Nice.

Sweet indeed!

Sweet indeed!

An Iraqi understands America better than the American left.

Why am I not suprised by this?

I remember reading somewhere that America's two contributions to the world's archetypes was the Cowboy and the Gangster. When foreign people think of America, they tend to boil everything to one of these two archetypes: the good-hearted, true, and brave cowboy; or the venal, grasping, violent money-driven gangster.

Ever since the 1960's, the so-called "New Left" has begun to both demonify the Cowboy and to exalt the gangster. (Think about what happened in the movies: you have the glorification of gangsterism in "The Godfather" and the demonization of cowboys in movies like "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" and "Little Big Man".) Cowboys strike the left as uncouth, simplistic icons of an earlier age; gangsters are "edgy" and modern.

If you want to know what the left thinks of American mythology and the superego, just take a look at what has happend to westerns and gangster movies over the past forty years or so.

Personally, I'm a "cowboy" guy myself, and it looks like the Mesopotamian is too.

Long live the Duke!

Its an appropriate response to those people who want America to cower in a corner getting bitch-slapped and collecting those all-important 'world sympathy' points.

It is not in our nature. Respect our cultural heritage.

Hope Ace posts something soon. This blog has been circling the drain for two days.

Here's some "fun" things to noodle with while Ace is off on some coke, val-u-rite, and hookers binge.

DHS IS BUGGING YOUR LAPTOP

100,000 hour light bulbs

DPRK in the counterfieting business

Dutch princess wants to negotiate with AQ

CHESS BOXING

Maybe some more gardening posts? :)

Gardening? Got you covered...kinda. Walkways, streams, neat nature like stuff.

$380M 3-mile ditch

How's about a discussion on what the EU/UN will do if they get control of the internet?

I can just see applying to Monster.Com for a code analyst job and being told to report to a German Brothel.

Iblis,

I have a hard time getting worried about the EU/UN "regulating" the internet. Are they going to do it with the same spotless efficiency that they "regulated" Oil-for-Food? These guys lack the mental horsepower to accomplish such a feat. The U.S. government can't even stop people from stealing music online, and the EU/UN are going to "regulate" the internet. How cute.

Hope Ace posts something soon. This blog has been circling the drain for two days.

For the next "poetry" constest, rather than doggerel, haiku, or limericks we might try Clerihews.

Where's Ace? Doing his court ordered community service?

Val-U-Rite had a vodka clearance sale.

ha! lipstick

Naw, you have to keep your mind clear when you're out stalking hobos.

Personally, I'm a "cowboy" guy myself, and it looks like the Mesopotamian is too.

Um, cowboys and Mesopotamians are not allowed to be seriously poetic. Sorry, but your're not a cowboy. Someone had to tell you.

I mean, have you ever seriously listened to the lyrics of a cowboy song?

You are indelibly stereotyped on this blog as a poetry fag. You did it to yourself. You Chanced a Springtime awakening, and now you must live with the consequences. Get used to it.

If the UN/EU wants control of the internet they'll have to launch a commando raid on our edge routers and master domain controllers.

We should just tell'em:

"get stuffed, go make your own if you don't like it"

There's nothing they could do except whine.

Michael,

If Gene Autry can be a singing cowboy, I can be a cowboy poet. I can sling Colt revolvers by day and write sensitive cowboy poetry by night. Hank Williams and Patsy Cline shall be the chorus to my poetic stylings as I wander the wide open spaces of the West. They shall call me El Hombre Poetico.

Ace is gonna come back from whatever he's been doing, and ban me for covering his nice blog with so much amateur-night crapola.
Looks like the ten other co-posters had a life this weekend too.

This is bad.
Have the terrible urge to start deleting stuff before Mom and Dad come home and find out I had a party.

"Careful, buddy, you almost stepped in that pile of Hombre Poetico."

lauraw:

You mock what you do not understand.

I've got spurs that jingle jangle jingle...

Compare the progress the US made in WWII from the date of Pearl Harbor to 2.5 years later: middle of 1944.

Look at the enemies the US overcame in that case. Think of the sacrifice made by our parents' generation, in so many ways every day. Victory gardens, rationing, extra shifts, women going to work for the first time, and of course the draft.

