(2005-02-08) -- Faced with the fact that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the only person still seeking the chairmanship of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), the nine-member panel of elected officers announced today that it had posted the job on CareerBuilder.com, and would consider applicants from outside the party.
"Clearly we can't just hand over the reins to a man whose claim to fame is losing Iowa to John Kerry and John Edwards," said party vice chair Linda Chavez-Thompson, a former top official at both the AFL-CIO and the AFSCME. "We need someone who knows how to win. So, we're looking at Republican resumes."
Although electing a Republican to lead the 440-member DNC would seem counterintuitive, Mrs. Chavez-Thompson said, "First, we need to focus on winning elections. Once we recapture the White House and Congress, we can take a look at ideology and other peripheral matters."
Other party leaders privately said that the "working with a bunch of monkeys" ad for CareerBuilder, which ran during the Super Bowl, "sparked some real soul searching at the DNC."
Posted by: Korora ||
02/09/2005 9:11:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
ON SHEEP, SHEEPDOGS, AND WOLVES
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains:
What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?
- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I tend to think of them as rabbits (prey whose only defense is to run, hide and hope for the best), porcupines (well defended but don't attack), mamma bears(claws, teeth and will rarely attack unless provoked), outright predators and pilot fish.
#3
Grossman wrote a book called On Killing a while back. According to him, the most stressful part of battle for a soldier is not being shot at but killing, but with a catch, the closer you are to your target the harder and more stressful it is to kill. (I personally think getting shot would be the most stressful part of battle.)Conversely, killing from an out-of-the-line-of-sight distance actually becomes easy. Being shot at invokes more surprise and disbelief than stress. According to him, killing other human beings requires overcoming years of societal indoctrination. Thus all the drills and the more realistic the better. Without the drills, he claims people will routinely refuse to kill or miss on purpose. We are not Natural Born Killers according to him.
(2005-05-08) -- Spurred by CNN executive Eason Jordan's accusations that U.S. troops have targetted journalists in Iraq, the Pentagon today issued revised rules of engagement for encounters between U.S. forces and the members of the news media.
Under the new guidelines, U.S. troops will first offer journalists an opportunity to throw down their cameras and notebooks and approach with hands raised.
"We're there to kill terrorists, not journalists," said an unnamed Pentagon official. "The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they're often found together and have similar objectives."
Once in captivity, the so-called Prisoners Of Undetermined Loyalty Embedded with Terrorists (POULET), will be treated according to the Geneva Conventions, although the Justice Department has yet to rule on their official status.
This article starring:
Eason Jordan
Posted by: BigEd ||
02/09/2005 11:28:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"POULET"
ROFL! My Froggish sucks, but even I know that's a perfect description for whiny "journalists" - CHICKEN. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/09/2005 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It is also (old) French slang for cop: when De Gaulle's car was machine gunned at Petit Clamart, Mrs De Gaulle told "Oh my God I hope the poulets haven't been hurt". The member of the escort thought whe was worrying about them when in fact she was worrying about the chickens the De Gaulle were carrying in the car's rear compartment.
MOSUL is the good girl who went bad. Quiet in the early days of the occupation, the violence-ravaged Iraqi city has become a must-win battlefield for our enemies. The terrorists and insurgents will throw all they have left into the fight.
There's no mystery involved: Mosul's the decisive point in northern Iraq. Over the long term, the city's vastly more valuable than Fallujah.
Insurgent attacks, terrorist bombings and assassinations erupted last autumn and continue on a regular basis. They're not going to stop soon. After Baghdad, Mosul will remain the most bitterly contested Iraqi city in the months ahead.
Every blast and tactical ambush has a strategic purpose. The Sunni Arab insurgents need control of Mosul to remain viable. And the international terrorists want to deny it to all but Sunni Arabs.
We failed to see how much we changed Iraq. Mosul is now a frontier town, at the northern edge of the Sunni-Arab world.
With a strong Kurdish tradition, a location astride the Tigris River and control of the key route from Turkey, the city's strategic importance was obvious from the 8th-century caliphate of Harun al-Raschid to the era of Saddam Hussein. Saddam gave his military officers homes in Mosul and encouraged other regime supporters to homestead. He was determined to conquer the city demographically, to make it incontestably Arab, instead of the polyglot mix it long had been.
It was an old trick. The Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders and even the 19th-century Russians used military colonies to augment or substitute for expensive frontier garrisons: Get the soldiers to put down stakes and the land becomes your own.
