Fair enough Sanfam, I guess I was just being defense. (I'm used to my personal beliefs coming under fire online, so my response was primarily reactionary.)
Sleepy with your criterion regarding civilian casualties, I hate to tell you but such a criterion may be impossible to establish.
intelligence never deals in firm yes no maters, its based on probability, and in that case you end up having to make a cost analysis of the decision.
Weather or not you agree on the motivations for the Iraq war, the actual execution of the conflict has killed compartivily few civilians, and I mean compared to other wars of similar scope and size.
The most accurate figures seem to place civilian dead at about 25,000 and thats from acts of "combatants" and terrorism , (the corner market is NOT a battlefield if no americans or Iraqi security personel are present.)
This is probably as good as it can get in selective targeting, considering the major areas of combat have so far been urban areas.
The typical cause of civilan casualties is not direct military action, but due to the break down of the infrastructure, starvation and disease.
More german civilans died in the winter s of 44-45 and even in the winter of 45-46, then died at Dresden, The same with japan, those same winters probably killed more people then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
In Iraq the US has worked hard at maintaing infrastructure to at least provide basic health needs to minimize civilian casualties. This simple act by itself is the major factor in reducing civilian casualties.
However in a "Total war" secnario such as the war against germany in WWII such things are not possible, because they will consume resources which are needed to garuntee victory, or to reduce the total duration of the war.
Untill we reduce warfare down to nanites searching out specific individuals to kill them, Iraq is actually a best possible case of managing civilian liabiity during the course of a conflict.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]neither could most German civilians be considered responsible for letting Nazis rise to power.
They weren't in possession of magic wands. Their senses and reactions were successfully manipulated, their options limited.[/B][/QUOTE][i]As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: [b]"The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary][/b]. In addition, he noted, "[b]Radio and press are at our disposal.[/b]"[/i]
Anyone who wonders why US media works current way?
[QUOTE][B]I strongly oppose compromising a realistic world-model to need for moral clarity. If the price of clarity is blindness... I prefer to keep my vision, even if it confuses me.
If the above examples demonstrate your perception of "moral clarity"... then permit me to suspect... that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality.[/B][/QUOTE]You get it wrong, that moral clarity means right/justification for oppressing others... and right to kill those who doesn't want to serve.
Just like those "terrorists" have their moral clarity for doing their part.
"The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded."
-Leo Tolstoy
[QUOTE][B]Oh dear? Those terrible public schools?
Well, thanks for injecting some propaganda into your statements. It helps clarify atop which particular molehill you are viewing events.[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah... those teach "bad" ideas like you're NOT the king of the world living in a holy country with god's mandate to oppress all others.
And wrong, moles can't make that amount of s**t... that's monopoly of tyrannies/despotisms.
You know, for a long time I thought that Soviets had most effective BS-machine of all time... but it's clearly evident that I've been wrong in that.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B][i]As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: [b]"The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary][/b]. In addition, he noted, "[b]Radio and press are at our disposal.[/b]"[/i]
Anyone who wonders why US media works current way?[/quote][url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/10/06/no-longer-obeying-orders/[/url]
I'd have to say, however, that comparing the American media to the Soviet propoganda machine is ridiculous.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Sleepy with your criterion regarding civilian casualties, I hate to tell you but such a criterion may be impossible to establish.[/quote]
Absolute truth is impossible to establish, but some measure of care... will generally get one close.
[quote]intelligence never deals in firm yes no maters, its based on probability, and in that case you end up having to make a cost analysis of the decision. [/quote]
A cost analysis is necessary anyway. Just like an extra overflight by a drone, civilian casualties go on the cost side. From a justice viewpoint, they are simply unacceptable, and a great liability. From an efficiency viewpoint, their prevalence degrades hope of gaining a favourable environment (like understanding and cooperation of local people).
[quote] Weather or not you agree on the motivations for the Iraq war, the actual execution of the conflict has killed compartivily few civilians, and I mean compared to other wars of similar scope and size.[/quote]
The problem is that the conflict was not contained to fighting between regular military forces. Inadequacy did not exhibit itself in ability to selectively target the Iraqi regular army. That was done reasonably enough.
Inadequacy exhibited itself in ability to follow up... deploy sufficient peacekeeping forces to actually *end* the war... prevent looting, and prevent the conflict from switching gear to a widespread covert insurgency. Inadequacy also arose in ability to seal borders and deter public crime.
Methods for restoring peace in seized territory were known... but somehow, key actions to achieving this were undertaken with incredible delay... as if plans emphasizing their necessity had never existed.
For which reason my assessment of the war in Iraq as wasteful.
[quote]This is probably as good as it can get in selective targeting, considering the major areas of combat have so far been urban areas.[/quote]
It would have been alltogether better to delay the war a little, ensuring at least marginal ability to *secure control* of the urban scene, and preserve higher availability (or quicker restorability) of elementary conveniences (medical aid, law enforcement, clean water, later on electricity and fuel).
It might have made a radical difference on the most important front -- the opinion of Iraqi people, their level of cooperation, and their perception of insurgent activity.
After an initial wave of looting left behind masive confusion and ruined infrastructure, Iraqi people were probably *not* perceiving insurgents as a clear enough danger to their already shattered economic welfare.
Had it been possible to limit initial damage, leave people something to lose (something which the insurgents would be perceived to take away)... they might not have tolerated the insurgents nearly as much, and might have cooperated much more with occupying forces (especially where occupying forces would be seen to care for public well-being).
[quote] The typical cause of civilan casualties is not direct military action, but due to the break down of the infrastructure, starvation and disease.[/quote]
Such factors are significant indeed, but I emphasize: warfare presents choices between aggravating such factors, or mitigating them.
[quote] In Iraq the US has worked hard at maintaing infrastructure to at least provide basic health needs to minimize civilian casualties.[/quote]
I personally perceived initial efforts in that direction... as a miserable failure, probably due to lack of planning and personnel. I do hope it has improved from there on.
[quote] However in a "Total war" secnario such as the war against germany in WWII such things are not possible, because they will consume resources which are needed to garuntee victory, or to reduce the total duration of the war.[/quote]
However, even in total war, where resources to assist recovery are notably smaller... one must still choose what one targets, and how one spends destructive resources.
On this background, one must consider whether any compelling reason exists to target civilians... and I personally cannot think of one.
In the specific case of Dresden... I cannot see what could have justified it. Not only were civilians not proper enemies... but compared to harming production capability, transport infrastrucure or even hard targets like air defense... harming civilians was wasteful.
It didn't bring the victory closer, but delayed it. Having avoided the bombs which fell on residential areas, new trains delivered fuel to ports, new submarines launched to sea, preserved factories could assemble tanks or planes... since they were not threatened by deficit of workforce, but deficit of material.
[quote] Untill we reduce warfare down to nanites searching out specific individuals to kill them, Iraq is actually a best possible case of managing civilian liabiity during the course of a conflict. [/QUOTE]
I personally suspect you are looking a bit past the obvious. The key factor to managing civilian casualties in a present-day "humanitarian interention"... may be as simple as gaining enough control over a region to actually *end* a conflict (while not totally alienating local people) and switch over to police work (assuming one has people who *can* do police work).
In Iraq, reaching that point has proven extremely problematic... and I personally tend to think the reasons... are mostly related to political leadership pushing their military forces to do things without adequate time for planning and staging.
Rash actions may be warranted in an unexpected war... but hardly ever in a war of choice. Which irks me, since Iraq was entered by choice, and somebody either didn't bother to calculate "peacekeepers per resident"... or calculated it, and decided to ignore the fact that numbers were significantly lower than in those rare "successful interventions".
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]
It might have made a radical difference on the most important front -- the opinion of Iraqi people, their level of cooperation, and their perception of insurgent activity.
After an initial wave of looting left behind masive confusion and ruined infrastructure, Iraqi people were probably *not* perceiving insurgents as a clear enough danger to their already shattered economic welfare.
Had it been possible to limit initial damage, leave people something to lose (something which the insurgents would be perceived to take away)... they might not have tolerated the insurgents nearly as much, and might have cooperated much more with occupying forces (especially where occupying forces would be seen to care for public well-being).
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, in a macabre, machavellian way, it makes more sense to [i]not[/i] tighten down too much after the take over.
If the US came in with massive riot repression forces, this would mean that the smallest infraction would be punished, meaning that every Iraqi would know someone who was taken out by the "invading US infidels". As it stands, the population can now see that the US is not going to be the total repressor, and in fact, the insurgency of mainly non-Iraqis is a bigger threat. The populace must find a means of defending itself. The population now has an interest in the creation and stabilization of the new Iraq, an interest they wouldn't have otherwise. This attitude can be seen in the number of volunteers for the Army and police forces, despite their being directly targeted by the terrorists.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]Actually, in a macabre, machavellian way, it makes more sense to [i]not[/i] tighten down too much after the take over.
