Take a reading comprehension course - or take a shit and get the pressure off your brain.
One of the fundamental principles in economics is that one doesn't make investment decisions based on sunk costs (money already spent) but on the expected return on future investments.
So congressman Murhta, evidently an advocate of a strong military and a "hawk" Democrat says we should get out of Iraq now. I assume he really means it and this isn't just politics as usual. He's in his 70's so why would he want to betray his long-held convictions other than out of conscience?
Having been one of those who wanted us out of Vietnam, the temptation is to lustily agree. After all, I absolutely opposed the war going in because there was not the depth of support to sustain it to it's end point - neither domestically or globally.
So, using the economics analogy, what are the alternates on a go-forward basis? What happens if we withdraw, what happens if we stay (and stay until when) - what's expected value, so to speak? Mind you, I now have my favorite niece serving over there, so this is not just academic for me.
This is the conversation I want to hear - not just here, but in the public discourse.
Of course, I am a moron to hope that such a conversation can break out in public. Better that I wish a bevy our most beautiful ladies drive over to my house together with a barrel of money and wisk me away to Tahiti where we will dive for oysters and explore sacred Tantric rituals....
what more do we expect to accomplish, and does the benefit outweigh the risk?
I have no idea what changed Murtha's mind. I'm guessing his information is better than mine. But I've never heard the GOP answer either of those questions intelligently, and if I assume they are honest, I have to think they're too dumb - and the extent that Dubya runs the show, that seems reasonable.
OTOH, I could suppose the possibility of moral corruption, ie, the willingness to jump into a dicey situation, risking lives for no clear purpose other than creating war fever to influence domestic politics.
Honestly, I think they are at least as conscious of this as I am. Therefore I think there are many people at the RNC level who know damn well how problematic the war goals are, and that the critical issue is preserving the GOP hold on power. I understand that, as any person knows that controlling Iraq is a petty issue next to controlling the USA. However, you would have to be an Enron accountant or 700 Club member to believe that the end justifies the means. Unfortunately, I think those are the dominant voices in the GOP, and I think that is probably their view. Doesn't really matter where it has that effect.
Now, the problem here is that the GOP may collapse. Yes, that is a bad thing, because it opens us to God knows what craziness from the left. What might save us? Constitutional checks and balances? What checks and balances? No, I think we can rely on both parties to have one thing in common, and that is the desire to spend money. So the civil service is safe, and that will be the shock absorber - there is minimal competence and conservatism (in the literal, not vernacular sense of the word) in the civil service that will keep us afloat. That does NOT mean we should let them have their money for the civil service. Hell no; the less money there is in politics, the fewer politicians there will be, and that is the way it should be. Let them grub for their money.
Aside, I note Murtha & I agree that "our military has done everything asked of them", and IMHO in record-breaking time. I have been amazed at the low casualties, considering the size of forces and time involved. Nevertheless, the goal is keep your head down, keep moving, and get on the objective ASAP, or you can be killed. Murtha seems to think that we've reached that point, and I think it's incumbent on the GOP, after 2 years and 2000 KIAs, to finally share their plan with the voters - or at least mid-mgmt.
I recall seeing Colin Powell's discussion of war preparations - he was asked about the meetings asking his advice. His response was that he was never asked for his advice, and there were no meetings for that...
So what is it: Is Dubya incompetent, or criminal? Lawyers know that negligence shades into recklessness and then crime, without clear lines, so eg a drunk may not actually intend to kill somebody, but he's held responsible because he knew what he was doing when he took that drink.
Is drunkeness the problem here?
-- Modified on 11/18/2005 11:41:45 AM
the uniformed officers in the Pentagon,which indicates to me at least that there's a split between the military and civilian leadership about how to proceed.Granted that Dubya & co led us into this quagmire...OTH, quitting in 6 months
would inevitably embolden the enemy to think that they actually forced us out, not to mention the domestic recriminations of "who lost iraq" that would surely follow!
It's an extremely tough call but hopefully a face-saving alternative can be found....
then staying there isn't going to change it, only kill more people. Our time to worry about what other people think would have been back in 2003. Of course, the Democrats are to blame here, because they hold governorship of Massachusetts {ROLLS EYES 360)
I think a timetable is wrong, unless there is no other way to compel the GOP.
