Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
US Army War College Report: Iraq War Unnecessary

By imrdkl in News
Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:44:53 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

The Army War College has published a report, which strongly criticises the Bush administration's Global War on Terror (GWOT), and especially the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" (PDF) notes that the original purpose of the GWOT has grown from a search for justice for the thousands of Americans lost in the 9.11 attacks, in to something far too ambitious, and completely unrealistic.

According to the report, the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, and a strategic error.


Dr. Jeffrey Record, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute and the author of the report, is particularly concerned with "conflation" of Iraq and al-Qaeda as a "single undifferentiated terrorist threat". The result of the unnecessary invasion has been nothing more (or less) than a diversion of critical resources necessary to attain the original goal of justice for the victims of 9.11, and the rebuilding and stabilization of Afghanistan, from whence the original threat found it's origin and flourished. The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," Record writes.

To that end, then, Dr. Record advocates a refocusing of resources towards the threat posed by al-Qaeda, calling the current strategy "unrealistic", and likens the scale of the Bush administration's ambitions to those of Hitler in WWII. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number", he writes. The report also examines the definition of a "global war on terrorism", calling the current definition "frustratingly unclear", and even asking if it is a "war" at all.

Point by point, Record addresses the feasibility of GWOT objectives of the Bush administration, discussing costs (now approaching 150 billion dollars), losses, overestimation of resources, and continuing instability. Indeed, the administrations fiasco in Iraq has now cost more than 500 American lives, and shows little or no sign of stabilizing. To that end perhaps, and in spite of planning for the invasion long before 9.11, the administration has recently seen fit to abandon many of its original objectives for subjugating that country. Yet it's still quite clear that they won't be able to accomplish even a new, limited set of objectives without sending at least 110,000 new US troops, accompanied with the predictable loss of many more lives.

Nevertheless, as Record points out, Americans hate to "cut and run", and therefore he proposes a new strategy which he calls "Bounding the GWOT", wherein certain distinctions are made among terrorist groups, credible deterrence is substituted for preventive war, focus is returned to al-Qaeda, and regime change is sought in rogue-states via measures short of war. Additionally, he proposes acceptance of stability instead of democracy in Iraq, and a reassessment of US force levels, and especially ground forces, via substituting technology for manpower, along with other measures.

Record is the author of six books and is a former legislative assistant for national security affairs. The study has been endorsed by several other academics at the Army War College, although it comes with a disclaimer which states that its conclusions and views do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army.

Additional coverage:

  • Washington Post
  • Guardian
  • LA Times (free subscription reqd.)
  • Sponsors

    Voxel dot net
    o Managed Hosting
    o VoxCAST Content Delivery
    o Raw Infrastructure

    Login

    Poll
    Bound the GWOT?
    o Brilliant report, 100% accurate. Frame it and send it to GWB. 28%
    o Valid points that need to be addressed 54%
    o On target, but needs refinement. (comment?) 4%
    o I disagree with some of the reports conclusions 6%
    o I disagree completely 4%
    o This guy is an unpatriotic bozo 2%

    Votes: 75
    Results | Other Polls

    Related Links
    o PDF
    o more than 500 American lives
    o planning for the invasion long before 9.11
    o sending at least 110,000 new US troops
    o Washington Post
    o Guardian
    o LA Times
    o Also by imrdkl


    Display: Sort:
    US Army War College Report: Iraq War Unnecessary | 198 comments (184 topical, 14 editorial, 2 hidden)
    Whos Conclusion is "Unecessary" (1.27 / 22) (#6)
    by thelizman on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 09:14:56 PM EST

    I perused the report, and didn't find an instance where the author said the war was unnecessary. It simply discussed the need to differentiate threats, and the potential error of coupling State actors with non-State actors in the War on Terrorism.

    Point me to the page that concludes the war is unnecessary and you get a +1. Otherwise, I'm going -1 in an hour.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    yeah it was buried (3.00 / 16) (#7)
    by Kragg on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 09:42:31 PM EST

    in the second paragraph of the summary.

    The result has
    been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred
    Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic
    terrorism

    --
    "How can one learn to know oneself? Never by introspection, rather by action. Try to do your duty, and you will know right away what you are like." -- Goethe, Willhelm Meister's Travels.
    [ Parent ]

    Peruse a little better next time... (3.00 / 19) (#8)
    by Tyler Durden on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 09:43:02 PM EST

    On page 5, the second paragraph of the summary:

    The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda.

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    Well said (1.83 / 6) (#19)
    by Torka on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:48:47 AM EST

    Now watch as thelizman mysteriously fails to respond to your post.

    [ Parent ]
    What Are You So Scared Of (1.23 / 13) (#28)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:11:46 AM EST

    This is interesting. I ask a simple question. It gets four replies, only two of which answer the question. Then you chime in with your pedantic off topic comment. To wit, no reply is necessary on my part, other than my vote. But it's notable to point out that instead of seriously answering my question, you and your little left-wing buddies make your little troll statements. So what are you afraid of?
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    You still haven't replied to his post. (3.00 / 4) (#37)
    by polish surprise on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:27:03 AM EST

    You know, this isn't the Rush Limbaugh show. You get to respond to dissenting views.

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.
    [ Parent ]

    You're Not Paying Attention (1.37 / 8) (#53)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:04:58 PM EST

    There is no response required on my part. If you want a response from me, go check the vote-tally. And please grow up - you'll never have reasonable discourse if you don't...wait...nevermind, I don't think you and your ilk will ever be capable of reasonable discourse.

    I miss true liberals - the kind you could actually have intelligent discussions with. Not these neo-marxist socio-coms who call themselves liberal for palatability's sake.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    No, what you miss (none / 3) (#75)
    by polish surprise on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:27:43 PM EST

    is people who will concede to everything you say. You need a Colmes to play to your Hannity.

    "If you want a response from me, go check the vote-tally". Pfft. A non-response simply registering your disagreement with the article's views while failing to articulate any cogent counter-argument.

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.
    [ Parent ]

    I Got Your 'Polish Surprise' Right Here... (1.20 / 5) (#102)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:03:45 PM EST

    No, what you miss is people who will concede to everything you say.
    Not everything, but at least something. You leftwits are so vested in your anti-Bush anti-America anti-Capitalist hatred you can't even see your fractured logic and lack of supporting facts. It's all about rhetoric, and the better you can make it sound the more you think you're winning.
    "If you want a response from me, go check the vote-tally". Pfft. A non-response simply registering your disagreement with the article's views while failing to articulate any cogent counter-argument.
    I voted for the article. It was well written, reasonable Fair and Balanced™, and presented an articulated viewpoint not being expressed in the popular media. You see, here's the difference between myself, or a real liberal, and your brand of hate-spewing leftist brown-shirts. You guys will vote down an article because it disagrees with it's politics. People of real idealogical foundation have no problem with opposing viewpoints that are presented in a clear and articulate manner. It gives them the opportunity to address the salient points with counterpoints, and then present their own idealogical explanations and proposals. Since you belong to a idealogy that is bankrupt and bereft, you can't do that. So, it's on with the hate speech and lying.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    I belong to no such thing (3.00 / 4) (#116)
    by polish surprise on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:21:11 PM EST

    You just want to tar everybody who disagrees with you or calls you on the outrageous things you say with as broad an ad-hominem brush as possible. I'm not a "hate-spewing leftist brown-shirt", whatever the fuck that is. All I asked was whether you were going to respond to a factual refutation of your comment. But, of course, you did not, preferring to take another chance to lash out against whatever "anti-Bush anti-America anti-Capitalist" strawman lives inside your head.

    You are right in a way, though. The hate speech and lying are definitely on. But from whom?

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.
    [ Parent ]

    You Are Whacked! (1.20 / 5) (#131)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:06:17 AM EST

    All I asked was whether you were going to respond to a factual refutation of your comment.
    Where the hell is the 'refutation'? I asked where the conclusion was? That's not a refutation you ignorant moron. If you ask what 2 + 2 is, I am not refuting you by telling you it's 2. Here's a newsflash - a refutation requires an assertion to have been made.


    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    You are a neocon traitor (3.00 / 4) (#133)
    by polish surprise on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:46:46 AM EST

    You still haven't defended your assertion. When are you going to stop playing the blame game here, thelizman, and stand up for what you really believe in?

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.
    [ Parent ]

    Probably when (1.50 / 4) (#147)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:10:03 PM EST

    ...you get a clue. You're so blinded by rage you didn't even catch my simple arithmetic mistake. This is like fencing, only you've got a toothpick and I have a sabre.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Tell me (none / 2) (#151)
    by polish surprise on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:35:59 PM EST

    How long ago was it, exactly, that you decided to throw your support behind Bush and his neocon masters in their plans to play "global policeman"?

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.
    [ Parent ]

    How Long Ago Was It (none / 3) (#161)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:19:50 PM EST

    You abandoned any self respect and shred of dignity in order to dedicate your life to the hatred of Bush?
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Please (none / 2) (#165)
    by polish surprise on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:49:22 PM EST

    When you are willing to stop selling out your countrymen to Israel and Mexico, please let the rest of us know.

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.
    [ Parent ]

    Dude? (none / 3) (#152)
    by sllort on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:40:38 PM EST

    How did he manage to kick your ass with a toothpick?
    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
    [ Parent ]
    A reply IS necessary (2.75 / 4) (#69)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:50:10 PM EST

    "Uh, I foamed at the mouth and asked a stupid question because I couldn't be bothered to actually read what everyone was talking about" would do.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Left-wing? (2.75 / 4) (#77)
    by Torka on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:45:54 PM EST

    Where the fuck did you get that from?

    [ Parent ]
    Better yet ... (2.80 / 15) (#9)
    by pyramid termite on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 10:26:58 PM EST

    ... show us why they're wrong, if you can. Show us why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan weren't better pressure points on The War On Terror than Iraq was. Show us where the 4 meetings that Iraqi supposedly had with Mohammed Atta were more important than the funding and agents that came from Saudi Arabia to cause 9/11. Show us where the terrorist training camps in Iraq were more important than Pakistan's backing of the Taliban, and by extention, Al Qaeda.

    You know what I really think? The President's barking up the wrong tree and you're following him blindly.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Nice sig quote combo there (2.50 / 4) (#12)
    by richarj on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 12:49:42 AM EST


    • You know what I really think? The President's barking up the wrong tree and you're following him blindly.

    • On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.


    "if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Nice Tangent (1.33 / 12) (#30)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:13:30 AM EST

    ...what the hell does any of that have to do with my question? -1 typical libral reactionary blabbering.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Which is it? (none / 2) (#47)
    by fn0rd on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:32:10 AM EST

    Liberal or reactionary? Or did you forget, reactionay is our word for your side. You can't have it.

