Statement from a soldier in Iraq

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Hello F(r)iends,

This statement is either made in ignorance, in stupidity, or in an attempt to deliberately misinform and mislead. Military personnel with 15+ years in service are eligible for an attractive retirement package (one that most would be hard pressed to turn down). Moreover, military personnel that make it to 20 years of service are eligible for a retirement package that quite literally would impress just about anyone: healthcare for the rest of your life, including eye/dental for you and entire family; housing allowances that increase according to the area you live in; large retirement bonus, etc.

  1. Out with the old, in with the new.
  2. “Clinton’s Army” is a misnomer as anyone with 15+ years of experience would actually have been Bush Senior’s Army.

This has been common practice for the military throughout history. The important thing to note is that the soldiers replacing the guys with 15+ years of experience would actually be Bush Junior’s guys… So, if there is a tragedy whereby some DemocRAT is elected to the Presidency we can feel safe that we will weather the storm until a Republican is in power. :slight_smile:

I have several friends that are in Iraq and every one of them is choosing to stay on. Why? Because they have 6 - 12 years of service. The incentive to re-up is the 15 year mark because of the retirement package. So don’t worry about this soldier’s fake friends…

This is almost too stupid to comment on…
The few departments within the military that have NOT endured a lull in troops is the tech side of it… Not to mention that the equipment is the best in the world. Of course, if we would stop wasting money on welfare and bullshit democRAT programs the equipment could be even better.

Propaganda. Don’t believe the bullshit.

-Thirst4Truth

22

The 1300 number was also an Al Jezeera claim, but the morgue claims it is closer to 300.

He said, she said, they claim, blah blah blah. There are many troops who make different claims and support the Iraq war. At the moment, more troops stay in the military than previous years. They chose the military and often choose to stay in. I have heard and read many opinions regarding troop morale both positive and negative: Here is the other side of the issue.

Opposing Opinion:

"Troop Morale
By Callimachus | Related entries in War, The War On Terrorism, Military

Noah Shachtman offers a first-hand anecdotal account of U.S. troop morale in Iraq. That’s one of the questions that yield bipolar answers, depending whose Web site you’re on. Shachtman says what he found “didn’t cling to any neat political storyline.”

Over three weeks in and around Baghdad this July, I spoke to dozens and dozens of soldiers about their views on the conflict. For the most part, morale among these infantrymen and engineers and bomb-disposers was high. Shockingly high, given the fact that they didn’t buy the Bush administration’s rationales for the war.

“Democracy? Here? Are you fucking kidding me?” one sergeant laughed, as we drove near the Abu Ghraib prison. This was from a guy from helped safeguard the January round of elections. He figures the place will collapse into civil war as soon as U.S. troops leave.

But he’s glad he’s in Iraq, regardless. Mostly, because of the insurgents.

The guerillas in Iraq have been brutal, killing way more innocent bystanders than American occupiers or Iraqi collaborators. While I was in Baghdad, a group of soldiers in a nearby neighborhood were handing out candy to bunch of kids. Until a suicide bomber stepped in, and killed 27.

“It boggles my mind, how someone can go into a crowd of kids, and kill them all. I’ll never understand it. But that’s why I’m here,” said Staff Sgt. Mark Palmer, with the 717th Ordnance Disposal Company, an Army bomb squad. “Yeah, it’s still fun to blow stuff up. But it’s not the core thing. Figuring out how this shit [the bomb] works. Stopping it from hurting people. That’s the main thing.”

People completely insulated from the military (which is most Americans, regrettably) probably tend, consciously or not, to work on a Vietnam War model of the U.S. military — absorbed from Oliver Stone movies, perhaps. The modern military is more and more a profession, and a hereditary class. This colors their attitudes toward battlefields and wars. To some degree, they’re eager to be tested in battle.

Their morale also demands a cause, and the White House has been fitfull about offering a good one and sticking to it. As the polls show, most of the faith in any of the causes put forth for toppling Saddam no longer resonate here at home. Shachtman finds this matters much less in Iraq. There, the ugliness of the insurgents gives U.S. troops a monster worth killing, and enough sense of just cause to keep morale up.

The result is a cycle of attack and reprisal that has nothing to do with WMD or drafting constitutions – but can easily drag on for years. Most of the soldiers I spoke with didn’t expect the deadly feedback loop to stop any time this decade. “I’m staying [in the Army] until I retire, which is another ten years,” one non-commissioned officer told me. “So I figure I’ll be back here, what, another five or six times?”

And make no mistake, soldiers are staying. I’d say three in four of the GIs I spoke with were planning to reenlist. The new, fat bonuses are one reason, of course. But another is the sense that there are real-life psychopaths out there that need to be stopped. It may sound corny. It may sound dumb. But that’s what I saw. "
23

No good reason? How about taking out a bad guy. How about now having our troops on Syria and Iran’s doorstep. How about the fact that the WMD’s were shipped to Syria a few weeks before the invasion.

Look at a map.

Currently, our military is volunteer and many of these guys want to make a career of the military. Some are just warriors, others are not. They know they may have to go into combat, and at the moment, they know they will probably see combat and still join.

24

Please note the question at the bottom. This probably denotes that similar to other presidents, the government doesn’t want us to panic regarding the threat.

Open the Iraq Files
American spooks don’t want to release Saddam’s secrets.

Friday, March 3, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

When the 9/11 Commission bullied Congress into creating the Directorate of National Intelligence, we doubted that another layer of bureaucracy on top of the CIA would fix much of anything. Our skepticism has since been largely reinforced–most recently by the DNI’s reluctance to release what’s contained in the millions of “exploitable” documents and other items captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These items–collected and examined in Qatar as part of what’s known as the Harmony program–appear to contain information highly relevant to the ongoing debate over the war on terror. But nearly three years after Baghdad fell, we see no evidence that much of what deserves to be public will be anytime soon.

For example, if it hadn’t been for the initiative of one Bill Tierney, we wouldn’t know that Saddam Hussein had a habit of tape-recording meetings with top aides. The former U.N. weapons inspector and experienced Arabic translator recently went public with 12 hours (out of a reported total of 3,000) of recordings in which we hear Saddam discuss with the likes of Tariq Aziz the process of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors and his view that Iraq’s conflict with the U.S. didn’t end with the first Gulf War.

In one particularly chilling passage, the dictator discusses the threat of WMD terrorism to the United States and the difficulty anyone would have tracing it back to a state. With the 2001 anthrax attacks still unsolved, that strikes us as bigger news than the DNI or most editors apparently considered it.

In another disclosure, The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes was told by about a dozen officials that Harmony documents describe in detail how Saddam trained thousands of Islamic radicals in the waning years of his regime. So much for the judgments of many in the intelligence community–including Paul Pillar, the latest ex-spook to go public with his antiwar message–that the secular Saddam would never consort with such religious types.

To its credit, the DNI did bless the recent release of about two dozen documents from Afghanistan as part of a West Point study painting a portrait of al Qaeda’s organizational structure. They show that al Qaeda functioned like a corporation in some ways, with fixed terms for employee benefits such as family leave, and seem to vindicate the once-controversial decision to move quickly to destroy al Qaeda’s base of operations in Afghanistan.

But these tantalizing tidbits represent only a fraction of what’s in U.S. possession. We hear still other documents expand significantly on our knowledge of Saddam’s WMD ambitions (including more on the Niger-uranium connection) and his support for terrorism, right down to lists of potential targets in the U.S. and Europe. Former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle accuses the DNI of “foolish restraint” on releasing information that could broaden understanding and bolster support for a war that is far from won. Representative Pete Hoekstra (R., Mich.) echoes that criticism. And after chatting with the Congressman and with someone we agreed to describe as a “senior intelligence official familiar with the program,” we largely agree.

