Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on March 15, 2007, 11:21:18 AM
-
I found this summary of the situation in Iraq on TomPaine.com and to me it seems quite lucid. I note too, that Gen Patraeus said recently that "there is no military solution to Iraq" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html)
- The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature and involves a multifaceted civil war mostly pitting Sunnis against Shias. However, the violence also entails secular Sunnis fighting Sunni extremists linked to al-Qaida and secular Shias battling Shia extremists...The only thing the various factions share is unflinching opposition to U.S. occupation. But the notion that there is a monolithic group of “insurgents” or “enemy” falls far wide of the mark.
- U.S. strategy in Iraq is based on the false assumptions that the “people” and the “insurgents” in Iraq are two distinct and opposing groups, and that U.S. and Iraqi forces will be able to “clear” the insurgents and “hold” the people. In fact, the resistance will be suppressed in one area, only to re-emerge somewhere else (the attempt to suppress is appropriately called “Operation Whack-a-Mole”). It goes against virtually all historical precedent to suppose that an unwelcome invader with 150,000 troops—and Iraqi security forces that the NIE judged to be “persistently weak”—can occupy and subdue a large country with a population of 26 million and long porous borders.
- The United States does not have enough military forces on the ground in Iraq to provide effective control of the cities and key regions to prevent violence and destroy insurgent infrastructure. Moreover, the U.S. lacks sufficient soldiers and marines in its current globally deployed force to provide sustained reinforcements. And absent is the political will to bring back the draft to obtain the number of troops required to get better control of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Even with a draft, the United States would require two years at a minimum to train and organize the new units for any mission in Iraq. Given these facts, there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.
- A surge in U.S. troops in specific areas, specifically Baghdad, may bring more than a momentary lessening in the violence, but it will not end the fighting. In fact, this concentrated surge will enable insurgent forces in other areas of the country to expand their operations and control. A de facto partitioning of Iraq is under way. Since the surge started we have already seen an increase in violence in the Kurdish controlled north.
- At current casualty rates, twelve more months will mean at least 1,000 additional U.S. troops killed and 18 more months will bring at least 1,500—not to mention Iraqis killed, and thousands upon thousands seriously wounded. The various Iraqi insurgent groups will probably fade into the woodwork for a while, but at a time and place of their choosing they will surely be back, in force. In the end, aside from the deaths, nothing lasting will have been achieved.
- Senior U.S. civilian and military officials still don’t get it. “They can’t beat us in a stand-up fight,” bragged our vice president just two months ago, echoing recent words of a U.S. Army colonel in Iraq. This completely misses the point, and calls to mind the sad month of April 1975, when Col. Harry Summers was sent to negotiate with a North Vietnamese colonel the terms of American withdrawal from Vietnam. Summers reported the following exchange: “’You know, you never beat us on the battlefield,’ I said to Colonel Tu, my North Vietnamese counterpart. ‘That may be so,’ he said, ‘but it is also irrelevant.’”
- The critical parts of Iraq—Baghdad and southern Iraq—will be under the control of the Shia. Iran, in turn, will try to expand its aid and influence among both the Shia populace and the secular Sunnis.
- The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism.
- Violence in Iraq, at least for the mid-term, will continue regardless of the U.S. presence. Once a U.S. departure is under way there is an increased likelihood that the Sunnis and Shias will move toward a political accommodation of some sort since at that point neither can count on the United States to fight on their side. The only thing in doubt is the timing of the U.S. departure, and whether it can be accomplished without the massacres the British experienced trying to extricate themselves from earlier expeditions into Iraq. The lack of a substantial U.S. military presence in Iraq will have the counterintuitive effect of increasing the likelihood that neighboring countries will be more willing to take steps to help reduce the violence in Iraq.
-
"There is no military solution to Iraq"
Sounds impressive.
If this is from Petraeus' March 8 press conference, the whole in context quote would be this one.
Second question: You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups. But everybody should be under the supremacy of law, and all military activities should be cancelled. So how are these people going to be part of the solution?
