A soldier in Baghdad, in town for the “surge” and wondering whether things really are as bad as they seem, might want to read FM 3-24, the U.S. military’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual, released last December. On Page 1-29, our soldier will find a handy table — “Successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgency operational practices” — that outlines the Dos and the Don’ts.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (50)Page 1 of 1 pagesWhat is it about Petreus that has all of our legislators cowed? Ever since his assignment regarding the training of Iraqi police/army was announced two years ago he has been heaped with praise and statements of confidence by every senator or congressperson of both parties at every possible opportunity - despite the fact that these training operations have been slow and inadequate.
Perhaps its his Roman-centurian name that appeals to these people working in giant classical edifices behind marble pillars. They should abandon their daydreams of Imperial glory and focus on his performance record and irrational sycophancy.
Posted by Ken Duerksen on Mar 6, 2007 at 7:08 AM Ken,
What is it about Petraeus?
It is that what he did in Mosul should have been done across the whole of Iraq (CENTCOM planning called for 500,000 troops.).
If we didn’t have the forces, we should not have attempted such a mission.
Rumsfeld turned away all who disagreed with his low number of boots.
McCain has it right, “Rumsfeld will go down in history as our worst Secretary of Defense.” To beat out McNamara for the title is a dubious achievement.
Most of our legislators only respond to a lobbyist throwing money, so we went in under-manned, under-supplied, and under-equipped. The result is an extremely under-whelming success.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 7, 2007 at 9:22 AM “The dissolution of the Iraqi army, the de-Baathification of the civil service, the failure to guard important historic and cultural sites, the granting of reconstruction contracts to American firms, and the long-term neglect of legal due process”
Th Iraqi army was dissolved by Saddam not the US. When we reached Baghdad the army had melted back into the civilian population. The only combatants were Republican Guard and Fedayeen. The Baath party was a Arab socialist party which explains the great love progressives have for it. The entire system was corrupt and baised towards Sunnis. The Sunni population controlled every governmental office, the police, the judicial system, education, and the military. The expulsion of these criminals was vital to ensure a democratic Iraq. Failure to guard historic sites? Iraqis looted their own treausures. We are not responsible for the failures of the Iraqi people. American money is rebuilding Iraq as such American companies should do the work. Due process for whom? The terrorists in Guantanamo? Iraqi citizens didn’t have due process before we invaded. These terrorists were captured by the US military.The military does not operate under civilian laws. As such they have no “rights” except what the UCMJ allows. American courts have no jurisdiction over them. So they remain in legal limbo.
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM question texind...How is it progressives “love” the Baath Party when it was the Reagan Administration that was making deals with Saddam, Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Hussein AFTER, repeat AFTER it was known that Saddam had slammed the Kurds with chemical terrorism. The UN had put out a report on the incidents, the Reagan clan couldn’t claim they didn’t know, yet, there they were dealing with Hussein. So, it was regular old Republicans that apparently loved the Baath Party and their leader Saddam Hussein.
We certainly are responsible for what happened after we decided to shock and awe them. Bush decided to get into the nation building game, but didn’t know how to do it. They start by destroying the electrical grid, water supply, roads, etc. Then they don’t protect facilities such as banks, ministry buildings, ammo stashes, hospitals, on and on. They certainly did anticipate problems of looting because they made sure to guard the oil ministry and oil facilities. They chose selective protection because they didn’t have the plan or the troops to keep looting to a minimum. The looting was demoralizing to most Iraqis who didn’t participate in the actions. They couldn’t understand how the US could let this happen. The inaction to the looting (soldiers were actually standing around watching it happen with no orders to try to quell it) was essentially the beginning of opposition to American occupation by many Iraqis. Many thought, “they let this happen, we can’t trust them.”
Yes, the army didn’t fight. Plenty in the army had no real allegiance to Saddam. But in the immediate aftermath, there were no other Iraqis trained as a military and virtually every expert in retrospect realize that not recruiting a portion of the former army to form a new army was a big mistake. Many former military ended up joining the insurgency simply out of nothing else to do, they were unwelcome to the Americans so fighting them seemed the thing to do. There were plenty of Baath Party members willing to be part of a new Iraq. Many Iraqis joined the party simply out of ability to gain jobs. The idea that all Baathists were evil, criminals or loved Saddam is so far removed from reality that anyone thinking that hasn’t a clue about Iraq.
It’s just become known that prior to the 2003 invasion that we paid off oil workers and promised them future jobs to not burn up the wells or destroy oil infrastructure. And in fact virtually no damage was done. Nearly all of those workers would have been Baath Party members, as Saddam would only trust Sunnis with the oil. By dealing with them rather than shunning them and declaring them unusable as we did with all the rest of the Baath Party we managed to protect the oil infrastructure at the beginning. It shows how much the Iraq War had oil imprinted into the brains of the Bushies. They did everything they could think to protect oil, but hospitals, banks, museums, weapons caches? No way! That was a big mistake and a huge insight into the way Bush builds nations. Incompetence, the shock and awe and ground game had at least 2 years of planning but the occupation was nothing but an ad lib afterthought.
The plain truth is that the designers of the Iraq War, the neocons, were enthralled with an ideology and couldn’t think in terms of on the ground reality. They never took the in-depth time and effort to understand Iraq and Iraqis before the war. They simplistically thought that a nation of people as beaten and war weary (Iran, Gulf Storm, sanctions) would kiss the feet of their liberators no matter what we did. But then we let the looting fun begin, and the average Iraqi looked at this liberation and wondered how we were so different than Saddam, why trust the Americans.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM The world is crowded with thinking people, stop underestimating us. So, all that story about “starting democracy in Irak”, “mass destruction weapons” “danger to the region” are not convincing anybody. The smell of oil is so strong we all know the game being played. As to Bin Laden, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had agreed to play “bad guy” in the comedy for a share of the booty. The new focus on South America stinks. Nobody has chosen the USA as a moral authority to say which country is doing the right thing, so stick to your borders and take care of your own serious problems.
Posted by Maria on Mar 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM Jon,
“How is it progressives “love” the Baath Party when it was the Reagan Administration that was making deals with Saddam, Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Hussein AFTER, repeat AFTER it was known that Saddam had slammed the Kurds with chemical terrorism.”
------------------------------While I see you have ascribed this policy to the Republicans while more often it is lumped together with other past “marriages” with strange bedfellows as something like… How can the US claim the moral ground on (fill in any number of issues) when a few years ago we/they did (again a large selection is available).
There is always a tendency to think of countries as a coherent entity when world affairs are the focus. Some who come to this site like to carry this through decades and generations. I submit that as “No man is an island,” (Jon Donne) the reverse applies — No island is a man, or in this case no country is a man.
It is easier to criticize as years pass an the historical context evaporates. (The following is not to excuse, but only to attempt to explain in part.) Some things are done in haste when a real or imagined crisis is viewed. Others are done out political aims, budget constraints, manpower or equipment limitations or due to interlocking international involvement.
Whatever the reasons, the idea that there is any coherent, long term plan, scheme or national blueprint seems to me to be sadly mistaken. Politicians, even when acting with the best of motives, are short-term (usually their term) thinkers. As the speed of media increases, the time horizons shrink.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Examples:
The Social Security - Medicare pyramid has been highlighted and then ignored by each succeeding administration since WW2.Thirty years ago we realized we were too dependent on fossil fuels and knew of their environmental problems. We now use far more.
