End the Iraq war.

[BHS]

Interesting post at Belmont Club.

[kimmy]

Uhm...I 've not seen any analysis of the Iraq situation that neglects religion altogether. Pape, f'r instance, mentions religion as a recruiting tool, a rallying point. But the goal is always temporal: that is, political.

You can't not talk about religion when you talk of the current/coming civil war in Iraq.

ok, so if we're agreed that religion can't be overlooked in this discussion... if we can agree that the insurgents are sincere in their religious beliefs... shouldn't we at least look at what those beliefs actually are?

You say that the goal is "always temporal: that is, political" as if that was something separate from religion. That's a very western way of looking at things, but it's hardly a universal perspective. To an Islamist, political and religious are inseparable-- they are one and the same.

-k

[kimmy]

ok, so if we're agreed that religion can't be overlooked in this discussion... if we can agree that the insurgents are sincere in their religious beliefs... shouldn't we at least look at what those beliefs actually are?

Most commentators argue that Islamic terrorism is a fanatical perversion of Islam which deviates from its true teachings. They call for a Western-style modernization of the Muslim world, hoping thereby that radical Islam will be tamed.

This analysis misses the point. The nature of the terrorist threat is unambiguously Islamic and is not so much a deviation from Muslim tradition as an appeal to it.

The roots of Islamic terror

Regarding classical Islam, the oft-quoted remark that Islam is a religion of peace is false. It is historically illiterate to claim that war is foreign to Islam and it is theologically uninformed to argue that jihad is merely a personal inner struggle with no external military correlate.

On the contrary, Islam is linked from the beginning with the practice of divinely sanctioned warfare and lethal injunctions against apostates and unbelievers. Islam experienced no period of wandering and exclusion; from its inception, Islam formed a unitary state bent on military conquest.

The Prophet died a successful military leader who created a single Islamic polity that expanded - through warfare - all over the known world. The caliphate combined the double logic of a religious community and an imperial state.

This dual identity explains how Islam can be simultaneously peaceful and warlike. While the Koran enjoins that there shall be "no compulsion in religion," Islam still regards it as a holy duty to extend militarily the borders of the House of Islam against the demonic world of unbelievers: "He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief."

Coupled with this irreconcilability between Islam and its enemies is an extreme territorial sense of the sacred. Hence bin Laden's principal demand for the departure of all infidels from holy Muslim lands. When extremists say they are killing in the name of Islam, they are in part appealing to Islamic traditions of long standing. Al Qaeda's modern origins go back to Wahhabism, named after the revivalist movement founded by Muhammad Ibn'Abd al-Wahhab in 1744. Wahhab called for a return to a pure and unadulterated form of Islam closer to the ideals of the Prophet.

The author goes on to assert that Al Qaeda's ideology was also influenced by European fascism.

-k

[Nemo]

deleted

[BHS]

There is an old army saying that: “Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.” It is nothing short of astonishing, given the experience of the humiliating defeat in Vietnam within living memory of both the military and civilian leadership, that America should be involved in yet another limited war with no legitimate objective, without proper planning, and with no exit strategy. 

It is one thing to win a war, but quite another to maintain peace; and while some states may be subdued by force, they may not be subjugated for long.  Machiavelli maintained that a state that is easily won, is not easily held for the enemy remains everywhere about the occupier; whereas states that are hard won are easily ruled for the enemy has been destroyed.

Both Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz profess to be students of Machiavelli. Apparently, they didn’t learn their lessons well, for there is no end in sight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. Everything's Vietnam, from now 'til forever. I don't recall the "exit strategies" for The Great War or The Second World War or Korea - how did they go again? Oh yeah, back then the US government fought for what was right without worrying about how it would look later on. What progress we've made, that we now have anti-war establishment to call every military campaign a "quagmire" from the very beginning.

[Nemo]

deleted

[BHS]

World War II was total warfare, including the use of nuclear weaponry, and pursued to the enemy's unconditional surrender.  The Korean conflict was a limited war, which ended in a stalemate; and, after fifty years, we are still there.  If we should have learned anything from history, it is that you cannot win a limited war for the simple reason (as Machiavelli observed) that the enemy remains undefeated.