If the US came in with massive riot repression forces, this would mean that the smallest infraction would be punished, meaning that every Iraqi would know someone who was taken out by the "invading US infidels". [/quote]
If one *does* want a functioning country (as opposed to a haven of terrorism)... it pays much more to maintain control of the territory one occupied. Only if one *wants* a terrorist haven... would it seem acceptable to forget securing gained territory. Machiavellian or not... I fail to see why one should desire that.
Also, would your model of many Iraqis developing someone "taken out by occupying forces"... not require the assumption of *deterrence* having no effect? I personally think deterrence *has* effect.
For some people, what you say might apply... but for most, I guess an accountable presence of occupying forces, and their willingness to stop looting... would have conveyed the message [i]"this area: not for take"[/i], and the secondary message [i]"no need to loot, your neigbour ain't looting either"[/i].
[quote]As it stands, the population can now see that the US is not going to be the total repressor, and in fact, the insurgency of mainly non-Iraqis is a bigger threat.[/quote]
The problems with that approach:
-- After Saddam's regime, nobody would have seriously perceived mere deterrence from public crime... as a "repressive action" from occupying forces.
-- Oppositely, it might well be that many people... perceived the inability of occupying forces to control the territory they occupied... as lack of care towards Iraqi people.
Many might perceive the issue as: [i]"The suckers arrived, broke what structures existed, took everything offline, and left it to settle like that. Without bothering to post a patrol at the hospital, power station or oil refinery."[/i]
[quote] The populace must find a means of defending itself.[/quote]
If one assumes that the *losing* side in a war can organize their own defense... then how does one hope to win the war?
Is the requirement of winning a war... not disrupting the target society in such fashion... that its organized defenses crumble? I certainly think such a requirement is nearly essential, and nobody could have expected the Iraqis to spring up magical means of defending themselves -- after their telecommunications and power supply had been systematically stopped.
Sure, some of them had guns. But guess who? Naturally those closer to the *old* regime -- those unwilling to start fixing anything, and quite content with *starting* an insurgency.
For most ordinary Iraqis, the best defense against robbery (having nothing of liquid value to take)... was the only defense available.
[quote]The population now has an interest in the creation and stabilization of the new Iraq, an interest they wouldn't have otherwise.[/quote]
This is a point where I cannot follow your claim from cause to effect (and indeed, suspect real conditions to be opposite).
*Why* should a person who lost nearly all economic guarantees -- including their job (since the company was looted apart), and most conveniences necessary to function with a modicum of efficiency, have more interest in rebuilding?
*Where* is a practise-proven sociological reason for a person busy with survival... to take *more* interest in high-level conveniences like justice, peace or democracy?
To my understanding, history often indicates otherwise -- indicates that only a person who can already manage everyday life... takes serious interest in improving society. Economic crisis, on the very opposite... tends to lead towards political apathy.
[quote]This attitude can be seen in the number of volunteers for the Army and police forces, despite their being directly targeted by the terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Recruiting Iraqi volunteers is viable today, but could not have solved the immediate problems after toppling Saddam.
Moreover, I doubt the number of recruits demonstrate a soaring desire for social improvement. Considering the quality of recruits, most are being driven there... by mega-high unemployment.
Equally many as show up at recruitment stations... may be suspected to obtain a gun *without* a badge.
Just to clarify, I do not believe that current situation was planned for, nor was it deviously planned as I presented. That was simply being the devil's advocate (a position I shouldn't take).
I truly do enjoy the civil discussions we are capable of on this firum. In the good spirit with which you present yourself, sleepy_shadow, I'd like to continue with some of these thoughts.
[quote][b]
If one *does* want a functioning country (as opposed to a haven of terrorism)... it pays much more to maintain control of the territory one occupied.
[/b][/quote]
I agree with you here. I think the greatest shortcoming of the invasion was the lack of preparation for *after* the invasion. In hindsight, the US should have seen that there would be little upfront resistance, just as in Desert Storm.
The US planners simply did not prepare enough for the occupation. Apparently, they believed they would have had a little more time to prepare, and possibly used more coalition forces, had there been a larger coalition.
In the larger picture, the US also should not have expected a population that had been as centrally controlled as Iraq to be ready to police itself and take up the principles of democracy as fast as one year.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]In short? Yes. Just like one should blame the Nazis (and those agreed to serve them without resistance, obstruction, sabotage or other redeeming actions) for starting WWII [/B][/QUOTE]
In that case one must also blame the parts of the world who did nothing to try and topple President Hussein after he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and commited his political opponants to mass graves. In fact perhaps the French, Germans, and Russians should feel shame for supporting a murderous regime by profiting and userping the oil for food programs. No one is perfectly innocent in this mess. I am tired of certain individuals thinking they have the high road. NONE OF US DO.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i][B]...one should blame the US and UK air forces for needlessly obliterating multiple tens of thousands of German civilians.[/B][/QUOTE]
If only bombing during WWII could have been as accurate as it is today. Recall how terrible the odds were of bomber crews surviving assaults on Germany? There is a reason they flew as high as possible resulting in drifting bombs. It is a shame bombs were even dumber than they are now. I had family that were turned to stew ~ cooked alive ~ in the tunnels hiding from the firebombing ~ I don't blame the allies at all. It was not 'needless obliteration' as you put it.
[quote] I am tired of certain individuals thinking they have the high road.[/quote]
Everybody has contributed to something harmful... but roads of different efficiency and integrity *are* undeniably available. Even within limits of realism, multiple options and choices remain available.
Thus, while I am tired of anyone claiming an administrative unit's clearly errant behaviour impeccable (for example by shifting blame to its opponents, using the claim that their actions justified all counter-actions, even if those involve unlimited or unselective retribution to non-involved people)...
...I am not tired of speculating which path would be correct, feasible... efficient in short and long term... because to achieve something of worth, such paths of action must be discovered.
Consideration of which responses are best is *not* something I could leave to others. I feel it necessary to have an opinion, and talking with others sometimes permits to check if an opinion is correct/informed, incorrect/uninformed, or otherwise in need of change.
[QUOTE]In that case one must also blame the parts of the world who did nothing to try and topple President Hussein after he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and commited his political opponants to mass graves. [/QUOTE]
I never said one shouldn't.
Yes, one should.
However, blame assigned for inaction... ought generally be somewhat less... than blame assigned for harmful action.
[quote]In fact perhaps the French, Germans, and Russians should feel shame for supporting a murderous regime[/quote]
Perhaps indeed. However, if one only blamed them... one would be needlessly limiting ones focus.
One should definitely include the US, represented for example by Rumsfeld, whose eager deal-making with Saddam permitted yet another country to support the "best counterweight to Iran".
[quote]No one is perfectly innocent in this mess.[/quote]
I agree. Even I am guilty of letting it fester.
Although realistically, I have no direct influence over the situation, have not stepped out of my way to worsen it... and have tried to empower representatives who are more likely to pursue reasonable foreign policy (which might improve that situation, and other similar situations)... so I am left with a rather small slice of the blame.
Foremost, the blame for doing something awfully wrong... rests with those who actively do it.
Which was exactly my point, when I said one *ought* blame the Nazis, and those who willingly supported them, for a rather long list of crimes committed during World War II -- but *not* those crimes which were committed by others.
[quote]If only bombing during WWII could have been as accurate as it is today. [/quote]
Even back then, the results of accidentally and deliberately bombing civilian residential areas were *markedly* different.
There were accidents. Blame for accidents *must* naturally be lower. However, there were also deliberate raids intended to destroy civilians. And those... were just another war crime.
That countries whose residents were targeted in *those* crimes were also committing crimes of their own (and indeed, sometimes committing them on far bigger scale)... does not negate the inefficiency of such acts... or pardon their committment against people lacking direct complicity in war.
Lacking a high road does not prevent condemning such instances.
Dunedain is attacked for posting "flame-bait" for saying we should hunt down and kill scumbags who kill indiscriminately.
TheRaven squarely places blame for these attacks on Britain herself and her involvement in Iraq, and nobody says a cross word.
Terrorists don't care who they kill. It could be a mother with her baby, a kid on the way to school, two friends going for lunch - it doesn't matter to them. All that matters is that innocent people end up dead so they can hog the limelight for a bit.
Let's face it, if it weren't for Iraq, these same people would be plotting attacks in different places for different reasons. They'd be blowing up civilians in Israel, blowing up civilians in the US or Britain for their support of Israel, they'd be blowing up civilians in places like Saudi Arabia for a legitimate military presence there. The problem isn't what we do to provoke them, the problem is that we have a significant group of extremists who believe that the only way to reach their goals is to kill innocent people. Those who would pull us out of Iraq to appease them are of the same stock as those who would have appeased Hitler fifty years ago. The only way that such people will be satisfied is for you to be either dead or under their thumb, be it in ideology, religion, or militarily.