Personally — My mother warned me long before I knew their was a Surgeon General that cigarettes were bad for me, yet I smoked for over 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------Barbara Tuchman’s book, “The March of Folly” describes numerous foolish, but not necessarily nefarious, actions by many nations, religious groups and others. Her examples are of people continuing on the same stupid course even after those involved realize their mistake.
Group policies emerge from collective individual denial, greed or — even worse — total conviction.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 10, 2007 at 9:36 AM whatheheck....you miss the point. Texind likes to make these unfounded accusations. No progressive that I know ever supported Saddam or his party. Unless his definition of progressive is completely skewered. I just pointed out that it was a Republican administration that was friendly with Saddam after the gassing of the Kurds, strange bedfellows indeed. But I could go into plenty of details of other strange bedfellows the Reagan Admin created.
Then we get the repeated ignorant rhetoric of Bush in the run-up to the Iraq War and of Saddam, “he gassed his own people” that was used as a reason for going to war. Bush and the gang considered us historical dolts, that we didn’t know or would remember that first off that the chemical terrorism on the Kurds occurred about two decades earlier and that the Reagan Admin knew it and said nothing.
So as to Saddam and the Republican Party, we see that one admin ignored a recent terrible event and the other used that event as propaganda.
I understand your point about changes in policy over time, but I see it more cynically as I don’t trust my government (no matter which party is in power) and believe most decisions are made less for the American people and more for reasons of political power.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 10, 2007 at 8:44 PM Jon,
I guess were coming out in about the same place. You covered it with being unable to trust either party.
But here again I would point out that, like countries, parties are not unifed entities. It used to be generally accepted the Dems were for labor and the Repubs were business. Now it is indistinguishable along party lines — most are free-lancers watching the wind.
When it comes to government of the people, by the people and for the people, the most intelligent comments I’ve heard lately were from Arnold Schwartzeneger a couple weeks ago when he spoke to the Press Club.
He called for compromise and the concerns of all the people over party power politics. His approach very simply, but clearly explained changed my mind on the issue of medical care for illegal aliens.
His common sense solutions were based on reality. By law our hospitals must threat anyone in need. Emergency room care is triple regular care costs. Now that’s compassionate AND conservative (to coin a phrase).
Compromise in D.C. is when a candidate switches to match the latest poll.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 11, 2007 at 7:56 AM Jon B and WTH –
When you criticize the USA for being inconsistent in regard to conduct toward Iraq and toward Saddam, in this instance you get an A+ for perception, and a flat 0 for context, leaving you with a failing grade.
... it was the Reagan Administration that was making deals with Saddam, Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Hussein AFTER, repeat AFTER it was known that Saddam had slammed the Kurds with chemical terrorism. The UN had put out a report on the incidents, the Reagan clan couldn’t claim they didn’t know, yet, there they were dealing with Hussein. So, it was regular old Republicans that apparently loved the Baath Party and their leader Saddam Hussein. – Jon B.
Well, that is one interpretation of history, I suppose. Now here is what actually happened.
When Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam, the SU was still a superpower, and we had to be careful not to start a major war in the volatile oil center of the world, an area in which the SU was ambitious and active. Iran was at war with us (still is), and Sunni-controlled Iraq was a counterforce against the Shia mullahs, protecting not only the Iraqi oil fields but the Sa’udi oil fields as well. The USA draws no oil from the Middle East, but we were protecting primarily European and Asian access to energy. Any interruption of energy to Europe (or anywhere else) is a major problem, and could well result in international war. Witness the recent pissing contests that resulted when Russia threatened to cut off Europe, Ukrania, and Georgia from energy supplies.
The Persians and the Arabs have been at war for centuries, long predating Mohammed. One of the attractions of nuclear weapons for the mullahs is to control the Middle East and its oil. In response to the Irani nuclear program, Sa’udi and the Egyptians are now exploring nuclear options, projecting an outcome where commerce might be severly disrupted, not to mention lives and nations and the world.
Politics really does create strange bedfellows, and this is not the first time this has happened. We allied with Stalin against Hitler in WWII, not because Stalin was a fine fellow (he was not), but because Hitler was worse. Likewise, Saddam was less of a threat, and distinctly useful, in the war the mullahs declared on us.
So, what may appear to you to be inconsistency in our dealings with Saddam is of little importance. What is important is the overarching need to protect international trade and prosperity, not just for Europe, but for everywhere, including China. This is the common thread between the actions of the USA and Rumsfeld in the 1980s and different actions of the USA and Rumsfeld in the 2000s. The USA and its Anglo Allies are the only force in the world that can protect international sea lanes and commerce. If the USA failed to protect trade, and war was somehow avoided (not likely), there would still be widespread economic collapse within economies deprived of energy. Europe and Asia can’t protect their own interests, and there are a number of players who would joyfully disrupt commerce, including Iran which regularly threatens to close the Hormuz Straits, Russia which is reverting to a totalitarian model after experiencing the futility of totalitarian inefficency and corruption, and Somali and Malay pirates, for examples.
Posted by scorp on Mar 11, 2007 at 5:49 PM scorp...Your interpretation of history is apparently yours, we all have our own reality.
Your definition of war and other peoples are different. Iran and the US was and is still at war is a bit off on most peoples reality. The reason we had to be careful not to start wars in the Middle East is because of our heavy handedness there. Our CIA coup in Iran to install the Shah in the early ‘50s ended a democracy in order to protect British oil interests was the beginning of a series of blunders to include the Iraq War.
Your empirical view that the US is entitled to meddle in the Middle East because the world needs the oil to flow is one reason parts of the world despises us now. We don’t need the ME oil directly (at least at this point in time), but we do need it on the market to keep the prices lower in order to continue our version of commerce. But if Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or all three chose to stop pumping would it be our right to demand they continue? Go to war in order for it to flow? It’s been ours and mostly other Western nations that have this entitlement attitude for so long, using whatever means necessary to procure the oil from the Middle East.
To Saudi Arabia we look the other way on a host of issues in order to procure for the Western world market that oil. To Iran we installed the Shah, until that blunder resulted in the rise of a theocracy. In Iraq we supported a nasty dictator until his games irked us too much. All for cheap oil because we are somehow entitled to it.
Your WWII history is a bit off as well. Stalin’s Soviet Union was attacked by Germany after Hitler reneged on a treaty. The US came in on the side of Great Britain. It hardly was about who was worse Stalin or Hitler but that Hitler was the one doing the attacking. Same as Bush, Hitler claimed preemptive war was necessary. At any rate, alliance with Stalin simply made sense out of military strategy, squeeze the Nazis from both the East and West. As both directions were attacked by Hitler, both sides would naturally wish to be allies. There was plenty of distrust of Stalin from Britain and the US, but regardless Russia and the Western allies would have defended their direction against Hitler whether allied or not. It was less of strange bedfellows as of the same war plan played out in each others eyes.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 12, 2007 at 5:19 AM WTH, Yes I agree about political parties. Because of the two party system both parties end up being “big tent” with different factions trying to influence the platform the most. Although, party platform is sort of archaic in our current climate. It seems things change too fast to even get an issue defined and written down into some official declaration. Today, it seems if both parties suffer from a ripped seamed tent, with factions not able to agree on enough issues.
And factions are based on geography sometimes. A blue-dog Dem for instance from the South isn’t anywhere near a liberal East. A moderate East Republican doesn’t compare to a deep red South.
The Iraq War is probably the most divisive issue within both parties, both voters and politicians. The Republicans have those steady behind Bush (at this point about 30% or so, that will probably never change their view), those ready to bail (Sam Brownback for instance) those like the Libertarian wing that was never for the war. The Dems have the pro-war Lieberman wing, the middle of the roaders that are ready to wind it down, and probably the largest faction those who never bought into the premise in the first place.