My gripe about this war is not only that it was sold on lies, and is illegal. My gripe is also that it isn't even being taken seriously by those who are selling it. I do not believe the neocons believe their own rhetoric. They didn't take it seriously enough to listen to military planners and generals, didn't take it seriously enough to plan for the occupation.

They didn't take it seriously enough to push Rumsfeld out when it was clear he was not up to the job.

They don't take it seriously enough now, with continued waste, failure to curb abuses, failure to provide armor, etc.

The Mesopotamian is right about what the US and UK can do. Where's the analysis about what they have done differently here?

The British history also includes colonialism, and being kicked out of occupying Iraq. What I see looks a lot more like THAT British history than WWII history, unfortunately.

Where's the analysis about what they have done differently here?

You need analysis to figure this out?

Today's dems would have seizures if we were to take the WWII approach to saving civilization, so we have to do it "on the cheap".

Admittedly, nukes and a few Dresden fire storms would have pacified places like Faluja in a jiffy -- but then the pro-terrorist types like you would have whined.

So, tubino, you want the US to use WWII style tactics? You know, clearing villages with artillery, flattening cities with firestorms, unrestricted submarine warfare (a little hard in Iraq, all right, but you get my point). Being both cold and heartless I would have no problem with that, but I doubt the left would support it given the fits they have with what we have done so far.

Frankly, I think a little Roman style ruthlessness would help us immensely. Again, I have no problem with crucifying terrorists, but given how people on the left reacted to stories about panties on heads I have a hard time believing they would support anything approaching WWII levels of seriousness.

A final point - the administration is trying to show that terrorism does not pay by creating a democratic society in Iraq. This will, in theory, drain the swamp of terrorist recruits by giving them legitimate alternatives to Islamic Fascism. I personally doubt this will work since Islam in general is not compatible with Democracy, but since I have no better idea that does not include sterilization with atomics, I support the President. So, what is YOUR alternative if you don't like what the administration is doing?

They shall call me El Hombre Poetico.

You crack me up. OK, you're a cowboy, really, and your spurs go jingle jangle jingle . . .

P.S. Laura, will you concede that "somebody" is more queer than me in my Batman suit?

anonymous said, "Today's dems would have seizures if we were to take the WWII approach to saving civilization, so we have to do it "on the cheap"."

CORRECTION: Rumsfeld overruled anyone who recommended using sufficient troops and a plan to occupying and rebuilding Iraq, because he insisted on doing it "on the cheap".

Not surprisingly, you have it completely backwards.

Then Battle comes up with 3 illogicals in a row. "A final point - the administration is trying to show that terrorism does not pay by creating a democratic society in Iraq."

Except that Bremer did away with the Iraqi army, which had served to show the possibility of integrating ethnic groups... and instead imposed 100 fiats that were completely non-democratic. As I said above, the neocons never actually gave the Iraqis a chance at self-determination. Right now the US admin is scrambling to appease the terrorists EXCUSE ME Sunni hardliners by proposing to CHANGE the constitution, a week before the vote!!! ["With US mediation, Shiite Muslim and Kurdish officials negotiated with Sunni Arab leaders yesterday over possible last-minute additions to Iraq's proposed constitution, trying to win Sunni support ahead of this weekend's crucial referendum."] Did you know the Iraq Constitution was written in ENGLISH, then had to be translated into Arabic??? Imagine if the French had overseen the creation of the US constitution -- IN FRENCH.

It's incredible to me how unaffected you are by facts and logic. All you do is repeat the lines put out in the MSM.

I opposed the invasion from the beginning, and it has turned out as I feared. But you want to know what I would do NOW, with the current reality? As I posted in another thread, my recommendation would be pretty much exactly what Juan Cole recommended about a month ago: begin removing ground troops, keep enough air forces to react in case of massed troop movements in a real civil war. Try to get international help. (He said it muich better, with 12 points...)

But in the intervening month, as Kevin Drum and others have pointed out, that position (or something darn close to it) is now being recommended by a significant number of US military officials.

I'm sure this will get lost in the MSM version, but basically a significant portion of the US military is recommended a drawdown of US forces REGARDLESS of progress in training Iraqi forces. IN large part this is nothing but a reality-based reaction to the over-extension of the US military, which cannot sustain its current deployment levels past next summer. PERIOD. It cannot be done. Even a draft starting next month couldn't do it, because of training lag.