These people pose a clear and present danger to our very way of life. Just like fifty years ago, "blame" should rest with those who stand by and do nothing while they try to sully everything we stand for.
They set out to kill innocents. If the US military kills innocents, it is in the pursuit of creating a better world for everyone. It's not right, but it's not the same as getting onto a crowded subway with the stated intention of killing people you don't know.
[QUOTE]If the US military kills innocents, it is in the pursuit of creating a better world for everyone. It's not right, but it's not the same as getting onto a crowded subway with the stated intention of killing people you don't know.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me - but I don't see a better world made by wars for profit. Additionally the innocent are dead either way - I doubt very much they care which side shot them.
A war on terrorism is just like fucking for virginity - though I would prefer the latter to be done :D
There is no need to endlessly breed more terrorists by bombing / invading foreign countries.
Please, tell me how we have frakking [i]profited[/i] from going into Iraq.
Is it for the oil? Yeah, look at all the spoils of war we've brought back there! Oil prices are plummeting because of the amazing supply we've secured and the stability we've brought to the market :rolleyes:.
Oh, wait, okay, maybe it was because the US budget needed a boost. We can just loot the Iraqi treasury and pay for whatever we want! Look at the [i]huge[/i] budget surplus the federal government is operating under!
Maybe you're not speaking of monetary profit? Maybe you're speaking of the respect and admiration we've gained on the world stage for sticking our neck out?
Now, I think I may know what you're talking about here, all sarcasm aside, so let's play a hypothetical scenario out here. You were just elected president. Before that you ran a small mom & pop type shop building computers from parts you could get at Newegg or something like that. Now that you're president, your first task is to use public money to buy the computer you're going to be using for day-to-day tasks. Do you buy a Dell, or, assuming you still have time, do you build one yourself? Some would be outraged and say that that money should never go to a company you have any influence in. But as long as you have a working computer on your desk and you're not scamming your voters, what do you care? The question I therefore pose is why [i]shouldn't[/i] Haliburton get any government contracts, as long as the job is getting done? Obviously, the Bush administration is intimately familiar with what they can expect from such a company and could likely work more closely with them than some firm they were just meeting for the first time.
Truth be told, with the office of President of the United States of America at your disposal, there almost certainly much, much easier ways to go about getting profit, albiet illegally, that don't involve a war. If greed was Bush's sole motive in office, any such deals would be strictly under-the-table and wouldn't come to light for years yet.
In response to your other comments, ponder this:
In post-WWII Germany, the media was all over insurgencies, saying we weren't winning the peace, etc. etc. Everyone was preaching doom and gloom all around. Today Germany is all but pacifist.
Iraqis are turning out in droves to defend their country, and the terrorists in their paranoia and fanaticism are targeting them as well as US forces. You say Iraqis have been brutalized by US bombings, that their innocent civilians are crying out for justice? Then why are they signing up to fight the terrorists instead of joining them? Why are the terrorists attacking Iraqi people if the people hate us as much as the terrorists do? In the short term, Iraq may have bred terror, but in the long term it is breeding a strong state that isn't going to put up with the brutality any longer. If we stay the course with them, Iraq won't be a quagmire, it will be an example for the entire Middle East.
Your f__ing for virginity analogy is flawed too. First of all, the orignal analogy was that a war for peace, not terrorism, is like f__ing for virginity. Second of all, peace can come after war, unlike virginity after f__ing. Peace isn't something that you're given at birth until someone takes it away or you give it away. Peace is something you have to fight for, a vision you must strive to realize. If your analogy were to hold true, then no war can ever possibly end.
The truth is that wars can end in victory, and victory can bring peace. Unless Germany conquered France again and I missed it. If they did, kindly inform Germny that it would be in their best interest to demolish France to make room for a large seaway (see that "Imagine a world without France..." picture for details.)
The problem with the Left these days is that for them to be correct, Iraq has to crumble, terrorism has to proliferate, and the economy has to plummet.
Profit: Just tell me which war is not waged for profit? There are many kinds of profit, as you have so wisely counted, and quite often more than one of these is the reason behind it all.
You simply don't have to stabilize a country to control it's resources. As long as they can be brought home with reasonable losses everything is fine - that is from a strictly machiavellistic way of thought. I really doubt most of the international affairs are motivated by something else.
Germany: Since 1999 we wage war again - currently German forces are [i]fighting[/i] alongside the U.S. forces in Afghanistan. So much for "pacifist". (I do not mean the peace-keeping forces with this, they are troops in combat right now.)
Iraque: The current situation is clearly to complicated to make sure statements. (They are more than 40 different groups at the moment considering themselves [b]the designated resistance[/b] :eek: ). You have terrorism in Iraque for many different reasons. But if it "travels" to foreign countries it most certainly has something to do with the war / invasion.
This "quagmire" was unnecessary - you don't have to put a dictator in a place of power and arm him just to go after him a few years later. This accounts for most U.S. wars in the last few years (Taliban...).
Virginity: I meant it the way I altered the analogy. It just describes a paradoxon - if you fuck you lose your virginity, if you wage war you breed terror. Those things just don't work the way they are intended to.
As I mentioned above your German story is not at an end for at this time we are doing our little warfare again. Not against the French but other nations. I can't really say I like this any better :(
(Btw.: I would not feel sad if a peaceful Iraque, flourishing economies and the end of all terror would happen tomorrow or next year. I just do not believe this will happen the way we are going. "1984" knocks directly at the front door - and we better wake up before it has secured [i]our[/i] room.)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]Dunedain is attacked for posting "flame-bait" for saying we should hunt down and kill scumbags who kill indiscriminately.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I would like to point out that it was the *very* derogatory wording and overall attitude of the post that was the problem.
Don't worry. Germany, France - you "false friends" are next. We have to, after all, promote stability in Europe as well as the middle east, right? Soon the US will rule the world and no one will be left to stop us!
By the way, 1984 is child's play. Who needs telescreens when you have subcutaneous implants that can relay anything and everything to a government agency of choice? Who needs thought police when your innermost fears can be downloaded at a whim? The technology is already here. You will greatly enjoy being our first human trials.
Once again, I am going to thrash Sleepys assertions about the ability to garuntee the safty and security of Iraq post war.
I think Sleepy has made major mistake about the actual effectiveness of violence as a deternt against subversive or rebelious activity
Even is police states the most effective form of control by political elietes in not the secret police but the approval either obvert or tacit of the majority of the population. It is that "consensus" that the system is the way things should be which keeps down non state sanctioned violent acts.
The reason why in the aftermath of the collapse of the regiems of the axis powers of WWII things did not become lawless, is that the people of the defeated nations RECOGNIZED THE OCCUPIERS AS LEGITIMATE. Partialy due to the fact that finaly somebody was feeding them.
Secondly was the fact that there were no external powers interested in supplying arms, equipment or manpower for an extended insurgancy. If a power had been willing to do such a thing you would have seen resitance.
Examine the philipines during WWII there was a lively philipino-american resitance to japanese occupation, where as in the rest of asia not much, same thing with the actions of the marque in france.
One of the "truths" about a gurilla war is that they can not survive in major form without some sort of large scale support from some source. In every guirlla campaign you have almost always an external supplier of arms and equpiment willing to help cause trouble.
With that in mind even if the US had rolled in with a million troops the situation in Iraq would not be terribly different from what it is now.
I dont know what the European media is reporting about the current state of Iraq, but much of the problem in Iraq currently the result of a dramatic presence of foreign agents using Iraq as an opportunity to keep america occupied and from engaging in activities which might subvert their governments.
And the notion of "sealing" a border is something hyped by novelists and reporters because they dont know any better, and by generals and police who dont want to admit that such a task is impossible.
Secondly your assertion about the American destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure is demonstrably false, even during the opening salvos of the war.
Little of the country outside the Bagdad, Faluja and Tikrit areas had much in the way of running water, electricity or sewage, indeed such infrastructure was denied to elements of the population which was seen as "troublesome" This infrastructure has now been created.
Even in Bagdad the infrastructure was not destroyed but "supressed" in ways which were reversed in fairly short order. In deed the problem with infrastructure currently in Bagdad is that it is a favorite target of the militants.
Currently the reason why I dont believe its the "Iraqis" who are the bulk of the militants is simple understanding of the ethnic break down of the Iraqis .
65% of the population of Iraq is kurds, Shia arabs, or Shia persians. The opinion amongst the majority of the Shia population was that the US betrayed them in 1991 by not removing Sadam then, our current actions are just us finaly making good on promises of 10 years ago, and that the blood the US spilled is in contrition for that betrayal. The kurds also are not fans of the Hussein regieme.