GEN. PETRAEUS: First of all, there -- you asked about detention facilities, coalition and Iraqi. And in fact there is an effort ongoing -- in fact, it's part of the rule of law effort that I mentioned -- that will assist Iraq and the Ministry of Justice in expanding its detention facilities.
The fact is that Iraq has a very, very small capacity in that regard, compared with any of the other states in the region or even just to a state of the United States. And so the assessment of leaders and so forth is that there -- especially as you have a security crackdown that does target these extremists, that a number of them need to be detained and to be put into the correction system. And so that is an effort -- there is an effort ongoing to do that, just as there is an effort ongoing to expand the U.S. capacity for detention.
And in fact, in one of the locations -- in fact, several of the coalitions -- we are actually helping to train Iraqi corrections officers. In some cases, they are training alongside our soldiers and will transition to take over some of the detention facilities you can see, again, in the years hence.
So there's a short-term capacity increase effort ongoing, and there's also a longer-term plan that has been being executed and will also be reinforced to increase the Iraqi capacity over time as well.
With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.
A political resolution of various differences, of this legislation, of various senses that people do not have a stake in the success of the new Iraq, and so forth, that is crucial. That is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. And again, that clearly has to include talking with and eventually reconciling differences with some of those who have felt that the new Iraq did not have a place for them, whereas I think, again, Prime Minister Maliki clearly believes that it does, and I think that his actions will demonstrate that, along with the other ministers.
I mean, if you look at the hydrocarbon law is an enormous statement that the oil that is in certain regions, the wealth from that, the revenue from it, will be shared with all Iraqis. It is a national resource, it states that. And that, arguably, is a very significant statement, compromise even, because some could have tried to have kept that to a particular region rather than sharing it with all. And I think that kind of legislation is what the Iraqi people are looking for. That is also, for what it's worth, what people in the United States are looking for, to see, again, is there the will, the determination to come to grips with these very tough issues that makes our enormous effort of the coalition members to help them achieve the security in which that kind of effort can go forward more successfully than when they're literally consumed with concerns about the security challenges of the moment.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10475&Itemid=128
Not exactly the same picture as the short quote presents, is it?
-
Wow, that was some professional journalism by CNN, to snip out the parts they wanted to hear. :mad:
-
you can't "end the war" by running away from it.
-
What war?
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. - George W. Bush, May 1, 2003.
-
"The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists"
sounds good to me...
" whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism."
I don't believe their numbers are growing faster than we can kill them..we may just have to come up with better extermination methods. Ever put out a grease fire in your grill with your water bottle? It requires alot of water...an overpowering amount.
Seems to me they, the terrorists, are too busy in Iraq to worry much about the rest of the world.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What war?
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. - George W. Bush, May 1, 2003.
Against Iraq they have .. we are now fighting Iran in Iraq if you haven't figured that out yet.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What war?
the "war" the democrats want to end , cut off funding and bring home the troops, that "war", unless they are talking about bringing the troops home from germany. the war with germany has been over for about 60 years and we still have troops there protecting europe from somebody.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"The U.S. occupation continues to be a windfall for terrorist recruiters. An NIE of April 2006 on terrorism noted that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists"
sounds good to me...
" whose numbers, it said, may be increasing faster than the U.S. can reduce the threat. There is wide consensus among experienced observers that the war in Iraq makes it immensely more difficult to deal with the real threat of international terrorism."
I don't believe their numbers are growing faster than we can kill them..we may just have to come up with better extermination methods. Ever put out a grease fire in your grill with your water bottle? It requires alot of water...an overpowering amount.
Seems to me they, the terrorists, are too busy in Iraq to worry much about the rest of the world.
the beauty of Iraq is the terrorists are there and not here. the democrats fail to understand this. then again the democrats fail to grasp reality on any level.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Against Iraq they have .. we are now fighting Iran in Iraq if you haven't figured that out yet.
It's your story. Make it as big as you want.
-
Oboe, if you can wrangle a copy of "First Things," the new issue, April 2007, #172, George Weigel's essay "Just War and Iraq Wars" touches on some of the points you highlighted. Especially that it is not a "single" conflict.
