Very well put A.L. I think you accurately captured the frustration and sense of impending disaster that many of us feel.

Unfortunately we have a new set of problems this far along in Iraq- so the criticisms of the past dont necessary translate into a focus for the future. In other words, not repairing the electrical infastructure with a crash US industrial overhall may have screwed our pooch, but fixing it now wont necessarilly save it at this moment in time. The damage may be done.

So where do we begin, purely looking forwards? If I'm Bush i meet with the Democrats and say- look, lets hear what you guys got. It won't be much so its a good opportunity for Bush to change course without losing too much face. He can just claim its a compromise the country asked for.

1.Negotiations should began with the Iraqi powerbrokers (NOT the Iraqi government per se) to establish a withdrawl timeline- not based on dates based, based on metrics. Needless to say this should have been done years ago. It will also make the Dems happy and they can claim it as their victory.

2.A single individual should be chosen to go to Iraq and act as our Proconsul, with full political and military authority. This is something else even Bremer never had.

3.That individual will quickly decide what the top critical projects the US must accomplish will be to help ensure a stable Iraq. Whether it is locking down Baghdad by flooding it with troops, or taking down Sadr, or fixing the infastructure- someone needs to decide, make it the priority, and announce such.

4.At that point- all US resources need to be focused in a wartime footing to accomplish those goals. If it means calling up our entire Army reserve to lock down Iraq for 6 months, so be it. If it means nationalizing GE to turn out high voltage cable- whatever.

5.We accomplish those metrics by whatever means necessary to such an extent we can claim that we did our best by the Iraqis and now its up to them. We withdraw according to our timeline.

All easier said than done right?

Armed Liberal: "Is it a complete humanitarian and military disaster as claimed by many? No, not yet. But it could be, and it could be soon, which means we'd better deal with this issue, and not keep hoping it just goes away. But it is clear that our overall strategic direction (as I - a reasonably well-informed citizen - know it) is wrong, and needs to change."

No, this is Iraq's problem, and Iraqis should deal with it, not us.

Armed Liberal: "I'll talk more in Part II about why, but simply put and as hard as things may be, I continue to believe that we have no choice but to succeed. A bogus "declare victory and leave" solution, as appealing as it may be to many of us in terms of domestic politics, will only result in a bloodbath within Iraq, will embolden the exact movement we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to push back, will strengthen the hand of the anti-American forces within Iran, and will almost certainly lead to a wider and bloodier set of wars within the Middle East - either with the United States as a participant, or with Israel if they are left on their own.

-

(1) There's nothing bogus about declaring victory. We did win.
(2) There's nothing wrong with leaving. This follows victory.
(3) The implication that my opinions one and two - shared by others such as Diana West and Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch - are based on domestic American partisanship at the expense of addressing the external enemy is unfounded.
(4) The "bloodbath" bit is only a way of saying that without infidel targets to focus on, our enemies - Sunni and Shi'ite both - will focus on killing each other, not us. This is a Good Thing.
(5) We went into Iraq for dozens of good reasons, not for the single reason of pushing back an "exact" movement that you never specify.
(6) The hand of anti-American forces in the Islamic Republic of Iran is already as strong as it needs to be. The state is founded on anti-American Islamic militancy.
(7) Wider and bloodier wars between our implacable enemies, along the lines of the Iraq-Iran war of blessed memory (1980-1988) are desirable, or even vital to our hopes of prevailing in the greater contest between global jihad forces and everybody else including us. Holding back these wars is beneficial to our deadly enemies and thus harmful to us.
(8) We are already a participant in the jihad wars whether we like it or not, so the threat that we may be a participant in wars of jihadis versus jihadis (fought with their blood at their expense as much as possible) rather than in wars of all jihadis against us is toothless.

We did not break Iraq and we did not buy it. Rather, Islam has bought a fight to the death with us, and we should break it. But since we are too soft to do so, and Muslims seem eager to get on with the job themselves, we should let them.

A posting of this nature should start with the sentence, "You can rely on my opinion on this matter because ______________________".

If you can't fill in the blanks with a good reason, then it's best to go write about something else, like astrophysics. I am getting really really annoyed at everybody having an opinion based on zero actual knowledge or experience. Every writer seems to want to emulate Tom Friedman of the NY Times. That is, offer endless analysis and prognosis, which turns out to be 100% wrong, but just keep serving it up nonetheless.

Anybody who wants to tell you how to defeat an insurgency, or build a nation, should first tell you how many insurgencies they've defeated, and how many nations they've built. And quoting other authors (who also have zero experience in the matter) does not let you off the hook.

So, wilbur, how'd we ever leave medevial times? The reality isthat no one in America has defeated an insurgency since the Phillipines. Does that mean we just all tuck tail and go home when threatened by one?

And thank you, while I'll gladly yield the floor to expertise in the hard sciences, I've met many of the senior people in the academy and in government who make policy (I've been one, but not in insurgency, obviously) - and I'll take a well-informed citizen's opinion alongside theirs with great pleasure.

So sorry I'm not willing to join your guild. Let me know how it works out for you.

A.L.

Wilbur do you understand how stupid that sounds?

What? I've got to be a firefighter to talk about how much to fund the fire department? I've got to be Napoleon to talk about military matters?

I've got news for you. On Tuesday a lot of people who don't know jack squat went to the polls and attempted to change the direction of this country. It's analysis: you don't have to be an astrophysicist. Perhaps A.L. is 100% wrong, sure. But maybe parts are insightful in a way that is helpful to other commentators. Every time a mind takes all the information available to it and attempts to find patterns, that's a great thing. I have my own criticisms of A.L's post, but it certainly isn't that he shouldn't be attempting analysis. To say that is just dumb.

I agree that the election moment was exagerated as an end point, but clearly a moment needed to be arrived at where Iraqis made the government legitimate. And going to the voting place, under threat of violence, is exactly the kind of event you need to make Iraqis stakeholders.

And BTW/ judges and lawyers did go to Iraq and lecture judges, lawyers and civil servents on the rule of law. I'll admit that I'm not seeing good outputs on that. Lecturing gets you only so far. The U.S. military stands a much better chance of teaching the rule of law when they stand side by side and do it. If that's the case, we might be moving toward a Turkish model.

David B - you seem to be accepting as a given the worst case that I can see - a true conflict between Islam and the West. I don't think we're nearly there yet, and I still see lots of room to avoid it without surrendering.

If I believed as you do, I might agree that withdrawal was the best thing to do. Because I don't, I'm convinced that withdrawal makes the worst case more likely.

A.L.

Re: #3 from wilbur smith:

What qualifications do you have to decide how democracies should conduct the constant internal debates that are indispensable for their healthy functioning? Did you build a new state on a better system of your own devising, and how is it going?

In other words, if demands like the extreme ones that you make are applied to you, do you come off better than those you dismiss? Or can I and others dismiss you as cheerfully as you dismiss Armed Liberal?

-

#3 from wilbur smith: "A posting of this nature should start with the sentence, "You can rely on my opinion on this matter because ______________________"."

Instead, I think a post like Armed Liberal's should be consistent with a Western tradition in war that Victor Davis Hansen has discussed. Debate and opinion are not confined to a narrow elite, and the results on the whole are better than if they were, and have been for a very long time.

I think Armed Liberal is acting like a Greek or a Roman debating with the public interest in mind, and as such I see him as doing his bit to win the war, regardless of whether the positions he is arguing for are mine or the opposite of mine as in this case.

I thank all those who are discussing and debating in the proper spirit for the good of our common cause.

"The reality isthat no one in America has defeated an insurgency since the Phillipines."

Actually your forces (along with the SVA) pretty thoroughly defeated the Vietcong insurgency after a hard slog, but then they left pretty soon afterwards and let the NVA undo all that good work. It doesn't mean the VC wasn't mauled and ineffective by the early 70s.