So we have resistance from what, maybe 10% of the shia population (if that) plus the other 35% of the sunni arab population (its actually more like 30%) realisitcly speaking the most of the Sunni population which could be active in support of the anti US efforts is something like 30 percent, meaning in the end were talking about a wopping 20% of Iraqis militant about destroying the US.
The actuall figures are actually probably dramaticly lower.
Secondly fthe unemployment figures in Iraq are uncertain at best. They dont have a census yet let alone any realistic set of employment numbers, and in some areas employment post occupation is better then pre occupation, particualrly in the North and South of the country.
Lastly your quibbles about training Iraqs I am afraid shows your own ignorance on the issues.
First of all if an Iraqi wants a gun he can get one easily. While Iraqis are not allowed to wander around with weapons, they are allowed to own AK's even RPK's in their own homes, and many already have them.
Secondly watch the patterns surrounding attacks. Upsurges in Iraqi police recruting occur after attacks against certain targets, such as mosques or near schools, indicating that what is driving much of the recruitment is ideological.
I have a host of other criticism about your analysis of the conduct of the war, unfortunatly I do not feel qualified to make them. Nor do I have the time for a complete rebuttle of them
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
TheRaven squarely places blame for these attacks on Britain herself and her involvement in Iraq, and nobody says a cross word. [/quote]
Then you should go ahead and say it.
[quote]Terrorists don't care who they kill.[/quote]
Big news. Who said they do?
[quote]Let's face it, if it weren't for Iraq, these same people would be plotting attacks in different places[/quote]
Let's face it -- if your country hadn't insisted in going to Iraq without adequate preparation... total loss of human life via terrorism-related events would have been 10x less.
And even terrorists would have been less proficient. Iraq is such a wonderful educational experience for them... that I cannot find the right words for people who offered it to them.
[quote]they'd be blowing up civilians in Israel, blowing up civilians in the US or Britain for their support of Israel, they'd be blowing up civilians in places like Saudi Arabia[/quote]
So you admit it?
They'd be blowing up civilians in countries which *can* deal with them, instead of Iraq... which simply cannot... because it's in fucking shambles.
[quote]The problem isn't what we do to provoke them[/quote]
With that I agree -- an extremist will attack without provoking.
But should one really fight them in the worst possible situation, like Iraq... where *they* have the advantages?
[quote]Those who would pull us out of Iraq to appease them are of the same stock as those who would have appeased Hitler fifty years ago.[/quote]
I was *not* advocating a pull-out.
I was advocating that the monkeys in White House bother finishing in Afghanistan before they take on Iraq, and bother *preparing* so they actually manage what they hoped. Alas, they went and did everyone in.
The mess is made... and the soup has to be eaten. While the US does not commit another instance of flying off the handle, I am perfectly fine with having other countries (NATO) commit more forces to Afghanistan (and I fully support the demand that local politicians dredge up more resources for that, which they slowly appear doing, despite my country of residence being an insignificantly minor player) ...so the US can concentrate its resources to Iraq.
[quote] The only way that such people will be satisfied is for you to be either dead or under their thumb, be it in ideology, religion, or militarily. [/quote]
That is not terribly big news.
[quote]These people pose a clear and present danger to our very way of life. [/quote]
Another instance of big news.
[quote]Just like fifty years ago, "blame" should rest with those who stand by [/quote]
More blame should rest on those who go aggravating the situation -- without a clue of what exactly they are doing.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]Don't worry. Germany, France - you "false friends" are next. We have to, after all, promote stability in Europe as well as the middle east, right? Soon the US will rule the world and no one will be left to stop us! [/quote]
I am having trouble discerning... whether you think you just invented an ingenious joke... or whether you happen to seriously represent your political views.
In the former case: sorry, the joke missed me.
In the latter case: sorry, it won't happen.
Or were you just throwing flame bait?
In that case: your bait is too silly to catch fire. :)
[quote]By the way, 1984 is child's play. [/quote]
There are plentiful people working to ensure the opposite. Arguably, the laws of economy, game theory and even thermodynamics are on their side... and 1984 will never be child's play.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo_1 [/i]
[B]Tyvar is right. Become familiar with his words; it is what will happen in your own nations soon enough! [/B][/QUOTE]
Tyvar has some points, misunderstood some of my points...
...but the second part of your statement is rather curious. Worry about your own country. It appears to undergo severe economic stratification, which can easily precipitate a social crisis of some kind.
I think Sleepy has made major mistake about the actual effectiveness of violence as a deternt against subversive or rebelious activity[/quote]
You have mis-perceived at which stage I envisioned the deterrent to have worked.
It would have worked against plain unarmed looting -- which was the beginning of Iraq spiraling out of control.
[quote] Even is police states the most effective form of control by political elietes in not the secret police but the approval either obvert or tacit of the majority of the population.[/quote]
Then apparently, the US failed to secure sufficient approval from Iraqi population -- a failure doubtless entangled with the failure to secure civilian infrastructure, and ensure at least a bit of public safety.
Why the failures (of failing to protect infrastructure, and failing to ensure a minimum of public safety) occurred... I cannot answer precisely, merely speculate:
-- Too few troops? Iraq has multiple times less peacekeepers per resident than Kosovo.
-- Too quick invasion? Troops moved forward to "decapitate" the regime, without bothering to secure taken ground.
-- Too poor planning? Did they have plans? Did they have training in post-conflict stabilization? Were they given opportunity to obtain training in such matters?
-- Too much ambition? Ought it not have been wiser to finish in Afghanistan first?
-- Too much ambition? Ought it not have been wiser to clip off Iraqi Kurdistan and South Iraq first, and only after securing those, proceed onward?
[quote] The reason why in the aftermath of the collapse of the regiems of the axis powers of WWII things did not become lawless, is that the people of the defeated nations RECOGNIZED THE OCCUPIERS AS LEGITIMATE.[/quote]
Mind you, Soviet occupation was not recognized as legitimate in Eastern Europe. Blunt force sufficed to quench resistance.
[quote] In every guirlla campaign you have almost always an external supplier of arms and equpiment willing to help cause trouble.[/quote]
That is unavoidable. If one cannot handle that, one should not open two cans of worms for simultaneous eating.
[quote] With that in mind even if the US had rolled in with a million troops the situation in Iraq would not be terribly different from what it is now.[/quote]
The situation would be different. You are missing a crucial point. Had Iraq received a sufficient number of troops per resident (as to leave enough troops behind at every significant point)...
...they *could* have protected Iraqi civilians during the transition of power, won a bigger portion of their trust... and undercut the *reasons* why Iraqi people became apathetic (and some acceptant) of insurgents.
[quote]much of the problem in Iraq currently the result of a dramatic presence of foreign agents using Iraq as an opportunity to keep america occupied[/quote]
What reports I see... tell of most insurgents being Iraqi, with merely some leaders (e.g. Al-Zarqawi) and cannon fodder (the suicide bombers) originating in significant percentage from abroad.
[quote] And the notion of "sealing" a border is something hyped by novelists and reporters because they dont know any better, and by generals and police who dont want to admit that such a task is impossible. [/quote]
No border is absolute, but some require a fairly smart person to cross.
The European borders of the USSR were pretty tight. Only the smartest and most inventive fellows went abroad without a permit.
I refuse to believe that the US military... is not capable of creating a comparable barrier.
[quote] Secondly your assertion about the American destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure is demonstrably false, even during the opening salvos of the war. [/quote]
When you read my statement about *not* posting patrols near hospitals, power stations, water filtration plants, or major factories (say oil refineries)... you should understand which recipe for destruction I was describing. No, naturally it wasn't all because of US bombing.
The US disabled the infrastructure, bombed it a little... and left it unguarded. Iraqis looted it. Iraqi police was down and out, while the US refused to post its own guards.
Together, the two factors did quite sufficient destruction, especially since life in Iraq had been fairly poor before, and things were alreday in some state of disrepair.
Bombing it a little was pretty much unavoidable. But looting could have been prevented.
[quote] Little of the country outside the Bagdad, Faluja and Tikrit areas had much in the way of running water, electricity or sewage, indeed such infrastructure was denied to elements of the population which was seen as "troublesome" [/quote]
Surveys from Iraq suggest that multiple places had better infrastructure *before* the war... than now, two years into reconstruction. It may be a bad case of statistic distortion... but I suspect it contains a measure of truth.
[quote] Secondly fthe unemployment figures in Iraq are uncertain at best. They dont have a census yet let alone any realistic set of employment numbers,[/quote]
That is telling of the situation.
[quote] Lastly your quibbles about training Iraqs I am afraid shows your own ignorance on the issues.[/quote]
In this case... your own ignorance, since you misread my statement. I have no quibbles about training Iraqis. The quality of recruits is naturally poor, but nothing can be done to help that.
