Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iraq: How do we define success and then how do we accomplish it?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 17, 2006

Yesterday I asked what readers of this blog conditions they considered necessary to declare "victory" in Iraq. I asked because as I reviewed the various statements by politicians and generals, I was struck by the fact that while they seemed pretty clear that "victory" could or couldn't be achieved in Iraq, none of them ever defined what they were talking about as far as the meaning of "victory".

For the most part, the same problem was evident among QandO readers as well. Actually that's not true. What became evident was that for the most part, we all defined it differently or had different expectations concerning conditions we would call "victory." I found that instructive. We're constantly told the issue of Iraq is the most dominant issue of the day. And I consider QandO readers to be pretty well-informed about the issue. But it is instructive that none of us were able to clearly articulate the terms of success, or "victory" in Iraq.

Now that may mean a number of things, one of which is in a classic sense, there will be no "victory" in Iraq. As Joe said:
No "Appomattox Courthouse", " No Rail Car in Compaigne", "No Doenitz at Koln."
Adam believes:
[A]t this point it seems most useful to consider victory in terms of what is reasonably achievable in Iraq.
On the other hand, some were fairly clear on their definition of "victory", such as y7:
Victory in Iraq: when we don our softcaps, turn our backs, and walk peacefully away. If we are wearing body armor when leave, then we have lost.
And Larry:
Saddam dead.

Elected government standing with only aid and advisers from outside.

At most sporadic, but not systemic, violence.

Al Qaeda marginalized.
Francis:
[V]ictory (at this point) is respect by Iraqis for their own rule of law.
And timactual:
Victory conditions?

A month without car bombs, kidnappings, or factional murders.
While everyone seemed to have differing opinions on what or wasn't "victory" or whether or not it was achievable, the one fairly surprising omission from any of the 40+ replies was the requirement for a democratic Iraq.

I also found a tendency for commenters to break the issue into two parts. The "war" and the "peace".

Most are of the opinion that we've already won "the war", however we've botched the peace pretty badly. "A Duoist's" comment was fairly typical in that regard:
The American troops have already won the war: The capital was taken, and the thug was plucked from his ’spider hole,’ tried, and sentenced to death for his crimes against his own people. That’s victory.

What has not been won is the peace.
This theme was echoed by many. Billy Beck:
Post-9/11 Premise: "Kill the bad guys."

Iraq Application: Saddam Hussein’s head on a stake planted in downtown Baghdad; the last American officer stands in the door of the last flight out of town and says, "Don’t make us come back."

I say it’s way too late for "victory".

All this "nation-building" rubbish put the skids to that.
Of course it is the "nation-building", also called "the peace" which is now the issue.

So, for the most part, we're agreed that in part one, "the war" we achieved "victory". And it was clear cut. Invade, defeat the enemy, depose the government ("regime change"), capture the leaders and put them on trial.

Done.

But the peace? Not so good. Defining "victory" for that is a very difficult chore at best, because it doesn't depend on our military, it depends on the Iraqis as well as their government. And, more importantly, the problem has moved from being a strictly military problem to one which is diplomatic, political, economic, and judicial as well.

Steve makes an excellent point:
’Victory’ is defined by how well we can keep the Iraqis from killing one another... and since the Iraqis really want to kill each other, I would have to say that this is one fight we can not win.
SShiell says to believe we can't achieve victory in the "peace" phase is bunk:
To say we cannot walk into a 1,000 year old medieval society and convert it into a modern democracy is historical bunk. What do you think we faced in 1945 Japan? (OK - Japan was a 1,500 year old medieval society)

In the case of Japan, we have a similar protagonist. We felt we had to convert Japan or possibly lose her to the Soviets, who were breathlessly hoping for us to fail in the East. Any similarities here? All but one - with Japan, the general consensus was there was a Soviet/Communist threat. With Iraq, there is no such consensus.
But the point often made when these comparisons are drawn is that Japan was a homogeneous people, who had indeed surrendered and willingly complied with our direction and directives. And even then it took almost a decade to have a viable Japanese political infrastructure which could support democratic institutions.

Almost the exact opposite exists in Iraq in terms of conditions. A citizenry comprised of three rival factions (two based in religion and one in ethnicity) which have now been given the freedom to address their grievances before the institutions and procedures necessary to address them peacefully were in place.

So that brings us to a couple tentative conclusions.

