Burst of Sanity at Rightwing Nuthouse: In Iraq, Quit or Commit

[BurtWorm]

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/08/20/iraq-quit-or-commit/

IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT
CATEGORY: War on Terror

I’ve been putting off writing this post for a couple of months. Not out of any fear of blogospheric consequences although it would pain me if my honest opinion drove people away from this site. But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government. For them, it may come as no surprise that I have reached a point where I believe we must make a decision as a nation about whether we want to continue our involvement – which would mean an increase in resources and a direct confrontation with Iran and Syria over their massive support for the terrorists and insurgents – or whether we should pack up and go home. In other words, escalate or leave.

Why now? And why bother writing about it?

Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point.

And the reason to write about it is equally simple; to join a growing chorus of conservatives who are becoming very critical of our involvement and try and break through the spin and myopia of the Administration which is making the situation worse by pretending that things are getting better or are not as bad as we think they are.

The ultimate question to be asked is do we make one, final, massive attempt to alter the deteriorating situation by committing more resources to the war while at the same time giving ultimatums to both Syria and Iran to halt their clandestine and outrageously illegal assistance to the terrorists who are murdering thousands of civilians every month.

The risks involved in the latter should be self-evident; a general Middle East war that could drag the world into both economic chaos and a massive regional conflict with uncertain consequences for our friends and allies. And, of course, the risk in committing more resources is that we increase the number of American targets for the terrorists and insurgents as well as face the possibility that all our efforts will be for naught anyway.

The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow.

But perhaps the most damning record of stupidity and spin comes via the book Cobra II by Michael R. Gordon and General (Ret.) Bernard E. Trainor. Much of the book is a heartbreaking recitation of erroneous assumptions, overly optimistic assessments, and finally, a risible refusal to admit mistakes and change course.

Lest one think that these books are the products of left wing loons or authors suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, the one common thread running through both volumes is the massive amount of research and unprecedented access to documents that went into writing them. To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself. Facts are facts and if the Administration had confronted many of the problems – insurgency, militias, disenchanted populace, the extent of foreign assistance to the insurgents, and sectarian factionalism to name a few – it may be that a different outcome to the war could have been salvaged.

For as it stands now, we are at a psychological tipping point in Iraq where drastic measures are needed in order to turn the situation around and give the weak Iraqi government a chance to gain control. There are many hands raised against this government and as of right now, they are losing any semblance of legitimacy due to their powerlessness in the face of the massive violence that has been unleashed.

...

<more at link>

[The Magistrate]

1. That Is Indeed Shockingly Sane, Sir

Looking out my window now for the gaggle of swine in frormation aerobatics....

But seriously, it is not a bad analysis, though beginning from opposite premises. Though the statement one more supreme effort may turn things around is always in fact a confession nothing can really be done. As a German wrote in a memoir of Verdun: "'One more effort and we have it,' the officers said. They said in May and in June. They said it in July. In August they did not say it anymore."

[LuckyLib]

2. Washington clearly didn't want to know any complicated "details"

like the history and culture of the region or the reality of politics in the Middle East. When Bush and the Boys barreled into disaster like that, with experts not consulted, we can only assume they had bigger fish to fry. The disaster that was predicted is upon us. On so many levels we are paying for their stupidity. Some people with their lives.

[Bandit]

3. I think we should sock that tar baby (Iraq) a really good one

Maybe even kick it a few times, with both feet. :crazy:

[warrens]

4. An interesting perspective on Sunday

I believe it was an instructor at the Naval Institute, but I could be wrong. What we think of as democracy is not what Muslim countries think of. We think of it as a relationship between the individual and the state. They think of it as a relationship between their social group (tribe or religion) and the state. And since in Iraq one tribe is getting screwed and the other is clearly on the ascendent, there will be no understanding of this new government as fair or even-handed or "democratic." In other words, civil war is inevitable unless the Sunnis are bought off. And the radical Shia will never allow that to happen.

On Edit:

The Shia look at the overthrow of Saddam like Cheney looks at stealing two elections: We won, we'll do whatever the fuck we want, and the Sunnis (Democrats) can kiss my ass.

[bamacrat]

5. I love it how the right comes out with these grand statements

2 months after we did, and acts like they have finally solved the great tasks before us.

[JHB]

7. They were having too much fun...

...dismissing the "wild rantings" of the "looney left".

A telling sign of what's more important to them.

[mascale]

6. Possibly You Should Consider An Anarchy

There is such a concept as a functioning anarchy, in the context of a stateless civilization, and in my view predicated on the mathematical certainty of Widespread Wealth Worldwide.

But that aside, "Delusionals Delight" was first raised by Democratic Rep. Jane Harman--of the California District including in the Northwest Corner, Venice, CA--on a Larry King Live broadcast soon after 9/11 or sometime pre-invasion of one or another of the Middle Eastern Nations most recently invaded. Organizations invariably filter information--and Rep. Harman is of House Intelligence Committee. Were you to take the more traditional Conservative anti-government perspective, (And Rep. Harman is not entirely Liberal), then the Bush Bungling of the entire post-9/11 policy-making would make more sense. Those Conservatives have gone more the way of the high-minded Abolitionist Republicanism that even bungled the abolition of slavery. Amendment XIV happened since Amendment XIII could just as easily replaced black people with white people. Facts On The Ground have no place in the Filters of the Delusional: On which governments intending war have always relied. There have been enemies all over the planet, likely even before the first Sumerian priest first discovered the concept of beer. Even the Imperial Japanese Pre-WWII: Saw the planet in terms of their "interests," not entirely unlike the current White House.

So you might want to consider that civilization as you now know it is wrong--and deadly wrong--and then re-think your developing assessment of the bungling of everything post 9/11 as a contention for the efficacy of anarchy. Clearly, anarchy would not be said viable without Widespread Wealth Worldwide, much as "Delusionals Delight" would be said reliant on the absence of even a semblance of Widespread Wealth Worldwide.

Rightly thought through, you might consider that Anarchy is what happens after successful liberal democracy. Currently, two thirds of the peoples worldwide do not have safe drinking water or access to public sanitation. On such a planet, you might even find "terrorists."

But that would likely require an different intelligence assessment: If in fact including the different concept certain, of intelligence itself.