When I mentioned them obtaining a gun without a badge, I meant comparable numbers joining the insurgency (or becoming non-political gangsters) as are seen joining the police, largely for the same reasons.
[quote]Secondly watch the patterns surrounding attacks. Upsurges in Iraqi police recruting occur after attacks against certain targets, such as mosques or near schools, indicating that what is driving much of the recruitment is ideological.[/quote]
Then the terrorists may indeed be... slowly undoing themselves.
However, I would caution against counting on that.
@Vertigo: your sarcasm misses the target. And don't forget: 1984 also has an everlasting war and a redefinition of meanings (ministry of peace and so on...). It is astonishing how many elements of this crap can be found today.
Comments
Regards,
Morden
intelligence never deals in firm yes no maters, its based on probability, and in that case you end up having to make a cost analysis of the decision.
Weather or not you agree on the motivations for the Iraq war, the actual execution of the conflict has killed compartivily few civilians, and I mean compared to other wars of similar scope and size.
The most accurate figures seem to place civilian dead at about 25,000 and thats from acts of "combatants" and terrorism , (the corner market is NOT a battlefield if no americans or Iraqi security personel are present.)
This is probably as good as it can get in selective targeting, considering the major areas of combat have so far been urban areas.
The typical cause of civilan casualties is not direct military action, but due to the break down of the infrastructure, starvation and disease.
More german civilans died in the winter s of 44-45 and even in the winter of 45-46, then died at Dresden, The same with japan, those same winters probably killed more people then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
In Iraq the US has worked hard at maintaing infrastructure to at least provide basic health needs to minimize civilian casualties. This simple act by itself is the major factor in reducing civilian casualties.
However in a "Total war" secnario such as the war against germany in WWII such things are not possible, because they will consume resources which are needed to garuntee victory, or to reduce the total duration of the war.
Untill we reduce warfare down to nanites searching out specific individuals to kill them, Iraq is actually a best possible case of managing civilian liabiity during the course of a conflict.
[B]neither could most German civilians be considered responsible for letting Nazis rise to power.
They weren't in possession of magic wands. Their senses and reactions were successfully manipulated, their options limited.[/B][/QUOTE][i]As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: [b]"The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary][/b]. In addition, he noted, "[b]Radio and press are at our disposal.[/b]"[/i]
Anyone who wonders why US media works current way?
[QUOTE][B]I strongly oppose compromising a realistic world-model to need for moral clarity. If the price of clarity is blindness... I prefer to keep my vision, even if it confuses me.
If the above examples demonstrate your perception of "moral clarity"... then permit me to suspect... that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality.[/B][/QUOTE]You get it wrong, that moral clarity means right/justification for oppressing others... and right to kill those who doesn't want to serve.
Just like those "terrorists" have their moral clarity for doing their part.
"The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded."
-Leo Tolstoy
[QUOTE][B]Oh dear? Those terrible public schools?
Well, thanks for injecting some propaganda into your statements. It helps clarify atop which particular molehill you are viewing events.[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah... those teach "bad" ideas like you're NOT the king of the world living in a holy country with god's mandate to oppress all others.
And wrong, moles can't make that amount of s**t... that's monopoly of tyrannies/despotisms.
You know, for a long time I thought that Soviets had most effective BS-machine of all time... but it's clearly evident that I've been wrong in that.
[B][i]As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: [b]"The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary][/b]. In addition, he noted, "[b]Radio and press are at our disposal.[/b]"[/i]
Anyone who wonders why US media works current way?[/quote][url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/10/06/no-longer-obeying-orders/[/url]
I'd have to say, however, that comparing the American media to the Soviet propoganda machine is ridiculous.
NOW.
This one I can't let get away.
Since when is the singular goal of all middle-eastern terrorism conversion?
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676577.stm[/url]
[B]Sleepy with your criterion regarding civilian casualties, I hate to tell you but such a criterion may be impossible to establish.[/quote]
Absolute truth is impossible to establish, but some measure of care... will generally get one close.
[quote]intelligence never deals in firm yes no maters, its based on probability, and in that case you end up having to make a cost analysis of the decision. [/quote]
A cost analysis is necessary anyway. Just like an extra overflight by a drone, civilian casualties go on the cost side. From a justice viewpoint, they are simply unacceptable, and a great liability. From an efficiency viewpoint, their prevalence degrades hope of gaining a favourable environment (like understanding and cooperation of local people).
[quote] Weather or not you agree on the motivations for the Iraq war, the actual execution of the conflict has killed compartivily few civilians, and I mean compared to other wars of similar scope and size.[/quote]
The problem is that the conflict was not contained to fighting between regular military forces. Inadequacy did not exhibit itself in ability to selectively target the Iraqi regular army. That was done reasonably enough.
Inadequacy exhibited itself in ability to follow up... deploy sufficient peacekeeping forces to actually *end* the war... prevent looting, and prevent the conflict from switching gear to a widespread covert insurgency. Inadequacy also arose in ability to seal borders and deter public crime.
Methods for restoring peace in seized territory were known... but somehow, key actions to achieving this were undertaken with incredible delay... as if plans emphasizing their necessity had never existed.
For which reason my assessment of the war in Iraq as wasteful.
[quote]This is probably as good as it can get in selective targeting, considering the major areas of combat have so far been urban areas.[/quote]
It would have been alltogether better to delay the war a little, ensuring at least marginal ability to *secure control* of the urban scene, and preserve higher availability (or quicker restorability) of elementary conveniences (medical aid, law enforcement, clean water, later on electricity and fuel).
It might have made a radical difference on the most important front -- the opinion of Iraqi people, their level of cooperation, and their perception of insurgent activity.
After an initial wave of looting left behind masive confusion and ruined infrastructure, Iraqi people were probably *not* perceiving insurgents as a clear enough danger to their already shattered economic welfare.
Had it been possible to limit initial damage, leave people something to lose (something which the insurgents would be perceived to take away)... they might not have tolerated the insurgents nearly as much, and might have cooperated much more with occupying forces (especially where occupying forces would be seen to care for public well-being).
[quote] The typical cause of civilan casualties is not direct military action, but due to the break down of the infrastructure, starvation and disease.[/quote]
Such factors are significant indeed, but I emphasize: warfare presents choices between aggravating such factors, or mitigating them.
[quote] In Iraq the US has worked hard at maintaing infrastructure to at least provide basic health needs to minimize civilian casualties.[/quote]
I personally perceived initial efforts in that direction... as a miserable failure, probably due to lack of planning and personnel. I do hope it has improved from there on.
[quote] However in a "Total war" secnario such as the war against germany in WWII such things are not possible, because they will consume resources which are needed to garuntee victory, or to reduce the total duration of the war.[/quote]
However, even in total war, where resources to assist recovery are notably smaller... one must still choose what one targets, and how one spends destructive resources.
On this background, one must consider whether any compelling reason exists to target civilians... and I personally cannot think of one.
In the specific case of Dresden... I cannot see what could have justified it. Not only were civilians not proper enemies... but compared to harming production capability, transport infrastrucure or even hard targets like air defense... harming civilians was wasteful.
It didn't bring the victory closer, but delayed it. Having avoided the bombs which fell on residential areas, new trains delivered fuel to ports, new submarines launched to sea, preserved factories could assemble tanks or planes... since they were not threatened by deficit of workforce, but deficit of material.
[quote] Untill we reduce warfare down to nanites searching out specific individuals to kill them, Iraq is actually a best possible case of managing civilian liabiity during the course of a conflict. [/QUOTE]
I personally suspect you are looking a bit past the obvious. The key factor to managing civilian casualties in a present-day "humanitarian interention"... may be as simple as gaining enough control over a region to actually *end* a conflict (while not totally alienating local people) and switch over to police work (assuming one has people who *can* do police work).
In Iraq, reaching that point has proven extremely problematic... and I personally tend to think the reasons... are mostly related to political leadership pushing their military forces to do things without adequate time for planning and staging.
Rash actions may be warranted in an unexpected war... but hardly ever in a war of choice. Which irks me, since Iraq was entered by choice, and somebody either didn't bother to calculate "peacekeepers per resident"... or calculated it, and decided to ignore the fact that numbers were significantly lower than in those rare "successful interventions".
[B]
It might have made a radical difference on the most important front -- the opinion of Iraqi people, their level of cooperation, and their perception of insurgent activity.
After an initial wave of looting left behind masive confusion and ruined infrastructure, Iraqi people were probably *not* perceiving insurgents as a clear enough danger to their already shattered economic welfare.
Had it been possible to limit initial damage, leave people something to lose (something which the insurgents would be perceived to take away)... they might not have tolerated the insurgents nearly as much, and might have cooperated much more with occupying forces (especially where occupying forces would be seen to care for public well-being).
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, in a macabre, machavellian way, it makes more sense to [i]not[/i] tighten down too much after the take over.