    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    OMG LOL! (1.20 / 5) (#52)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:02:47 PM EST

    Reactionary has nothing to do with "sides", dumbass. Reactionary is a mode of operation. For instance, I ask a question. Instead of asking a question, your boy there throws accusations. That is a "reactionary" response. Look up reactionary in a dictionary before you try to use it.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    you could try looking it up though (none / 3) (#55)
    by blue tiger on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:19:08 PM EST

    Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

    [ Parent ]
    Cut & paste (1.20 / 5) (#74)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:20:32 PM EST

    I'll cede the point that some moron along the way decided to include this definition (Webster's has lost credibility for their tendency to adopt popular culture slang - any dictionary with a listing for "MTV" is suspect). But then, you have to face the fact that I'm not an 'ultra-conservative'. In fact, I rank at about Senator Joe Lieberman's (D) spot on the x axis of left-right. Coincidentially, I'm closer to a moderate than John Kerry in terms of Fascism to Authoritarianism on the y axis. Ultra Conservative lies just to the right of where George Bush is.

    Here's the thing, knucklehead. You are so far whacked out into the left field, you don't even realize that everyone is right wing compared to you and your pedantic little cadre of socialist-wannabe trolls. You can't face the fact that you advocate left wing ideals because you want to believe that you and people like you form the centrist mainstream. The really funny thing is that you may not even believe the bullshit you're spewing. Go on over to the Political Compass take the test, and come back and tell me your cartesian coordinates, then we can talk about who is and isn't extreme.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Check a dictionary (none / 3) (#56)
    by Tyler Durden on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:20:56 PM EST

    Here's a link to one.

    I'll save you all the trouble. . .

    Reactionary:
    (noun) 1. reactionary, ultraconservative, extreme right-winger -- (an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism)

    (adjective) 1. reactionary, reactionist, far-right -- (extremely conservative)

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    Well, at least you laughed. (none / 2) (#57)
    by fn0rd on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:26:45 PM EST

    Though you seem not to have gotten the joke, which is disheartening. Fortunately, a couple of this comment's siblings have had the wit to turn the joke on you.

    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    Touche (1.20 / 5) (#72)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:08:12 PM EST

    ...your buddies are wrong.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Webster's agrees (none / 3) (#64)
    by micromoog on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:10:13 PM EST

    Here's another one, this time from Webster.

    Please stand by while I taunt your foolish comment:

    taunt

    taunt

    All further comments from you will now be disregarded due to extreme ignorance and belligerence, regardless of your re·ac·tion·ary politics. Have a nice day.

    [ Parent ]

    You're Face Will Stay Like That Forever (1.20 / 5) (#73)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:19:21 PM EST

    I'll cede the point that some moron along the way decided to include this definition (Webster's has lost credibility for their tendency to adopt popular culture slang - any dictionary with a listing for "MTV" is suspect). But then, you have to face the fact that I'm not an 'ultra-conservative'. In fact, I rank at about Senator Joe Lieberman's (D) spot on the x axis of left-right. Coincidentially, I'm closer to a moderate than John Kerry in terms of Fascism to Authoritarianism on the y axis. Ultra Conservative lies just to the right of where George Bush is.

    Here's the thing, knucklehead. You are so far whacked out into the left field, you don't even realize that everyone is right wing compared to you and your pedantic little cadre of socialist-wannabe trolls. You can't face the fact that you advocate left wing ideals because you want to believe that you and people like you form the centrist mainstream. The really funny thing is that you may not even believe the bullshit you're spewing. Go on over to the Political Compass take the test, and come back and tell me your cartesian coordinates, then we can talk about who is and isn't extreme.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Grammar is DESCRIPTIVE, not proscriptive (none / 2) (#92)
    by drakosha on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:03:00 PM EST

    *applauds* Oh, how I adore the people who are convinced that everything, including polysyllabic words, should wear a uniform and march in neat little squadrons. Am I the only one who's ever heard of living language? Hey lizman, I've got a question for you: Is there a way to block specific people on K5? Just curious...
    ----------------------------
    "Technologists often forget the general user. Technology is only as good as the user experience. That is something that technology groups very often forget."

    --Linus Torvalds, keynote address, LinuxExpo 2000.
    [ Parent ]

    Nice Answer (1.20 / 5) (#105)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:13:59 PM EST

    ...what's the matter, can't handle being confronted with the truth? You have to launch into your sad little faux-witticism about how - correct me if I missed this - the meanings of words are relative to the user? I'd love for you to keep that argument up, I've got some other threads from some of your buddies that would expose the dissonance in your mental map of the world.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    tee hee (none / 2) (#135)
    by micromoog on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:27:49 AM EST

    Oh man, keep it up and I'll just start turning to you for all my entertainment needs.

    The original comment I responded to said, paraphrased, "look it up in the dictionary, dumbass." People did just that, three (3) times over, and turned your vulgar attack back on you: swiftly, laughably, and just so darn completely.

    Then you claim Webster's is not a valid source . . . another word you may want to look up in the dictionary of your choice is back·ped·al.

    Now . . . your next move is to bring my politics into it (which, again, is irrelevant to the original discussion as my original purpose was simply to taunt and ridicule you for having so much egg on the face of the foot in your mouth). I will, however, respond to one point of your barely-tangible diatribe:

    You can't face the fact that you advocate left wing ideals because you want to believe that you and people like you form the centrist mainstream.

    How can I put this . . . I'm quite comfortable in my position on the "Political Compass", or whatever its name du jour (this is not a new idea, though it is a good one). This level of comfort stems from the fact that my politics are based on research of the issues combined with critical thinking . . . "forming the centrist mainstream" plays no part in my agenda. You, however, are quite concerned about the exact degree of moderateness of your politics, in addition to the exact way your political position compares to others (your examples were Lieberman and Kerry). Are your politics, honestly, based in critical thinking, or in a need to be on the winning team?

    Oh, and "your" (possessive) doesn't contain an apostrophe.

    [ Parent ]

    Your question was answered by 2 ... (none / 3) (#65)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:36:02 PM EST

    ... different people and wouldn't have been asked if you'd only bothered to read the links. Which part of the second paragraph -

    Of particular concern has been the confl ation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the fi rst order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but rather a detour from it.

    - didn't you understand?

    Or is it a case of not WANTING to understand?

    And it is not "typical libral reactionary blabbering" for me to bring up points that go to the heart of the strategic matter in question. What you're doing here is refusing to engage in rational discourse on the issues.

    So, don't expect to be taken seriously until you do.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Yet Another Moron Joins The Fray (1.20 / 5) (#76)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:39:54 PM EST

    I'll state this once and once more only for the cognitively impaired such as yourself. All I wanted to know was where the conclusion was reached. My perusal didn't reveal it. So when you ask a stupid question like "Which part of the second paragraph -didn't you understand", the answer is quite simply in my original statement that I "perused", don't expect an answer because - and I've stated this twice, had you actually done any reading yourself you'd know this - my answer will be in my vote.

    Now, I suggest you stop yelling, you turn off your computer, and you go out side and calm down. Your leftie-rage is getting the most of you, which isn't alot.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    must resist, must resist (3.00 / 4) (#82)
    by blue tiger on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:29:54 PM EST

    Sometimes people use it to mean "to glance over, skim," as in I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, but this usage is widely considered an error

    damn, it escaped. liz, please peruse some dictionaries from time to time ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Damn! (none / 1) (#89)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:52:31 PM EST

    I missed that. Actually he should start perusing then, shouldn't he? Thanks for the correction.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Discuss the issues or get lost (none / 2) (#84)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:41:04 PM EST

    I'll state this once and once more only for the cognitively impaired such as yourself. All I wanted to know was where the conclusion was reached. My perusal didn't reveal it.

    Well, what you need to do here is stop perusing, and READ the damned thing. ALL of it. I have and so can you. I found it to be one of the best discussions of the war on terror that I've read. If you don't agree, after you've read and thought about it, then write a rebuttal. That is the only answer I will consider to be significant, as your piddling little vote on a piddling little web site doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself.

    Now, I suggest you stop yelling, you turn off your computer, and you go out side and calm down. Your leftie-rage is getting the most of you, which isn't alot.

    Now, I suggest you stop trolling, you turn on your mind, you take your head outside of your ass, spit the shit out of your mouth and say something intelligent on the subject or be ignored by those who actually have something real to say about this. Can you do this?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    You Have Issues, No Discussion Needed (1.25 / 8) (#104)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:10:07 PM EST

    The issue was that I wanted to know the page that contained the conclusion. Someone told me. I voted the article up. What part of all this can you and your little network of troll-buddies not handle? Incidentally, you are the troller, I am the trollee. I have already tried to end this thread about three times, you insist on making an issue out of nothing.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    You trolled yourself (none / 1) (#115)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:20:49 PM EST

    The issue was that I wanted to know the page that contained the conclusion. Someone told me. I voted the article up.

    It's backpedal time, isn't it? You've just admitted that you had an unthinking knee-jerk reaction - you've even forced yourself to say, "It was well written, reasonable Fair and BalancedTM, and presented an articulated viewpoint not being expressed in the popular media." Congratulations.

    Perhaps next time you could save yourself the public embarrassment of making an ass out of yourself and just READ the damn thing before you spout off at the mouth. I await with interest whether you have anything substantial to say about the paper, or my initial invitation to actually discuss the issues I raised, which are relevant to the main discussion. The record shows that I gave you a chance to do that without being insulting. Your response was that I was "blabbering".

    Can't you see how badly you came off here?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    HA HA! You're a moron (1.50 / 4) (#130)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:03:55 AM EST

    A simple question is a knee jerk reaction when it questions your politics? Man, you really are whacked.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Correction - (none / 1) (#155)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:49:01 PM EST

    It wasn't a simple question - it was a STUPID question, one that you could have answered for yourself in a couple of minutes. That's why it's a knee-jerk reaction. It has nothing to do with my politics or yours.

    Appearantly you really don't have anything intelligent to say on the subject matter. But then you're not really here to do that, are you? You're just a liberal hater who wants to flame liberals.


    You're not very good at it, either.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    A Sound and a Fury (none / 3) (#162)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:35:55 PM EST

    It wasn't a simple question - it was a STUPID question, one that you could have answered for yourself in a couple of minutes.
    That paper cannot be read in a few minutes. I asked a simple question, and I got attacked. You must be a Dean supporter.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Oh, phooey (none / 1) (#170)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:50:13 PM EST

    That paper cannot be read in a few minutes.

    I think you could have managed to get to the second paragraph in a couple of minutes. Maybe.

    I asked a simple question, and I got attacked.

    And used it brilliantly to derail the discussion, just like a t***l.

    You must be a Dean supporter.

    Feh. He's a phony. We both know that. I'll have to study my 3rd party options, I'm afraid.

    You know, somewhere this is being discussed intelligently. Perhaps I ought to go there.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Iraq war is uneeded and stupid! (none / 2) (#40)
    by duffbeer703 on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:37:49 AM EST

    So let's attack Pakistan instead!

    Seriously, did you ride the short bus or what?

