Are we in another Vietnam?

Germany had an insubstantial period of democracy (not liberal in my terms) with a substantial hyperinflation. Japan and Italy? Don't think so.

If you can somehow ignore the communist activities.

I'm always right but you'll have to help me with what I'll be right about this time.

Collaborationist? Well, one man's Kurd is another's Shiite.

And a raspberry to Bush for babbling on about democracy rather than freedom.

 

Yeah like the Civil War has a lot of parallels to Iraq? I say withdraw completely, send in a couple of containers of Muskets, and have them duke it out over a North-South demarcation line through the middle of Bahgdad. That should supply enough fodder for talking head commentary and save a lot of American lives to boot!

 

And you've studied history where?

 

Imperial Hubris

You guys should read Michael Schueur’s book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. I just picked up a copy yesterday from the library and so far it has been very enlightening.

The book has stirred up a lot of controversy in the government.

According to Government Executive magazine, “Former CIA officer Michael Schueur’s Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror – a work highly critical of both the intelligence agency and the Bush administration – sent the agency’s publications review board into high gear last year rewriting the rules governing what CIA employees can and cannot publish.” This tells me that there must be some truth to what he wrote.

 

BUT WE'RE WINNING IN IRAQ, only losing at home!

Let me use Ted's post as a launching point to respond to many of you.

The very question of this very thread speaks of imprisonment by the past, since there are many great differences between Iraq and Vietnam and the only obvious similarity is the length of time pacification is taking. The New York Times tried to paint the war in Afghanistan as a "quagmire" before it even began in November, 2001! Something that ought to inspire caution about any such claims instead of credulity.

In May 2003, during the first battle of Fallugia, an Army officer complained on his blog about a celebrated Washington Post journalist (with an East Indian name), who took his armored car out of Baghdad to the town, got out, and through interpreters spoke with locals, got his quotes and left in less than 20 minutes; he never even bothered to talk to the US Army. Nonetheless, this shabby "reporting" made the front page because it fit the template of agenda driven journalism: we're losing!

The lesson was reinforced by Newsweek's Evan Thomas a month or so later (that journalists would deliver 5-7% of the vote for Kerry), teaching me that "the war at home" was lost - which is why the media and the left were surprised by 8 million purple fingers last January 30th. (See "Beating a Dead Parrot: Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common," By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112895&MSID=E23BC5FE1A904F0D99B226E130FADFB7) And so it goes on today. (HItchens again http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2124157/

The MSM unremittingly concentrates on US bodycount with little context, leading to a story just last week in the NYTimes, wherein the AP fielded complaints and admitted deficiencies because readers also get news from the field, and these sources often contradict the legacy of the printed word. Why? Reporters are still lounging ensconced in the Palestine Hotel instead of getting into the field and getting real news.

By contrast, who is? Milbloggers for one.
(A survey, here http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/milblogs.html?tw=wn_tophead_7)
Veterans who've been around the country a few times like Michael Fumento,
http://www.fumento.com/military/yost.html
or Karl Zinsmeister, or the continuing reports from Michael Yon are instructive.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
One can do much worse than Phil Kiver's firsthand account from Iraq http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1595710787/qid=1124946382/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6940230-0400825?v=glance&s=books

One source who prefers to remain anonymous is one "Major E." His metric in travels throughout Iraq is the 'terps - or interpreters. Because they're local and a language conduit yet put themselves on the line for their country, this seems a more accurate metric than US bodycounts. Here's one dispatch (with photos) that appeared in the Contra Costa Times in June
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010720.php#010720

Unlike Vietnam, the fact is that this war is popular among those fighting it; why don't we see that on our TV news? Re-enlistment is at record levels. Even the Treasurer for Colorado, Mike Coffman in his 50s, went back on active duty simply to serve in Iraq.
http://www.treasurer.state.co.us/news/releases/2005/0505_coffman_returns_to_marines.htm

 

[winning Iraq, losing at home cont’d]

Let me conclude this overlong post with two not so quick points about the strategy of the WOT and the tactics winning Iraq.

