Pearls before swine?

[yguy]

wh1dWrf-k_E

[erimir]

:yawn:

What is this guy, like Tinkerbell? If you really believe he can do it, just clap your hands! And then Iraq will magically get better!

[D. Scarlatti]

Hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.

[D. Scarlatti]

President George W. Bush, facing growing dissent among Republicans as well as Democrats over the war, said he'll negotiate with Congress on setting benchmarks for progress in Iraq as part of legislation to fund troops.
- Bloomberg 5/10/07

Goddamn traitor.

[California Tanker]

Really could have done without the patriotic background music.

His opinion is not a unique one, though.

Goddamn traitor.

Depends on the benchmarks. I don't think he's going to acceed to any date-based benchmarks, and the Democrats didn't seem interested in performance-based ones.

NTM

[D. Scarlatti]

Well then, let them stay over there, if that's what will make al-Zawahiri (and yguy) happy.

And I'm sure the Ranger's opinion isn't an uncommon one within the rank and file. There's also an ever-increasing opinion about this whole escapade back home as well, which differs considerably from his.

I'm also reasonably certain that yguy isn't disseminating his propaganda from a military encampment in Iraq. He's sitting in his fucking basement in California, listening to Sean Hannity.

[The Lone Ranger]

The link may illustrate an important point, I think.

To date, over 3,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and over 24,000 wounded.

When you've invested that much in a "cause," it's awfully hard to accept that it wasn't a good one. I think that there's a tremendous determination on the part of many to believe that the "Iraq situation" will ultimately turn out well if we simply "stay the course."

This belief has nothing to do with history, logic, or evidence. It's all about the unwillingness to accept that so many could have suffered so much for no good reason.


Maybe it's akin to the "gambler's fallacy." Many a gambler has lost his or her shirt on the mistaken belief that if you've lost several times in a row, you're "due" for a streak of good luck. That stubborn conviction that the laws of statistics will somehow re-write themselves in your favor has cost many a gambler plenty.

In a vaguely similar manner, it's terribly hard for someone to accept that if you've poured tons of resources into a problem, there was no positive effect. So, just like the gambler who keeps rolling the dice and losing money with the foolish convinction that his luck is "bound to change" if he just keeps trying, we'll keep throwing money/soldiers/whatever at a problem long after it's clear that it's doing no good -- because the alternative is to admit to ourselves that the money/soldiers/whatever that we've already thrown at the problem were wasted.

And that's a very bitter pill to swallow.

Cheers,

Michael

[Clutch Munny]

Ah, film-maker lewismadmax is clearly a genius.
bkedp
Why are we in Iraq? The fight is here at home! Open Borders, Communist University Professors, Traitorous Politicians, Corporate Sellout of America. Foreign Flags flown on American streets by Illegal Aliens marching in protest of American laws...

Lewismadmax
great point bk

[D. Scarlatti]

I'd say university professors are the least of his concerns.

[davidm]

An animated pearls before swine smilie would be great fun. Just sayin'.

[Clutch Munny]

This belief has nothing to do with history, logic, or evidence. It's all about the unwillingness to accept that so many could have suffered so much for no good reason.


Maybe it's akin to the "gambler's fallacy." Many a gambler has lost his or her shirt on the mistaken belief that if you've lost several times in a row, you're "due" for a streak of good luck. That stubborn conviction that the laws of statistics will somehow re-write themselves in your favor has cost many a gambler plenty.

Yep, you beat me to this. But in fact it is the "sunk-cost fallacy" (from an argumentation perspective) and "loss aversion" (from a psychological perspective). The gambler's fallacy leads to a probabilistically incompetent confidence that one will win. The sunk-cost fallacy leads one to believe that it's more rational to continue than to quit, even if one recognizes the low probability of winning, because quitting involves taking a loss that might otherwise be averted.

To argue "We've invested so much that we should stay and do x, y and z in order to plausibly get the payoff we wanted in the first place" is risky but can be rational. But the video and lots of the comments instead reasoned in classic sunk-costs fashion: "We've invested so much that we should continue on, in order to not have that investment amount to a loss."

A natural explanation for reasoning in the latter way is that there is no plausible mechanism to be offered for actually doing what has not yet been done.