If the US came in with massive riot repression forces, this would mean that the smallest infraction would be punished, meaning that every Iraqi would know someone who was taken out by the "invading US infidels". As it stands, the population can now see that the US is not going to be the total repressor, and in fact, the insurgency of mainly non-Iraqis is a bigger threat. The populace must find a means of defending itself. The population now has an interest in the creation and stabilization of the new Iraq, an interest they wouldn't have otherwise. This attitude can be seen in the number of volunteers for the Army and police forces, despite their being directly targeted by the terrorists.
[B]Actually, in a macabre, machavellian way, it makes more sense to [i]not[/i] tighten down too much after the take over.
If the US came in with massive riot repression forces, this would mean that the smallest infraction would be punished, meaning that every Iraqi would know someone who was taken out by the "invading US infidels". [/quote]
If one *does* want a functioning country (as opposed to a haven of terrorism)... it pays much more to maintain control of the territory one occupied. Only if one *wants* a terrorist haven... would it seem acceptable to forget securing gained territory. Machiavellian or not... I fail to see why one should desire that.
Also, would your model of many Iraqis developing someone "taken out by occupying forces"... not require the assumption of *deterrence* having no effect? I personally think deterrence *has* effect.
For some people, what you say might apply... but for most, I guess an accountable presence of occupying forces, and their willingness to stop looting... would have conveyed the message [i]"this area: not for take"[/i], and the secondary message [i]"no need to loot, your neigbour ain't looting either"[/i].
[quote]As it stands, the population can now see that the US is not going to be the total repressor, and in fact, the insurgency of mainly non-Iraqis is a bigger threat.[/quote]
The problems with that approach:
-- After Saddam's regime, nobody would have seriously perceived mere deterrence from public crime... as a "repressive action" from occupying forces.
-- Oppositely, it might well be that many people... perceived the inability of occupying forces to control the territory they occupied... as lack of care towards Iraqi people.
Many might perceive the issue as: [i]"The suckers arrived, broke what structures existed, took everything offline, and left it to settle like that. Without bothering to post a patrol at the hospital, power station or oil refinery."[/i]
[quote] The populace must find a means of defending itself.[/quote]
If one assumes that the *losing* side in a war can organize their own defense... then how does one hope to win the war?
Is the requirement of winning a war... not disrupting the target society in such fashion... that its organized defenses crumble? I certainly think such a requirement is nearly essential, and nobody could have expected the Iraqis to spring up magical means of defending themselves -- after their telecommunications and power supply had been systematically stopped.
Sure, some of them had guns. But guess who? Naturally those closer to the *old* regime -- those unwilling to start fixing anything, and quite content with *starting* an insurgency.
For most ordinary Iraqis, the best defense against robbery (having nothing of liquid value to take)... was the only defense available.
[quote]The population now has an interest in the creation and stabilization of the new Iraq, an interest they wouldn't have otherwise.[/quote]
This is a point where I cannot follow your claim from cause to effect (and indeed, suspect real conditions to be opposite).
*Why* should a person who lost nearly all economic guarantees -- including their job (since the company was looted apart), and most conveniences necessary to function with a modicum of efficiency, have more interest in rebuilding?
*Where* is a practise-proven sociological reason for a person busy with survival... to take *more* interest in high-level conveniences like justice, peace or democracy?
To my understanding, history often indicates otherwise -- indicates that only a person who can already manage everyday life... takes serious interest in improving society. Economic crisis, on the very opposite... tends to lead towards political apathy.
[quote]This attitude can be seen in the number of volunteers for the Army and police forces, despite their being directly targeted by the terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Recruiting Iraqi volunteers is viable today, but could not have solved the immediate problems after toppling Saddam.
Moreover, I doubt the number of recruits demonstrate a soaring desire for social improvement. Considering the quality of recruits, most are being driven there... by mega-high unemployment.
Equally many as show up at recruitment stations... may be suspected to obtain a gun *without* a badge.
I truly do enjoy the civil discussions we are capable of on this firum. In the good spirit with which you present yourself, sleepy_shadow, I'd like to continue with some of these thoughts.
[quote][b]
If one *does* want a functioning country (as opposed to a haven of terrorism)... it pays much more to maintain control of the territory one occupied.
[/b][/quote]
I agree with you here. I think the greatest shortcoming of the invasion was the lack of preparation for *after* the invasion. In hindsight, the US should have seen that there would be little upfront resistance, just as in Desert Storm.
The US planners simply did not prepare enough for the occupation. Apparently, they believed they would have had a little more time to prepare, and possibly used more coalition forces, had there been a larger coalition.
In the larger picture, the US also should not have expected a population that had been as centrally controlled as Iraq to be ready to police itself and take up the principles of democracy as fast as one year.
[B]In short? Yes. Just like one should blame the Nazis (and those agreed to serve them without resistance, obstruction, sabotage or other redeeming actions) for starting WWII [/B][/QUOTE]
In that case one must also blame the parts of the world who did nothing to try and topple President Hussein after he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and commited his political opponants to mass graves. In fact perhaps the French, Germans, and Russians should feel shame for supporting a murderous regime by profiting and userping the oil for food programs. No one is perfectly innocent in this mess. I am tired of certain individuals thinking they have the high road. NONE OF US DO.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i][B]...one should blame the US and UK air forces for needlessly obliterating multiple tens of thousands of German civilians.[/B][/QUOTE]
If only bombing during WWII could have been as accurate as it is today. Recall how terrible the odds were of bomber crews surviving assaults on Germany? There is a reason they flew as high as possible resulting in drifting bombs. It is a shame bombs were even dumber than they are now. I had family that were turned to stew ~ cooked alive ~ in the tunnels hiding from the firebombing ~ I don't blame the allies at all. It was not 'needless obliteration' as you put it.
Everybody has contributed to something harmful... but roads of different efficiency and integrity *are* undeniably available. Even within limits of realism, multiple options and choices remain available.
Thus, while I am tired of anyone claiming an administrative unit's clearly errant behaviour impeccable (for example by shifting blame to its opponents, using the claim that their actions justified all counter-actions, even if those involve unlimited or unselective retribution to non-involved people)...
...I am not tired of speculating which path would be correct, feasible... efficient in short and long term... because to achieve something of worth, such paths of action must be discovered.
Consideration of which responses are best is *not* something I could leave to others. I feel it necessary to have an opinion, and talking with others sometimes permits to check if an opinion is correct/informed, incorrect/uninformed, or otherwise in need of change.
[QUOTE]In that case one must also blame the parts of the world who did nothing to try and topple President Hussein after he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and commited his political opponants to mass graves. [/QUOTE]
I never said one shouldn't.
Yes, one should.
However, blame assigned for inaction... ought generally be somewhat less... than blame assigned for harmful action.
[quote]In fact perhaps the French, Germans, and Russians should feel shame for supporting a murderous regime[/quote]
Perhaps indeed. However, if one only blamed them... one would be needlessly limiting ones focus.
One should definitely include the US, represented for example by Rumsfeld, whose eager deal-making with Saddam permitted yet another country to support the "best counterweight to Iran".
[quote]No one is perfectly innocent in this mess.[/quote]
I agree. Even I am guilty of letting it fester.
Although realistically, I have no direct influence over the situation, have not stepped out of my way to worsen it... and have tried to empower representatives who are more likely to pursue reasonable foreign policy (which might improve that situation, and other similar situations)... so I am left with a rather small slice of the blame.
Foremost, the blame for doing something awfully wrong... rests with those who actively do it.
Which was exactly my point, when I said one *ought* blame the Nazis, and those who willingly supported them, for a rather long list of crimes committed during World War II -- but *not* those crimes which were committed by others.
[quote]If only bombing during WWII could have been as accurate as it is today. [/quote]
Even back then, the results of accidentally and deliberately bombing civilian residential areas were *markedly* different.
There were accidents. Blame for accidents *must* naturally be lower. However, there were also deliberate raids intended to destroy civilians. And those... were just another war crime.
That countries whose residents were targeted in *those* crimes were also committing crimes of their own (and indeed, sometimes committing them on far bigger scale)... does not negate the inefficiency of such acts... or pardon their committment against people lacking direct complicity in war.
Lacking a high road does not prevent condemning such instances.
TheRaven squarely places blame for these attacks on Britain herself and her involvement in Iraq, and nobody says a cross word.
Terrorists don't care who they kill. It could be a mother with her baby, a kid on the way to school, two friends going for lunch - it doesn't matter to them. All that matters is that innocent people end up dead so they can hog the limelight for a bit.