As well, the elected leaders of the two parties, don’t necessarily vote their constituency on issues. Too often they make their own decisions disregarding the general consensus of their district or state. In this, they fail to represent and become free agents. And too often voters lack the incentive, the will, the insight, to make politicians responsible for true representation. Incumbents win far too often based not on their record but on the power of the purse that they’ve achieved by becoming party incumbents.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 12, 2007 at 5:46 AM Another US blunder as to the Middle East that few people in America are aware of is the last piece of diplomacy with Iraq just prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. American ambassador April Glaspie passed the word directly to Saddam Hussein that America had no opinion on any Arab-Arab conflicts, this as Saddam had troops massed on the Kuwaiti border. A week later Iraq invaded.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html
There could have been one of several possibilities. The Bush I Administration was seeking a war with Iraq. Glaspie was a poor ambassador and didn’t convey a stronger position, couldn’t communicate well between the languages, or made a mistake in what she was suppose to say. Or simply the administration completely misread the situation. Either the US enticed Iraq to invade or it was a diplomatic or analytical blunder. But certainly the US had a hand in the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, whether by blundered diplomacy or a calculated enticement in order to have a Middle East war.
The common history, that Saddam attacked Kuwait out of the blue or in a surprise, is false. That the US had no input or knowledge of the coming attack is also false.
I’ll never forget the small wire service story I read in my local metro paper of the April Glaspie event printed some time between the Iraq invasion and the beginning of Desert Storm and also at how little that story became known or was discussed in the media.
When we might know more about that time, who knows? Bush II in the first days in office, signed an order to extend the time that his fathers classified papers stay classified going back to include the Iran/Contra days when his dad was VP.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 12, 2007 at 11:26 AM Scorp,
“When you criticize the USA for being inconsistent in regard to conduct toward Iraq and toward Saddam, in this instance you get an A+ for perception, and a flat 0 for context, leaving you with a failing grade.”
Well, I must give you low marks for comprehension. My main point was that to use examples of national policy or action out of context AND to attribute them to a single long-range plan as if talking about an individual is neither fair nor prudent.
Circumstances as WW2, the Cold War, changing economic realities all play a part and are subject to change for unlimited reasons.
-----------
BTW, re: US/USSR WW2 relations — A good example since the alliances changed so often it a relatively short span.The Hilter/Stalin Pact — Neither trusted the other; Hitler was playing for time hoping he would get England either to continue appeasement or capitulate without too tough a battle and join against the Soviets.
Stalin was in no condition militarily to hold off Germany — plenty of bodies, too little equipment.
After the Battle of Britain, Hitler turned on Stalin thinking he could move fast enough to avoid Napoleon’s dilemma.
US/Britain joined with USSR to keep Hitler occupied in the eastern front, making an eventual western landing possible. Stalin was agreeable in order to get our planes, tanks and food.
Churchill vacillated between thinking he could understand and control “Uncle Joe” and seeing him as the next great threat to the west. Patton begged Eisenhower to let him take Berlin. (He then wanted to go right on to take Russia.)
The expediency of the moment is perhaps the most consistent “national personality.” We can view it as a failing and why we accomplish far less than we could. Or, view it as a plus — and why no more is accomplished.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 12, 2007 at 3:01 PM Jon B.
Another US blunder as to the Middle East that few people in America are aware of is the last piece of diplomacy with Iraq just prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. American ambassador April Glaspie passed the word directly to Saddam Hussein that America had no opinion on any Arab-Arab conflicts, this as Saddam had troops massed on the Kuwaiti border. A week later Iraq invaded.
“Few people are aware?” Au contraire. This is one of the most common left-wind moonbat absurdities extant. There are at least three versions of what Ambassador Glaspie said to Saddam. It is certain that the Ambassador reaffirmed the standard USA policy of not taking sides in a “border dispute”. She certainly was not addressing or anticipating the possibility of Iraq conquering an independent nation, a member of the United Nations. In addition to the meeting between Saddam, Tariq Aziz, and Ambassador Glaspie, there were numerous communications between the United States and Iraq that warned Saddam not to resort to force in his dispute with Kuwait.
No Ambassador, American or otherwise, can authorize a war. As a Head of State, Saddam was surely aware that aggressive war is not only illegal by international law, but also a violation of the UN Charter to which Iraq was a signatory.
Either the US enticed Iraq to invade or it was a diplomatic or analytical blunder.
This silly statement does not exhaust all the possibilities. Saddam attacked Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it. Major USA forces were far away. Saddam made a gross miscalculation and discovered that the UN, Europe, and most of the nations of the world, including the Arab states, did not agree to the destruction of a small country by a terrorist sponsor.
Why this minor and dubious diplomatic incident has been given such prominence can only be understood in terms of left-wind mythologizing to discredit an American Administration. This myth requires absurd assumptions such as you have expressed above. Learn to tnink, Jon B.
Posted by scorp on Mar 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM No scorp...The moonbat right likes to discount this, explain it away, disregard it, criticize it, poo-poo it, etc. because they are out to defend their administration rather than to think in a non-partisan way. When Saddam hears from the most powerful nation in the world that they essentially don’t care, then yes he might make a miscalculation. He made plenty, attacking Iran was one of many, a war he couldn’t win despite some support from the US. Did you bother to read the link that had the transcript of Glaspie’s meeting? Is it any wonder Saddam may have misunderstand what she was saying? As you say, he thought he could get away with it, but based on a blundered diplomatic meeting.
As to those other meetings, do you have a link with the transcripts I could read. When did they occur? Glaspie’s was just a week before the Kuwaiti invasion.
As to the rest of the world, it took some effort by the Bush Administration to get the coalition to coalesce. Many Middle East countries had to be bought off with promised aid.
You need learn to think in a non-partisan way.
Au Contraire? Most people in this country are indeed completely unaware of this. This is a country (and media) enthralled with things like Anna Nicole Smith’s cadaver and what happens to it. Hell, it took a long time before people finally understood that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 (some people STILL think that), and that was a huge event in our recent history. We have a large portion of the population disconnected with the details of the world, politics, history, and anything deemed serious. You may have some knowledge of it, but don’t give the general populace that same credit.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 13, 2007 at 7:54 AM wth..."My main point was that to use examples of national policy or action out of context AND to attribute them to a single long-range plan as if talking about an individual is neither fair nor prudent.”
I agree, but disagree. How’s that for a strong stand!
On certain things a trend can be deciphered, on others a policy can be haphazard based on any number of circumstances, such as the topic we are in, The Middle East, which must change because the countries over there change. As well, we’ve changed which political party is in charge over the last several decades, so even when a party returns to power the situation is different since they were last in power. They may try to undo the actions and policies (if possible) that the other party enacted or work from the situation given. And we can’t discount whether the power in the White House has the support of the Congress, hands free or hands tied.
Certainly a trend can occur within a party. Bush 43 compared and called forth Reagan as his example. Whether he has met those statements is a long another story.
It would be hard for me to imagine that if Hillary wins in ‘08, that her policies would be far removed from Bill’s. Heck, on the other hand, I’m not so sure she would be far removed from Bush on several issues. But who knows, these days she can be so calculatingly lacking opinion about what she’s about.
But, as to the Middle East, it’s hard for me to see that any president has had good judgment, that any could predict what their actions would create.