[yguy]

Hilarious. Thanks for the laughs.What's so funny?

[D. Scarlatti]

You, obviously.

[California Tanker]

An animated pearls before swine smilie would be great fun. Just sayin'.

Particularly for the Guard Duck. I like him.

As for the 'good money after bad' deal, I think it's an issue of whether or not the ultimate goal is still reasonably attainable. Absolutely, what's done is done, and can't be used as a rationale for a course of action in and of itself, as what will happen in future cannot be affected by what has happened in the past: The past has created the present from which the future will be made. (I sound like Trance Gemini, I know).

If a positive outcome is still reasonably attainable, a subject of some debate, yet the operations are cut, then yes, I could see an argument in favour of the concept that lives lost were spent in vain. If the man is a Ranger E-7 as he says, he should be quite attuned to the concept of cost/benefit and the rationale to not risk more lives in the seeking of an unattainable goal. He appears to believe that the goal is still realistically attainable, in which case, his point of view retains validity.

NTM

[yguy]

The link may illustrate an important point, I think.

To date, over 3,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and over 24,000 wounded.

When you've invested that much in a "cause," it's awfully hard to accept that it wasn't a good one. I think that there's a tremendous determination on the part of many to believe that the "Iraq situation" will ultimately turn out well if we simply "stay the course."

This belief has nothing to do with history, logic, or evidence. Clearly that is at least as true of the contrary belief.And that's a very bitter pill to swallow.I think anything like success in Iraq by Bush would be at least as bitter a pill for Reid et al to swallow.

Don't you? :)

[yguy]

You, obviously.You're lying, obviously.

Not that that's terribly noteworthy. :)

[D. Scarlatti]

I think it's an issue of whether or not the ultimate goal is still reasonably attainable.

According to the caller, the goal is a self-sustaining, U.S.-style democracy in Iraq. Does anybody really think that's a realistic goal? It amazes me that anyone thought it was a realistic goal in 2001, let alone now.

[D. Scarlatti]

You're lying, obviously.

Fuck off, idiot.

[Watser?]

Okay, I know there's no point in asking this but:

DEFINE SUCCESS/VICTORY IN IRAQ!

[Crumb]

Perhaps it would help if "success in Iraq" was defined.

[Watser?]

I think it's an issue of whether or not the ultimate goal is still reasonably attainable.

According to the caller, the goal is a self-sustaining, U.S.-style democracy in Iraq. Does anybody really think that's a realistic goal? It amazes me that anyone thought it was a realistic goal in 2001, let alone now.

Oh, never mind

:lol:

[yguy]

You're lying, obviously.

Fuck off, idiot.Can I call'em or what? :)

[D. Scarlatti]

DEFINE SUCCESS/VICTORY IN IRAQ!

I suspect a collective memory loss over the events of 632 C.E. would be a start.

[BDS]

The cost of attaining a goal sometimes becomes clear only as one pays it, and the goal may be changed as one approaches it. However, if our “goal” in invading Iraq was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, then the goal has already been achieved (and was achieved before we even invaded). If it was something else, what was it? If it has become something else, what is it now?

It’s as if someone went into a store and plunked down a lot of money to buy something without knowing what it was he was buying.

[yguy]

Perhaps it would help if "success in Iraq" was defined.Why would that help?

What definition of success could be achievable by pulling out?

[D. Scarlatti]

Can I call'em or what?

No. However, were you to admit you're an idiot, then you might be onto something, to wit, reality.

[Watser?]

DEFINE SUCCESS/VICTORY IN IRAQ!

I suspect a collective memory loss over the events of 632 C.E. would be a start.

Not necessarily. It's true that the Shi'ites like to commemorate this every year, but the protestants in Northern Ireland still hold their marches (though not through Catholic areas I think). It is not like they have been at each other's throat all the time since the Battle of Karbala. The struggles are political more than anything: first the country has fractured along the most obvious fault lines (Shi'ite/Sunni Arab and Kurd), now we see the fragmentation into smaller units (Sunni and Yazidi Kurds, Shi'ites from different political factions fighting each other). These fights might even be bloodier than the sectarian ones, the same thing happened in Lebanon. The nastiest fights there were between groups that were technically on the same side...

