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

 
Don’t like Korea and Germany? Try Kosovo and Bosnia then ...
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Firedog Lake and a few other lefty blogs are having a bit of trouble trying to get their head around an apt analogy to justify a base in Iraq and seem to be pretty sure there isn't one:
McCain's problem is not merely that his analogy to Korea falls apart when analyzed — see Juan Cole and Frank Rich and Bill Sher — but that he assumes an extended US occupation of Iraq after we've subdued it by force would not provoke a deep and continuing hostility by resentful Iraqis (and Muslims elsewhere). It's simply not credible to believe that such hostility would not produce continuing attacks on US forces as long as they occupied Iraq and shielded its collaborating government. Even now, polls of Iraqi opinion have repeatedly found the Iraqis resent our occupation, are furious when we attack civilians, find attacking Americans acceptable and want a timetable for withdrawal (as do 60 percent of Americans ).

If Korea (or Germany or Japan) is not a helpful analogy, what is? Perhaps a more apt comparison is Israel's decades long war with the Palestinians.
Personally, I was thinking Kosovo and Bosnia.

You know Bill Clinton's, "They'll be home by Christmas" war? The unprovoked, preemptive war of choice the left seems to forget about when it comes to discussions like this? What has it been now, almost 10 years?

In Kosovo, the base's name is Camp Bondsteel. It houses 7,000 US troops.


And you know why you don't remember them being there? Because no one, not even the majority Muslim population, is shooting at them. And as I understand it, that's precisely what McCain hopes will be the case at an eventual base in Iraq.

There's also Camp Comanche in Bosnia. It's within sniper distance of the Tuzla airport. Still there, still full of US troops, still among a 40% Muslim population and still not having any problems.

So what do you think? Could they still be there in, say, a 100 years? And if so, how would that necessarily be a problem?

Lastly, given the premise of "after we've subdued it by force would [that] not provoke a deep and continuing hostility by resentful Iraqis (and Muslims elsewhere)", why isn't this at work in these two Muslim enclaves?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What about Kuwait? Its the same people as Iraqis, ethnically and culturally. They never gave us any problems. Qatar and Bahrain have bases too, though those 2 countries were sort of built up from scratch by oil-barons and bankers over the last 25 years.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
Because you can’t throw lines like - "The unprovoked, preemptive war of choice the left seems to forget about when it comes to discussions like this" - when talking about them.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Man, you’re clutching at straws. Post-Ottoman Arabia is not Europe. There is a world of difference. You should deal with those realities, rather than trying to find other cases and then trying to assume that somehow will apply to Iraq. Iraq is a failed policy. Get used to it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris the Ignorant:
Man, you’re clutching at straws. Post-Ottoman Arabia is not Europe.
Boris, dahlink, the part of Europe in question is Post-Ottoman Europe.

But, we understand that you’re a college professor, and don’t know anything.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Man, you’re clutching at straws. I mean, yes, your facts are all correct, but your position violates the very foundation of post-modernist politics, which states definitely that everyone hates the US, and any examples to the contrary are just places where we’ve dealt with the locals so oppressively that they’ve been cowed into silence.

Post-Ottoman Arabia is not Europe. Well, I realize you are talking about post-Ottoman Europe, but still, it’s on a completely different continent! There is a world of difference, though offhand I can’t think of any particularly relevant ones. But it’s just different! It has to be, because otherwise my meme of how our presence in Iraq is feeding the violence would be completely shot. So I decree that it’s different, using my godlike powers of political science. You should deal with those realities, rather than trying to find other cases and then trying to assume that somehow will apply to Iraq. Nothing will ever apply to Iraq that makes it look viable as long as I have my godlike powers of political science to veto it as a relevant issue. Iraq is a failed policy. Get used to it! It’s over, I tell you, over, over, over! It can’t succeed! You have to get used to it, McQ! Please, I’m begging you!
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Man, you’re clutching at straws. Post-Ottoman Arabia is not Europe. There is a world of difference. You should deal with those realities, rather than trying to find other cases and then trying to assume that somehow will apply to Iraq. Iraq is a failed policy. Get used to it.
I’m sorry, maybe your kool-aid spilled on your screen. Lets try this again:



WHAT ABOUT KUWAIT?

Fact is, the ’failed’ Iraq policy is working.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
why not consider how we help the Iraq government function more effectively?
Did you bother to listen to or read anything Crocker said in the last two days? Anything at all?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jay:
why not consider how we help the Iraq government function more effectively?
Governments function via a monopoly on violence, either kinetic or potential. That’s the nature of civil society. Otherwise we have a situation called the "war of all against all."

Sometimes, getting from kinetic violence to the potential violence which is the preferred state of civil society is a struggle, particularly where factions are having at one another. That’s the stage we are in now. This is not the Oxford debate club, in Iraq.
isn’t it smart to change strategy until you find one that works?
Well, we have an extremely flexible military force, directed by a flexible policy. Flexible on tactics, flexible on strategy, but the principles of civil security and self-government and factional accord are not so open to "flexibility."

You pretty much either have them or you don’t.

