An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
A Reluctant Surge Supporter
Enough of the President’s Iraq Speech has been leaked that I will go ahead and declare that although I rarely agree with Bush I support this surge.
It may be that 21,000 troops are too few to make a difference, but I support even the smallest chance that we can help move the Iraqi government to a tipping point were they can maintain public order.
I think it is worth the investment to try and deny the terrorists a victory.
To leave Iraq unstable, and the radicals validated, would make the world unsafe for hundreds of millions of people, and much more expensive to correct in the future.
24 Responses to “A Reluctant Surge Supporter”
I feel your pain! But for me the idea starts wth 2 strikes against it. First, we’ve already taken this course before with no lasting results. Second, it goes against so much ‘expert advice’, much of which the admin. itself initiated and promoted. What of all that time and energy spent by the Baker group, or the constant mantra:
We’ll do what the generals say is necessary…or we’ll just change the generals and do what I really wanted to do anyway. Strike 3 is when I think about all of my tax money going towards this purpose, it just makes me sick.
I hope it works.
Well the problem with that as I can see is that the stability of Iraq isn’t going to be determined by our troops. The people of Iraq have to sort it out largely for themselves. They have no national identity. Or rather, I’m sure they identify themselves as Iraqi only after having first identified themselves by tribe, and religous sect. Nothing our army does is going to change that fundamental aspect of how the people over there see themselves and their neighbors.
They also don’t have the same value attached to western freedoms that we do. They didnt fight for them, didn’t ask for them, and I haven’t even seen anything since Saddam was overthrown to indicate they particularly even want them. The strife is going to continue because ultimately they don’t want the same outcome for Iraq that we do. Victory under the terms we’ve established is impossible because it can only happen when the Iraqi people as a whole decide to make their victory conditions the same as ours. And thats not going to happen.
Until then, the various sects and militias will have no shortage of recruits, and no shortage of small arms, and will be able to carry out a guerilla war as long as they like. Being their home country they have nothing to lose.
“I think it is worth the investment to try and deny the terrorists a victory.”
More clarity, pls! The so-called ‘investment’ are the lives of several hundred US troops. And what terrorists ar you speaking about? Sunni ones (Baathists, Al Quaida) or Shiite (Mahdi army)? One way or the other, one side has to win, and the numbers say it will be Shia. Look at the violence and the ethnical cleansing in Iraq: There isn’t a chance for a united governement anymore. So, pls explain to us: What would be worse than the daths of several hundred US troops?
As uncomfortable as it is to say outloud, it would be worth the lives of more of our troops if there is a credible plan to help stop the ethnic cleansing and help the Iraqis get on top of Al Queada. Perhaps then the government can move ahead with a plan for federation and distribution of oil profits.
It’s worth lives if it works. And not worth lives if it’s a waste of time. The odds heavily favor the latter.
“As uncomfortable as it is to say outloud, it would be worth the lives of more of our troops if there is a credible plan to help stop the ethnic cleansing and help the Iraqis get on top of Al Queada. Perhaps then the government can move ahead with a plan for federation and distribution of oil profits.”
Wishful thinking. Paul, did you read any reports that suggest that Sunni and Shiite can come along without a violent strongmen à la Saddam ruling them with an iron fist?
Btw, from what I’ve read Al Quaida is a minor factor. The main problem are the Baathists and the Mahdi army. A very strong military presence, about 500000 troops (one soldier for 50 Iraquis), may pacify the country. And then, what? As soon as the occupation force leaves, the artificially dampened tensions will lead to violent struggles again. This problem can’t be solved militarily. And at this point a political solution that depends on national unity has already become unrealistic.
Paul that is the smartest thing I have heard anyone say in a long time about the war in Iraq.
Quote:
To leave Iraq unstable, and the radicals validated, would make the world unsafe for hundreds of millions of people, and much more expensive to correct in the future.
This is absolutely spot on. Truth of truth and a situation that could not be tolerated and would bode so bad for the free world that the consequences of such irresponsible action would be devastating.
Here in lies the rub. We must make it work………WE MUST.
I opposed the war vehemently. But I support making things right now that we are there…..WE have to………..WE JUST DO.