Mosul became so heavily populated with military and security officials that Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay, chose it as their hide-out — and died there. The city remained calm in the early months of the occupation because Saddam's loyalists felt confident that the struggle could be won elsewhere — they preferred to ravage the cities of others, rather than risk their own retirement homes.
The Baathists assumed that Mosul would be theirs again after the Americans fled Iraq. But they got an unpleasant surprise: The Americans showed no sign of leaving. Meanwhile, the Kurds grew in strength and confidence.
With elections looming, it was obvious that the country's Shi'a majority would dominate the polls, while the Kurds would vote a united ticket and place second. Our enemies saw what the media could not: They were losing. So they began to execute Plan B.
The insurgents and terrorists alike recognize Mosul as the vital outpost of their blood and faith. If Iraq remains whole, the Sunni Arabs need to dominate Mosul for political leverage. Should Iraq break into three pieces, Mosul would be strategically and economically essential to a Sunni Arab state.
We see Mosul as a set of tactical problems. Our enemies view it as an indispensable fortress-city on the edge of the Sunni Arab world.
Mosul dominates northern Iraq. It threatens the primary border crossing with Turkey at Zakho, which provides the Kurds with an economic lifeline. It was Saddam's military base for repeated attacks on Dohuk and Irbil, two of the three Kurdish provincial capitals, and it dominates the most-direct route from Turkey to Suleimaniye, the third. The Sunni Arabs know they've lost the oil-rich Kurdish city of Kirkuk, at least for now, but possession of Mosul would guarantee them effective control of the pipelines that carry Kirkuk's oil.
The insurgents and terrorists had to make their move. And they can't quit, despite heavy losses. Our enemies will stop at nothing to prevent Iraqi security forces from gaining traction. They have to sustain the myth of a malevolent occupation. They like to kill us, but they need to kill and discourage the Iraqis who stand against them.
Mosul is the single city our enemies can't afford to lose, the key to all of northern Iraq. Without Mosul, the Sunni Triangle is a shrunken, economically impotent territory, dependent on the mercies of the central government.
The Sunni Arabs retain demographic control of cities such as Ramadi, Baquba, Tikrit and Fallujah, and they've given up the Shi'a south for now. But Mosul contains a combustible ethnic mix. The insurgents are determined to keep the matches coming.
For their part, the international terrorists see Mosul as the border fortress of true Islam. Although the Kurds are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims, they're far too secular and tolerant for the extremists — and, at its heart, the terror campaign spearheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq is a racist, Arab movement. The terrorists are as hostile to the independent-spirited Kurds as Saddam ever was.
Watch Mosul. From the raids on police stations to suicide bombings and mortar attacks on our bases, preventing the pacification of Mosul has become the primary operational goal of both the insurgents and the terrorists.
What will our enemies do now, after the election? Everything they can to create casualties, stir unrest and prevent the normalization of Mosul's economy. The Sunni Arab insurgents will attempt to exacerbate Turkey's fears about Kurdish power and independence, while the terrorists will continue to send in suicide bombers.
In the wake of the widespread displays of courage in Iraq's first free elections, the insurgents and terrorists feel themselves pressed against the wall. In response, they'll lash out madly — to include attacks against moderate Sunni Arabs.
Our enemies fantasize about turning Mosul into another Mogadishu or Beirut. We need to prevent it from turning into another Fallujah. The odds are on our side, not theirs.
But be prepared for more bloodshed in Mosul. If our enemies lose the city, they've lost Iraq.
Posted by: tipper ||
02/09/2005 10:51:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good analysis, but he fails to mention the Kurds surround Mosul except for a corridor to the south perhaps 30 kilometers wide. We hear very little about what is happening outside the cities in Iraq but there are indications the Kurds are pushing the Sunnis out of rural areas. My reading is Mosul is already lost to the Sunnis, they just don't realize it.
#2
Lol, Phil_b, wouldn't that mean that Ralph Peters doesn't realize it either?
Good job by Mr. Peters, though, that he understands the strategic importance and conditions of Mosul. Let's hope that not only do our active-duty and reserve (serving) officers know it, but are able to and are acting on that intelligence.
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
02/09/2005 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Derbyshire is a very insightful guy, brilliant in some way; but in others... well I've had household pets that were smarter than him-- and those didn't even breathe air.
What Derb just can't seem to get through his thick skull is that there are plenty of reasons for us to be in Iraq beyond those that have been stated publicly by the administration; and they're not hard to figure out, either.