    [ Parent ]

    I said Pakistan was a better pressure ... (none / 1) (#66)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:39:43 PM EST

    ... point, not that an attack was necessary. There are many options short of all-out war.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    free republic misses you (nt) (none / 2) (#29)
    by phred on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:12:14 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    How Timely (1.25 / 8) (#31)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:20:20 AM EST

    So did the mass e-mail go out last night, and you only got it this morning, or am I to believe you and all your buddies are actually up at 8:00 am?
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Oooh, look ... (none / 1) (#67)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:42:13 PM EST

    ... another paranoid conspiracy theory kook.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    I Got A Paranoid Conspiracy Theory For You (1.50 / 4) (#79)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:53:35 PM EST

    ...president Bush planned the invasion of Iraq since before the 00 elections, and allowed 9/11 to happen in order to build public support for military action that would topple Hussein in revenge for daddy, allowing Cheney and his buddies to get all that oil.

    There's another one out there that's just as good. In order to build support for war in Iraq, Bush lied to the public about intel he knew was bogus just hoping that everyone else who knew it was bogus wouldn't say anything so he could claim that the peace loving Saddam Hussein was running a clandestine WMD program, when in fact he was planting flowers and searching for the cure to cancer.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Uhhh (none / 1) (#101)
    by Tyler Durden on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:01:13 PM EST

    I think you mean Dick Cheney.  Him and his buddies over at the Project for the New American Century have been working on the Iraq invasion plan since the first Gulf War.  Bush isn't smart enough to plan anything himself.

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    The Man Has Two Degrees... (2.00 / 7) (#103)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:05:55 PM EST

    ...from Ivy League Schools, and he can't handle something as simple as "we drive them thar tanks up through Basra an intuh Baghdad"? Your hate is strong, master it, and you will become Sith.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Didn't know that... (none / 1) (#107)
    by Tyler Durden on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:24:59 PM EST

    Pretty interesting.  Although I couldn't find what his Bachelors degree was for, do you know?  Frankly, I don't consider an MBA to be a degree at all, but props to him for doing the time and getting the paper.

    Good SW quote too.

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    He's the first president (none / 2) (#109)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:30:20 PM EST

    With an MBA (Management, I think). But a light saber beats a blaster every time, it's true.

    [ Parent ]
    Masters of Black Arts from Hogwarts? (1.80 / 5) (#110)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:40:39 PM EST

    But a light saber beats a blaster every time, it's true.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Anyways (none / 1) (#136)
    by imrdkl on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:35:31 AM EST

    They're tearing you a new asshole up above, eh?

    [ Parent ]
    Pfft, Not Even Close (none / 3) (#148)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:11:29 PM EST

    The lack of logic 'up there' is stunning. They've proceeded so far on an assumption, and now they're attacking me for something I didn't say, and claiming victory 'refuting' my question. It's fun watching them crack up.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Well, thanks for your section vote (none / 1) (#160)
    by imrdkl on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:19:38 PM EST

    It's good to know you approve of the report.

    [ Parent ]
    Shhh! (none / 2) (#163)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:39:43 PM EST

    The leftwit trolls don't know I approved of this article.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Oh, they know (none / 1) (#171)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:52:09 PM EST

    They just don't give a fuck. HTH.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Accreditation (none / 1) (#111)
    by debillitatus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:22:45 PM EST

    Frankly, I don't consider an MBA to be a degree at all

    Any reason for such an opinion? I ask only because this puts you in disagreement with, oh, I don't know, every university in the US.

    Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
    [ Parent ]

    estimates of bush's IQ (none / 1) (#142)
    by phred on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:53:10 AM EST

    seem to be about half of clintons. Of course, clinton is generally acknowledged to be a pretty brilliant guy, hard act to follow.

    My biggest gripe with bush is not with his low IQ, but with his lack of work ethic and poor decisionmaking.

    [ Parent ]

    Yet Another Drone To Deal With (none / 3) (#149)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:20:41 PM EST

    phred, why do you live on lies? President Bush's IQ is not half of Clintons. As for his work ethic, I don't know how you can say any President lacks a work ethic, when their job is 24/7. As to the decision making, you may disagree with his decisions, but it'll be years before you can expect to say if they are wrong or right with any degree of credibility.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    reply (none / 1) (#150)
    by phred on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:28:49 PM EST

    Thats the one I read. I don't really mind that this has been discounted, as its still pretty believable. I just really haven't seen much evidence that bush is much smarter or that clinton is much dumber. If bush appeared as a bright individual, this "hoax" would have gone nowhere.

    Bush strikes me as an individual that doesn't do his homework or understand situations in meetings, as again reported (and refuted of course). While he's probably required to wear a presidential suit 24/7, I doubt he works more than 3 hours a day, I just can't picture him handling anything substantial. Since you're pretty well informed, maybe you can point me to something that indicates that he isn't totally worthless, I'm open minded enough to read what you can find.

    It won't be years before I can say whether he's right or wrong on many counts. I can mention one for sure, the decision and manner of invading Iraq. I ultimately hope that things calm down in Iraq, but this doesn't negate the manner in which this adventure was undertaken, and even though the US's victory was always assumed, this still lends no weight to a unilateral decision to make the US into the international aggressor that the country is now. This judgement can be made now, irregardless of what the future brings. If I preemptively judge a suspective criminal without due process, that decision can be seen as bad _immediately_, irregardless of any supposed future benefit guessed at by prognosticators.

    So you're definitely wrong on the second count and I concede the first, Bush only _appears_ astoundingly dim.

    [ Parent ]

    Appearances are Subjective (none / 3) (#159)
    by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:18:30 PM EST

    Bush strikes me as an individual that doesn't do his homework or understand situations in meetings.
    I just don't understand how you can say this? It's not like you're in the same meetings.
    If bush appeared as a bright individual, this "hoax" would have gone nowhere.
    I think the hoax says more about the people who propagate it than it does about Bush. They're gullible. They fall for 419 scams. They do these things because they don't apply common sense, or research the facts.
    Bush strikes me as an individual that doesn't do his homework or understand situations in meetings, as again reported (and refuted of course). While he's probably required to wear a presidential suit 24/7, I doubt he works more than 3 hours a day, I just can't picture him handling anything substantial. Since you're pretty well informed, maybe you can point me to something that indicates that he isn't totally worthless, I'm open minded enough to read what you can find.
    I don't know what evidence to provide you. You are going on your own perceptions, and I can't change the way you percieve the world. All I know of the President's daily schedule comes from a report two years old by now. He's up at 6:00 for his jog, in his office in a suit and tie at 7:00, then orders his staff home at 5:00, but high-level advisors are routinely there late. This doesn't inlcude jet-lagged trips around the country or world, appearances at dinners, fundraisers, conventions, 3rd grade classrooms, and making public announcements.
    It won't be years before I can say whether he's right or wrong on many counts. I can mention one for sure, the decision and manner of invading Iraq
    So then by that logic we are wrong to have invaded Germany? We had no business being there at the time, Germany hadn't attacked us.
    this still lends no weight to a unilateral decision to make the US into the international aggressor that the country is now
    I'm interested in your definition of Unilateral. The US, Britain, Poland, Australia, Spain and 30-something other countries supported the invasion. The only true democracies that opposed the invasion were Germany (who sold Iraq EIMS uranium processing equipment and uranium hexaflourane gas centrifuges for their nuclear program), France (who was selling them more conventional arms, and had purchased millions of barrels of oils each year on the black market from Iraq), Russia (who had billions in debts outstanding with Hussein's regime), and Japan. Note that "uni" in 'unilateral' means "single".

    What matters most is how history judges your actions, and I think that ten years from now history will see this war as the liberation of Iraq, the end of the most murderous dictator of the last half of the 20th century, and the start of a democratic revolution for the oppressed people of the middle east.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    replies (none / 1) (#174)
    by phred on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 11:34:12 AM EST

      • Bush strikes me as an individual that doesn't do his homework or understand situations in meetings.

    • I just don't understand how you can say this? It's not like you're in the same meetings.

    Thats why I said "Bush strikes me", this is an impression. Additionally, theres been a bit in the news concerning how well he participates, with the caveat that this probably comes from a biased point of view also. I derive much from what I hear him say too.

    Its probably safe to say that you have a different impression of Bush, which is ok by me. Certainly many folks agree with you, theres no denying the numbers.

    • I don't know what evidence to provide you. You are going on your own perceptions, and I can't change the way you percieve the world.

    You actually have a good chance of changing my perceptions, if what you say makes sense to me.

    • So then by that logic we are wrong to have invaded Germany? We had no business being there at the time, Germany hadn't attacked us.

    I'll disagree with you here, as this implies that the circumstances were identical.

    • I'm interested in your definition of Unilateral.

    The UN didn't order the invasion.

    I certainly hope for better times in Iraq and for a good outcome. While I can object to the origional invasion, this is past history, and its best for all that the world has as best an outcome as possible, even if this lends Bush political capital.

    [ Parent ]

    allow me to summarize: (1.50 / 14) (#15)
    by Lode Runner on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:07:44 AM EST

    Career consultant for prominent Democrats criticizes Republicans' war and foreign policy. Quelle surprise!

    Note report's near-perfect resonance with Dean's platform. Krugman's on it too, complete with scurrile appeal to authority of Record's position at US Army War College.

    Foreword (none / 1) (#17)
    by marx on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:33:26 AM EST

    The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to offer this monograph as a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism.

    DOUGLAS C.LOVELACE,JR.
    Director
    Strategic Studies Institute


    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
    [ Parent ]

    speaks well (none / 1) (#18)
    by Lode Runner on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:16:04 AM EST

    of the military establishment, doesn't it?

    A little context (courtesy of the AP):

      Lt. Col. Merideth Bucher, public affairs officer for the Army War College, said Monday it is not unusual for students, mostly higher ranking officers, at the war college to be exposed to critical thought that might be contrary to current national policy. She said students are often exposed to speakers with varying views.

      The director of the Strategic Studies Institute, Douglas Lovelace Jr., said it was originally founded by President Dwight Eisenhower to take a critical independent analysis of military issues from an academic perspective.

      "Dr. Record is a noted national security specialist. It's not at all at odds for us to analyze a given mission and arrive at a conclusion that seems at odds with national policy," Lovelace said. He said in the past the institute has released studies analyzing U.S. policy in Haiti, Afghanistan and other hot spots.



    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand (none / 2) (#20)
    by marx on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:21:57 AM EST

    What is your criticism of the report? That it comes from an institute with a mission to critically analyze the US military? You seemed to be criticizing the credibility of the author, but this is not a report from some author somewhere, this report has gone through the process at this government institute.

    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
    [ Parent ]

    My criticism is aimed (none / 2) (#21)
    by Lode Runner on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:46:26 AM EST

    precisely at people claiming that the report is anything more than the ramblings of "some author somewhere". I hate to bear bad news, but "the process" at "the government institute" isn't as rigorous as you're hoping it is; and the report's publication in no way denotes a military that regrets Iraq. This'll all come to light when someone important makes the mistake of citing Record.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 1) (#23)
    by marx on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:17:04 AM EST

    It's not like it's a scientific report, so it could well enough just be opinion.

    Still, as far as I can see, the US military paid for this report to be written, the US military financially supports this institute. Criticism which originates from within an organization is always more credible than from without.