The intelligence community has a point that some caution must be exercised. For example, the senior intelligence official pointed out, some documents describe in detail rapes and other abuses committed by Saddam’s regime–details that could still haunt living victims in such an honor-bound society as Iraq. But while it would seem to make sense to screen the documents for such items–and perhaps terrorist recipes such as ricin–we still can’t understand how that justifies the current pace and method of making information public.

And our alarm bells really rang when the intelligence official added another category of information that’s never slated to see the light of day: “We cannot release wholesale material that we can reasonably foresee will damage the national interest.” Well, what exactly does that mean and who makes the call? The answer, apparently, is unaccountable analysts following State Department guidelines.

But consider just one hypothetical: Is it in the “national interest” to reveal documents if they show that Jacques Chirac played a more substantial role in encouraging Saddam’s intransigence than is already known? No doubt some Foggy Bottom types would say no. But we’d strongly disagree. The “national interest” exception is so broad and vague that it would end up being used to justify keeping secret the merely embarrassing.

What’s more, according to Mr. Hoekstra, the DNI release plans don’t call for making any documents publicly available per se, but only through scholars in the manner of the West Point study. As he puts it, the decision to move everything through analysts and carefully chosen outsiders is an “analog” method in a “digital” age, when we could be calling on the interpretive wisdom of so many by putting much of it on the Internet.

Yesterday Mr. Hoekstra introduced a bill to require the intelligence community to be more forthcoming with the Iraq and Afghanistan documents. “I’m beginning to believe the postwar intelligence may be as bad as the prewar intelligence,” he says. Another person who sees vast room for improvement is Iraqi scholar Kanan Makiya, who founded the Iraq Memory Foundation. While he shares the DNI’s concerns about potential damage to some people mentioned therein, he also says the U.S. government has gone too far and needs to find better ways to grant access to this information.

America went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan because we believed that the truth about the regimes in those countries justified it. Why should so much of that truth now be deemed so sensitive?

25

To my friends who believe in our current Iraq policy.

I believe you do so despite the evidence that the bush
policy is not working. Now if you wish to stay the course,
that is of course your right to believe that. The evidence that
you are wrong is compelling, but hay, if you wish to ignore
the evidence, it is your right.

I point out some small bits of evidence.

  1. After 3 years, how many Iraq battalion units are right
    now, available to took over for an American battalion unit.

The correct answer is none.
There is not one single Iraq troop unit, a battalion, of
which is 300 to 1000 people, that can take over for an
American battalion.

this is important because the goal from the start is to stand down
American troops when Iraqi troops are ready to take over.
If no Iraqi troops, how can we stand down American troops.

  1. How many weapons of WMD’S can actually be proven to
    be moved from Iraq to syria?

Answer. None. To be able to transfer WMD’S from Iraq to
syria, is to suggest that American troops are seriously incompetent.
The U.S has been watching Iraq from the air for several years now.
To allow the Iraqi military to get WMD’S transported, would mean
the U.S. military let Iraqis to transport those weapons, hundreds
of miles without being noticed? I find it hard to believe with
the U.S, British, and Israel intelligent services looking for
WMD’S, that they could some how slip past all three
(at minimum) military and intelligent services to go from Iraq into syria.
Is that what you are suggesting? Gross incompetence on the
part of the military to allow the transport of those weapons.
I certainly have never made that claim of incompetitence on
the U.S. military part.

  1. Now some scattered bits of information.
    The core services of Iraq, electricity for example has not
    been restored to anywhere near the level of saddam’s
    era. Civil war has been brewing for a while and finally broke
    out. What we have been calling an insurgency, is really a civil war.
    The big elections of the last 6 months have done nothing
    to create a democracy in Iraq. The political process is
    stalled. There is no movement toward a democracy in Iraq after
    3 years. Kidnappings still occur at a regular rate in Iraq,
    Nothing has stopped that at all.

Feel free to show me material progress in Iraq, progress toward establishing an democracy, or to show me where
any kind of end game has been established toward leaving Iraq.

Despite your reaching for just about anything that might help
your cause, I see nothing that suggests Iraq is anywhere close
to being a democracy or close to having U.S. troops leaving.
the fact of the matter is the Iraq war is keeping us from
our real need, to stop terrorist. And that is the next question,
show me how does the Iraq war help in ending terrorism in
the world? It doesn’t for the simple fact is, terrorist are not
hanging out in Iraq fighting American troops. that is simply another
lie of the bush administration. Which is the real point.
You have accepted the lies of the bush administration.
And that is fine. I don’t need anything but the truth.
and the truth is what I have. the bush policy has failed
in Iraq. Doubt it. Great, show me how it has succeeded.
Don’t call me names or try to change the subject,
just show me how the bush policies have succeeded in Iraq.
Show me the successes.

Kropotkin

26

Hello Peter:
By reasons you already know, you can imagine why this subject is always close to my heart.
I can believe that troops in Iraq can be tired and capable of writing the piece you quoted. However, I don’t take it to mean that we should simply believe the generalisations the author of that piece puts out like candy for the Left. Unless the author is a very ubiquitous soul, just how can he speak for the entire US presence in the Operation? Take from one who knows, it is impossible for anyone person to know the opinions of all the troops, even within just one unit, let alone an entire military operation.
i can believe that some persons agree with him, but not all. It might be a majority, but that would be hard to tell.
But to my trooper who might be reading this, i would suggest that he gets out now, and hope that a draft is not instated.
The problem I see in the many hearings with Rice and Rumsfeld is that they are asked for time tables as if the hot potato would simply go away if we get our troops out of there. We had Saddam before, but that was not a solution. Even sending inspectors top the country was not a true solution, but another Cuba: Wait for natural causes or an assasination from within to take care of our problem and in the meanwhile starve the country, strangle them, so that one man does not get his wish at arming himself andf oppress his neighbors. That is not really a solution, Peter.
What is clear is that often people lose sight of the overall picture and become propagandist of this “get the hell out of there”. If only we could…
The US has certain interest in the region, a region blessed with oil. And the thought of another anti-america goverment is not new, but the thought of an Iran/Iraq coalition is certainly frightening to a country that has so much need for uninterrupted flow of crude world wide as the US.
It is not the states that need the oil, but the entire globe and the US has taken it upon itself, as leader of the freeworld, to secure the inability of radical factions from taking over goverment.
If we get out of Iraq now, we might see a country spiral down into a civil war that will decimate the country and plunge it into anarchy; an enviroment where terrorist thrieve. Who do you think they will blame? Themselves? Heck no. The Good ol’ USA.
Perhaps our trooper will reply:
“So what? Let them kill themselves and Allah sort them out. The important thing is that we stop shedding american blood for a thankless country”
Yet, I would say, it is not what our actions encourage, be it thanks or an ally, but the securing of the bloodline of trade and the prevention of terror to take root in these countries due to anarchy. The males in this country will continue to obssess themselves with America as long as they remain in a country with little opportunity to earn a living because your goverment is boycotted by the rest of the world, or because a civil war is draining your entire economiuc output. To these males, the US is a good distraction from addressing their own culpability in their failed state and makes it rather simple instead: Your country is in ruins because of the US.
Never mind that we could tell them:
“Hey buddy, we got out of there long ago and gave you control”.
But control over what? A Civil war?!
What will emerge after the dust settles? An ally, or yet another enemy? The answer could lead to a future involvement into a third Gulf War. How many times do we need to penetrate a country? And what are the uses of our military? Depose a criminal and then let nature take it’s course? Does the destabilizing force, the US in this case, have any responsibility for the conditions in which it leaves the invaded country? Perhaps you think it is a moralist view, but what do you think is the view held by those muslims in Iraq if not moral?
In my opinion, leaving now is simply to set the scene for a future intervention that will take another army, another set of Billions of dollars to fund and another round of talks before Senators and Congressmen. What will trigger this third intervention? Let’s us hope that it is an aggression of an Arab state against another neighbor. But we now have in history the preceedent that it might be a terrorist attack against civilians.
And then what? We dance this tune once again? You bet. So has it always been.