Democracy is only part of it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/09/2005 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm not going to argue --- I'm going to wait for a year, and then post this DerbTM again.
#4
Derbyshire is looking at it from a realpolitik standpoint - it is perhaps to America's advantage if Iraqis kill each other by the hundreds of thousands, and the regional Muslim powers get sucked into a war of Iraqi succession, perhaps killing millions in the process. I have some sympathy with his position as a last ditch solution if we're losing too many men or spending too much money. However, our casualty and funding levels are so low that I disagree with Derbyshire about his eminently sensible proposition - I think at these levels, it makes sense to keep our guys in Iraq.
#6
Derb is best when talking about China. Especially his days as a youth when he worked as a round-eye extra for a day in a Bruce Lee movie. Hysterical stuff.
#9
someone: Derb is a crackpot. Remember his "we'll never invade Iraq, ever" column?
He was against going for the UN resolution, because he thought it would be rejected. He was for an invasion as a punitive expedition. His mistake was in thinking that GWB would actually abide by the UN's decision - i.e. that GWB actually respected UN initiatives. He was wrong in that regard, but his analysis of the situation in Iraq is pretty sound. Punitive expeditions have always involved casualties and always involved withdrawal after the enemy was suitably chastised, though not necessarily exterminated - that takes too long and goes way beyond the bounds of a punitive expedition.
When Uncle Sam went to war with the Barbary States in the 19th century, the reigning monarchs weren't actually toppled. When the Marines attacked Beijing in retaliation for the atrocities of the Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the 20th Century, they did not remove the reigning ruler of China, let alone completely destroy the Chinese Imperial Army. Derbyshire is quite erudite about the history of various Oriental civilizations and understands the context of the historical references that the Muslim holy warriors use.
#10
What he fails to see is that the Iraq project is not just for Iraq. If it succeeds, it is a torpedo into Iran, syria, Jordan, saudi arabia, etc etc.
They all know very well, what is coming. If the Iraqis actually elect a government, after they write this constitution, then IF that government leaves office once it loses an election, game over.
all the rest of the Arabs will wait to see if about 5 years fro now the first elected Pres of Iraq stpes down after his term or he loses an election.
If he does, then the silly monarchs on Iraqs borders are going to be in hot water.
That is what the Iraq project is about, killing 5 birds with one war.
#11
His assessment of the probability of success of the big Iraq project is much lower than Bush's. I'm hoping he's not right but I think he is and that will have something to do with our bit flipping.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/09/2005 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#12
it is perhaps to America's advantage if Iraqis kill each other by the hundreds of thousands, and the regional Muslim powers get sucked into a war of Iraqi succession, perhaps killing millions in the process.
with all due respect, that sounds like the optimal formula for the Khalifate crowd.
#13
MD: His assessment of the probability of success of the big Iraq project is much lower than Bush's. I'm hoping he's not right but I think he is and that will have something to do with our bit flipping.
Actually, I think his point is that a punitive expedition is sufficient to cow Muslim regimes into not supporting anti-American terrorists. There is no point in rebuilding Humpty Dumpty, especially if it costs American lives. His attitude is this - the next time, we drop the Bomb.
In the post WWII-era, we have tended to be navel gazers and over-attached to the WWII model of wars - involving unconditional surrender and total victory - a model that was quite exceptional in the history of warfare. Most wars are fought to a ceasefire, with territorial or diplomatic gains on one side). We tend to think about anything less than absolute destruction of the enemy as somewhat less than satisfactory. But this is how the Korean War and the Cold War ended.
And the Muslim states would perhaps be more cowed if we followed the punitive expedition model, since we can do a lot more of those. Smack them hard and leave. Go for unconditional surrender, lose thousands of men and leave is a lot harder for Uncle Sam to do over and over again to recalcitrant potentates. Overstretch becomes a non-issue - have our pilots bomb the crap out of some hostile foreign country a la Libya. Re-apply over and over as long as there is a problem - that is Derbyshire's model. No long-term commitments and no problem with tying down most of ground forces.
#14
Chinese as a group werent politically mobilized in 1840. Those who were politicized were not in a position to hop a plane to London, and there wasnt much they could do once theyd gotten there. This AINT the early 19th century. Bashing the wogs till they bow down is NOT going to work.
#15
LH: with all due respect, that sounds like the optimal formula for the Khalifate crowd.