    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
    [ Parent ]

    exactly what they're hoping for (none / 1) (#59)
    by Lode Runner on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:48:40 PM EST

    Criticism which originates from within an organization is always more credible than from without

    Today's lesson: never, ever trust institutions, especially when they broadcast internal criticism. To resolve the issues raised in the report the USA must either: 1) retreat into a shell and never intervene again without the express consent of the International Community (unrealistic); or 2) significantly increase the military's budget and the reach of its discretion.

    [ Parent ]

    haha 'intervene' (none / 2) (#119)
    by Wah on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:55:59 PM EST

    if be 'intervene' you mean invade a country and kill 10,000 people for what have plainly become excuses to invade rather than reasons to defend ourselves.

    And it's not consent, but support that is needed.  Since consent is a pre-cursor to support, yea, it seems pretty obvious that if we want to continually attempt to dominate the world militarily in the face of international opinion, we have to spend an assload more money.

    Option 'Sane' which you left out, would be to forget the idea of a global empire and just build the best damn country possible.  Good luck convincing the PNAC'ers of that though.  Hell, I heard from Fox News that it's treason to question our leaders.

    And a quote for you, from a very strange place (the source of the front page of the NYC hack), just for fun.

    Seems to cover some of the greater dangers that can come from the GWOT.  It certainly applies to the asshats in Al Queda, my hope is that we can avoid the same fate.

    As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.

    -Christopher Dawson


    --
    "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
    ..or simply
    [ Parent ]
    You're making it sound (none / 1) (#125)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:03:12 AM EST

    as if there was a humane alternative to deposing Saddam by force and that you know what that alternative is and that you offered it for consideration. Condition: forcing Iraqis to live in a "contained" Ba'athist Iraq isn't humane.

    Although I refuse to be lectured about geopolitics by those who persist in spelling Qaïda with a "u", I will rush to agree with the specific Dawson sentence you provided.

    You'll need an American Massu to be vindicated, and until then you'll accomplish nothing constructive trying to convert criticism of the struggle in Iraq into political capital.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice shift of gears (none / 1) (#164)
    by Wah on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:06:13 PM EST

    let's move on to another topic then, if you wish.

    [wah is making it sound] as if there was a humane alternative to deposing Saddam by force and that you know what that alternative is and that you offered it for consideration. Condition: forcing Iraqis to live in a "contained" Ba'athist Iraq isn't humane.

    This is a tough one to pull apart, and is the general basis of the anti-war criticism.  "What's the Alternative?" Always a good question, and if I let it stand that what we are talking about is "Liberating Iraq Right Fuckin' Now!", there isn't one.

    If, however, the goal is to fight terrorists, then we see, well, we see the report at the head of this article.  If, however, the goal is to relieve suffering in the world, $150,000,000,000 could have been used to wipe out hunger for a generation, rather than ousting a depleted regime (to be replaced by...chaos?).  If, however, the goal is to create regime change in Iraq by force, and from O'Neill's recents statement and public statments by the PNAC'ers that's what it seems to have been, then you don't discuss alternatives, you give them lip-service.

    As far as alternatives in general to the war on Terror, I posted a few here, back before the war in response to a similar request.  Tear 'em apart if you wish.

    One of the lessons that seems to have come out so far (and all the data isn't in yet, so who knows) is that sanctions are damn hard to work through.  Also, they don't really do that much weaken the ruler of a country, they just weaken the country and the power ratios stay the same.  

    See, the tough part is that I think deposing Hussein is a great thing, but I hate the way we went about it.  And, basically, it is my position that the way we went about it overshadows the good that we did (hence the quote).  

    We got ourselves into a mess (and one that could get damn ugly now that the Shia can become 'dead enders' now that they won't be fighting for Hussein, only against their occupiers), that doesn't seem to be helping the main fight (see: Rumsfeld's memo).

    So, you asked about alternatives, and I respond with goals.  Enjoy, and I hate to look up unicode just to spell correctly, you know what I meant.  

    I seriously doubt that vindication is in the cards, fully half of my countrymen believe Hussein was personally reponsible for 9/11.  So I don't share their joy in the war for that reason, nor their joy in Bush.
    --
    "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
    ..or simply
    [ Parent ]

    means != ends (none / 1) (#168)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:20:20 PM EST

    I'd agree that there are some lessons we should draw from the '80s and '90s to prevent the advent of future Saddams, but there was only one way to deal with today's Saddam.

    $150,000,000,000 could have been used to wipe out hunger for a generation, rather than ousting a depleted regime (to be replaced by...chaos?).

    How do you feed people who're being starved by dictators? Throwing grain at them (Ethiopia) doesn't work at all, as opposed to deposing nasty regimes. . .

    The "chaos" you decry has claimed fewer lives than a typical six months under Saddam. That's why polls reveal that most Iraqis prefer it to their lot a year ago.

    As for unicode, I have a fancy keyboard that has q a e d a--and even i if that's your fancy--painted right on the keys! Accent over the i or not, the u doesn't belong.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you base this on? (none / 1) (#24)
    by GreyGhost on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:27:49 AM EST

    I hate to bear bad news, but "the process" at "the government institute" isn't as rigorous as you're hoping it is; and the report's publication in no way denotes a military that regrets Iraq. This'll all come to light when someone important makes the mistake of citing Record.

    Also - where is your opinion on Record being a hired gun for the Democrats coming from?



    [ Parent ]

    Sounds Like A Best Guess (1.50 / 4) (#34)
    by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:18:15 AM EST

    It's all the rage these days for centrist of fence sitters who aren't part of the current political power structure to switch 'sides' in order to have the opportunity of political advancement. Prime Example: Wesley Clark. To wit, Lovelace served his country as an REMF during VietNam, holds more than a few advanced degrees, and has published several papers while holding the McArthur chair at the War College. His resume screams establishmentary leftist (the War College is one of those peculiar creatures which seeks to reconcile the nonsensical world of ivory tower academia with pragmatic military jingoism), but there's no real evidence he's a 'hired gun' for democrats. Of course, there's no evidence I'm a hired gun for the Republicans. The keyword in either case is 'hired' - does a paycheck mean anything in politics?
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    ahhh (none / 1) (#26)
    by havesometea on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:22:36 AM EST

    Your criticism is aimed at anyone who doesn't share your worldview...be honest.

    [ Parent ]
    my Weltanschauung (none / 1) (#62)
    by Lode Runner on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:04:06 PM EST

    can't be shared, but it's true that if I could craft my comments so as to criticize everyone who disagrees with my views I would.

    [ Parent ]
    NOT AN ENDORSEMENT. (2.50 / 4) (#22)
    by ti dave on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:15:18 AM EST

    His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

    THAT HISSING SOUND YOU HEAR IS THE WIND ESCAPING FROM YOUR CALCULATED MIS-REPRESENTATION.

    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it resonates (none / 2) (#90)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:55:06 PM EST

    It has a good tone.

    [ Parent ]
    Shrill (none / 1) (#124)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:39:11 AM EST

    can resonate with shrill, I suppose, but the tone hurts my human ears.

    [ Parent ]
    Very nice (3.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Wah on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:32:34 PM EST

    I especially like the part where you got your own ad-hominem logical fallacy out of the way before you attacked the 'scurrile' appeal to authority.

    And, frankly, I don't see an appeal to an authority with a PhD in international relations, over 30 years of experience in anayzing such events (including time in Vietnam), and a history of pointing out U.S. military gaffes would be something a buffoon does.

    What would really be useful, rather than the 'oh, my god, he's touched hands with a Democrat' argument, would be to find someone with the same lifetime of experience, and have them write up a report pointing out what a smashing success our excursion to Iraq has been.

    Then you can link to it.  
    --
    "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
    ..or simply
    [ Parent ]

    oh, for the nth time! (none / 1) (#123)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:34:22 AM EST

    The ad hominem is not fallacious when it's used to challenge an illegitimate appeal to authority.

    Indeed, I'm employing what you term the "OMG, he's touched hands with a Democrat" though I prefer a more illustrative verb than "touching". Something like "clasping," and I'd add "since the '70s".

    When The New Republic publishes the counterpoint to Record I'm looking for, I'll link it and reassure everybody that there's still some hope for the Democratic Party. And if such a counterpoint appears in The Nation (not bloody likely!), then I'd even be tempted to claim that the Left in general is possibly coming to its senses.

    [ Parent ]

    So then... (none / 1) (#139)
    by Wah on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:25:58 AM EST

    The ad hominem is not fallacious when it's used to challenge an illegitimate appeal to authority.

    ...you agree it was fallacious in this instance?  Or does it take 35 years of studying U.S. military incursions and 2 doctorates before you take information you don't like at face value (or even discounted by some ratio.  Anything would be better than the 0 we're sitting at now).

    And I like how you say it's not really an ad hominem because the Democrats are involved.  I think that makes it an uber ad hominem, amigo.
    --
    "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
    ..or simply
    [ Parent ]

    Education isn't the authority (none / 1) (#141)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:49:49 AM EST

    most lefty commentators are appealing to. Rather it's Record's position in the Army War College. Otherwise they'd open themselves up to heeding the multitudes of overschooled rightwing think-tankers.

    You'll note that none of the significant Democratic presidential candidates have cited the report in question.

    [ Parent ]

    strange world over there (none / 1) (#144)
    by Wah on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:28:45 PM EST

    You'll note that none of the significant Democratic presidential candidates have cited the report in question.

    Curious, considering the front-runner as not a 'significant presidential candidate'.

    Dean cited a report from the Army War College that found that Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States and that the war was a distraction from the real threat of terror facing America; a report by the Carnegie Endowment that found no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's remarks that the administration was set on regime change in Iraq from day one.

    link.
    --
    "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
    ..or simply
    [ Parent ]

    my bad (none / 3) (#146)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:35:18 PM EST

    It looks like I overestimated Dean's intelligence after all. Oh well, more fodder for his detractors. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Or how about this... (none / 2) (#156)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:51:19 PM EST

    Reknown teacher of military tatics says the US administrations diversion into Iraq breaks every well learned rule of military tatics going back to Sun Tzu. Righty-Tighties claim he's a leftwing shill because he doesn't agree with the decision to go to war of a guy whose only military experience was a national guard stint to avoid the Viet Nam war....quelle surprise! Gee, who am I more likely to believe.
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]
    if the Times (none / 2) (#169)
    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:28:06 PM EST

    ever drops Krugman, you should consider applying for his spot.

    And for the Record, they call him a partisan (not a shill, though) because he spent a good part of his career getting paid to support the efforts of key Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll take that as a compliment... (none / 1) (#191)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:44:40 PM EST

    ..though I'm not sure, since I don't really know who this "Krugman" is. Not everybody reads or cares to read "The Times" (I'm assuming it's the NY Times). Just because he's well known in your country doesn't make it so outside your borders.
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]
    HTML view of the report (2.16 / 12) (#25)
    by CtrlBR on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:21:00 AM EST

    For you that have an allergy to PDF courtesy of Google an HTML translation.
    If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
    --
    please (1.06 / 15) (#81)
    by Estanislao Martínez on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:13:27 PM EST

    take the karma whoring back to slashdot thx

    --em
    [ Parent ]

    Hey, lay off (none / 3) (#100)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:52:43 PM EST

    The guy took the time to figure out how to do it, and not everyone has an acrobat reader (or even one of it's emulations) installed. Sheesh. More people might actually read the report, and some of them might actually contribute intelligent commentary, which can't be a bad thing.