First: In this phase of the issue, the "peace" phase, we probably never going to have a day, like we did in the war phase, that we can suddenly declare "victory". That doesn't mean we can't, at some point, call the peace phase successful, but it would seem "victory" wouldn't be an appropriate term.

That's because, secondly, we all would define success differently. As noted above, for some it is simply being able to walk around securely. Of course that could be achieved under a brutal dictatorship probably as easily as a democracy. Some define it as did Larry stipulating only that an elected government exist and a modicum of peace. Or "respect for the rule of law" as Francis suggests.

Obviously, those differences on what defines success or lack of success color our perceptions and our conversations. For many, any discussion finds us talking past each other since we are, for the most part, talking about different ideas about what is an acceptable end-state in Iraq.

All this to help demonstrate that this is also a problem at the highest levels in our government. Each side defines success differently. And, in fact, there are differing definitions within each side. Although it didn't show up in our comments, there are those who now define success without considering Iraq or the Iraqis at all. They define it as getting our troops out of Iraq the most expeditious way possible and while giving a hand-wave to an "over the horizon" force that would be available to help them, are mostly ready to end our involvement in Iraq. There are those, again, not in these comments, who think we should double the number of troops there, crush the insurgency and then everything else will fall into place. Their measure of success is the US killing off the insurgency.

These competing ideas of success leave us precisely where we are in Iraq: adrift. We have military leaders saying, we have a plan, let us work it and we have Senators saying "hope isn't a plan" and let's do something different. But no one, as far as I can tell, has any idea of what "doing something different" means, because, on the whole, we don't have a unified idea of how we define success in Iraq.

And until we do, nothing is going to change much. In my opinion it is up to the President to clearly lay out the situation in Iraq and to define success as he views it. It is from that definition, whether you agree or disagree, that a discussion about succeeding in Iraq must begin. If that is done, then there might be some chance that some form of success might indeed be achieved. Until then, however, we'll see more and more talking past each other with no resolution in sight.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
There are many many people who have many many reasons why they think that George Bush messed up in Iraq. From disbanding the Iraqi army to appointing Bremer to Abu Ghraib to whatever (plastic turkey incident!). For Andrew Sullivan, the defining issue in Iraq seems to be gay marriage in the US, somehow. But as far as I am concerned, these issues, whether or not they were mistakes and whether or not Bush had any influence over them in reality, are trivial, tactical mistakes at the worst. The true strategic error that the President made was made right after 9/11, and it was revealed by his answer to a question about what Americans should do to help the war effort. He said we should shop.

Now, in one way, that is a defensible statement; the attack on 9/11 was an attack on our morale and our economy, and showing that our morale was undaunted and our economy unbroken was important. But it revealed, too, that the President, as he would later say, did not want the country to feel as if we were at war. He succeeded admirably. I think that our entire problem with sustaining the war effort is based on that decision and the policies that flowed from it, from not building up the military immediately after 9/11 to not defining the real issues on Iraq very clearly (and not articulating them constantly) to not talking about the necessary time frame or end state of the broader war to not even truly naming our enemy to not making Iran and Syria afraid that we would do anything to win, including fighting them, to the insistence of many that we abandon Iraq. All of these are consequences of not only not engaging the public in the war effort, but of actively trying to lull us back to sleep.

Well, the President has sown the wind, and it will take someone else to calm the whirlwind and return us to the post-9/11 mindset that would carry us to eventual victory and a better and remade world. If, that is, it’s not already too late for that.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Overall, McQ, a very good exercize. And the point you made for the conclusion is a telling one:
"But no one, as far as I can tell, has any idea of what "doing something different" means, because, on the whole, we don’t have a unified idea of how we define success in Iraq."

With Gulf War One, our objectives were clear - Free Kuwait by forcing Iraq to quit the country, by force if necessary. Force had to be utilized and once Iraq was out, our objective was met - case closed. Many would argue to this day that we left the job unfinished. But that is another debate. At the time, with the Coalition we had together, continuing to Baghdad was outside the objectives of that conflict.

To this day, except for regime change, I do not know what the goals or objectives were for this conflict. We did in fact remove Sadaam and his sons from power so in that respect, the war was indeed a success. But beyond the obvious - regime change - what were our objectives? I didn’t ask what are our objectives. What were our objectives? And in this I feel the administration lost its way.