Actually, no. Tamerland slaughtered the Ottoman armies, but was equally bled white by them. Setting the barbarians against the barbarians works really well, because atrocity gets piled upon atrocity, and they hate each other for generations, if not centuries. The trick is to help whichever side happens to be losing, and rebalancing as required.
#16
I think his point is that a punitive expedition is sufficient to cow Muslim regimes into not supporting anti-American terrorists
BS - If wed gotten out of Iraq in say, June of 2003 Saddam would have been back in power in weeks, trumpeting his triumph. AND we've had had far worse problems in the arab street (which DOES matter) and among our allies (who also matter). Ditto, more or less, in afghanistan.
#17
LH: Chinese as a group werent politically mobilized in 1840. Those who were politicized were not in a position to hop a plane to London, and there wasnt much they could do once theyd gotten there. This AINT the early 19th century. Bashing the wogs till they bow down is NOT going to work.
It worked for the Chinese against the Vietnamese, starting in 1979. Punitive raid after punitive raid eventually wore down the Vietnamese economy. Today, Vietnam kowtows at every opportunity to Chinese officials. And Vietnam is a country that lost 1.2m troops fighting Uncle Sam and its southern brethren.
#18
. Setting the barbarians against the barbarians works really well, because atrocity gets piled upon atrocity, and they hate each other for generations, if not centuries.
Or everyone gets sick of the chaos and turns to the folks who promise to end the killing, reunite the muslim world, and take it back to the West - IE AQ.
Look at Afghanistan - plenty of barbarian on barbarian atrocities as factions battled it out and destroyed Kabul - till the Taliban swept all before them. Now imagine this happening across Iraq, the arabian peninsula, Iran.
Look, if Derby believes what you say he does, hes not just a jerk, hes a complete idiot.
#19
The Chinese launched an infantry war against VN in '79 which they LOST. And VN is hardly kowtowing to China, its moving toward alignment with the US. Sure they want trade with China, as does EVERYONE else in Asia.
#20
OK, LH, Look at Afghanistan. It's gone back to growing poppies. There could be range wars going on between the warlords, just like before, only for control of the most fertile fields. But it's not the Taliban and it's not a threat to us.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/09/2005 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Funny Mrs D, thats the leftwing line - ok your man karzai has beaten the taliban, and nows hes done in the major warlords, but LOOK, theyre still growing poppies - shows the countrys still in chaos. You been following the BBC too close, Mrs. D. Afghanistan has a democratic govt, which for the last 4 years has been gradually extending its control of that country. The poppy growing is the last big public order problem, and the question now is how hard and how fast to come down on it. Afghanistan is the OPPOSITE of the Derbyshire strategy. Its only a case of disorder and chaos if you follow the LLL's who were ready to call it failure if we didnt create Switzerland overnight.
#22
I agree that Afghanistan as done is the opposite of Derbyshire's point. But suppose we had pulled out after the "punitive raid". Would the result really have been that different? Does it make that much difference to the U. S. that the poppies are being grown under a democracy instead of a strongman?
LH, you usually do better than ad hominems about the BBC :-)
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/09/2005 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#23
LH: The Chinese launched an infantry war against VN in '79 which they LOST. And VN is hardly kowtowing to China, its moving toward alignment with the US. Sure they want trade with China, as does EVERYONE else in Asia. Youre really deep into the fiction dept now, ZF.
I think you really need to read up on the current state of Sino-Vietnamese relations before you comment about it. China staged a punitive expedition into Vietnam. It may or may not have lost more men than the Vietnamese. But the point was made. (China lost 20 times more men than the US during the Korean War, but I have yet to hear anyone say that the Chinese were defeated). In the succeeding decade, China and Vietnam conducted artillery duels and raid and counter-raid. At the end of the 1990's, Vietnam sued for peace. It also lost additional territory to the Chinese, culminating in a recent border agreement (heavily criticized by South Vietnamese emigres here in America) that ceded land to China. The point here is that Vietnam was not only deterred from any further incursions into neighboring territory, it was forced to withdraw from Cambodia, and gave up territory to China.
#24
LH: Or everyone gets sick of the chaos and turns to the folks who promise to end the killing, reunite the muslim world, and take it back to the West - IE AQ.