If America was not ready to commit to total warfare, including the use of nuclear weapons, we should not have invaded Iraq.  It is a hard lesson, which we will suffer to learn again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...c/cronagon.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

North Korea was made unwinnable by the support that China threw behind Kim Il Sung. The continuing stalemate is a relict of the Cold War, and it is the best possible solution for keeping a nuclear-armed (thanks Jimmy!) rogue regime in check. Note the ironic twist, as China is burdened with having Il Sung's lunatic son as a neighbour. Bet they didn't see that one coming back in 1950.

I have the feeling, that if America commits itself to "total war" in the coming years, that you won't be very happy about it. Call it a hunch.

[Argus]

There is an old army saying that: “Proper prior planning prevents piss-poor performance.” It is nothing short of astonishing, given the experience of the humiliating defeat in Vietnam within living memory of both the military and civilian leadership, that America should be involved in yet another limited war with no legitimate objective, without proper planning, and with no exit strategy.

Uhm, take a look at the records of the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defence. They all went waaayyy out of their way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oddly, now they're quite gung ho about sending others off to fight and die and Rumsfeld seems to fancy himself a military expert. One of the chief reasons the war in Iraq has gone badly is General Rumsfeld was in command, overruling and dismissing the concerns of the real generals.

I disagree about the exit strategy, however. It's fairly obvious and is proceeding. Once the new govt is legitimately elected and can secure its position (with help from the Shiite clerics) the US will basically turn over security to them.

[BHS]

Uhm, take a look at the records of the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defence. They all went waaayyy out of their way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oddly, now they're quite gung ho about sending others off to fight and die and Rumsfeld seems to fancy himself a military expert. One of the chief reasons the war in Iraq has gone badly is General Rumsfeld was in command, overruling and dismissing the concerns of the real generals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How has the war gone badly, in your estimation? What could have been done differently to improve the things that you believe have not gone well?

[Riverwind]

How has the war gone badly, in your estimation? What could have been done differently to improve the things that you believe have not gone well?

a ) Waited until the international community was behind the invasion - even if that meant that the invasion could have been delayed for years.

b ) Deployed troops to protect all public buildings rather than just the oil ministry

c ) Keep the existing security and military forces after removing key Sunni leaders.

[BHS]

How has the war gone badly, in your estimation? What could have been done differently to improve the things that you believe have not gone well?

a ) Waited until the international community was behind the invasion - even if that meant that the invasion could have been delayed for years.

b ) Deployed troops to protect all public buildings rather than just the oil ministry

c ) Keep the existing security and military forces after removing key Sunni leaders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a) What good would that have accomplished? It's arguable that the war would have gone more smoothly if the Americans hadn't pissed away a year and a half after 911 trying to get loser nations like France on board.

What problems have resulted from public buildings being left undefended, that have led to serious difficulties in the present? I'm sorry the army didn't have the manpower to guard every scroll and tablet, but if they'd been there and shot the Iraqi civilians doing the looting, you'd be blaming their deaths on the Americans too. You can't have it both ways.

c) Who knows how deep the rot went in the old military structure? Why risk handing the military back to the insurgency? Better to rebuild from the ground up.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I don't recall the "exit strategies" for The Great War or The Second World War or Korea - how did they go again?

The terms of the 'exit strategy' were 'unconditional surrender or the resumption of hostilities'. Then, see "the Treaty of Versailles, the Yalta Conference, etc" as some 'post-victory' and temporary governance strategy' was developed in these cases. But then again, the Great War and WWII were 'official' wars. Korea really became the start of 'fighting a war without calling it one', and the smudging of the legal responsibilities surrounding a formal declaration of war, both at home and abroad, for all involved parties.

[BHS]

Dear BHS,

I don't recall the "exit strategies" for The Great War or The Second World War or Korea - how did they go again?