What we need is some sort of structural interface between the politics and the military, ie, the State Dept and Pentagon sit down and put their heads together, and send the RNC off to the Bahamas to play golf where they can't do any harm.
We have to salvage this, and the RNC isn't going to help. The White House is some combination of incompetent and/or uncaring.
Maybe something could be worked out, that we would withdraw at events, not times, but those events were being forced; and that all the adjacent countries and Iraqi parties were in a mutually dependent structure.
It's important for us to get control of this, and the first thing is get control of ourselves, ie, GET A PLAN!
Traitor Democrats, what can I say? Maybe Ann Coulter needs to sign up and go "physically intimidate" some ragheaded goatherd.
Remember Senator Aiken's advise re VietNam ; declare victory and go home.
Saddam is no longer in power - that is the minimal achievement which can be touted by Bush and the NeoCons and the chickenhawks as "victory" or "success." So, folowing that line of reasoning...
Of course, we had Saddam and a semblance of public order but no justice. Now we have removed Saddam, have no semblance of public order and [probably] still no justice. It's like paying off your Visa by transferring the balance to your MasterCard. Some movement and surface change, but no substantive improvement. We're still in a hole and we haven't figured out - stop digging!
Generally, while more sympathetic to the Arabs than most Americans, I fully agree that we cannot let these armed recalcitrants conclude that they've driven us out. This would oly embolden them to do God know what but it ain't gonna be pretty.
Absolutely no good alternatives present themselves. Thanks George, for the mess.
Many people say that we can either fight terrorists in Iraq or fight them here. What simplistic thinking. Iraq has created millions of new terrorist wannabes, some will become the hardened real thing. We will have to fight terrorist here, regardless of whether we stay in Iraq for the next 10 years or pull out in six months. The die of our future has been cast.
... I would like to play poker with you. 
Let's lay out a clear, definitive time table. Pull out the troops, the majority of which believe in thier mission. Let's also leave the job of standing up a viable ISF un-finished.
Meanwhile, the AQ & the Baathists go on the DL, wait out our schedule, and when all's clear they let loose the dogs on all the Iraqis who are genuinely trying to pull together a democratic country.
Nice plan. Let's do play poker. 
what is the alternative plan? How many generations are we gonna nursemaid them? Is this Korea, or is it Vietnam?
What, exactly, is the GOP plan? Now that we're 2 years, 2000 KIAs into this freaking mess, it would be good to think of a plan, hmmm?
OK, now look. I expect any SSgt to have a plan. A Lt comes to me without a plan, he goes to Bn to count shoes, and his plt goes to the SSgt who knows to plan.
The GOP has a plan, they've always had a plan. They're just not sharing it with us, because voters don't need to know. This isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic.
Wrong. The GOP plan is to milk this country for everything they can, its future and security be damned. Your mom can watch the 700 Club, and your kids can get left behind.
BTW, are we planning on actually catching Osama? Or is he more valuable where he is?
the vast majority of non-rated just didn't give a FF about more than beers, cars, girls and keeping their gear clean; there were a few excitable ones, but mostly they were just 'murrican teenagers (though some were in overtime).
The officers and staff universally regarded politics as "above my pay grade".
None of us believed that a man's politics or religion made him any more or less reliable; it was their brains and swiftness that made them reliable. We argued about sports and firing data; we simply did not give the smallest shit about politics.
But that was my unit, and YMMV.
MUST stay there, and "honor" the KIAs with more KIAs. Let's get it over with and just commit mass hara-kiri.
If we don't have a plan, then guess what: it's a loser.
You cannot stand in the kill zone and then be surprised when you get hit.
Oh yeah, I forgot one thing: it's always good if your CO is a C student, even better if he's incofuckingherent, and the XO is too busy running bars in the ville to be bothered with operations.
-- Modified on 11/18/2005 12:23:06 PM
and no coherent point.
It's called "The Blunderbuss Technique".
Take a reading comprehension course - or take a shit and get the pressure off your brain.
you're a liar who has no answers, so you fling shit instead.
I hate to say it, but responsibility has abandoned the Republican party of Eishenhower, and been replaced by ignorance at the bottom, and corruption at the top.
IF YOU HAD ANSWERS, YOU'D GIVE THEM. Instead you feign ignorance.
DON' NEED NO STEENKIN WORDS. DON' NEED NO STEENKIN BRAIN. WHAT FOR USE BRAIN??
is much better. You should ask the RNC for a job as a chest-thumper. Chest-thumping gets a lot done - I'm sure it could have prevented WTC and Katrina both, if you'd only known.
Ah, I forgot. You don't believe in knowledge. Oh well.
a few more words. With nothing to offer but insults and not a coherent counter-argument to be found.
Weak.
Well, I like to play poker, but I don't get your point. There is the potential of a disaterous downside in Iraq - not just for the region, but for the Iraqi's who have supported the current process.
I guess this is my point: ok the mess should not be there. It was stupid and arrogant from the beginning. But is withdrawal at this point equally as irresponsible? Like with the concept of expected value (product of potential revenue times the likelihood of reaching it), what are the scenarios, risks, benefits and likelihood? Many of you guys have more facts to paint the alternatives possibilities than I do. For example, how do you Harry respond to the dilemma I just posed? What's the downside of leaving and what is its likelihood?
And how's this for novel: I am still forming my opinion re this. Now, I know the leadership of our gov't is breathlessly awaiting for me to weigh in. It'd be great to see the pros and cons laid out on this board. For the advocates of staying the road, where's the evidence we're getting anywhere? Is the idea of seeing it through until a stable Iraq can govern via democracy more than a pipe dream. Didn't Bush begin this strategem from a fatally flawed position that cannot sustain the long haul needed. Worse, doesn't this action inspire hatred toward America and replinish the ranks of insurgency? I mean, isn't this the basic flaw in Iraq? Because we went in alone, with lukewarm domestic support, especially when the premises for war turn out to have serious problems, and in the face of overt international opposition, we encourage terrorism (a brand of fighting that you can't just bomb into submission).
I mean, this is just a big goddamn nightmare. Bush should be impeached yesterday. And all that being said, where are we now? What next?
-- Modified on 11/18/2005 12:38:14 PM
ignored geniuses in the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom...ie, they depend on more facts than we have on this forum.
BUUUUUUTT: the decisive issue seems to remain the same as in April 2003 - the GOP has never explained a plan for what they expect to do with the place, once they knock it over (and it's costing us bucks and bodies daily). Colin Powell claims he was never asked.
There's no plan. There's never been a plan. We're just there, hanging out, seeing what will happen. There's no plan because (a) Dubya is too stupid, and (b) Cheney is too busy reversing the tax code. The RNC does not give a damn about Iraq, except as it keeps them in power, so they can chip away at the tax code, student loans, New Orleans dikes, corporate accounting standards, etc, so that more money goes into paying them, and the country becomes more lopsided and 3rd world. The only way they get that money is to solicit corporate PAC money to publicize the Jesus Days that keep the religious right happy. They really do not care about your neighbors or the next generation, as long as they get theirs now.
And there is an accidental chance of success without a plan; and of course, even with a plan, we all die in the end anyway. So what does it matter?
If Powell, as SecState, never advised POTUS Bush about what he and the state department bureaucracy expected to see happen in Iraq post-US invasion, and refained from speaking up on the basis that his [Powell's] advice was not solicited, this is very troublesome indeed.
How Powell could take such a lackadaisical approach toward his responsibilitites to the US, not necessarily to the political well-being of the Bush administration, in this case cries out for explanation. Was he just going along with a bad deal and hoping for the best and in that way the situation would be behind him and us? Did he feel outgunned and outmaneuevered and out politiced by the Neocons, the chickhawks, and the rest? Did he think he could moderate a bad policy by staying?
If Powell is candid about this, it certainly in my mind calls for a re-examination of the esteem in which he has been held. Not asked? Not really credible.
I think perhaps resigning publicly and in protest might have been the better way to go and to serve his countrymen. It probably wouldn't have changed much, but it would have shed light into some corners intentionally kept in darkness.
It seems that the more we learn the worse it gets and the more disgusted and helpless we feel.
that he was never asked his subjective opinion, that the State Dept generated all the paper, but meetings were never give & take. Dubya is famous for disliking dissent, and others describe the results of meetings as being 'decided in advance'.
One of the problems with soldiers is that they are far too used to putting up with bad situations.
Absolutely, and if ANYONE had the ability to make George listen to a dissenting opinion, and a critically dissenting opinion totally at variance with what Bush wanted, if not craved, to hear, it was Powell. That he appears not to have used his personal prestige and institutional standing to do so is sad indeed. If Powell was still in uniform would the terrible phrase "dereliction of duty" possibly come to mind re this turn of events? [Machiavelli observed it is beter to be feared than loved. May I observe it is beter to be effective than liked?].
Yes, Powell was sandbagged by all the Neo-Con apoointments at the Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Ass't Secretary levels. Still, he has a personal staff he could have used. And he has his personal prestige, quite substantial to say the least. If necessary, like Kissinger, he could have leaked like the tianic to the national media. Perhaps he's too honorable and too good a soldier, but his oath of ofice is to the constitution, not to Bush or whoever temporarily serves as Prez.
And here's another great disapointment - NSA Rice is supposed to coordinate and evaluate the many streams of dissenting if not conflicting opinions. It apears she was totally in agreement with the pro-war Neo-Cons, and told Bush only what he wanted to hear. Rare is the person who seeks out contrary advice. Rarer still is the person who can deliver it unbidden.
I've read and heard dozens of time that Ike was never worried about ignoring worst-case military advice as simply put, there was no one who could chalenge his bona-fides in that area. Powell had the bona-fides but it seems to me he either chose not to use them or used them very, very inexpertly. He had allies like Baker and Scowcroft in the 1st Bush admin, he could have quietly convened a "wise man" group to solicit additional opinions and options for the Prez in the hopes of, if not changing Bushs' mind at least broadening it. Alas, not done.
Well, here's how he makes it up to us - if the Democratic nominee for Prez in 2008 is Senator Clinton the Repubs WILL SIMPLY HAVE TO BITE THE BULLET and persuade Powell to run. No one else i can think of, not even Mccain, will bet her. Whatever their disagreement with Powell, they're still far fewer and less fundamental than with Senator Clinton.
Powell I fear has to make up for a lot. Maybe this is how he ultimately redeems himself?
and least of all Hillary. I have this feeling - that being in NYC you may not understand - that the ONLY thing that could keep the GOP together, and still on its present path, would be Hillary's nomination.
Even if there was a Tet offensive in Baghdad, and Dubya himself was indicted for Plamegate, I think McCain would beat Hillary. What's more, the history of primaries often show that dark horses can come from nowhere - like, who was that 1 term congressman from Illinois - Lincoln, was that the guy?
I think the Dems would do better to put Kerry back up than Hillary - I'll give it to you, she's a sharp lady, but nothing would galvanize the Republicans like she would. And even if Dubya wrecks the party, they will still have the money, and still bring it in at 5 & 10-1 the amount the Dems do.
If I were Powell, I'd go and do as I damn well pleased. I would not be fooling around in govt anymore.
Much fod for thought.
Can't help but notice all the Hillary in 2008 talk in the local print media in NYC. As you point out, probably NOT the best vantage point from which to assess that phenomena. One of the local tabs, the one owned by Rupert Murdoch and unofficially the spokesman for Bush, the NeoCons, and the Likud Party, writes obsessively re this topics as an impending end of civilization situation. Yes, the Repubs loathe her and would be fanatically united against her. But to what success? Remember how the Repubs loathed FDR with a passion [we're both too young but we've read about it] and it didn't prevent him from being elected to 4 terms. Likewise, if Hillary was the nominee versus McCain I do beliebve there would be a noticeable change in the relentlessly positive press McCain has received. Suddenly, we'd start hearing [I think] that in spite of some idiosyncratically interesting non-GOP mainstrean positions [like campaign finance reform] McCain is AT BEST Dick Cheney with balls. Hardly a positive sumation.
Kerry I think is already written off as damaged goods. No obvious Demo comes to mind except Ms. Clinton. Dark horses often run, but they rarely finish in the money.
Who do the Repubs run in 2008? Chaney? HaHa. Rumsfeld? Jeb Bush? Condi? HaHaHa. And despite the $$$ and the fanatical loyalty of their electoral base, that's only going to take them so far against major problems, a lacklustrer GOP nominee, and an attractice Demo candidate. So, we'll see.
would be like. I think that his integrity and independence is unquestioned - Puck has pointed out that he will suck Republican ass, but again I point out that particularly military types understand the value of sucking it up for a larger cause, and the value of compromise for the good of the whole. (Yes, you can cite contrary examples, but generally they're pragmatic rather than ideological.)
I think that it's just too early to say who might run. I think that the GOP is not done for yet, and who knows when they might start salvage, or what miracle might save them. And I would never underestimate the ability of the Dems to step on themselves.
Found this amusing little gem in a local NYC freebie newspaper, belatedly.
Nothing I've seen to date says "Hillary Definitely Running For Prez In 2008" quite like this.
And how that I've finally gotten the energy to teach myself how to post links, well...
Needless to say I'm pretty much in agreement with the author of that little column.
they allow themselves to be pulled in too many different directions. They spend too goddamned much time soothing the ruffled feathers of the least competent to get anything done.
killing 82 in Baghdad.
I suspect that's what it will come down to, a civil-religious war where we are collateral damage. If the Israelis haven't stopped suiciders (sic) in lo these many years, I have a hard time imagining that these factions won't be sniping at each other for a long time.
Yeah, we triggered it. Probly not a lot worse for Iraqis than Saddam; but for us, it's pretty much a continuation of the mideast boil, except that we paid a lot of bucks and blood for it. More or less ground for terrorism? Probly more, since Saddam had something to lose, even if it was hard to judge how seriously he took it. Now there will be anarchy.
BBC cites a study suggesting about 30K active insurgents. Not good.
Looks like Vietnam all over, ie, that it's damned hard to make people like your politics by shooting at them. Easy to kill them. Not so easy to change their minds.
Dubya without specific good cause, ie, linking him to Plame or something similar.
Because if he was impeached, we have the collapse of the GOP and even more destabilization of American politics.
What do I want to see? In my dreams? McCain and Powell, because their integrity is unquestioned, are brought back in, in Cabinet positions. They guide Dubya in naming a cabinet & staff that keeps Bush dry for the rest of the term (send him to Betty Ford or something) and Cheney gets investigated, indicted, etc, and bet me he's clean...
And the 1st thing Powell & McCain do is contact reasonable Democrat representatives, Murtha & Kerry maybe, and pre-empt them, telling them, we will consult and cooperate with YOU, but THEY have to explain to all the SIGs that their share is gonna be damned small, no SIG runs the country. This is all for the purpose of bringing together the American moderates, and isolating the fringes who are all fighting for the wheel and making us careen all over the road, instead of getting up some speed and leaving the islamic fundies in their 12th century fantasies.
And McCain goes on national TV to announce that Hugo Chavez has put a bounty on Pat Robertson's head, and Robertson has been turned over to the Canadians to enter their witness protection program, and is living in an igloo in the NW territories....
And no more result oriented crazy ass judges like Thomas...
life in the Middle East is about to become dramatically more complex as Iraq slowly fragments, we remain hoplessly dependent on middle eastern oil, other opportunistic players like the Russians and the Chinese learn how to carefully exploit the situation to shift the global center of gravity towards them without too much external ruckus, and we drift into the Sea of Paralysis.... the Commander in Chief is coming apart at the seams, congress is puttering and sputtering...seriously folks, is this dysfunctional government or wot ???... according to the New York Times today.. and you expect this crew to figure out an exit strategy from the Super-Quagmire ? Noooot likely... :
"Say this for the sad-sack Republicans in Congress: they really know how to get things done when it comes to meaningless face-saving legislation.
The House's biggest accomplishment in recent days may be its decision to scratch those two notorious Alaskan bridges to nowhere, a $442 million chunk of highway pork that made a national laughing stock of the lawmakers - supposedly financial conservatives - who stuffed it into the budget.
The retreat provides a definitive example of the legislative hypocrisy now gripping Congress. It won't actually save money because the funds will be shifted to Alaska's general transportation kitty for who-knows-what disposal. Actually taking unnecessary money away from the home state of a powerful Republican senator is a lift far beyond the lawmakers' capacity.
As if to make the point, the Senate was simultaneously refusing to reform the nation's scandalous antiterrorism financing. Senators narrowly on guard for parochial self-interest killed the House's plan to fix the skewed formula. Talk about pork. The financing formula fairly oinks at the terrorist threat as it shortchanges high-risk cities and ports and rewards rural states with more antiterror funds per capita than California, Texas and New York. The House proposal, co-sponsored by John Sweeney and Peter King, Republicans of New York, and Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, would cut back on patently unthreatened areas while still allowing each state a minimum of 0.25 percent of the total funds for first responders and other antiterrorism operations.
Senate parochialism carried the day in the secret horse-trading over assorted parts of the Patriot Act's renewal. As a result, the original law will prevail, with its guaranteed minimum of 0.75 percent. In practice, this formula has proved to be not a ceiling, only a starting point for negotiating still more wasteful funds for sparsely populated states.
Bush administration officials and the independent 9/11 commission have warned of the risks in maintaining the current formula. But lately Congress's idea of homeland security has been political posturing. The House has been wallowing through its great "budget hawk" melodrama - making a show of slashing Medicaid spending for the poor while quietly preparing still more tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile, the Senate has passed resolutions on Iraq aimed at making it very clear that whatever happens, the members up for re-election should not be held responsible.
No one expects any profiles in courage, or even difficult decisions, from this House and Senate. But putting local political pork above the protection of major terror targets is just pathetic.
-- Modified on 11/18/2005 12:14:48 PM
-- Modified on 11/18/2005 12:15:40 PM
Don't you know facts are the devil's handiwork, and thinking will damn you to hellfire?!
neo-lenin will usher in the rapture you despicable virus !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite
-- Modified on 11/19/2005 2:11:05 PM
it's only for Russians. You're just hoping some whore will schtup you into the Guinness Book.
right? what do the Iraqis have to do with it?
if we withdraw we'll have one part Mogadishu, one part killing fields ala SEA.
already, our skittishness has to be causing Iraqis to, at best, stay on the sidelines lest we have a repeat of 91'.
Here's what we're saying, "Man this post so I can get the fuck outta here." By even having the conversation we're screwing ourselves, so yeah, if that's what we're gonna do let's bail now before anyone else gets killed. Let's bring em home now so they can build anti-truckbomb barries here.
Nixon doubled - DOUBLED - our casualties by staying after McNamara said we should bail, and he did NOTHING except kill people - on both sides. Peace with honor, my ass.
Colin Powell says George W. din't ask him. I can only guess why not.
As for fighting them here - BK, have you ever heard of the Atlantic Ocean? Do you know what the US Navy does? Ever heard of the US Navy?
Just one more clue: if your leaders ignore signals that are "blinking red" as the 9/11 commission claims, there is only ONE thing that will save us - get better leaders.
But for chrissakes let's not think about what we're doing - let's just sit here and wait until we've spent a few billion more - dollars or lives, whichever comes 1st...
So what the hell, whaddya say we sign up and go get ourselves some ragheads? Or is this something you just want somebody ELSE to do?
I'll give you 2-1 right now, up to 3 figures, that 20 years from now, GW will be regarded as one of the absolutely most stupid people to ever occupy the White House.
-- Modified on 11/18/2005 5:06:45 PM
Yeah, isn't that what WTC 1 & 2 nearly fell into?
Yeah, what about it?
Ever heard of the US Navy?
Hmmmm, the Navy? Oh yeah, them! Bang-up job on 9-11, what about em?
bro, it already did
"If we don't fioght them now, we'll be fighting them in the streets of OUR cities". R's always play the fear card, and remember, "the best defense is a good offense".
Thinking of the war and it's various tangible and intangible costs as an investment" forces us to try to conceive of the "return" we expect on our investment, said return allowing us to claim "success" and to leave Iraq, if not in perfect peace, at least to the Iraqis.
If any of these come to pass, I think the US can claim "success" and leave, if not with dignity and honor, at least with a face-saver. In no particular order of liklihood or preference let's take a look:
1. an Iraq free of intercommunal violence between the major ethnic/religious groups ;
2. an Iraq with liberal-democratic procedures, representative political instiutions and structures [be it monarchy, a parliamentary system, a federal system, a republic, a confederation like Switzerland], some form of popular sovereignty, constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law in public life ; [not in our lifetime I fear] ;
3. an Iraq, armed or demilitarized, which eschews a foreign policy of confrontation and threat against it's neighboring countries ;
4. an Iraq, under military rule similar to that of Turkey in the past, which cleanly breaks from the Baathist/Saddam policies even if not a paragon of constitutional virtue.
There are others I'm sure, but these strike me as the most obvious and desireable end-states for the US gov't to claim mission accomplished and to exit Iraq and leave it to the Iraqis themselves to try to work out a common destiny.
[Will this be another VietNam in the sense that successive administrations will be politically unable to muster the courage and wisdom to consider a radical change from and break with policies of preceeding admins? If the cost is "tolerable" in the sense of an absence of mass casualties, economic strain at home, and an ability to manage bad news successfuly will each new admin simply try to keep the lid on and leave Iraq no worse off that when it came into office? Personally, I don't think the occupation will outlast the immediate succesor to Bush, especially if that is a Democrtic administration. But it will be interesting to watch the political recriminations and fallout. Stay tuned ; 2008 is not that far off. Can't come soon enough for me however].
Sad to say, none of these seem very likely at all. Probably the only one which has any liklihood of coming to pass is #4, and it's esentially Saddam without Saddam, or maybe Saddam, no! Attaturk yes!
So it seems that the likely expected return for the US is going to be....quite insubstantial at best, if not in fact ephemeral to non-existent. And is the implication of this lack of success, which is another way to say failure, that the US faces an indefinite open-ended occupation and commitment in Iraq?
Just another day at the Neo-Con foreign policy office I'm affraid.
but much more likely to get a Saddam than an Ataturk.
One thing I will guaranfuckingtee: a pisspot of war brides and not "boat people" but "camel people". Bus people, truck people, refugees.
it seems like i saw a survey the other day that basically said that something like 75% of republicans/fox tv viewers believe still that iraq was responsible for 9/11. if that is so, shouldn't the commercial interests that support fox tv be told that their continued support for this company will be the reason their products will not be purchased. isn't it all about money? just seems like it's time to take back the truth.
And what about War Husbands?
Also donkey people, goat people, oxen people ; most of whom will wind up in the USA, many of whom will live peaceful and productive lives in our more placid environs.
and wil be a very small %.
By "boat people" I mean refugees, especially those associated with US forces. It will probably not be as bad as Vietnam, but there are already a few.
You may not be conscious that the large Filipino and Korean communities in the US historically trace to US military involvement there; and one of the most predictable results of any invasion is, war brides.
-- Modified on 11/19/2005 9:37:49 PM
Because apart from relatives in service, the financial costs change the domestic priorities entirely.
[[What happens if we withdraw, what happens if we stay (and stay until when) - what's expected value, so to speak?]]
This has always been the question, and so far, the RNC has managed to dodge it.
If we withdraw, I'd guess a civil war. I'd guess the Saudis & Kuwaitis are hoping to God that we withdraw halfway, enough to provide a damper on civil war by providing a target for insurgents - that way the locals are busy killing us, instead of each other.
If we stay, we're just sitting ducks. Loose a couple people and a few million $$ every week.
I guess it may depend on negotiations with 3rd parties. Now that George has got us in this situation, who is gonna help us out without sticking it to us 1st - ie, making it so expensive that we may as well do it ourselves?
For a guy like Murtha to step up and say get out now, he's got some sort of reason. It's not a popular stand, as getting into war was.
Personally, I believe that the war debate is heavily influenced by domestic politics. I think there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who will do or say anything to embarrass those on the other side; but of all the vicious ideologues in American politics, the religious right has to take the prize. I hope to God they're discredited one of these days soon.