Thanks for providing us all the opportunity to join the discussion. I thought the individuals providing input did a great job of making their thoughts known without the acrimony seen in so may other venues - and I would like to thank each of them for their participation. Wouldn’t it be nice to see this kind of debate on Capital Hill?

I know, I’m just day-dreaming!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
As noted above, for some it is simply being able to walk around securely. Of course that could be achieved under a brutal dictatorship probably as easily as a democracy
But it should be noted, that this is something we’ve not acheieved in some areas of our larger cities. Which in turn raises the question if our definition of a lack of violence in the affected areas isn’t unrealisticly high...

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
But it should be noted, that this is something we’ve not acheieved in some areas of our larger cities. Which in turn raises the question if our definition of a lack of violence in the affected areas isn’t unrealisticly high...
No, because if I’m walking in Compton or Camden Yard I MIGHT get mugged, no one or groups of someones is planting a car bomb that will level the local AME church or explode outside the Pic-Pak and kill dozens and would hundreds.

So whilst I supported the war and still do, to compare the violence in Baghdad to NYC is not a good idea, and I think if you run the numbers, "Murder rate per 100,000" it will be demonstrably obvious.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
" the one fairly surprising omission from any of the 40+ replies was the requirement for a democratic Iraq."

Given the condition of the rest of the middle east, and most of the world, I think it is more realistic to expect a non-democratic Iraq.

Sometimes defining a your goal, victory in this case, is the most difficult part of the process. Once you have the definition, the necessary strategy to attain it becomes clearer. Of course, if you do not have the correct definition, there can be problems.


"as he would later say, did not want the country to feel as if we were at war. He succeeded admirably"

Guns AND butter. Sounds familiar.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I don’t even know what to say to some of this. I am just speechless.
 
Written By: Cassandra
URL: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/
I don’t even know what to say to some of this. I am just speechless.
But it illustrates the problem about as well as anything. No one agrees on what constitutes success.

So when Hillary Clinton says "hope is not a plan" and Abazaid says "we don’t need more troops" who knows what end-state each are talking about?

There is a phenomenal state of incoherence about this issue among those who basically see the issue in the same light. Imagine what it is like among those who are going to make decisions about Iraq.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What would victory even look like in Iraq? 500,000 more people killed? A million? Two million? I don’t know what kind of viewpoint it would take to see genocide in terms of victory.
 
Written By: Nicolai Brown
URL: http://www.nicolaibrown.com
McQ, neither you nor your commenters seems to have figured out the crucial factor in reforming both Japan and Germany: both of them had the SH*T kicked out of them first.

War and rulership (aka politics, today) is and always has been about establishing dominance, so that people will go along with what you want to have happen (whether it’s in their best interests or not; results are all you’re after) because the alternative, as they see it, is to become dead. "This is defeat, avoid it." Nikolai Brown is probably right about the scale; what he fails to see is that when the alternative is full on nuclear war with the one billion strong Islamic world, the result would be cheap at twice the price. The Japanese and the Germans were fortunate that their defeat came at the hands of a country that really just wants to be left alone.

I submit that having to walk past a dozen blocks of bombed / burned buildings to get the charity doled out by the ones who did the bombing was a far more powerful motivator for reforming the political system along American lines than the spectacle of us agonizing over waterboarding.

And despite what mkultura or Mona will claim, being left alone is really all that most Americans want. However, if you claim you want to have a war with the Great Satan for 25+ years, we might just give you what you ask for (and really haven’t yet).

As for the victory conditions, how about this one: We leave behind a government that tells Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Osama that no, it won’t help in that war on the Great Satan because it likes its’ *ss right where it is, not up between its’ shoulder blades. And that it would rather go to war against THEM instead if they don’t leave it alone.



 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Admittedly anecdotal evidence here.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
The reason I am speechless is that the President has clearly laid out what we are trying to do in Iraq in, oh, I can’t tell you how many speeches. I know, because I’ve read them. The message hasn’t changed.

I can’t understand how anyone could fail to be clear about what we’re trying to accomplish over there.