So my advice to the civilian leadership would be the same as it ever was: LISTEN TO YOUR MILITARY LEADERSHIP.

Another point, obvious yet needs to be stated. In the case of Germany in WWII, the US was fighting a COUNTRY. I have no idea why you think that the situation is the same in Iraq, where by all accounts the US is fighting an insurgency that is a fairly small minority within a country that -- for the most part -- actually DID greet the US forces as liberators. The US is trying to help build a nation NOW, not after a surrender by the COUNTRY.

Stunningly obvious, but you all missed it. To me the WWII analogy is only good for demonstrating the difference in what is being asked of Americans (here's your tax cuts, now go shopping).

A7 Dm7 G7 C A7 Dm7 G7
Blue Shadows on the trail
C Cmaj7 C7 A7
Little cowboy, close your eyes and dream
Dm7 G7 C Am7
All of the dogies are in the corral
Dm7 G7 C C7
All of your work is done

huh. Randy Newman wrote that.

anonymous said, "Today's dems would have seizures if we were to take the WWII approach to saving civilization, so we have to do it "on the cheap"."

CORRECTION: Rumsfeld overruled anyone who recommended using sufficient troops and a plan to occupying and rebuilding Iraq, because he insisted on doing it "on the cheap".

Nothing about your "correction" is inconsistent with the point anonymous made. The former does illuminate the latter, however.

Bremer did away with the Iraqi army, which had served to show the possibility of integrating ethnic groups

IIRC, it was lousy with Ba'athists and we determined the prudent course was to start from scratch rather than using a suspect foundation for rebuilding. Was it the wrong call? I doubt it.

the neocons never actually gave the Iraqis a chance at self-determination

Sorry, this is just too funny to dignify.

Did you know the Iraq Constitution was written in ENGLISH, then had to be translated into Arabic??? Imagine if the French had overseen the creation of the US constitution -- IN FRENCH.

First I would have to imagine the Frogs wiping out an oppressive, murderous American thugocracy, then filling the void with a French provisional government, and then handing over power in orderly fashion to Americans who had never seen even nominal freedom in living memory. Just imagining the first part takes the imagination wandering into alien invasion scenarios. More plausible and the weapons are cooler.

It's incredible to me how unaffected you are by facts and logic. All you do is repeat the lines put out in the MSM.

From here out, your post loses even tenuous contact with reality. Say hi to Al Gore if you see him in that alterate universe of yours.

Next up:

To me the WWII analogy is only good for demonstrating the difference in what is being asked of Americans

It's also fair for contrasting media treatment of the wars and reconstructions, as well as comparisons of the reconstruction efforts themselves. If you think economically self-strangulating measures like fuel and tire rationing would help us at war, you've got a lot of proving to do. I'm guessing your grasp of capitalism is a little wobbly at best.

And right about on cue, VDH has a typically insightful take up on NRO.

Probably does nothing for the loony fringe, but very few sane observations ever do.

I said, "the neocons never actually gave the Iraqis a chance at self-determination"

So VRWC Agent sez:
Sorry, this is just too funny to dignify.
---------
Bremer set in place a system to ensure that Iraqis would have no chance to vote on the alteration of their country. He issued 100 edicts affecting taxes, national assets, and much much more.

That's what he was put in place for, and what Garner was NOT wanting to do. You didn't know that?

Figures. I posted it earlier. Reminds of the old joke about the 2x4 and the mule.

Very interesting to hear Garner's take on it. Very interesting that as much as it bothers folks here to face it, no one responded with any substance to refute it.

And you won't now, either.

Tubino,

The US has won wars taking exponentially higher casualty rates than the campaign in Iraq. Places like Antietam, Shiloh, Gettysburg, Tarawa, or even Hue City were far worse than "The Sunni Triangle." I find it difficult to believe that car bombs and suicide bombers can defeat the US Armed Forces, with or without international help.

I believe also your citing of alternative military perspectives on the plan for invasion (and to a certain degree on the occupation) ignores the very real philosophical shift in how wars are fought by the US military, emphasizing psychological shock instead of merely using attrition tactics. The "attrition" camp still holds much sway, and are often found complaining about a lack of troops, but the quick reduction of Iraqi combat effectiveness during the war illustrated that "Shock and Awe" could force mass defections and disintegrating command and control without massive numbers of troops. It did mean leaving a lot of enemy troops with their weapons, but at the end of the day, the old government was swept aside and has not arisen since. I don't even see a government-in-exile. Hard to call that a bad thing.