The terms of the 'exit strategy' were 'unconditional surrender or the resumption of hostilities'. Then, see "the Treaty of Versailles, the Yalta Conference, etc" as some 'post-victory' and temporary governance strategy' was developed in these cases. But then again, the Great War and WWII were 'official' wars. Korea really became the start of 'fighting a war without calling it one', and the smudging of the legal responsibilities surrounding a formal declaration of war, both at home and abroad, for all involved parties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe the point I was responding to implied that exit strategies had to be in place before going to war, or while hostilities were in progress. Your reply defines exit strategies in a way that indicates they occur after hostilities have ceased. That's fine, I'm all for your definition. And I'll add to it that the American exit strategy for Iraq has been fairly clearly defined for those of us paying attention: a functioning Iraq constitution in place, and and Iraq police force and army up to the job of maintaining security without US backup. Both of which are approaching finalization as I write this. The American Generals in Iraq are confident they'll begin ramping down troop levels early next year, contingent on the support needs specified by the Iraqi government.

[Argus]

Uhm, take a look at the records of the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defence. They all went waaayyy out of their way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oddly, now they're quite gung ho about sending others off to fight and die and Rumsfeld seems to fancy himself a military expert. One of the chief reasons the war in Iraq has gone badly is General Rumsfeld was in command, overruling and dismissing the concerns of the real generals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How has the war gone badly, in your estimation? What could have been done differently to improve the things that you believe have not gone well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Generally speaking, military experts have agreed that the US erred greatly in having grossly inadequate planning for an Iraqi surrender, and having inadequate troops on the ground, esp MPs, in order to prevent anarchy after that surrender

It was a mistake to disband the Iraqi military. Your suggestion in another post that it was rotten was untrue. In the Iraqi army, as in most, you did what you were told and shut up about your opinions. Even senior generals who got too independant were soon inspecting the insides of Saddam's torture facilities.

The anarchy did several things. One, it turned many Iraqis against the Americans. Two, it led to massive looting of warehouses, factories and government buildings - which in turn led to widespread unemployment and a much longer period of time needed to set up a new government. It also meant many of the records the US wanted were burned or otherwise destroyed. The widespread unemployment (hard to get a factory in operation when all its equipment is gone) put lots and lots of young men on the street with nothing to do and no way to make money. Disbanding the army did the same, except these young men were trained in explosives and military tactics. The anarchy led to the rise of violence, some of which then began to be turned against the Americans. In the early going there were many reports that "insurgents" were actually ex-military people with no jobs being paid to shoot at or bomb American patrols. As some say, the first bomb is a shocker, the fiftieth is no big deal. If you're ex military, got nothing else to do, and someone's giving you money to build bombs then hey, why not?

In any case, all of this led to a terrible security situation, which was then exacerbated by the porous borders (not enough men, American or Iraqi) over which poured religious zealots wanting to martyr themselves in explosions against both the Americans, and the evil Shiites.

It is easy to imagine an alternate universe where the US replaced some of the Iraqi generals, promoted some lower level officers, and put the Iraqi military into the streets as a police agency to maintain order and prevent looting and the destruction of public property, as well as on the borders, while the US acted as backup and overseers. Rebuilding Iraq would have gone so much faster, and it's virtually certain there would have been far fewer casualties, both US and Iraqi civilian. It's much easier to stomp on an insurgency before it really gets going, you know, then after it's been operating full power for months or years.

Much of this can be laid at Rumsfeld's door. He ignored the advice of generals, and even retired a couple who argued too strenuously. As a result, the US almost ran out of ammunition in the thick of the fighting - because Rumsfeld was sure there wouldn't be any. But Bush ultimately carries the can. He listened to Rumsfeld, who has zero military experience, instead of his generals.

[Argus]

What problems have resulted from public buildings being left undefended, that have led to serious difficulties in the present? I'm sorry the army didn't have the manpower to guard every scroll and tablet, but if they'd  been there and shot the Iraqi civilians doing the looting, you'd be blaming their deaths on the Americans too. You can't have it both ways.

They didn't have the manpower because Rumsfeld overruled his generals. And it wasn't just scrolls and tablets which were looted, it was factories, warehouses, government buildings, power plants, the phone company, the water and sewer company, hell even the fire department lost its trucks. The job of getting Iraqi back in shape was made immeasurably more difficult, and, of course, all those young men were put on the streets with no jobs, feeling resentment towards the Americans, with no power, no water, no gas (gas trucks and stations all looted). And as any cop will tell you, there's nothing which leads to more trouble then a lot of young men with time on their hands.