There may be other examples too but I'd have to do research to find them. I do know the Marine Corps was pretty busy throughout the 20th century fighting smaller insurgencies here and there.

Nicholas - I don't disagree - but we only won in the battlespace. In themedia, and in the political space, we got spanked.

A.L.

#7 from Armed Liberal: "David B - you seem to be accepting as a given the worst case that I can see - a true conflict between Islam and the West."

I think the conflict is between Islam and the rest, or Thailand would not be having problems.

But the Americans have been picked out for special hate as the Great Satan, and we are the West, so I do think the war we are in is Islam vs. the West. (Give or take India and Russia.)

#7 from Armed Liberal: "I don't think we're nearly there yet, and I still see lots of room to avoid it without surrendering."

We differ.

#7 from Armed Liberal: "If I believed as you do, I might agree that withdrawal was the best thing to do. Because I don't, I'm convinced that withdrawal makes the worst case more likely.

A.L."

That's as clear and reasonable as anything could be.

Another problem with 'Potemkin elections' that points directly at a strategic flaw: We never made sure the Iraqis were asked if they wanted to be a nation together. Whether it was 'realism' or just not thinking, we assumed that we and they had to solve the problem within the confines of the existing borders and the Westphalian system. That produced a strategic vulnerability that we are paying for every day.

Maybe it's time to ask them?

[ This post caught in the spam queue for an hour: include a maximum of 2 hyperlinks to avoid that fate. -- M.F. ]

I'd just like AL to explain, before anybody takes him too seriously here, why he thinks he as any credibility left on political or foreign policy issues? Consider:

- He broke with the Democrats over Iraq, and especially after the '04 elections, wasted no time on slamming them on why they lost... nominally for their own good, of course, but he made no bones about the fact that he didn't think they could win until they took his advice, and that they wouldn't be worthy of his support until then.

But, hey, the Democrats completely ignored him and recently won a huge electoral victory. So let's take a moment and note how out of whack AL's prediction last year that Dems would pick up at most one or two seats in Congress is with reality.

- He's consistently dismissed the concerns of those who have criticized the US prosecution of the war, and totally ignored anybody making the point that Bush is incapable of making the changes necessary to improve that prosecution, irregardless of how bad or good Kerry might have been.

And now, after nearly 4 years of cheerleading the Iraq war, AL's starting to recognize how bad the situation is (as is Max Boot)... but somehow it's still winnable if we follow his advice. However, given that he's been so very wrong so far, why should we listen to AL rather than, say, Matt Yglesias, who, for all his faults, has been proven right about the war far more often than AL has?

I'm honestly curious here - and I'll admit I gave up on arguing with AL a while back, and I've only returned to enjoy some post-election schadenfreude. But the points I'm making are valid ones, and even racking my brain to give the guy as much credit as possible - he writes well and passionately, and he was right about Lieberman - he's still got a massive credibility deficit, and a real problem with realizing when reality is out of line with what he thinks should be the truth.

It seems to me at this point that intellectual honesty should compel someone in his position to admit his mistakes and take a good long time to reconsider his worldview in light of the past 4 to 6 years of experience... but I'm not holding my breath. Rather, I expect he'll fall back on insisting that whatever's happened in the past, fighting to make a democratic Iraq is the right and good thing to do. And it is, but believing that such a thing is possible at this point can only be achieved through the magical pixie dust thinking that got us here in the first place.

Thoughts, AL?

The opinions expressed by people supporting the war on Iraq are not worth much. Who cares what they think? They first cheered on an illegal invasion of Iraq. Then they cheered on the use of torture. Now they cheer on staying and killing more innocent Iraqis because they cannot accept that they were wrong.

Their opinions are based upon cowardice. They are afraid of an enemy whose ability to harm America exists mostly in their imagination.

The sooner we get out of Iraq the better. Three years later, no one will care.

ken, chris - the door's over there. If you're looking for bodice-ripping contrition, you won't find it here. I'm trying to figure out what to do, and want to talk to other folks who have ideas - who may or may not agree with me - to see what we can come up with.

For the record, and as I've said a bunch, I thought Iraq was a good bet, given certain conditions - one of which was our clear commitment to stick it out and get the job done. It'shighly questionable that we met that condition - but there was no way of knowing that in advance. Additionally, the presumption was that an act of belligerence on our part would shock Iran and Saudi Arabia into modifying their behavior.

It may or may not have been a good bet for a variety of reasons. We won't know until it's over - that's why the call it "history" and not "television".

A.L.

A.L. - Absolutely, I'm just pointing out that in that case it wasn't the counterinsurgency aspect of the war which failed (which, IMO, is the hard bit). It was a lack of commitment, a lack of good information channels keeping the public informed enough to make decisions, and a whole bunch of other factors. I am sure those factors can all be mitigated—however I honestly don't know how.

It's clear in my mind why this fight is worth it for multiple reasons, and I've read very eloquent explanations of why those are. The problem is they don't seem to reach enough of the US population to generate the necessary level of commitment. The people who are actually in harm's way are for the most part committed, and the Iraqis have no choice in the matter at this point. The financial cost is not really all that high, not when you consider (a) the cost of giving up and (b) all the intangibles that come with it, such as an all-veteran military (which is an amazing thing to have) and being able to test all your weapon systems in real combat. So what's the argument for giving up? I think it has to be a very selfish one.

At this point I think your country will stick it out for another year at least, which will probably be long enough to smoothly hand over control to the sufficiently advanced Iraqi military. But I could be proven wrong. I hope I won't be. The damage to the USA's reputation if you're defeated by a bunch of hoodlums with AK-47s inflicting a historically tiny number of casualties could be irreparable.

It's terrible for the families who lost people fighting but it will be even worth if it was for naught.

AL, The war on Iraq was 'over' the day it was started. America will not support a war based upon lies. Without support - no war. Period.

Call it a victory if you want, call it a loss or call it redeployment, it doesn't matter. We, that is we Americans, are done with it.

We are not afraid of the monsters under your bed. Give it a few years AL and even you will grow beyond the fear.

Um, I meant "even worse". Geez now I have a speech impediment when typing?

AL-

I'm trying to figure out what to do, and want to talk to other folks who have ideas - who may or may not agree with me - to see what we can come up with.

And my point is that, absent any understanding of the mistakes you've made thus far, you're highly unlikely to figure out the right thing to do. GWB needs to learn this lesson as well... but it seems you're both equally unlikely to develop intellectual rigour and honestly at this point.

And that's a shame for all of us.

Ken:

I second AL. Have a nice day... ...somewhere else.

If you're really spot on, correct to the last syllable, I can wait three years to hear from you.

Chris,

Good post. Hits all the correct notes about A.L.'s credibility, or lack thereof. Still, hey, didn't expect to come to Winds of Change and see "Iraq is f**ked", even if it is 2 years after the RBC figured it out.

Now, A.L. citing Phil Carter - that is something that I pay attention to, b/c Carter is smart, reality-based, and does his best to know his s**t. (Still, A.L'.s offhand "it's easy..." grinds my teeth - Carter's article is not a "sure thing", so "easy" is totally inappropriate.)

I think that Carter's solutions would work militarily, but again, you would deal with not enough troops for that solution, and not enough to grab currently. But again, he knows more than me.

But also politically - we can't impose a solution anymore. Not to mention, I don't think the Army would do what Phil is asking - too much kickback from the brass, as well as kickback from Sunnis and Shiites.

Also, this would mean continuing to fund the Iraq Reconstruction at current levels.

So I thank Carter for his suggestions - and if it wasn't the current crop in power, maybe it could get done (with Cheney out of the way, I almost get my hopes up...), but I doubt it.

"he was right about Lieberman".

Hell, I was right about Lieberman too.
I was also right about Schwarzenegger.
I was also right about the Iraq War.