    [ Parent ]
    It's just that (none / 1) (#132)
    by CtrlBR on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:13:06 AM EST

    I came to late for this to be an editorial comment and integrated in the submission. For something that is all text and for on screen reading I for one prefer a HTML view.

    And AFAIK there is not even "mojo" anymore since everyone is a trusted user...

    If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
    -- Parent ]
    the new lie (2.33 / 6) (#27)
    by karb on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:30:12 AM EST

    the administration has recently seen fit to abandon many of its original objectives for subjugating that country

    I always wondered what the blood-for-oil set would say when the US walked away from a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan ... it would prove many of their conspiracy theories wrong. Maybe they would have to admit they were incorrect in judging the Bush administration.

    But I guess this is the new thing. Portray the hastened timeline in Iraq as 'abandoning objectives for subjugating'. That clears the way for identifying the Iraqi guerillas as the real heroes, bringing democracy to their people, when in reality that's all they oppose. Yaay!

    Although that might be asking a bit much ... these people predicted all sorts of disasters that never materialized, but when we look back we say in one voice "Bush, where are the WMDs?"
    --
    Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

    easy to explain (none / 2) (#33)
    by phred on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:46:12 AM EST

    For example, "once the Bush administration encountered setbacks in Iraq, they moderated their goals", etc...

    As far as I'm concerned, the damage has already been done by the Bush administration, irregardless of the outcome in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    Track record, anyone? (none / 2) (#36)
    by drakosha on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:10:46 AM EST

    Care to name one country which was turned democratic by US force of arms, and then had the US walk away from it, with said country all teary-eyed and smiling, thanking the liberators?
    ----------------------------
    "Technologists often forget the general user. Technology is only as good as the user experience. That is something that technology groups very often forget."

    --Linus Torvalds, keynote address, LinuxExpo 2000.
    [ Parent ]

    Germany? (none / 2) (#41)
    by hesk on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:42:40 AM EST

    Although we did have a democracy before that, one of the most liberal world wide. Unfortunately it didn't last quite long.

    --
    Sticking to the rules doesn't improve your safety, relying on the rules is
    [
    Parent ]

    Japan, maybe (none / 3) (#49)
    by NoBeardPete on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 12:26:55 PM EST

    They've got their problems, but they're a pretty decent democracy now. I'm not real confident on my history, but I don't think they were before WWII.


    Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
    [ Parent ]

    Neither Germany nor Japan... (none / 1) (#58)
    by fn0rd on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:30:45 PM EST

    ...were walked away from.

    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    Uh... (none / 1) (#97)
    by cr8dle2grave on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:28:28 PM EST

    ...by any reasonable interpretation of "walked away," Germany and Japan would certainly qualify.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    That's quite a charge you're leveling. (none / 1) (#175)
    by fn0rd on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 12:24:58 PM EST

    That I'm not reasonable, that is. I think I am. I'd say "walked away" in the context of the end of WWII would refer to the allied countries, and the US in particular, simply leaving the defeated Axis nations to their own devices, rather than occupying them and helping to reconstruct their societies for years, as well as maintaining a military presence which continues to this day. So far, we haven't walked away from Iraq, yet. Some doubt the will of the current administration, not to mention the next should there be a new President in 2004, to finish the job in Iraq the way we did in Germany and Japan.

    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    I believe we're talking at cross purposes here... (none / 1) (#177)
    by cr8dle2grave on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:45:00 PM EST

    The parent comment which launched this tangent implied that the US had never successfully used military force to establish a successful and independent democracy. "Walking away" in this context would mean something along the lines of "handing over full authority and fully acknowledging sovereignty." You seem to be using "walked away" to indicate "leaving before the job is done properly."

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Japan, Germany and Italy (none / 3) (#60)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:50:00 PM EST

    You might try to argue that the bases the U.S. has maintained there don't constitute "walking away" but honestly those bases benefited them more then us.

    In fact, If I remember Germany protested when we recently anounced plans to close some of our bases there.... and Japan's parliment has balked every time we have asked them to shoulder more of the burden of thier own defense spending.

    [ Parent ]

    Considering.. (none / 1) (#93)
    by Craevenwulfe on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:05:35 PM EST

    that Japan has set rules as to how it will use its army, it already has a huge military budget.

    [ Parent ]
    more unsubstantiated BS (none / 1) (#99)
    by Tyler Durden on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:42:51 PM EST

    and Japan's parliment has balked every time we have asked them to shoulder more of the burden of thier own defense spending.

    Then you remember incorrectly.  According to this link the Japanese government spends approximately $2.5 billion per year to support US Forces there.  Considering that our troops tend to get a little too wild, a little too often, it's no wonder they want us to leave.

    BTW, Germany and Japan were in strategic locations for us after WW2, so no one here should pretend that we were acting out of the kindness of our hearts.

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    Whose "they" whiteman? (none / 1) (#113)
    by cr8dle2grave on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:56:42 PM EST

    Some Okinawans does not equate to the Japanese in toto.

    Additionally, I don't believe anyone has claimed that the occupation and reconstruction of Japan was done for entirely altruistic reasons.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Here's some substantiation (none / 0) (#114)
    by debillitatus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:58:47 PM EST

    it's no wonder they want us to leave.

    They, who? Not Koizumi, fo sheezie. In fact, there are almost no serious voices in Japanese politics who claim to want the US to leave.

    Yes, it is true that there have been protests against the US. But for you to claim that this implies the Japanese government wants us to leave is disingenuous at best. For example, would you claim that "The US goverment doesn't want the US to go to war in Iraq" because we had large protests against Bush by Americans?

    BTW, Germany and Japan were in strategic locations for us after WW2, so no one here should pretend that we were acting out of the kindness of our hearts.

    True. But no country, in the history of the entire freaking universe, has ever acted out of the kindness of its own heart, ever. To expect the US to do so is somewhat unfair.

    But you're changing the subject anyway. The original post asked for a case where the US has established a democracy by force, and the parent to yours gave several examples. Noone is claiming that the US established democracies out of the goodness of its heart. It is arguable that the existence more democracies is in the interest of the US, and, hey, what's wrong with that?

    Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
    [ Parent ]

    Now thats spunk! (none / 2) (#138)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:10:21 AM EST

    Germany was in a strategic location for what?

    For defending Germany, you rocket scientist.

    What other strategic value did it have?

    It sure as heck didn't have any strategic resources we needed. Oil, Coal, Steel, Uranium ?

    As a buffer to protect the U.S. from the Soviet Army? .... We already have one of those, it's called The Atlantic (and the U.S. Navy).

    A forward air base? It's called England.

    [ Parent ]

    all of them? (none / 2) (#112)
    by karb on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:43:05 PM EST

    I read a story at the outset of the Iraq war about how panamanians felt about the US invasion of their country more than a decade ago. (I tried to search for the article again but all I got was indymedia stories ... ugh)

    To sum it up in one sentance : they hate us because we bungled their liberation.

    In other words, they are not necessarily fond uf the US but all told were happy to be rid of mr. noriega.

    I think this is universal ... my mom was an exchange student in Alsace in the late 60's, and the french hated us even then (we bombed the area before liberating it, crazy americans). Some have even theorized it's some sort of perverse Stockholm Syndrome, where foreign liberators are always hated.
    --
    Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
    [ Parent ]

    None? (none / 3) (#122)
    by D Jade on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:02:43 AM EST

    I love how the US Gov't wants to make it look like they are helping other people. The reality is all of these "liberations" of various countries are entirely self-serving. Much like the rest of US culture.

    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    That silly blood-for-oil set! (none / 1) (#140)
    by shinshin on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:48:38 AM EST

    I always wondered what the blood-for-oil set would say when the US walked away from a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan
    Would this be before or after the implementation of the administration's "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" plan that came to light last week?

    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    there's no question (none / 1) (#143)
    by karb on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:13:09 PM EST

    Iraq needs to start getting lots of cash in exchange for its oil bounty. That was as true during Saddam's rule as it is today. The blood-for-oil argument as I understand it, however, revolves around bush invading Iraq to claim an oil-rich colony for the US, or to get good contracts for certain oil companies.

    If it was only about oil, or special contracts for certain oil companies, Bush could have made such an arrangement with Saddam in exchange for lifting sanctions ... in addition, most of the big oil companies are huge multinationals anyway, so the post-saddam oil companies may look similar to the during-saddam oil companies.

    And it's a net financial loss for the US government. As for colonization, I personally think US troops will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan more quickly with a republican president (they don't have much time for 'peacekeeping').

    I'm in the minority, but I tend to trust the integrity of almost all american politicians most of the time. I think you can argue with Bush on the merits of going to war with Iraq, but I don't doubt that he believes what he says, and I don't think there's any solid evidence to dispute that.
    --
    Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm, I wondered... (none / 2) (#183)
    by LittleTrouble on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:19:14 PM EST

    ...how the goose-stepping-morons set would defend the Bush administration's policies after this damning War College report.

    But seriously, I accept that blood for oil is clearly a gross oversimplification. But what do you really think the war was (I should say *is*) about?

    Protecting US citizens from a credible threat? Nope. Iraq was in no position to threaten the safety of US citizens. Combating a supporter of anti-US terrorism? Nope. Unless of course you consider terrorism against Israel to be anti-US (I suppose it all depends on how poor your Geography is). To free the Iraqi people from oppression? Nope. We have no problem being at peace with oppressive dictatorships.

    I would suggest that it had to do with (1) creating a political smokescreen for the failure to apprehend or kill Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, and (2) enriching the military industrial complex that Bush and Cheney are so entangled with (at the enourmous expense of taxpayers and military personnel).

    [ Parent ]
    This is meaningless (1.27 / 11) (#32)
    by Milo Minderbender on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:24:56 AM EST

    It's clear, at least to me, that the invasion of Iraq has never had anything to do with the GWOT (nice acronym by the way). So now we have a paper written about how the Iraq invasion was not a good strategic step in the GWOT. So what?

    That's like saying that this post to K5 is not a good strategic step in my personal War on Grapefruits. They're completely unrelated.

    --------------------
    This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
    I think what is meant ... (2.50 / 4) (#39)
    by Mr.Surly on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:29:20 AM EST

    ... is that overall, it's a bad strategy for the US to pursue and unfruitful, costly war that only alienates us in the international community.

    In the big picture, that's a bad strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, so it's not meaningless (none / 3) (#45)
    by Milo Minderbender on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:08:46 AM EST

    It's just obvious.

