That's the problem. Killing doesn't stop them.
But it does. They're dead. Hand them enough big defeats of every kind and many survivors will become discouraged and exhausted and take up other activities.
Without good intelligence, (which can only come from locals)
Which, in Iraq, the US is apparently getting....
our killing isn't selective
It appears to be selective since the US seems to be killing folk who are attacking their soldiers and Iraqi civilians and police officers.
We end up doing area sweeps,
These can be quite effective if intelligence is good, which it appears to be. There is nothing wrong with apprehending miscreants in bunches.
using artillery in urban areas
Regularly? As common practice, every day stuff? I don't think so.
and other methods of mass random targetting.
Such as?
Good intel is a prerequisite for victory.
True. The US seems to be getting it these days. Rolling up Baathist criminals (mostly alive) at a great rate.
Otherwise, our killing kills mainly non-combatants, and never finds our enemies. That's what's happened, since 9/11.
Untrue. The ratio of collateral damage is extremely low. We know this because otherwise it would be daily fare in the NY Times, Guardian, le Monde, etc. All they would have to do - and we know they do this from the few times the US has messed up - is check the local hospitals.
We have conducted ourselves so we are deeply and universally hated by the civilian population on the battlefield
I suppose this is why the majority of Iraqis and Afghans want the US forces to remain in their countries?
We have killed far more non-combatants than enemy.
You are repetitive and still writing untruths. According to Iraq Body Count (an outfit not sympathetic to my point of view)civilian deaths in Iraq since the war began are between 7960 and 9792. It is a certainty the US has killed far more combattants.
We have just ratchetted up the cycle of mutual hatred and mutual killing, without solving anything.
The US has achieved a great deal and partially solved three problems. Two of the most evil regimes in world history have been destroyed and al Qaida has been badly damaged. Both countries and the people of SW Asia have much better prospects as a result, than prospects they had before the US went on the attack. Over a million Afghan refugees have returned, the country is right now arguing about the new constitution, the government is actually collecting some revenues, modern education is slowly spreading, business formation is accelerating
It appears the "cycle of killing" is actually decreasing in both countries and and certainly the rate of government killing, torture, rape and theft has vastly decreased since the US removed both governments.
It is certainly the case many who hated the US, and the modern world in general, before it invaded both countries still hate it but that's their mission in life.
We are copying Israel's methods, which have failed to achieve victory, in 35 years of occupation.
Not true. The US is encouraging the Iraqis to write themselves a new constitution and take charge of their affairs as quickly a possible. The US is not trying to live on the same land as the Iraqis, it is not arguing with them over water, it is not disputing holy sites, it has not put a large proportion of the population in refugee camps, it has not appropriated significant portion of the territory for itself, and it is making large efforts to ensure Iraqis are free and prosperous.
In Afghanistan, we have re-created the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban: endemic violence, poverty, chaos, a shattered nation preyed on by warlords
As I mentioned already facts don't support your assertion. Afghans, although frightfully poor, are in better shape than they were before and during the Taliban regime. The influence of warlords is slowly diminshing, although not quickly enough.
I predict that, unless there is a radical rethink of our methods in Afghanistan, the Taliban will be back in power within 5 years. At the latest.
You don't know the future any better than I do, but I know something about the past. The Russians didn't get into trouble in Afghanistan until they started interfering with peoples' lives and eventually in culmination deposed the government and gave the Pakistani coached Islamists a foothold. Most Afghans refer, not nicely, to those folks as 'Arabs' and although their society is conservative, it was never as repressive as the regime the Taliban imposed on them. So far, give it credit, the US has not repeated the Russian mistakes or attempted to replicate the achievements of the British.
The US is increasing its presence in Afghanistan and the Nato forces are starting to slowly expand beyond Kabul. So far, Taliban attempts at reassertion have been unsucessful even near the Pakistani border where they have always had the greatest support.
What makes you think Afghans have a desire to return to half time executions at the weekly soccer game?
In Iraq, our control is beginning to wane. The "Governing" Council now answers to the clerics, not to our soldiers.
The Governing Council is trying to get a constitution written. The Clerics in the Shiite South are political players with a lot of influence, but they're not the only players, and are staking out preliminary positions trying to get a march before other folk in their area get organized. Generally speaking, folk like Sistani are not really that eager to take overt political power; it actually doesn't go with their tradition. What they are concerned about is the Hussein definition of 'secular' which meant religious repression. They are bargaining and therefore are starting from a maximalist position, not their final position.
There are only two realistic outcomes in Iraq:
Only two?
1. warlord state, like Somalia and Afghanistan. Kurd, Shiite, Sunni, Baathist, tribal-based militias partition the country. Maybe Turkey and Iran and the Saudis join the fun, backing proxies.
You're assuming Shiites wish to get into confrontation and possible civil war with the other forty percent of the country. I think they're not that stupid. You're assuming the Kurds and Shiites aren't negotiating. You're assuming the Sunnis won't come around to negotiating. You're assuming these folk desire to be cannon fodder for Iranians, Turks and Saudis. You're assuming the US and Britain have no persuasive powers. You assume a great deal.
2. a unified state, controlled by anti-American Shiite clerics
Why are you assuming most Iraqi Shiites and their Shiite clerics are anti-American?
The dreamy NeoCon idealists are out, and the Realists are back in charge in Washington.
Rumsfeld is resigning? Cheney is resigning? Dubya has resigned, has he?
After two years of bluster and bullying, the NeoCons achieved nothing, with N. Korea, Iran, or Syria.
Decades old problems which were handled so well by previous administrations. It appears the Chinese are starting to move on N Korea, Assad is starting to wriggle, the Iranian Mullocracy is getting very nervous due to internal problems. We'll have to see what the next year brings.
All their ambitious goals will be quietly forgotten. The lasting legacy of this period, will be the wreckage of our alliances, and the isolation of America.
Gadaffi came in from the cold, the Taliban and al Qaida are gone from Afghanistan, Saddam - a twelve year old thorn in our sides - gone, al Qaida on the run all over the world, France and Russia forgiving Iraqi debt, a resolution in Georgia, closer relations with India, closer relations with Eastern Europe, better relations with China, the nascent super power, better cooperation with WTO, new arrangements for dealing with inspection of terrorist shipping, greater circumspection by some parts of the Saudi royal family, and, despite untrue statements to the contrary, better arrangements for dealing with terrorists throughout the world.
BTW, which alliances have been wrecked? Isolation: America is the cynosure of the world - everybody watches it, wants to go there, wants to do business with it, wants its participation, wants to influence it, wants its protection and friendship. You have a peculiar idea of isolation. |
