 PM on March 20, 2006


prostyle writes "Somewhere a long the lines it was decided that the entire scope of MeFi was an 'echo-chamber' of 'groupthink' and that these strident, honest voices must rise through the garbage and float to the surface."

I wasn't there when that was decided. I'm just saying that people say their opinion in abrasive, insulting fashion all the time, and people don't make a big deal of it, because they generally agree with the content, if not the delivery. It isn't group think, it's just people agreeing. I think Bush is an ass. A lot of people think Bush is an ass. That doesn't make it groupthink. If someone writes about how Bush supporters all fuck goats, it won't get a huge roasting, because a lot of us don't like Bush, and don't like that he has supporters, so we'll tend to overlook the assholeness of expression. If someone writes about how Bush detractors all fuck goats, it will get a huge roasting, because a lot of us are Bush detractors, and it will seem like a really inflammatory statement. Either way, the proper thing to do is either give a warning to all the people talking about how their opponents fuck goats, or let everybody be. Just because the Bush-detractor-goat-fucker comment raises more ire then the Bush-supporter-goat-fucker comment doesn't mean it's a worse statement, and it's author more worthy of bannination.

I'm not saying that ParisParamus writes good stuff. I'm just saying he writes the same shit as other folks do, but it sticks out more, because more of us disagree with it. Not because of groupthink or hivemind, but because sometimes people agree about stuff. It happens.
posted by Bugbread at 6:43 PM on March 20, 2006


Okay, now that there's been someone to take PP's bait, can we all just leave him in peace?

The thread isn't about him, and he's already demonstrated to have no credibility on thie issue.

Please do not continue to feed his attention cravings. Thank you.
posted by darkstar at 6:46 PM on March 20, 2006


ParisParamus writes "I think its the good flight, the fight that will eventually see results so tangible that even you won't be able to deny them "


Ok, Paris, so, tell us, what results and when? I want to bookmark your reply and check it out in a year or ten.
posted by orthogonality at 6:52 PM on March 20, 2006


No thanks, its too hostile here. In this forum, I don't think it's worth doing any more than stating my disagreement with the consensus view. I'm not here to be abused.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:02 PM on March 20, 2006


Bush Makes False Claim About Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
"I know it's hard to believe Mr. President, but they have these things now that actually record what you say and are able to play back what they record. Even after a long period of time. Keith Olbermann supplies the evidence." -- video/WMP; video/QT

Today in his speech in Cleveland:
Bush: 'First -- just, if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.'
In days gone by-SOTU-three years ago:
Bush: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
Now-anyone listening and watching his speech back then would make that connection easily enough since al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 -- don't you think?"
posted by ericb at 7:05 PM on March 20, 2006


How can we get the Bush junta in front of a war crimes tribunal? Is there any conceivable way that could happen, as it surely should if there were any semblance of justice and fairness in the world?

I do like to dream. Sorry.
posted by Decani at 9:37 PM EST on March 20


Yes. That would go a long way towards putting this country back on track.
posted by Skygazer at 7:08 PM on March 20, 2006


ParisParamus writes "No thanks, its too hostile here. In this forum, I don't think it's worth doing any more than stating my disagreement with the consensus view. I'm not here to be abused."
A hunter goes into the woods to hunt a bear. He carries his trusty 22-gauge rifle with him. After a while, he spots a very large bear, takes aim, and fires. When the smoke clears, the bear is gone.

A moment later the bear taps the hunter on the shoulder and says, "No one shoots at me and gets away with it. You have two choices: I can rip your throat out and eat you, or you can drop your trousers, bend over, and I'll do you in the ass."

The hunter decides that anything is better than death, so he drops his trousers and bends over, and the bear does what he said he would do. After the bear has left, the hunter pulls up his trousers again and staggers back into town. He's pretty mad.

He buys a much larger gun and returns to the forest. He sees the same bear, aims, and fires. When the smoke clears, the bear is gone. A
moment later the bear taps the hunter on the shoulder and says, "You know what to do."

