By Edward Luttwak - New York Times
Chevy Chase, Md. - Many Americans now believe that the United States is depleting its military strength, diplomatic leverage and Treasury to pursue unrealistic aims in Iraq. They are right. Democracy seems to interest few Iraqis, given the widespread Shiite proclivity to follow unelected clerics, the Sunni rejection of the principle of majority rule, and the preference of many Kurds for tribe and clan over elected governments. Reconstruction was supposed to advance rapidly with surging oil export revenues, but is hardly gaining on the continuing destruction inflicted by sabotage and thievery. And in any case, it is unlikely that the new Iraqi interim government will be able to oversee meaningful elections in a country where its authority is more widely denied than recognized.
Yet few Americans are prepared to simply abandon Iraq. For one, they are rightly concerned that to do so would be a mortal blow to America's global credibility and encourage violent Islamists everywhere. An outright withdrawal would leave the interim government and its feeble forces of doubtful loyalty to face the attacks of vastly emboldened Baath regime loyalists, Sunni revanchists, local and foreign Islamist extremists and the ever-more numerous Shiite militias. The likely result would be the defection of the government's army, police and national guard members, followed by a swift collapse and then civil war. Worse might follow in the Middle East - it usually does - even to the point of invasions by Iran, Turkey and possibly others, initiating new cycles of repression and violence. Bwahaahahaa, what a mellon, and the US is a big liberator eyh?
Thus the likely consequences of an American abandonment are so bleak that few Americans are even willing to contemplate it. This is a mistake: it is precisely because unpredictable mayhem is so predictable that the United States might be able to disengage from Iraq at little cost, or even perhaps advantageously.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Murat ||
08/19/2004 9:14:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Luttwak is smart and knows a lot.
However, he is arrogant as hell and some of his predictions and advice in the past has truly been for s..t. I recall he forcast something like 10k American fatalities in the first gulf war.
#2
Murat, at one time you acted like you had a bit of intelligence. Now you act like you're a brain-washed, know-nothing bigot with a stick up his ass.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/19/2004 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Have I touched your Kurdish feeling John Wayne?
Posted by: Murat ||
08/19/2004 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You also used to write better English.
Perhaps this is a Murat impersonator?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/19/2004 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'd go for the impersonator. Could be one of those people hired to rile up blogs with DUmmies POV. Wouldn't take alot to steal Murats name, especially since he doesn't give an E-mail. Any chance Fred can check the IP's?
Posted by: Charles ||
08/19/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
mhw, correct. He has been a shaking old woman since 1990. His forecast was for 10k's of american casualties; chemical weapons, tank traps, elite troops. He was more wrong about the capabilities of the Iraqi military than the CIA was about WMD in'02. I hope the royalties on the old books are still good.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/19/2004 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It's not really about the information presented, it's about how it's presented and the motives. Luttwak is a CSIS denizen - so he's naturally an ally of the NYT editorial staff. Paid BS for Hire and Apology Consultants - a mouthpiece of oil ticks.
You could quite easily reverse his premise and negate the entire load of tripe that follows. In reversing the spin you create a completely different scenario and reality.
The premise lies in this single sentence:
"Many Americans now believe that the United States is depleting its military strength, diplomatic leverage and Treasury to pursue unrealistic aims in Iraq."
Dissecting this into its components and restating the case - within reality, not opinion - we get an entirely different story. For example...
---------------
Many Americans understand there are many benefits accruing from our actions in Iraq. Militarily, the United States is honing tactics, perfecting coordination and quick response methodology, exercising the 'flypaper' strategy to perfection, and testing many new weapons systems in the only laboratory worthy: the field of battle. One benefit truly unavailable by any other means is the experience and espirit de corps gained by our forces. No one should ever again underestimate our forces, nor will anyone who isn't blinded by their ideology - the proof of the matter is there for all military analysts to see.
Remarkably, in a live-fire zone and to the great dismay of the liberal Left which dreams of massive troop losses to discourage and dissuade Americans from exercising independent action, the average troop losses are approximately the same as the normal rate sustained in home-based training exercises. Live fire certainly focuses the mind. Our military strength and expertise in the war theater of the near future, small hot regional conflicts featuring urban warfare, is growing exponentially.
The fact that the leaders of some previously allied governments, in a carefully choreographed dance of malice and perfidy, chose to turn the conflict with Saddam Hussein to private political and economic gain and, in doing so, discarded diplomatic coordination and cooperation and rendered the UN Charter meaningless, has proven far less an impediment to US action than was once hoped by the complicit internal liberal Left. In fact, the current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that the US has profited handsomely from the absence of recalcitrant, obsolete, and obstinate foreign forces - particularly the leadership baggage that comes with such dubious assistance. Thus, the hard way, the US has discovered there was no leverage to be gained from allowing foreign diplomacy to further delay and dissolve the resolve to action. In fact, there were immediate benefits - of a sort. For example, without the US troop build-up in the Persian Gulf, Saddam would never have allowed the return of the UNSCOM teams - a pet desire of many, yet it proved to be yet another pointless diplomatic exercise. What a surprise.