I'm about 2/3rds the way through it.
If you read it, give a holler.
hap
-
I don't see anyway it can qualify under Just War Theory.
We screwed up; now those famous words apply; "you break it, you buy it".
-
You can use any form of sophistry you choose to interpret the General's comments, but like it or not 'There is no military solution to Iraq'.
He says And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.
He's right and I claim no prescience in saying the solution to the problem in Iraq is political not military.
Northern Ireland, which naturally is familiar to me is a classic case. Both sides eventualy recognised that military intervention/terrorism didn't work. They had an election last week and the likely result is that the two bitterest enemies are about to share government (fingers crossed).
You can name any number of precedents you like. The solution is always political. The good general knows this and the sooner everyone else does too the sooner it happens.
The same principles apply to Al Qaeda led terrorism. They can't be defeated by the military only by politics.
-
Was hoping you'd pop in, Hap. I think I found a link for Weigel's essay but it seems to be dated April 2006 - is it the same article?
Iraq: Then and Now (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=115)
He definitely believes Iraq falls under the Just War category, but I agree with Toad.
Toad, you may want to review the article linked above - 1/2 way through he goes into a long discussion of Just War as ot pertains to Iraq.
Is there a penalty due for leaders of countries who launch an unjust war?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wow, that was some professional journalism by CNN, to snip out the parts they wanted to hear. :mad:
boy howdy, I'm sure glad those other guys dont do that, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX... :t
Is there a penalty due for leaders of countries who launch an unjust war?
yea they dont get re-elected
-
Originally posted by oboe
Is there a penalty due for leaders of countries who launch an unjust war?
yes , they hung saddam.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Was hoping you'd pop in, Hap. I think I found a link for Weigel's essay but it seems to be dated April 2006 - is it the same article?
Nope, a new one. I just got "First Things" in the post yesterday. I've not read the one to which you referred.
The just war considerations which Weigel lays out quite a bit in the intro of this recent essay and contextualizes it with references to two other authors, one a theologian and the other an historian, took a back seat for me to his explanation of the "wars," we've seen in Iraq since we invaded.
His take made things quite a bit clearer as I've tried to get my head around that knotted mess. Thank God I don't watch TV news, so I've been largely spared the un-newsworthy superficiality of the chattering classes. Adhominem arguments can raise a chuckle or a fury, but they get tiresome very quickly for me despite my own faux pas when I let one fly from the hip in here.
Petraus' is mentioned, and to be honest, I need to finish reading it. Probably tonight after work. Then give it another run through with pencil in hand.
There are several things I like about reading Weigel: his tone, he's not in a hurry, he's got a moral center that rests upon something besides what's fashionable, and he's thoughtful. And, he makes me think and reflect as well.
Yeah, it's a new essay. I'll try to dig out the old one, you try to dig out the new one. Maybe you can get it off First Things website. If not, call them and ask for a copy. They'll probably send you one for free as a means to evaluate if you'd like to subscribe or not. That's how I got my mine a couple years ago when I was looking for periodicals.
All the Best,
hap
p.s. you provided the link. I'll just save it and read it later. Thanks!
-
Oboe,
I didn't read your entire link, however I think the author fails to take these principles one at a time and show where the Iraq war qualifies.
Note that a Just War has to qualify on each and every principle.
Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4).
Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.
Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
How, in your opinion, does the Iraq war qualify with respect to principle 3 and 4? What injury had the US suffered at the hands of Iraq?
The only possible justification under 3 & 4 was that Iraq was an imminent threat WMD threat to the US. Had we found WMD, one could at least make that case; we found nothing. (And for those of you with short memory, that is exactly the position I took in the debates leading up to the war. I'm sure the posts are still available on this board.)
I personally don't feel that flouting UN sanctions qualifies under 3 & 4, although that seems to be the rationale the author of your link uses.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
You can name any number of precedents you like. The solution is always political.
Let's use Ireland as an example then.
What brought the IRA side to the table?
-
I agree with you, Toad. The link I provided was merely an attempt to locate the article Hap had referenced. I don't agree with the author's arguments.