Let's face it, if it weren't for Iraq, these same people would be plotting attacks in different places for different reasons. They'd be blowing up civilians in Israel, blowing up civilians in the US or Britain for their support of Israel, they'd be blowing up civilians in places like Saudi Arabia for a legitimate military presence there. The problem isn't what we do to provoke them, the problem is that we have a significant group of extremists who believe that the only way to reach their goals is to kill innocent people. Those who would pull us out of Iraq to appease them are of the same stock as those who would have appeased Hitler fifty years ago. The only way that such people will be satisfied is for you to be either dead or under their thumb, be it in ideology, religion, or militarily.
These people pose a clear and present danger to our very way of life. Just like fifty years ago, "blame" should rest with those who stand by and do nothing while they try to sully everything we stand for.
They set out to kill innocents. If the US military kills innocents, it is in the pursuit of creating a better world for everyone. It's not right, but it's not the same as getting onto a crowded subway with the stated intention of killing people you don't know.
Excuse me - but I don't see a better world made by wars for profit. Additionally the innocent are dead either way - I doubt very much they care which side shot them.
A war on terrorism is just like fucking for virginity - though I would prefer the latter to be done :D
There is no need to endlessly breed more terrorists by bombing / invading foreign countries.
Is it for the oil? Yeah, look at all the spoils of war we've brought back there! Oil prices are plummeting because of the amazing supply we've secured and the stability we've brought to the market :rolleyes:.
Oh, wait, okay, maybe it was because the US budget needed a boost. We can just loot the Iraqi treasury and pay for whatever we want! Look at the [i]huge[/i] budget surplus the federal government is operating under!
Maybe you're not speaking of monetary profit? Maybe you're speaking of the respect and admiration we've gained on the world stage for sticking our neck out?
Now, I think I may know what you're talking about here, all sarcasm aside, so let's play a hypothetical scenario out here. You were just elected president. Before that you ran a small mom & pop type shop building computers from parts you could get at Newegg or something like that. Now that you're president, your first task is to use public money to buy the computer you're going to be using for day-to-day tasks. Do you buy a Dell, or, assuming you still have time, do you build one yourself? Some would be outraged and say that that money should never go to a company you have any influence in. But as long as you have a working computer on your desk and you're not scamming your voters, what do you care? The question I therefore pose is why [i]shouldn't[/i] Haliburton get any government contracts, as long as the job is getting done? Obviously, the Bush administration is intimately familiar with what they can expect from such a company and could likely work more closely with them than some firm they were just meeting for the first time.
Truth be told, with the office of President of the United States of America at your disposal, there almost certainly much, much easier ways to go about getting profit, albiet illegally, that don't involve a war. If greed was Bush's sole motive in office, any such deals would be strictly under-the-table and wouldn't come to light for years yet.
In response to your other comments, ponder this:
In post-WWII Germany, the media was all over insurgencies, saying we weren't winning the peace, etc. etc. Everyone was preaching doom and gloom all around. Today Germany is all but pacifist.
Iraqis are turning out in droves to defend their country, and the terrorists in their paranoia and fanaticism are targeting them as well as US forces. You say Iraqis have been brutalized by US bombings, that their innocent civilians are crying out for justice? Then why are they signing up to fight the terrorists instead of joining them? Why are the terrorists attacking Iraqi people if the people hate us as much as the terrorists do? In the short term, Iraq may have bred terror, but in the long term it is breeding a strong state that isn't going to put up with the brutality any longer. If we stay the course with them, Iraq won't be a quagmire, it will be an example for the entire Middle East.
Your f__ing for virginity analogy is flawed too. First of all, the orignal analogy was that a war for peace, not terrorism, is like f__ing for virginity. Second of all, peace can come after war, unlike virginity after f__ing. Peace isn't something that you're given at birth until someone takes it away or you give it away. Peace is something you have to fight for, a vision you must strive to realize. If your analogy were to hold true, then no war can ever possibly end.
The truth is that wars can end in victory, and victory can bring peace. Unless Germany conquered France again and I missed it. If they did, kindly inform Germny that it would be in their best interest to demolish France to make room for a large seaway (see that "Imagine a world without France..." picture for details.)
The problem with the Left these days is that for them to be correct, Iraq has to crumble, terrorism has to proliferate, and the economy has to plummet.
You simply don't have to stabilize a country to control it's resources. As long as they can be brought home with reasonable losses everything is fine - that is from a strictly machiavellistic way of thought. I really doubt most of the international affairs are motivated by something else.
Germany: Since 1999 we wage war again - currently German forces are [i]fighting[/i] alongside the U.S. forces in Afghanistan. So much for "pacifist". (I do not mean the peace-keeping forces with this, they are troops in combat right now.)
Iraque: The current situation is clearly to complicated to make sure statements. (They are more than 40 different groups at the moment considering themselves [b]the designated resistance[/b] :eek: ). You have terrorism in Iraque for many different reasons. But if it "travels" to foreign countries it most certainly has something to do with the war / invasion.
This "quagmire" was unnecessary - you don't have to put a dictator in a place of power and arm him just to go after him a few years later. This accounts for most U.S. wars in the last few years (Taliban...).
Virginity: I meant it the way I altered the analogy. It just describes a paradoxon - if you fuck you lose your virginity, if you wage war you breed terror. Those things just don't work the way they are intended to.
As I mentioned above your German story is not at an end for at this time we are doing our little warfare again. Not against the French but other nations. I can't really say I like this any better :(
(Btw.: I would not feel sad if a peaceful Iraque, flourishing economies and the end of all terror would happen tomorrow or next year. I just do not believe this will happen the way we are going. "1984" knocks directly at the front door - and we better wake up before it has secured [i]our[/i] room.)
[B]Dunedain is attacked for posting "flame-bait" for saying we should hunt down and kill scumbags who kill indiscriminately.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I would like to point out that it was the *very* derogatory wording and overall attitude of the post that was the problem.
By the way, 1984 is child's play. Who needs telescreens when you have subcutaneous implants that can relay anything and everything to a government agency of choice? Who needs thought police when your innermost fears can be downloaded at a whim? The technology is already here. You will greatly enjoy being our first human trials.
I think Sleepy has made major mistake about the actual effectiveness of violence as a deternt against subversive or rebelious activity
Even is police states the most effective form of control by political elietes in not the secret police but the approval either obvert or tacit of the majority of the population. It is that "consensus" that the system is the way things should be which keeps down non state sanctioned violent acts.
The reason why in the aftermath of the collapse of the regiems of the axis powers of WWII things did not become lawless, is that the people of the defeated nations RECOGNIZED THE OCCUPIERS AS LEGITIMATE. Partialy due to the fact that finaly somebody was feeding them.
Secondly was the fact that there were no external powers interested in supplying arms, equipment or manpower for an extended insurgancy. If a power had been willing to do such a thing you would have seen resitance.
Examine the philipines during WWII there was a lively philipino-american resitance to japanese occupation, where as in the rest of asia not much, same thing with the actions of the marque in france.
One of the "truths" about a gurilla war is that they can not survive in major form without some sort of large scale support from some source. In every guirlla campaign you have almost always an external supplier of arms and equpiment willing to help cause trouble.
With that in mind even if the US had rolled in with a million troops the situation in Iraq would not be terribly different from what it is now.
I dont know what the European media is reporting about the current state of Iraq, but much of the problem in Iraq currently the result of a dramatic presence of foreign agents using Iraq as an opportunity to keep america occupied and from engaging in activities which might subvert their governments.
And the notion of "sealing" a border is something hyped by novelists and reporters because they dont know any better, and by generals and police who dont want to admit that such a task is impossible.
Secondly your assertion about the American destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure is demonstrably false, even during the opening salvos of the war.
Little of the country outside the Bagdad, Faluja and Tikrit areas had much in the way of running water, electricity or sewage, indeed such infrastructure was denied to elements of the population which was seen as "troublesome" This infrastructure has now been created.
Even in Bagdad the infrastructure was not destroyed but "supressed" in ways which were reversed in fairly short order. In deed the problem with infrastructure currently in Bagdad is that it is a favorite target of the militants.
Currently the reason why I dont believe its the "Iraqis" who are the bulk of the militants is simple understanding of the ethnic break down of the Iraqis .
65% of the population of Iraq is kurds, Shia arabs, or Shia persians. The opinion amongst the majority of the Shia population was that the US betrayed them in 1991 by not removing Sadam then, our current actions are just us finaly making good on promises of 10 years ago, and that the blood the US spilled is in contrition for that betrayal. The kurds also are not fans of the Hussein regieme.
So we have resistance from what, maybe 10% of the shia population (if that) plus the other 35% of the sunni arab population (its actually more like 30%) realisitcly speaking the most of the Sunni population which could be active in support of the anti US efforts is something like 30 percent, meaning in the end were talking about a wopping 20% of Iraqis militant about destroying the US.
The actuall figures are actually probably dramaticly lower.
