Assessing the Decision to Intervene in Iraq

[JAD_333]

Come on over, man. :)

Be careful what you wish for.:)) But if I ever get out there, I damn sure will.

And I think you're at least equal in analytical firepower to the thread-starter.

hmmm....anyway, it was a hell of a fleet action...great thread coming and going. Tip of the hat to you on your prognostication. I have to say I agreed with you then and still do.:)

[S2]

Metz

I humbly believe that he found at WAB adversaries galore and many able to dispute with verve and some adroit perspectives he'd heretofore not engaged in his self-reinforced academic cocoon.

Score one for the street.

Sucker was overwhelmed by great points from a bevy of folks.

[Herodotus]

In Metz's defense, and being in an academic "cocoon" myself, I will say that it is not easy to write original material. Critics abound and opinions are like certain body parts; everyone has one. Metz has published more than anyone who responded to him in this thread has: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...fm?authorID=22

That he took a position that was ideologically anathema to those here, and they naturally responded based on their preconceived notions and what opinions they have, shows at least some moxy. He probably shouldn't have reached for the Limbaugh card so early in an attempt to cut off the debate. Still easy for the layman to criticize, not so easy to stick their own necks out.

Eagerly anticipate your own book on the subject S-2, you know I'll be writing one. :))

[JAD_333]

In Metz's defense, and being in an academic "cocoon" myself, I will say that it is not easy to write original material. Critics abound and opinions are like certain body parts; everyone has one. Metz has published more than anyone who responded to him in this thread has: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...fm?authorID=22

Can't resist, Hero, but I have to say that you as an academic should be the least likely to use that logic. :)

That he took a position that was ideologically anathema to those here, and they naturally responded based on their preconceived notions and what opinions they have, shows at least some moxy. He probably shouldn't have reached for the Limbaugh card so early in an attempt to cut off the debate. Still easy for the layman to criticize, not so easy to stick their own necks out.

Dr. Metz arrived with his "preconceived notions" and "opinions", with his neck stuck out so to speak, and asked for feedback; and what he got in return were our pre-conceived notions and opinions. I think that is how it works in virtual debate. Seems your opinion is that the responses he got were beneath his contentions. How so? The floor is yours...

[Bluesman]

In Metz's defense, and being in an academic "cocoon" myself, I will say that it is not easy to write original material.

Actually, my biggest criticism was that his thoughts were ANYthing BUT original. It could've been culled from newspapers and any other mass media, and I found him to be looking more like a mouthpiece for conventional wisdom with each passing paragraph.

I'm really just about sick to death of hearing how 'neocons' seized control of a not-very-bright chief executive and manipulated an entire nation into an optional war. It simply doesn't play, and anybody that buys into it is no deeper than the editorial boards of the pinker organs of a press that yawps unceasingly to an audience that couldn't find Mecca with a GPS and an ayatollah as a guide. So, as for his 'courage' to seek out a critique that sharpens his analysis...FAIL.

[Herodotus]

Dr. Metz arrived with his "preconceived notions" and "opinions", with his neck stuck out so to speak, and asked for feedback; and what he got in return were our pre-conceived notions and opinions. I think that is how it works in virtual debate. Seems your opinion is that the responses he got were beneath his contentions. How so? The floor is yours...

So why all the rooster strutting then? He did research, wrote a book, source cited it, has access to policy-makers,etc. he came to this board where he presumably knew there were pro-Iraq war posters, or maybe not, and asked for feedback. Sure he got it, and perhaps he should not have thought his remarks would find a receptive audience here. Still it seemed Metz's conclusions were dismissed out of hand, because it didn't fit with the narrative of the war that some posters believe in.


Just wondering if anyone here has actually bought and read Metz's whole book. I'll try to get to it this week or next. Colin Gray wrote the Introduction to it, (incidentally he was one of my profs.-well I took a class from him when he was a visiting prof.) Gray is one of the preeminent scholars on geopolitics. He is also a proponent of American hegemony, having written the Sheriff, http://www.amazon.com/Sheriff-Americ.../dp/0813123151 and a monograph from SSI about American grand strategy: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...les/PUB902.pdf among many, many other books. Not exactly a left-liberal, and he, I suppose, felt Metz's arguments have merit. :)

Iraq is still very much a question mark, and Metz may or may not turn out to be right. I'll read the book and post my thoughts.