Though the Treasury burden has been higher than the liberal socialist elements in the US would like, for they have many remarkably pointless programs they wish to float upon the waters of their largesse - using your tax dollars, it has proven to be manageable. US aims in Iraq cover the spectrum of possibilities, from merely ending the brutal regime of a madman, to ending his cooperation with and facilitation of international terror networks, to providing bases of operation for intel and future inevitable regional military actions, to undermining the other 22 Arab dictatorships and, under ideal conditions, introduce democracy to the Arab world. An experiment is now in progress in Iraq to determine whether Arab Muslims are capable of embracing and creating a workable democracy - something in which democracy is more than just a word to employ for 'diplomatic' effect. Expectations vary, for it is a novel attempt and subject to many powerful forces - not the least of which is the fact that Iraq, as an entity, is a silly confabulation of populations which have never voluntarily coexisted peacefully.
From such bold and innovative policy, President Bush has plowed asunder the internal and external socialist dreams of self-hate and masochism, rendered foreign attempts to shackle and rein-in the US as the military muscle for an insane elitist European confabulation doomed to the ash heap of failure the instant it was uttered aloud, and demonstrated the futility of the hateful racist barbaric unrealistic aims of Islamofacists for World Dominion - their defeat is embodied by our actions in Iraq daily.
---------------
Gosh, that was fun... Oh, and fuck you, Luttwak.
#8
You know, now that you mention it "new" Murat really doesn't seem as articulate as "old" Murat. I think the guy is a semi-literate imposter posting from a dorm room in Berkeley.
#12
CL - I've been looking for the current Pentagon / Defense Dept accident death rate for training, cumulative for all services, and so far no joy. I wrote the above in good faith, though.
I recalled a Defense Dept press conference where this was stated as fact, but the briefer gave no specific numbers or where such detail could be found - it was probably on the briefing sheet given to the reporters because they didn't ask - so I've been looking for the detail.
This ABC news story from June 21st put the US death rate at 1.9 for 140,000 troops as the average for the entire Iraq operation from rollout from Kuwait until the article came out. Converted to a rate per 100,000 we get 1.357.
I believe this is in line with training deaths (not in-barracks time and not including off-base auto accidents, etc.), but until I find the magic document, I can't give you the definitive answer I'd like to. Sorry. Perhaps you'll have better luck!
By MATTHEW GUTMAN Nov. 4, 2003 1:14
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Russian President Vladimir Putin smiled for the cameras Monday and played adequate lip service to revitalizing the all-but-abandoned road map for peace. But much of the real business of the day focused on Iran's imminent development of nuclear weapons — as it has for the past five years. The road map for blocking Iranian nuclear capability, say security officials and Israeli diplomats, leads through Moscow. "Israel's No. 1 foreign-policy issue with Russia is Iran," said a senior security source Monday. Israel has long warned that Iran is creeping ever closer to the development of a nuclear warhead.
Aside from the diplomatic tack, Israel's other option, espoused by hawks and condemned by doves, is a preemptive strike. Two weeks ago Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ayalon, who called Iran Israel's foremost existential threat, told The Jerusalem Post that "the IDF has provided the answers to this." Still, Israel prefers diplomatic pressure to block Iranian nuclear armament than a risky assault coupled with international censure. In their talks, Sharon apparently asked Putin to order Zarubezh Atomenergostroybut, the firm currently building the Bushehr nuclear complex, to buy back spent nuclear rods after they are used in the production of nuclear energy, said a government source.
Israel doubts that Putin could renege altogether on the multi-billion-dollar project only a few months from completion — it had been a pet project of ousted atomic energy minister Nikitovich Mikhaylov. These rods are critical for enriching uranium, and Russia must prevent their proliferation, says Israel. In addition to considering renegotiation or reneging on the deal with Iran, Russia has also begun exerting tougher restrictions on its export of nuclear products and mercenary Russian scientists. Iran is increasingly the beneficiary of aid from "other foreign nationals," claim Israeli diplomats. By "foreign nationals," the security source says Israel really means "Russians and North Koreans, but not the states themselves." The aid of North Korea, a state which officially opened its own nuclear age in October 2002, is believed crucial in Iran's search for plutonium, the stuff of which nuclear weapons are made.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Zenster ||
08/19/2004 12:32:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Putin also shows Russiaâs conclusion that Iran does not seek a boost in electric power, but a bomb
I said this before, and I'll say it again. Russia will join us in the fight on terror - for the same reason it joined us against the NAZI's: Naked self-interest.
Putin's a pragmatist; There's opportunity if he looks West. But much more importantly, Russia must do so for their own survival. They'd have to be blind not to see the threat from a nuclear-armed Islamic Iran. It's do or die time for the Russians. A quick look at the history books proves they will choose do instead of die.
#2
Runs via moscow - and Dubai. Don't be too sure that mafiya groups aren't leaking materials to the Iranians through their favorite mideast money-laundering port.
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.
