Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

I've been paying attention to all this (The Iraq part of the war), and ALWAYS wondered why, exactly, we were fighting in the first place.

Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.

Learn what Halberstam, et al had been warning about.

Time was on the side of the enemy, and we were in a position of not being able to win, not being able to get out ... only being able to lash out ... And so the war went on, tearing at this country; a sense of numbness seemed to replace an earlier anger. There was, Americans were finding, no light at the end of the tunnel, only greater darkness.

Is this not "Mission Accomplished"? No, Halberstam wrote this in "The Best and the Brightest" in 1972. Deja vue because, well, did you even know about an essential strategic objective, need for a smoking gun, and an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective? And yet that was the lesson of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, and history.

Read about the battle of Ap Bac in 1962 that demonstrated why Nam would not be a winnable war. Notice the Iraqis and Maliki's government are doing this same thing. Notice back then how many even in The Cellar did not recognized a situation that created Vietnam was creating "Mission Accomplished" - complete with a lying president.

Also notice Urbane Guerrilla, et al are promoting this reasoning that kept Nam ongoing for seven years after the Wise Men (just like the Iraq Study Group) told Johnson that Nam could not be won. But ‘big dic’ reasoning from Gens LeMay and Westmoreland continued to be promoted. Westmoreland so in denial as to proclaim fundamental military doctrine did not apply to Nam.

View posts from last summer – ie June 2006. That was America’s last (and desperate) hope to create a "Mission Accomplished" victory. One year ago is when "Mission Accomplished" could no longer be won because George Jr, Rumsfeld, etc refused to even give the troops what was requested (ie enough troops). Even more appauling, they were doing the exact same thing that undermined Swartzkopf fabulous military victory in 1991. I could not believe it. Would Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fieth, Wolfowitz, etc make in 2003 the exact same mistake they made in 1991? Yes!

The Cellar (and this thread) are a history of what you should have known then when it was posted. Follow many posts. Some are based in military doctrine and the lessons of history. Others just know we must be winning because Gen Odierno was executing heavy artillery attacks every night. Like in Nam, where the myopic saw successful artillery attacks as an indication of victory, instead, those who understood basic military doctrine (and especially how to fight an insurgency) knew those artillery barrages only demonstrates how badly "Mission Accomplished" was being lost while effectively recruiting for the enemy.

Some posts not only warned of impending failures. Also provided repeatedly are underlying reasons why. Rumsfeld could not find Generals to staff his operation - had to reach so far down into the ranks to find Gen Sanchez. Gen Garner all but refused to continue. "Mission Accomplished" (and Rumsfeld) were carrer destroyers; that well known to those educated in military doctrine that long ago.

What is common to all above? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In this case, those wacko extremists kept makinng the same mistakes again and again. Their political agendas (ie America does not do nation building) replaced intelligence. they are that dumb and that much driven by their extremist rhetoric. And we let them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I disagree with that, Glatt, and say better never than at all. Who in a democracy has any business bowing to a fascism? You may be among the defeated, but why should I join you in that ugly stew? Why can't you be like me instead?

We do understand the nature of our foes, do we not? -- oppressive, repressive, hostile to democracy, the one legitimate governmental form and the one most conducive to a wealthy society. Nor is this a separate war; it is an integral part of the GWOT, and is most properly spoken of as a "campaign" -- a fraction of the wider war.

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 11 May 2007:

Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal
A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007. ...

On his second day in Iraq, Cheney spoke to U.S. soldiers at a base near Tikrit about the difficulties they face each day. ... He added: "The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

So why are we in Iraq, why have we permitted the Taliban to take back 50% of Afghanistan, and when do we go after bin Laden? Apparently Cheney still thinks Americans are so dumb as to think Iraq had something to do with 11 September. But then almost one in three Americans still supports Pres Cheney and his band of wackos. So yes, some Americans are still that woefully deceived. But when do we go after bin Laden?

[Undertoad]

You favor an invasion of Pakistan? How many troops will it take?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

We do understand the nature of our foes, do we not? -- oppressive, repressive, hostile to democracy, the one legitimate governmental form and the one most conducive to a wealthy society. Nor is this a separate war; it is an integral part of the GWOT, and is most properly spoken of as a "campaign" -- a fraction of the wider war.

So your philosophy is that we should bomb the hell out of them until they love us?

[Hippikos]

Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.

And there's the Clean Break Document written by some very familiar people directly involved with the Iraq war.

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. "

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And in an unsurprising accord with tw's usual pathology, he believes some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. This despite my severally-repeated remark that while I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.

Tw's so full of It that it's dripping out the top.

Turning to Glatt: which outcomes are acceptable, one way or the other? That they love us, or that they become absent?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...[W]hile I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.

Then UG...