The unrestricted looting, and the lack of police for so long, not to mention chronic, massive unemployment, led to an environment in which violent crime prospered, and continues to prosper to this day. I read not long ago that each Iraqi family is permitted to have one AK-47 for protection. That's how bad the crime situation is. It's too bad when you've got an insurgency but can't dare disarm the populace of their machineguns because the crime is too intense they need them for self protection.

[BHS]

The unrestricted looting, and the lack of police for so long, not to mention chronic, massive unemployment, led to an environment in which violent crime prospered, and continues to prosper to this day. I read not long ago that each Iraqi family is permitted to have one AK-47 for protection. That's how bad the crime situation is. It's too bad when you've got an insurgency but can't dare disarm the populace of their machineguns because the crime is too intense they need them for self protection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, I get it. More troops would have been better, and I don't disagree. Rumsfeld used the Iraqi intervention as a test case for smaller, more nimble combat configurations, figuring that the Saddam Fedayeen would put up at least a little bit of a fight. It's kind of WMD the Second in a way: as with the weapons program, the pre-war intel lead the administration to believe Saddam had a greater capability to defend himself than he actually had. They didn't figure the Iraqi Army would surrender wholesale.

I just had an interesting thought, based on a previous post by Nemo, who was quoting from Machiavelli and saying that it was obvious that Rumsfeld hadn't really studied "The Prince" et al. His point was, that an easy victory leads to a difficult occupation, because you haven't killed the enemy and he's still all around you. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.) Doesn't this make the case for being suspicious of the Iraqi Army? I mean, what if Saddam read Machiavelli too (and who doubts that he did)? Perhaps the easy and unexpected victory was a part of Saddam's plan to plant spies and saboteurs in positions of power in the new Iraqi army, to bring down the government after the Americans had left, so that he could come out of hiding and reclaim his country. Who's to say that interviews with former officers in the early days of the occupation didn't indicate this was so? I'm not saying I stumbled onto the truth here, but doesn't it plant reasonable doubt that Rumsfeld was acting irrationally when he made the decisions he made?

As to the portion of your post that I've quoted, I just want to know: are you sure the Americans even want to disarm the populace? There was some debate a couple of years ago in the states about the righteousness of such a plan. The Americans base their liberty in part on the Second Amendment, and many Americans hold this right very dearly. It would be hypocrisy to deny a similar right to a people you're trying to liberate, no? Furthermore, who's to say that having a gun in every home isn't beneficial? You won't find that argument from the Swiss, who make gun ownership manditory for every male between the ages of 20 and 42.

(I know, a single example does not greatly bolster my argument, especially when the rest of the world seems bent on eliminating gun ownership among the common people. But if you're going to pick a place to carry out a series of home invasions, is it going to be Switzerland? I'd pick England, the world capital of home invasions, where private gun ownership has been outlawed.)

[Black Dog]

mean, what if Saddam read Machiavelli too (and who doubts that he did)? Perhaps the easy and unexpected victory was a part of Saddam's plan to plant spies and saboteurs in positions of power in the new Iraqi army, to bring down the government after the Americans had left, so that he could come out of hiding and reclaim his country. Who's to say that interviews with former officers in the early days of the occupation didn't indicate this was so?

There's reports that Saddam planned for a guerrilla war (like, whatever happene dto the Republican Guard?). But by disbanding the Army, the Americans basically trapped themselves.

As to the portion of your post that I've quoted, I just want to know: are you sure the Americans even want to disarm the populace? There was some debate a couple of years ago in the states about the righteousness of such a plan. The Americans base their liberty in part on the Second Amendment, and many Americans hold this right very dearly. It would be hypocrisy to deny a similar right to a people you're trying to liberate, no? Furthermore, who's to say that having a gun in every home isn't beneficial? You won't find that argument from the Swiss, who make gun ownership manditory for every male between the ages of 20 and 42.

First: even if the U.S. wanted to disarm the populace, it's doubtful they could. The practicality (or lack thereof) of such an endevour is what made it impossible, not some bunk about the Second Amendment.