[yguy]

Can I call'em or what?

No. However, were you to admit you're an idiot, then you might be onto something, to wit, reality.Were that the case it would hardly be charitable to do so, seeing how that would put you at about the level of a cockroach. :cool:

[D. Scarlatti]

Cockroach, swine, whatever. You're still an idiot.

[Clutch Munny]

As for the 'good money after bad' deal, I think it's an issue of whether or not the ultimate goal is still reasonably attainable. Absolutely, what's done is done, and can't be used as a rationale for a course of action in and of itself, as what will happen in future cannot be affected by what has happened in the past: The past has created the present from which the future will be made. (I sound like Trance Gemini, I know).
Sexiest purple girl on TV.

If a positive outcome is still reasonably attainable, a subject of some debate, yet the operations are cut, then yes, I could see an argument in favour of the concept that lives lost were spent in vain.
I don't know what positive outcome is still debatable as possible. More importantly, though, is that the reasoning is duff. Notice that if a positive outcome is not attainable, then those lives were also spent in vain. Lives being spent in vain is not itself the issue, then. The issue is whether an opportunity would be lost.

If the man is a Ranger E-7 as he says, he should be quite attuned to the concept of cost/benefit and the rationale to not risk more lives in the seeking of an unattainable goal. He appears to believe that the goal is still realistically attainable, in which case, his point of view retains validity.
That seems something of a leap, to put it mildly. Being a Ranger E-7 is not, that I'd heard, a fallacy and bias-proof status. And he actually says that he hates the idea of pulling out because of the friends he's lost in Iraq -- not because we're oh-so-close according to plausible mechanisms x, y and z of achieving well-defined goals a, b and c.

Maybe the fact that he's a Ranger E-7 means that he must have such mechanisms and goals in mind. But he pretty much kept them to himself, in favour of pretty explicitly sunk-cost fallacious reasoning.


NTM[/QUOTE]

[Watser?]

Perhaps it would help if "success in Iraq" was defined.Why would that help?

What definition of success could be achievable by pulling out?

:giggle:

How about making it out with an army that's not broken?

An economy that is still salvageable?

You wouldn't be the first great power to trip over a minor war...

[Crumb]

Perhaps it would help if "success in Iraq" was defined.Why would that help?

What definition of success could be achievable by pulling out?What success can be achieved by not pulling out? :chin:

[yguy]

Perhaps it would help if "success in Iraq" was defined.Why would that help?

What definition of success could be achievable by pulling out?What success can be achieved by not pulling out? :chin:Iraq can become an independent, democratically governed country.

I'm aware that many here find that implausible. The point, though, is that the Democrat leadership would find it intolerable while W is in office.

[D. Scarlatti]

Iraq can become an independent, democratically governed country. The point, though, is that the Democrat leadership would find it intolerable while W is in office.

A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. Nancy Pelosi, 11/8/06

Idiot.

[yguy]

Iraq can become an independent, democratically governed country. The point, though, is that the Democrat leadership would find it intolerable while W is in office.

A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. Nancy Pelosi, 11/8/06

Idiot.Yeah, no one could be more qualified to hold forth on matters diplomatic than Miss Nancy. After all, everybody knows by now that if W had just kept quiet, Israel and Syria would surely be allies by now.

:rolleyes:

[D. Scarlatti]

Caught lying, change the subject. Typical yguy.

[yguy]

Caught lyingI don't know who the hell you think you're kidding. Pelosi doesn't want diplomacy because she thinks it will work, but because it's the Democrats' idea. They don't give a damn if it works or not. If it does - and there's no way in Hell it will, doing it their way - the dems will take credit; and if it doesn't, W will get the blame.

[D. Scarlatti]

Meanwhile, Republican legislators begin lining up to commit treason (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/10/bush.gop.meeting/):

Bush must be able to show by September that the push to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces is working, [Ray] LaHood [R-IL] said.

"The American people are war-fatigued. The American people want to know there's a way out," LaHood said.

"We will hang with them until September, but we need an honest assessment in September," he said of his fellow [Republican] congressmen. "People's patience is running very, very thin."

[D. Scarlatti]

Pelosi doesn't want diplomacy because she thinks it will work, but because it's the Democrats' idea.

