LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

if you are interested in cutting through the hearings, campaign rhetoric, White House nonsense and other BS and getting a sober assessment of where we are in Iraq and what our future options are, there was a simply outstanding article in this week's New Yorker - here is a link to it. While it is depressing, it should be required reading...it explores the pros and cons of every suggestion that has been thrown out there, with lots of very good background material. The fact is no matter what, we are tied to Iraq for a long time to come.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007 ... act_packer

A few quotes (but do take the time to read the whole thing - it is well worth it, since this is a big part of our future for the next decade) -

In Washington, the debate over the war is dominated by questions about troop numbers and timelines—that is, by immediate American political realities. The country seems trapped in an eternal present, paralyzed by its past mistakes. There is little or no discussion, on either side, of what America’s Iraq policy should be during the next five or ten years, or of what will be possible as resources dwindle and priorities shift. If there is any contingency planning in the government, it’s being done at such a secretive, or obscure, level that a repetition of the institutional disarray with which America entered Iraq seems bound to mark our departure.

Preparing a judicious withdrawal from Iraq will demand the integrated effort of the whole government, not just under this President but under the next one as well. “You just cannot pretend that the Iraq war never happened and everything can go back to how it was before,” the former Embassy official told me. “The status quo before 2003 no longer exists. We have introduced fundamental new disequilibriums into one of the most sensitive parts of the globe. How do you contain it?” He added, “People have to start thinking about these things—small study groups with military, State, and intelligence people sketching out what are the core interests on a regional level, and working back from that to discuss some options. If that’s been done, I don’t know about it.”

It’s easy to fall under the illusion that a perfectly framed ten-point proposal could allow for a painless withdrawal. But what if there is no such thing as a “responsible exit” from Iraq? This is the view of Stephen Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who spent the spring in Iraq, as part of a strategic-assessment team of military and civilian experts. He said, “When you look at the spectrum of policy approaches in Iraq right now, the extremes”—maintaining the largest force possible or pulling out immediately—“make more sense than the middle.” The “middle-ground policies,” he argued, “tend to dramatically reduce our ability to control the environment militarily, because they all involve withdrawing about half of the troops. It’s our combat activity that’s currently capping violence around the country, and almost everybody would cut that out—which means the violence is only going to increase. And yet they leave tens of thousands of Americans in the country, to act as targets. Continued U.S. casualties, continued deterioration of the situation all around them: within two or three years, that’s going to generate powerful pressure to go all the way to the zero option. Why not do it sooner, and save the seven to eight hundred lives you’re going to lose to walk through this drill in the meantime?”

A military officer with extensive experience in Iraq was less polite. “I just think it’s dishonest when people say we could go to advisory, get to fifty thousand troops, focus on training, still do the counterterrorism thing but not counter-insurgency,” he said. The reality of Iraq is bound to defeat the fantasies of Washington, the officer suggested. “What about the enemy, man?” he said. “Are we going to ask them to conform to our plan?”

The dream of creating a democratic Iraq and transforming the Middle East lies in ruins. Any change in Iraq policy has to begin with the understanding that the original one failed, and that America’s remaining power can only be used to limit the damage. But Iraq still matters to the United States, whoever is in the White House, and it will for years to come.

The problems created by the war will require solutions that don’t belong to a single political party or President: the rise of Iranian power, the emergence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the radicalization of populations, the huge refugee crisis, the damage to a new generation of Iraqis who are growing up amid the unimaginable. Whenever this country decides that the bloody experience in Iraq requires the departure of American troops, complete disengagement will be neither desirable nor possible. We might want to be rid of Iraq, but Iraq won’t let it happen.

I find the following fascinating

After that, it will become virtually impossible to maintain current troop levels—at least, for an Administration that has shown no willingness to disturb the lives of large numbers of Americans in order to wage the war. Young officers are leaving the Army at alarming rates, and, if the deployments of troops who have already served two or three tours are extended from fifteen to eighteen months, the Pentagon fears that the ensuing attrition might wreck the Army for a generation. Activating the National Guard or the reserves for longer periods could cause the bottom to fall out of public support for the war. Beyond these measures, there are simply no more troops available.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9prW8m5SOOw[/youtube]

The funniest, or perhaps saddest, part is around 2/3rds of the way in when the Vietnam vets suggest he enlist.

Very good article laxfan, thanks. This reminded me of PBS's documentary "The Insurgency" by Frontline (best news show ever on TV), which outlined the early years of the war, the rise of insurgency, the internal politics, and the early days when this may have worked. It divulges into the long term with people on the ground from the beginning. The parallel interviews with Bremer, Secretary Rice, retired military officials, green zone inhabitants, the rise of Sadr, etc are brought to life. The start of the insurgency in Iraq and how it was documented is one of the most unbelievable pieces of reporting I have ever seen. The mistakes made, parallel decision making at the white house and in the green zone, Bremer's control issues, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the deteriorating confidence in the US to provide basic security and services, and ultimately the out casting of the Bathists and middle managers which may have been the biggest mistake.

I love how the woman contradicted her self in almost 1 sentence. When shes asks him if he has talked to any Iraqis and received their opinion. Then the next thing she states is they want us to leave like she knows. That all just depends on what TV station you watch. That's what's BS about all of this, everyone bases their opinion off not enough information, and then congress bases its opinion off of everyone in Americas uninformed opinion. I'm not making this statement to be sided so please nobody attack me for this, I'm just bringing it up as a point. I'm just tired of uninformed close minded protesters on all sides. Can't we just work together and get it done like we did in WWII.

semilaxed wrote:I love how the woman contradicted her self in almost 1 sentence. When shes asks him if he has talked to any Iraqis and received their opinion. Then the next thing she states is they want us to leave like she knows. That all just depends on what TV station you watch. That's what's BS about all of this, everyone bases their opinion off not enough information, and then congress bases its opinion off of everyone in Americas uninformed opinion.

That's the biggest problem these days: no one wants to do the hard work of becoming informed and making a rational decision. Instead, people pick a position before they know very much, identify themselves with that position, and defend that position even when it is overwhelmed with contrary evidence.

This leads to a situation where the most complex issues are reduced to black-and-white phrases: "Are you for defense or against defense?" Well, if you mean throwing money into a sinkhole with no significant benefits, I'm against that, but if you mean spending money in a way that actually improves the safety and security of the country, I'm for that. I remember the Republicans painting Clinton as weak on defense because he bought so many fewer tanks than Reagan did, but Clinton knew that tanks weren't going to be very useful in the type of war we're having now and he focused on other areas of defense spending. Yet to an uninformed person, spending less money on tanks seems bad.

It kills me when they attack a politician who changed his position on something. Sometimes it's not a change at all even though it appears that the person voted for and against the same proposal: often, the first bill had some objectionable rider on it and the second one did not.

But even if it's the same proposal, sometimes changing your position is the result of serious reflection and study on the issue, and in the light of new information you change your position. That's not flip-flopping, that's being open-minded. I'd much rather have someone who can say, "I used to think that, but I changed my mind in light of new information" than someone who sticks to an indefensible position (like pretending we can win this war).

semilaxed wrote: I'm not making this statement to be sided so please nobody attack me for this, I'm just bringing it up as a point. I'm just tired of uninformed close minded protesters on all sides. Can't we just work together and get it done like we did in WWII.

No, because it's not that kind of war. That war had well-defined sides and armies. This war is much more like Vietnam, which didn't turn out so well for us, either. What's that about "people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I think we're repeating it.