I stopped last night because I was getting angry and that doesn’t accomplish anything. But it seems a few of the commenters have substituted press memes like "he told us to go out and go shopping" for substantive policy speeches that have been made over and over and over again. Now if people would rather watch ElimaDate than listen to the President, that is one thing. But please do not tell me you have never been told what we are trying to accomplish over there. Because I am not buying off on it. I believe it was SShiell who summarized it quite succinctly in the comments on your first post on this subject, but here’s a snippet from a speech made in 2003 where (again, contradicting what the press keeps saying) Bush says this is going to be difficult and take a LONG TIME:

Our goal in Iraq is to leave behind a stable, self-governing society, which will no longer be a threat to the Middle East or to the United States. We’re following an orderly plan to reach this goal. Iraq now has a Governing Council, which has appointed interim government ministers. Once a constitution has been written, Iraq will move toward national elections. We want this process to go as quickly as possible — yet it must be done right. The free institutions of Iraq must stand the test of time. And a democratic Iraq will stand as an example to all the Middle East. We believe — and the Iraqi people will show — that liberty is the hope and the right of every land. Our work in Iraq has been long, it’s hard, and it’s not finished. We will stay the course. We will complete our job. And beyond Iraq, the war on terror continues. There will be no quick victory in this war.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Establish a sustainable democratic government in Iraq and eliminate Iraq as both a regional threat and a threat to us.

What is unclear about that?

Now if you insist on renegotiating the goal, then it becomes damned unclear. But the message has never been unclear unless I’ve been smoking some controlled substance for the past several years. What we disagree about, is how to get there.

Or if it is still worth getting there at all, apparently.
 
Written By: Cassandra
URL: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/
Establish a sustainable democratic government in Iraq and eliminate Iraq as both a regional threat and a threat to us.

What is unclear about that?
What’s unclear is if that is truly how we are defining success or whether it is rhetoric and a different end-state is actually acceptable. Such as a "stable government" instead of a "sustainable democratic government". Or said another way, most don’t think those are attainable goals anymore.

For the definition to be clear, actions should match rhetoric. Leaving the militias in place and essentially washing our hands of them (i.e. leaving them to dealt with by a weak Iraqi government) seems to say we’ll accept a ’stable government’ (even if it is kept in power by militias over a "sustainable democratic government" for instance).

The George Friedman piece you cited a couple of days ago argues persuasively against a "democratic" Iraq ever emerging by pointing out that the government which is now in place is actively working against itself in that regard.

And saying it is now up to the Iraqis also argues against our stated goal to "establish a sustainable democratic government" since "leaving it up to the Iraqi’s" says that goal is now out of our hands. If so, it is more of a hope than a goal. In effect, we are again saying we’ll accept whatever the Iraqis come up with the hope it is stable and not-anti US. That is unless we’re willing to take the place over again and start over. Obviously not at all likely.

So while the rhetoric is clear, it isn’t to this point, supported by what is going on in Iraq. And that’s the point of all of this. That is what is sowing the confusion. And remember, we’ve never been about "staying the course" ... or have we?

No, as much as I’d like to say this is all crystal clear and we have a perfectly clear definition of achievable success in Iraq, I can’t.

Add to that the competing definitions within those who want to stay in Iraq with those who want us out and it gets even worse.

A realistic statement of achievable goals are would help focus the debate and keep people from talking past each other (that’s what this whole "stay the course" debate has been about). In my estimation we may be able to help achieve a stable (and hopefully democratic) Iraq, which is self-sustaining and can defend itself. We can also work toward an Iraq that isn’t a regional threat or anti-US but there is no way to guarantee that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But it should be noted, that this is something we’ve not acheieved in some areas of our larger cities. Which in turn raises the question if our definition of a lack of violence in the affected areas isn’t unrealisticly high...
No, because if I’m walking in Compton or Camden Yard I MIGHT get mugged, no one or groups of someones is planting a car bomb that will level the local AME church or explode outside the Pic-Pak and kill dozens and would hundreds.
True to a degree. The violence here tends to be more one on one.

But think; the conditions as your words lay them out also apply to Iraq; If I’m walking through downtown Baghdad, I might get killed. Then again I might not. As a matter of fact the numbers seem to suggest that I probably wouldn’t. But that’s precisely the point; Where does that degree kick in? Where is the cutoff point?

The Murder per thousand figure that you mentioned, it is also a relative thing. After all as a static level it was significantly higher in that section of the world (and not just Iraq ) than about any city in the west, particularly the US, and Canada, before all of this went down.

What I’m suggesting, here, is that we are defining success in terms of supposed western norms. The first question is if that’s being honest, givern our own criminality issues... And even without the first part, I’m wondering, if that’s realistic or even possible. Given the thousands of years of history, is it possible to attain the kind of numbers that we see as normal here in the states?