I see a trend from Republicans though. Bush 43 packed his advisers with former White House advisers. Their ideas may have evolved or changed somewhat, but the overarching ideology isn’t so different.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 13, 2007 at 8:33 AM JonB,
I think we’re pretty much in sync here.
As for Hilary & Bill — almost clones — A couple weeks ago She was on TV and my wife said, “Gee, when you listen to her if you didn’t know who was speaking it would sound pretty good.” Which reminded me that the first time I hear William speaking I thought, “Hey this guy makes sense!”
Within a year I was telling a close friend who spoke highly of him, “In my opinion this guy is morally bankrupt.”
The Clintons have only one goal in life… to do what works best for the Clintons. They are both very good at meeting their goals.
I have come to the conclusion that the only person who can be acceptable to consider for president is someone who does not want to be president under any circumstances. George Washington and Harry Truman come to mind. Even if we have to dig them up and dust them off, they would still be better than most.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM Harry Truman was our WORST President and everyone knew it when he bowed out in 52 with less than 20% approval. Every decision of his from forced integration to the push for socialized medicine to the unnecessary nukings to the whitewashing of Alger Hiss to appointing Soviet agent Harry Dexter White as head of the IMF to the firing of MacArthur was WRONG. The contemptible “police action” in Korea to his attempted seizure of the steel mills and coal mines and on and on.
Was Harry Truman an actual Red ? Probably. Was that incompatible with his KKK membership in the 20s. NO. The Truman revisionism that has gone on since Ike’s Presidency makes me sick. Even George Marshall resigned over his creation of Israel. Truman came out against JFK in 1960 because he was Catholic (actually JFK was a closet atheist.) His scandals were much worse than Clinton’s. I do agree with WTH on the Clintons. see The Pursuit of Power: The Clintons and Their America by Roger Morris, 1996. A critique of Billy Balls from the left.
WTH, you ever mention Truman in the same breath with Washington again and you’ll get a public horsewhipping.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM Jon B –
When Saddam hears from the most powerful nation in the world that they essentially don’t care, then yes he might make a miscalculation. He made plenty, attacking Iran was one of many, a war he couldn’t win despite some support from the US. Did you bother to read the link that had the transcript of Glaspie’s meeting? Is it any wonder Saddam may have misunderstand what she was saying? As you say, he thought he could get away with it, but based on a blundered diplomatic meeting.
So, your position is that Saddam “made plenty (of miscalculations)”, committed aggressive war, and it was the fault of the United States based on a conversation? Are you fucking nuts? This is precisely why you and your ilk (progressives, socialists, communists, whatever you call yourself) are thought to be somewhere south of insane. Elite, but insane.
And why would you think that Saddam “couldn’t win in Iran despite some support from the US”? From our point of view, he was not supposed to win, or lose. Iran and Iraq were both aggressive states and they were supposed to neutralize each other, which they did to perfection, while the other big aggressive state, the Soviet Union, destroyed itself through incompetence, inefficiency, and corruption. The genius of Ronald Reagan at work. Don’t you understand anything?
As to the rest of the world, it took some effort by the Bush Administration to get the coalition to coalesce. Many Middle East countries had to be bought off with promised aid.
Umm, no, as a matter of fact. Gulf I was only the second time the UN gathered the intestinal fortitude to enforce it’s clear responsibilities and authority to prevent aggressive war. Everyone was on board, even France and the Arabs. The Saudis not only provided us with bases, but paid us to be there. The Allies, including the Arab States, reimbursed the United States for 88% of the costs of Gulf I, leaving the individual US Taxpayer out of pocket for $26.92 for the effort. The donations of the UN members to defray the costs of Gulf I were widely noted at the time, so how did you come up with this crap?
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
Posted by scorp on Mar 14, 2007 at 7:39 PM WTH -
How did you get off so easily?
Michael P. Hardesty, Oakland CA, aka blondemike, threatened me with beheading. And don’t get him started on his .357 Mag. Old Hardesty is a thoroughly dangerous character. Seriously. (Snicker, giggle, tee-hee, Bwahahahahaha!)
Posted by scorp on Mar 14, 2007 at 8:14 PM Scorp,
Gee, I don’t know. I do know it’s not my first offense. Actually, Mike is his own worst enemy — anyone who is so adamant about so many things has to be very unhappy. We all need to lighten up a bit around here.
A lot of people who come to this site are so one dimentional it has been an eye opener to me. I’ve always thought the extreme right was too close-minded, but now I see the left extreme is at least as much so.
The nice thing about BM is he is an equal opportunity basher — who sees something bad in nearly everything. I can see myself leaning that way too. I’m always voting against the candidate I see as worse than another and it’s getting to be a coin toss. My wife says I’m cynical, but I feel far less so when I read Mike’s comments — relatively so, anyway.
Anyway, Mike’s whip doesn’t scare me anymore than his .357 — I have an old 45-70 Trapdoor which can pick off aggressors at a very safe distance. ;-)
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 15, 2007 at 7:46 AM Ah...scorp...I didn’t say the US was at fault, I called it a blunder. People make all kinds of mistakes, which is what you’ve done in reading my post.
You’ve failed to notice I was discussing Saddam and the Iran War in retrospect. I didn’t know THEN whether he would win, lose or draw. In hindsight it was a massive mistake.
Desert Storm did indeed need some incentives to gain support from what became coalition partners. Egypt, Syria were provided financing in what was termed checkbook diplomacy.
You still haven’t provided the info as to other efforts at diplomacy just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. I’m interested in that. If you want me to reassess my opinion that we blundered the diplomacy, provide it.
So, the US wanted the Iran/Iraq War a draw or to neutralize each other. I’ve heard this plenty before, but can’t see the proof. We did indeed provide Iraq with money and satellite photos of Iran’s positions. Then we also had Iran/Contra where we supplied Iran with weapons. But were these actions in concert or some sort of master plan for the Iran/Iraq War? I find that hard to believe as Reagan claimed he had no knowledge of Iran/Contra, and VP Bush claimed he was out of the loop. And I don’t know that either of them knew about helping Iraq for the war effort either. Do you know if they were in the loop or as dumbfounded about that as Irangate? Of course they could have been telling fibs about Irangate. Did either of them claim some sort of Iran/Iraq War policy that you claim, this neutralization scheme? If they did then they must have known about Irangate.
As long as we are on blunders. After Desert Storm we allowed Saddam to have his helicopters which he promptly used against the Kurds while we watched. Further Bush 41 publicly encouraged the Shiites in the South to rise up, which they did expecting the US to help, which we didn’t, and they got massacred. But there was plenty of second guessing Bush 41 for not going onto Baghdad. Some say that was a blunder. Blunder if you do, blunder if you don’t, one might say.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM Hey scorp....I thought you might like this analysis of Desert Storm by Dick Cheney 16 months after it was over.
“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
“All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.”
“Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi’ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there. I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today (Aug. 1992), we’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.”
Of course some might accuse him of being a flip-flopper in light of his Iraq War support, but I understand it’s politics. I suppose the Iraq War was to fix the blunder of not going all the way to Baghdad in the Gulf War which he didn’t consider a blunder back then. Or is the Iraq War a blunder? Or are both blunders? Cheney might not have revealed all of his thoughts in 1992, but he didn’t mention sectarian conflict or persistent insurgency (last throes or not), yet, he did understand that it wouldn’t be easy. Why he thought it would be easy in 2003 I can’t fathom.
My point is that the US has blundered it’s way around the Middle East for a long time now. I haven’t even bothered to mention Democratic administration mistakes in the ME, I figured you have them memorized. If you gave up on your idolization of your authoritarian figures you might see that the US has plenty of ME miscalculations.