Sure, like those Democrats James Baker III (http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html), Sandra Day O'Connor, and Ed Meese. Bigtime Democrats.

You're a clown, is what you are. Where's the goalposts moving to next?

[yguy]

Pelosi doesn't want diplomacy because she thinks it will work, but because it's the Democrats' idea.

Sure, like those Democrats James Baker III (http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html), Sandra Day O'Connor, and Ed Meese. Bigtime Democrats.The only one who qualifies as a conservative is Meese...and if some reason can be provided to believe his operating definition of "diplomacy" is capitulation, as it clearly is for the Dems, his sanity would certainly be open to question.

[D. Scarlatti]

Democrats ...

[Baker, O'Connor, and Meese are Republicans] ...

only one qualifies as a conservative ...

Move that goalpost, right on schedule. And ... one more move:

[even Meese's] sanity would certainly be open to question.

So now it's simply a measure of whom you, a demonstrably mealymouthed idiot, consider "sane."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you yguy, the champion internets debater (self-proclaimed, naturally).

[yguy]

you, a demonstrably mealymouthed idiotToo bad you've never been able to demonstrate it, loser.

:cool:

[D. Scarlatti]

You demonstrate it with practically every successive post. You've gone from calling readers of this forum swine, by presenting the "pearl" of Democrat leaders portrayed as traitors, to your own personal definition of sanity. That's about as mealymouthed and slippery as you've ever been around here. This thread is practically a case study. It's also included you lying about Nancy Pelosi as an added bonus. All things yguy are clearly on display, right here, in one concise package. Congratulations.

[Angakuk]

I just love it when yguy and Scarlatti engage in these little public love spats. You could just go ahead and get a room.

[D. Scarlatti]

*shrug*

Frankly, I think it's pretty fucking amusing. Notice the Republicans demanding "dates certain" from President Bush aren't tagged as swine and traitors.

[Angakuk]

That is because they are not swine, they are RINOs.

[yguy]

You've gone from calling readers of this forum swineAs usual, this wretched excuse for a man can't find fault with anything I say without lying.

:yawn:

[D. Scarlatti]

RINOs.

If things keep up the way they're going, there won't even be any of them left in Congress next year. If people think the Democrats are playing politics with Iraq now, wait and see how the Republicans behave over the next few months, once their visions of the unemployment line start sinking in.

Oh, and I see yguy is even trying to deny his thread title now. Classic.

[Angakuk]

For clarity's sake, yguy, who are the swine before whom these pearls were cast?

[yguy]

I just love it when yguy and Scarlatti engage in these little public love spats. You could just go ahead and get a room.I'll bet that poor, miserable schnook has put me on ignore a dozen times since I've been here. :tmgrin:

[yguy]

For clarity's sake, yguy, who are the swine before whom these pearls were cast?The question mark was there for a purpose. However, I think it's fair to say Scarlatti has shown himself to be one by his conduct in this thread. Watser probably has too, but I rarely read his terrorist apologies.

[D. Scarlatti]

Too mealymouthed to answer even a simple question.

You're lying, obviously.

[Watser's] terrorist apologies.

Yeah, and you're the model of civility. Hypocritical clown.

[Angakuk]

For clarity's sake, yguy, who are the swine before whom these pearls were cast?The question mark was there for a purpose.
Nonetheless, "swine" must have had an intended referent. What was it?

[California Tanker]

http://pics.livejournal.com/vendaz/pic/000drd7r

http://pics.livejournal.com/vendaz/pic/0009csrz

http://pics.livejournal.com/vendaz/pic/000f28r8

http://pics.livejournal.com/vendaz/pic/0005gda5

I figured this thread needed more Guard Duck.

NTM

[yguy]

For clarity's sake, yguy, who are the swine before whom these pearls were cast?The question mark was there for a purpose.
Nonetheless, "swine" must have had an intended referent. What was it?If you look at the comments for that video, you'll find someone who claimed to have found that Ranger's distress funny. I cannot imagine a word which would convey sufficient opprobrium towards anyone so despicable...and I was curious to see if anyone like that posts here.