I don't see how imminent threat can qualify as "wrong suffered". How long did this country live under imminent threat from the Soviet Union without resorting to preemptive war? I am sorry but I think the whole doctrine of preemptive war must be found to be unjust.
The question remains though, what is our duty as citizens when it becomes clear that our leaders have launched an unjust war?
-
In this Republic, it is up to your Congress to bring charges of impeachment against such a President.
However, the burden of proof would be on those bringing charges to show that he knowingly started an unjust war. I do not think that proof can be shown against Bush, at least not from seeing what has been offered as proof so far. Wishing doesn't make it so.
I will disagree with you, as you knew I would, with respect to imminent threat and just war. In the days of Aquinas, Grotius, and Pufendorf the ability to destroy an entire country, indeed, an entire continent was not a matter of 15 minutes like it is now.
I think Ahmadinejad dances on the boundaries of giving Israel cause for a Just War with his speeches; couple that with Iranian nukes and Israel could at least make a case for it on the world stage.
-
Iraq invaded Kuwait and was driven out in what you people call gulf war one, that war was stopped in a cease fire with conditions agreed to by saddam, for 12 years saddam failed to honor the conditions of the crase fire he had agreed to.
what you people call gulf war two is a continuation of gulf war one.
now, tell me the gulf war was not justified.
-
The 4th and also next to last item in Just War Theory, john.
"Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. "
"States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered".
The injury suffered by Kuwait in GW1 had been adequately redressed/addressed. The Iraqis were out of Kuwait, Kuwait was restored to it's pre-GW1 boundaries and was well protected against a repeat performance by Iraq.
It was over.
-
know ye not the meaning of cease fire?
-
I am sorry but I think the whole doctrine of preemptive war must be found to be unjust.
I dunno about that. In 1967 Israel launched a series of preemptive strikes because the Arabs were massing troops on the other side of Israel's borders. I think preemptive war can be *Just* in some cases.
-
Originally posted by john9001
know ye not the meaning of cease fire?
Yes, in fact I do.
You are quibbling that the various terms of the ceasefire were not all completely, exactly and explicity satisfied by Iraq.
Clearly, however, the invasion of Kuwait had been addressed and redressed. Peace had been restored. There was no longer cause for war.
Further,
"The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered."
What violation of the ceasefire rules was proportional to the ensuing violence of GW2? Clearly, there were none; once again, no cause for Just War.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Peace had been restored. There was no longer cause for war.
not accounting for the WMD's he had before the war, inhibiting the UN inspectors from inspections, attacking/killing the kurds and she-its with his airforce, then after the UN enacts the no-fly zones to protect them he shoots SAMs at the US aircraft patrolling the no fly zones.
yes"peace in our time".
-
...and then theres the money he was paying the families of suicide bombers. Terrorist training camps in northern iraq (oh yes I forgot saddam was 'unaware' of these).
I pity the USA, I think they did the right thing for once with Saddam. But it is now a hell of a mess over there.
-
Originally posted by john9001
not accounting for the WMD's he had before the war, inhibiting the UN inspectors from inspections, attacking/killing the kurds and she-its with his airforce, then after the UN enacts the no-fly zones to protect them he shoots SAMs at the US aircraft patrolling the no fly zones.
yes"peace in our time".
None of which rise to the level of cause under Just War Theory.
I'm sorry; the Sadman was scum floating on the gene pool of the world but the things you just listed do not justify an invasion of Iraq under Just War Theory.
Am I sorry to see him gone? Not in the least.
Do I think the US had the "right" to invade and depose him under Just War Theory? No, I do not.
Had they found WMD that presented an imminent threat to the US, it might have been barely justifiable. We found essentially nothing, despite a lot of looking.
Vulcan, the suicide bombers were targeted on Israel, were they not? If anything, that would have been a matter for Israel, not the US.
As for the terrorist camps, I believe they were there. To date no one in this administration has been able to prove, either before or after the fact, that these presented an imminent threat to the US. The camps were not the justification used for the invasion; WMD were. WMD are/were the issue that Just War hinges upon wrt the US.