Secondly fthe unemployment figures in Iraq are uncertain at best. They dont have a census yet let alone any realistic set of employment numbers, and in some areas employment post occupation is better then pre occupation, particualrly in the North and South of the country.
Lastly your quibbles about training Iraqs I am afraid shows your own ignorance on the issues.
First of all if an Iraqi wants a gun he can get one easily. While Iraqis are not allowed to wander around with weapons, they are allowed to own AK's even RPK's in their own homes, and many already have them.
Secondly watch the patterns surrounding attacks. Upsurges in Iraqi police recruting occur after attacks against certain targets, such as mosques or near schools, indicating that what is driving much of the recruitment is ideological.
I have a host of other criticism about your analysis of the conduct of the war, unfortunatly I do not feel qualified to make them. Nor do I have the time for a complete rebuttle of them
TheRaven squarely places blame for these attacks on Britain herself and her involvement in Iraq, and nobody says a cross word. [/quote]
Then you should go ahead and say it.
[quote]Terrorists don't care who they kill.[/quote]
Big news. Who said they do?
[quote]Let's face it, if it weren't for Iraq, these same people would be plotting attacks in different places[/quote]
Let's face it -- if your country hadn't insisted in going to Iraq without adequate preparation... total loss of human life via terrorism-related events would have been 10x less.
And even terrorists would have been less proficient. Iraq is such a wonderful educational experience for them... that I cannot find the right words for people who offered it to them.
[quote]they'd be blowing up civilians in Israel, blowing up civilians in the US or Britain for their support of Israel, they'd be blowing up civilians in places like Saudi Arabia[/quote]
So you admit it?
They'd be blowing up civilians in countries which *can* deal with them, instead of Iraq... which simply cannot... because it's in fucking shambles.
[quote]The problem isn't what we do to provoke them[/quote]
With that I agree -- an extremist will attack without provoking.
But should one really fight them in the worst possible situation, like Iraq... where *they* have the advantages?
[quote]Those who would pull us out of Iraq to appease them are of the same stock as those who would have appeased Hitler fifty years ago.[/quote]
I was *not* advocating a pull-out.
I was advocating that the monkeys in White House bother finishing in Afghanistan before they take on Iraq, and bother *preparing* so they actually manage what they hoped. Alas, they went and did everyone in.
The mess is made... and the soup has to be eaten. While the US does not commit another instance of flying off the handle, I am perfectly fine with having other countries (NATO) commit more forces to Afghanistan (and I fully support the demand that local politicians dredge up more resources for that, which they slowly appear doing, despite my country of residence being an insignificantly minor player) ...so the US can concentrate its resources to Iraq.
[quote] The only way that such people will be satisfied is for you to be either dead or under their thumb, be it in ideology, religion, or militarily. [/quote]
That is not terribly big news.
[quote]These people pose a clear and present danger to our very way of life. [/quote]
Another instance of big news.
[quote]Just like fifty years ago, "blame" should rest with those who stand by [/quote]
More blame should rest on those who go aggravating the situation -- without a clue of what exactly they are doing.
[B]Don't worry. Germany, France - you "false friends" are next. We have to, after all, promote stability in Europe as well as the middle east, right? Soon the US will rule the world and no one will be left to stop us! [/quote]
I am having trouble discerning... whether you think you just invented an ingenious joke... or whether you happen to seriously represent your political views.
In the former case: sorry, the joke missed me.
In the latter case: sorry, it won't happen.
Or were you just throwing flame bait?
In that case: your bait is too silly to catch fire. :)
[quote]By the way, 1984 is child's play. [/quote]
There are plentiful people working to ensure the opposite. Arguably, the laws of economy, game theory and even thermodynamics are on their side... and 1984 will never be child's play.
[B]Tyvar is right. Become familiar with his words; it is what will happen in your own nations soon enough! [/B][/QUOTE]
Tyvar has some points, misunderstood some of my points...
...but the second part of your statement is rather curious. Worry about your own country. It appears to undergo severe economic stratification, which can easily precipitate a social crisis of some kind.
I think Sleepy has made major mistake about the actual effectiveness of violence as a deternt against subversive or rebelious activity[/quote]
You have mis-perceived at which stage I envisioned the deterrent to have worked.
It would have worked against plain unarmed looting -- which was the beginning of Iraq spiraling out of control.
[quote] Even is police states the most effective form of control by political elietes in not the secret police but the approval either obvert or tacit of the majority of the population.[/quote]
Then apparently, the US failed to secure sufficient approval from Iraqi population -- a failure doubtless entangled with the failure to secure civilian infrastructure, and ensure at least a bit of public safety.
Why the failures (of failing to protect infrastructure, and failing to ensure a minimum of public safety) occurred... I cannot answer precisely, merely speculate:
-- Too few troops? Iraq has multiple times less peacekeepers per resident than Kosovo.
-- Too quick invasion? Troops moved forward to "decapitate" the regime, without bothering to secure taken ground.
-- Too poor planning? Did they have plans? Did they have training in post-conflict stabilization? Were they given opportunity to obtain training in such matters?
-- Too much ambition? Ought it not have been wiser to finish in Afghanistan first?
-- Too much ambition? Ought it not have been wiser to clip off Iraqi Kurdistan and South Iraq first, and only after securing those, proceed onward?
[quote] The reason why in the aftermath of the collapse of the regiems of the axis powers of WWII things did not become lawless, is that the people of the defeated nations RECOGNIZED THE OCCUPIERS AS LEGITIMATE.[/quote]
Mind you, Soviet occupation was not recognized as legitimate in Eastern Europe. Blunt force sufficed to quench resistance.
[quote] In every guirlla campaign you have almost always an external supplier of arms and equpiment willing to help cause trouble.[/quote]
That is unavoidable. If one cannot handle that, one should not open two cans of worms for simultaneous eating.
[quote] With that in mind even if the US had rolled in with a million troops the situation in Iraq would not be terribly different from what it is now.[/quote]
The situation would be different. You are missing a crucial point. Had Iraq received a sufficient number of troops per resident (as to leave enough troops behind at every significant point)...
...they *could* have protected Iraqi civilians during the transition of power, won a bigger portion of their trust... and undercut the *reasons* why Iraqi people became apathetic (and some acceptant) of insurgents.
[quote]much of the problem in Iraq currently the result of a dramatic presence of foreign agents using Iraq as an opportunity to keep america occupied[/quote]
What reports I see... tell of most insurgents being Iraqi, with merely some leaders (e.g. Al-Zarqawi) and cannon fodder (the suicide bombers) originating in significant percentage from abroad.
[quote] And the notion of "sealing" a border is something hyped by novelists and reporters because they dont know any better, and by generals and police who dont want to admit that such a task is impossible. [/quote]
No border is absolute, but some require a fairly smart person to cross.
The European borders of the USSR were pretty tight. Only the smartest and most inventive fellows went abroad without a permit.
I refuse to believe that the US military... is not capable of creating a comparable barrier.
[quote] Secondly your assertion about the American destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure is demonstrably false, even during the opening salvos of the war. [/quote]
When you read my statement about *not* posting patrols near hospitals, power stations, water filtration plants, or major factories (say oil refineries)... you should understand which recipe for destruction I was describing. No, naturally it wasn't all because of US bombing.
The US disabled the infrastructure, bombed it a little... and left it unguarded. Iraqis looted it. Iraqi police was down and out, while the US refused to post its own guards.
Together, the two factors did quite sufficient destruction, especially since life in Iraq had been fairly poor before, and things were alreday in some state of disrepair.
Bombing it a little was pretty much unavoidable. But looting could have been prevented.
[quote] Little of the country outside the Bagdad, Faluja and Tikrit areas had much in the way of running water, electricity or sewage, indeed such infrastructure was denied to elements of the population which was seen as "troublesome" [/quote]
Surveys from Iraq suggest that multiple places had better infrastructure *before* the war... than now, two years into reconstruction. It may be a bad case of statistic distortion... but I suspect it contains a measure of truth.
[quote] Secondly fthe unemployment figures in Iraq are uncertain at best. They dont have a census yet let alone any realistic set of employment numbers,[/quote]
That is telling of the situation.
[quote] Lastly your quibbles about training Iraqs I am afraid shows your own ignorance on the issues.[/quote]
In this case... your own ignorance, since you misread my statement. I have no quibbles about training Iraqis. The quality of recruits is naturally poor, but nothing can be done to help that.
When I mentioned them obtaining a gun without a badge, I meant comparable numbers joining the insurgency (or becoming non-political gangsters) as are seen joining the police, largely for the same reasons.
[quote]Secondly watch the patterns surrounding attacks. Upsurges in Iraqi police recruting occur after attacks against certain targets, such as mosques or near schools, indicating that what is driving much of the recruitment is ideological.[/quote]
Then the terrorists may indeed be... slowly undoing themselves.
However, I would caution against counting on that.