[Angakuk]

I seldom read the comments at YouTube. The videos are usually sufficiently pointless so that reading the comments on them would just be gilding the lily, so to speak. However, I agree that there is nothing particularly humorous about his distress. The opinions he expresses may, or may not, merit a laugh, but his obviously sincere and emotional attachment to those opinions is not something that deserves mockery.

So, I take it you are saying that his tears are pearls and those who laugh at them are swine. Fair enough.

[Angakuk]

I figured this thread needed more Guard Duck.
Sir, very good, sir. Requesting permission to laugh my ass off, sir.

[California Tanker]

Granted. I wanted to do a lot more, but I didn't want to fear the wrath of the Copyright Gods.

NTM

[Watser?]

For clarity's sake, yguy, who are the swine before whom these pearls were cast?The question mark was there for a purpose. However, I think it's fair to say Scarlatti has shown himself to be one by his conduct in this thread. Watser probably has too, but I rarely read his terrorist apologies.

Hehe, so if Scarlatti has you on ignore that shows you are superior, but if you have me on ignore that still shows you're superior :D

[Stormlight]

Will You stop your terrorist apologies, you commie bastard! :pinko:

[Watser?]

What success can be achieved by not pulling out? :chin:Iraq can become an independent, democratically governed country.

I'm aware that many here find that implausible.
:giggles:

Ok, well in that case you will probably consider this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html?hpid=sec-world) a step in the right direction: A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

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

Will You stop your terrorist apologies, you commie bastard! :pinko:
:P

[D. Scarlatti]

someone who claimed to have found that Ranger's distress funny. I was curious to see if anyone like that posts here.

I think it's fair to say Scarlatti has shown himself to be one by his conduct in this thread.

God you're an idiot. And it's your idiocy that's funny, not the soldier's "distress." Meanwhile, the YouTube comments are filled with references to "sand niggers," "liberalism is a disease," "liberal, go kill yourself," and so forth, all under the supposed rubric of patriotism. Get a fucking clue.

[D. Scarlatti]

A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels.

Then they're taking two months off (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vacation10may10,0,2681550.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center).

Last month, one lawmaker, Sabah Saidi, announced a proposal to expel parliamentarians who missed 15 successive meetings, or who failed to attend a total of 25 meetings in an entire parliamentary session. Absenteeism is "impeding the work of the house," he said.

The proposed law never went anywhere because, within hours of his news conference, the parliament building was bombed.

[Watser?]

And while they are enjoying their holidays or even before, the militias are getting busy (http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2007-05-09\kurd1.htm): Baghdad inhabitants say the presence of armed groups has intensified since the start of U.S. military operations to pacify the city more than two months ago.

More and more armed groups are springing up in Baghdad, they say, and restive quarters like Doura and Ghazaliya have turned into major insurgent strongholds.

The Ministry of Interior which plays a big hand in the current operations targeting armed and rebel groups in the city would not comment on reports on the escalation of the number of armed in the city.

But a ministry source, refusing to be named, said, “The security forces are striking with a fist of iron all the hatcheries of armed groups in various areas (of Baghdad) and the provinces by capturing many of them every week.”

But Baghdad residents have different stories to tell.

Kadhem Abedsada who has been forced to flee al-Ghazaliya district, said security conditions have aggravated since the government began its security plan.

“I have never seen such a wide presence of armed groups before. Their hideouts dot al-Ghazaliya and they are breeding like mushroom.

“They call themselves resistance but they kill and kidnap on identity cards and ask for massive ransoms,” Abedsada said.

[Clutch Munny]

I don't know how systematically those impressions of Baghdad residents were gathered. It looks like just a few interviews.

[California Tanker]

“I have never seen such a wide presence of armed groups before. Their hideouts dot al-Ghazaliya and they are breeding like mushroom.

“They call themselves resistance but they kill and kidnap on identity cards and ask for massive ransoms,” Abedsada said.

Has the guy thought of going to up to an American troop (If he doesn't trust an Iraqi Army troop) and saying "you might to check out the hideouts at al-Ghazaliya..."?

It's not as if the locals are incapable of providing tips. Two car bombs were found yesterday by locals going up to coaltion troops and saying 'hey, you might want to check this out'

NTM

[Watser?]

I don't know how systematically those impressions of Baghdad residents were gathered. It looks like just a few interviews.