As for Iraqi self-determination, please remember that Iraq under Saddam Hussein wasn't exactly self-determining. It was the personal fiefdom of SH. You can't just give the Iraqis self-determination, they haven't had it; it will take some time for the society to get used to democracy. Still, decisions have to be made and future governments will get to have their say about them. That is normal. We don't want to tell them how to live, but while we are helping them put up a government, we had to make some provisional calls in the meantime.

I'm sure Garner disagreed with many things Bremer did, but that doesn't mean Garner was right either. I think the fairer standard for judging how the war went and how the reconstruction is going is whether Iraq is a better place, in terms of freedom, prosperity and tranquility. There are problems to be sure, but I don't see Iraq getting worse. If it were, the US Army would be fighting for its life, instead I see reenlistments and volunteering for duty there.

If we were losing, the rank-and-file would be the first to say so and would be acting on it by not re-upping. Unless, of course, your calling them a bunch of morons.

EricTheRed,
It is a pity your wonderful post was wasted on tinytube, who will not hear logic.
If it responds, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Bremer set in place a system to ensure that Iraqis would have no chance to vote on the alteration of their country.

FWIW, it doesn't get funnier when you repeat it. Or smarter.

ETR is right. We provided a bridge political structure from which the Iraqi people have launched their own future. The Iraqi's chose federalism, which is smart. They chose a parliamentary system, which I'm a bit more skeptical about just because they are so unwieldy. What's most important, though, is that the Iraqis are doing the choosing.

ETR: Iraqi combat effectiveness during the war illustrated that "Shock and Awe" could force mass defections and disintegrating command and control without massive numbers of troops. It did mean leaving a lot of enemy troops with their weapons, but at the end of the day, the old government was swept aside and has not arisen since.

A fair point. Let's also not forget that Turkey's last minute balk denied us forces from the north that would have crushed the old guard instead of giving them a place to flee.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy. The fact that things didn't go exactly as they could have does not make the "get a bigger hammer" faction right and VDH's point about the fundamental need for success turning on the Iraquis' participation, not our overwhelming presence, is spot on.

ErikTheRed said: "The US has won wars taking exponentially higher casualty rates than the campaign in Iraq. Places like Antietam, Shiloh, Gettysburg, Tarawa, or even Hue City were far worse than "The Sunni Triangle."

Absolutely true -- especially if you use the new meaning of "casualty" (= death) instead of the earlier meaning (removed from battle due to death or serious injury). The ratio of serious injuries to death is worse in Iraq due in part to heroic and sophisticated and TIMELY medical treatment that saves lives even when limbs are lost.

But then he says,
"I find it difficult to believe that car bombs and suicide bombers can defeat the US Armed Forces, with or without international help."

Brits in Northern Ireland. Israelis in Lebanon. Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

In no cases were the occupying countries DEFEATED militarily. But the cost became too high, with no apparent path to winning. The problem a lot of people have is in facing the difference between a WAR and an OCCUPATION. The many moves made by the CPA to limit Iraqi sovereignty played into the insurgents' hands for propaganda, as did the looting of Iraqi funds and resources.

There is a very good reason why the US State Dept was passing around copies of the movie Battle of Algiers. Very entertaining, too.

Erik also said: "If we were losing, the rank-and-file would be the first to say so and would be acting on it by not re-upping. Unless, of course, your calling them a bunch of morons."

Nope, I'm not calling them morons.

But recruiters know they won't be able to keep the enlistment and re-upp numbers where they need to be (for a THIRD deployment). That's why the current US numbers are unsustainable past next summer. But numbers like that are a ridiculous way to measure success in Iraq.

The fact that TODAY's news features a story on the ON-GOING negotiations to tinker with a constitution that is supposed to be already voted on -- that's a better indication of the future stability of Iraq.

VRWC flails and only comes up with this:

"FWIW, it doesn't get funnier when you repeat it. Or smarter."
---------
FWIW, it's not refuted just because you give a non-answer.