We bow down to Saudi Arabia, ignoring the corruption of the royal family and their support for radical Islamic teaching. We give Israel tons of money which they use for weapons. We’ve sold all sorts of weapons to the Arab country of the month club. We get into wars where our soldiers explain that they can’t tell the enemy from a friend. I could go on, but it all comes down to oil. It’s theirs, we believe it’s ours. Oops, I did forget about the Military Industrial Complex, they always find a way to get a piece of the action in the Middle East, plenty of pieces.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 15, 2007 at 9:50 AM Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates comes back from under his rock with some more falsified “history” care of Rush Limbaugh ! First, I never threatened you with beheading because I have seen no evidence that you have a head so beheading is besides the point even if made in jest. Gulf 1 was a total farce and until the Bush 1 massacre started, it was no war, over half the US population opposed it because they knew that no US interests were at stake, that US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, gave the green light to Hussein to invade to stop slant drilling by which the corrupt Kuwaiti Al-Sabah thug family was stealing Iraqi oil. Kuwait is an integral part of Iraq and was artificially created by the UK in 1921 to keep the Arabs divided. Just like the Brits backed the south in our civil war. Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates ignores the 200,000 Iraqis murdered by Bush 1 War Criminals’ one-sided massacre after Cheney & Rummy the Drunk manufactured loads of bullcrap about Iraq’s army being the fourth strongest in the world ! Yeah, right, more fucking GOP lies for the GOOPER morons in the Bible Belt. Iran and Iraq were not aggressor states by comparison with the US and Israel which are the world champion Rogue States, see the works by Noam Chomsky and William Blum here. The US under Carter and Reagan TOTALLY SUPPORTED HUSSEIN’S INVASION OF IRAN. Unlike Kuwait this was a real invasion of a real country and as usual the US and much of the West supported the aggressor, Iraq, here. The two sides were not equal aggressors as implied by Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. Jon B, grow some balls, THE US WAS AND IS AT FAULT HERE. Don’t be intimidated by a Rush clone like Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. You will notice the barrage of ad hominem invective from Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates accusing you of being “fucking nuts” and “insane” and a “leftist” and a “elitist” because Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates has no arguments to disprove the Green Light that April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates cannot erase the lovely photo of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in April, 1983 nor can Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates undo the history wherein the Farter and then the Bonzo supported Iraq’s aggression against Iran.
WTH, I’ve cleaned your clock in every exchange and I’d tear you a new asshole in a second if we ever met, so watch your mouth, punk.
Jon, the US hasn’t blundered at all, we have been total lackeys of the Israeli State because of the “holocaust” crapola and have poured a quarter trillion down that rathole, 95% of it since 1967.
We support Arab Reaction in the Saudi State even though it was a big lie that Iraq was going to invade them. Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates tries to spread Mossad-CIA disinformation he hears
on Rush but gets his stinky behind kicked every time. Now Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates lives in
a BLUE state, Ohio.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 10:59 AM Standard Scorp Doobie AKA Master Bates “Arguments"----
“Are you saying that Republican shit doesn’t smell like perfume ?! You
are insane and a lib elitist.”“I personally sniffed at great length the anal cavities of both Bushes and Reagan.
They smelled like Chanel Number Five.”“Everyone knows that Bush’s IQ exceeds Einstein’s, who was a Clintonite pinko anyway.”
“US baes in and treaties with 137 countries are imperialism ? You
must an Islamic-Commie lunatic.”“Bill Clinton was in the Red Guards and tortured my bro-in-law.”
Posted by blondemike on Mar 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM Blondemike…
It’s not about the balls, it’s about the bat. Scorp is swinging and missing. He still hasn’t provided me with info about “other diplomacy.”
I’ll give him some more time about his Iran/Iraq War neutralization scheme. But that of course would mean he’d be admitting that Reagan and probably VP Bush lied about Iran/Conta.
Look I get where you are coming from. I distrust our government with great concern, all administrations. I like what I.F. Stone said, “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.” And there has been no doubt about Bush 43 since BEFORE he won a primary, he’s been smoking that hashish and he’s been giving it out ever since.
I used to think that the Nixon administration, or Grant’s, maybe Harding’s administration was the worst in history. The Bush 43 has run away with that designation. I have trouble finding any truthful statements from these guys. It’s been corruption this, blunder that.
And, yes I consider almost every move the US has made in the Middle East blunders. Why? Well, too much information that would confirm things to a tee are state secrets (or destroyed ala Iran/Contra). I can’t prove what won’t be unveiled. Yet, I consider that too often we give the powers that be too much credit for actually having a coherent plan. I think plenty of times that they just think up their ideas, roll the dice, and viola, they have a policy that of course isn’t well thought out, but gives them something to do, so that they can say they are doing something. So much of it is just a game to the rich and powerful. And then there is always the old “follow the money” and somehow it’s always our tax dollars enriching someone else in someway when they play in the Middle East.
I don’t care about scorps insults, they don’t bother me. I laugh at most of them. The best was “elitist,” as if I’m running some part of the world. If I was an elite I certainly wouldn’t be wasting my time bothering with anyone in a post discussion. Maybe he thinks I’m Bill Clinton with nothing to do. Hillary’s off running for President, I think I’ll argue the Middle East with some nobody named scorp.
Notice he called me “whatever you are” which I thought was great. He can’t figure me out, mostly because he’s caught up in his right wing world of authoritarian worship. They don’t really understand independent thinking. Have you read John Dean’s latest book “Conservatives Without Conscious?” The best chapter was about authoritarians and the studies they’ve done about that (the studies apparently aren’t well known according to Dean). Authoritarian followers is the category of people that was most interesting and enlightening to me. Now that I recognize the type, I realize they are everywhere and also why I never really understood so many people. The sheeple I mean.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 17, 2007 at 9:25 AM Read the Dean book, The Authoritarian Personality and his other refs are actually well known and old hat, going back to the 50s. Also Goldwater was as much responsible for authoritarian conservatism as anyone if one reviews his 64 campaign. The Birchers are half libertarian in addition to their bad side. Dean’s book is ahistorical and simplistic. I agree with his anti-Bush view but he’s not profound thinker. Earlier after 9-11 he was trying to defend the Lincolnian concept of military tribunals. I agree with much of what you write but US Near East policy has been consistently in the service of Israel first and foremost, then Arab Reaction in the Gulf. It has been wrong but not a mistake. Yeah, Scorp’s a goof.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 18, 2007 at 1:05 PM One message. Many voices.
Please join us in getting our voices heard.
http://www.bringmehomenow.org
Posted by Home. Now. Activist on Mar 18, 2007 at 11:47 PM I’m so going to love it when we succeed and most of you losers keep on jawing about what could have been - a failed Iraqi state and with it a failed Bush Presidency. You guys are screwed, Al Qaeda is no longer welcome in Iraq to say the least, the Sunni tribes are starting to turn on them en masse. Maliki is turning out to be very non-sectarian in his dealings with irredeemable militias and is beginning to find common ground with the Sunni tribes. The tide is going out and with it the political prospects for you losers.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on Mar 19, 2007 at 10:36 AM “I’m so going to love it when we succeed ...”
And when will that be, Hyjinx?