True. But a very visible indication that the militias are active again is that the count of bodies found in the morning (which the Bush administration used as an indication that their 'surge' was working) is going up again (20 found yesterday (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/17205839.htm), 25 the day before (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L09112796.htm)).

[Watser?]

“I have never seen such a wide presence of armed groups before. Their hideouts dot al-Ghazaliya and they are breeding like mushroom.

“They call themselves resistance but they kill and kidnap on identity cards and ask for massive ransoms,” Abedsada said.

Has the guy thought of going to up to an American troop (If he doesn't trust an Iraqi Army troop) and saying "you might to check out the hideouts at al-Ghazaliya..."?

It's not as if the locals are incapable of providing tips. Two car bombs were found yesterday by locals going up to coaltion troops and saying 'hey, you might want to check this out'

NTM

Well, the soldiers can read the papers then.

The Iraqis definitely do not trust Iraqi soldiers: There are army and police checkpoints everywhere but Iraqis are terrified approaching them because they do not know if the men in uniform they see are in reality death squad members.
This is from Patrick Cockburn (http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick05042007.html), Iraqi correspondent for the Independent. Here's more: Now the sectarian body count is on the rise again. Some 30 bodies, each shot in the head, were found on Wednesday alone. That's last week, not this Wednesday, when we only had 25 as mentioned before. The main new American tactic is proving counter-productive. This is the sealing off entire neighbourhoods either by concrete walls or barriers of rubbish so there is only a single entrance and exit. Speaking of Sunni districts like al-Adhamiyah a government official said: "We are creating mini- Islamic republics."

...

The failure of the 'surge' comes because it is not accompanied by any political reconciliation. On the contrary the government is wholly factionalised. For instance the two vice presidents, the Sunni Tariq al- Hashimi, and the Shia Adel Abdel Mehdi, may make conciliatory statements in public but one Iraqi observer notes that "Tariq only employs Sunni and Adel only Shia."

[davidm]

Suppose it were the case that the U.S. had very strong grounds to believe that if it pulled its forces out of Iraq, the nation would descend into even more of a bloodbath than it is now.

Suppose it were further the case that no matter what the U.S. does in Iraq, so long as it keeps its troops there, at least at current force levels, then little will change, and things might even get worse. (It will shortly be announced that Iraq is losing billions in oil revenue, probably through theft, and that its oil output and electrical grid output are now actually falling from what they were even last year; in any event all relevant production indices are far below those projected/demanded by the U.S.)

Suppose it were further the case that evidence showed it might be possible to impose at least some kind of grudging stability on the country if the U.S. vastly increased its troop presence there, by the hundreds of thousands (i.e., put the number of troops in Iraq that key generals warned would be needed at the start of the war, people who were ignored/silenced by the Bush blunderers and their neocon enablers, right-wing talk-show shock jocks and war profiteers).

What should the U.S. do? What can it do?

By now, everyone understands (except for the odd Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and yguy) that the war was a fool’s errand from the first; and was possible only because the U.S. had the misfortune to have a fool in the White House when 9/11 happened, a man devoid of intellectual curiosity, devoid of knowledge of history and devoid of judgment. Still, as Colin Powell warned Bush before the war began, “If you break Iraq, you own it.”

Since we have broken it, does this mean we own it in perpetuity?

Again, if it can be shown with great confidence that the withdrawal favored by the Democrats would probably lead to massive bloodshed, could it not be argued that the U.S. has a moral responsibly to keep troops there, maybe even increase their numbers beyond Bush’s surge, because we broke it and now we own it?

On the other hand, the average citizen had no direct responsibility for this debacle; that burden lies on Bush, the neocons, and their mouthpieces like Rush, Sean and yguy. The blood is on their hands. Why should ordinary people who had nothing directly to do with this misadventure and even spoke out against it from the first, like taxpayers and troops, be required to foot the bill and be maimed and killed for the disastrous miscalculations of the fools in the White House and on right-wing talks shows?

It could be argued that at least with respect to the troops, they volunteer to serve in the military, so the question does not have the same force that it had during Vietnam, when a draft was in place. But that is too quick; the truth is that many people sign up for military service because they feel they have no choice; i.e. they see it as the only way to escape from a bad economic/social situation, and therefore their only good option in life (provided, of course, that they don’t get killed or maimed while serving).