Bremer put in a place a system that made many very important decisions about the economic system. Why were the Iraqis not allowed to decide? Answer: because it is nearly certain that they would have decided very differently than the neocons wanted.

So after supposedly liberating Iraqis to make their own future, the CPA sharply limited their ability to decide it. Sheesh, the Iraqis aren't even allowed to break the exorbitant contracts to US companies the CPA signed right before handing over sovereignty! I've linked to all this many times.

I'd be very surprised if you had the integrity or capacity to address that, rather than engage in cheap namecalling and denial.

I'd be very surprised if you had the integrity or capacity to address that, rather than engage in cheap namecalling and denial.

How many times do we have to say it? Name calling is a valued pastime of those who comment here.

So join in, doofusface.

Anyone know where there's any informed discussion of rightwing positions?

I think I've dickwhipped all you lightweights into cowering submission.

Yeah, that ought to do it.

Nice riff on how this admin punishes those who ruffle feathers.

Tubino,

There are a number of ways to lose a counter-insurgency campaign. One is not to seriously conduct a counter-insurgency campaign, i.e. the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam for most of the war. Trying to draw guerrillas/insurgents into set-piece battle and using concepts more appropriate to fighting classical Western-style armies like the Germans during the two world wars is foolish and will lead to quagmires. That isn't what is going on here.

Another way is to let simply lose heart. The whole purpose of the insurgency is to help create a picture in the media that would induce the US public to lose the will to fight. Well, as one can see, it is the US public that actually controls its own will, not the insurgency. All of the initiative then belongs to the US and its Iraqi and coalition allies, so being pessimistic simply because the insurgents cause casualties (woundings and deaths) is childish to say the least. Again, the vaunted "Sunni Triangle" does not ,however you look at it, strike one as being markedly worse than any other difficult battlefield experienced by US forces, and today's forces are far better than what was fielded, even taking out all of the material advantages enjoyed now.

As for troop levels, it is expensive and does affect the endurance of our soldiers to keep sending them back to Iraq. However, this is an unfortunate legacy of the lack of a badly needed post-Cold War restructuring of the US Armed Forces. We need to reconfigure the balance between Active, Reserve and National Guard to limit the disruption of deploying large numbers of Reservists and Guardsmen to combat theaters for extended periods. After Vietnam, many of our combat units were restructured to require the participation of Reserve and Guard units so as to force the President to develop public support for any major operation. This was left in place after the Cold War, despite the increased operational tempo. Then, 9/11 happened and the exigencies of war has hampered the ability of the current Administration to make the Active forces more independent.

It is unfortunate that our soldiers have to endure this, but to say they are at their limit, when in fact the limits in question are more budgetary in nature rather than in the innate abilities of soldiers involved, severely underestimates them. Again, American soldiers with less training, in more difficult environments, have prevailed, so to assume that the US soldier today is a shell of what was is disturbingly pessimistic.

It is true that recruiting has been hurt somewhat, but recruiting targets are higher than normal and the private sector offers safer and more lucrative opportunities for prospective recruits.

As for news stories about negotiations on the Iraqi constitution, umm, why would that be distressing? So they did not make some artificial deadline, big deal. There were several prominent members of the US Constitutional Convention who left the proceedings to signal their opposition to the document. The republic based on that constitution is still here.

Tubino, I'd agree with you that we were losing if a government wasn't in the process of being set up and that Iraqis were not participating in it. Also, if the insurgency was focusing on US/Coalition forces, that would be a good sign that we are losing. But the fact that the insurgency is reduced to threatening the local population strongly suggests a serious lack of popular support. No insurgency wins by driving the local population away from it, their very well-being depends on their support.

Bremer put in a place a system that made many very important decisions about the economic system. Why were the Iraqis not allowed to decide?

So now it's just economics? Fine. We put in place, as I said (and you ingored), an interim system. Then turned it over to the Iraqis. Who are choosing what they want for the future. Finis.

the Iraqis aren't even allowed to break the exorbitant contracts to US companies the CPA signed right before handing over sovereignty

At least not as long as they want us around. And "exorbitant" is not something I remotely trust you, or myself for that matter, to determine. Neither of us strike me as competent to decide the costs involved in raising a nation from spoilage and rubble.

I'd be very surprised if you had the integrity or capacity to address that, rather than engage in cheap namecalling and denial.

You're wrong. Dope.