Another 4 years and thousands more dead people later?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on Mar 19, 2007 at 2:16 PM Hymoron, Al Queda was NEVER IN IRAQ BEFORE THE US INVASION, HUSSEIN KEPT THEM OUT, THEY ARE IN IRAQ FOREVER. Maliki is a tool of the Shiites Militias and Iran. Tell me O Zionist shithead, when they circumsized your dick, did they also do your brain ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 19, 2007 at 2:42 PM Hyjinx’
The problem is and always was, how do you define success? How many suicide and roadside bombings is tolerable? Does Bush say, “Well, we’ve only had three or four of those this week, we win!” Do you actually expect some sort of zero opposition some day?
You seem to think anyone against this war wants America to lose. You miss the point. It’s not about wanting something, it’s about understanding reality. I can want ten million dollars, it doesn’t mean I will get it. You can want the US to win, it doesn’t mean that reality won’t stop it. I don’t invest emotion into the equation, I look at history, policy, money, oil, etc., all the things that are involved and come to a conclusion and then continue to reassess new info. Sure, if we wanted to “win,” it could be done in a few years or so, but the investment of dollars and soldiers lives would be tremendous and we would have to instead of trying to help some Iraqi government, we would have to conquer the entire population. And even that would only be a short term “win,” as no one wants to stay conquered.
I was against the war, not because I loved Saddam, he was a gruesome dude, no doubt. It was because I spent time trying to understand what was going to happen, listening to all points of view. All that has been happening WAS predicted, although some of the Rumsfeld mistakes certainly added a few unpredicted bad wrinkles.
You spend too much time emotionally tied and wrapped up in partisanship to think it all out. If this had been a Democratic war would you be so giddy? I would be criticizing the Democratic president for being so uninformed about Iraq as much as I do Bush. Both parties have been blundering through the Middle East for so long and apparently will continue to do so.
Posted by Jon B on Mar 20, 2007 at 5:14 AM John B
The picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam was taken 1983 during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988. Progressives are handicapped by the ridiculous dogma of the movement. A lack of any sense of reality pervades these forums. You just don’t have a clue.
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 20, 2007 at 10:08 AM No, the Kurds were gassed by Iran in 1988 as reported by Reagan Administration at the time and as confirmed by the US Army War College. TexASS is correct about the date of Rummy’s handshake with Hussein. For a change.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 20, 2007 at 10:13 AM The Kurds were also viciously attacked after the 1991 Gulf War. For a first hand account of the devastation read, “Martyrs’ Day” by Michael Kelly.
Put together our failure to stop Saddam’s helicopters in the Kurdish north and leaving the south to Saddam’s slaughter is it any wonder they didn’t exactly rush to join us during the 2003 invasion?
Today all the Iraqis who acted as translators and guides for our troops have been left to shift for themselves as the several factions compete to punish them. As of last week only 10 have been granted asylum.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 21, 2007 at 5:33 PM Kelly’s not too reliable, Cockburn and others have documented plenty of problems with his reporting on the counterpunch.org and other sites. The Kurds are hated by everyone there, including Turkey even more so than Iraq and Iran. Since the Kurds openly sided with Iraq’s enemies during the war, why wouldn’t they be attacked ? We’d do the same here. As for the Shiites, please ! That moron Bush has created another Iran in Iraq by turning it over to the Shias. Even Al Queda can’t stand those bastards though our policies may even unite for a while those long time enemies. Whatever happened to the Kurds, it was nothing compared with the hundreds of thousands killed during Bush One’s Gulf Massacre. Or the millions killed by sanctions after that episode. Kelly was an arrogant and rather stupid neocon, was not sorry about his demise. The ONLY sensible thing Bush One did was NOT invade Baghdad which is why he left office with some support unlike the total hatred his imbecile son is generating. I respect you, WTH, but disagree with the point I think you are making. We have had this conversation before and I have seen nothing in the Iraq disaster of the last four years to change my mind.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 21, 2007 at 6:09 PM Mike,
I know we are 180 degrees apart on the military in general and the war in particular, but how do you decide whose account to give credence? Michael Kelly reported on what he saw all the way from Kuwait to the Kurdish north. The attacks on the Kurds were vicious; demolishing whole cities to the last stone on stone.I’m unfamiliar with Cockburn. Was he also there or is he reporting what someone reported to him? My most interesting accounts of Iraq and Afghanistan have been those from individuals who were there (several enlisted Marines and soldiers and a couple of officers) and also from the parents of another.
Much of their experience jibes with books I’ve read, such as “Cobra ll”, “The Crisis of Islam” and a C-SPAN2 (book channel) program with the author of “A General Speaks Out: The Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” (Paperback) Lt Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC ret).
I think it nearly impossible to have handled the war any worse than we have, but still believe to pull out would be even more tragic. I continue to hear the anti-war media blitz, the foreign and U.N. stuff, but like you —
“I have seen nothing in the Iraq disaster of the last four years to change my mind.”
I guess we agree only on that.P.S. I hear a lot comments similar to yours (stupid neocon) and when I ask the definition of Neocon get very vague and generalized responses. So… I read the book, “The Neocon Reader” a compilation of views by self admitted “Neocons.” They are certainly not of a single mind. Some I could agree with and others leave me cold. It was an interesting read.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 22, 2007 at 7:24 AM Nothing remotely happened like you described. I followed the situation post-Gulf War 1 in The New Republic and other pro-Kurd sources and I have to tell you that Kelly’s neocon ideology did color his “reporting.” I gave you one source, counterpunch.org, to look up critical pieces on Kelly. Saddam had good reason to hate the Kurds and of course vice-versa but they were far better off than the rest of Iraq including in the time period that you mentioned. I’m not denying that atrocities occurred but the US media has always greatly exaggerated Saddam’s atrocities, starting with the gassing done by Iran in 1988 against the Kurds, the phony stolen baby incubators story about Iraq in Kuwait invented by Rep. Tom Lantos from out here. See John D. MacArthur’s Second Front for the story of how the corporate misreported Iraq both before, during and after the Gulf War. A neocon (by the way you NEVER asked me before for a definition) is a big government conservative who essentially wants to conserve the New Deal legacy of BOTH the welfare and warfare states. 90% of them started out as Henry Jackson Cold War Liberal Dems and most became Repugs during Reagan. I can give you a reading list here if you wish. I’ve read The Neoconservative Reader and frankly I think you need to read to read other sources directly critical of the neocon premises to get a more truthful view. I have not found the neocons to be a wonderful group of truth tellers and I largely wouldn’t label them stupid but they have used their intelligence for evil ends in the service of increased state power at home and abroad, thus posing a phony alternative to the evil left libs.
To pull out would not be as tragic as staying in, more US deaths, more Iraqi deaths and to what end ? Alexander Cockburn was there and his brothers Patrick Cockburn and Andrew Cockburn are in Iraq and Afghanistan now and just finished books on the subject of both invasions. I’m not totally discounting your military sources above for their empirical observations but I DO dispute the underlying premises of both Gulf wars, whether held by military or civilian writers,
Posted by blondemike on Mar 22, 2007 at 10:20 AM The Kurds were gassed by Soviet built IL-28 medium bombers. The same planes were dug up near Habbaniyah at the Al Taqaddum Air Base in 2003. The artillery used was Soviet built 150MM binary shells. 100 dud shells were recovered in Northern Iraq as well as thousands of fragments with mustard, sarin, and Tabun residue.
Iran had a critical shortage of aircraft in 1987-1988 due to a lack of parts.
Iran never had IL-28’s and use the SU-22 and -25 exclusively as ground attack aircraft.
Iran did not receive Russian weapons until 1992 after the collapse.
Iran did not gas the Kurds.