Afterwards, the crying hunter pulls up his trousers, crawls back into town, and buys a bazooka. Now he's really mad. He returns to the forest, sees the bear, aims, and fires. The force of the bazooka blast knocks him flat on his back. When the smoke clears, the bear is standing over him and says,

"You're not coming here for the hunting, are you?"
posted by orthogonality at 7:15 PM on March 20, 2006


"If your approval on Iraq has fallen to only 29%, what do you do? Well, in this 'we can talk our way out of anything' White House, you send the president on the road to a corporate luncheon to complain that the questions are taking too long, and to lie about what you said regarding Hussein and 9/11. Oh, and you would tell the country that things are going well in Iraq. That’s what W did today in Cleveland. Bush says the strategy in Iraq is working. He said this on a day when Baghdad International Airport was closed through tomorrow as a security precaution, and a day when fifteen more bodies were found, and eight Iraqi policemen were killed on the third anniversary of the invasion. Attacks continued throughout the country, which has seen no reconstruction to speak of, and which has less electricity, water, and sewer services than it did during Hussein’s days. And the handpicked man to be prime minister now says that Iraq is already in a civil war that could spread to Europe." [source]

I think many Americans are tuning out when they hear Bush talk these days. For me, personally, I hear the "wha-wha-wha" voice of an adult in the Peanuts specials whenever Bush speaks these days. He's worn-out the buzzwords 'Victory in Iraq' and has a new one -- 'Progress':
"After three years of war in Iraq, President Bush is trying to get Americans to look beyond the unrelenting violence that dominates news reports and see progress.

Progress is the buzzword at the White House as Bush headlines a campaign tied to the war's anniversary to buck up public support of the mission."
"Wah, wah, wah."
posted by ericb at 7:20 PM on March 20, 2006


orthogonality -- bingo! (wiping the white wine off of my monitor).
posted by ericb at 7:22 PM on March 20, 2006


!

(ortho, that is incredible. Just...incredible.)
posted by darkstar at 7:25 PM on March 20, 2006


orthogonality writes: Nobody could have predicted it wouldn't work in Algeria, uh, Viet-, uh, Lebanon, uh, Iraq.
I'm young and only know Vietnam from the History channel and some brief interviews with vets, but my understanding is that if we had stuck it out we would have won the Vietnam war. So could anyone help compare the two quagmires?

Decani writes: How can we get the Bush junta in front of a war crimes tribunal?
I'd rather see a genuine effort at impeachment. Pick a crime any crime. But wow, i didn't think Feingold's censure motion would go over so poorly.

Paris: I used to love you man! But you're still ranting on like Rand, and seriously, she had no idea what she was talking about. You should change your name.

The rest of you: I'd respect you more if you gave the opposing viewpoint at least a semblance of respect. Why can't you be more like darkstar and y6y6y6? Hearts and minds people!
posted by MarkO at 7:27 PM on March 20, 2006


Skygazer writes "Fukuyama had been calling for pre-emptive military action against Saddam since 1998. See HERE.

"Was in fact one of the 'architects' of the Project for the New American Century which was like the NeoCon last supper. Check out the names on this Statement of Principles. (You know you're on the right track when Dan motherfucking Quayle lends his name to your cause.)

"See this letter from PNAC pleading allegiance to Da Fuhrer. That letter is so bombastic it should be staged as a Wagnerian opera. "


Yeah, I know all that. But he was opposed to the invasion in early 2003, wasn't he? I'm having trouble looking it up, but I seem to remember that he was saying it was a bad idea as it happened....
posted by mr_roboto at 7:27 PM on March 20, 2006


Anthony Cordesman (Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies): The Iraq War Three Years On: A Scorecard.
posted by ericb at 7:27 PM on March 20, 2006


So could anyone help compare the two quagmires?

Read what one of our military commanders has to say on the topic:

General William E. Odom, director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, compares Iraq and Vietnam:
"The Vietnam War experience can’t tell us anything about the war in Iraq – or so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and you may change your mind..." [Nieman Watchdog | March 08, 2008]
As well...

Haig: Vietnam Mistakes Repeated in Iraq
"Former Nixon adviser Alexander Haig said Saturday military leaders in Iraq are repeating a mistake made in Vietnam by not applying the full force of the military to win the war.

'Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don't do it,' Haig said. 'We're in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven't learned very much.' [Associated Press | March 11, 2006]
posted by ericb at 7:39 PM on March 20, 2006


Thank you, ericb, for that excellent article by Gen. Odom.
posted by darkstar at 8:03 PM on March 20, 2006


I'm young and only know Vietnam from the History channel and some brief interviews with vets, but my understanding is that if we had stuck it out we would have won the Vietnam war. So could anyone help compare the two quagmires?
Norman Podhoretz, who believes that American intervention in the Vietnam War was "an attempt born of noble ideals and impulses," has concluded that "the only way the United States could have avoided defeat in Vietnam was by staying out of the war altogether." His judgment, in retrospect, appears to be as reasonable as any. The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater, and the US decision to fight there in the 1960s was driven by a doctrine of containing communism that in the 1950s was witlessly militarized and indiscriminately extended to all of Asia. Bernard Brodie observed in the early 1970s that "it is now clear what we mean by calling the United States intervention in Vietnam a failure. . . . We mean that at least as early as the beginning of 1968 even the most favorable outcome . . . could not remotely be worth the price we would have paid for it."

The key to US defeat was a profound underestimation of enemy tenacity and fighting power, an underestimation born of a happy ignorance of Vietnamese history, a failure to appreciate the fundamental civil dimensions of the war, and a preoccupation with the measurable indices of military power and attendant disdain for the ultimately decisive intangibles. In 1965, Maxwell Taylor confessed that "the ability of the Viet Cong continuously to rebuild their units and make good their losses is one of the mysteries of this guerrilla war. We still find no plausible explanation of the continued strength of the Viet Cong." Four years later, Vo Nguyen Giap commented that the "United States has a strategy based on arithmetic. They question the computers, add and subtract, extract square roots, and then go into action. But arithmetical strategy doesn't work here. If it did, they'd have already exterminated us."

The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
Vietnam in Retrospect: Could We Have Won?
posted by y2karl at 8:29 PM on March 20, 2006


Francis Fukuyama on Charlie Rose right now if anyone interested...
posted by Skygazer at 8:38 PM on March 20, 2006


Old Forecasts Come Back to Haunt Bush
"Three years of upbeat White House assessments about Iraq that turned out to be premature, incomplete or plain wrong are complicating President Bush's efforts to restore public faith in the military operation and his presidency, according to pollsters and Republican lawmakers and strategists.

The last two weeks have provided a snapshot of White House optimism that skeptics contend is at odds with the facts on the ground in Iraq."

[Washington Post | March 21, 2006]
"Wah, wah, wah."
posted by ericb at 9:32 PM on March 20, 2006


Now we got the assholes telling us that things aren't that bad in Iraq. Or, we have guys saying "I was for the war at first, and I agree it's messed up now, but we can't leave...."

God damn you people.
posted by rougy at 9:49 PM on March 20, 2006


>I'm not here to be abused.

>>"You're not coming here for the hunting, are you?"

Pure comedy gold. I thank you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:52 PM on March 20, 2006


Mr.Roboto: I'm having trouble looking it up, but I seem to remember that he was saying it was a bad idea as it happened....

I was looking for that as well. Finally found this from WikiPedia:
He did not approve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as it was executed, and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation

and this from a Feb. 28, 2006 interview with Nathan Gardels:
It was clear to me then, about a year before the war, that, at a minimum, a war with Iraq would be a huge distraction. It has turned out worse: It has become a major setback, making terrorism worse.

So yes, looks like he had misgivings about his hawkish attitude on Iraq shortly after the admin's mismanagement and poor planning became apparent. But I couldn't find anything on his public oppositon to the war before it happened in March 2003.

I applaud his renounciation of Neoconservatism, but his lack of vision and willingness to give intellectual heft to the cult-like PNAC is deeply troubling. Frankly, his willingness to buy into a utopian vision of the arab world coming together magically under Ameican capitalism is ridiculious.
The tearing down of the wall in the early 90's seemed to have hypnotized these people with the illusion that god had annointed America and it's "benign" use of bombs can melt away ages old political and cultural differences overnight. What the hell was in that Kool Aid anyway...
posted by Skygazer at 10:24 PM on March 20, 2006


Nice one Ortho. Ha!
posted by Skygazer at 10:31 PM on March 20, 2006


rougy, I sympathize. The formulation you use leads me to this:

A. "I was for the war at first...but we're there now and can't just leave!"

B. "So, you admit your judgment has been seriously flawed on this from the beginning. Then what makes your judgment any more credible now than it was three years ago?"