Muslims are not just a bunch of undifferentiated wogs. They have their sectarian national, racial, ethnic and cultural identities. This is why the Acehnese are fighting the Javanese in Indonesia. It is why the Pathans and the Baluchis are fighting the Sindhi and Mohajir Pakistani establishment. It was why the Mongol Tamerlane fought the Turkish Ottomans. This was why the yellow-skinned Mongol Hazara in Afghanistan are despised by Tajiks, Pathans and Uzbeks.
LH: Look at Afghanistan - plenty of barbarian on barbarian atrocities as factions battled it out and destroyed Kabul - till the Taliban swept all before them. Now imagine this happening across Iraq, the arabian peninsula, Iran.
The Taliban became the rulers of Afghanistan because of Pakistani support. The trick is to support the losers (not morally, but with weapons and training). Clinton would have no truck with helping the Taliban's enemies because the Tajiks weren't morally pure. The result was that the Taliban won and al Qaeda obtained a safe haven.
#25
china attacked VN in '79 to get them out of Cambodia. They DID NOT get out the time - they only got out after a protracted guerrilla war that the US supported, as well as China. Im sure South Vietnamese emigres would trash Viet Nam for giving up a few acres to China, even it was insignificant - it would be silly of them not to. Artillery duels across the border are NOT equivalent to air raids to destroy a regime, or to deter them from VALUABLE WMD's. Which is what we were talking about.
Again, VN was pushed out of Cambodia by years of support by China AND the US for a guerilla war. And, in case you havent noticed, thats been followed by nation building in Cambodia.
#26
LH: china attacked VN in '79 to get them out of Cambodia. They DID NOT get out the time - they only got out after a protracted guerrilla war that the US supported, as well as China. Im sure South Vietnamese emigres would trash Viet Nam for giving up a few acres to China, even it was insignificant - it would be silly of them not to. Artillery duels across the border are NOT equivalent to air raids to destroy a regime, or to deter them from VALUABLE WMD's. Which is what we were talking about. Again, VN was pushed out of Cambodia by years of support by China AND the US for a guerilla war. And, in case you havent noticed, thats been followed by nation building in Cambodia.
The point here is that China accomplished the above without paying the price in blood and treasure to get an unconditional surrender from Vietnam. Uncle Sam could have done better - it could have flogged Iraq bloody, destroying its military in place and turning its weapons factories into rubble, all from the air.
As to Vietnam's territorial concessions, Vietnam conceded 12,000 square kilometers of territorial waters to China. That's a body of water half the size of New Jersey. And according to the AFP, internal debate had to be suppressed: Hanoi has always denied making any territorial concessions to China and has attributed criticism to âreactionary forces and political opportunists,â but the subject has remained taboo in public discourse in the country.
#27
ZF:"Uncle Sam could have done better - it could have flogged Iraq bloody, destroying its military in place and turning its weapons factories into rubble, all from the air."
Yeah, probably, but that would just have left the place a sink of poverty and suffering, the ideal breeding place for more Islamic Nutcasery.
I think what Derbyshire is worried about is exposure of the forces in Iraq to attacks from the surrounding Thugocracies. But that's a given, in my opinion. We're exposed in Iraq, we're exposed everywhere. We will be attacked again, inevitably, and I'd rather it was in Iraq than Manhattan. Best we have the troops and tanks there to go calling on the instigators of the attack.
#28
Derbyshire's basic point is that if we had pulverized Iraq into submission, grinding it to dust the way we did Germany and Japan, he would support a long-term occupation. We ruled those countries as protectorates for the better part of a decade, and controlled their foreign policies for longer than that. MacArthur wrote Japan's constitution. What we're getting in Iraq is goulash - not much that is really identifiably American - no constitutional protections in the manner of Japan and Germany, and no control over what the Iraqi government can and cannot do.
#29
mojo: Yeah, probably, but that would just have left the place a sink of poverty and suffering, the ideal breeding place for more Islamic Nutcasery.
Poverty breeds dead Muslims like in Somalia and the Sudan, not Islamic holy warriors. The holy warriors come from the wealthy Muslim states.
#30
Note that while I do not support Derbyshire's position, I understand why he holds it. Short-term punitive expeditions can be repeated for effect.
I favor a continued US presence because setting and reaching the objective of crushing the insurgency will show America's enemies that they can't count on mounting a successful guerrilla war against Uncle Sam. In other words, it will show to them that resistance is futile.
#31
And when the insurgency is finally wiped out, the Vietnam/Lebanon/Somalia syndrome will have come to an end, in the minds of our potential opponents. They will seek easier prey or risk being ground to dust like the Iraqi insurgents.