And I must say that I’m a little uncomfortable even with my own wording in labeling what we see as "criminality " as opposed to an act of war. And that perhaps is another problem; we can’t even agree on what constitutes criminality versus war... and our definition of success is even harder to obtain thereby.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
I should add, that all of my comments add up to this:

Judging our success or failure, based purely on a level of violence in the region, is probably not a valid measurement.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Although this has been said in various ways, the bottom line is that this is really no longer up to us. It’s out of our hands, and we have to remember that as a sovereign state Iraq cannot and should not be considered some kind of protectorate of the United States. We should not undertake imperialism. At some point, for better or worse, we simply have to say that it’s out of our hands.

The key needs to be stability in the region, and given the military realities shown by this war, stability is not likely to be achieved through war or military action. Regime change alone, be it in Iraq, Iran or Syria is not going to lead to regional peace and stability. And the cost is immense. So we need a completely different approach — a regional, diplomatic approach.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
="we may be able to help achieve a stable (and hopefully democratic) Iraq.."
===
At last, a statement that looks the reality of the day in the eye and deals with what is POSSIBLE.

No matter what our initial goals were, or what they morphed into, this is today. The situation in Iraq is becoming worse by the day, and it is essential to do whatever it takes to bring some degree of sevurity to the country.

Even the narrowly defined goal of ’stability’ is not going to be cake walk, as the Iraqi government seems more focused on competing for power than achieving a functioning nation.

An additional possibility is that we learn from this war. Our reliance on the tactic of regime change, especially when it’s done by military force, has got to be re-examined. Americans seem incapable of understanding regions and cultures that are not like our own, so our involvements are done blindly, and the consequences are a perpetual, nasty surprise some time down the road.

 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
War and rulership (aka politics, today) is and always has been about establishing dominance, so that people will go along with what you want to have happen (whether it’s in their best interests or not; results are all you’re after) because the alternative, as they see it, is to become dead. "This is defeat, avoid it."
Actually I have covered this at length and basically said that we needed to act like a conquering army instead of a ’liberating army’ when we first went it. I took a bit of heat for that, but it is indeed the only way to accomplish what we wanted to do in terms of nation building. It is no longer politically correct to consider war in that regard and, frankly, we apparently believed our own PR ("they’ll greet us as liberators") to boot.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
="we needed to act like a conquering army instead of a ’liberating army’ "

==That would have postponed, not necessary averted. the kind of troubles we see today. I see, again, a tendency to treat Iraq in an isolated way, as if we could act there in the dark of night, without the rest of the Middle East reacting and acting in their own way.

Since this is a ’what if’ scenario, there is no way to know what the consequences, and especially, the unforseen coonsequences would have been.
But questions about Iran’s reaction, for starters, should be calculated into this scenario, What if this conquering army ignited a regional war?
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
That would have postponed, not necessary averted. the kind of troubles we see today.
Obviously that’s debatable, but I’d have to ask how disarming the country and not allowing the rise of the militias we’d have just "delayed" and not "averted" what the arms and the militias are causing today?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Our goal in Iraq is to leave behind a stable, self-governing society, "

That may be the President’ goal, but changing Iraqi society was certainly never my goal. I also do not think it was ever the goal of the majority of Americans. You can fault me for not paying enough attention to the words of our President, but I have a h*ll of a lot of company.

"Bush says this is going to be difficult and take a LONG TIME"

Care to define "LONG TIME"? To me, three years is a fairly long time. My attention span my be a little short, but if you or Bush think that we need to stay there 10 or 20 years, you are delusional if you think the public ever had that impression or whould put up with it.

Perhaps another reason is that some of us filter everything a politician says. Much of it is, I am sure you will agree, bs. Which parts of it are bs or rhetoric is a matter of individual interpretation, which may or may not be correct. Did Bush mean to say something to the effect that "We will pay any price, bear any burden,..."? He may be willing to, but the rest of us may not be. This misunderstanding may be the source of some of his frustration and irritation.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
="I’d have to ask how disarming the country and not allowing the rise of the militias we’d have just "delayed" and not "averted" what the arms and the militias are causing today? "
==

We are both just guessing here, but...