    --------------------
    This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
    [ Parent ]
    Surprisingly enough (none / 2) (#68)
    by fridgemagnet on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:45:37 PM EST

    It's amazing how many people still think invading Iraq was a rational move in "fighting terrorism", or even part of the process at all. And many will continue to do so by ignoring or dismissing this.

    ---
    "bugler of incongruity"


    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 1) (#128)
    by Milo Minderbender on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:25:53 AM EST

    Voter ignorance is the biggest problem with democracy. The only solution is a stronger education system.

    --------------------
    This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
    [ Parent ]
    TV-watching lessons (none / 2) (#137)
    by fridgemagnet on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:45:13 AM EST

    Somehow getting people to watch the news rather than let it wash over them in an impressionistic haze would help. That way, you wouldn't be able to get so many people thinking Saddam Hussein personally ordered 9/11 by just mentioning them in the same sentence often enough.

    Or, for that matter, not to watch TV news at all.

    ---
    "bugler of incongruity"


    [ Parent ]
    Significance (none / 3) (#42)
    by Tyler Durden on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:43:50 AM EST

    The significance is that it came from a US Army organization and was approved for release to the public.  

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    And that means? (1.75 / 4) (#43)
    by Milo Minderbender on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:07:28 AM EST

    So we're rejoicing that the Army has the balls to say that its leader made a bad decision? Great.

    --------------------
    This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
    [ Parent ]
    Between the lines (3.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Tyler Durden on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:08:08 PM EST

    I think that the article is indicitive of a larger base of support for curtailing cowboy diplomacy and redefining the War on Terror as something that might actually be achievable, unlike say the War on Drugs.  

    Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    Holy crap (none / 2) (#61)
    by Kenoubi on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:55:20 PM EST

    http://www.nilmop.org/tenets.html

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 1) (#63)
    by Milo Minderbender on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:06:30 PM EST

    No one ever said the internet wasn't diverse...

    --------------------
    This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
    [ Parent ]
    *rolls eyes* (none / 2) (#80)
    by Estanislao Martínez on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:11:55 PM EST

    It's clear, at least to me, that the invasion of Iraq has never had anything to do with the GWOT (nice acronym by the way).

    In that case, can you please inform President Bush and his administration? They seem to think otherwise.

    --em
    [ Parent ]

    No (2.50 / 4) (#126)
    by Milo Minderbender on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:45:25 AM EST

    They seem to say otherwise. We can only gain insight into how they think by learning after the fact what information they had available to them and what decisions they made based on that information. Judging from that, the Iraq invasion was about putting the country in a wartime and "terrorific" footing, which is a good political position to be in for reelection, and for generating money for corporate good ol' boys. We can now clearly see that it had nothing to do with WMD and nothing to do with terrorism either.

    --------------------
    This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
    [ Parent ]
    you miss my point (none / 0) (#192)
    by Estanislao Martínez on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:18:55 AM EST

    I do not believe that a political administration is in general entitled to believe one thing and say another one. Therefore, I believe that the ethical way of proceeding is to hold administrations to their word.

    --em
    [ Parent ]

    -1, Iraq (1.00 / 25) (#38)
    by polish surprise on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:27:58 AM EST

    Give it a fucking rest.

    --
    Controversy is my middle name.

    Gambling and cutting your losses (1.60 / 5) (#48)
    by K5 Troll Authority on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:37:44 AM EST

    Mr. Bush must be an avid Las Vegas gambler because the Iraq war was a huge gamble. If he had an easy victory with plenty of foreign support he'd own unending fields of oil. However, things turned out for the worst and he lost — america is being painted as the villain in this story.

    What does one do when he loses a gamble? GWB's prospect is to face a bleak election year with his popularity falling to abysmal levels. His alternative is to do what any self-respecting gambler would do: raise the stakes. I expect him, as a wise man who knows his options, to take even more troops into Iraq and to make the U.N. completely irrelevant so as to make his victory complete and therefore win completely.

    K5: we get laid more than Slashdot goons — TheGreenLantern

    Maybe he's taking lessons... (none / 1) (#108)
    by wcooley on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:26:35 PM EST

    from William Bennett.

    secure email servers
    [ Parent ]
    Or he could just... (none / 1) (#179)
    by composer777 on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:35:25 PM EST

    give more money to his friends, under the guise of an idea that a democrat would have thought of, like he did with his "no child left behind" and "comprehensive healthcare" initiatives. So, the plan for W is: 1. Take an idea that he hates, such as healthcare for everyone or education for the poor. 2. Repackage that idea as a front for a piece of slimy legislation that will give your friends and campaign supporters Billions of dollars. 3. Present your new "reform" legislation as a triumph for all Americans. 4. Sit back as the media scratches their heads, "It appears that half of Bush's $400 Billion medicare bill is free money that is going to drug companies with no strings attached. How does that benefit average Americans? Do they really deserve $200 billion with no strings attached?" 5. Now that a week has passed, and the "liberal" media has done their job of "scrutinizing" the legislation, use your pork-barrel bill in disguise as a way of showing that you care, and that you are able to do what the Democrats weren't. 6. Lather, rinse, repeat. It seems that right now, Bush's compassion for big business is being shown by his "immigration reform" plan, which is really nothing more than a way of flooding the labor market to provide even cheaper labor for big business. Bush's compassion for billionaires knows no bounds. After all, if Bush doesn't take care of our billionaires, I'm sure we'll see a mass-exodus of rich people. They'll surely renounce their billions in American dollars, turn the money back over to America, and leave, for it's clear that the burdens of those billions is too great.

    [ Parent ]
    From the summary page (2.50 / 6) (#71)
    by harryh on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:04:49 PM EST

    The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

    The War College issues all kinds of position papers advocating practically all courses of action.  This paper represents the view of a single man, and should not be taken to mean anything more.

    But... (none / 3) (#173)
    by John Asscroft on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:39:37 AM EST

    the directors of the War College personally approved publication of the paper, and the head of the War College has said favorable things about it to the press when asked.
    We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
    [ Parent ]
    Did you notice (2.50 / 6) (#78)
    by trhurler on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:50:16 PM EST

    That this "report" is nothing more than a restatement of the way the US did things during the Cold War? The whole thing is nothing but "I like the old way." I'm not saying there aren't some good points to be had from such a report, but we've already seen what happens when we substitute "stability" for democracy. Afghanistan was a place in which we did that. So was Iraq. So were dozens of other countries that have since turned on us.

    From a short term military perspective, the report makes sense - it gives a way to 'win' so that people can get promoted and medals can be given out and morale can be upped and so on. But, from a long term strategic perspective, the report is nothing but a suggestion of how to repeat our past mistakes yet again.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    Yes I did notice that (none / 0) (#83)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:35:49 PM EST

    While it's chock full of no-brainer observations which the "unpatriotic left" have been making for a long time, it's also makes some pretty ho-hum, if not downright isolationist recommendations. Albeit with the exception of recommending the acceptance of stability instead of democracy for Iraq, which is surely pragmatic, but simultaneously provides a "back door" for the administration when they decide there's no political points left to win there.

    [ Parent ]
    In regard to Afghanistan (none / 0) (#85)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:43:11 PM EST

    Did you hear that they've postponed elections?

    [ Parent ]
    I think they had to (none / 0) (#87)
    by trhurler on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:49:35 PM EST

    The central government still pretty much only controls a small region, and the warlords' current acceptance of its legitimacy partly hinges on keeping those warlords in power, at least for now. Karzai is slowly choking them though, reducing their influence by shifting key tasks to his own people and so on, and provided we stay the course and actually do what we said we'd do(we haven't exactly carried out Bush's claim of "a Marshall plan for Afghanistan,") there is good reason to be hopeful.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Thats very hopeful (none / 1) (#91)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:58:38 PM EST

    But it's certainly arguable that, given a portion of the resources currently tied up in Iraq, things would be moving along at a somewhat better clip.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (none / 0) (#95)
    by trhurler on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:18:38 PM EST

    Yes, actually, the amount we spend in Iraq in a month would probably allow for completely rebuilding Afghan infrastructure and improving it far beyond what it ever was before. But, it is not clear to me that our efforts in Iraq are as without value as many skeptics seem to think. Even if it takes awhile and costs serious money, if we could produce stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, that'd be a HUGE step forward for everybody. I'm not generally in favor of this sort of thing, but since we're already there, it doesn't make much sense to say "ah, fuck it, let's leave the job half done and watch as things predictably get even worse than they ever were before."

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    The Shit only gets deeper (none / 3) (#98)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:40:21 PM EST

    The report was spot on in it's criticism of the invasion of Iraq, including the policies and tactics both mid and post-war, but as you pointed out previously, has no real solutions for getting us out of there, except to propose a rather amorphous form of "stability instead of democracy", which, in my mind means "lets leave the job half done".

    The problem with your, if you'll forgive me, fantasy, as stated above is that some resources are actually limited. Bush can indebt the next two or three or fifty generations of Americans to get fulfill your dream, but he cant "print" human resources. And, like it or not, human resources, and especially educated, intelligent, multilingual human resources, are the only way to get things done.

    The troops are exhausted and coming home and they're going to send a fresh batch of construction workers and hair stylists over there to take over where they left off.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (none / 2) (#117)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:31:14 PM EST

    That this "report" is nothing more than a restatement of the way the US did things during the Cold War?

    No, that escaped me, but you do have a point.

    But, from a long term strategic perspective, the report is nothing but a suggestion of how to repeat our past mistakes yet again.

    On the other hand, we DID win the Cold War, didn't we? Unless you'd care to argue that it was a stalemate that ended because Russia folded on its own. Even so, there must be something to be said for the general strategy that was followed, as the end result worked for us.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Depends on what you mean (none / 0) (#182)
    by trhurler on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:58:42 PM EST

    Worked, as in defeated the Soviets? Yes. On the other hand, virtually every threat we face today was created by that same policy. What might have been necessary while defending against a Soviet threat due to resource problems is not necessary now, when we can concentrate military and foriegn aid resources where we need them and not have to worry about being blown into the third century while we're at it.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    This was a guest speaker--read the damn article (1.40 / 5) (#88)
    by stormcoder on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:52:13 PM EST

    Get a clue.
    PythonForge
    A guest speaker? (none / 3) (#94)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:16:02 PM EST

    I think he probably ranks a bit higher than that, although as far as I can tell he does not, as claimed by some other bootlicking cheerleader like yourself, have a position at the college. The college published his paper, and its views, if not it's recommendations make a lot of sense to people within the college and without.

    It seems you've no clues to spare right now.