First, on a strategic level in the war against terror, the war in Iraq is already a success. It opened up a new front against Al Qai'da in Iraq, and put a new ideological face in front of the enemy - democracy. And best of all, it took a war of external attack (Islamism) and turned it into what it needs to be in order to find an end, a Muslim civil war - to bring a religion into consonance with modernity.

Faoud Ajami of Johns Hopkins, whose own Foreign Affairs piece on ME democracy appeared in the January/February 2003 issue before the war, is heartened recently: "'George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region,' a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to [Ajami]. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs. 'Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception.'" http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006721 Similarly, Dr. Walid Phares agrees, but with flag waving optimism most American's can't even imagine - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18639

Second, on a tactical level, the course of Iraq's pacification - which the MSM misses, is as it has been since the summer of 2003: almost entirely about four Sunni provinces alone, not most of the country - has been clear since February. Alternating cycles or Sunni cooptation into the political process, military raids, and building up of local security forces as the processes of popular rule take root. Now, no one said that winning the peace would be the easiest part, did they?

But last years "insurgent's" threat has been reduced to an alienating and bloody terrorism which the Iraqi public increasingly hates. And no modern government has been toppled before by such minor if persistent challenges. (Of course, if Iran or Syria enter on their behalf, things could change and become dicier - but not now, not yet.)

Last February, US intel reports showed that most hostiles captured were foreign Jihadis. Mostly these are Saudi Arabs - treated as suicide bomber dupes, the cannon fodder of Martyrs, or else fanatical conduits, sometimes very effective. Since spring, there have been repeated press accounts of Sunni Iraqi's uprising against these foreign Jihadis in bloody internecine warfare, killing them en mass.
http://impearls.blogspot.com/
2005_06_19_impearls_archive.html#111945985253374887
With such dire straights for the enemy, none of this fits with the dire expectations of commenters above or with the bodycount pall of our Copperhead media's headlines. http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003043.html

There are even important unreported strategic gains against Iraq's resistance and Al Qaida. Jack Kelly reports http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05212/545934.stm
- view shared by Iranian journalist Amir Taheri http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=17748 None of this supports popular media pessimism. Again, the larger context yields benchmarks for real progress in the War on Terror missed by the MSM.

Of course, real progress is uneven, and the terrorist's resort to bigger bombs to instill fear and gain widespead and politically valuable media coverage startles the public and depresses us; Iraqi's remain unbowed. But the case for optimism by considering the strategic logic now evident is far better explained in the bloggosphere than the media: "By engaging America in a technological arms race of sorts [terrorists] are playing to its strengths. The relative decline in IED effectivity [ie, fewer casualties per IED] suggests the enemy, while improving, has not kept up. The move to bigger bombs may temporarily restore his lost combat power [ie, more casualties], but the advent of new American countermeasures plus increasing pressure on the bombmakers, means he must improve yet again. It is far from clear whether the insurgents can stay in the battle for innovation indefinitely. The logic of asymmetric warfare suggests the enemy will at some point abandon the direct technological weapons race and find a new paradigm of attack entirely. That is essentially what they did when they abandoned the Republican Guard tank formation in favor of the roadside bomb in the first place.

"One way to achieve this (and they have been perfecting their skills by attacks against Iraqi civilians) is to switch to other targets.... Whatever that new paradigm turns out to be, it will probably be regarded as an unanswerable weapon, like the biplane bombers of the 1930s." And the media hysteria will be wrong again.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/08/unstoppable-ied.html

Although no one can say what the outcome in Iraq will be five or ten or twenty years hence, a dynamic process has been unleashed promising change. To me, this is cause for optimism, since stasis has been the cage of the Arab world ensuring backwardness and corrupt rule. Old problems yield only to new ones if new solutions are in fact better.

What Rush Limbaugh correctly said days ago is amply confirmed by many posters to this thread: the only victory by Islamist terrorists is in the heads of the left and the MSM. US' Democrats object to having their "patriotism" questioned - but what else can one say when our enemy have spouted their rhetoric back at us for about a year?

It's worth knowing that many Arab stringers bringing photos and especially video of horrible attacks (whether with CBS, AFP, AP or NBC) have been repeatedly unmasked as collaborators with terrorists. How else could they get their bloody location shots? It takes some vision to look past the "noise" that terrorism - by definition - thrives on. But that's all it takes. Deprived of propaganda, we all know that pessimism is rarely warranted.

 

You know, Orson, there might indeed be something to the claim that we've forced Al Quaida to fight on the battlefield of OUR choosing, meaning Iraq.

The trouble I have with that is, there's nothing to show that invading Iraq didn't serve to increase support for Al Quaida in the rest of of the Muslim world. In short, there's nothing to show that we accomplished anything other than to make the war larger, more bloody, and more costly.

I am not demanding proof either way; I'm not sure such proof even exists or, if it does, that national security would be served by publishing it.

But neither am I QUITE willing to accept this justification merely because this Administration says so. They are proven liars.

 

In my opinion, it depends on how you define "winning"; it could be an objective that is comprised of many other objectives, some of which the globalists have already achieved. The nationalists of Europe and Asia who want to sell their inferior military technology to the Middle East will now have to sell it into Africa, if they can find anybody with funds.

Did we get rid of Saddam? Yes, and he'll probably be executed soon for his crimes.

Did we start a democracy in Iraq? Yes.

Will democracy take root and flourish in Iraq? I'm sure that the families of the precious souls that were killed on both sides hope that we have achieved something beyond another dictatorship. We'll see over the next decade whether the secular pluralist side of Iraq will flourish or if the country will sink into one of those backward and tribal Isalmic "republics".

Dave

 

reply to nosborne, and Bush reiterates my words...

***emphasis mine***

It's true, nosborne, we don't have any definitive proof about how our efforts are affecting Iraq and the Muslim world beyond. (It's also true that democracy isn't a destination, it's a process. The beauty is that no one "wins" for good - merely for a period of time, and the "war" simply goes on by nonviolent means.)

But we do have indications, and these are to the good. Pew polls in the Middle East some months ago show that support for Al Qai'da and Bin Laden is dimminishing and postive opinion about the US growing as our intentions not to exploit Iraq but to bring democracracy are believed.

You close with "[the Bushies] are proven liars"? I'm much less cynical and remain unconvinced by those who've made this case; I'll hash this out with you some other place and time.

Today, I noticed that Bush's own words from the other day in Idaho reinforce what I the second half I wrote above on WOT strategy and Iraq:

"Since September the 11th, we've followed a clear strategy to defeat the terrorists and protect our people. First, we are defending the homeland.

***
"The second part of our strategy is this -- and it's based upon this fact: In an open society like ours -- and we will keep it open and we will keep it free -- it is impossible to protect against every threat. ... And so the only way to defend our citizens where we live is to go after the terrorists where they live. (Applause.)

"When the terrorists spend their days and nights struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training and plotting new attacks on America and the rest of the civilized world. So we're after the enemy across the globe. And we're determined, and we're relentless, and we will stay on the hunt until the terrorists have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. (Applause.)

"And the third part of our strategy is this: We're spreading the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. In the long run, the only way to defeat the terrorists is by offering an alternative to their ideology of hatred and fear. So a key component of our strategy is to spread freedom. History has proven that free nations are peaceful nations, that democracies do not fight their neighbors. (Applause.) And so, by advancing the cause of liberty and freedom in the Middle East, we're bringing hope to millions, and security to our own citizens. (Applause.)"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050824.html
- - - - - -

Unlike most recent presidents, it does pay to read this guy's major speeches. This spring abroad, and in the last State of the Union, Bush has been inspired and inspiring (well, a much as a mangled delivery allows - he reads better than he sounds). (But in the ten months run up to the war in Iraq, did the MSM coverage reflect reading those addresses? Frighteningly, no.)

American's - especially after Clinton - aren't used to a president who says what he means and does what he says. But I think that describes Bush.
And I think it was Greg Djerejian, a State Department worker who blogs, who said there's nothing like saying what you mean to confuse diplomats. The 90s have left our political culture 'spin-washed.'

 

I have elsewhere said that, much as I dislike the neocon approach, I have nothing better, indeed, nothing AT ALL to offer in its place...

Let's hope they're right.

 

A viable Dem foreign policy?

I share your hope, nosborne.

However, I keep pushing the following notions with DLC and isolationist types as a viable and needed alternative.

-press reform of the UN.
THIS ought to have been a no-brainer for Kerry last year. Instead, the left has done the stupid circle the wagons thing with John Bolton, and even a Pubbie Senator of Ohio (oh what's his name - I even emailed him?) cried! But the fact is that on a host of issues: Darfur, Rwanda, the Balkins, terrorism, it's been disatrous and a corrupt organization. (Exception? East Timor - but wasn't that really because of the Aussies military contribution?) For Dems to hate Bush more than they love Kofi Annan - and UN's stealing from Iraq's poor - should be a badge of shame.

-Accept defensive military action as a last resort; this means rejecting interventionist Bush doctrine. But this allows Dems to accept post war status quo that may secure more freedom for 50 million people. Instead, Dems have seemed cowed by Michael Moore left: only pacifism is legit - US military is ALWAYS evil. This has credibility with less than half of Dem voters. The problem seems to rest with an absence of forward-looking senior leadership. I mean when Carter sits with Moore at the convention and Kennedy campares Bush to Saddam (spring 2004), who can lead us to the moderate promised land?

-Accept the terrorist world problem but advocate aggressive education instead of militarism as the solution. For example, revive and refocus the Peace Corps to teach useful skills to the young when Saudi sponsored madrassas produce only Koran-drones. Send Pakistani-Americans back to lead the effort.

-Kerry had among his advisors Harvard's nuclear terrorism expert Graham Allison. Another "D'oh!" move was to have criticized Bush for not taking on the #1 terrorism problem - muclear terrorism. Allison advocates a diligent and do-able program to secure remaining nuke materials from former Soviet 'stans and elsewhere. But why didn't Kerry do the obvious?

There must be more, but even I could get behind such a candidate. More importantly, American's could get behind this policy. We would benefit from the two dueling problem solving policy debates, and I can't believe that the anti-American left would leave the Dems over this. All we need is sensible leadership. And certainly Senator Hillary Clinton HAS positioned herself to make this move to the center after the 2008 primaries!!

Can't other Dems see this?

The best template for reviving Dem fortunes I've read was by William Galston in Washington Monthly, April 2005.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.galston.html
It's full of viable possibilities - perhaps I ought to post some in "politics" thread?

Michael Lind dicusses it here
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_5_37/ai_n13803297

 

Re: A viable Dem foreign policy?

You make some good and interesting points Orson.


Abner

 

I'll vote for you.

I really think that the UN General Assembly is worthless and should be disbanded but that's NOT a popular idea. Still, why should a bunch of crooks take up valuable space on Manhattan Island? A parking garage would be more useful.

 

How to save internationalism?

Surely you're too kind, nosborne. (Besides, I won't run.)

We could ship the UN to France? - the EU has more complatible policies, but French leaders seem to embrace worthless dictators more than their brothers.

It's true that disbanding the UN isn't a popular idea in the world. I think American's still equate the UN with UNICEF and campaigns against small pox and Angelina Jolie. (But we're disengaged, as a people, anyway.)

Perhaps it will take a billionaire like Bill Gates to get behind building an oft mentioned "Commonwealth of Democracies"? - a place India could rock!

-Orson