— 1. After 3 years, how many Iraq battalion units are right
now, available to took over for an American battalion unit.
The correct answer is none.
There is not one single Iraq troop unit, a battalion, of
which is 300 to 1000 people, that can take over for an
American battalion.
this is important because the goal from the start is to stand down
American troops when Iraqi troops are ready to take over.
If no Iraqi troops, how can we stand down American troops.

O- Suppose that you are correct Peter, what does that mean? Basically you are saying to our enemies:“You just hang in there. You don’t have to defeat us only defeat the effort of creating an Iraqi army.” If there are no batallions ready, the answer should not be “let’s get out”, but simply to stay the course and train some more.
How will our troops leaving solve the problem of brigades not being avaiable? it cannot, so your problem is unrelated to your solution. You want troops out; the fact that brigades are not yet ready is simply the excuse to get that done, not a concern for you at all.

— 2. How many weapons of WMD’S can actually be proven to
be moved from Iraq to syria?
Answer. None. To be able to transfer WMD’S from Iraq to
syria, is to suggest that American troops are seriously incompetent.
The U.S has been watching Iraq from the air for several years now.
To allow the Iraqi military to get WMD’S transported, would mean
the U.S. military let Iraqis to transport those weapons, hundreds
of miles without being noticed? I find it hard to believe with
the U.S, British, and Israel intelligent services looking for
WMD’S, that they could some how slip past all three
(at minimum) military and intelligent services to go from Iraq into syria.
Is that what you are suggesting? Gross incompetence on the
part of the military to allow the transport of those weapons.
I certainly have never made that claim of incompetitence on
the U.S. military part.
O- Rumsfeld today admitted that the intelligence on WMD has been proven “not to be the case”. That said, the absence of WMD now fails to convince me that the best move for the US-- at this point --is to get troops out. Perhaps we could say that we should never have gone in, but now we are in so it is too late for wishful thinking. the time is now to salvage the situation we find our selves in and that is not going to happen with troop reduction. That will only enbolden an enemy that is patiently waiting for the US to stay true to form and quit, as they saw us quit elsewhere. But let’s not forget, as our troopper has, that Nam is quite different than Iraq in relation of it’s importance in the world. We could afford to lose it and still win, but Nam was not West Germany.

— 3. Now some scattered bits of information.
The core services of Iraq, electricity for example has not
been restored to anywhere near the level of saddam’s
era. Civil war has been brewing for a while and finally broke
out. What we have been calling an insurgency, is really a civil war.
The big elections of the last 6 months have done nothing
to create a democracy in Iraq. The political process is
stalled. There is no movement toward a democracy in Iraq after
3 years. Kidnappings still occur at a regular rate in Iraq,
Nothing has stopped that at all.
O- And how does all of this justify pulling our troops out of there? Does it all mean that the mission has been accomplished? Or are you simply trying to look into a crystal ball that tells you that what did not happen in 3 years, a very arbitrary number if you ask me, will never even happen, therefore, call it a day and bring the boys back?

— Feel free to show me material progress in Iraq, progress toward establishing an democracy, or to show me where
any kind of end game has been established toward leaving Iraq.
O- “Give me progress and give it now” No progress Peter, even though “Progress” is quite open to interpretation, I still would not try to say that we have much, or substatial progress. But what? The mission is not complete, therefore we leave? You want an “End game”, how about when the job gets done?

— Despite your reaching for just about anything that might help
your cause, I see nothing that suggests Iraq is anywhere close
to being a democracy or close to having U.S. troops leaving.
the fact of the matter is the Iraq war is keeping us from
our real need, to stop terrorist.
O- Have the terrorist struck America while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan?

— And that is the next question,
show me how does the Iraq war help in ending terrorism in
the world?
O- In your opinion Peter, what are the root causes of terrorism? I don’t think that the US ever said that the war on terror began and would end with Iraq. Nor can we say that Iraq was a better target than some African countries or even the Saudi state, from where most terrorist came from and where the money and ideology that spread terror come from. But because the Saudi state is the main supplier of crude, how do you bite the hand that feeds you? But suppose that we could have another supplier in Iraq? Then it would require less caution to castigate the Saudies and their wandering money.

— It doesn’t for the simple fact is, terrorist are not
hanging out in Iraq fighting American troops.
O- Zarquawi is not a terrorist? You say this with a serious face?

— I don’t need anything but the truth.
and the truth is what I have.
O- If you believe that Al Zarquawi is not a terrorist, then I laugh at your ingenuous claims to the truth. I respect your years, Peter, but on this, I can’t help but disagree.

— the bush policy has failed
in Iraq. Doubt it. Great, show me how it has succeeded.
Don’t call me names or try to change the subject,
just show me how the bush policies have succeeded in Iraq.
Show me the successes.
O- I am not going to show you success, but let me task you now and ask you, what would be the “success” or the “expected success” gained from a withdrawl from Iraq. Lives will be saved, sure, but in your opinion what else will be gained? Further, what, if any, in your opinion, will be lost? Are you prepared to answer that? And if you dare to tell me that it is a win-win situation, then you have yet to ponder this from an equal point of view but from a leftist one alone. I can accept that Peter from just about anyone but part of being a so-called philosopher is to be impartial, and it is this which I do not see and why your position is so hard for me to take seriously. It is a partly line and you are so engrossed, as Imp seems to be too, that you cannot see past the label, the brand you peddle.
There is no sober argumentation as to what should be done with Iraq, from a responsible angle, but simply a call to end now all involvement as if that is the cure for the disease? You do not even seem to understand the disease at all.
Forget about WMD. It is the responsible stance to be a pessimist and a sceptic when such things are on the table. If a police officer kills a person who pointed a toy gun at him, are to judge him as a criminal because he did not wait for the trigger to be pulled to find the hard way that was indeed a toy?

27

omar:
The problem I see in the many hearings with Rice and Rumsfeld is that they are asked for time tables as if the hot potato would simply go away if we get our troops out of there. We had Saddam before, but that was not a solution. Even sending inspectors top the country was not a true solution, but another Cuba: Wait for natural causes or an assasination from within to take care of our problem and in the meanwhile starve the country, strangle them, so that one man does not get his wish at arming himself andf oppress his neighbors. That is not really a solution, Peter.

K: We have lived with, worked with, propped up many, many
dictators, before Saddam. I point out the shah of Iran and
noriega of panama, as two dictators we have employed.
Don’t go to the we have to get rid of dictators route because
you will lost on the facts.

O: What is clear is that often people lose sight of the overall picture and become propagandist of this “get the hell out of there”. If only we could…
The US has certain interest in the region, a region blessed with oil. And the thought of another anti-america government is not new, but the thought of an Iran/Iraq coalition is certainly frightening to a country that has so much need for uninterrupted flow of crude world wide as the US.
It is not the states that need the oil, but the entire globe and the US has taken it upon itself, as leader of the freeworld, to secure the inability of radical factions from taking over goverment.
If we get out of Iraq now, we might see a country spiral down into a civil war that will decimate the country and plunge it into anarchy; an enviroment where terrorist thrieve. Who do you think they will blame? Themselves? Heck no. The Good ol’ USA.

K: the civil war is already here. Just read the news and look at
what is being attacked and how many is being killed.

Perhaps our trooper will reply:
“So what? Let them kill themselves and Allah sort them out. The important thing is that we stop shedding American blood for a thankless country”
Yet, I would say, it is not what our actions encourage, be it thanks or an ally, but the securing of the bloodline of trade and the prevention of terror to take root in these countries due to anarchy. The males in this country will continue to obsess themselves with America as long as they remain in a country with little opportunity to earn a living because your government is boycotted by the rest of the world, or because a civil war is draining your entire economic output. To these males, the US is a good distraction from addressing their own culpability in their failed state and makes it rather simple instead: Your country is in ruins because of the US.