That's the way I see it. I said as much on this BBS right before we jumped off. I did support the administration once the decision was made. Damn straight I wanted them to find WMD. It remains the only possible justification for the invasion. I hoped it would prove true so that we had some justification. It didn't turn out that way.
-
Why should Bush's state of mind enter in to it? Whether he knowingly or unknowingly started this unjust war, he is responsible for it. Last time I was pulled over for speeding, it did not matter to the officer that I did not intend to speed, or even that I did not know I was speeding. I was guilty of speeding, period.
"Imminent threat" is not specified in the Principles of Just War you included. It really demands knowing the other's capability and intention in order to accurately assess the threat level. As we have seen, the likelyhood of error is great.
If the ability to destroy a country on short notice justifies the doctrine of preemptive war, you are implying that at any time during the Cold War either the US or USSR would have been justified in launching an attack, since each was mere minutes away from destruction at the hands of the other's nuclear arsenal. I can't imagine that situation would've been considered a Just War.
-
So you'll impeach a President that makes a mistake? Even if he really does think he's acting in the nation's best interest?
I don't buy it, sorry.
Your example is flawed; what if you were a volunteer fireman speeding to a fire at an orphanage and got pulled over? Write a ticket? What if it turns out to be a false alarm? Write a ticket later?
This what if stuff is just carp. He screwed the pooch. If it was an honest mistake you want to hang him anyway. Pah.
As I pointed out earlier, Aquinas, Grotius, and Pufendo never contemplated nuclear weapons. Never could have imagined them, most likely. If they had, JWT would be a bit different.
But go ahead and be inflexible. You want your witchunt and Boosh is the witch. Wear yourself out.
I'll just be glad to see Bush go; after all this I expect it to be very similar to the feeling I had when Clinton finally left, more relief than anything else.
I'd rather look to the future and see if we can find a person with enough character, morality and intelligence to be President of the US. We've failed to do so in the last four elections... maybe we'll get lucky this time.
BTW, the Cold War... look up Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov and Able Archer 83. You'll see the world came very, very close to what you call preemptive war. I assure you, many of those involved did feel war was justified; it probably took a little luck to get past those incidents.
-
I would investigate thoroughly; impeach if warranted. I suspect we might find it wasn't such an honest mistake.
And yes, good intentions don't go very far with me. Not when were talking about leading the most powerful country on Earth, with tens of thousands of innocent lives in balance and hundreds of billions of dollars cost to the taxpayer. You gotta be right. And Bush wasn't. And I don't think I'd stop with just him.
Was it just luck that got us through the Cold War without preemptive war? Or wisdom? It doesn't matter whether a number of people back then thought it would've been justified. A number of people now still think the Iraq War was justified, and you and I (and many more I'm sure) agree that it was not.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Vulcan, the suicide bombers were targeted on Israel, were they not? If anything, that would have been a matter for Israel, not the US.
Sorry, didn't realize supporting terrorism was "OK" if it was against israel.
-
What matters is what Bush thought.
What you or I think aside, I seriously doubt there would ever be definitive proof that would result in impeachment.
We got through the Cold War on luck, IMO.
I'll tell you this too: I was technically assigned to SAC during the Cold War and I had a SIOP mission, although it didn't involve the release of any weapons. Had the orders come down, I'd have performed my mission to the best of my ability no matter what. What I'm saying is I would not have questioned my orders after going through the authentication/confirmation process with positive results. I would have considered that I was going to a Just War.
I guess that gives me a different perspective.
You say "You gotta be right".
Well, there's no way to be absolutely sure until the enemy weapons start impacting your country.
And then it's WAY too late.
BTW, there are other interpretations of Just War in the nuclear age than yours.
Here's an interesting read for you that deals directly with Iraq. It features these guys and I suspect they are a bit more educated and more capable in this field than you or I.
Gerard Bradley is Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. A noted scholar in the fields of constitutional law and law and religion, his books include Catholicism, Liberalism, and Communitarianism. He is the director of Notre Dame’s Natural Law Institute and is a former president of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.