#33
"Punitive expeditions" in the US lexicon is a synonym for missile strikes or else expeditions aimed at chasing and harrassing bandit-terrormongers. Invariably, unless we actually make full-blown war, we end up punishing the dictator's subjects more than the regime, which is always left in place to wreak more mayhem on us.
US policy in the middle east, Afghanistan and east Africa is littered with futile "punitive expeditions": Reagan's Beirut disaster. Clinton's shambolic strikes in east Africa and Afghanistan. CLinton's Somalian farce. Clinton's sporadic and ineffective strikes against Milosevic prior to getting serious in 1998.
Anything less than overthrowing the terror master is futile.
#34
lex: 15 years of punitive bombing raids on Khaddafi produced... more terror from Khaddafi. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein produced... complete capitulation and renunciation of nukes and terror by Khaddafi.
Actually, I think only one air raid was carried out. I'm thinking in terms of the systematic dismantling of the enemy's military apparatus - his ammo dumps, his barracks, his air defenses, his aircraft, his navy, et al. I am referring to the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of enemy personnel. I am thinking of the kind of pummeling that Uncle Sam administered to Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm, with the Highway of Death enacted throughout Iraq, but without the actual occupation of the country.
#35
ZF, Are you devil's advocating here? Cause I don't think you get highway of death from Naval Aviation or without ground pounders. If we use the Air Force, where do we stage them?
I believe that was one of the unstated reasons behind the Iraq operation. As Niall says, we're going to be there a decade. And part of our presence will be to assure the territorial integrity of Iraq. Oh, and by the way we get 8 airbases, one for every compass point, together with mature logistical infrastructure.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/09/2005 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#36
I agree with Zhang and he fails to mention VN lost the oil rich paracel islands to China ceding control of most of the South China Sea (to China). I also agree with him on punitive wars. I have been thinking recently that the Iraq war is mostly an object lesson to the Sunni Arabs everywhere that the USA can rollback your territorial gains so behave yourself. Watch Mosul closely.
#37
1. no way in hell VN could have held the Paracels. Naval superiority is what mattered, not artillery fire on the border.
2. Of course limited wars are possible. Depends what you want
3. Bomb his WMD factories - which ones? where? what target list? If you recall, the whole problem was that without going in there was no way to get the intell to determine what he had(not much as it turns out) and where. Bombing him was essentially the Clinton approach - it left Saddam in power, thumbing his nose at us, and only made us look bad - it made us BOTH unloved AND unfeared - a bad combo.
#38
Mrs D is right - you got the highway of death cause the Iraqi army was running away and so was exposed - it was running from coalition ground forces. Air is MUCH more effective when combined with ground forces.
#39
MD: ZF, Are you devil's advocating here? Cause I don't think you get highway of death from Naval Aviation or without ground pounders. If we use the Air Force, where do we stage them?
Our guys are getting killed because they are garrison troops - glorified security guards. During the major combat phase, they swept all before them inflicting huge casualties in return for very few friendly dead. Derbyshire's model works if GI's just do a major combat phase. We lose a few hundred men, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and go home.
#41
LH: Mrs D is right - you got the highway of death cause the Iraqi army was running away and so was exposed - it was running from coalition ground forces. Air is MUCH more effective when combined with ground forces.
Punitive expeditions are not incompatible with ground forces - the ground forces just don't stick around after the major combat phase is done.
LH: If you recall, the whole problem was that without going in there was no way to get the intell to determine what he had(not much as it turns out) and where. Bombing him was essentially the Clinton approach - it left Saddam in power, thumbing his nose at us, and only made us look bad - it made us BOTH unloved AND unfeared - a bad combo.
100 Tomahawks was the Clinton approach. I am talking about unloading 100,000 bombs on Iraq, killing its military personnel, smashing its military equipment and infrastructure and Saddam's palaces.
Nah - Somalia and Darfur are basket cases, but they're all trying to steer clear of al Qaeda for fear of American intervention. And this is with the softly-softly approach we used in Iraq. A scorched earth punitive expedition in Iraq would have infused the natives with the fear of Allah.
#43
and what does that do the WMDs, which are your nominal reason for attacking? Or do you just come out and say it had nothing do with finding WMDs, it was all destroying anyone who stood up to us? What does world opinion think of that - oh yeah, i forget, we dont care one iota for world opinion, we can afford to fight 2 billion muslims, and we dont need a single stinking ally either.