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 22, 2007 at 10:29 AM The Kurds were gassed by IRAN, see both the Reagan Administration reports at the time and the US Army War College. That story of alleged Iraqi gassing was only concocted several years later. By the way, Iran got Soviet weapons after the overthrow of the Shah, later they were cut off but initially the Kremlin did support the Islamic Revolution hoping to later subvert it but they failed and that was a primary reason their ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan. Please abstain from your pretended pseudo-authoritarian bullcrap of making emphatic arbitrary assertions from your totally discredited neoconmen sources. It’s doubtful that the weaponry used to gas the Kurds was of Russian origin and the West supplied military equipment to Iraq by the UK, West Germany, France and the US ag equipment, some of which was of a dual use nature. Iraq did not gas the Kurds. They were capable of it as was Turkey and Iran but the evidence points to Iran. Not some dubious “discovered” Bushie bullshit, like the missing WMDs..........Iran gassed the Kurds.
PS for WTH, i just noticed that on an earlier post above you had some ref about WW2 which appeared to contain the conventional nonsense about appeasement of Hitler UK, see The Origins
Of The Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor, the leading UK historians for a refutation of common fallacious beliefs in this area. Liddell-Hart’s book The Second World War also rebuts the myth of
British disarmanent.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 22, 2007 at 12:04 PM Mike,
I notice you you seem to have a habit of refuting most of generally accepted history in favor of a radical minority version — why is that? And why do you believe one over another?
Are you inferring that Chamberlain did not try to appease Hitler?
What myth of British disarmament? When years are you talking about?
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM Yes, to your second sentence. see the Taylor book and also if you have the time the five volume The Tragedy of Europe by Francis Neilson. Volume 1 will suffice here. Also UK conservative John Charmley has written separate books on Chamberlain and Churchill. Munich was the partial recrification of Versailles not the “appeasement” nonsense that was of Communist origin, the Stalinists thought Chamberlain as a staunch anti-Red was pushing Hitler, actually not a bad idea.........The 30s to answer your third question, same three sources listed above. There are others but these come to mind handily. Your first question is more complicated, but as a general rule truth is the first casualty in war as a book by that title proclaimed in the 70s. Again, a conservative author. No Commie nutcases. The history tends to be written by the victors and often bears little relation to the usually more nuanced picture. Part of it is as a libertarian I distrust Establishment or state versions but I can it is NOT just skepticism for its own sake. There have some recent revisionism trying to picture the Spanish Empire and the Roman Catholic Church in a far more favorable light than has been conventionally portrayed, so far I don’t think the evidence warrants this particular revisionism. At this point a revisionist look at Vietnam War would be a pro-war book, like Michael Lind’s. a revisionist look at McCarthy would be a pro-McCarthy book, like Arthur Herman’s (mostly.) So it is not one ideology or school of thought or any one philosophy. As to why I believe one version over the other, it pretty much comes down to what I think is the best overall explanation of the multitude of facts. Sometimes it can’t be decided empirically but only rationally in the sense of the best theory. Otherwise you get overwhelmed by brute facts and your rudderless. Hope this helps. As the old pun went, war doesn’t really determine who’s right but who’s left. After WW2 that was also true in the political sense since it was a tremendous victory for the International Communist
Movement or Conspiracy if you will. Although I opposed the draft always and eventually opposed the
Vietnam War I had the greatest contempt for the Communist dominated antiwar movement over here and their glorification of Uncle Ho. Well, a liberal is a socialist is a communist, you can see it
here on this board and the damn neocons are usually “ex” libs or “ex” Trots. Have no use for either.
So I’m out of the so-called “mainstream” which is a stagnant swamp as Rand noted in 1964.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 22, 2007 at 3:57 PM Mike,
I have always thought it at least as important WHY people (including myself) believe, as WHAT they profess to believe. I recall questioning religion in my teens and telling friends that had we been born anywhere other than “Christian America” we would be Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
I also remember four of us sitting in a car, all smoking and all “believing” that even if it was bad for your health, “they” would find a cure before it mattered to any of us. I’ve lost rack of two guys, but a third did develop throat cancer (is still clean after radiation 20 years ago) and I finally quit when I heard his diagnosis and I had developed asthma.
Ah, the wisdom of youthful believers. ;-)While I agree that “...history is written by the victors,” I would also submit that, in itself, does not make it false. While events which later become “history” are taking place much distortion is inherent. There is deliberate skewing for political and propaganda purposes along with human error or misperception.
The farther we get from events the more difficult it becomes to ascertain the “truth” and the easier to revise it. Whether the testimony is written or oral, time blurs and exaggerates memories.
I tend to put much more value (belief) on personal accounts such as the returning soldiers I have mentioned. But I keep in mind that their reported experiences are often local and possibly unique. The best validation is when the individual stories mate with those of a more general overview from higher command and control levels. The same applies to WWll and Korean War accounts from people I know.
So much is reported which has little or no attempt at documentation and to me is simply noise — especially on the internet and TV.
I have so many books on my “to read” shelf that I will not likely delve into these you referenced to look for alternatives to what is generally accepted history since I won’t know their motives or biases.I did read some of what is on counterpunch’s website and found a lot of personal opinion with little documentation. I tend to put such writing in a class with Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and so many others — controversy peddlers who know what sells today and how to promote it. Even when (if) they are accurate we’ll never know for sure (or care).
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 23, 2007 at 9:09 AM I agree that counterpunch is opinionated as is everyone but that hardly precludes accurracy or justifies perpetual agnosticism. There are such things as facts, at this point we know that Bush was lying about Al Queda connection, WMD’s, Iraqi alleged threats to US or Israel, 9-11connection, etc. It’s possible to have an opinion based on facts. I have to tell you that anecdoctal evidence or stories are considered the least reliable by both the police and historians. These returning vets may have their own sets of biases or rationalizations too. I’m not per se discounting them but eyewitness testimony is sometimes the least reliable. The more serious writers on counterpunch like Bill and Kathleen Christensen, formerly CIA analysts, who specialize in Israel/Palestine will have footnotes, the regular commentators usually don’t though some give refs. Something to check out, I as often disagree as agree myself.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 23, 2007 at 10:31 AM Mike,
“There are such things as facts, at this point we know that Bush was lying about Al Qaeda connection, WMD’s, Iraqi alleged threats to US or Israel, 9-11 connection, etc. It’s possible to have an opinion based on facts.”
--------------------------------------
It is also possible to disagree on what are the facts.
If you are willing to accept as fact what you state above you will come to one conclusion, but if you accept as fact reports from people who were at least in a position to have access to info not generally available, you may see things in a totally different light.
I have read and it the case of Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong also heard “facts” which refute the following which are conventional wisdom today:
• Bush lied about WMD —He claims the UN inspectors saw chemical components in dual use facilities (civilian/military production capabilities) That combining chemicals at two or more plants and then installing in a delivery system such as missiles, artillery shells or aerial sprayers, they constituted weapons.
• That even before the invasion we (Franks and DeLong) knew Saddam was moving them to Syria and possibly other places.
• Iraqi threats to the US — Saddam was supplying reward money to suicide bombers’ families.
I am in no better position than you are in deciding which “facts” are valid, but I am not as anti-military and tend to believe the General in this case. All of his comments during the Q&A;session were consistent.
He openly admitted mistakes we made. Trusting expatriate Iraqis, firing alll Baath party members, disbanding their regular army, too few troops to establish security and prevent looting.
His views of why we need to be there is at the very least plausible to me.
His criticism of shows like O’Reilly and others seeking more ratings than reality ring true to me.