William A. Galston is Professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland and Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. His books include Liberal Purposes and Liberal Pluralism. A widely respected political theorist who also participates in politics and policy, he served from 1993 to 1994 as President Clinton’s deputy assistant for domestic policy. His recent articles on Iraq have appeared in the Washington Post and The American Prospect.
John Kelsay is the Richard L. Rubenstein Professor of Religion at Florida State University. A noted authority on Islam, he is co-editor, with James Turner Johnson, of Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Tradition and Cross, Crescent, and Sword: The Justification and Limitation of War in Western and Islamic Tradition.
Michael Walzer is Professor at the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study. He previously taught at Harvard and Princeton Universities. His writings address a wide variety of topics in political theory and moral philosophy. A broadly acclaimed authority on the morality of the use of force, he is the author, among other books, of Just and Unjust Wars, which has become a seminal text for just war analysis.
Enjoy.
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=36
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Sorry, didn't realize supporting terrorism was "OK" if it was against israel.
It isn't. However, we're talking Just War Theory here, are we not?
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.
What wrongs had the US suffered that are/were directly traced to Iraq? How was the US wronged by suicide bombers striking Israel?
It was Israel's place to respond to that, not ours. Further,
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
What level of violence is appropriate for Israel to use against a despot that writes a $25K check to the families of suicide bombers killing Israelis?
-
a Just War Theory is just that a theory, some guys idea of how and when war should be fought, i would like to see him "discuss" his theory with a islamist terrorist.
don't try to over analyze things.
when you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.
-
Hamas were a threat to the US, Hamas were being funded by Saddam...
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas' military wing called Wednesday on Muslims around the world to attack American targets following reports that an Israeli tank strike killed 18 people in the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun
-
Saudi Arabia funds Hamas, and substantially more than Saddam ever did...
Tronsky
-
Some of you should really think about your posts, actually read what you are typing, before clicking on the 'submit reply' tab. There are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines dieing over here every day serving your country to which your 'arm chair quarterbacking'. I'm not saying don't discuss it just use a little bit of your brain.
-
As for the terrorist camps, I believe they were there. To date no one in this administration has been able to prove, either before or after the fact, that these presented an imminent threat to the US.
I don't think the administration had/has to prove those particular terrorists were an imminent threat. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and I don't particularly care which group they belong to. Terrorists are a threat to the Free World in general and the USA should be leading the Free World in the fight against all terrorists. Terrorists killing the innocent needs to stop.
America didn't declare war on Al-Qaeada after 9/11 that I recall. I recall America declaring war on terrorism. All the WMD, Saddaam was a bad man etc aside, I think just having terrorist training camps in his country was justifiable enough for us to invade.
-
Oboe,
I've not reread Weigel's essay yet, but I did just finish it.
It is certainly worth rereading.
I'll pull a sentence or two leading up to and from his conclusion.
The challenge today is quite similar to that faced by Truman, and Acheson, Marshall and Vandernberg, confronted by an ideological enemy with global ambitions in the late 1940's..
Quoting Charles Frankel, The heart of the policy-making process . . . is not the finding of a nation interest already perfectly known. It is the determining of that interest: the reassessment of the nation's resources, needs, commitments, traditions, and political and cultural horizons -- in short, it's calendar of values/
Then the last three sentences: As Bernard Lewis has argued, "the war against terror and the quest for freedom are inextricably linked, and neither can succeed without the other." We may be sure that the war against terror will suffer communsurately if the Iraqi phase of the quest for freedom and a new politics in the ArabIslamic world is frustrated. No one -- in the Congress, the churches, in the academy, or on the street -- can wish for that and still claim the mantle of moral seriousness.
I really hesitate pulling those parts out because doing so will tend to give people the mistaken notion that they now know what Weigel is about in this essay.
The fish he wishes to fry is large -- that is it is important (perhaps more important or at least as important then Communism)-- and flippancy does no one any good. Culling out a few sentences to give a sense of what he writes invites haste.
In short, from my vantage point, it's chocked full of truth-telling, no invective, and all shrillness is thankfully absent.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's use Ireland as an example then.
What brought the IRA side to the table?