Some ground forces - and where do they launch from - think Kuwait is gonna help you if they think youre gonna pull the china shop down and leave? KSA? Jordan? You gonna do everything by sea and air? with no local air or seabases?
Look, nobody at strategy page, or anywhere else anyone actually pays attention to MILITARY affairs agrees with Derbyshire, whos no military expert, just an ideological blowhard.
#44
no way in hell VN could have held the Paracels. China took them as part of its punitive war. Whats your point. You sound suspiciously liked you are annoyed because you are loosing the argument.
#45
LH: and what does that do the WMDs, which are your nominal reason for attacking? Or do you just come out and say it had nothing do with finding WMDs, it was all destroying anyone who stood up to us? What does world opinion think of that - oh yeah, i forget, we dont care one iota for world opinion, we can afford to fight 2 billion muslims, and we dont need a single stinking ally either.
Iraq wasn't being attacked being it was standing up to the US - it was being attacked because it was a standing threat to the oil-producing Gulf states, and because it had repeatedly broken the Desert Storm ceasefire terms. The moral would be this - threaten Uncle Sam's oil supply and get the big stick.
As to fighting 2 billion Muslims - they're not interested in a fight. Notice how many Arab states stood up - in other than a rhetorical manner - for Iraq during the recent campaign - just about none. Although they pay some lip service to being part of the ummah by sponsoring terror organizations, they are sectarians at heart. Muslim unity is as likely as Christian unity. (And if 2 billion Muslims want to take us on, we can finish the war in a day with a few button presses, followed up by the mother of all punitive expeditions).
#46
LH: Some ground forces - and where do they launch from - think Kuwait is gonna help you if they think youre gonna pull the china shop down and leave? KSA? Jordan? You gonna do everything by sea and air? with no local air or seabases?
If the damage to be inflicted is big enough, for sure. Kuwait is primarily interested in making sure that Iraq goes down, hard, and stays down. As long as US troops stay in Kuwait, I don't think the Kuwaitis care what it does to neighboring powers.
LH: Look, nobody at strategy page, or anywhere else anyone actually pays attention to MILITARY affairs agrees with Derbyshire, whos no military expert, just an ideological blowhard.
Actually, Derbyshire is an astute student of modern and ancient history. Apropos of nothing, he is also a military (though not combat) veteran - not that being a junior NCO has anything to do with strategic analyses. The guy's a skilled mathematician, and he understands a thing or two about logic.
#47
Kuwait is primarily interested in making sure that Iraq goes down, hard, and stays down.
Nobody stays down. Let's suppose we had used the punitive expedition tactic. When would we withdraw? Invasion day plus a month? Till we got Saddam? When we left, would the Baathists be allowed to take over again? Would they host al-Q? Would they make life miserable for Kuwait? When it was time to put them down again, would the Kuwaitis want to host us again?
Do you smack your kid every time he misbehaves?
Punitive raids are an effective tactic for the 19th century. I'm not so sure it works in the 21st or for a country that tries to have higher moral standards than the Europeans in the conduct of it foreign policy (not that it's hard to do).
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/09/2005 18:32 Comments ||
Top||
#48
MD: Nobody stays down.
A lot of boxers would disagree. Great powers as well. Turkey, France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Spain - and these are just the European powers. Going down is partially a consequence of having your morale crushed by too many harsh blows delivered competently.
Some how I think a foreign policy of "When they act up we whack 'em." with impartial video provided by CNN is not going to do well with the American electorate. Do you really think they will pay, in dollars or blood, for a military that roams the whorld constantly playing whack-a-thug? Or do we hire foreigners and if they survive 20 years of combat, give them citizenship?
What you are really proposing is that we become the world's policeman in the best case and world's bully in the most likely.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/09/2005 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#50
MD: You lost me with Belgium.
All of the European empires lost some of their taste for the rigors of sustaining the cost of empire after WWI. Belgium had extensive holdings in Africa.
MD: Some how I think a foreign policy of "When they act up we whack 'em." with impartial video provided by CNN is not going to do well with the American electorate. Do you really think they will pay, in dollars or blood, for a military that roams the whorld constantly playing whack-a-thug? Or do we hire foreigners and if they survive 20 years of combat, give them citizenship? What you are really proposing is that we become the world's policeman in the best case and world's bully in the most likely.
In dollars and in blood? The expense will be trivial in both cases. If we had left Iraq after major combat was accomplished, the Treasury would have $160B more in the till, and 1300 GI's would be alive today.