And what he had to say confirmed most of the individual accounts I have heard from returning troops.
I will continue to hope for a better outcome than the even more bloody outcome precipitous withdrawal would bring. While the deaths reported daily are sad, they are minor compared to WWll when we were more rational and patient about defense and information.
Posted by whattheheck on Mar 23, 2007 at 11:16 AM That moving them to Syria bullshit never had any basis in reality and is only the pathetic fallback line of the last ditch Bush apologists. The ONLY suicide bombers Hussein gave money to were Palestinians fighting against the brutal Israeli Occupation. You might check out Robert Fisk’s massive 1,000 page book published last year The Battle For Civilization: The War In The Middle East, he’s a UK journalist who has lived in Lebanon for 30 years, frequently comes to the states and he has had a much better track record than the discredited neocon sources that you cite and to whom for some inexplicable reason you give the benefit of the doubt. Saddam NEVER subsidized Al Queda but only the Palestinians who have been illegally occupied for exactly forty years by Israel. The Saudis have sent them more, I support them and would probably be one of them if I was so unfortunate as to be a Palestinian. This General has no credibility at all if he believes what you have recited above and anyone who does enough research IS in a position to know the facts, your using the old Nixon era Vietnam that only the FedGov officials have all the facts so they are in a position to know. That was a lie then and a bigger lie now. I’ve noticed that your agnosticism ends whenever you read some pro-war rationalization. Furthermore, no soldier has told you that Saddam was giving $ to Al Queda suicide bombers, he totally repressed them, there was NO Al Queda in Iraq until our invasion. Nor have any soldiers told you of weapons of the WMD category being moved to Syria because no proof was ever presented of this claim. Furthermore this war is NOT a mistake, it’s a crime and an impeachable offense. After 10 years most of the US public came to regard Vietnam as fundamentally morally wrong, not merely a mistake. This time people caught on a lot quicker.
Posted by blondemike on Mar 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM Bullshit
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2002. He went to Iraq. Not my ideal vacation spot.Abu Abbas a Palestinian held an Iraqi diplomatic passport and fled to Iraq after the Achile Lauro hijacking and was captured in 2003.
Hisham al Hussein was the second secretary at the Iraqi embassy in Manilla in 2002-2003. He was ejected from the country after police traced calls from his cell phone to Al-Queda front terrorists. These phone calls to two different hajis were made immediately before and immediately after they blew up two Filipinos and an American soldier in Zamboanga City Phillippines.
Abu Nidal was responsible for 407 confirmed murders in 20 countries. He fled to Iraq and lived there for many years until his death in 2002.
Abdul Rahman Yasin was the Iraqi born mastermind behind the first Trade Center bombing in 1993. He escaped to Iraq and drew a government salary until the collapse.
Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was a facilitator for the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur. On January 5, 2000 he met two of the 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at the airport and drove them to another hotel where they met two Iraqi men Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Shakir was arrested in Quatar Sept. 17th 2001 and documents on his computer linked him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and an operation to destroy 12 airliners over the ocean. After the collapse of the Batthist regime three seperate captured rosters list him as a Lt. Colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.
Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the second consul at the Iraqi embassy in Prague. Under suspicion after local authorities observed him taking pictures of the Free Iraqi Radio station he was observed meeting Mohammed Atta. After the collapse of Iraq his personal calender was translated and the meetings observed were noted as a “Hamburg student”
The list goes on and on............
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 24, 2007 at 12:38 AM Bullshit is exactly what YOU posted above, all of that nonsense came from Powell’s UN speech WHICH HE HAS TOTALLY REPUDIATED AS A PACK OF LIES. THERE WAS NO AL QUEDA-IRAQ CONNECTION, AL QUEDA HAD ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO SADDAM HUSSEIN AND OSAMA BIN LADEN WANTED TO FIGHT HIM AFTER HE INVADED KUWAIT IN 1990. AS A NONBELIEVER SADDAM WAS HATED BY AL QUEDA, THE LIES YOU POSTED ABOVE ARE TOTAL DISINFORMATION CIRCULATED BY NEOCON LIARS AND SPECIFICALLY REFUTED BY ROBERT FISK IN HIS 1,000 PAGE 2006 BOOK THE GREAT BATTLE FOR CIVILIZATION: THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. FISK HAS SPENT 30 YEARS IN LEBANON AND ALONG WITH CHOMSKY HE’S AN EXPERT ON THE NEAR EAST. HE HAS FORGOTTEN MORE THAN YOUR SHABBY BEANER ASS EVER KNEW ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST. THERE WAS NO AL QUEDA OPERATING IN IRAQ UNTIL THE US INVASION, THERE WERE NO WMDS, NO 9-11 CONNECTION, NO THREAT TO ISRAEL, THE US OR ANYONE ELSE, I DON’T SUPPORT MURDERING SHIT TROOPS LIKE YOU AND HOPE YOU ALL COME BACK IN BODY BAGS BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL MURDERING LYING EXCREMENT AND GARBAGE, SO I’M NOW BACKING BUSH’S POLICIES BECAUSE I AM CONVINCED THEY WILL KILL MORE OF THOSE DIRTY ASSHOLE TROOPS THAN THE THE DEMS POLICIES. WHAT’S HAPPENING TO YOUR ROLE MODEL, ALBERTO BEANER IN DC ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM Bullshit Mikey
Every person on the list was investigated initially by neutral countries. The information was passed on to Washington and has been verified by CNN, NBC, Wall Street Journal, CBS, The 911 commission, CIA, NSA, BBC, and the UN among thousands of other news sources. Once again you are proven a semi-literate syncophant for the radical Left.Robert Fisk is a radical ideolouge, an anti-semite, and a subpar reporter. If the evidence does not support his Marxist philosophy he omits it. I wouldn’t wipe my ass with THE GREAT BATTLE FOR CIVILIZATION much less read that garbage. I prefer facts not opinions.
I don’t want or need your support Mikey. A pathetic racist scumbag without an original thought in your little white head.
“I think the best part of you ran down the crack of your mothers ass and ended up as a brown stain on the sheets.”
Thank you Gunny for the chance to use that quote.
Posted by texasindependent on Mar 26, 2007 at 11:52 AM This is a whole lot of NOTHING. This is exactly the hyped disinformation that Powell admits he lyingly spread in his UN speech. You do not have the ability toeither judge or read Fisk any more than you do Chomsky and although I disagree with Chomsky on more things than I agree with him on, he’s forgotten much more about the Middle East than you ever will know. All of the NEOCON sources listed above, CNN, WSJ, NBC, CIA, BBC have been totally discredited. I’m not a fan of the UN but they never endorsed the garbage above, Kofi specifically disavowed as did all the UN inspectors. The 9-11 Commission never endorsed this and the New York Times has retracted their earlier endorsement as has the BBC and Channel 4 in the UK. Scott Ritter said the above is total bullshit and he ought to know, again he has forgotten more than you ever knew on the subject of Iraq. Every statement above is a discredited lie that you got from Rush Dope Addict Limbaugh and he no longer even bothers to defend it. Speaking of ugly brown stains have you taken a look at yourself in the mirror, lately ?
Posted by blondemike on Mar 26, 2007 at 12:03 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Kristian Williams
- Counterinsurgency 101
General Petraeus says he thinks the war in Iraq is winnable. His recent manual suggests otherwise. - Undercover Cover-Up
Was a Portland attorney the target of the NSA domestic spying program? - Torturers R’ Us
President Bush denies reality
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