Not that the three are related.

Oh my God! Pay me money for my opinion!! I'm losing a fortune, all because you people ignore my genius!!

Hey, Chris, did you make Shinseki repent for his post-9/11 support of the Crusader artillery system before you championed his frank truthiness about troop levels? I mean, afterall, building Crusaders would have meant, ceteris paribus, less armor for Humvees and fewer bullet-proof vests. Not to mention that the shortage of both would have been exacerbated by the increased numbers of ground troops.

What am I saying?! When creating abstractions people only take the facts they like. Forget I said anything.

It's funny that hypocrisy mentions 3 kick backs to Carter's suggestions ignoring the one closer to home. Most of his suggestions would lead to captured personnel. Don't believe me go peruse the FMSO interviews with Afghan fighters from the '80s. It will happen...much more often than twice in 3 years. Cut back on force protection while extending patrols and that's a recipe for snuff films galore. Honestly, if anyone thinks the crew who gave us this past election would not kick back long, hard, and loud you're positively fucking insane.

AL, there's an additional factor that I didn't see mentioned in the body of your post. We will continue to have interests in the region after we leave Iraq and securing those interests will be more difficult and costly if we leave Iraq in the state it's in now.

Tim Oren: We never made sure the Iraqis were asked if they wanted to be a nation together. . . . Maybe it's time to ask them?

I just don't see that working and I'm not sure how it could have worked earlier. Asking Iraqis whether they want to divide begs the question of where the dividing lines would be. It raises questions of who was where first and whether they arrived their legitimately. The lines also appear to go through the location of key natural resources (particularly oil and water) and through urban areas. All I can see is blood.

Iraqis did have an opportunity to reject the national Constitution.

One thing that is not in A.L.'s list that I've seen discussed a lot is whether the U.S. should engage a significant diplomatic initiative with the neighboring countries. I personally don't see how Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia help with the democracy project, but I'm all ears.

#25 from PD Shaw: "One thing that is not in A.L.'s list that I've seen discussed a lot is whether the U.S. should engage a significant diplomatic initiative with the neighboring countries. I personally don't see how Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia help with the democracy project, but I'm all ears."

That is interesting.

The case that there is not a true conflict between Islam and the West, and that we're not even nearly there yet, might look a lot like the case that we have no true conflict with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, all of which we are formally at peace with. (Assuming "we" are not Israelis of course.)

The friendly diplomatic engagement of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a project in which American blood is being shed and American dollars are being spent abundantly to strengthen the power of Islam and Arabs in Iraq may logically follow.

It's all a bit "through the looking glass" from my point of view, but it does no harm to at least consider the implications.

A.L. has had his come to Jesus moment.

Late, as one of the commentors above noted, and even now dragging about six months or so behind the creeping disaster curve, but enough that I can now withdraw my repeated accusation that WoC had become Winds of Denial.

Admitting it's f**ked is the first step to unf**king it.

We're now engaged in a salvage operation in Iraq. What can we save? A free Kurdistan, hopefully. Maybe we can avoid a full-scale civil war. Maybe we can keep Anbar from becoming a pre-911 Afghanistan. Maybe if civil war becomes more explicit we can keep the KSA, Jordan, Iran and Syria out of it.

The dream of turning Iraq into Vermont is over. But maybe we can still salvage a few things. Maybe even make this fiasco a net plus.

PD #24: I'm unclear whether 'none of the above' or 'ask another question' was an alternative offered during the Iraqi constitutional vote. Regardless, as we should know, unless there's a critical mass of the people willing to go the limit to 'preserve, protect, and defend', it's a piece of scrap paper. I'm not yet - quite - ready to say we should act if that's the case, but it's time to consider the possibility that this is another Yugoslavia - another unsustainable relic of empire, and that by trying to hold it together we are bleeding ourselves, the locals, and giving strategic advantage to our enemies. And think through some implications if that's true.

I make no claims that the outcome would be pretty if we went down the devolution path. But I'm going by AL's "less f**ked" ground rules here. Baghdad and Mosul particularly have overlapping populations with no clean separation lines. Those border zones are bleeding anyway. If our alternative appears to a slow-mo ethnic cleansing led by death squads and rogue police and troops, maybe it's better to make it official? If so, we should be thinking twice about how powerful a coercive force we put into the hands of the nominal Iraqi government, because it will be just another instrument of power to be fought over.

I thought Iraq was a good bet, given certain conditions - one of which was our clear commitment to stick it out and get the job done. It'shighly questionable that we met that condition - but there was no way of knowing that in advance.

Let's call this what it is Marc. Bullshit.

If we were entering into a 10 year 2 trillion dollar enterprise, you could have mentioned it.

But no, the deal was, 3 or 4 months, Oil pays for reconstruction, greeted as liberators, no history of ethnic strife here.

If you wanna move the goal posts, fine. But don't call us idiots with this history rewrite. The Internets are still out there, and for now so are the WOC archives, painful as they are to negogiate.

Hey, Chris, did you make Shinseki repent for his post-9/11 support of the Crusader artillery system before you championed his frank truthiness about troop levels? I mean, afterall, building Crusaders would have meant, ceteris paribus, less armor for Humvees and fewer bullet-proof vests. Not to mention that the shortage of both would have been exacerbated by the increased numbers of ground troops.

Frontinus, tell you what, if you can point me to where on the web Shinseki's still arguing that the nation's security would have been enhanced by manufacturing a grotesquely oversized, overpriced artillery system, I'll be happy to condemn him for that as well. But the thing is, Shinseki was proven right about troop levels. AL hasn't been proven right about hardly anything.

What am I saying?! When creating abstractions people only take the facts they like. Forget I said anything.

First off, I made an argument, not an abstraction. Get it right. And if you want to knock holes in my argument by showing how AL's preductions have been proven right over the past few years, go nuts. But snidely attacking straw men doesn't do anything to improve AL's credibility, and until you start saying something substantive, I'll be more than happy to ignore the rest of your remarks.

And, hypocrisyrules, yes, you're right, Carter's a fairly smart guy, and it's not theoretically possible that if the country suddenly got 100% behind the war, sent about a quarter-million more troops over to Iraq in the kind of deployment Carter describes, we might have a fighting chance. But even aside from Bush's complete incompetence making such a thing highly unlikely, the political will needed to do such a thing is totally nonexistent after an election that's widely seen as a rebuke of the Iraq war. Sad but true.

I disagree with both the fundamental analysis and the prescription.

The analysis seems to me to ignore the fundamental reason for the violence:

The breakup of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire (see Yugoslavia; Turkey-Greece, Armenia-Azerbaijan). Various tribes and sects that hated each other were cobbled together by now long-gone imperial powers (the Turkish Sultans) and now the settling of accounts is happening. US failures to do this or that are irrelevant, as long as people who hate each other are living next to each other there will be violence until one or the other is crushed. [Either Wretchard or Tigerhawk's insight, but I agree with it]

No, we can't all just get along.

The Boyd proscription is even WORSE. IMHO. It would work fine for a single, unified ethnicity such as Malaysia (small Chinese minority regularly pogromed) but is a disaster in multi-ethnic and sectarian Iraq.

The ethnic cleansing of Sunnis is by all accounts a "success." A success in that when the Sunnis are gone, driven out, the violence between Shia majority and Sunni minority will cease. Ugly but the transfer of populations by this process is what largely settled the Balkans Wars, and other conflicts coming out of the end of old Empires.

Westhawk at westhawk.blogspot.com has more on this, seems the only sensible approach. Get as many Sunnis as possible ethnically cleansed out (by organizing convoys etc. so they can get out of Dodge with their lives and some money) and retaining a presence and influence to block Iranian Empire-building of their own.

Also, destabilize Iran by funding insurgencies over their, particularly among the Baluchis. Make them too busy fighting their own insurgency to do anything about us. And make clear that the Baluchi Liberation Front could mysteriously acquire and use (in Tehran and other major Iranian cities) nukes that would make theirs look like firecrackers.

Ken: "Their opinions are based upon cowardice. They are afraid of an enemy whose ability to harm America exists mostly in their imagination.

The sooner we get out of Iraq the better. Three years later, no one will care. "

So I can quote you when one of the soon to be 17 (that's SEVENTEEN) nuclear powers (existing: US, UK, Russia, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and IRAN joined by just announced: Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi, and thought-to-be UAE, Jordan, and Turkey) slips Al Qaeda a Nuke and blows up say, Dallas.

HOW exactly do you Dems propose to stop this? Clapping hard and wishing really good with the magic crystals in Sedona? And if GWB's "illegal War" and belief that Democracy and Freedom are alternatives to Al Qaeda are thrown away in "realism" then isn't the alternative Hosni Mubarak or the Saudis? How much do you support the House of Saud (all you're left with if Freedom and Democracy are replaced with realism).

I'd say your comments reveal a moral vanity. You'd rather preen about how moral and status-laden you are, then make hard choice ALL OF WHICH SUCK about how to prevent nuking of American Cities.

Iraq is hardly "screwed up." The killing is LESS than under Saddam (just the Sunni minority getting it now) and the place was hardly stable in the first place: Iran - Iraq War, Kuwait, a hotbed of Jihadist terrorists etc). Indeed you could argue that we are in better shape with Iraq then ever before because we have lots of troops near Iran and have neutralized Iraq as a regional power. How do you think Saddam's mass graves were filled?

davebo, horseshit, pure and simple. Go read what I wrote and come back to us...

A.L.

Geez Marc,

I believe I made some points here. Horseshit is not much of a repudiation is it?

Sure, you knew all along that we'd be in for years and trillions.

I'll make a deal with you. I owe one hundred bucks to your favorite charity on the Lieberman race even though you've tried to extract yourself from it. I'll cover.

And I'll do it regardless of your ability to produce a post on this decade long trillion dollar enterprise in Iraq you spoke of. In any medium. Or your complaints about the adminstration's refusal to come clean with America about the likely costs of this adventure.

You can't. Can you?

...if you can point me to where on the web Shinseki's still arguing...

He has to still be undermining his boss in 2006 for his mistake in 2001/2 to be a mistake? Gotcha.

Shinseki was proven right about troop levels.

Has he? Regardless, given what you people claim to believe today Shinseki's views just prior to his heroic proclamations are anethema. But like I said, you, just like every partisan of every stripe constructs his reality as if with tinker toys.

First off, I made an argument, not an abstraction. Get it right.

I did get it right. All counterfactual histories are abstractions. By definition. Saying Shinseki was right is counterfactual. But I'm going to bet that is simply one more thing of which you are ignorant.

And if you want to knock holes in my argument by showing how AL's preductions have been proven right over the past few years, go nuts.

Why would I do that? Ask AL. I've spent most of my time/energy here pestering him about a months-old entry he posted. I did it just a while ago in fact. While praising a lefty blogger no less. I've defended him once, I think, on the Drum post. Your problem is that you mistook an attack on you as a defense of AL. Far as I know I'm 1 and 1. Entirely uninvested. You should try it sometime. It makes people nervous.

But snidely attacking straw men doesn't do anything to improve AL's credibility

No. But it makes you look like an ignoramus. What can I say...I content myself with the little things in life.

I'll be more than happy to ignore the rest of your remarks.

Probably a good idea on your part.

that's widely seen as a rebuke of the Iraq war.

Sonofabitch! I read through all that only to find your opinion is based on perception and acclamation? I thought you'd wrest one nugget out of that brain box of your's. I should know better by now.

We’re in this for the long haul. We don’t get to ‘declare victory and go home’ when the going gets tough, elections are near, or TV shows pictures of the inevitable suffering that war causes. The Marshall Plan is a bad example, because the Europe that had been devastated by war had the commercial and entrepreneurial culture that simply needed stuff and money to get restarted. And we’re good with stuff and money. This is going to take more, and we’re going to have to be willing to figure it out as we go.

A.L.

Oh - davebo - what does this mean?

"I owe one hundred bucks to your favorite charity on the Lieberman race even though you've tried to extract yourself from it. I'll cover."

Want to help me understand where I tried to extract myself from it?

A.L.

Hopeless is what you people are. Running to build schools and sever lines before enemy is killed.
This is what happends when you let sever-works
interfare with killing enemies.

#37 from Gxx: "Hopeless is what you people are. Running to build schools and sever lines before enemy is killed.
This is what happends when you let sever-works
interfare with killing enemies."

You are not alone in your opinion. (link)

#22 from frontinus: "I mean, afterall, building Crusaders would have meant, ceteris paribus, less armor for Humvees and fewer bullet-proof vests. Not to mention that the shortage of both would have been exacerbated by the increased numbers of ground troops."

Yup.

And a bigger army would have been, on average, a less expert army.

Even before I registered that Iraqis are in fact hostiles not friendlies, when I was still gung ho to win this war, I thought Rumsfeld's priorities were right.

#22 from frontinus: "It's funny that hypocrisy mentions 3 kick backs to Carter's suggestions ignoring the one closer to home. Most of his suggestions would lead to captured personnel. Don't believe me go peruse the FMSO interviews with Afghan fighters from the '80s. It will happen...much more often than twice in 3 years. Cut back on force protection while extending patrols and that's a recipe for snuff films galore."

I couldn't agree more.

Not to pile on, but if you are interested in generating some constructive discussion of the options (all awful, but maybe some less awful than others), you could start by admitting that, until this post, you've been consistently and drastically wrong about the way things have been going, and asking whether the people who (you now implicitly agree) have been right all along might have something to offer.

hypocrisyrules (#29) said "Oh my God! Pay me money for my opinion!! I'm losing a fortune, all because you people ignore my genius!!"

I can't help but agree. Send me next week's winning Lotto numbers, and I'll split it with you.

Like hypocrisyrules, I feel as if I have some special insight here. Probably not. But I think much of our problem in Iraq, from day one, has been around how we define our mission. If our mission, and the mission of our DoD, is to topple governments and destroy infrastructure, we've been blazingly productive. If our mission is to project the overwhelming perception of troops in a city, support a democratic government forming, do humongous-scale training, help change a societies mores, and rebuild infrastructure, we suck.

There you go. But in fairness, I think the military was always wanting to do #1 and NEVER wanting to do #2. Heck a lot of Rs and a lot of Ds never wanted the U.S. to get into nation-building. But as Rummy says (sort of), you fight the war you get, not the one you wanted to get.

Continuing this line of thought, A.L., I believe, owes us a clear and definable "victory" if we are to win anything. What is it? No homicide attacks for a year? Only ten a week? Seriously, if I don't have a clear-cut goal there is no way I can talk about what we need to do to get there. And assuming there is one forthcoming, is it the Iraqis' goals as well, or only the ones we decided they should have? There's a big difference there.

Strategically, we can't have even more oil money flowing into the hands of terrorists, and Iran cannot be allowed to make Iraq a client state. As I've said before, it should be the national policy of the United States to destroy any oil facilities that have funds that directly move into terrorists hands, whether or not that hurts the global economy or not (and whether or not we have UN approval or not) If you take away the money-machine, the other problems become much more tractable, in my opinion. Call it strategic bombing if that helps any. Plus, it totally destroys any kind of BS line-of-reasoning that we're only doing things because of oil.

Could somebody let me know if this thread ever gets around to its original intent?

Theories on how we got where we are in Iraq seem to be of the following types:

(1) Conspiracy theories involving Jews, either the Jew direct (Mel Gibson style) or via chains of implication - the Likud Neoconservative axis, that sort of thing. Believers in these theories are convinced they were right all along.

Haliburton, blood for oil, fnord! I just thought I'd sneak that in there.

(2) Conspiracy theories not involving Jews. These still involve those at the top of the American scene having acted dishonestly, maliciously and in bad faith all along. Armed Liberal seems to have raised something of this sort - it was all the kulturkamf, and excuse to grab for pork, a partisan plot and so on. Armed Liberal is a star example of someone of this sort being willing to modify his thinking in response to new and important facts. So there is a radical difference in approach here compared to the type ones. The difference is all in favor of the type twos.

(3) Error theories not involving any information not known when we went to war. In this case, the war is seen as a game of open information, like chess, but the player can be stupid or biased and miss what was in front of his eyes. Ralph Peters seems mostly to think like this. He has blamed Donald Rumsfeld for everything as though it was possible to see everything in advance. But I can't remember Ralph Peters ever having suggested that even Donald Rumsfeld didn't really want to win the war. It was just that, being a total incompetent, he wasn't going to, despite his best efforts.

(4) Error theories involving information not known at the time we went to war. Jonah Goldberg has adopted this view. He agrees it was a mistake to go to war. If we knew then what we only know now, we would never do it. But we didn't know then. A theory of this kind may not call for any blame to be put on anyone.

(5) Theories that say the war was well advised, even in hindsight, and when we began it victory was possible, though it may not be possible now. Charles Krauthammer seems to have stuck to his guns and still be thinking along these lines. It was a long time ago that he said the time for Iraqis to stand up is now. (And no such standing up has occurred.) When he said it, he surely believed that some standing up was possible, and that victory was still within reach if it happened. A theory like this likely does imply that someone should be blamed for a needless defeat, though it is an open question who the culprits might be and in which country. It is an open question if the culprits were malicious, incompetent of just very unlucky.

(6) Theories that say the war was well advised, or not so badly advised as to be hopeless from the outset, and victory is still possible. Phil Carter and Victor Davis Hansen seem to have different notions of what is going on that both fall into this box. Victor Davis Hansen doesn't want to assign blame for defeat in a war he's not convinced we've lost yet - which is very reasonable.

(7) Theories that we are winning, or that in some sense we have won, and this is being concealed from the public. I'm sure there are people still saying that, but no examples leap to mind. In this case we may be back to some form of conspiracy theory. Not necessarily though. John Derbyshire thinks we won when we removed Saddam Hussein, and everything since then has been wasted motion, but it's not a conspiracy, just irrationality. He thinks irrationality is pervasive, so there's no need to fix on one bad guy.

(8) Theories that define the global situation, desired outcomes, and thus "victory" so differently that they're not on the same map with the rest of the discussion at all. Hugh Fitzgerald has such a theory. This does not involve a conspiracy or people maliciously wanting to lose a war for their country, but I'm sure others with fundamentally different ideas on what "victory" would be do have grand conspiracy theories.

I think the least useful people to have a discussion with are those who think they have been right about everything in this war all along. They are, too often, wedded to a conspiracy mentality, and willing to subdue facts under their theories.

Those who avidly seek facts, and who boldly say what they think and who change their thoughts when new facts emerge, are the most interesting people to talk to.

Armed Liberal is one of them. I don't think he has to make a comprehensive apology for being this kind of guy.

If he does feel he should apologize to people who think they were never wrong about anything, he should start by apologizing to Pat Buchanan and his supporters, and asking for their wise guidance on all matters, since they never seem to be wrong. I won't hold my breath while I wait for that to happen. :P

Armed Liberal: "Let me talk first and foremost about what to do. Then a little bit about what I see is happening. And then in retrospect about how I think we got here."

#42 from Mark Buehner: "Could somebody let me know if this thread ever gets around to its original intent?"

I've addressed all Armed Liberal's points seriatim, covering in some detail what I think should be done and how fast, the context in which my suggestions make sense, and how I see the different views on how we got here. I had a perfectly nice meeting of minds with Armed Liberal, and we are not on the same page at all. And that's about all there is to say on that at the present time.

You also replied thoughtfully and on topic, in the first post. Nothing resulted from this.

I think if the idea was to get a couple of on topic replies to the first post, we should declare victory and quit the field. :)

Armed Liberal wrote:

"A bogus "declare victory and leave" solution, as appealing as it may be to many of us in terms of domestic politics, will only result in a bloodbath within Iraq, will embolden the exact movement we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to push back, will strengthen the hand of the anti-American forces within Iran, and will almost certainly lead to a wider and bloodier set of wars within the Middle East - either with the United States as a participant, or with Israel if they are left on their own."

My guess - it will get worse before it gets better:

Nancy Pelosi - Interview 11-10-2006 (Real Player)

Nancy Pelosi - Interview Transcript 11-10-2006

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

That is an excerpt from last nights Jim Lehrer News Hour. Read the entire transcript or listen to the real player interview very closely. What I hear is no plan and sounds of helplessness that suggest only the executive branch can solve the issue. Expect more of the blame game and no action.

#43 David:

That's a terrific summary of thinking on this war. But I think you are being overly generous to A.L. Had A.L. had his breakthrough at some point before the election I would have endorsed your generosity.

But I find it awfully convenient that A.L. only gets it after an election that repudiated his point of view, and after Rumsfeld was thrown under a bus, and after it became clear that the administration was likely to turn strategy over to Mr. Baker and the rest of Dad's "realists."

Suddenly the clouds break and the sun shines on A.L. and he discovers that Iraq is fu**ed.

Has the situation on the ground changed in the last three days? No. The only new fact is that if A.L. stuck to his position he'd have been left even more alone than before.

I've been accusing this site of abandoning its mission of providing foreign policy analysis. I've said that WoC was in a state of denial. (And been denounced rabidly for this lese majeste by people who have been wrong in every detail so far.) I suppose more accurate would be to suggest that WoC was in a stall, waiting on the election, waiting to learn whether Mr. Bush himself would in effect abandon A.L.

Now that Mr. Cheney has been sidelined and Rumsfeld fired and even Mr. Bush can no longer keep a straight face when assuring us that all is well, A.L. suddenly gets it.

I too remember when this thread was engaged in "foreign policy analysis" but someone f**ked it up.

Sadly, I'd half written the post a week before the election (when I posted that I was working on one) but didn't finish it until yesterday, after I delivered the presentation I've been working on for two weeks.

I explicitly stayed out of this election - except for supporting Bowen here in California - if it's interetsing to people, I'll try and explain why later on.

Nice theory though...and interesting in the context of the ad hominem that's dominated the thread. Most people - when someone with opposing views steps back from positions they've held, try and induce them to change their mind.

A.L.

Gxx -

The problem is that it's hard to kill enough people to stop an insurgency unless you're Saddam or Assad. we're not - and that's a good thing.

because if you kill any number of people less than the number necessary to cow the population into submission (and that's typically a big number), you just create more insurgents.

You defeat an insurgency just as Boyd set it out - you pry the neutral civilians away from the insurgents by building sewers, schools, and the rule of law, thus minimizing the insurgent's freedom of operation, then you find the insurgents and kill enough of them that the remaining ones decide to become a political party.

Otherwise you might as well just cluster-bomb the whole country - and that's the outcome I'm trying hard to avoid.

A.L.

Just a quick note [work, work...busy, busy].

takhallus, the last three days? Has anyone besides me noticed that it's been rather quiet in Iraq since the election results?

Has anyone besides me noticed that the reported comments by those interested in killing us are quite chipper these days?

There are times when you (should) rush about [significant quantities of kinetic projectiles in your general direction is a good example...], and are times when you remain still and assess what's going [or NOT going...] on around you.

For some of you latter would be a better option. Investigate, observe, listen. It does wonders for your decision-making process.

Cultivating a sense of calm helps too...strong emotions tend to spoil your aim...and cloud your judgement.

Just a thought.

Nice theory though...and interesting in the context of the ad hominem that's dominated the thread.

AL, ad hominem? Hardly, we're comparing your past arguments and predictions against present reality. That's pretty much the opposite of an ad hominem attack.

Most people - when someone with opposing views steps back from positions they've held, try and induce them to change their mind.

Seems to me that's what people are doing - the left by saying it's politically and practically infeasible for the US to fix Iraq at this point, the right by saying that the fault lies with those darn incorrigible Iraqis. We're not being particularly nice about it, but the intent is the same.

#47 PD Shaw,

"I too remember when this thread was engaged in "foreign policy analysis" but someone f**ked it up."

HA! That gave me a laugh - thanks!

Hey, back in the day before conservatives were captured by ideology, that was the type of joke I always could get from a conservative. But he was willing to say it on himself as well.

The thing is, one of the typical conservative mindsets - gruff, pragmatic, suspicious of bulls**t, wanting to get on with things and get things done - you guys have abandoned it, in the political world at least. Because "good" conservatives are just as suspicicious of their OWN bulls**it as others bulls**t (at least in my opinion).

So I could just as easily say,

"I too remember when [conservatives] was engaged in "foreign policy analysis" but ideology, belief in Bush, "the democrats are always worse", f**ked it up."

this might not be about you PD - but you definitely have contributed your share to Winds Of Denial, instead of Winds of Change, not recognizing bullS**t and calling it what it is, on your side.

And guess what? Calling B.S., and then having the denialists say "it's the sweet smell of roses, the sweet scent of perfume". Well you may think so, but I'm not living in that odor, if ya know what I mean.

But, back to your point - if you DO want to engage in serious foreign policy analysis discussion re: Iraq - a couple of links.

The Biden-Gelb plan.

That plan as policy can actually work in accordance with the Carter plan as tactics, in the regions where U.S. troops stay. Definitely not a perfect fit, as the best Carter plan would infuse 100K more troops, but I think that is a complete no-go now.

This also insures that as the U.S. withdraws forces, we play a buffer of a sort from the "all-out" civil war. (That might be coming down the pike anyway...)

Also, we will see what the Iraq Study Group has to offer. I have a feeling it will echo some of the Biden-Gelb plan.

Never before have I seen so much energy put into arguing about whether or not we are arguing about a topic.

It's kafkaesque I tell you.

And what is this "Iraq Study Group" anyway? Sounds like a bunch of kids staying after school trying to get extra credit.

I think when one side says "there are no goals", the other side knee-jerks and says something like "cut and run!" Perhaps, as CPT. Charles points out, we just sit back and wait. Observe. What are our goals for Japan? Yet we have forces stationed there. I am perfectly happy with just giving it some time. However -- and this is a big however -- it needs to be considered part of our normal Department of Defense operations. Not a special excursion. And the loss of life needs to be understood as the cost of doing any kind of business in that part of the world. Neither of those two things are happening.

How sad is it that all we have is Carter's inanity, Biden's list of platitudes and some faint, desparate hope in the ISG?

Hope it works out for you. You've got atleast one cheerleader.

If people believed half the things they spew in public I might actually listen to them more often. If Rummy's micromanaging was the issue then guess what...problem solved. The military heirarchy is now free to implement the policies previously hindered by the Pentagon. Oh...what? The problem wasn't solely Rummy? Well, then, you've got a pat excuse for the next 2 years. I can hear it now..."Our Congress can't do anything because Bush has Rummy's 7,000 mile screwdriver!!" Throw in the fact that the same people who now champion strong-arming of the Iraqi government were the same ones who used to cry "Puppet!" at every suggestion based on U.S. interest. What does the implementation of the Biden plan involve? Does he want to deploy U.S. troops to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry? Haha. So pathetic.

Sorry folks, but just got a call and have to travel.

Sadly, what I hoped would be a discussion of whether Phil Carter's plan and John Boyd's theories could still work has turned into rock-throwing.

Sorry, as noted no bodice-ripping contrition is headed your way. If you need that to be interested, as I've said before - the door's over there.

I'm hoping that when I dip back into the thread Monday, we'll have some substance to talk about. I trust that I'll get the Domestic part of this up - which doubtless make me even more popular with hypocracy and ken...

A.L.

Has anyone besides me noticed that it's been rather quiet in Iraq since the election results?

I'm pretty sure the families of the 14 US service members killed in the past 3 days haven't noticed.

But then they probably just don't posses the "courage to believe" that you do.

They're the cool kids, Daniel. And everyone knows the cool kids have all the really cool ideas.

Like diplomatic missions to Assad, Ahmad-i-nejad, and Abdullah. If that doesn't work we encourage federalism. Not partition mind you. Just federalism based on ethnicity. Or wait. The Sunnis and Shi'a fighting are Arab so ethnicity can't be an accurate descriptor. Sect? Nope, sorry. The Kurds and middling Arabs are Sunni yet one of them isn't killing Shi'a. So it can't be based on sectarian lines. Ethno-sectarian lines. There we go. But no ethnic cleansing. Shit. Wait. The ones killing each other are of the same ethnicity. Well, golly, no cleansing of any kind then. It's a stepped procedure. Good government. If that fails--less good government based on identity politics. The Iraqis are going about it by blood. Biden wants to do it by reason. I like Biden's approach. Me likey Biden.

AL, what is there to discuss? Carter's suggestions are counter to the political realities in THIS country. They were fantasies 3 years ago thanks to the domestic hand wringers chortling away about body counts. And Boyd gives nothing more except platitudes. How would Boyd go about reassuring Iraqi citizens as to the benevolence and competence of their government? By clamping down on death squads? Disarming the militias? So before the government can convince the people they are benevolent and competent the government has to be, at the very least, competent and powerful enough to confront the evil doers. And how is that done again? More U.S. troops? More advising by U.S. troops? Riskier deployment of U.S. troops? Sheer fantasy. So that is why no one is discussing Carter or Boyd. It's circular, self-assuring intellectual masturbation. The one solid answer to all the problems is "more trained Iraqis" and that is something that is going to happen regardless of what the pin heads discuss. That's not rock throwing...that's ramming a Unimog into your living room. The rocks are just a byproduct.

Criticism of the Biden Plan:

1. Keep Iraq together by giving its major groups breathing room in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of common interests like defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.

As I mentioned earlier (#24), the problem with using borders is that it will provoke fights over the borders. Iraq is not like Yugoslavia or the Indian subcontinent where there were pre-existing internal principalities and duchies. We would have to draw the borders. This would draw into preconceived ideologies that the Middle East is screwed up because the West created artificial borders that keep it weak.

The Biden plan seems to place a lot of trust in the idea that oil revenues are a source of insecurity that is driving the violence. I simply disagree. The source of violence is the lack of security. Arguing over borders and distribution of oil revenues actually seems like an additional source of conflict. And the Biden plan seems to assume that we could reason our way through the inherent disputes while drawing down.

2. Secure the support of the Sunnis -- who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue.

It was in the Sunnis' rational self-interest to align with the U.S. to protect against Shiite dominance. Didn't happen. Groups are not always rational . . ..

Sunni share of oil becomes a bigger problem when we try to divide the country on sectarian lines. My ideal would be that Sunnis in the Baghdad area look to a mayor that represents both Sunnis and Shiites and not a warlord based out of Fallujah. What is to happen to the Sunnis on the border with Kuwait, do they get their share of oil revenue from Fallujah, or are they supposed to leave their homes for the North? Is the U.S. going to provide security for mass migrations? Biden is proposing 20% of revenues to the Sunnis as a rough equivalent to their population proportion. If the Lancet study is correct, Sunnis are down to about 10%. The incentives aren't good.

3. Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that the oil-rich Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a massive jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.

Carter also wants to increase reconstruction assistance. The part about Arabs paying for it smells like an election year free lunch.

4. Hold an international conference to enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Sounds nice. Does anybody think this would accomplish anything?

5. Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, with a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

So, we divide Iraq internally, giving Sunni and Shiite warlords oil money, tell the neighboring countries to take responsibility, and we maintain a force sufficient to attack the terrorists that are created by grievances over unfair boundaries and oil sharing and by weak governments, until such time as the Iraq government tells us to leave.

(Note: I don't have a problem with oil sharing; it is certainly a hedge against the rise of a military police state. I have a problem with sharing the money between the different sects.)

Sorry, as noted no bodice-ripping contrition is headed your way. If you need that to be interested, as I've said before - the door's over there.

This repeated use of the term "bodice-ripping" is just weird - what are we, in a Harlequin romance?

It's also a cheap way to dodge the real criticism being leveled at you, AL - this isn't about seeking official absolution from the Orthodox Church of Liberalism, although I understand why your conservative pals here would like to see it that way. Rather, it's simply the case that rational people make decisions based in part on the past performance of ideas and people. Your track record in this respect is very poor, and you don't show any sign of recognizing that or, more importantly, figuring out ways to avoid those kind of errors in the future. And mischaracterizing fair criticism that's being leveled at you as ad hominem attacks or demands for "contrition" just undermines how seriously people should take you even further.

Look, at the end of the day, this isn't about feeling good because you stood up for the right things, it's about making a positive change for the better. You can continue to insist that people suggesting you revisit your past thinking are being unfair to you, and keep trying - and failing - to put together substantiative discussions on the topics you'd like. Or you can reexamine what's led you here, rethink some of your core assumptions and thought patterns, and start coming up with some new ideas that are more closely in tune with reality. Even if the liberals still don't listen to you, your ideas themselves will be better, and that'll be better for everybody, in the long run.

#55 from Armed Liberal: "Sadly, what I hoped would be a discussion of whether Phil Carter's plan and John Boyd's theories could still work has turned into rock-throwing."

#58 from frontinus: "The one solid answer to all the problems is "more trained Iraqis" and that is something that is going to happen regardless of what the pin heads discuss."

frontinus and myself both addressed the question, and our answer is no. We even agree on a lot of why our answer is no. So it's not that your issue hasn't been addressed.

Do you want longer, more numerous and detailed posts on the theme "Carter and Boyd don't have the answers"?

Or to have the discussion you want do you need at least some people saying, "yes, Carter and Boyd do have the answers, and I have other idea that go with that"?

If that's what you want, I can play devil's advocate.

Davebo, in part I was referring to media silence that had descended upon all matter Iraq.

As to your snarkiness, stow it. Belief in something larger than myself led me to join. I knew what it might cost me; I accepted that.

Not all military families are 'Cindys'; you'd do well to remember that.

Believe? The Republic, the Constitution, the fundamental goodness of America and it's place in the world. Believe? Damn straight I believe.

One last thing, I suggest you go out tomorrow and honor those who've given you the luxury to be as foolish as you wish.

Oil revenue sharing already exists. It was written into the constitution and delegated to a commission appointed by the elected government. It is democratic. If the anti-democrats would rather it be "fair" than "democratic" then that's simple enough. Just keep paying off the Sunni representatives until they are happy. Chances are, however, the people suddenly getting less than their "fair" share will get all uppity and shiznit. Out of the frying pan so to speak.

But let's atleast be honest about what's on the table. Arab Sunnis despise federalism because of the oil issue. Same reason Kurdish Sunnis and Arab Shi'a love it! So you better make damned sure you enlighten them completely about the more-federalism-for-governance...less-federalism-for-funds issue. And when I say "them" I mean all of them. Not just the leaders. Because tinkering with money may placate the average Joe and Jane for a bit but every time you delegate authorities to the regional(federal) governments the Arab Sunni demagogue will start banging his drum to gin up unrest. Same as they do now. Then what are you going to do? Make believe and prostrate yourself on the floor of Congress? Try to fool them again into to thinking you care about democracy?

And that is what is all comes down to. We're either there for democracy or not. Deal with that question before we talk about anything else. If stability is the goal and democracy of lesser import then the course is much, much easier and can be outlined over lunch. Although you might find it hard to get the evil oil companies to pony up the estimated $33,000,000,000 to modernize and exploit those oh-so important fields. Although Kurdistan would probably still have a long enough history of stability to draw atleast enough dollars in to do their end. Of course, the growing desparity in revenues would probably just dredge up the same old issues all over again. Oh, what am I saying? Fina, BP, Exxon, etc. don't worry about such petty things as the nationalization of industry..........Ajax? What?

Maybe we better stick to sloganeering. Onwards to Damascus. We've got diplomats to fete.

i Davebo, in part I was referring to media silence that had descended upon all matter Iraq.

Well, then you should have said that rather than offer the inane claim that "things have quieted down in Iraq.

i As to your snarkiness, stow it. Belief in something larger than myself led me to join. I knew what it might cost me; I accepted that.

The same with me. And with my Dad as well. The Marine Corps decided it cost him roughly 75% of his abilities. I got lucky.

i One last thing, I suggest you go out tomorrow and honor those who've given you the luxury to be as foolish as you wish.

I do every year, it's a veteran thing.

Look, don't get pissy with me (and try to claim you didn't say what you obviously said) just because you look silly.

But do enjoy Veterans Day.

Sorry for the screwed up tags.

I'll take somebody who had the courage to make a stand and champion some ideas that proved not to pan out over a pure contrarian any day of the week. At least the first guy might have learned something from the experience.

(#66) -- My thoughts exactly, Mark.

Man, I can't keep tracks of who's on first, what's on second, and I don't know's on third, anymore.

First off, we've got A.L., maybe, finally, coming to grips with "crazy little thing called reality".

Ken, Chris, myself, are finally glad there is some measure of reality here at Winds of Denial (WoD), and from a different plance entirely, Talkalhus is maybe willing to call WoD WoC again.

At the same time, I'm willing to consider Carter's ideas, but don't have a lot of hope, and detail why.

From another address, Daniel and Frontinus SEEM to think there is no hope, pouring on the sarcasm and snark, - but sure think that Chris and I are worthless, at the same time A.L.'s post is worthless. Kisses back guys!!

A.L. gets all immature, when asked to take some responsibility for earler work - like all spoiled kids, he doesn't like admitting when he is wrong. (I wonder what A.L. would do if his son, when called to account for not taking responsibility of some sort - let's say confronted for bad grades - said,

"If you're looking for bodice-ripping contrition, you won't find it here. I'm trying to figure out what to do, and want to talk to other folks who have ideas - who may or may not agree with me - to see what we can come up with, to have some grade impact analysis."

Don't think A.L. would be please, but - who knows? Different strokes for different folks and all.)

Meanwhile, all the while, Daniel and Frontinus rip harder on the plan, but A.L. decides to swipe at me - even though I'm the one somewhat considering what he is saying!

One last thing A.L.

Learn how to spell - it's not that hard.

It's hypocrisy

Not hypocracy

You've been mispelling that for at least 3 months now - it's not as if right on the screen, ya know?

hypocrisyrules (#68)

I've re-read my remarks, and if I sounded like the situation was hopeless I was misunderstood. This discussion might very well be hopeless. And I certainly wasn't trying to be snarky at all. Whether you and Chris are worthless or not might be outside the scope of this discussion. BTW, I'm still waiting on those Lotto numbers.

This discussion is about tactics and strategies in Iraq. If somebody can give me a clear and measurable definition of what we are trying to achieve, I'd be glad to talk about which tactics or strategies might help in that goal. Without knowing exactly what the goal is, talking about the details seems kind of bass-ackwards to me.

Our military has done everything that we have clearly requested them to do. The fault is our own.

#60 from Chris: "It's also a cheap way to dodge the real criticism being leveled at you, AL - this isn't about seeking official absolution from the Orthodox Church of Liberalism, although I understand why your conservative pals here would like to see it that way. Rather, it's simply the case that rational people make decisions based in part on the past performance of ideas and people. Your track record in this respect is very poor, and you don't show any sign of recognizing that or, more importantly, figuring out ways to avoid those kind of errors in the future."

Is Armed Liberal's track record of errors and non-acknowledgements very poor, comparatively speaking? I doubt it.

Desire of appearing wise often keeps us from becoming so. Refusing to acknowledge errors, let alone dwell on them, saves face and keeps you in play as a guru, but leads to bad decision making. So does a habit of making Delphic predictions, slippery with jargon and hedged about with flexible provisos. So does a habit of making emotive statements that seem to say more than they ever quite commit themselves to. On the other hand, making highly falsifiable statements in public and exposing yourself to criticism, then dealing with your errors - though not all at once and all the time of course - leads to improved thinking, if it doesn't lead to public shaming and depression first.

I do not think that Armed Liberal is a worse prophet than others, he just writes more clearly and boldly and acknowledges his errors more.

(Not "more" compared to the mighty Jay Cost, who does it all as well as it can be done. Few of us will ever attain his standard, in writing on how he jumped the shark in this election. But "more" compared to many bloggers and many people in general.)

For example the theory that the Democratic Party had to fundamentally alter its ideas or it was doomed! on demographic and other grounds was pushed by a lot of other people, including Donald Sensing. How silly, in retrospect. A party that can nearly win even with a candidate like John F. Kerry is mighty, and can look to victory from just normal political campaigning. Try, try and try again, that's all. I always said this.

And by the way, how is the theory that mainstream media domination by liberals is an advantage to Republicans because it makes Democrats complacent looking at this point?

Now, am I looking to collect statements like gee, David Blue, you were so right and I was so wrong from everyone who was bold and clear enough to think the Democratic Party needed to change to win and who said so clearly enough to be unable to fudge their statements later? Or just a big oh I'm so sorry from Armed Liberal?

The answer is I'm not looking for climb-downs from anyone, and least of all from Armed Liberal.

Because that kind of behavior is rude, stupid and counterproductive.

Smart people like the rev. know they goofed. They will do their own processing, and later I'll hear their new, improved ideas with interest.

I'm not interested to drive up the costs of bold and clear expression and of revising ones opinions to conform to new facts. I'm more interested in attaining similar standards of clarity, boldness and alertness to the full implications of unwelcome facts myself.

Let's call off the festival of shaming those who prefer to learn from unexpected events rather than explain them away, and attend to the topic of the thread.

Daniel,

9, 33, 40, 23, 19, 15, 27. Have a go!

Why? Well, each pair adds up to one of my favorite numbers, the point of one of my favorite book series.

so why not?

By the way, quick question - is anyone finding my posts here somewhat amusing, even if disagreeable on the content (that d**n leftie-commie-hippie-liberal-sf-elite - shut up!), or am I just wanking myself?

Excise the 40 out from the previous number sequence. Out, damn 40, out!

You have a lack of insight, hypocrisy. I'll wait a moment for people to get back in their chairs.

.
.
.

I have no problem letting things run their course given a couple provisos.

1) forget the petty crap Biden, Carter, Dean, Baker, etc. put forward and just keep training Iraqis for the various security forces. If you are a democrat(the small d was intentional), like some of us, you're going to need them to bolster the government since it assuredly must make some unpopular decisions. If you are not a democrat, like some of you, you're going to need them to extirpate opposition to your, uhmmm, puppet(I guess).

2) stop preaching democracy while at the same arguing whether or not to dictate orders to the Iraqi government. You can't have it both ways. If you want it both ways go hang yourself now. Life sucks. You'll thank me later.

The reason I snark is because I'm allergic to idiots. Ken is an idiot. As is Chris. You...I don't well enough yet.

When someone says "meet with Syria/Iran/Saudi Arabia" my natural response is "IDIOT!" I can't help it...I'm less ignorant than their target audience. If anyone thinks the minority rule of the Alawite Syria wants democracy next door then they are an idiot. Think Iran and their Revolutionary Guard wants a neighboring Shi'a who can vote for whomever they wish? You're an idiot. Think either the House of Saud or the ulema already once approached for coup support want their eastern-province Shi'a within spitting distance of shiny, happy Shi'a? You're worse than an idiot. For fuck's sake just think back to all the doomsayers when the federal system was first proposed for Iraq. What did they say? "Turkey won't stand for it!" If Turkey hates Kurdistan how do you think the others will feel about Shiastan? Geez. Suggest more casualties, more deaths to a populace that recoils at 2.5-something a day you aren't worth listening to. And if you want to strong arm a government filled with purple-fingered saints who made you tear up and whimper a month ago then you're an idiot and pond scum. If you believe in any of those things and dislike being called an idiot then keep scrolling down when you see: # from frontinus.

I've never hid the fact that I loathe politicians but I absolve them of some responsibility. The Democrats didn't need a plan for Iraq not because they are craven invertebrates but because people would vote for them simply to feel better so no plan was necessary. I've talked to dozens of people and posted on all the blogs I frequent(I'll be surprised if I'm not banned from atleast one by day's end) and I've yet to find a single proponent of change who can rationally discuss what they want done. It's always emotion, vagueness, "what can I do about that?" crap. Someone says one of the above fantastical things and I call them an idiot..oh dear..poor wittle precious caring soul got his feelings hurt. See it doesn't matter if what they say is practicable or not. The status quo is, by acclamation, bad. They are against the status quo, QED, they are good. But what they want won't work? Well, atleast they care. And I can sleep at night because I care too. Frankly, the people get what they deserve. And if the Ameican people are salved by bumpersticker catch phrases politicians give them then they can keep crying into their sleeves while the cameras roll. I'll be the one laughing.

No, I don't find you funny or elite :)

I joke all the time and no one ever seems to laugh with me. I tell myself it's the internet's fault. Kind of like you tell yourself it's the Republican's fault....

And more, because we created a kind of cargo-cult around the appearance of democratic institutions, rather than their substance, and sold it to the Iraqis when we - and they - should have known better.

It seems to me that this is the identical problem as that faced by the decolonizing powers in the 1950s and 1960s, and their successor states: the appearance of institutions which masked the nonexistence of their substance.

This observation doesn't give me much hope for Iraq in the medium-term, as very few of the post-colonial states seem to have figured out how to solve the problem.

What can I say, HR? Humor is tough to do. At times I've found myself and other posters a little too enamored with our own voices and pompous. Any attempt at humor is appreciated.

Thanks for the numbers. It was a great answer. Now if I only knew the question.

Regarding frontius versus the forces of idiocy: my money is on the idiots. In the end, the American public will figure it out. But it'll take a long time probably. We all just want to know where we can buy our next I-pod -- all of that official-sounding FP stuff is for the wonks.

Aprhael made a great point -- how much "preparation" does a culture need to become democratic? Japan was totally changed in WWII, wasn't it? I think there is a certain amount of pain that has to happen for people to wake up. The middle east isn't there yet. Right now they just want their I-pods too (along with shariah law) and "death to America!"

The internet is changing things in a very unusual manner that is unlike the 50s.

My money is on the idiots too. I'm a L who doesn't do drugs...the idiots are all I have.

It's the age of nuance. You can't discuss how to make a society democratic without first defining 'democratic'. Needless to say(saying it anyways), I don't understand the quote in the above post about "appearance of democratic whatever". Does something only have "appearance" unless pristinely democratic? Or does it become "democratic" when the poli-sci department say it does? It's subjective drivel. I'll argue India is not entirely democratic if I feel like it. Ditto the United States. And you can, very effectively I imagine, argue th