Gray,
I am absolutely guilty of wishful thinking. Only because the alternative is so frightening. I felt the same way during the Cold War and imminent threat of Thermonuclear War.
I have no practical idea how the Baathists and the Mahdi army would be mollified. Perhaps a solution lies in the giving them a discrete section of land. I don’t know.
“To leave Iraq unstable, and the radicals validated, would make the world unsafe for hundreds of millions of people, and much more expensive to correct in the future.”
Iraq would stabilize itself. There are more than three Shiite for every Sunni. More probably sooner than later a purely Shiite government will rule. If we like it or not, Shiite ‘radicals’ are the strongest group, they can’t be kept from power forever. And why would this make the world even more “unsafe for hundreds of millions of people” than today? You think Iraqi insurgents will become international terrorists?
“Only because the alternative is so frightening.”
Pls stop beating around the bush. Wtf is so frightening in letting the Iraqis solve their struggle among themselves?
“I have no practical idea how the Baathists and the Mahdi army would be mollified.”
Me, neither. I don’t want to be too cynical, but I expect that the ethnical cleansing will go on until Sunnis and Shiite live in seperate areas. Maliki will be forced out, and someone close to Sadr will take over. Maybe Saudi Arabia will support the Sunnis, and they manage to get their own small nation (that would be a total economical shipwreck from the start). If not, they will only have the option of keeping their mouth shut and make the best of the situation (not too much sympathy. After all, they were in Power under Saddam for several decades). The Kurds will make a deal for partial autonomy for their region, or they will declare independence. There might be tensions about oil rich Kirkuk, though. This whole process will result in several tenthousand Iraqi deaths. But, thinking of the Yugoslavian example, at least it will result in a stable situation in the long run. Iraqi national unity is already dead imho.
I am not as concerned about Iraqi’s sorting out the rule of their own country as I am about the exhilaration of the Radical Islamists from imposing their vision as we see them trying in that part of the world.
“I am not as concerned about Iraqi’s sorting out the rule of their own country as I am about the exhilaration of the Radical Islamists from imposing their vision as we see them trying in that part of the world.”
Sorry, but this sounds quite irrational to me. Iran is ruled by muslim fundamentalists since Khomeini returned from exile 1979. Well, where are all those Iranian terorists threatening the world?
Something that I’ve never understood from the beginning: Didn’t the administration consider what would happen when they created a majority Shiite state in the middle of Iran and Syria? Even if we successfully help Maliki establish a stable government, it will be a natural ally to these two countries. Maliki already refused to condemn Hezbollah, and one of his ministers blamed the violence in the country on the Jews. Are we creating another anti-semitic Islamic state?
Gary,
Isn’t it common knowledge that Iran is actively trying to undermine nearby governments through proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah
And aren’t we are risk from Al Quaeda and all of the other freedom fighters, terrorists and copycats around the world, like we are now seeing in Somalia?
Paul–
Do you think the fecklesness and incompetence on display in Iraq encourages or discourages our enemies?
I hope the surge works. The possible consequences of our failure are already obvious.
Oh right. We all forgot about the terrorists again. Those would be the guys in Afghanistan. That would be the country we’ve been begging NATO to send another 20,000 troops to. The country that’s facing a resurgent Taliban and steadily increasing violence. The front that we haven’t screwed up yet.
Now if only we could find 20,000 spare troops.
Shia is a predominant minority Islamic group in the middle east primarily owned and operated by Iran. The rest of the middle east are basically Sunni. The “Moderate Arab States” are already afraid of Iran, and would absolutely be horrified at the prospects of another country falling under the auspices of Shia RADICAL Militanisc Jihadist Philosophy.
You people are so opposed to war period, so opposed to anything a republican or GWB might do that you have put on blinders and just started screaming things like “Surge Bush, Master Bush, Decider Bush, Heir Bush…..and on and on. When all the man is trying to do is somehow try to get us to focus on the reality of this worldwide march to radicalism in the Islamic rule.
It has become so bad that Even China refuses to get involved Because their bordering provinces are full of Muslims, ruled by warlords who the Chinese government has ZERO control over and in fact will not even send troops into the region to try and quell any problems. In fact my Friends son is heading to China next month to teach English to these Muslims after spending 3 years in Jordan. But He is not being hired by the Chinese government he is being hired by a war lord who rules his own province in China………..The war lord is MUSLIM.