    [ Parent ]

    Visiting professor != guest speaker (none / 1) (#189)
    by onemorechip on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 01:54:24 AM EST

    I can see how you would make that mistake. A visitor is a guest, and a professor is a lecturer (speaker). But the equation of "visiting professor" with "guest speaker" is false.
    --------------------------------------------------

    I did my essay on mushrooms. It's about cats.
    [ Parent ]

    Who is the enemy here, Pogo? (3.00 / 5) (#96)
    by EphraimT on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:21:04 PM EST

    Dr. Jeffrey Record, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute and the author of the Army War College report, doesn't appear to be suggesting that the United States return to the Good 'Ol Days of the Cold War at all. He is making the valid observation that there are methods, including the invasion of another country (Afghanistan), that properly applied would achieve far superior results to the needless waste of lives and national treasure that the invasion and occupation of Iraq represent. Saddam was a monster who needed to be destroyed, but like Frankenstein, he was made a monster as much by other hands as he was by his own actions. The United States government was quite willing to provide Iraq with cash, weapons, military assistance and access to technical (read chemical weapons) sources as long as he did its bidding by keeping Iran in check. When Saddam got out of his castle and began killing the villagers it became necessary to take care of the problem. This little unpleasantness should never have been a part of the GWOT, merely a one bullet end to a classic Cold War style proxy war gone bad side show of the United States' own creation. Al Queda is not going to get weaker because the U.S. invaded Iraq. Al Queda is succeeding in tying down U.S. forces in Iraq fighting an insurgency that shows no sign of abating. In the meantime, the resources that could be brought to bear on the problem of effective military pacification of Afghanistan, provision of economic support to forces who could be our allies in the GWOT, and which could be used to threaten (militarily and economically) those who harbor terrorists are being crippled. Al Queda is fighting a political and economic war backed by limited military objectives designed to augment to first two methods. The United Stated, under the leadership of George W. Bush, is fighting a primarily military war with limited political and economic objectives. This out-of-balance response is far more similar to the issues the United States faced in Vietman than it is to the Cold War era. Only the global nature of the problem resembles the Cold War, not the nature of the conflict. The harder the U.S. tries to get out of Iraq, the harder Al Queda will try to make it for the U.S. to withdraw. Al Queda needs the U.S. mired down in Iraq to keep the heat off it elsewhere. The U.S. made its first major mistake in the last presidential election. It isn't yet too late to fix this one.

    Well stated, sort of (none / 2) (#106)
    by imrdkl on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:17:04 PM EST

    If a bit ramblish. Sadly, most of the recommendations (but not the criticisms, which were spot on) made by the good Doctor do seem to be quite similar to the "old rules" which governed US foreign policy, with the exception of those I pointed out in a discussion with trhurler elsewhere, and to which I presume you refer, and additionally the Docs recommendation for "ranking" of terrorist groups according to the threat they pose only to the US. (although it could be argued that such a ranking has always been implicit, if not well defined).

    The quagmire which is Iraq, however, has nothing to do with al Queda, as has been well demonstrated. For you to say that they are somehow "tying us down" there is pure nonsense. We tied ourselves down there, thanks to the anger and bloodlust felt by the American people after 9.11, and helped along with a barrel of exaggerations and downright lies coming from our leader. I reckon bin Laden just sat back and enjoyed himself watching our rush to war, although the "insurgents" from that group in Iraq are mostly fantasy.

    Nevertheless, your points regarding the waste and diversion of critical resources in the fight against terrorism are quite valid.

    [ Parent ]

    Who really benefits? (2.80 / 5) (#129)
    by EphraimT on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:31:15 AM EST

    I don't see the good Doctor's criticisms and suggestions in quite the same light as some, apparently. Certain aspects of Cold War strategic political doctrine enabled the West to bring about the demise of the former Soviet Union through essentially economic means, i.e., the West started and continued an economic process the Soviet Union could not compete with and survive. It didn't, the West did. So it goes. Someone must have done something right. The issue of Al Queda in Iraq is a similarly long and convoluted arguement which probably seems rambling to some. Nothing was said about Al Queda having anything to do with Iraq pre-invasion other than by those who stood to gain politically by making such statements. However, now that the United States has commited itself to Iraq who really benefits from the involvement? I mean besides Halliburton and Bechtel Corp? The U.S. and its "coalition"? Hardly. Al Queda, and related groups, are the only real beneficiaries. A few foriegn fighters, some former Ba'ath Party people, and your couple odd hundred thugs involved in keeping a few resistance cells alive and functioning have effectively tied down 230,000 U.S. troops (120,000 in theater and 110,000 scheduled replacements). Al Queda can now operate around the world knowing that a substantial chunk of the U.S. Armed Forces and much of its treasury are committed to the occupation of Iraq. The longer that can be kept necessary, the less pressure the U.S. can put on them anywhere else. Couple this with the the U.S.'s increasingly muddled foreign policy regarding "The Rest Of The World" pissing off nearly every country which might be willing to assist in a truly global war on terror and I ask again, "Who benefits from the current war in Iraq?" Dr. Record seems to more be arguing for flexability and a return to strategic thinking than for a reprise of Dr. Strangelove. That's just my read - YMMV.

    [ Parent ]
    And thus... (1.14 / 7) (#120)
    by Bartab on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:01:17 PM EST

    We have a perfect example of why the military does not and should not generate policy, they simply follow it.

    --
    It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.

    How is this the perfect example? (2.50 / 4) (#121)
    by D Jade on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:51:36 AM EST

    I am not arguing your point. But I think that when you are talking about war the best people to determine the appropriate actions would be the experts. In this case, the military.

    Personally, I think this is more of an example of how paranoid the bush administration has become and how unnecessary most of the measures taken by said administration have been.



    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 2) (#157)
    by Bartab on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:14:56 PM EST

    Unelected military officials do not determine war policy. That's called a military dictatorship. If you want to live in one there are some lovely African countries...

    --
    It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
    [ Parent ]

    But it's not (none / 3) (#158)
    by D Jade on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:11:39 PM EST

    Policy. It's a recommendation looking at what's wrong/right with the current situation. It is in no way indicative of any military policy nor is it a representation from a military "dictator".

    However, the fact is that if this strategic recommendation had come before the war and had been heeded there would be a lot more people alive instead of having died needlessly!

    But then, I'm guessing you're american and see everything in Black & White.



    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    Glad you pointed that out... (none / 1) (#188)
    by onemorechip on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 01:50:52 AM EST

    The report contained a disclaimer that it did not reflect the views of the US Army. After all, it was produced by an academic, not a soldier. So it certainly can't be discounted on the grounds that the military should not make policy.

    Nor is the report policy. It is an analysis of policy, and it might be considered advice on policy. But it does not set policy.

    No doubt it will be ignored by those who actually do make policy.
    --------------------------------------------------

    I did my essay on mushrooms. It's about cats.
    [ Parent ]

    My StarCraft mod already taught me this..... (2.33 / 6) (#127)
    by starX on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:22:43 AM EST

    It's simple really, just create a game where you can't tell civilians from "enemy combatants."  For each civillian killed, spawn 2-4 more enemy combatants.  For each enemy combatant killed, spawn one to replace it.  Since we can't be seen as conquerers and pillagers, you have to accept "donations" of resources from them, which are very inefficiently mined.  When EC (enemy combatants) kill off civillians, resource production decreases.  When one of your troops dies, resource production decreases. Occaisionally they spawn a "hero" character, and if you kill that one, resource production will go up. Occaisionally more soldiers are "deployed" to the area, but it's important to remember that the civilians and ECs are all just chilling around your troops and bases, and there is no way to tell them apart.  

    To be utterly fair, it is hard to lose, but it is also way too long and involved to actually win.  You can play this mission until you find something better to do anyway.  I would love to find a way to add some things like having to devote at least half your scvs to finding weapos of mass destruction, or else you don't get as many deployments, or maybe something where soldiers suffered from bad morale, and after a while would start doing less damage, and start retreating more often.  A must have revision is something where a greater proportion of ECs to civilians spawn as the game takes longer.  

    Anyone?

    "I like you starX, you disagree without sounding like a fanatic from a rock-solid point of view. Highfive." --WonderJoust

    Clearly liberal! (1.00 / 7) (#134)
    by Wulfius on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:26:57 AM EST

    Clearly it is evident that the US ARMY COLLEGE is full of liberal al quada symphatisers.

    ---
    "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
    http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!
    Clearly (none / 0) (#195)
    by pdt on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:05:49 AM EST

    clearly the ARMie understands the task at hand...and maybe you do not...maybe

    [ Parent ]
    Well, he's certainly changed a bit (2.33 / 6) (#145)
    by RyoCokey on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:29:31 PM EST

    From 2000:

    The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine's implicit rejection of force as an instrument of diplomacy is perhaps its greatest flaw. Indeed, the doctrine stands Clausewitz on his head by holding force to be a substitute for rather than a companion to diplomacy.3 Threatened or actual use of force is the heart of coercive diplomacy, and force may have to be threatened or used early in a crisis to avoid a larger war later, thus violating another cherished Weinberger-Powell injunction--i.e., force as a last resort. Is not the great lesson of the democracies' appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s--and of the Clinton administration's gutless performance in the Balkans--the need for an early and politically decisive use of force against an aggressor?

    That being said, I'm amazing you can say "more than 500 casualties" with a straight face. That's one of the lowest tolls of war in recorded history.



    The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
    And as something of a pundit on things military (none / 2) (#153)
    by Grognard on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:08:26 PM EST

    he should be familiar with the origin of "hoist on his own petard"


    [ Parent ]
    He didnt change his mind, you changed the question (none / 3) (#154)
    by jecouto on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:37:29 PM EST

    He doesnt contradict himself, because a very long part of his paper details how Saddam Hussein Irak's was not responsible for the 9/11 attack and how it was invaded by "other reasons", how invading Irak distracted resources from the more important war on Al-Qaeda, etc.

    So next time try to be a little more creative, like, you know, reading the actual content of his paper and analizing it and pointing out what do you think is not good logic or reasoning on his part, and not cutting and pasting his answer in another context to  show he "changed his mind". He didnt change, the question was different. The question then is "never threathening or using force is a valid foreing policy?" and the question in his paper (one of them) is "Was Irak a strategically sound target to use force against if the problem is fighting terrorism?"

    BTW, 500 is a ridiculous ammount of casualties in a war. BUT THE WAR IN IRAK IS OVER. So said your president. So its a very hight ammount of victims of terrorism attacks, something the war was supposed to "fight".

    Jesus Couto F.

    [ Parent ]

    He directly contradicts himself (none / 2) (#166)
    by RyoCokey on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:52:16 PM EST

    From the paper:

    In confl ating Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the administration unnecessarily expanded the GWOT by launching a preventive war51 against a state that was not at war with the United States and that posed no direct or imminent threat to the United States at the expense of continued attention and effort to protect the United States from a terrorist organization with which the United States was at war.

    He's accusing the US of doing exactly what he suggested they do, and thought they would not do, under the Powell doctrine. He is also factually wrong, but that's another matter.

    He makes a very serious terminology error in that paragraph. While Iraq was not officially at war with the US (No declaration of war was issued.) neither was Al Qaeda. However, a state of hostility (equiv. to war in modern times) existed between Iraq and the US due to violation of the ceasefire. You can't use two definitions of the same word in one sentence. In fact, the whole piece strikes me as a badly done political hack job.

    As for casualties, they are low by terrorism standards as well. We lost 3000 citizens in one incident in 2001, and over 200 marines in a single bombing in Beirut. As far as a "resistance" goes, it is immensely underwhelming.