Another point to ponder is that the (open) secret of the war, the real reason, is that the U.S. needs to secure Iraqi oil (even though production there is currently far below targets.) Global oil production will eventually go into terminal decline, and if the U.S. is to secure its vaunted “way of life,” it is going to end up fighting wars over energy supplies. This might actually be the first such war of the 21st century.

All (grim) points to ponder, it seems to me.

[D. Scarlatti]

Good post, and I think your first three suppositions are exactly right. Of course it will be a bloodbath when the U.S. leaves. Why in the world do people think it took a Saddam to maintain order in that country. Iraq is perfectly capable of setting up its own government, despite the Ranger's claim that the U.S. has to do it for them. But we aren't going to like it.

[California Tanker]

http://pics.livejournal.com/vendaz/pic/000487er

Just because.

NTM

[Freddy]

Three US generals say Iraq War is pointless. Major General Batiste led the 1ST Cavalry Division in Iraq. In four years we defeated Hitler and Tojo. We defeated Saddam's army in a month and get caught up in a never ending civil war. Let the Iraqis kill each other. Or we can listen to a sergeant in Iraq and stay until the "job" is finished.

"Our strategy in Iraq today is more of the same, a slow grind to nowhere which totally ignores the reality of Iraq and the lessons of history," Batiste said. "Our president ignores sound military advice and surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates."
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135368,00.html

[erimir]

Suppose it were further the case that evidence showed it might be possible to impose at least some kind of grudging stability on the country if the U.S. vastly increased its troop presence there, by the hundreds of thousands (i.e., put the number of troops in Iraq that key generals warned would be needed at the start of the war, people who were ignored/silenced by the Bush blunderers and their neocon enablers, right-wing talk-show shock jocks and war profiteers).This would be a better plan than the current one, of course.

Another inconvenient fact is that while it may be ignored by the media, we're similarly losing control of Afghanistan. But how do we fix that problem? Won't it also require more troops?

The problem is, however, that we must ask: Where are these troops going to come from?

[Watser?]

I am not so sure pouring in more troops would 'fix' Iraq in the first place. So far all the 'surge' is doing is moving the problems, the game of whack-a-mole. And even in Baghdad itself the murders are on the rise again. So even if there were more soldiers to spare, I am not sure it would help.
But apart from that: so far there has not been a major Shi'ite insurgency. More troops might provoke just that. If the US army goes around actively supporting the SCIRI militia against the Sadr militia for instance (which they have been doing lately), there is likely to be a reaction. And even if they don't, some Shi'ite factions are losing patience with the occupation.

I am not really sure the US presence is preventing a bloodbath either. First of all it pretty much is a bloodbath already. Second, the presence of the Americans keeps the Shi'ites (and the Kurds) from facing up to the reality that they have to make some kind of deal. Plus the US troops now get mixed up in political feuds between factions, which means more firepower. And it is harder to compromise because the Sunnis now see everyone who works with the US as a collaborator, which of course includes the government.
Also: because the US is there, the neighboring countries are taking a wait-and-see approach. Some of them are not unhappy to see the US in this quagmire, but fear an Iraq falling apart. The US leaving might make them more cooperative.

[Clutch Munny]

The problem is, however... Where are these troops going to come from?

Are there no Germanic tribesmen or impoverished Illyrians who would guard the Empire's expanded borders for a few decades, in exchange for citizenship?

[JackDog]

Are there no Germanic tribesmen or impoverished Illyrians who would guard the Empire's expanded borders for a few decades, in exchange for citizenship?

Of course there are...but nowadays they're Mexicans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-08-noncitizen-usat_x.htm).

[erimir]

I am not so sure pouring in more troops would 'fix' Iraq in the first place.Oh, I'm not either.

I was only saying that the current plan is keeping an insufficient number of troops there. If we're not willing to put in more troops, then there's really no point in staying. Maybe putting in more troops won't work, but it's got a better chance of working than the current plan.

But like I said, where would the troops come from? They're pretty much screwed there, so it's probably more politically feasible to just leave than to add significantly more troops.