Hi John Cavanaugh; Re: "In avoiding the issue of Somalia you don't address the lesson of retreat."
This is more of the tired argument that kept us in Vietnam for so long. There is no such lesson. The US, like any intelligent competitor, should stay in places where it is to its advantage, and leave from places where staying is disadvantageous. Where we disagree on Iraq is whether it is more advantageous to stay or pullout. As far as "lessons", you might as well look at the opposite lesson, LOL. What is the lesson that we give our enemies when we refuse to admit that we made a mistake, and consequently are getting our soldiers killed and wasting huge sums of money? That we're too stupid to walk in out of the rain? Some lesson.
Re: "Ansar Al-Islam represents what percentage of Kurds? A very small one. avoid my point that the Kurds are 99.9+% favourable."
You have no source for this figure. Before the US intervention, the truth is that Ansar Al-Islam controlled far more than 0.1% of Kurdish territory, and probably had far more than 0.1% of their support. I don't have the figure, but neither do you. For that matter, all our troubles in Iraq are due to a very small percentage of the Sunni population as well. The vast majority just sits there unwilling to get involved. The Kurds are mostly the same way. Like I told unclewest, unlike Afghanistan, we have no true allies in Iraq. There are a few groups that would like to use US military power to obtain advantages over their neighbors / ancient enemies, but we have no true allies. There are essentially zero Christians in the country.
Re: "In fact most of the press avoids that issue as well - everyone runs to cover a bombing in Baghdad, but most news services don't even put a reporter in the Kurdish sectors."
This whole line of reasoning, that the US situation in Iraq is okay because the Kurds allegedly like us, is silly. The Kurds are a tiny minority population in the Middle East and are of little importance. This is why the US has always ended up siding with the Arabs or Turks or Iranians against the Kurds. The Kurds are too small to be of any assistance in Iraq. According to the CIA fact sheet, only 15-20% of the country is Kurdish. That's just not enough to make a difference, especially as they are all concentrated in a part of the country that IS NOT a big problem for us.
And for that matter, the neoconservative obsession with the tendency of the press to report on violent incidents hardly began in the 3rd millennium AD. The historical record of the human tendency to be interested in news of violence dates to at least many centuries BC. The simple fact is that if Blackhawk helicopters and M1A1 tanks were rumbling around the streets of LA and shooting up the locals, it would be reported even wider and more extensively than the same incidents in Iraq.
Re: "The situation is more brittle in the south with the Shia's, but again not that many attacks - even with foreign infiltration."
More of the same blame the "foreigners" for the problem. A lot of those foreigners are Shiites that were on the run from Saddam and took refuge in Iran. And just like in the Sunni areas, the locals like them more than they like us. Why? Cause those are Moslem "foreigners" that speak Arabic, believe in Mohammed, look like Arabs, and don't nervously shoot the locals. The neocon fantasy is that the Iraqis will throw the foreigners out of the country. Unfortunately, we're the foreigners.
As we are attacked more in the South, and your comment about "brittle" implicitly admits that this is the trend, our soldiers will respond in ways that will alienate the population ever more against us. It's simple human nature.
Re: "The reality is more like Bavaria in late '45."
This is an ahistorical fantasy promulgated by the neocons in a desperate attempt to convince the public that the Iraq situation is doing okay. The simple fact is that there were no US combat deaths in Bavaria in late 1945. Compare this to Iraq, where not only are there plenty of combat deaths, but there are 8 hour fire-fights going on.
Re: "However, the retreat taught the predecessor organizations of Al Queda that we did not have the stomach for a fight and for many Americans they are right."
Nah, Vietnam taught them that lesson. In fact, it's not a lesson that applies only to the US. No nation ever spends large amounts of blood trying to maintain an imperial presence in a land halfway across the planet. It's a matter of expenses and priorities.
Nor do we have a stomach for a fight in Iraq. Already our population is disgruntled. Hey, if the Baathists were about to invade the country, and force us to worship Saddam, it would be different. We'd fight a foreign occupier just like the Iraqis fight us, maybe harder. But no, we don't have the stomach for a prolonged occupation of Iraq that is all too similar to the prolonged occupation of Palestine that Israel has failed miserably at.
This whole concept that we do have the stomach for sticking around in Iraq is ridiculous. Who are we to imply that Wesley Clark is a coward for saying that the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq? Do you know what he did in combat? Do you have gonads that size?
Re: "If we avoid the whole world and build an isolationist shell and crawl inside ..."
This is another sad case of the empty rhetorical tactic of building up the "false dichotomy". Or maybe it's a severe lack of imagination. The facts on the ground are that the US did retreat from Vietnam. Are you arguing that after that retreat, the US built "an isolationist shell" and crawled inside? I don't recall history that way, LOL. This kind of argument is pretty good at reminding the faithful why they believe what they believe, but it doesn't pass muster at converting the other side. Try again.
Re: "... how do we get our energy and with whom do we trade?"
Since the war in Iraq has resulted in the highest prices for gasoline that I can recall paying, I don't see why you should be beating this drum. The simple answer is that we should get our energy the same way that, for example, Thailand gets it. We should simply pay for it. This is my solution, and it works for most of the 130 countries in the UN. It was the neocon idea that oil could be obtained by stealing (despite the ease with which oil production is sabotaged) that got us into a situation where I now pay $XX for a fill up.
Re: "And by the way Carl - there are thousands of dead Americans civilians because we retreated from Somolia."
This is speculation on your part based on the assumption that the 9/11 attack was due to the Somalia retreat. The underlying assumption implies that it was the knowledge of the fact that the US retreated from Somalia that gave the terrorists heart in their belief that they could make the US retreat from Saudi Arabia.
This analysis fails for a number of reasons. First, like I mentioned above, the US already taught the lesson that it would retreat in the face of sufficient bloodshed in Vietnam. The Somalia incident pales by comparison. Second, the example of Vietnam itself belies the assumption. How did the North Vietnamese come to know that the US would back down? They had no prior evidence from a US retreat. At that time we had a winning record of war that dated back many many decades. Your analysis fails to explain their reasoning.
My explanation for their reasoning is far simpler. Americans are humans. Humans show a 5000 year history of being more inclined to sacrifice blood in defense of their own territory than in attempts to occupy other people's territory, especially distant territories. The Vietnamese, like the Arabs, can use this simple human tendency to predict American behavior.
For that matter, you're forgetting to name the real sinner in the "teach the Arabs that the US retreats" syndrome, which was Ronald Reagan in Lebanon. My guess is that you have a political axe to grind.
-- Carl
P.S. CIA link:
cia.gov |