    The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
    [
    Parent ]
    factually wrong (none / 2) (#181)
    by LittleTrouble on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:38:00 PM EST

    He makes a very serious terminology error in that paragraph. While Iraq was not officially at war with the US (No declaration of war was issued.) neither was Al Qaeda. However, a state of hostility (equiv. to war in modern times) existed between Iraq and the US due to violation of the ceasefire. You can't use two definitions of the same word in one sentence. In fact, the whole piece strikes me as a badly done political hack job.

    Al Quaeda is not a sovereign nation, so you can expect a different definition of war. Your post strikes me as a badly done political hack job.

    [ Parent ]
    A true master of the kindergarten retort. [n/t] (none / 1) (#187)
    by RyoCokey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:37:54 PM EST



    The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
    [
    Parent ]
    al Qaeda was at war with the US (none / 0) (#194)
    by Commodore Sloat on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 10:58:02 PM EST

    Al Qaeda certainly was at war with the US. OBL declared war in 1996 and was joined in 1998 by other organizations and al-Qaeda leaders in his notorious declaration of "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders." Most Americans may have not heard of him in 1998, but al Qaeda had clearly declared war long before 9/11/01. And the U.S. declared war on al Qaeda, and on terrorism, exactly three years and one month prior to Bush's 9/20/01 speech basically repeating the main themes of Bill Clinton. Whatever our situation with Iraq, you are wrong that we were not at war with al Qaeda prior to Sept. 11.

    On another note, it is quite possible that Jeffrey Record changed his mind after watching the foreign policy disaster unfold in Iraq, but the evidence you present of that is specious at best. Nowhere in the document you link from 2000 does he advocate preventive war, which is very distinct from crisis preemption. In the context you quote from he is talking about threatening preemptive war against an aggressor (i.e. Saddam's army after August 2 1990, or another nation that has actually attacked one of our allies), not an unprovoked preventive attack against a nation that is being intransigent at worst. Finally, his overall conclusion is that the war against Iraq has decisively undermined the global war on terrorism, not that the US should not act forcefully when necessary. It is amazing how the neocons are getting away with representing anyone who criticizes them as liberal doves or even as pro-terrorist. Jeffrey Record is certainly neither.

    [ Parent ]

    He was never a Saddam enthusiast (none / 2) (#178)
    by John Asscroft on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:35:48 PM EST

    In fact, he wrote a book saying that our Great Leader's daddy made a mistake when he didn't go ahead and take out Saddam back in 1992.

    All he says is that the U.S. has other fish to fry, like those al Qaeda terrorists, before doing regime change in other countries. As a loyal member of our Great Leader's administration I disagree, of course, but don't put words in his mouth. That's a privilige we reserve for Fox News.

    Yours in Christ,
    John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America
    We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
    [ Parent ]

    totally off topic from the main thread but..... (none / 1) (#180)
    by mbmccabe on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:18:53 PM EST

    Threatened or actual use of force is the heart of coercive diplomacy


    Would someone be interested in differentiating this tactic from "terrorism"?

    "Who is threatening or actually using..." is not an acceptible answer.



    Terrorism according to the FBI: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

    Terrorism according to the armyThe calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.


    [ Parent ]
    surprise (none / 0) (#197)
    by pdt on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:20:09 AM EST

    I'm surprised you think we're at a point in this thing to make a bold statement like 500 (now 538 and counting) casualties is low. If at the end of ten years in Iraq that number is much higher and we still can't figure out why we did it will you be sorry to have said this? Can you explain yourself now to those marching off to die tomorrow? Tomorrow may be too late for them to answer you. You will have to speak to ghosts. You cannot say you're sorry to a ghost. They can't hear you. extra bonus: that's now 538 flag-draped caskets we have not seen. Dishonor for your dead, America. keep it clean. the number is low. 10,000 wounded soon. the unsung and unseen.

    [ Parent ]
    Shades of History. (none / 3) (#172)
    by alt on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 01:46:20 AM EST

    "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

    - Herman Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII.

    Goering not reliable (none / 1) (#184)
    by OldCoder on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:02:16 AM EST

    Goering is not one of the leading lights of Western thought. Pick somebody higher up to quote from.

    If it were as simple as Goering claims, all countries would be at war all the time with everybody else. For example, lacking the attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, the Cole, the African Embassies, et cetera, it would have been very hard to persuade the US public and the opposition party that the US was "Under Attack". Not impossible, but difficult.

    --
    By reading this signature, you have agreed.
    Copyright © 2003 OldCoder
    [ Parent ]

    but the world is at war (none / 2) (#185)
    by wrax on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:19:21 PM EST

    Its just not declared wars that are going on. There are, right now, a signifigent number of battle's going on in the world. Fighting in Isreal, Lebenon, Afganistan, Chechnia, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, United States (from various criminal elements if nothing else), all over Africa (the place is a mess).

    I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that the world is NOT at war with itself quite frankly.

    Your comment that it would be difficult to convince the American public that the US was "under attack" as you put it, was really trivialy easy from a public relations standpoint, even without the events of 9/11 this would have IMHO been almost laughably easy to accomplish for the US administration. A few spots on Rush Limbaugh and CNN for example touting that the US faced many groups that wanted all Americans dead would have done it. This of course assumes that the Administration even cared to notify the American Public that they were even launching strikes against foreign powers.

    The United States has for a long time been pounding the hell out of Iraq with its air power in the region, no one in the State's even seemed to care when Clinton launched a ton of missiles at Iraq . There was only the President sending a message to the people about that.

    No I believe Goring had it right, the masses of a country are easily manipulated by those in power. Bush, as commander in chief of the armed forces, has the power to send the armed forces on any mission that he sees fit to send them on, and with the US immunity from prosecution by the War crimes tribunal in the Hague, he can have them do anything he wants too.
    --------------------

    I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
    [ Parent ]

    On the other Hand (none / 2) (#186)
    by Alhazred on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:32:08 PM EST

    It HAS become very difficult to convince the economic movers and shakers of the world that all-out wars are a good idea. No modern leader of a modern state in recent history (since 1945) has managed to convince his people to go to war with a foreign power, and the reason is simple. Its not that the PEOPLE are hard to convince, its that the BANKERS are hard to convince, and money is all that really matters...
    That is not dead which may eternal lie And with strange aeons death itself may die.
    [ Parent ]
    the US didn't need to be persuaded (none / 2) (#190)
    by mami on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:10:19 PM EST

    Neither the US population, nor the opposition party needed to be persuaded that they were under attack by Al-Queda-style terrorism. Matter of factly even the world didn't need to be persuaded. The actions (attack on WTC, the Pentagon, attempt on attacking the Congress etc.) spoke for themselves and pretty much everyone agreed the threat was real, imminent and needed to be defended against in the future.

    The Taliban regime change, enforced by the US, was not questioned, not disputed, not unneccessary and was actively supported by the former Allies of the US.

    What needed persuasion (at least in most parts of Europe) was the idea that the US was under attack by Saddam Hussein. Whereas it was impossible to persuade most people on the streets in Europe about the Iraq being an imminent threat to the US, it was difficult, but possible to persuade the US population and the opposition party about it. Why was there a difference on both sides of the Atlantic?

    I don't think that the persuasion of an Iraq attack on the US population was easier, because of the 9/11 events. The persuasion was possible, because the US media outlets were willing and silent enablers to engage in a massive persuasion effort of political interest groups and their spokes persons to confuse the population and the opposition party about two very different things, the threat by fundamentalist, islamic terrorists and the threat of a dictator in Iraq.

    These threats were artfully co-mingled by commentators on TV, obfuscated by willful and lax definition or misinterpretation of terms like "weapons of mass destruction" and "imminent threat", "preemptive" and "preventive" military actions.

    It was common during the months leading up to the Iraq war that any nilly-willy reporter, commentator just threw around numbers like "hundreds of of millions" deaths by "plumes of radioactivity" released by "dirty bombs" or "sweeping epidemics" caused by Anthrax etc.

    I mean who really counts and cares? If there are "hundreds of thousands" or "hundreds of millions" or "a couple of hundreds" deaths, it's always "mass destruction", if "weapons of mass destructions" are involved, right? No, wrong.  

    What was so absolutely amazing to watch in the US TV media, was the fact that they allowed their commentators and their invited guests on regular basis to play on people's fears.  

    The preemptive war doctrine was slipped into existence by an executive order almost over night. I remember clearly it took over a week to ten days til the press really took it up and started to discuss it, very timidly even.

    Goering, Goebbels and the whole propaganda apparatus in the Nazi regime were awful enough, but due to less powerful technical possibilities at that time (no TV, no internet), a couple of determined demagogues and an enabling media platform on TV, radio and the internet is IMO much more powerful than anything else in the past history with regards to "persuading" the masses of the ideas of the few.  

    [ Parent ]

    War on Drugs (none / 0) (#193)
    by duncan bayne on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:08:43 PM EST

    Of course, you're right - which is why the previous installment of the 'War On ...' series was the War On Drugs.

    [ Parent ]
    Need to check facts.. (none / 3) (#176)
    by EOIAI on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 01:54:22 PM EST

    First and formost the report is just a the writers on thoughts. Secondly.. the writer of this story has some facts missed up and are a little misleading. He quoted a article wrong.. he stated that the US is sending 110,000 new troops to Iraq.. well first it is 100,000 that the article stated, and they are to replace the currently 123,000 troops that are there. A another facted the writer forgot to mention. And on the planning of the war before 9/11.. get real. The war college and other generals always plan wars and do mock wars to determine what might happen. Why do you think Swartzkauf(sp?) was picked to lead the first gulf war.. because he actually wrote and mocked a battle with Iraq several years prior the first war. I can tell you from experience that civilians at the war college are paid for all there opionions, and they expect some to be bad and good and it is used as a judging tool to determine the proper course of action. Not wether or not they endorse it or believe in any aspect of it.. This is simple a man stating what he believes to be right and is simply his opionion. It isnt the war college report.. it is a report from a man in the war college stating his own opionion. Get a life.

    yes you do (none / 0) (#198)
    by warrensomebody on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 05:37:00 AM EST

    It was an official report by the Army War College, not a personal opinion. Although it may have been written by one person, it carries the weight of the institution that published it.

    [ Parent ]
    It was the ARMie (none / 0) (#196)
    by pdt on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:16:19 AM EST

    It was the ARMie who even dared to call this a war when Bush and Rumsfeld were already declaring the war over..."the peace was now to be fought. And they will drape our boys and girls with flowers and kiss their cheeks. And our leader shall declare his triumph on the deck of an aircraft carrrier and feed our troops the giant bird on Thanksgiving." Well, they got it wrong. None of that happened. It was all a dream. America rises, still half asleep. blood on tv. 538, 539, 540... shades of another time and place another dream oh, the horrors of war the horrors of peace slaves to your emotions your money get free

    US Army War College Report: Iraq War Unnecessary | 198 comments (184 topical, 14 editorial, 2 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!