http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/middleeast/07disguise.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
This article in the NYT outlines the problem of counterinsurgency that was faced in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and countless other situations.
It's a political and social problem, and the necessary organization and structure of the military is in almost every way contradictory.
IMHO, the British prevailed in NI after 500 years because they did in fact have the Prods on their side, and were smart enough to understand that the only way you can use a weapon is to kill a man.
It's not that conventional forces can't win. It's that the political trumps the military. You can kill politicians, but you can't kill politics.
So the POV of RUsh Limbaugh, Economist & the GOP that we should stay in Iraq is beside the point. The point is, what should we be doing while we're there? And of course, that question should have occurred to anybody with a lukewarm IQ as soon as it was proposed.
The fact that we have bumbled along for 4 years and 4K KIAS without any coherent strategy OR tactical plans, AFTER Vietnam, WHILE Osama is running around somewhere else, is not just massive incompetence - it is a fuckup for the ages, that may well castrate the nation. It is not merely good cause for impeachment, it is good cause for investigating this administration as a civil conspiracy.
But what else could we have possibly expected when we elected them and the Jesus people?
Thoughts? Anyone?
Get our people the fuck out of the kill zone until we figure out what we're doing.
Maybe starting with defining a mission, and not figuring on hiding it from the voters.
And while we're at it in the meanwhile, if you think the troops are fucking off, ya might actually send them looking for Osama. What a concept! But of course that could conceivably end The War Against Terror, and we couldn't have that.
As liberal as I am, and although I think General P did manipulate the status in Iraq, I am against the Dems full scale withdrawal plans.
We started this mess, and we have some responsiblity to stay as long as possible to give Iraq a chance at stability. Whether that means splitting the country up, letting Iran contribute to discussions about how best to deal with Iraq (as they offered early on), or just staying the course a while longer and continually reassessing the situation I think we should stay.
The Dems are playing politics and going where the numbers are. Now, there job is to represent their constituency, and they want us out so I do understand their point of view. However, we started this thing, and just letting carnage ensue because we f*cked it up, doesn't quite seem fair to the people that will die in that country when we leave. If we have any shot at doing some good, we should take that shot.
(I'll add that I agree with Jack about actually making a plan that doesn't involve oil or bulding a stupid embassy. A real plan, that isn't dictated by the idiots currently in charge who screwed this whole thing up so badly in the first place.)
-- Modified on 10/5/2007 10:08:57 AM
they have been sandbagged one way or the other about the war, and so they judge only by the results, usually as described in the headlines.
Joe Shit the Ragman doesn't know or care about moral principles, he cares about his taxes and the neighbor who's been over there for a year already.
And he's right.
So what's going to happen is that the Repubs will drop this mess in the hands of the Democrats, who will earnestly listen to all the bureaucrats, and fiddle and fumble and bumble, and lose the presidency again in 2012, if they can even snag it in 2008.
I'm gonna add that I have no problem with a plan that involves oil, embassies, enslaving Arab AND Persian women, or glazing the sand with nukes. I just want ANY PLAN, instead of this running in circles and bleeding to death.
I know nobody's heard of Vietnam, because they keep saying it's NOT Vietnam, and besides, we should have stayed in Vietnam anyway.
Isn't insanity grounds for impeachment? Or is it only blow jobs?
-- Modified on 10/5/2007 10:20:48 AM
I think what's going to prove most interesting about this whole Iraq debacle is how Conservatives will spin this once they're out of office (Assuming a Dem wins in 2008)
All of a sudden, there will be a huge shift in rhetoric and all you will hear about is the mismanagement of the war in Iraq if they stay, or casualties if they pull out. It's going to be terribly interesting to me, at least, to see how fast the conservatives change their stance on so many things dealing with Iraq if a Dem is in office.
You'll soon stop hearing the common calls of "if you criticize the war you don't support the troops"...."you can't criticize the Commander and Chief during war, you're no patriot!!" AND SO MANY MORE!!! It's going to be great, and they will do it with a straight face.
get into some Nigerian bank deal instead, they work much better.
We're having the terminal problems of democracy - nobody is willing to slap stupid people into next week, so the inmates run the fucking asylum. Our whole fucking society is oriented around enabling retards, so it's no wonder GW Bush is the fucking President.
even bright people don't necessarily foresee the future, but they should certainly be able to see results, and adjust accordingly.
The direction this war seems to be taking is the neo-con idea that American military force can push American values on the world, starting in the mideast. (No shit, folks, look it up.)