K: I can’t speak for other people

Never mind that we could tell them:
“Hey buddy, we got out of there long ago and gave you control”.
But control over what? A Civil war?!
What will emerge after the dust settles? An ally, or yet another enemy? The answer could lead to a future involvement into a third Gulf War. How many times do we need to penetrate a country? And what are the uses of our military? Depose a criminal and then let nature take it’s course? Does the destabilizing force, the US in this case, have any responsibility for the conditions in which it leaves the invaded country? Perhaps you think it is a moralist view, but what do you think is the view held by those Muslims in Iraq if not moral?

K: again I can’t speak for anyone else. We have created a crisis
situation in Iraq, we can stay but staying without a plan, does
not ensure that the situation will improved any. Or we can admit
our failure and run. Either way, we are going to take a hit, a major
hit in the world. I say take the hit for bailing.

O: In my opinion, leaving now is simply to set the scene for a future intervention that will take another army, another set of Billions of dollars to fund and another round of talks before Senators and Congressmen. What will trigger this third intervention? Let’s us hope that it is an aggression of an Arab state against another neighbor. But we now have in history the precedent that it might be a terrorist attack against civilians.
And then what? We dance this tune once again? You bet. So has it always been.

K: oil is the only reason we went in, and soon the oil will be gone,
and the whole mid east will return to peasants on goats. And so will
our need to invade the middle east.

— 1. After 3 years, how many Iraq battalion units are right
now, available to took over for an American battalion unit.
The correct answer is none.
There is not one single Iraq troop unit, a battalion, of
which is 300 to 1000 people, that can take over for an
American battalion.
this is important because the goal from the start is to stand down
American troops when Iraqi troops are ready to take over.
If no Iraqi troops, how can we stand down American troops.

O- Suppose that you are correct Peter, what does that mean? Basically you are saying to our enemies:“You just hang in there. You don’t have to defeat us only defeat the effort of creating an Iraqi army.” If there are no battalions ready, the answer should not be “let’s get out”, but simply to stay the course and train some more.
How will our troops leaving solve the problem of brigades not being available? it cannot, so your problem is unrelated to your solution. You want troops out; the fact that brigades are not yet ready is simply the excuse to get that done, not a concern for you at all.

K: our enemies? Who would that be? And after three years of training
how many good trained troops do have? How many years of troops in
Iraq should have then? 3 more, 6 more 10 years of troops in Iraq?
How long before we admit we lost. 27 years of billion of dollars, and
hundred of thousands of lives? If you are in a failing situation,
do you stay and continue the failure or do you bail? try to salvage
what you can?

O: — 2. How many weapons of WMD’S can actually be proven to
be moved from Iraq to syria?
Answer. None. To be able to transfer WMD’S from Iraq to
syria, is to suggest that American troops are seriously incompetent.
The U.S has been watching Iraq from the air for several years now.
To allow the Iraqi military to get WMD’S transported, would mean
the U.S. military let Iraqis to transport those weapons, hundreds
of miles without being noticed? I find it hard to believe with
the U.S, British, and Israel intelligent services looking for
WMD’S, that they could some how slip past all three
(at minimum) military and intelligent services to go from Iraq into syria.
Is that what you are suggesting? Gross incompetence on the
part of the military to allow the transport of those weapons.
I certainly have never made that claim of incompetence on
the U.S. military part.

O- Rumsfeld today admitted that the intelligence on WMD has been proven “not to be the case”. That said, the absence of WMD now fails to convince me that the best move for the US-- at this point --is to get troops out. Perhaps we could say that we should never have gone in, but now we are in so it is too late for wishful thinking. the time is now to salvage the situation we find our selves in and that is not going to happen with troop reduction. That will only embolden an enemy that is patiently waiting for the US to stay true to form and quit, as they saw us quit elsewhere. But let’s not forget, as our troops has, that Nam is quite different than Iraq in relation of it’s importance in the world. We could afford to lose it and still win, but Nam was not West Germany.

K: Who is the enemy?

— 3. Now some scattered bits of information.
The core services of Iraq, electricity for example has not
been restored to anywhere near the level of saddam’s
era. Civil war has been brewing for a while and finally broke
out. What we have been calling an insurgency, is really a civil war.
The big elections of the last 6 months have done nothing
to create a democracy in Iraq. The political process is
stalled. There is no movement toward a democracy in Iraq after
3 years. Kidnappings still occur at a regular rate in Iraq,
Nothing has stopped that at all.
O- And how does all of this justify pulling our troops out of there? Does it all mean that the mission has been accomplished? Or are you simply trying to look into a crystal ball that tells you that what did not happen in 3 years, a very arbitrary number if you ask me, will never even happen, therefore, call it a day and bring the boys back?

K: yes because we have failed in our basic mission. WE HAVE FAILED.
Failure doesn’t take a long time to figure out. Three more years will
not help a failure now.

K: — Feel free to show me material progress in Iraq, progress toward establishing an democracy, or to show me where
any kind of end game has been established toward leaving Iraq.

O- “Give me progress and give it now” No progress Peter, even though “Progress” is quite open to interpretation, I still would not try to say that we have much, or substantial progress. But what? The mission is not complete, therefore we leave? You want an “End game”, how about when the job gets done?

K: My point is the end is not achievable. Now what?

— Despite your reaching for just about anything that might help
your cause, I see nothing that suggests Iraq is anywhere close
to being a democracy or close to having U.S. troops leaving.
the fact of the matter is the Iraq war is keeping us from
our real need, to stop terrorist.

O- Have the terrorist struck America while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan?

K: terrorism world wide is up and number of deaths by terrorism
is up. We are losing the war on terrorism.

— And that is the next question,
show me how does the Iraq war help in ending terrorism in
the world?

O- In your opinion Peter, what are the root causes of terrorism? I don’t think that the US ever said that the war on terror began and would end with Iraq. Nor can we say that Iraq was a better target than some African countries or even the Saudi state, from where most terrorist came from and where the money and ideology that spread terror come from. But because the Saudi state is the main supplier of crude, how do you bite the hand that feeds you? But suppose that we could have another supplier in Iraq? Then it would require less caution to castigate the Saudies and their wandering money.

K: Remember I am a former anarchist. I have studied the
course of terrorism, via anarchism and communism.
Terrorism fails. It is a study in failure. Wait it out.
It can’t win and people get bored with it. It will stop
as all terrorism finally stops.

K: — It doesn’t for the simple fact is, terrorist are not
hanging out in Iraq fighting American troops.

O- Zarquawi is not a terrorist? You say this with a serious face?

K: Put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist. Think about it.
What is more effective? The London/ madriad bombings or
fighting it out in Iraq? It is obvious, london/madraid is more
effective.

K: — I don’t need anything but the truth.
and the truth is what I have.

O- If you believe that Al Zarquawi is not a terrorist, then I laugh at your ingenuous claims to the truth. I respect your years, Peter, but on this, I can’t help but disagree.

K: He is a regional manager at best. But the work of terrorism
does not involve Iraq. It is a minor player at best. it simply
used to keep our eyes off the prize.

K: the bush policy has failed
in Iraq. Doubt it. Great, show me how it has succeeded.
Don’t call me names or try to change the subject,
just show me how the bush policies have succeeded in Iraq.
Show me the successes.

O- I am not going to show you success, but let me task you now and ask you, what would be the “success” or the “expected success” gained from a withdrawal from Iraq. Lives will be saved, sure, but in your opinion what else will be gained? Further, what, if any, in your opinion, will be lost? Are you prepared to answer that? And if you dare to tell me that it is a win-win situation, then you have yet to ponder this from an equal point of view but from a leftist one alone. I can accept that Peter from just about anyone but part of being a so-called philosopher is to be impartial, and it is this which I do not see and why your position is so hard for me to take seriously. It is a partly line and you are so engrossed, as Imp seems to be too, that you cannot see past the label, the brand you peddle.
There is no sober argumentation as to what should be done with Iraq, from a responsible angle, but simply a call to end now all involvement as if that is the cure for the disease? You do not even seem to understand the disease at all.
Forget about WMD. It is the responsible stance to be a pessimist and a sceptic when such things are on the table. If a police officer kills a person who pointed a toy gun at him, are to judge him as a criminal because he did not wait for the trigger to be pulled to find the hard way that was indeed a toy?"