As far as smart goes, the guy we have in charge over there, Gen. David Petraeus, is probably one of the smartest military officers we’ve ever been lucky enough to have in our military, and that is saying something. The guy has it all: advanced education, experience in battle, and probably an IQ north of 150.

So, don’t you worry about us doing our best. Especially because behind him, Petraeus has the most remarkable soldiers ever to walk the face of the earth.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
what i’m worried about is that if the country stabilizes, and we can and do keep troops there without violence, like in Kuwait and such, that there might be adverse consequences for the new state of Iraq.

Other states in the area fear a total US puppet. Wouldn’t having a military presence do at least some damage to Iraqi foreign policy? And even if Iraqis accept the idea of US soldiers perpetually on their soil, this could (and is currently) be used to recruit further radicals to combat the ’US imperialism’.

These aren’t partisan but rather practical questions.
 
Written By: Zeno
URL: http://sosoonnomore.blogspot.com/
Other states in the area fear a total US puppet. Wouldn’t having a military presence do at least some damage to Iraqi foreign policy? And even if Iraqis accept the idea of US soldiers perpetually on their soil, this could (and is currently) be used to recruit further radicals to combat the ’US imperialism’.
Sure the Poles hate(d) us...oh wait...they didn’t, because they saw that Germany and Western Europe were veritable Paradises as compared to the authoritarian squalour they resided in...you know kind of like Syria and Iran?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"getting from kinetic violence to the potential violence "

Okay, it is time for my periodic confession of ignorance. I have seen the word ’kinetic’ a few times lately used in reference to military stuff, but what the heck does it mean? I obviously do not keep up with the latest jargon.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Kuwait is controlled by a royal family, much like Qatar. In those small states you might get support for something like this, but Iraq it is clearly not working. Moreover, they shouldn’t tolerate a foreign force on their soil, they are right to reject our efforts to shape their future. It’s just amazing that so many in America fooled themselves into thinking we’d be welcomed.

By the way, Clinton’s war in Kosovo was another failure, though unlike Iraq, he managed to spin it to appear a PR success. It was supposed to be a few days, it would get the Serbs to sign the Rambouillet agreement, and we’d prevent atrocities. Instead the Serbs responded to the bombing by displacing 900,000 people, we bombed from above 15,000 feet, making us unable to really do anything about those atrocities as they were happening, and the Serbs only gave in when the Germans convinced the Russians to pull out any hope of Russian support to Serbia. We should have learned with Kosovo the limits of military power to get a political end, this should have shown us the danger of the use of war — organized mass murder — for this kind of end. Because we didn’t learn the lesson in Kosovo, we made what almost everyone now agrees was a huge strategic error in the choice to go to war against Iraq in 2003 — and we will pay the price for that blunder for some time to come.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
timactual:
Okay, it is time for my periodic confession of ignorance. I have seen the word ’kinetic’ a few times lately used in reference to military stuff, but what the heck does it mean? I obviously do not keep up with the latest jargon.
I don’t think it’s jargon. Kinetic means going at it; potential means it’s there to be used. To put it in plain terms.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris the fool:
By the way, Clinton’s war in Kosovo was another failure, though unlike Iraq, he managed to spin it to appear a PR success. It was supposed to be a few days, it would get the Serbs to sign the Rambouillet agreement, and we’d prevent atrocities. Instead the Serbs responded to the bombing by displacing 900,000 people, blah blah blah blah blah
Whatever you want to think about how Kosovo was carried out, you idiot, it wasn’t a failure in retrospect.

The Serbs capitulated; the Kosovars were left unburdened by Serbs; the civil war was arrested. The potential for a second Bosnia was calmed.

But that’s O.K., Boris, you’re a college professor, and don’t know anything.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Zeno:
Wouldn’t having a military presence do at least some damage to Iraqi foreign policy?
What Iraqi foreign policy?

Essentially, when the Hussein regime was removed, Iraqi foreign policy, which had been to threaten and make trouble for their neighbors and pay terrorists to kill people, came to an end.

The best thing that could happen for Iraq, in those terms, was to be invaded by the U.S. so that Hussein could be removed. The only nation-states that need be worried about the U.S. presence are those that continue to sponsor terrorism (Syria, Iran), instead of getting on with the business of managing their own affairs.

The Turks worry about the Kurds, but the Turks are mean bastards and know how to take care of themselves, so that situation isn’t likely to get out of control.

As far as I’m concerned the U.S. could start bombing Iran tomorrow and keep at it for the next few years, destroying anything that they have that even looks like a weapons or military facility and it would be the best news I’ve heard since we took out Hussein.

I say let’s get to it, and stay at it, until the bastards’ eyes cross and they sh*t their pants.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Other states in the area fear a total US puppet. Wouldn’t having a military presence do at least some damage to Iraqi foreign policy? And even if Iraqis accept the idea of US soldiers perpetually on their soil, this could (and is currently) be used to recruit further radicals to combat the ’US imperialism’.
As far as Iraq’s foreign policy goes you already have countries in the region with permanent U.S. bases there which apparently hasn’t hurt their foreign policy.