People who argued vociferously in favor of war, who now realize that they were mistaken, should exercise the intellectual honesty to admit that the credibiliy of their judgment on how, whether and when to extricate the troops is seriously undermined.

Not that the rest of us have THE answer, necessarily. But once you've been proven to be so wrong on the front end, it should be kind of hard to assert that your assessment on the back end is so unassailable.
posted by darkstar at 3:46 AM on March 21, 2006


y6y6y6: Well, that's easy. Build global consensus. Support Moslem groups who seek peace. Make obvious security precautions. Embrace the virtues of liberty, and discourage fear. Build intel networks to hunt Al Qaeda members.

See, the problem is that none of that stuff gets results where it really matters: The polls.
posted by lodurr at 7:23 AM on March 21, 2006


See, the problem is that none of that stuff gets results where it really matters: The pollsvoting booth.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:50 PM on March 21, 2006


Get your priorities straight, man. Us Americans loves us a winner. Polls comes first: How else we gonna know who to vote for?
posted by lodurr at 2:54 AM on March 22, 2006


I still support the War, and I think you are spineless and shortsighted for not.

IMPORTANT REMINDER: ParisParamus is just trolling. His sole goal is to get you to respond in anger. He doesn't actually care about any of this, he just likes to fight.

Be better than him (it's not hard).
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:19 AM on March 22, 2006


Yes it is.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:20 AM on March 22, 2006


Geez, tacos, I totally missed PP little bomb the first time through. Hey, PP, how ya doin', man?

Gotta admit, man, it was a pretty amusing comment.

... And the bit about the bear was pretty funny, too.

(Fighting is easy. Not fighting -- now, that's usually much, much harder. Especially so for some people.)
posted by lodurr at 7:41 AM on March 22, 2006


“One doesn’t want to be accused of inhuman callousness; but I am willing to confess, and believe I speak for a lot of [Americans] that the spectacle of Middle Eastern Muslims slaughtering each other is one that I find I can contemplate with calm composure.”

-- John Derbyshire, National Review
posted by ericb at 10:56 AM on March 22, 2006


Another misjudgment and false assumption:

"The U.S. military's top commander [Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said Wednesday that he underestimated the extent of the reluctance of the Iraqi people to accept a unified government, and he thought citizens would more quickly embrace the idea of a central government....The sectarian violence has slowed the move to a unified government _ a process that U.S. officials have said is critical to the ability of the country to stand on its own, improve its economy, and allow U.S. forces to begin more substantial troop withdrawals."

[The Associated Press | March 22, 2006]
posted by ericb at 11:00 AM on March 22, 2006


Analysis: Bush Spends ‘Capital‘ on Iraq
"President Bush says he‘s spending his remaining 'political capital' on the war in Iraq . The trouble is, he may have little left....

What became of that political capital? 'I‘d say I‘m spending that capital on the war,' Bush told reporters. 'Social Security — it didn‘t get done,' he added.

With many Republicans putting distance between themselves and Bush on Iraq, it wasn‘t clear where exactly he was spending the capital.

'What political capital does he have? He doesn‘t have any on Iraq,' said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University. 'It was a bogus claim. He was emboldened by his election victory, which he viewed as a referendum on his presidency and on his party.'

[The Associated Press | March 22, 2006]
posted by ericb at 11:05 AM on March 22, 2006


“One doesn’t want to be accused of inhuman callousness...

That's just classic.

The reason NON-sociopaths don't want to be accused of inhuman callousness is because they actually don't want to be inhumanly callous.

Sociopaths just don't want to be accused of it because they want to safeguard their image.

Guess which one of those categories this guy fits.
posted by darkstar at 11:21 AM on March 22, 2006


« Older What's Wrong with the Democratic Party?   |   Emirates Aided Kin of Palestinian Militants Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments