how iraq was, is, and shall continue to be a total f - up

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by patrone
Sorry, but thats your only chance.....not to be looking like you where running with the tail up your legs.

You guys lost this one, just like the Vietnam, now its all about getting your boys out, without having to admit it.

We don't loose anything patrone. Saddam is history, his once worlds fourth largest military has been totally dismantled. The only looser here would be Iraq if they fail to take the opportunity they have been given to build a Democracy. If they don't choose to take it, to bad. We didn't loose anything in Vietnam. It was a proxy war fought during the cold war. To prevent the spread of communism. Have you noticed that Communism has been reduced to N. Korea and Cuba. China is learning that Capitolism is far superior.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah bangladesh was the one I was really surprised. I tried to find back data to see if it was after Kosovo that we took all our troops out or what.

I think it's pretty much been third world countries for a long time: troops cost money, and giving them to the UN means they pay for themselves and might even get a little profit. So the third World are much more willing. Most countries also feel the UN is terribly expensive, so usually third world countries are all the UN can afford.

The West feels UN duty is really too dangerous and too expensive to send more than token forces unless there's a serious prize at stake. They prefer to send in the initial troops to a troublespot that they're interested in then "blue rinse" the whole thing by dragging in the UN to replace their expensive troops with much cheaper troops that the UN try to beg from the third world, to do the more dangerous long term peacekeeping.

In the process of "blue rinsing", the country doing the rinse gains a veneer of legitimacy and a lovely "if it fails, it was the UNs fault" indemnity - a "get out of jail free" card, if you will - into the bargain. Unlike the initial troops, the UN troops have no real mandate to actually intervene, so they are more likely to fail.

Why don't the UN troops have a mandate to intervene? Well, no nation wants to submit to UN interference, so the member states forbid the UN peacekeepers to interfere in sovereign state's internal matters (such as civil wars, genocides, etc.).

Next time you proclaim that under no circumstance should the UN be allowed to impinge on your country's sovereignty, try to remember that is precisely the reason why the UN can't intervene in genocides such as Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia and so on.

It's why the UN is so ineffective at peacekeeping: The UNSC members call for peacekeeping operations and then refuse to provide the troops needed to do them. Then they sit back and blame the UN for not providing troops and spending so much money of their money on peacekeeping as if it were some sort of separate entity they had no control over.

In short we have got the UN peacekeeping we deserve: it's the UN peacekeeping we are prepared to abide by, man and pay for . If it's imperfect it's entirely our fault. If the UN is ignored and ineffectual it is because we have made it so. Because we are the UN: it's not a separate entity. This is even more so for the five permanent members of the UNSC: US, UK, China, Russia, France who are the real powerholders of the UN.

As the wise Mr Vonnegut puts it in his epitaph for the planet:

"The good Earth -- we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."

[patrone]

Yes, I see, You are a true patriot Weaselsan

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by patrone
Yes, I see, You are a true patriot Weaselsan

There's another kind?

[JB88]

nice post dead.

[patrone]

Originally posted by weaselsan
There's another kind?

Guess not, keep the "good" work up

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by -dead-
I think it's pretty much been third world countries for a long time: troops cost money, and giving them to the UN means they pay for themselves and might even get a little profit. So the third World are much more willing. Most countries also feel the UN is terribly expensive, so usually third world countries are all the UN can afford.

The West feels UN duty is really too dangerous and too expensive to send more than token forces unless there's a serious prize at stake. They prefer to send in the initial troops to a troublespot that they're interested in then "blue rinse" the whole thing by dragging in the UN to replace their expensive troops with much cheaper troops that the UN try to beg from the third world, to do the more dangerous long term peacekeeping.

In the process of "blue rinsing", the country doing the rinse gains a veneer of legitimacy and a lovely "if it fails, it was the UNs fault" indemnity - a "get out of jail free" card, if you will - into the bargain. Unlike the initial troops, the UN troops have no real mandate to actually intervene, so they are more likely to fail.

Why don't the UN troops have a mandate to intervene? Well, no nation wants to submit to UN interference, so the member states forbid the UN peacekeepers to interfere in sovereign state's internal matters (such as civil wars, genocides, etc.).

Next time you proclaim that under no circumstance should the UN be allowed to impinge on your country's sovereignty, try to remember that is precisely the reason why the UN can't intervene in genocides such as Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia and so on.

It's why the UN is so ineffective at peacekeeping: The UNSC members call for peacekeeping operations and then refuse to provide the troops needed to do them. Then they sit back and blame the UN for not providing troops and spending so much money of their money on peacekeeping as if it were some sort of separate entity they had no control over.

In short we have got the UN peacekeeping we deserve: it's the UN peacekeeping we are prepared to abide by, man and pay for . If it's imperfect it's entirely our fault. If the UN is ignored and ineffectual it is because we have made it so. Because we are the UN: it's not a separate entity. This is even more so for the five permanent members of the UNSC: US, UK, China, Russia, France who are the real powerholders of the UN.

As the wise Mr Vonnegut puts it in his epitaph for the planet:

The UN was a good Idea, as was the failed League of Nations. But not possible. The only time Nations will submit to the will of the UN is when it is in their own interests to do so.  As a result we see genocide continue while we watch the Secretary General wring his hands behind a podium and decry how difficult it is to do anything about it.....Good points though.

[JB88]

the structure of the United Nations is what harms it the most IMHO.

it conflicts with the basic spirit of its charter and the reasons for its existance.

[patrone]

Originally posted by weaselsan
The UN was a good Idea, as was the failed League of Nations. But not possible. The only time Nations will submit to the will of the UN is when it is in their own interests to do so.  As a result we see genocide continue while we watch the Secretary General wring his hands behind a podium and decry how difficult it is to do anything about it.....Good points though.

And why did the League of Nations fail?

As far as I know, it is the Security Council that handles theese problems and the Secreatary of General has nothing to say, within this circle. He is not a Dictator that can run UN the way he wants to.

It is only difficult to do anything about it, if the security council are not willing to bring the issue up. As far as I know, USA is still a steady member of this SC and more responsible of the acts of UN then Kofi Annan ever will be in theese matters.

Oh, another question,, when the US camp  was attacked by a suicidebomber Lebanon and left the mission, what Country did take your place, this dangerous spot?

[Colt44]

Granted ...Iraq is a mess.

I have friends over there who I have talked to who want to come home..right now.  They are stressed to the max and one advised me that he feels like its a matter of time before he "gets it".

So did the troops in Vietnam, Korea, WWII and I would think every other conflict known to man.''  But they all understood they had a mission to do.   And the troops have, for the most part, already accomplished the original mission: To find, isolate or eliminate a believed threat, namely Sadam and his cronies.  For right or wrong, it is done.  But now, the in-fighting starts.
 
This soldier is also training Iraqies and has lost three of his five man Iraqie fire team.  He believes that these Iraqies are fighting and dying for their freedom.  While they have no love for him, they are fighting for what they believe in.  It isn't for the American way of life.  It is for simple human rights, that were denied to them and their families for years under S.H.

A "rebel" symathizer shot our president during the aftermath of our Civil War only five or six genreations ago.  After shocks of this war still end in murder and mayhem to this date in parts of the USA.  Do we really expect all Iraqies to immedately lay down and comply.  Not going to happen.  Bush told us this was going to be long and unpleasant, and it is.  

Regardless of how history plays on the WMD debate....and I tell you that is far from over, the U.S. gave an oppressed population a chance to improve their situation.

The elections will take place, the training of the Iraqies continue and then we will undertake the exit.  The believers will still blindly believe and the nay-sayers will still Monday morning quarterback.

Bush will lead for better or worse and History will make the judgement of rightousness.

[JB88]

nicely said colt.  

we are in it.  now its up to us to make it better.  

i didnt agree with it.  i dont agree with it.

but i do think that we all have a responsibility to make it right now.

[JB88]

This Pollyanna army

Bush will not admit that his troops are too exhausted to sustain his vengeful global missions

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday January 27, 2005
The Guardian

The most penetrating critique of the realism informing President Bush's second inaugural address, a trumpet call of imperial ambition, was made one month before it was delivered, by Lt Gen James Helmly, chief of the US Army Reserve.

In an internal memorandum, he described "the Army Reserve's inability under current policies, procedures and practices ... to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The Army Reserve is additionally in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements and is rapidly degenerating into a broken force".

These "dysfunctional" policies are producing a crisis "more acute and hurtful", as the Reserve's ability to mobilise troops is "eroding daily".

The US force in Iraq of about 150,000 troops is composed of a "volunteer" army that came into being with the end of military conscription during the Vietnam war. More than 40% are National Guard and Reserves, most having completed second tours of duty and being sent out again.

The force level has been maintained by the Pentagon only by "stop-loss" orders that coerce soldiers to remain in service after their contractual enlistment expires - a back-door draft.

Re-enlistment is collapsing, by 30% last year. The Pentagon justified this de facto conscription by telling Congress that it is merely a short-term solution that would not be necessary as Iraq quickly stabilises and an Iraqi security force fills the vacuum. But this week the Pentagon announced that the US force level would remain unchanged through 2006.

"I don't know where these troops are coming from. It's mystifying," Representative Ellen Tauscher, a ranking Democrat on the House armed services committee, told me. "There's no policy to deal with the fact we have a military in extremis."

Bush's speech calling for "ending tyranny in all the world" was of consistent abstraction uninflected by anything as specific as the actual condition of the military that would presumably be sent scurrying on various global missions.

But the speech was aflame with images of destruction and vengeance. The neoconservatives were ecstatic, perhaps as much by their influence in inserting their gnostic codewords into the speech as the dogmatism of the speech itself.

For them, Bush's rhetoric about "eternal hope that is meant to be fulfiled" was a sign of their triumph. The speech, crowed neocon William Kristol, who consulted on it, was indeed "informed by Strauss" - a reference to Leo Strauss, philosopher of obscurantist strands of absolutist thought, mentor and inspiration to some neocons who believe they fulfil his teaching by acting as tutors to politicians in need of their superior guidance.

'Informed" is hardly the precise word to account for the manipulation of Bush's impulses by cultish advisers with ulterior motives.

Even as the neocons revelled in their influence, Bush's glittering generalities, lofted on wings of hypocrisy, crashed to earth. Would we launch campaigns against tyrannical governments in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or China?

Of course, the White House briefed reporters, Bush didn't mean his rhetoric to suggest any change in strategy.

Unfortunately for Condoleezza Rice, such levels of empty abstraction could not glide her through her Senate confirmation as secretary of state without abrasion.

With implacable rigidity, she stood by every administration decision. There was no disinformation on Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction; any suggestion that she had been misleading in the rush to war was an attack on her personal integrity. The light military force for the invasion was just right. And it was just right now.

Contrary to Senator Joseph Biden of the foreign relations committee, who stated that there are only 14,000 trained Iraqi security forces, she insisted there are 120,000. Why, secretary of defence Rumsfeld had told her so.

Then, implicitly acknowledging the failure to create a credible Iraqi army, the Pentagon announced that the US forces would remain at the same level for the next two years. Rice's Pollyanna testimony was suddenly inoperative.

The administration has no strategy for Iraq or for the coerced American army plodding endlessly across the desert.

Representative Tauscher wonders when the House armed services committee, along with the rest of the Congress, will learn anything from the Bush administration that might be considered factual: "They are never persuaded by the facts. Nobody can tell you what their plan is and they don't feel the need to have one."

On the eve of the Iraqi election, neither the president's soaring rhetoric nor the new secretary of state's fantasy numbers touch the brutal facts on the ground.

Sidney Blumethal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and author of The Clinton Wars

[JoOwEn]

Too bad you never hear stories from iraq with headlines like.

Terrorists shot dead by iraqis cause they had enough

That would be cool.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by weaselsan
The UN was a good Idea, as was the failed League of Nations. But not possible. The only time Nations will submit to the will of the UN is when it is in their own interests to do so.  As a result we see genocide continue while we watch the Secretary General wring his hands behind a podium and decry how difficult it is to do anything about it.....Good points though.

The Secretary General can only wring his hands because that's all we let him do. We control the UN, not Kofi Annan.

In the case of peacekeeping missions specifically it's down to just five countries to set the mandate, the rules of engagement and such: US, UK, France, Russia and China. If a UN peacekeeping mission is not allowed to intervene, not adequately staffed or funded, these 5 nations are primarily to blame, not Kofi Annan or the UN, but the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.

Annan is a civil servant (as his title suggests): he can only do what we tell him to do � his job in a peacekeeping mission is asking member countries to donate the troops, often on credit, to do the UNSC's will. He has no army of his own, and no say in policy. He also has no means of forcing countries to give troops, money or equipment.

Were anyone else to step into Annan's shoes they too would wring their hands: the UN has very little money, and no power. But he doesn't make it that way: we do. We don't pay the money we owe, we don't send enough troops, we don't let the peacekeepers do anything. We do nothing to stop genocide. We allow it to happen, because it's not in our interest to stop it.

So really, we are the ones idly wringing our hands: the Secretary General does what we  tell him to. Because we wouldn't dream of letting him do anything else.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by -dead-
The Secretary General can only wring his hands because that's all we let him do. We control the UN, not Kofi Annan.

In the case of peacekeeping missions specifically it's down to just five countries to set the mandate, the rules of engagement and such: US, UK, France, Russia and China. If a UN peacekeeping mission is not allowed to intervene, not adequately staffed or funded, these 5 nations are primarily to blame, not Kofi Annan or the UN, but the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.

Annan is a civil servant (as his title suggests): he can only do what we tell him to do � his job in a peacekeeping mission is asking member countries to donate the troops, often on credit, to do the UNSC's will. He has no army of his own, and no say in policy.

Were anyone else to step into Annan's shoes they too would wring their hands: the UN has very little money, and no power. But he doesn't make it that way: we do. We don't pay the money we owe, we don't send enough troops, we don't let the peacekeepers do anything. We do nothing to stop genocide. We allow it to happen, because it's not in our interest to stop it.

So really, we are the ones idly wringing our hands: the Secretary General does what we  tell him to. Because we wouldn't dream of letting him do anything else.

dead, I pretty much agree.

I just wonder why Russia, China, and France never seem to do any "heavy lifting" in major UN security operations.