The problem is that in order to win in Iraq we have to ruin our friendship with its people. Like it or not, we are fighting Iraqis now. One side wants to rule the other, and the only way to prevent them from killing one another is to kill the people who create the infighting. To do that, we will be perceived to be turning our backs on their followers.

Self determination to these people does no come at the polling booth. They believe that if they don't kill their enemies, their enemies will kill them. It's a pretty reasonable thought, considering the wholesale bloodbath once the invasion started. We didn't hear much about it here, but the death squads on either side were working overtime leaving piles of heads from their Sunni and Shia counterparts around Iraq.

I would imagine it wouldn't have been much different if England had stepped in during the civil war and told us that we couldn't fight one another. That's not to say that we might not have been better off, Iraq would certainly be better off, but 'better' is in the eye of the beholder. I think we have to stop worrying about winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis now and simply disarm or kill the people there who cause problems, no matter who it offends.

We are Warrior Chumps. As an Army recruiter once said, "We are successful in recruiting by appealing to people's self interests but then place them in a role of self sacrifice".



Why do they need to come to the USA when everyday they are inflicting their psychological terror by killing Iraqis and Americans in Iraq? - Jesseledesma



I would think that if one saw little ants (our troops) crawling across one's land, the smart move would be to attack and destroy the ant nest (America itself). Let's also remind ourselves that with our involvement in Iran - I meant - Iraq, 'terrorist' attacks have only become more prevalent around the world and particularly in Iraq rather then less so (not on American soil - yet) and that our presence has so far only agitated the problem - not solved it or even deterred it's leaders. If Al Qaeda was ever lacking in recruiting it's 'soldiers' it could always remind it's soon-to-be followers that the White Devil has come to the holy land and defiled it by killing it's children, staring at it's women (yeah, baby, take off that burqa!), and sexually humiliating and torturing it's men in far away gulags.



If we cared about peace with the middle east (Iraq specifically), we would isolate it from ourselves and we would practice actual Defense of our own borders. But our leaders don't care about 'peace' or 'freedom' in Iraq - as it's become blatantly clear by turning the entire country into a war zone and a beachead for further offensives in the region. All the while we invite terrorists to seep through our porous borders because we fail to adequately enforce our own laws regarding illegal aliens.



Osama Bin Ladan and people like him want to own all the land, banks, and control all the citizens so they can be the richest people on the planet. - Jesseledesma



Osama Bin Ladin and 'people like him' are religious fanatics who care about the next life not this worldly one - that is one of their complaints of us not the other way around. Seriously, ask a suicide bomber what he's going to do with all that money he's supposedly after? The logic baffles me.



Now, who are already some of the richest people in the world? Think they are satisfied with what they have? No. Think of this, we elected to vice-president a Defense Contractor from Halliburton and a fortunate son who's family has huge investments in Oil and Defense contractors such as Lockheed-Martin and Kellog Brown Root. Our defense budget has ballooned in the last 15 years (much of that under 'peacenik' Clinton who got us involved in many conflicts). Under the lead of people with such heavy investments in this industry we have launched two major wars and seem to be flirting with a third. The last figure I saw was one showing 2 Billion dollars a month of American money flowing to Iraq to support our occupancy there.



They are using religion as a control structure to manipulate behavior. - Jesseledesma



Very much unlike our leaders who claim that God told them to invade Iraq (for real). Very much unlike our leaders who pander to the pro-life bloc then fail to deliver any plan to provide a pro-life environment for future children - I'll stop flogging this horse, my arm is already bored silly...



"By finishing the job in Iraq..." - Jesseledesma



When is the job finished? When has this administration outlined what goals are to be accomplished and by what qualifiers will we measure our completing those goals? You can't give me an answer because this rhetoric is a canard slyly suggesting that we keep our boots in the quicksand of Iraq for as long as possible so it may be properly milked until the zombie populace eventually wakes up and realizes the job will never be 'finished'. Have you ever heard of a small conflict referred to as Vietnam?

Well said...very, very well said.

Another of our problems is that there are far too many people in this country who subscribe to the whole Diversity, multiculturalist tripe. They just want us all to understand each other and get along.
They undermine our ability to feel outrage and righteousness, and our ability to take decisive action, because it's their belief that all arguments are valid...except those made by the powerful. That all nations and cultures are equal in the grand scheme....except the powerful.

Hey Baker....where's all the accusations of hate and anti-Muslim propaganda? Or do you just reserve that for my posts?

"Hey Baker....where's all the accusations of hate and anti-Muslim propaganda? Or do you just reserve that for my posts?"

Again, Rightwinger, you confuse "terrorist" with "Muslim" or "Arab". You don't have to wonder if a terrorist is building bombs while they are waiting for their kids at the elementary school. There's a difference between vilifying terrorism and vilifying people's religions when they haven't done anything to you.

I know the distinction is hard for you, but it's there, nonetheless. If you want to "out" me as a terrorist sympathizer, feel free, but understand it will, as usual, be at the cost of outing yourself as, well, what you are.

It is kill or be killed

--jesseledesma

They believe that if they don't kill their enemies, their enemies will kill them

--bakerstreet (referring to iraqis)

if a=b and b=c, jesseledesma seems to be trying to convert americans to the iraqi way.

Well said...very, very well said. - RW

Thank you, coming from you that is a very high compliment - far away from 'liberal' or 'conspiracy theorist'. Thanks, I'm glad I was able to make myself heard and that you did hear me.


There's a difference between vilifying terrorism and vilifying people's religions when they haven't done anything to you. - Bakerstreet

True.
There is a vast amount of Muslims in the world, those actually doing the killing are a small, small minority. It would be like smearing all Christians for the actions of the very few abortion bombing fundamentalists.