[Gun Grape]

Thread Necromancy

Never pretty. Even worse when its a Senior Poster doing a little rooster strutting

[ArmchairGeneral]

I dunno Gunnie, sometimes threads do need to be bumped. It's often interesting to get some perspective on a discussion by looking back.

Still love that last pic, though.

[JAD_333]

So why all the rooster strutting then?

Who are the rooster strutters? Seems to me this latest go-around started with a restrospective pointing out that Dr. Metz was more wrong about 14 months ago on the course the war than those debating him.

I'll grant he ran into a buzzsaw that might not have looked like gentlemanly debate, but as the purported expert-professional he could well have taken the time to keep vollying with us. He simply took his ball and went home.

IMO, when he called Blue's comments Limbaughisms, he made the same error in logic that you did when you intimated that someone who has published extensively has a greater claim on being right on a given topic.

Just wondering if anyone here has actually bought and read Metz's whole book.

Won't buy it, but I'd try to read it. I read a few samples. Nothing yet that stands out over the average bookish strategic thinker.

[Herodotus]

Who are the rooster strutters? Seems to me this latest go-around started with a restrospective pointing out that Dr. Metz was more wrong about 14 months ago on the course the war than those debating him.

I'll grant he ran into a buzzsaw that might not have looked like gentlemanly debate, but as the purported expert-professional he could well have taken the time to keep vollying with us. He simply took his ball and went home.

Seems to me this latest go-around was started by a poster patting himself on the back when no one else thought to bring it up. I had to take Bluesman off ignore just to read his comments, but I wasn't surprised by what I saw. I hope his arm doesn't get tired.

It's a little premature to make a judgment either way about why we went to war in Iraq. I'll wait for some of these documents to be declassified and more information to come out before making a definitive judgment.

As for Metz's other conclusions:

We've diminished U.S. influence in the region, expanded support for AQ, and greatly augmented Iran's regional influence. I don't know of even the most optimistic neoconservative who are still claiming there is going to be some sort of pro-US, anti-radical democratic revolution.

Iran's regional influence is still greater than it was before the war, there is some ebb and flow, but the Iranians infinitely prefer the Shiite government to Saddam. AQ was given new life after the Iraq war, and we are still fighting them there. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-G...51L0YE20090222 and dare I say that US standing in the world is diminished from pre-war levels.

IMO, when he called Blue's comments Limbaughisms, he made the same error in logic that you did when you intimated that someone who has published extensively has a greater claim on being right on a given topic.

The fallacy is unqualified authority. If someone publishes extensively in a subject, peer-reviewed, source cited, etc. I would be remiss to call them unqualified. They may not always be right, which is why you include counter-arguments in your thesis, but they are going to be more right than wrong, or they won't last very long as analysts.

Dr. Metz probably should have handled himself better, and granted there is a certain conceit that comes from Ph.d-level education, but that conceit is well earned in the rigors of academia. At the end of the day we are all just a bunch of anonymous guys on the internet pontificating on various issues. At the end of the day he's a guy who may also pontificate but the difference is he also writes books, papers, and monographs on the subjects.

You can be critical of him, disagree with him, as you do, I just hope the criticism isn't borne out of anti-intellectualism, or grounded too much in rigid ideology since that would probably be counter-productive instead of constructive.

[Parihaka]

I just hope the criticism isn't borne out of anti-intellectualism, or grounded too much in rigid ideology since that would probably be counter-productive instead of constructive.

My criticism is that he talked from a pre-conceived position but was incapable of defending it.