K: given this situation, there is no win-win, it is a lose-lose.
So now what? stay the course which has not succeed in three
years and with no chance of success, or leave with what
dignity we can.

Kropotkin

28

Peter I am short of time right now. I did read over your message and will sent out a rebuttal latter on, but for right now, and to show you that the soldier population is not a unified cynistic whole, I give you an e-mail that is currently making it’s way among the troops.
Call it propaganda, but this, as they piece you quoted, is the work of a service membern, a sailor.

   "AMERICA!"

Osama Bin Laden, your time is short;
We’d rather you die, than come to court.
Why are you hiding if it was in God’s name?

You’re just a punk with a turban; a pathetic shame.

I have a question, about your theory and laws;
“How come you never die for the cause?”

Is it because you’re a coward who counts on others?
Well, here in America, we stand by our brothers.

As is usual, you failed in your mission;
If you expected pure chaos, you can keep on wishing
Americans are now focused and stronger than ever;
Your death has become our next endeavor.

What you tried to kill, doesn’t live in our walls;
It’s not in buildings or shopping malls.

If all of our structures came crashing down;
It would still be there, safe and sound.

Because pride and courage can’t be destroyed;
Even if the towers leave a deep void.

We’ll band together and fill the holes
We’ll bury our dead and bless their souls.

But then our energy will focus on you;
And you’ll feel the wrath of the
Red, White and Blue.

So slither and hide like a snake in the grass;
Because America’s coming to
kick your ass!!!

29

I must be getting old and cynical.
I haven’t read such tripe in a long time.
A junior high kid would be embarrassed by the
sophication or lack of there of.
If this bit passes as uplifting and rah rah,
we are in serious, serious trouble.

Kropotkin

30

wow that pissed me off so fast

where is cheney?

pathetic means worthy of pity, but id be proud if i could mess with a juggernaut like he does.

so bush and rumsfled are in the trenches, getting shot at? or wait no, they are at least being held accountable for all the failures that they have been in charge of right? or are they like osama in every way except making tons of cash out of the deal? because i would say they are much bigger pussies and are hurting their own people much more, and that they actually deserve to die much more. wow im so crazy!!

us military pulling out of saudi arabia! booya! that royal family is going to be shite upon by you know who, and this is exactly what osama wanted to happen.

36% approval for bush

yeah just like securing afghanistan so that no terrorists can train there in secrecy anymore.

“I osama hate american pride and courage and allah wants it destroyed” what an idiot!

wait maybe he actaully is fighting against american influence in places like saudi arabia and pakistan, which is actually what he said he was fighting for. i dont know if that matters. but i agree that its fucking absolutely retarded for osama to try and blow up pride and courage.

protect american mercantilism!

30,000 iraqi soldiers dead by our own govts obvious underestimation, and only 2,000 US troops dead!! yeah!! thats good in every way!! and there is nothing bad about the fact that we are beating the living shit out of the crippled sand nigger as he is on the ground begging us to stop and occasionally swiping at our ankles with a rock.

KILL ALL SAND NIGGERS!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

“we didnt start this fight and we sure as hell arent going to be the one to stop it” - stephen colbert. almost right, we didnt start it as far s virtually everyone in america knows thanks to the wonderful media, but hes damn right when he says we arent going to stop killing anytime soon. our super rich people need it.

31

pride and courage? those words have no meaning left

32

Hello Peter K.:

Oh, and by the way, note that I did not mean to post that little message because I admired it’s composition and thought it was Shakesperian. I quote it so as to counterbalance your initial author who claims a total cynism when in fact some remain quite patriotic, regardless of what you think of such displays of affection for one’s country.
He pointed at the sun and you got caught on the finger doing the pointing.

33

K: We have lived with, worked with, propped up many, many
dictators, before Saddam. I point out the shah of Iran and
noriega of panama, as two dictators we have employed.
Don’t go to the we have to get rid of dictators route because
you will lost on the facts.

O-The Sha and Noriega were band-aids on a compound fracture and so was Saddam as well. I am not ignorant of the fact that some of our “allies” are indeed dictatorships, but the world cannot be won in 1 day. However, it is not the Sha were are facind and Noriega we got to the tune of Heavy Metal. This Peter is about avoiding having to deal with a shah, or a Noriega down the road.

K: Have you notice about every twenties years or so, we
have to invade some country we were best buds with.
Iraq is lost. The question is now, how do we get out?
And in twenty years of so, we will have to invade it again,
because we fucked it up so bad already.

K: the civil war is already here. Just read the news and look at
what is being attacked and how many is being killed.

O- A mosque getting blown up is not the civil war i imagine. That religious war between Shiiats and Sunnis is more than a thousand years old, so in that sense, it was here long before us or the British.

K: I posted the news about 87 people being found in mass graves
around bagad. Look who is getting killed and where the cars get blown up.
Its civil war, no matter how long it existed before us, we get to deal with it.

K: again I can’t speak for anyone else. We have created a crisis
situation in Iraq, we can stay but staying without a plan, does
not ensure that the situation will improved any. Or we can admit
our failure and run. Either way, we are going to take a hit, a major
hit in the world. I say take the hit for bailing".

O- If you are referring to sectarian warfare, we did not cause that, nor did Saddam resolved that. And why do we have to pull out, if all you need is a “plan”? And how is “admitting our failure and run” the basis for any plan?

K: Doesn’t matter if we cause it or not, it happened on our watch.
There is no plan do deal with it, (that I can see)
and you only have a couple of choices, and if staying had worked,
we would have seen it already in our 3 years there.

K: oil is the only reason we went in, and soon the oil will be gone,
and the whole mid east will return to peasants on goats. And so will
our need to invade the middle east.

O- That oil will not dry itself out for a few good years, but your ideas are what has kept Castro in power for for the best part of his natural life and has essentially ensured that Cuba’s future’s is the same as the Castro’s family.

K: we didn’t do to good getting him out either, I remember bay
of pigs, castro dies, and cuba will role over.

K: our enemies? Who would that be? And after three years of training
how many good trained troops do have? How many years of troops in
Iraq should have then? 3 more, 6 more 10 years of troops in Iraq?
How long before we admit we lost. 27 years of billion of dollars, and
hundred of thousands of lives? If you are in a failing situation,
do you stay and continue the failure or do you bail? try to salvage
what you can?

O- If you are in a bad situation, the answer is not always to run, run, run. What, if anything, has been resolved by admitting defeat? What goal has ever been attained by running away?!!! Who said it would be cheap? Who said it would be easy? What in life is there that is of value if it is cheap and easy?

K: Depends on the situation. sometimes running is a great option.
Dealing with several people who want to beat you up,
running is a great option, depends on the situation.
this situation is unwinnable, So do we stay and fight a losing
battle, while losing Americana’s life’s, just because we have
too much pride to run.

K: Who is the enemy?

O- The enemy is a terror network of organizations bent of a Wahhabism ideology. They feel that they are fighting for true Islam.

K: They are not in Iraq. They are all over. Fighting in Iraq does
nothing to deal with the terrorist problem, they have left.

K: yes because we have failed in our basic mission. WE HAVE FAILED.
Failure doesn’t take a long time to figure out. Three more years will
not help a failure now.

O- What do you consider our basic mission?

K: You see therein lies the problem. First we were told,
“Oh yes, there are WMD’S aiming for your front door.”
Then the mission became to remove saddam because
he was a bad guy, but we support other bad guys so
that went out the door. Then the mission became to
fight terrorist in Iraq, but thet fell apart because there
are no terrorist in Iraq. Now we are left with no
mission plan.

