Understood. And one of the big consequences of this war, IMO, is that it has made the international climate more accomodating – either openly or covertly – to allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Trying to find the best course now is very much more difficult, and it may no longer be possible to prevent proliferation in Iran.

Dave Powell

J.D.

I understand frustration with restrictive ROE, limited force, etc.

However, the essence of good CI requires a good deal of counter-intuition, not force.

In the long run, extreme force and brutality do not win the war. Massive anti-partisan actions waged in the USSR and in Poland by the Germans during WWII, for example, did very little to remove the partisan problem in the German rear. Extreme French measures in Indo-China didn’t work either. We are talking about wholesale liquidation, civilian round-ups, 10 for 1 punishment rules, etc.

changing the ROE slightly in Iraq, or even sending 100,000 more troops, will make little difference. We have already lost. Now we are just quibbling over how badly we lose. I have studied too much military history to not recognize that fact.

However, I don’t really understand why so many folks are so terrified of the “monolithic Radical Islamic threat.” No such thing exists. That very lesson can be learned right now, in Iraq, simply by reading the headlines. The various denominations are even right now largely fighting each other, and will continue to do so. Both the Shia and the Sunni are conducting ops against one another, not primarily the US. We are the 800 pound Gorrilla they have to work around. War in the Mideast will certainly be ongoing now, thanks to some really idiotic foreign policy decisions, but it will be largely between Iran and various proxy groups aimed at limiting Iranian spread.

Think the collapse of Yugoslavia here, not Mongol-Horde-ravaging-Europe time.

Unless, of course, you think that the Iranians and Iraqi Shia will somehow be able to defeat a well-supported Sunni/Kurd Insurgency against them, when we could not. If so, I’d like to hear how anyone thinks that might happen, tactics-wise.

Certainly we will face terroristic threats. Conventional ground ops are not the ideal counter to those threats.:)

Dave Powell

Again, though, we have yet to define what “winning” means in this context. I think we can all agree that this battle can be won and the war lost–if we come down on Iraq with too heavy of a hand and prevail in settling things down, it is entirely possible that it will further radicalize even those Arab populations that are pretty tame and supportive now, such as Jordan. Let’s not forget that just 35 years ago, King Hussein had to fight off the PLO’s attempt to overthrow him.

That, my friends, is my fear. And I have no solutions to the problem and no ideas how to solve it. I just know that the present policy doesn’t work and is an unmitigated failure.

JD, I have absolutely no doubt that the next president will be the one to deal with this situation. Bush’s inability to admit errors–and let’s be quite clear about this: his so-called acceptance of responsibility the other night was not an acknowledgement of HIS bad decisions, and was stated in the passive voice. It was to appease the public, but NOTHING has changed, and he has yet to acknowledge a single specific error. That means that, unless Congress pulls the plug on further funding, it will be “stay the course” until he leaves office and leaves the mess to his successor. Who that successor will be remains to be seen, but it’s quite clear to me that if this policy doesn’t succeed quickly, it WON’T be John McCain, who will be seen as the driving force behind this build-up, for which he’s been agitating for months.

Eric

I agree with you, but I worry about your last part – if we leave Iraq to its own devices, the threat to our national security is too great. Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists that we’d have to deal with all too soon. I agree with giving them a time limit and getting out, and being only interested spectators if they choose to kill each other. But radical Islam must be either contained (which is just as difficult as what we’re facing now) or they must die.

Either the Iraqi government fights the war with us, and they keep doing so, with our support for a limited time, or we’ll have more problems than I’m afraid we can handle. As you also eluded to, force is the only thing that will solve this.

I’m also afraid that the next President is going to be facing the decision of bombing targets in Iran and perhaps other locations. If we get a pantywaist in the White House in a couple years, we’re all doomed. And that’s not just dramatics – I really mean it.

J.D.

Just the intial piece itself, not any comments afterwards, although you have good debate on your blog.

Chris

Here’s the point, which the show acknowledged: In each and every instance where the “good guys” prevailed (i,e., post-war Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.) , the “bad guys” were ultimately defeated only by the overwhelming use of force. No mamby-pamby negotiations or hand-wringing hopes that if only we changed our ways, then the bad guys would leave us alone. Local pro-Union militias meted out justice and retribution using the same cutthroat tactics as the Klan and other pro-Confederate, white supremacist groups of the day. That’s all they understood…

History often repeats itself. We can debate in a gentlemanly fashion all day why we are in Iraq and whether it was a just, noble idea or not. I think all will agree that major mistakes have been made since the war supposedly ended, including how we sent in “just enough troops to lose.” IMO, another huge error was our belief that we would be greeted as liberators. It now appears that a key tenet held by the locals is “better to live under the bootheel of a Muslim despot than to be liberated by the infidel.”

Personally, I think it’s time to bring the troops home. I believe our intentions were noble and honorable, however, the Iraqi people’s apparent unwillingness or inability to seize what we gave them now makes me question our largesse. If they’d rather settle old scores than build a model democracy, so be it.

Paul

I agree with Mike Nugent and others who have said, like I, that if you’re going to fight a war, you fight it. Eric, you’ve asked lots of questions, and they are the right questions to ask. They are exactly the questions that we have now – there’s no enemy government, there’s no enemy uniforms, there will be no table around which the loser surrenders to the victor.

The simple answer to your questions is: kill ’em.

And boy, that sounds much too simplistic and elementary.

But it’s the only way this type of “war” can be won. As you said, these people have no qualms about suicide. They have no ethical or moral dilemmas. There are no battlelines. There’s no “territory” in this war. As we’ve seen in at least two instances, even the American soldier you’ve been bunking with for the last five years could be a radical Muslim just waiting for the opportunity to throw a grenade in a tent full of his buddies playing poker.

When we went after bin Laden, we should have sent 200,000 of our best American boys at him until we strung him up. And everyone else be damned. 9-11 gave us the one chance to have the clear and unambiguous opportunity to tell the rest of the world to go to hell. We had the right to demand the high road. Iran, Syria, Pakistan – you name it – we’re hunting bin Laden and every one of his minions, and if you get in the way you die. Simple as that. If you want to see Iran, or Syria, or Pakistan, or anyplace else erased off the map, just piss us off. There will be unnecessary civilian casualties but war sucks. Deal with it. I know, I know, if I were on the other side of the coin I wouldn’t want my family subjected to it, but when you’re out to save the world (and this is what it’s all about – see my previous comment) innocents will die too. God has a plan – he intends to kill us all. Sometimes righteousness speeds that process.

Sadly, we’re not in that position anymore. Now that we’re where we are, the Iraqi government needs to be given a time limit and a set of rules. Rules we demand. Because we can, that’s why. Then we’re out. One problem, just one little problem, and we unleash hell. Let them know that we will demand the high road. Not earn it – demand it. And it won’t be by troops on the ground. Planes will shut out the sunshine for as long as it takes.

As I said before, the one major problem this planet faces is radical Islam. If America and any other civilized land will ever go down, it will be because of them. As long as they behave they live. If not, we kill them. And keep killing until there’s none left.

That’s the point we’ve reached. And I think it’s abundantly clear that we have, by your questions, Eric.

J.D.

You folks write history. You should know better than to bemoan the “current” lack of leadership. Like this is new. The American Civil War is the essence of bullshit politics and strategic misagenation gone to hell. None of those politicals could see beyond the inside of their navels ’cause you know what theirs heads were stuck up. That includes Father Abraham.

Eric: It’s your board, of course. But venting on current events does reap it’s own whirlwind. I happen to agree that Baby Bush screwed the pooch on the whole Iraq deal. But JD has a point about strategic profundity. Islam is in turmoil. Is it worse to have 3000 dead in Iraq in 4 years, or a quadrennial WTC center incident in a major US metropolitan area?

This whole thing could be resolved to our advantage if Baby Bushh would go on TV and announce that we have the answer. We just nuked Tel Aviv. (Oh Gawd; don’t give the schmucks any ideas….) (Whacka, whacka, whacka.)

Well said.

As for me, I would have voted for a cinder block if that’s what the Dems had nominated in 2004. For me, it was a vote against nimrod and not a vote for John Kerry.

Sadly, there’s absolutely no incentive for the best and the brightest to run due to things like swiftboating, so we end up with mediocrity, or, in the case of Skippy Bush, flagrant incompetence.

We get what we deserve.

Eric