Originally Posted by SteveMetz
What I was suggesting above is that I don't find the argument persuasive that if we disengage, AQ will trumpet it as a victory. If we stay engaged, they use it to prove American imperialism. Which do you think is going to generate more recruits and more donations—that the infidels are on sacred soil killing Muslim women and children, or that the infidels left the land of Islam and that shows our strength? What that comes down to is whether most of AQ supporters do so because they think they are defending Muslims against infidels, or because they want to conquer the world. I personally think it's the former. If so, disengagement makes the most strategic sense. Phrased differently, just because your enemy will taunt you if you withdraw doesn't in itself make withdrawal the wrong decision. Well, it might in a junior high school fight, but not in strategy.

There are four areas of contention within Islam as regards America.
Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Whether or not AQ trumpets a withdrawal from Iraq as a victory, or whether that doesn't matter because it's juvenile not strategic, the resentment over the other three still remains. So where is the strategic gain?

I'm still waiting for a reply.

[Herodotus]

My criticism is that he talked from a pre-conceived position but was incapable of defending it.



I'm still waiting for a reply.

I don't know that he even saw your reply since he stopped posting in the thread. But of the four examples you cite (though I may take issue with Pakistan) the areas of contention are US support, and/or interference/intervention. Lebanon could have been put on that list 25 years ago, it can't anymore due to US withdrawal. The answer is disengagement or a policy of non-interference in the Middle East.

Middle East oil will still be sold to the US, willingly by despots, Qaddafi and Saddam are testament to that. I don't see any reason for that to change if the US withdrawals. We have the money and the demand for oil, and they have nothing else to sell. The underlying rationale for al Qaeda's hostility to the US is US occupation or perceived occupation of Muslim holy lands. A removal of US troops takes away a major recruiting tool for al Qaeda.

The only concern would probably be stabilizing Afghanistan so it doesn't fall back into the control of the Taliban. However a US troop presence alone may be no guarantee that Afghanistan will stabilize. Outside of opium Afghanistan has no major exports, no middle class, rampant warlordism, no infrastructure, and a major refugee crisis. That said, it also doesn't have major Muslim holy sites or oil, nothing to rally the faithful around. Nothing that is except the foreign troop presence.

I don't know, it's dicey, but at the very least withdrawal from Iraq takes away a recruiting tool, and the US is no longer vulnerable to the "war for empire" or "war for oil" memes from the Arab world. Plus, the US has more moral high ground in Afghanistan than it ever did in Iraq.

[TopHatter]

I don't know, it's dicey, but at the very least withdrawal from Iraq takes away a recruiting tool, and the US is no longer vulnerable to the "war for empire" or "war for oil" memes from the Arab world. Plus, the US has more moral high ground in Afghanistan than it ever did in Iraq.

I disagree. The Middle Eastern Muslim will continue to hate and be taught to hate the United States (and the West in general) for many many decades to come and he will do so gladly because it will allow him to ignore the real reasons behind the backwardness and poverty in the Middle East: His corrupt governments and system of Islamic law that keeps the Middle East essentially anchored to the 8th Century.

Here's one reason:

The underlying rationale for al Qaeda's hostility to the US is US occupation or perceived occupation of Muslim holy lands. A removal of US troops takes away a major recruiting tool for al Qaeda.

You are correct that that is one rationale for al Qaeda's hostility towards the U.S.

Unfortunately for that line of thinking, the U.S. no longer "occupies" the holy sites of Islam in Saudi Arabia. That didn't change a thing because of perceived occupation of Iraq. Really Iraq was just a good way of finding lots and lots of American servicemen and women that they could kill.

Once there is a large withdrawl from Iraq, the non-Western Muslim will be given another reason to hate and kill infidels, including the one that has sustained their hate for decades: Israel.

[Herodotus]

I disagree. The Middle Eastern Muslim will continue to hate and be taught to hate the United States (and the West in general) for many many decades to come and he will do so gladly because it will allow him to ignore the real reasons behind the backwardness and poverty in the Middle East: His corrupt governments and system of Islamic law that keeps the Middle East essentially anchored to the 8th Century.

Well then we are just re-fighting the Crusades over, and over again. Of course if we withdrawl we make ourselves a less tempting target. "Yeah the US is...minding its own business, what bastards, let's blow ourselves up." It doesn't have quite the same ring to it as American imperialism, raping our women, stealing our oil, etc.