Why are we there?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You mean you weren't paying ANY attention? I've commented more than once on why we're there: a democracy prospers best in a world full of other democracies (an indisputable point, I think; not even those who disagree with me out of sheer mindless reflex try it) and having an actual democracy (in whatever degree that exceeds that of the other regimes about the Great Oil Patch) in control of a quarter of the world's oil reserves can be nothing but good, right?

That Iraq is liberated and remains liberated from the dictator's iron boot is the one, the only, the preeminently important thing. The list of dead fascists who tried impeding this liberation matters not at all -- except of course to democracy-haters and fascism-lovers. By their actions ye shall know them. [Hint: they're the ones who push for anything other than a US & Allies victory.]

You don't have to believe Iraq did 9-11 to desire its liberation. Where's any connection between the two? I don't see one.

[Ibby]

UG, the people didn't want us there, dont want us there, and are no happier now than they were. I'm all for freedom and democracy - much more than you are, if you support Bush - but there was NO justification for going into Iraq. If they wanted Saddam out, they could have kicked him out themselves. Just look at the state Iraq is in now. We're much more powerful than Saddam was; if they can take us on, they could have taken him on.

It's not our responsibility to police the world.
Dictatorships are bad. Turning America into one, and a militaristic and aggressive one at that, is even worse.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And in an unsurprising accord with tw's usual pathology, he believes some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. This despite my severally-repeated remark that while I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.

This is fact. Many American still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

In 2003, 70% of Americans thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks.

In 2005, 24% of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9-11.

I can't find results for 2007, but I'm sure there are still a few morons out there.

[Happy Monkey]

But UG doesn't know any of them. How could he not know 24% of Americans?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, glatt, I never thought that. And I still don't know anybody who does. Guess my friends and acquaintances are all among the smarter three-quarters, if HM's figure is not pulled out of thin air.

[glatt]

The links in my post (#551) show where those figures came from.

[tw]

glatt demonstrates how Americans believed and many still believe Saddam is complicit in 11 September. But even UG had that opinion in Aug 2005. In 2005, he was lumping Saddam, Al Qaeda, and all those other 'enemies' in a monolithic Islamoterrorism that would attack the US.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I don't think you're looking into it deeply enough, Happy. To make Islamoterrorism go extinct, you need to eliminate all of its breeding grounds, which means all of the non-democracies in the Arabic-speaking world, and then further, in all the Islamic world. A large task, true, but not necessarily impossible, except to the mind that finds freedom too great a strain. Iraq was one such breeding ground, and the case of al-Zarqawi getting surgery from Saddam's Iraq, connected to al-Qaeda quite closely enough for me. ...
To amplify: there's no particular wrong in taking the weakest dictatorship down first ...

I can see what it is we're trying to do. We are trying to make Islamoterrorism extinct by eliminating its natural breeding grounds: Islamic non-democracies.

Urbane Guerrilla once had 11 September, bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and Saddam as a monolithic enemy that America must 'fix'. His 'Them verses Us' mentality justified by a political agenda rather than facts.

Next he will re-educate us: North Vietnam was a surrogate for monolithic communism of China and USSR.

Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame.

Urbane Guerrilla defines terror to include 11 September.

I do not agree with that point at all. They are one and the same. Those who want the war lost insist they are somehow separate, but you should know my views on that by now. From now on, please take it as read that I regard the Iraq campaign as an integral part of the War on Terror, part of that denial of breeding grounds I've so often mentioned.

Suddenly Iraq has no relationship to terror attacks on 11 September? One can do this when a political agenda justifies rewriting history - history of what UG has posted.

Also on UG's list of countries responsible for 11 September and Bali Indonesia:

If Islamoterrorism is to go away, its sponsors must be finished off.

Islamoterrorism doesn't happen without the say-so of Islamic governments or government entities. It keeps transpiring, for a somewhat far-flung instance, that Indonesian Islamoterrorists have covert ties with the Indonesian military. And just how many Islamic nations/governments are on the list of terrorist sponsors? Two that were recently knocked off that list are Afghanistan and Iraq. Still on it are Syria and Iran among others.

The world according to UG: all Islamoterrorism is why Americans must unilaterally attack Iraq, Iran, and even Syria. A black and white world where only good can vanquish evil. IOW a political agenda explains everything.

That we were attacked again without provocation (despite the fact that the attacking parties can in either case point to something they will call a provocation) puts us in the identical moral position in the War On Terror as in WW2. Iraq is but one campaign in the WOT, and inseparable from it if we want Islamoterrorism to go extinct.

Iraq and 11 September was inseparable in Urbane Guerrilla's mind. Now that he cannot rewrite that history, he tries to claim "Mission Accomplished" has no relationship to 11 September? Rewriting his own opinions also justified by his political agenda?