People stop with the Bush hating and start doing some research…..this surge is going on all over the world and if left unchecked you think you hate Christians now because we have stood up and said……..um fellas theres a problem here…….wait till you watch country after country fall to these extremists who butcher civilians by the 100,000′s while we sit back and blog about “McDonalds serving coffee that is too hot.”
Call me a fear monger, but I read The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, US NEWS, Time. I listen to foreign broadcasts from many countries via my shortwave. GWB and company have just done a very bad job of getting this message out because the antiwar is screaming so loudly that nothing they say matters anymore.
GWB promised to go after these radicals wherever they lived and we said okay………..course once he actually did…….we said um wait a minute, we thought you were only kidding.
Again for clarification purposes I was totally opposed to the Iraq invasion but I do understand what he is trying to do.
“Isn’t it common knowledge that Iran is actively trying to undermine nearby governments through proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah”
Well, isn’t it common knowledge that the US actively tried to undermine several governments all alround the world, especially in South America, through proxies in insurgent groups? Russia is doing the same thing in its sphere of influence. China too. Iran may not be a superpower, but it’s a heavyweight in the Middle East. No surprise it engages in the same dirty plays to enhnce it’s influence. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
“And aren’t we are risk from Al Quaeda and all of the other freedom fighters, terrorists and copycats around the world, like we are now seeing in Somalia?”
Yes. And judging from reasonable reports, Al Quaida still isn’t a major player in Iraq. Their main souce of support is Afghanistan (the Taliban are ont e rise again!) and Pakistan (which all but surrendered its border provinces to the Taliban). Al Quaida is a Sunni organisation. Without further interference from the US, Shia would win the civil war and control over Iraq. Do you think a Shia governement, vehemently opposed to Al Quaida, wouldn’t be a good idea?
“wait till you watch country after country fall to these extremists who butcher civilians by the 100,000’s while we sit back and blog about “McDonalds serving coffee that is too hot.â€?”
And what would be the right strategy to fight growing islamic fundamentalism? Engage fanatics with armed forces or support moderate muslims? By demonizing all of Islam, you actually push the moderates into the arms of the fanatics. This is a terrible approach which will inevitably lead to an escalation of the conflict (you may call that a surge of anti-american muslims, if you prefer that wording). You can’t wage war against more than a billion muslims all around the world. This is a sure way towards desaster.
“Call me a fear monger”
Sure. You’re a fear monger.
Well Gray if you wish to call me names then that just puts you in the camp I just spoke of. The anti war screaming so loudly that sane reasoning cant be heard.
No one is even remotely suggesting that the entire muslim world is evil or that we need to fight the entire Muslim world. YOU sir are the fear monger. You are the one that seems to be implying that gosh if we fight a few terrorists then we should be AFRAID that we will make some Muslims mad at us. You are a fear monger on the other side of the issue. Don’t fight it will be hard. We should be afraid to fight. Be afraid of stirring up the Muslim extremists.
Yeah I like your plan. Hide. Cower and preach fear on the other side. Be afraid to do anything therefore lets do nothing and pretend it does not exist.
“Well Gray if you wish to call me names then that just puts you in the camp I just spoke of.”
What’s your problem? You asked for it.
“The anti war screaming so loudly that sane reasoning cant be heard.”
You all but admitted an irrational fear about muslim fanatics taking over all of the world. This isn’t exactly sane reasoning, sorry.
“You are the one that seems to be implying that gosh if we fight a few terrorists then we should be AFRAID that we will make some Muslims mad at us.” I was arguing against waging war against fundamentalists (like the Iran leaders), not against fighting international terrorists (and no, I don’t see Iraqi insurgents as international terrorists). Obviously I should have said this more clearly. YOU are advocating war, without giving a second thought that this will cost the lives of many innocent muslims. All historic experience shows that this would turn even moderate muslims against the US, fuel the fanatics’ movement, and thus lead to an escalation. And your casual observation that this “will make some Muslims mad at us”, when the actual number is about one billion, shows how detached from reality you are regarding this whole topic. I can only conclude that all this talk about the US being a superpower made your brain blow a fuse.