K: My point is the end is not achievable. Now what?

O- How do you know? Because of three years? The Philippines kept an insurgency for nearly ten years. But you ask “now what?” If we leave conflicts when they are difficult and costly, the US will begin a decline in the world, both as a power and a leader. This is a difficult position for the world which could see other nations such as China displace us economically and military. What they are capable of doing with Taiwan would be extended even further. The great experiment would be finished, so too the dream of freedom. What would rule is the materialist soul of the times that seeks to save the most mundane and denies the importance of all else. It would be to walk with a black eye, face down and smeared in shame, but the materialist soul would just be happy that “it” walks; it does not care in which manner it walks. It has no shame, it denies honor and affirms only it’s next meal, it’s next drink.

K: Bushco and friends have no interest in freedom. So don’t pretend
it was about that. It was economics, oil, black stuff from the ground.
and china has already displaced us, we just won’t admit it.

K: terrorism world wide is up and number of deaths by terrorism
is up. We are losing the war on terrorism.

O- That was not the question? Have there been any other 9/11? We did not go to war because of what terrorist did in Japan, Israel or Spain, but for what happened in NYC.

K: but remember “terrorism is a world wide issue”
and if 9/11 was really the issue we would have never
invaded Iraq, because it had nothing to do with 9/11.
the 9/11 commission admitted that. No, 9/11 is not even
on the politician’s map anymore, unless it pulled out
for votes from dummies from the south, who don’t know any
better.

K: Remember I am a former anarchist. I have studied the
course of terrorism, via anarchism and communism.
Terrorism fails. It is a study in failure. Wait it out.
It can’t win and people get bored with it. It will stop
as all terrorism finally stops.

O- Russia was a different game Peter. Have you read Albert Camus’s “the Rebel”? One thing is terror for the sake of a humanist ideal and another is terror inflamed with religious sincerity.

K:Terror is still terror, regardless of the name. and it
still fails. In the end, the terrorist themselves quit the game,
because they forget what they are fighting for.

K: Put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist. Think about it.
What is more effective? The London/ madriad bombings or
fighting it out in Iraq? It is obvious, london/madraid is more
effective.

O- The London Madrid bombings were tactical achievements for the strategic goal, that is, destroying the western coalition waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

K: Thus the terror war is being fought outside of Iraq.
time to go.

K: He is a regional manager at best. But the work of terrorism
does not involve Iraq. It is a minor player at best. it simply
used to keep our eyes off the prize.

O- You’re going to have to explain this one to me. He is a rallying name among the rebels. perhaps you see him as small fish, but to the Arabs, he is one of the big Kahunas. But what is our prize? We are said to be fighting terrorism, so how can terrorist in Iraq be keeping us from anything but our initial “prize”?

K: the prize is terrorist and they don’t hang in Iraq.
they are elsewhere, bin laden is in Pakistan (most likely)
and bin laden is the rallying point. terrorist by nature are
small fish wishing to be big fish.

K: given this situation, there is no win-win, it is a lose-lose.

O- Again, Peter, how do you know? You bring a lot of feelings but a lack of hard facts. Who set a time-able? Who set a war-cap?

K: three years of total failure. should give you a hint.
Ok, let us try this, how many years would you give it before
bailing becomes an option?

K: now what? stay the course which has not succeed in three
years and with no chance of success, or leave with what
dignity we can.

O- there would be no dignity, but that is something that left simply does not care about.

K: Death with dignity is where you don’t drool. I would rather
put the lives of soldiers ahead of my dignity any day. I am
not so vain as to put people’s life behind my vanity.

O: Oh, and by the way, note that I did not mean to post that little message because I admired it’s composition and thought it was Shakespearean. I quote it so as to counterbalance your initial author who claims a total cynicism when in fact some remain quite patriotic, regardless of what you think of such displays of affection for ones country.
He pointed at the sun and you got caught on the finger doing the pointing.

K: I am just old and cynical.

Kropotkin

34

I really don’t care all that much about the issue, but simply reading the header excerpt, imediately rang my bullshit alarm.

35

Excuse me.

Arguing about the valididy of the letter, is going to everybody nowhere IMO.

How can we find out the truth about the military and their morale?

Especially if the letter is correct and they are afraid to speak up, and be honest for fear of retribution from the people they are dying for?

We HAVE a problem.

We NEED a solution.

Not a debate.

IMO

36

Judas I.:
Arguing about the validity of the letter, is going to everybody nowhere IMO.

K: But it is the only way defenders of bush can attack the
anti-war bunch.

J: How can we find out the truth about the military and their morale?

K: Ask the soldiers. would be the only way, and more then one.

J: Especially if the letter is correct and they are afraid to speak up, and be honest for fear of retribution from the people they are dying for?
We HAVE a problem.
We NEED a solution.
Not a debate.

K: actually a debate is the thing we need. With the facts, then
we can make an intelligent decision, not just guess work.
If we listen to the lies of busco, we will never learn what is
going on over there.

Kropotkin

37

nooo the key is to unify together. united we stand, divided we fall. we must stay the course, which means never admitting errors. we must have resolve which means never being a pussy and changing your mind. we must stand strong, which means making everyone think that you have always been correct every time youve made any decision.

if we dont do that, the terrorists have already won. because their only goal is to cause america to be divided so that they can invade us and convert our country to islam and circumcise our women. those crazy bastards. the incredible, amazing stupidity of their goals is not a sign that maybe thats not what their goals are, like some commimuslim, islamofascist sympathizers would have you believe, it is a sign that they are genetically inferior, religiously irrational, and will never be stopped unless we do all of the following:

have resolve,
stand strong,
stay the course,
dont question any govt decisions, ever,
dont request information about any situation that can be vaguely described as an ‘ongoing investigation’,
kill sand niggers,
pay halliburton,
god bless der vaterland

38

Hello Peter K.

[quote=“Peter Kropotkin”]
K: Have you notice about every twenties years or so, we
have to invade some country we were best buds with.
Iraq is lost. The question is now, how do we get out?
And in twenty years of so, we will have to invade it again,
because we fucked it up so bad already.
O- Perhaps that is so because in politics, Peter, there are no “best buds”. If you suppose thyat we will have to return, then why not save the time of invading? Is that the only thing you know about? Invade? Yeah, that has resolved a hell of a lot? But I guess that is your plan: Quit now and every now and then, when terrorist attack us, go and blow up some Palace and then come back in time for Monday Night Football. it’s like herpes: we don’t have a cure for the disease, we just treat the outbreaks. That is your view?

K: I posted the news about 87 people being found in mass graves
around bagad. Look who is getting killed and where the cars get blown up.
Its civil war, no matter how long it existed before us, we get to deal with it.
O- A civil war, to me, is a battle for the control of state power. This is not the case Peter. This is a sectarian war; this is about one group secking to eliminate another. There is no compromise except for one group ceasing to exist. Each group consider the other apostates, so the procurement of state power is not like the civil wars we are used to, that then turn around and get back to the bussiness of uniting the country, but would rather get to the bussiness of oppressing one part of it’s entire population based on their religion, using the newly adquired state machine.

K: Doesn’t matter if we cause it or not, it happened on our watch.
There is no plan do deal with it, (that I can see)
and you only have a couple of choices, and if staying had worked,
we would have seen it already in our 3 years there.
O- So how is leaving supposed to work? It would not. It would only allow another nation to have it’s own culling. And what would Al-Qaida and friends think?
Peter, terrorism is not going away and neither is is going to remain contained peacefully in that part of the world. Terrorist did not attack the US because we were occupying Iraq, but because of our presence in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. pulling out is not going to make America any less of a target to terrorist and that is the fantasy you are telling me.
Get out, get out and everything will be honky dory? Quit and you make yourself even more vulnerable, weak in the eyes of the enemy, who would be embolden, who would say:“this suicide attacks are really working. Let’s continue to do them and see just what else we can get those weak americans to give up.”
As long as our interests are at odds with those of the terrorists’, there shall be terror against americans, regardless of our presence or lack thereoff, in Iraq.