Of course, little details like counter-insurgency tactics will not stop anybody who realizes that Jesus is on our side. If Jesus wants you to know WTF he's doing, he'll tell you. You don't need no stinkin' mission, just get out there and mill around until we tell ya ta change step and go back the other way.
Obviously, we're trying to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, and leaning on Iran. Of course, if we can pull that off, that's just fucking wonderful. Then we can teach all those little buggers Engrish and the Star-Spangled Banner. Maybe we can negotiate a deal where the government admits that Jesus is senior to - or at least older than - Mohammed. Hope to GOd they don't be asking if this Jesus ever existed, eh?
Of course, if we DON'T pull it off, then of course we have a massive fucking disaster, with the Russians and Chinese cheering on the entire mideast hunting for Americanos.
Now here's what occurs to me. The neo-cons (having almost to a man dodged the draft because they were SO BUSY encouraging others to sign up) don't seem to know shit about the limits of military force, and particularly the difficulty of making people admire and want to imitate your ideals, by pointing a gun at them.
It strikes me as incredibly odd that these champions of capitalism are so oblivious in understanding the role of free market forces in fucking the commies, and indeed much of the 3rd world. (You folks who want to piss about gloablization, see what they think about it in Chiapas.)
And of course the core of capitalism is that transactions are voluntary, within their context. Nobody makes anybody do anything. You can fucking starve if you want.
But the neo-cons have so little faith in this, and so much impatience that they want to take the world over RIGHT NOW, that they think that a couple of divisions should easily be enough to convert those filthy A-rabs.
So it seems to me that we may very well be going about this the entirely wrong way, and I am frankly no more sanguine about success here than in Vietnam. Nixon may not have been the most astute fella, but at least he wasn't an incoherent hophead.
Now in planning an operation, smart people usually take contingencies into account. You don't depend on uncontrollable issues. You only plan on the ones you can control. So that leads to the understanding that either (a) the GOP is abysmally stupid (which I can't believe), or (b) they expected to profit by the course of action itself, not the result.
(No, we didn't HAVE to invade Iraq, we CHOSE to. Nobody had us over any barrel.)
Now I don't know everything that's going on, but if you were to ask me how they could make that happen, I would point out that a lot of their key constituencies are really into the war situation: defense contractors that are particularly susceptible to the crony capitalists that are always dependable GOP contributors; and the theocrats and rednecks who think that we can show them Muslims by jamming a bayonet in their gut. War provides a sense of direction that allows them to motivate thru insane fear.
Now the question is always of course, what fears are reasonable; but the problem is that when an agency is run by a fucking idiot, he can't guess which of his PhDs are BSing him, and which aren't, so he uses his colon, and shit is what comes out.
And of course the bureaucrats don't take ANY chances, so they take all your nail clippers and shampoo away BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T KNOW BRAINS IF IT BIT THEM; and Osama is sitting in his cave laughing his ass off.
The fact is that he has, with a few million $$ and stealing 4 aircraft, forced us to reorganize our society, at TREMENDOUS ASTRONOMICAL financial burden, and triggered a major war - and we need to decide how we are going to deal with this: are we gonna pray to Jesus and collect all the nail clippers, or are we gonna elect people who might know WTF they're talking about?
Now one simple question: are we safer now than we were on 9/11? Petraus doesn't seem to know, and you'd think he'd be the one to know, wouldn't you?
My thought is that our blind reliance on bullshit ideologies has gotten us in a world of hurt, just as the commies fucked themselves, we may very well fuck ourselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/middleeast/07disguise.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
This article in the NYT outlines the problem of counterinsurgency that was faced in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and countless other situations.
It's a political and social problem, and the necessary organization and structure of the military is in almost every way contradictory.
IMHO, the British prevailed in NI after 500 years because they did in fact have the Prods on their side, and were smart enough to understand that the only way you can use a weapon is to kill a man.
It's not that conventional forces can't win. It's that the political trumps the military. You can kill politicians, but you can't kill politics.
So the POV of RUsh Limbaugh, Economist & the GOP that we should stay in Iraq is beside the point. The point is, what should we be doing while we're there? And of course, that question should have occurred to anybody with a lukewarm IQ as soon as it was proposed.
The fact that we have bumbled along for 4 years and 4K KIAS without any coherent strategy OR tactical plans, AFTER Vietnam, WHILE Osama is running around somewhere else, is not just massive incompetence - it is a fuckup for the ages, that may well castrate the nation. It is not merely good cause for impeachment, it is good cause for investigating this administration as a civil conspiracy.
But what else could we have possibly expected when we elected them and the Jesus people?
so I'm guessing that Condi can't find his Dick.
-- Modified on 10/7/2007 12:04:51 PM