astralis

bluesman,

sure. completely agree with you. the info/PR war is the prime aspect of this entire war. as president, bush has bungled this utterly, both for the national and the international audience.

the american unity and willingness to sacrifice was wasted upon getting bush his tax cuts and his urge for americans to "buy and spend more." this is the first war i'm aware of where we've cut, and not raised, taxes. LBJ found out, too, what happens when one tries to get both guns and butter.

also, the hardest part about being a democracy is, how does one stay loyal to the cause and fight the war to a victorious conclusion, while also keeping a tradition of democratic debate?

while holding the course in any war is important, the way the war is prosecuted (or even if it should be prosecuted) should be questioned continuously. after all, as we saw in 2004, 2005, 2006, and today- our strategy in iraq has changed dramatically- and it was thanks to those who believed that the original method of just staying the course was not a good one.

by the way, regarding this in particular:

that doesn't just apply to us, but to the iraqis themselves. in fact, i'd say it applies MORE to them than to us, seeing as how we're no longer running their country for them. so...what happens when we want iraq to succeed more than THEY do?

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Bluesman

If what we debated was simply the conduct of the war, that WOULD be healthy.

What I'm talking about is the sheer determination to lose it. The debate has been whether we should seek victorty at all, and for this reason, I've never been so dismayed at the conduct of this administration (for failing so completely at the vital task of rallying the country to winning a victory that some of our people seem to believe is optional), the opposition (for using national security matters as a way to secure political power and advantage), our 'allies' (who seem to believe that they will be magnified in exact proportion to the degree that we are reduced), and the Iraqis (who chose to hate each other more than they love their freedom and their families).

We could have done so much good; we could have re-made the world. Instead, everybody thought as small and as meanly as they could, and fought not FOR each other, but AGAINST each other, for the smallest of stakes. Collectively, we disgraced ourselves and set the stage for an enormous tragedy that will spread out in ripples that will become destructive waves that will be felt for decades.

If we thought choosing defeat in Vietnam traumatized our country, our allies and the region for twenty years...just wait. We're going to pay a price that will make us think about our 3,600+ dead, and wonder how we could've been so faint-hearted.

That is, if we're around to wonder about it at all.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

astralis

bluesman,

sure as hell looks that way, doesn't it? what should have been a smashing victory is now a stalemate of sorts.

however, i am absolutely convinced of final victory. the world economy has, despite oil shocks and terrorist attacks, grown at the fastest pace in the last 10 years than in all of previous history. our resources grow. and if the terrorists strike back- well, all i can say is, the greater their tactical victory, the worse the strategic defeat. the japanese found that out, to their detriment.

Shipwreck

It was a huge mistake to believe that *creative destruction* was a process that could be top-down driven. The Soviets failed miserably when they tried, the neo-con illusions will suffer the exact same fate.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Parihaka

It's not just a neo-con battle any more. It's yours as well, and every other member of every other democracy in the world.
Opinions of how it started and who is responsible no longer matter, the reality of what is happening now overrides that.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Ray

It is not a war of all the democracies of the world.

If it were so and the intent was genuine and pristine, then there would not be the depletion in the ranks of the Coalition of the Willing (COW).

It was a war for strategic reasons that served solely the US purpose of retaining its status as the only global superpower

Whether the bipolar or the unipolar world is good or not, only history will tell.

Right now, the whole issue looks frayed and tried apart from having the look of a dogeared book!

Even the War on Terror is moving like a misguided missile! Chummy with the sources of terrorism (Pakistan) and at the same time bogged down like a tank in the mud!

Afghanistan is floundering, Iraq is the main area where the focus is (proving that it was the real issue of the WoT because if was in the US interests), Iran is coc-king the snoot and Palestine adding to Israel's woe with its own infighting that has spilt over into Israel and so on. Korea seems to be the only silver lining with still a whole lot of black clouds threatening.

Biting more than what one can chew!

Result: An Unholy Mess!

It has only bogged down the US for years!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Parihaka

Can't disagree with any of this Ray, but my contention is what to do about it.
Continuing to label it as a neo-con problem is to ignore the fact that it disadvantages everyone in the world: that is has now become everyones problem.
Regardless of who started it or their motivations in doing so doesn't clear up the mess, and the only thing that will is a concerted effort on the part of the majority of the world to do so.
Some measures must be military, some must be law, some must be the information war and some must be through aid and assistance. Continued bickering and playing the blame game between governments assists the terrorists rather than curbs them.

astralis

parihaka,

unfortunately, given that this strategy was essentially developed by the neoconservative movement as an AMERICAN initiative (as seen in the way the U.S. snubbed both the UN and anyone who was not a charter member of the coalition of the willing)...the rest of the world is now decidedly not so eager to pick up after the american mess, despite the inherent sensibility in helping the U.S. in this regard.

from another viewpoint, it will be interesting to see how china will start playing a role in this, especially as her own demands for oil rise dramatically.

Deans

This is my first post, so I apologise if these points have been covered earlier.

What exactly would constitute `victory' for the US?
Will it be the end of all insurgent attacks ? I don't see that happening because the insurgency is at what I would call a state of equilibrum - where both sides can sustain the current rate of casualties. I suspect that the insurgents can do so for a longer period, even with a 10:1 loss ratio.

Is the holding of a free election (post ending the insurgency) a yardstick for success ?
Even assuming that attacks on US forces end (which could happen if Iran backs off) and a fresh election held. What happens if a Shia majority govt adopts a pro Iran posture and demands that the US leave immediately?

The situation is further complicated by the internal Sunni-Shia-Kurdish rivalry.
Hence, countries like Saudi or Jordan, which may publicly want the US to leave, will hope they stay on in Iraq - to prevent Shia dominance, draw in Islamists from their own countries to Iraq while weakening America's ability
to interfere further in Arab affairs (i.e - bring in democracy).

Ray

Parihaka,

It is true that bickering should stop and some solution is found.

It requires an Honest Broker and not ruminating the cud, which is what is happening. Old wine in a new bottle.

The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is getting further and further away than what was anticipated.

The 'One man Army" attitudinal persuasion of the US Administration has to give way to a collective approach beyond the sectarian interests, that is if a lasting solution is to be ensured or else this will be another Palestine.

It is also a good plan to maintain suzerainty over a global patch by engineering a controlled turbulence. Therefore, that aspect of global Realpolitik should not be discarded.

Interesting and guessing time ahead!

I believe Gordon Brown is soon to become latest Unwilling in the COW!