As for Islamic terrorist recruitment, their cause isn’t the fight against U.S. imperialism it’s for islamic imperialism. You could pull all U.S. assets out of the middle east and drop all support for Israel and you are still going to have some flavor of islamic terrorist somewhere in the world trying to kill the so called infidel. All you have to do is look at countries like Thailand, the Phillipines, Somalia, Chechnya, India, Algeria, Sudan, the list goes on and on and they all have been attacked by islamic terrorist in the last 3 months.
 
Written By: mac
URL: http://
Okay, it is time for my periodic confession of ignorance. I have seen the word ’kinetic’ a few times lately used in reference to military stuff, but what the heck does it mean?
It means "having to do with motion". Kinetic energy is the energy due to a body’s motion (1/2 mv^2). Kinetic violence is violence in action, as opposed to potential violence, which is the threat thereof.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Did you bother to listen to or read anything Crocker said in the last two days? Anything at all?
I read it. And if you didn’t know Croc was appointed by Bush before you read it, you certainly did after.

And what’s interesting, McQ, is that in a previous thread you based the entirety of your position on the issue in question on what Croc had to say.

In fact, it’s really how the wingnuts operate, as I have noted before. The meme gets sent out by the administration, thru surrogates, and then gets trumpeted by the wingnut disciples, who add on their spin. The channels may vary, but it is an essentially top down kind of thing.

Say what you will about those oppose the war, but they are hardly getting signals to do so from the lapdog Dems in Washington. On the other hand, wingnuts hear the dog whistle from the centers of power, and simply repeat and derive.

Good job, McQ!
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Korea is a great example since our troops are not very welcome there.

I also think its pretty funny that Kosovo doesn’t count. It’s in Europe alright, but the Balkans ain’t Berlin and the Serbs there just killed a Ukrainian policeman, so its not exactly coffee and croissants.

I also don’t get the idea that Arabs will all freak out if our troops are in Arab countries. Saudi due to Mecca would make sense. But we have troops in Turkey, which is Post-Ottoman, too Scerb. We also train in Jordan, Egypt, etc.

It seems to me that if the Iraqis want us to have a base there, so what?

I suspect the real goal of having a complete withdrawal is so the left can claim we were "forced out" and really ’lost’ the war.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
oh, and just in case anyone is worried, I understand Turkey is not an Arab country. Still, they are post-Ottoman Ottomans, so it must be very special indeed.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Kuwait is controlled by a royal family, much like Qatar. In those small states you might get support for something like this, but Iraq it is clearly not working. Moreover, they shouldn’t tolerate a foreign force on their soil, they are right to reject our efforts to shape their future.
Right, so the fact that it works means nothing, eh?

Oh, and what about all the polls that show that while they DO want us gone, it’s always followed by a ’not until our forces are good enough to protect us’ clause that EVERY poll has?

I read it. And if you didn’t know Croc was appointed by Bush before you read it, you certainly did after.

so...does this mean we get to arbitrarily cherry pick who we listen to based on who appointed them, regardless of the fact that they’re actually THERE?

Because if THAT’S the case, I have a few choice things to say about Clinton’s ’Madame Secretary’.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
And if you didn’t know Croc was appointed by Bush before you read it, you certainly did after ...
And that has what to do with the point about helping the Iraqi government functioning properly?

Of course is has nothing to do with it, nor does the rest of the classic moonbattery contained in your idiotic rant.

But thanks for stopping by.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Lets run with this Kosovo is a failure.
Clinton’s war in Kosovo was another failure, though unlike Iraq, he managed to spin it to appear a PR success
It feeds the original premise pretty well, unintentionally I’m sure.


Even failed policy’s and campaigns apparently lend themselves to stable US Military base placements. Just need a little "PR".



All that needs to be done is just start telling the world "I’m a Democrat, I’m here to help."

Then we can get away with pretty much... anything?

Sure, that has nothing to do with OBJECTIVE reality, but even his cake and sugar drop world, it works.


 
Written By: Will K
URL: http://
In fact, Iraq is like if we had invaded Yugoslavia with the express intent of keeping the country intact. Do you think that would have been easy? Do you think the Serb regions might have started an insurgency while the Croats, Slovenes, and Kosovars didn’t?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Note: people cannot defend ’we can keep troops in Iraq and its going to be a success’ because they can point to other places we keep our troops (sort of like an empire, eh?) You have to defend Iraq on Iraqi terms. The fact no one seems able to do that, the fact they have to resort to talking about other countries, using ridicule and insults, and avoiding discussion of the specifics of Iraq, avoiding talking about whether it’s worth the cost — what do we gain for all this effort — is a sign of the bankruptcy of their arguments. Either they are fooling themselves with groupthink, convincing themselves that other posters, no matter how educated and knowledgable, are all idiots or leftist ideologues, or they know they are wrong but they don’t have the courage to admit, "OK, maybe it wasn’t worth it, but we still have to figure out the best way to end this."

America, however, moves on, and reality ultimately resists spin.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
In fact, Iraq is like if we had invaded Yugoslavia with the express intent of keeping the country intact. Do you think that would have been easy?
Any such invasion would not only not be easy, but would not be worth the cost and, in fact, rather stupid.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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