K: Depends on the situation. sometimes running is a great option.
O- Alright, mister historian; From where do you get this idea? From history? What withdrwl has been a benefit for either party? In the 1920’s Britain “Quit Mesopotamia”, only to find itself back in Iraq again in WW2. In our case, it should be remembered, the goal is not Iraq alone but “terror”, a most ambiguous enemy.
Whatever does happen in the Middle East, either with us or without us, will still affect us. Ignoring the problem will not make the problem (civil war) go away, but would exacerbate the problem and it will spill over, and as you yourself claim, cause us to come back.
Why not fix it now?

K: Dealing with several people who want to beat you up,
running is a great option, depends on the situation.
O- That sounds so french…

K: this situation is unwinnable
O- Because you have convinced yourself that it is not winnable, not because you have any facts backing you up. This situation is winnable, but changes have to be made.

K: So do we stay and fight a losing
battle, while losing Americana’s life’s, just because we have
too much pride to run.
O- Losing american life is a problem, yes, but when we come back, as you already envision, would not more lives be lost? It would be to let the father’s cut and run so that their children can die tomorrow.

K: They are not in Iraq. They are all over. Fighting in Iraq does
nothing to deal with the terrorist problem, they have left.
O- Well Peter I question your reporting, since according to you, they were never there.

K: You see therein lies the problem. First we were told,
“Oh yes, there are WMD’S aiming for your front door.”
Then the mission became to remove saddam because
he was a bad guy, but we support other bad guys so
that went out the door. Then the mission became to
fight terrorist in Iraq, but thet fell apart because there
are no terrorist in Iraq. Now we are left with no
mission plan.
O- So if you don’t know, or are not sure of that “mission” why even bring it up? But what are the causes of terrorism? The war on terror requires that we answer this question first and foremost. The idea to invade was not WMD, nor Hussein. Those issues were leverage that concealed a different answer to the question of terror. The desicion to invade Iraq had little to do, in reality with those things; they were factors, yes, but not the desicive ones. I agree with Paul R Pillar that the reason was to shake up of the stagnant power structures of the Middle East and “hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.”
It was fueled by a belief that democracies rarely wage war on one another.

K: but remember “terrorism is a world wide issue”
and if 9/11 was really the issue we would have never
invaded Iraq, because it had nothing to do with 9/11.
the 9/11 commission admitted that. No, 9/11 is not even
on the politician’s map anymore, unless it pulled out
for votes from dummies from the south, who don’t know any
better.
O- We were mobilized into more aggressive policies due to 9/11. In a sense, 9/11 was the worst move made by the terrorist. Up till then, the president was constrained to do enough to show that we opposed the terrorist, but only from a distance. In a pre 9/11 world we could imagine that we were in control and saddam was safely in his box. 9/11 made suspicions easier. if 9/11 had never happened, I would imagine that Iraq would never have either.

K:Terror is still terror, regardless of the name. and it
still fails. In the end, the terrorist themselves quit the game,
because they forget what they are fighting for.
O- You jumble up a very complex phenomenon. Russia had a humanistic (for what else is Marx if not a humanist) ideal and an aim towards reintegration of all people in a model that was just, in an economic manner. Some terrors, Camus described, were in the grips of their conscience even as they perpetrated their acts. Their overall concern was justice.
That is not even close to being the case in our terrorists today. The terror of Russia was measured in earthly justice, while the terror of today is measured by the rewards of heaven and justice is a given, believed by faith, unchecked by a humanitarian consciense.

K: Thus the terror war is being fought outside of Iraq.
time to go.
O- You have a strange understanding of strategy. They target supporters of the war and instead of standing up against them, you simply give in to every whim they impel with a bomb. A grenade goes off and you think that is a war. Strange…

K: the prize is terrorist and they don’t hang in Iraq.
they are elsewhere, bin laden is in Pakistan (most likely)
and bin laden is the rallying point. terrorist by nature are
small fish wishing to be big fish.
O- The entire coalition is a fraud if it is only concerned with cutting one arm off a hydra. It will quickly regrow. If Bin Laden dies, and he will sonner or latter, do you think that will be the end of terror? You think that our mission is to capture terrorists? Peter, that would only fill up Guantanamo even more, and then what? Terror is gone? No, it is only contained. And what happens in the meanwhile, with liberals protesting and asking for their release (so that they can blow even more civilians)? Others take their place. Terror is not the disease but a symptom.

K: three years of total failure. should give you a hint.
Ok, let us try this, how many years would you give it before
bailing becomes an option?
O- I am not Rocky Balboa, who tired out Clubber Lang by using his face as a shield. I am not saying let’s stay there so that we can die in even greater numbers. Like you I agree that we should revise our strategy. But unlike you, my strategy is not to run like chicken to then wait for the next attack. I believe that there are plans that could save american lives and shorten the time of the ocupation but they do not include withdrawl.

K: Death with dignity is where you don’t drool. I would rather
put the lives of soldiers ahead of my dignity any day. I am
not so vain as to put people’s life behind my vanity.
O- You want to save soldiers lives, (and I know that you are probably too old to do so but…) take a rifle and cover his position.

39

Better hope the suicide bombers commanders don’t switch tactics and start standing them in front of our tanks, rather than blowing them up. When that happens…

Who is going to be the bad guys then?

Do we have enough prisons over there to contain the “good guys”?

Perhaps I need to find a bunch of Muslim sites and see if the idea could get through?

That would be interesting. IMO

40

K: Have you notice about every twenties years or so, we
have to invade some country we were best buds with.
Iraq is lost. The question is now, how do we get out?
And in twenty years of so, we will have to invade it again,
because we fucked it up so bad already.

O- Perhaps that is so because in politics, Peter, there are no “best buds”. If you suppose that we will have to return, then why not save the time of invading? Is that the only thing you know about? Invade? Yeah, that has resolved a hell of a lot? But I guess that is your plan: Quit now and every now and then, when terrorist attack us, go and blow up some Palace and then come back in time for Monday Night Football. it’s like herpes: we don’t have a cure for the disease, we just treat the outbreaks. That is your view?

K: I was referring to Iran, Panama, Iraq, all at one time client
states of ours and with each we have had some serious problems
with later. I know there are others, but I am old and senile.
You get yourself into a situation, sometimes it pays to try and salvage
that situation, sometimes it is waste of time.
See you are taking a one term solution as a part of a compressive
solution. Iraq is lost, get out, but that is not the overall strategy
on terroism. You have mistaken a one time escape from a lost
situation as my permanent solution to terrorism. And there does
need to be a permanent viable plan to terrorism. Bush however does
not have one.

K: I posted the news about 87 people being found in mass graves
around bagad. Look who is getting killed and where the cars get blown up.
Its civil war, no matter how long it existed before us, we get to deal with it.

O- A civil war, to me, is a battle for the control of state power. This is not the case Peter. This is a sectarian war; this is about one group seeking to eliminate another. There is no compromise except for one group ceasing to exist. Each group consider the other apostates, so the procurement of state power is not like the civil wars we are used to, that then turn around and get back to the business of uniting the country, but would rather get to the business of oppressing one part of it’s entire population based on their religion, using the newly acquired state machine.

K: You would be right, but the middle east tends to work with
theocracy, (Iran) in which religion and the state are the same thing.
thus the battle over religion really becomes a battle for state power.
Uniting the country with one religious faction in charge
and thus the battle.

K: Doesn’t matter if we cause it or not, it happened on our watch.
There is no plan do deal with it, (that I can see)
and you only have a couple of choices, and if staying had worked,
we would have seen it already in our 3 years there.