Unfortunately for that line of thinking, the U.S. no longer "occupies" the holy sites of Islam in Saudi Arabia. That didn't change a thing because of perceived occupation of Iraq. Really Iraq was just a good way of finding lots and lots of American servicemen and women that they could kill.

Actually there are still US troops in Saudi Arabia, a small number to be sure, but why give them anything to complain about. Plus the invasion of Iraq actually played into al Qaeda propaganda; the US wants Muslim lands, oil, etc. They had troops in the land of the holiest sites and then invaded the land of the second most holy sites, so on and so forth. Plus if the underlying hatred is perceived US military "occupation" then why compound the problem by actual US military occupation.

Once there is a large withdrawl from Iraq, the non-Western Muslim will be given another reason to hate and kill infidels, including the one that has sustained their hate for decades: Israel.

That's neither here nor there. Israel is a sovereign state and all grown up now. It can make decisions on its own, and has, and those policy decisions may or may not align with US interests. France occupied Algeria brutally, France withdrew, disengaged, whatever, France doesn't have the ME terrorist problem the US does.

[JAD_333]

Seems to me this latest go-around was started by a poster patting himself on the back when no one else thought to bring it up. I had to take Bluesman off ignore just to read his comments, but I wasn't surprised by what I saw. I hope his arm doesn't get tired.

There's been a little too much confusion between substance with style. There are two question here: was Blue's was right at the time and was he right to point it out. I don't much care about the latter because that's just Blue's way. Fact is, 14 months ago Metz did not see any possibility of a positive end to the war and Blue's did.

It's a little premature to make a judgment either way about why we went to war in Iraq. I'll wait for some of these documents to be declassified and more information to come out before making a definitive judgment.

It's reasonable on the surface to wait for documents and such, but you can still think for yourself on whether going to war in Iraq was justified strategically by looking at the geopolitical situation at the time and knowing the aims of the various players in the region.

The question of strategy is hard for many to separate from the manner of its execution, which we know was pretty poor in Iraq in the early stages. A good many ramifications of the war have yet to be determined, largely because they have not come about. History will sort it all out in time. But in general, it's not wise for a major power to sit back and watch events happen; better for it's survival to try to shape them.

As for Metz's other conclusions:

Iran's regional influence is still greater than it was before the war, there is some ebb and flow, but the Iranians infinitely prefer the Shiite government to Saddam. AQ was given new life after the Iraq war, and we are still fighting them there. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-G...51L0YE20090222 and dare I say that US standing in the world is diminished from pre-war levels.

The question is, were these conditions made permanent by our actions or were they inevitable in the course of them on the way to overcoming them? Or in other words, were things bound to get worse before they got better?

The fallacy is unqualified authority. If someone publishes extensively in a subject, peer-reviewed, source cited, etc. I would be remiss to call them unqualified. They may not always be right, which is why you include counter-arguments in your thesis, but they are going to be more right than wrong, or they won't last very long as analysts.

The fallacy is that logic is not acceptable unless propounded by someone who has credentials. Of course, Dr. Metz's extensive knowledge must tip the balance in any far-ranging discussion of strategy formation, but not on each and every point, else we would be living in a perfect world...no?

At the end of the day we are all just a bunch of anonymous guys on the internet pontificating on various issues.

Don't overlook the ladies.:) I don't feel very anonymous. Also, we have our experts; look at some of the military threads. And the give and take here often gets down to the nub of political issues thanks to the input of the members. At the end of the day, we are a bunch of people who care, want to be informed and like to sound off. Unless Metz is a robot, he's not much different in essense, except he get paid for it.

You can be critical of him, disagree with him, as you do, I just hope the criticism isn't borne out of anti-intellectualism, or grounded too much in rigid ideology since that would probably be counter-productive instead of constructive.

I am not anti-intellectual or rigid in my ideology even though I am wary of intellectuals and have my own ideology. My advice to anyone who wants the truth is to listen to everyone, get the facts, and be willing to question one's own beliefs. Reason, knowledge and experience lead to understanding. The biggest mistake academics and ordinary people make IMO is assuming knowledge and understanding are one and the same. They are not. Have a good day.:)