As to constantly playing whack-a-thug, that's just unlikely - not the whack-a-thug part, but the constantly part. America's enemies would certainly be much less inclined to pose a threat to our vital interests, given the harshness of the potential response.
#51
ZF's right imho. This isn't the 19th century as LH puts it, however, is the particular culture we are dealing with at this moment thinking in 21st century terms? I'm not trying to be condescending or insulting by any means, but some of you are falling into the trap (jmo) of thinking like westerners. When fighting w/a culture much different then one's own & one that is clearly more ethnocentric it is prolly wise to treat them in terms that they understand & ultimately respect even begrudingly.
#3
Derbyshire has a point, but there's one sticky problem with just upping and leaving: Iraq has what the modern world needs under its sands and chaos cannot be allowed to reign there. Some order has to be brought to that region whether it be trying to keep it all together or splitting it up into parts. We can't just say we're done and pack up and go.
Lets do a little calculation.
(a) How much would it cost USA to buy oil from, say, Mexico at 200$ per barrel?
(b1) How much is going to be invested in Iraq, has been invested in proping the economies of various Arab countries, Turkey, etc...
(b2) How much the protective anti-terrorist measures cost?
Now, subtract the total in (a) from the total in (b).
#5
We could let Baghdad go . . . and Tikrit, Fallujah and the like. If I understand correctly those parts have no oil, they are simply central to the country. Let it split up into Shi'ite south and Kurdistan (screw the Turks, if they didn't want Kurdistan they should have tried integration, not elimination).
But it would not be good for the region as a whole and would probably allow for Iran to acrquire by force the local resources. Iran doesn't have nukes . . . yet, I hope, but that is no reason to give them anything.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
02/09/2005 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
b1) How much is going to be invested in Iraq, has been invested in proping the economies of various Arab countries, Turkey, etc...
If Iraq can't be kept together, then I'd be inclined to invest in the Kurds, and get Kuwait involved in the oil fields in the south. Leave everything else to sort itself out? Sounds okay to me.
(b2) How much the protective anti-terrorist measures cost?
Protective? How about seeking out and killing terrorists outright?
Look, even if we could entirely replace Middle East oil with stuff from somewhere else, some of our allies (such as Japan) would likely still be dependent on that region. If the Japanese get shafted, we won't be able to escape the effects. It's in our interest to take our allies into consideration, and I mean REAL allies, not jerks like the Phrench or to a lesser degree, the Germans.
#7
#5 Facial expression 87b (polite attention verging on actual interest).
#6 Let me put it another way.
Derb, and I, believe the following
(a)US efforts in Iraq are wasted --- Islam & democracy are mutually exclusive (If you'll say Turkey, I'll be disappointed).
(b)Persian gulf oil and Jihad are a package deal.
(c)Major victims of worldwide rise in oil prices will be China and EU (whose members' budgets involve a LOT of "carbon" taxes).
A shining light in that dark hole that is Hollyweird!
For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column for the online website called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life.
Ben Stein's Last Column...
============================================
How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
We are not responsible for the operation of the universe, and what happens to us is not terribly important. God is real, not a fiction; and when we turn over our lives to Him, He takes far better care of us than we could ever do for ourselves. In a word, we make ourselves sane when we fire ourselves as the directors of the movie of our lives and turn the power over to Him.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard--or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
By Ben Stein
Posted by: TMH ||
02/09/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Recently finished a book co-authored by Mr. Stein tilted Can America Survive? It's at your local library. I recommend the book to all who inhabit the land of Rantburg.
Posted by: Mark Z. ||
02/09/2005 5:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Agreed. An honest plain-spoken classy man - a serious well-informed thinker with that all too often missing secret ingredient: common sense. He's got buckets full. He should be scooped up, if he'll agree, to assist with countering MSM stupidity. He could do it in his sleep. ;-)
#5
I second Mark Z's recommendation for "Can America Survive"? Just got it this weekend at the library. If any of you are in Phoenix, I promise to return it by Sunday so you can get it at Burton Barr Library. ;)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/09/2005 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Thanks for the tip, Mark and DB. I've seen the book and wondered about it---now I know how I'll be spending my holiday BN.com gift card.
I was a big fan of the "Win Ben Stein's Money" show and was almost dumbfounded by the insight he showed in rare interviews. It's definitely time to dig a little deeper and read up on Ben Stein.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(2005-05-08) -- Spurred by CNN executive 