Without getting into longwinded irrelevant details. Essentially people, leaders on both sides realised that neither side was going to win militarily. The IRA could not be beaten because of the support they had in their consituency. Their political leaders realised the IRA was never going to defeat the British forces and the British were never going to pull out. It was stalemate and all that was left were pointless terrorist atrocities. Just like Iraq at the moment.
It was a long process of negotiation through intermediaries with constant setbacks. The US played a big part in facilitating this as they tended to be seen as honest brokers by both sides.
The final piece of the jigsaw fell into place recently when Sinn Fein/IRA agreed to support the police. A few years ago they were murdering police in the streets.
Eventually we have got to the situation where essentially the IRA as represented by it's political wing, Sinn Fein is now about to share the local government with it's bitterest rivals, the DUP lead by firebrand presbyterian cleric Ian Paisley. Both parties having being duly elected by the people of Northern Ireland last week. Both sides have compromised, Sinn Fein still wants a United Ireland and the DUP want to remain in the UK. Both intend to use politics to achieve that goal.
The lesson for Iraq are these: The US military must remain in Iraq. They will contain the terrorists but they won't be defeated because there is support for them in Iraq.
Like NI, Iraq's troubles are now mostly sectarian in nature, Sunni versus Shia. Like NI it's less about religion and more about power and who controls the country. At the moment both sides believe they can win this. Both are wrong. Eventually they will have to sit down and talk and decide how to share power. An Iraq where one side or other dominates won't work. At the moment their leaders lack the acumen to realise this and it might take years to get to that stage. I think the real problem that there is no real strong Sunni leader who can carry his people through this. Lately any Sunnis who show their head above the parapet have had them shot off for their trouble (literally).
So shake off any illusions that the US military can defeat the insurgents. Petraeus knows this and is acting accordingly. But the insurgents must know the Americans are not for leaving and will not be defeated. This must not become another Vietnam. Unfortunately that means a lot more dead Americans and an awful lot of dead Iraqis until both sides sicken themselves into sitting down and talking.
It will be a long road.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
So shake off any illusions that the US military can defeat the insurgents.
I think you'd also agree that we can shake off any illusion that a brokered peace will occur without the US military?
After all, like all wars, there was no end in Ireland until either one or both sides decided that a military victory was no longer possible.
-
Thanks for the pewforum link, Toad - it was an interesting read. Worth a reread, too, if I can adopt Hap's excellent habit.
One thing that I took from it, pertaining to our discussion of imminent threat and the doctrine of preemptive war, is that Iraq's threat was not imminent. So again, Iraq seems to fail the Just War theory.
The panel was loaded with academic credentials but it might've been nice to have a voice from the military in the discussion as well.
I do have to question the usefulness of Just War theory if,
a) Both the U.S. and USSR would've been justified under them in launching a preemptive nuclear attack that would have annihilated the other, and
b) there are no negative consequences for leaders who fail to abide by the principles. (There is no enforcing body)
cpxxx - I note in your remarks the importance of an honest broker acting as intermediary between the parties. Is there a reasonable candidate out there for the Iraq War?
Hap - I will try to get my hands on Weigel's article. I don't know anyone who is not wishing for a better situation in Iraq, or who is hoping for frustration of the new politics in Arab world.
VWE - no disrespect towards our servicemen and women is ever intended in my remarks. Apologies if that's the way it came across.
-
well....that was the plan cpxxx, to never leave and build permanent viceroy bases there.
either that, or they're the most inept clowns on the planet.
-
Toad,
Just started watching "Fog of War" with Robert McNamara, and he backs up your assertion that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was sheer luck that a nuclear exchange between US and USSR was avoided.
Can't get any closer to the horses mouth than the SecDef who lived through it.
-
McNamara is a jack ass; I've nothing good to say about him.
I despise him the way you probably despise Bush.
I'm glad he managed to notice the Cuban Missile Crisis through his continual Fog of Life.
My father was still in the USAF during that affair. I remember the preparations that were made in the family assuming he was going off to war once again. It was luck.
-
Sorry if I struck a nerve.
Previously I thought of McNamara as a cold-hearted, number-crunching warmonger but the Fog of War dispells that notion. Maybe he was that way in his forties but now in his eighties he seems to have gotten softer (admitting errors) and more reflective.
I didn't know he fought with LBJ and wanted to reduce our involvement in Viet Nam, and that LBJ ended up sacking him and awarding him a Medal of Freedom.
FoW has 11 life lessons he learned about war- I was going to post them in a discussion about how they might apply to Iraq but if you can't stand the guy I'll defer.
-
It's a great documentary.
One I must buy.
All the Best,
hap
-
Here's a life lesson he never learn in time to save ~50,000 American soldiers:
Don't try to micro manage a war from half a world away. What a dipshirt.
A very large number of names on that wall are there because Robert STRANGE McNamara was one stupid, pighead dipshirt that couldn't find his bellybutton with both hands in his back pockets.
Someday I'll tell you how I really feel about him.
-
McNamara ruined the T Bird too.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here's a life lesson he never learn in time to save ~50,000 American soldiers:
Don't try to micro manage a war from half a world away. What a dipshirt.
A very large number of names on that wall are there because Robert STRANGE McNamara was one stupid, pighead dipshirt that couldn't find his bellybutton with both hands in his back pockets.
Someday I'll tell you how I really feel about him.
I understand you despise him, but are you implying that the U.S. would've only suffered roughly 8,000 casualties in Viet Nam had McNamara not been SecDef? (assuming total US casualties were apprx 58,000)
I don't think 3 years as a statistical analyst for the AAF qualified him to be SecDef, even considering his experience as President of Ford Motor.
EDIT: Here's a thought that just occurred to me, related to our discussion of Just War Theory, imminent threat, the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What do you think the result of the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been if instead of Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara, the U.S. leadership was Bush Jr, Cheney and Rumsfield (with of course Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith adding their counsel as well)?
It makes me wonder about the differences in the motivations and wisdom of politicians today versus those from the greatest generation.
-
Does anybody else think this war is more about oil than WMD's?
-
do you think there would have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara had not screwed up the bay of pigs invasion so bad that it led castro to ask russia for defensive missles to be put into cuba?
-
Oh, I didn't realize those missiles were defensive. That changes everything!
-
Originally posted by oboe Here's a thought that just occurred to me, related to our discussion of Just War Theory, imminent threat, the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What do you think the result of the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been if instead of Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara, the U.S. leadership was Bush Jr, Cheney and Rumsfield (with of course Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith adding their counsel as well)?
The image comes from about 10 years after the Missle Crisis, but the end of the original Planet of the Apes springs to mind with little or no effort.
All the Best,
hap
p.s. All the Department heads work for the President to carry out his policy. I'm not a lover of Rumsfield, but I know the buck doesn't stop with him.
-
The girl was hot, PLUS she couldn't talk! Rather balances everything out, I think
-
Originally posted by oboe
are you implying that the U.S. would've only suffered roughly 8,000 casualties in Viet Nam had McNamara not been SecDef?
No, I'm saying outright that his absolutely idiotic rules of engagement cost a lot of men their lives as he tried to prove his idiotic theories on how to conduct warfare.
This clip from globalsecurity.org suffices as an example:
The ROEs in place for the air campaign over North Vietnam included restrictions on where aircraft could fly, what conditions aircraft could attack enemy forces (when they were considered hostile), and what degree of force could be used both in self-defense and attack.3
Another part of the ROEs restricted pilots from attacking certain types of targets that were off limits; some of these were: enemy airfields, SAM sites, power plants, naval craft in some areas, a 30 mile area around Hanoi, and a 10 mile area around Haiphong.4
The inability to attack certain targets made it difficult to stop the flow of men and material into South Vietnam, and the requirements to spare North Vietnamese civilians limited the use of certain types of munitions, such as B-52s and napalm.
Until early 1967, in many instances U.S. pilots were not allowed to engage enemy fighters unless they themselves had been attacked first.
What a dip****.
-
toad is absolutely right, McNamara is a fool , he prolonged the war and cost the lives of many Americans , he should be writing his books from a jail cell.