I understand how people may see Islam as a religion that lends itself to violence, but in truth, it is the people using the religion to justify the violence that is the concern.

That's the dichotomy of Rightwinger's, and many American's positions on Iraq. On the one hand they have a total distrust of Islam, especially Muslims here. But when they talk about Iraq, they complain that the MSM is contorting the situation and that most Iraqis are just decent people who want to live their lives and are being attacked by terrorists. I guess a good Muslim is one that lives several thousand miles away...

I don't think many of those good Americans have really formed their own complete opinions (no offense to you RW), but are rather embracing two conflicting half-baked arguments provided them by the team they wish to support.

Someone here at JU once pointed out the conflict between democratic followers' parroting of dem leaders' conflicting attack arguments on the Bush Administration's implementation of troop levels. First they attack the administration for not having enough troops in Iraq, then they attack the Bush Administration for wanting more troops in Iraq.

It becomes clear the objective is not to develop sound policy or actual reasoned cohesive argument but to promote a particular political agenda.

Deference, did you think that American politcal leaders cared about anything but promoting themselves into office? If they did, they wouldn't be in office, and they would probably be trying to help the Iraqis without governmental help. In every election, there is at least one candidate who cares more than anything about getting the votes... and they win, because they go and get the votes. If you stand for anything except getting votes, that candidate will run against you and win.

All of this nonsense in Iraq is simple enough to explain. It began with Bush junior's desire to outdo his dad. It began with that rather than with any of the ridiculous reasons presented because a) there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 (why would he bite the hand that had, until then, so generously fed him?); whatever Hussein's plans and desires might have been there were no WMD in Iraq, nor was Hussein possessed of any capability to strike the American homeland (and again, why would he have struck at those who had till then so generously supported him, and who saw him as an ally [or so he thought] against the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran?); and c) with the sneaking cowardice of America's ruling political and economic elites that seek to further their advantage by gaining unrestricted access to the oil wealth of the region without compromising the entrenched image of themselves as the guys in the white hats. An image that forms the basis of most Americans' concept of the nature of America's actions in the world.

Why has it gone so horribly wrong? Because those responsible for initiating this debacle, which will prove far more damaging to America than Vietnam ever did, had no concept of the tribal nature of the region they wished to invade; had no plan to deal with the aftermath of 'victory', expecting Iraqis to react as Europeans did when the continent was liberated in the final stages of WWII; because they subordinated what ought to have been primarily a military operation to the imperatives of homegrown politics, and did so by sending a series of incompetent (but loyal) appartchiks to govern their newly conquered province, incompetents utterly unaware of and unconcerned for the nature of the population they were assigned to rule over; because the dogma of democracy as the panacea for all ills, whether political or economic, was treated ahistorically and asocially.

Modern democracy is a political technique meant to deal with mass populations that have an inherent sense of nationhood. Iraqis possess no such sense. Their political and social affiliations are tribal and religious in nature - as was conclusively proved by the consequences of the recent election there - in which 'democracy' proved to be no more than a way to cement tribal and religious loyalties. 'Democracy', as it's known here, is largely a tool for the expression of the political aspirations of a well-developed 'middle class' of entrpreneurs - essentially those with sufficient surplus capital that they can afford the risk of exploratory capital investments and who, consequently, are endowed with a unified political voice able to make demands for certain conditions which are supportive of such ventures. The rule of law, particularly of laws which codify the rights of property owners and investors; clearly defined and legally enforceable banking practices; the notion of limited liability, and so on.

No such well developed middle class exists in Iraq, and never has. And without it, democracy is no more than an alien ideology imposed arbitrarily by those with sufficient military power to overthrow an existing regime. Which is precisely what has happened.

As to the other elements of your post - you have fallen unhesitatingly directly into the trap set before you by the present political elites of America, personified (no matter how ineptly) by that supreme incompetent Bush and his lackeys. And that trap is to live in fear.

Do you think ordinary Iraqis give a damn whether you live or die? They don't. Why would they? They have enough bullshit to deal with in their everyday lives. 'Terrorists' of any description only have power to the degree that people like you give it to them. By living in a siege mentality you have already surrendered, both to the terrorists and to those who will happily exploit your fear for their own political gain - and trust me, the Democrats in power will not differ from the Republicans by one hair's width. Why? Because Democrats and Republicans alike both have an interest in a population that is compliant and subservient because it is terrified.

Those who possess power are interested in only one thing: continuing to possess power.

Are we chumps or warriors?

we're both. It's a big country, and we have room for plenty of both.

they subordinated what ought to have been primarily a military operation to the imperatives of homegrown politics

I'm going to agree with the Emperor on this part. I believe many of the problems we are having stem from a wish to please the global press, rather than prosecute a real resolution. Decisions and policies are being made by politicians so they can score points on TV, rather than by commanders and soldiers in theater.

I've seen enough military dictatorships to know that it's a good thing that our military is run by the executive branch, a civilian office. Somehow, though, the people trying to run the show have forgotten that being in a war requires violence.

The chumps are in charge of the warriors.

Still believe God has blessed us with this rusty bucket of bolts even though it is hard to watch the madness.

Fact rarely triumphs over belief, jesse.

i'm flat out stunned by this one. although displeasing the press is trivial compared to alienating most of the rest of the world, bush, cheney, rumsfeld, et al have taken every opportunity to disparage, demean, denigrate and dismiss the media. do you not remember bush proudly proclaiming he didn't read newspapers? cheney's still doing it.



not in the sense of playing to tv personalities or even tv as a medium. all their dangerously reckless decisions and foolishly flawed policies are deeply rooted in-- and fueled by--nothing less than 100% usp pure hubris.