O- So how is leaving supposed to work? It would not. It would only allow another nation to have it’s own culling. And what would Al-Qaida and friends think?
Peter, terrorism is not going away and neither is is going to remain contained peacefully in that part of the world. Terrorist did not attack the US because we were occupying Iraq, but because of our presence in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. pulling out is not going to make America any less of a target to terrorist and that is the fantasy you are telling me.
Get out, get out and everything will be honky dory? Quit and you make yourself even more vulnerable, weak in the eyes of the enemy, who would be embolden, who would say:“this suicide attacks are really working. Let’s continue to do them and see just what else we can get those weak americans to give up.”
As long as our interests are at odds with those of the terrorists’, there shall be terror against americans, regardless of our presence or lack thereoff, in Iraq.

K: This may surprise you, but my plan runs about 100 years into
the future. The key is oil. When the oil runs out, so does the funding
for Islamic terrorist. I would actually have no problem dumping Israel,
but that is not what the terrorist are going on about. The Palestinian
problem, is just a front for terrorist. and if Israel and Palestine
both disappeared tomorrow, we would still have terrorist.
You have to understand the terrorist mind and what they are working
for, religion? Hell no, they couldn’t care less. No the prize is power.
the solution is a political one. Create a places for the disenfranchised
in the middle east. the problem is the governments of the area,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, to a lessor extent Turkey,
Of the most oppressive regimes in the world, I would bet, more
then half are in the middle east. There exist your solution.
Not by nation building, but by working with the middle eastern
government. You have leverage due to the oil running out.
Once that is gone, those countries go down the toilet, unless
something else happens. The solution to the terrorist problem
lies with a large overall comprehensive plan.

K: Depends on the situation. sometimes running is a great option.

O- Alright, mister historian; From where do you get this idea? From history? What withdrwl has been a benefit for either party? In the 1920’s Britain “Quit Mesopotamia”, only to find itself back in Iraq again in WW2. In our case, it should be remembered, the goal is not Iraq alone but “terror”, a most ambiguous enemy.
Whatever does happen in the Middle East, either with us or without us, will still affect us. Ignoring the problem will not make the problem (civil war) go away, but would exacerbate the problem and it will spill over, and as you yourself claim, cause us to come back.
Why not fix it now?

K: and above I outlined my solution.

K: Dealing with several people who want to beat you up,
running is a great option, depends on the situation.

O- That sounds so french…

K: I have been to paris, which would have been a great place if it
weren’t for the parisians. :laughing:

K: this situation is unwinnable

O- Because you have convinced yourself that it is not winnable, not because you have any facts backing you up. This situation is winnable, but changes have to be made.

K: And what sort of changes?

K: So do we stay and fight a losing
battle, while losing Americana’s life’s, just because we have
too much pride to run.

O- Losing american life is a problem, yes, but when we come back, as you already envision, would not more lives be lost? It would be to let the father’s cut and run so that their children can die tomorrow.

K:The isolationism of the 1930s was one of the secondary
causes of the second world war. I am not saying abandon
the whole area, I am saying refocus our efforts in smarter ways.

K: They are not in Iraq. They are all over. Fighting in Iraq does
nothing to deal with the terrorist problem, they have left.

O- Well Peter I question your reporting, since according to you, they were never there.

K: You see therein lies the problem. First we were told,
“Oh yes, there are WMD’S aiming for your front door.”
Then the mission became to remove saddam because
he was a bad guy, but we support other bad guys so
that went out the door. Then the mission became to
fight terrorist in Iraq, but thet fell apart because there
are no terrorist in Iraq. Now we are left with no
mission plan.

O- So if you don’t know, or are not sure of that “mission” why even bring it up? But what are the causes of terrorism? The war on terror requires that we answer this question first and foremost. The idea to invade was not WMD, nor Hussein. Those issues were leverage that concealed a different answer to the question of terror. The decision to invade Iraq had little to do, in reality with those things; they were factors, yes, but not the decisive ones. I agree with Paul R Pillar that the reason was to shake up of the stagnant power structures of the Middle East and “hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.”
It was fueled by a belief that democracies rarely wage war on one another.

K: On this you are flat wrong, the initial reasons given for invading
Iraq was WMD’S, not terrorism. Review the last three years
and you see shifting reasoning’s for invading Iraq. The lead up
to the war, was WMD’S, terrorism as a reason was not until the
last year.

K: but remember “terrorism is a world wide issue”
and if 9/11 was really the issue we would have never
invaded Iraq, because it had nothing to do with 9/11.
the 9/11 commission admitted that. No, 9/11 is not even
on the politician’s map anymore, unless it pulled out
for votes from dummies from the south, who don’t know any
better.

O- We were mobilized into more aggressive policies due to 9/11. In a sense, 9/11 was the worst move made by the terrorist. Up till then, the president was constrained to do enough to show that we opposed the terrorist, but only from a distance. In a pre 9/11 world we could imagine that we were in control and saddam was safely in his box. 9/11 made suspicions easier. if 9/11 had never happened, I would imagine that Iraq would never have either.

K: Bush would have invaded Iraq not matter what, that is clear from
all the reporting, Woodward books to others, all say that Iraq
was the prize of neo-cons since 1997, when they went to
clinton and offer their support if he would invade Iraq.

K:Terror is still terror, regardless of the name. and it
still fails. In the end, the terrorist themselves quit the game,
because they forget what they are fighting for.

O- You jumble up a very complex phenomenon. Russia had a humanistic (for what else is Marx if not a humanist) ideal and an aim towards reintegration of all people in a model that was just, in an economic manner. Some terrors, Camus described, were in the grips of their conscience even as they perpetrated their acts. Their overall concern was justice.
That is not even close to being the case in our terrorists today. The terror of Russia was measured in earthly justice, while the terror of today is measured by the rewards of heaven and justice is a given, believed by faith, unchecked by a humanitarian conscience.

K: not at all. terrorism as an ongoing concern from the french
revolution to now, has been pretty consistent movement.
It follow pretty sharp lines. And in fact would make a great book.
UMMMMMMMMMMM.

K: Thus the terror war is being fought outside of Iraq.
time to go.

O- You have a strange understanding of strategy. They target supporters of the war and instead of standing up against them, you simply give in to every whim they impel with a bomb. A grenade goes off and you think that is a war. Strange…

K: I say tomoto and you say tomato.

K: the prize is terrorist and they don’t hang in Iraq.
they are elsewhere, bin laden is in Pakistan (most likely)
and bin laden is the rallying point. terrorist by nature are
small fish wishing to be big fish.

O- The entire coalition is a fraud if it is only concerned with cutting one arm off a hydra. It will quickly regrow. If Bin Laden dies, and he will sonner or latter, do you think that will be the end of terror? You think that our mission is to capture terrorists? Peter, that would only fill up Guantanamo even more, and then what? Terror is gone? No, it is only contained. And what happens in the meanwhile, with liberals protesting and asking for their release (so that they can blow even more civilians)? Others take their place. Terror is not the disease but a symptom.

K: finally, a right answer. the whole coalition is a fraud.
Why do you think the other partners have or will bail.

K: three years of total failure. should give you a hint.
Ok, let us try this, how many years would you give it before
bailing becomes an option?

O- I am not Rocky Balboa, who tired out Clubber Lang by using his face as a shield. I am not saying let’s stay there so that we can die in even greater numbers. Like you I agree that we should revise our strategy. But unlike you, my strategy is not to run like chicken to then wait for the next attack. I believe that there are plans that could save American lives and shorten the time of the occupation but they do not include withdrawal.

K: and still have not answered the question, how many years before
bailing becomes an option?

K: Death with dignity is where you don’t drool. I would rather
put the lives of soldiers ahead of my dignity any day. I am
not so vain as to put people’s life behind my vanity.

O- You want to save soldiers lives, (and I know that you are probably too old to do so but…) take a rifle and cover his position."

K: too old and 4F. I never served because I could never serve.
Unlike bush, chaney, rumsfield, all who escaped the war of their time.

Kropotkin