Unless you bring in enough troops to cover every foot of Iraq’s borders, arms would always become available in time.
Unless you patrol every household cupboars, explosive devices would become available.

They don’t want foreign troops on their soil!
Ergo, they would do everything possible to make life difficult for us - the invaders.
And, what would Iraq"s neighbors be doing in the meantime? I doubt that passively looking on would seem an attractive option to them.

Then we come to the question of the government. No matter what kind of governemnt we install, sectarian competion for power is inevitable. Aside from the Shia/Suuni/Kurd divide, these people have functioned on the basis of family and tribal loyalties. Again, the competition for power and influence would arise.

Above all, terrorism has replaced political discourse in much of the world. Why should we
expect Iraq to be exempt?
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Tim,

I think you’ll be surprised at what Americans will do / "put up with" when there’s a two comma casualty count event in a major metropolitan area. I’ll give you a clue: when Churchill visited Coventry after the bombing, a new sentiment was heard in the land:"’Give it them back! Let them have it too.’ And certainly the enemy got it all back, in full measure, pressed down and running over. Alas for poor humanity."

I’ll also take whatever bets you like that the reaction of the crowd to someone saying "That’s not my goal" would have been a short rope and a long drop. No due process involved, either.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
McQ,

You probably have covered it. I didn’t search the site first, and didn’t see it in the article in question. That said, too many people want to use the Japanese example without going into the pre-requisite. Personally, I’d remind people of it every time commenters like SShiel use the example. YMMV.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
"Bush says this is going to be difficult and take a LONG TIME"

Care to define "LONG TIME"? To me, three years is a fairly long time. My attention span my be a little short, but if you or Bush think that we need to stay there 10 or 20 years, you are delusional if you think the public ever had that impression or whould put up with it.
Perhaps you are unaware of the time period needed to create stability in Japan and Germany following WWII?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
"I think you’ll be surprised at what Americans will do / "put up with" when there’s a two comma casualty count event in a major metropolitan area"

You are going to have to point out to me what this has to do with Iraq.



"Perhaps you are unaware of the time period needed to create stability in Japan and Germany following WWII?"

I am unaware of the number of car bombs, factional murders, and kidnappings in Germany and Japan during our occupation. What is your definition of stability? US troops in Berlin and Tokyo walked around singly and unarmed shortly after the end of the war. Some of them lived "on the economy", outside any barracks or fortified areas. Armed convoys were not needed. My guess is that the time period needed to create this stability was at most a few months. I am sure you can enlighten me as to the official time period needed.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Tim,

1. We pull out of Iraq.

2. Our enemies in the Islamic world gets the reinforced idea that the US is the "weak horse". Our allies get another lesson (after Vietnam 1975, Iran 1979, and the Shia massacre in 1991) that we can’t be relied on.

3. Iran gets the bomb and provides one or more to Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, etc.

4. Bomb is smuggled into this country, aided by Democrats’ terrorist enabling policies: no electronic intelligence, no Patriot Act, no profiling, etc.

5. Bomb is detonated.

Simple enough for you?

Not within the first two years they didn’t. Google up Operation Werwolf.

And, as usual, you are ignoring the pre-requisite for a quiet occupation of bombing their cities to rubble and killing a hefty percentage of their population.

Moron.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Ah, so it is a POTENTIAL two comma casualty count. A lot of ifs there. Is it your argument that staying indefinitely in Iraq will prevent such a thing? Somehow, if we stay in Iraq, Hezbollah, etc. will not try to acquire and use a nuclear weapon? Perhaps, since you can so acurately foretell the future, you would be so kind as to pick me a lottery number?

"Not within the first two years they didn’t. Google up Operation Werwolf."

I did. You will have to provide me with a little more information, since I couldn’t find the site that told of the massive destruction and terror wrought by the fearsome nazi underground. There is a reason that, given the literally thousands of fiction and non-fiction books available in bookstores about WWII, Nazi Germany, and Nazis in general, that it is almost impossible to find one about Nazi guerillas in post-war Germany. And of course there is still Japan. Was there an "Operation Werworf-san" that I am unaware of?



" And, as usual, you are ignoring the pre-requisite for a quiet occupation of bombing their cities to rubble and killing a hefty percentage of their population"

No, my point is that the comparison is not a good one. Your comment, if anything, supports my point. That is assuming (and I do not) that your pre-requisite is indeed a pre-requisite.

And you call me a moron.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider