I read the blog entry that you asserted was illustrative of the "95%" that isn't reported and guess what, by listening to public television and reading articles published in the mainstream press I had already seen the same types of analysis.
Even this big statement has been discussed many times:
"What, then, is the biggest problem? How the Americans can infuse into the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad a sense of mission and even-handedness such that the Americans can withdraw from neighborhoods in eight to twelve months without backsliding."
Hasn't that always been the problem? And isn't that something we ought to understand that "Americans" CANNOT do? After all, how do we go into another culture formed by thousands of years of history and "infuse" into their people new ways of thinking?
All the talk about "training the Iraqi forces" has always been just silly. What we really meant by training was instilling into the Iraqi forces the will to fight for the things we wanted them to want, and wanted them to want enough to die for. Those of you who thought that involved simply training more Iraqis troops for more time were being dumb-as-post stupid and I pointed that out many years ago.
"No place on earth will be safe from the troubles of a Middle East that has been surrendered to Sunni and Shiite Islamist extremism."
You have it just about 180 degrees from right. The fact is that most places on earth will not be safer UNTIL the Middle East has been surrendered to Sunni and Shiite Islamist extremism.
Do you have any idea why that's true?
"...when I watch them vote a new commander into the field and immediately pass a vote to undermine his command and deny him the support he needs, then I begin to ask myself, what are they more afraid of? That the commander might be defeated, or that he might win?"
The reason for confirming Abizade and then attempting to deny him the resources to surge is not so dark as you assert. Abizade is the best choice of a commander available now that Bush and Company have filled the general ranks with incompetent "yes" men. On the other hand, the decision to surge is not primarily a military decision.
Let’s break it down:
How many soldiers will it take to clear the Baghdad neighborhoods? …Military question.
How many soldiers will it take to hold the Baghdad neighborhoods? ….Military question.
How many casualties will we likely incur in clearing the Baghdad neighborhoods? ….Military question.
What effect will an escalation have on the continued viability of our All-volunteer army and our vital reserve force? …Military question.
But will it be worth it to America? (Are you seeing cost/benefit analysis here Nadinde?) That's NOT a military question.
“Is it worth it” is a policy question, and one that requires that we ask our best minds:
What are the underlying causes of the strife and bloodshed that have engulfed Iraq?
What effective long-term role can the United States play in resolving that violence, if any?
Is our effort to train up and empower a primarily Shiite majority putting Sunnis at risk to the point where they are faced with the bleak choice of armed resistance or submitting to a Shiite majority that may rule brutally, intolerantly and oppressively?
Can the Sunni and Shiite factions resolve their differences without a civil war or is a civil war, ultimately, inevitable?
If a full blown civil war is not inevitable, can America help prevent a civil war by employing it’s soldiers to police the two sides, or not?
Can America protect American interests without policing Iraq neighborhoods?
Is the Maliki government worth saving? And,
Is a democratic Iraq led by Shiite leaders who reflect the values of the Iraq Shiite majority something we should ask our soldiers to fight and die for?
Those are issues that need to be answered by our policy makers, not our soldiers, and to say that our Senators and Congressmen are trying to micromanage the war by opposing the surge is way, way, off base.
"I will wait until I hear the generals and the troops say it's doomed to failure."
But you still don't get it. The Generals and the troops can win every single battle, every one, and not accomplish anything.
That's the point; this is not about winning battles, in these kinds of wars it never is. It's about whether you can use military force to channel the powerful forces of cultural, political and religious momentum that have built over years, decades, centuries and longer.
So when I hear, “We need to rely upon our generals to tell us how to proceed in Iraq, I say, “No, you’re wrong, it’s the responsibility of our elected leaders to decide what their proposed tactic will gain for us? What will it cost us? Is there another way? Is it likely to be worth it?” Will it ultimately make things worse? Where are we headed?”
That's why historically, and for good reason, we’ve never relied upon our military to decide whether America should go to war, continue a war, or escalate a war.
"Do you think that Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda and their supporters in the Muslim lands will stop fighting this war just because you do?"
What war are you talking about? The war in their backyard that will determine how they live, or the armageddon-like war you think most of them want to wage against the liberal western civilizations? Cause the answer to the first question is "no," and the answer to the second question is "are you nuts?" Ed
|
