damn. I was actually so very happy to think there might be a chance he was gone. I love it when these guys die. I recognize there is probably something terribly wrong with me that I should become so gleeful.

I'm still hopin' but even if we didn't get him this time, his command and control is taking a real beating lately.

cmh,
n*gga please. There's a reason you're happy about it: they're scumbags. I used to think I was above being happy when our enemies died, but I'm over it.
It's them or you.

Peace to you all and goodnight.

Well Tubby can breathe a sigh of relief.

What’s wrong with cutting and running?

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.

Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.

Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.

Look at John Kerry's utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.


Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
E-mail: diane@hudson.org

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

Geez Bobby, why didn't you lay that 'net turd at your place instead of stinking this one up?

Reports of my explosion have been greatly exaggerated, infidels.

Remember when the Blame America First/Anti-Bush/Anti-Judeo-Christian Values Community got its nose all bent out of shape when Mr. Bush, speaking about all the other governments in the world, said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists"?

The idiots usually misquote the president and use, "You are either with us or you are against us."

Right then and there, they made the decision to be against the president no matter what. They were apalled by Bush's ultimatum, his hubris, his arrogance. How dare he!

They want to see him fail, his policies fail, that they will indeed side with the terrorists because they are certainly not with George W. Bush on anything.

Yes, the moonbats are relieved Zarqawi is still around to kill more Marines, more Iraqi children. The anti-Bush crowd would like nothing more than the defeat of the ugly Americans imposing their kind of democracy in Iraq. They would like nothing more than Americans packing up and shipping out of Iraq with their heads hung low because we have no right to be in Iraq and we deserve to lose.

Now, if you do't believe that the sickos at Atrios, Kos, MoveOn, and the others want exactly that scenario and feel exactly the way I framed it, then you aren't seeing what I see.

Will bobby be posting volume two of My Life As A Retard any time soon?

The first million words were slow, tedious, and lacked any kind of plot or coherent structure. Frankly, it was like gibberings of a ring-tailed monkeys. You know, kind of like Harold Robbins or Kurt Vonnegut.

Guess Abu Musab Al- Idon’tknowwhatawi will “live to fight another battle” as they say in Koranic/Neocon circles…

Too bad his “ancestral tribe” back in Jordanistan disowned him three times…kind of just like Saint Peter and the man they call Christ…the Madison Avenue-trained gurus at the PR and Public Disinformation section of our embassy in Amman are simply too brilliant!

Abu Musab père surely couldn't stand the thought of his son going postal on full jacket jihad in Ayyraq…but rest assured the Mohammedan Emmanuel Goldstein of our age will (once again!) lick his wounds and bounce back blah blah blah Zzzzzzzzzzz…..

Stay tuned my dear fellow citizen/dupes for the born-again Abu Musab will be reappearing soon in a Fox News premiere and/or a White House press conference theater near you!

> Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before.

I'm not quick to call opponents of the war "un-American," but that argument is pretty damn un-American.

See the new campaign that the bats are using?
While I was writing my comment, "Bobby" was pasting his message on this and other blogs.

I've got to hand it to the bats. Once they receive their orders and drink the kool-aid, they stay on message and are faithful deliverers.

So the new campaign is spin the high points of leaving Iraq immediately and let the chips fall where the may.

Would they applaud Bush for an immediate withdrawal? You bet your ass they would not.
The Left wing would crucify Mr. Bush for a huge failure. Over 2,000 lives lost for nothing. Iraq is worse off now than it was with Saddam. The Republicans are nothing but religious warmongers. They did it for oil.

This is what they want. It has now become clear that Fitzgerald will not deliver Bush on a stick for them. They move on to their next fantasy: convincing the American people (they already have most of the world on their side) that the best thing to do is to give it up in Iraq. But it's a trap. A withdrawal won't be the end of the shrill antiwar movement. It will be the beginning of something more ugly and repugnant.

Even more disgusting than seeing Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan have sex. The sick bastards on the Left will try to use the failure in Iraq to win elections for the next 100 years.

But a victory in Iraq will squelch the Left and leave them demoralized, crushed, and eventually splintered. The closer we get to victory, the more terrorists like Zarqawi that are killed, the more the Left will call for withdrawal. They need a defeat. We need a victory. There is no middle ground.

Odom's arguments are pitiful: largely based on loose use of words and flagrant dishonesty. Is this really from a former general and NSA director?

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

Yeah. In Germany and Japan it took years. And you know what? It might take years it Iraq too.

The second and third elections are the important ones. The first time, people get voted in. The second time, some of them get voted out. The third time makes it a habit.

Iraq is coming up for the second time in a month.

Bobby, that was a serious "weapons grade moonbat" length post.

Just saying...

I'd like to ask about something that was in the news article. I hope I'm not flamed for asking, but even if I am I hope it will help elucidate my inclarity. I feel my moral standards are a little off. So, basically, my question is: what, exactly, is wrong with torturing suspected terrorists? If they're innocent, that have nothing to fear; if they're guilty, they deserve to die a most painful death anyway, so I see no reason why torture is wrong. From my perspective, once someone becomes a terrorist and deliberately attacks civilians/non-combatants, that person and those who support such acts forfeit their humanity. As such, at least according to my morality, it is impossible to be inhumane to them become they are no longer human.

Even if no one wants to address this issue of forfeiture of humanity (which, I admit, even I find to be questionable, kinda), what about the torture of terrorists? How can the torture, humiliation, or even execution of terrorists be bad, let alone not good?

As a corollary, why should we care for the welfare or interests of terrorists? Why should it matter if they're being treated well or not?

I feel kind of bad asking, but this has been bothering me for ages. Maybe my rage against terrorists has blinded my moral compass. I am, otherwise, a nice guy. I like puppies and kittens and babies too.

I for one have long thought that we should use torture, not for information gathering, but for punishment. Getting reliable information with torture is questionable, I prefer the use of drugs, the results are usually more consistant.
Getting 3 square at a tropical resort aint my idea of justice. These guys should be breaking ice in Thule in their skivvies, eating bacon every meal, all the while being forced to sing Havah Nagila. Cause Hell is cold. I should know.

what, exactly, is wrong with torturing suspected
terrorists? If they're innocent, that have nothing to fear; if they're guilty, they deserve to die a most painful death anyway, so I see no reason why torture is wrong.

You youself used the word "suspected". Well, what if I suspect you? If you're innocent, you do have something to fear: the pain of being tortured.

Also, I think it leads to a slippery slope. I don't think that, in the abstract, it's inherently wrong to torture a known terrorist for information. But in the real world, we're dealing with laying out rules for our government to follow. And governments are never omnipotent or even particularly competent. A blanket rule against government-sanctioned torture is by far the safest option, in my opinion. And yes, I am factoring in the damage done by missing opportunities to gain life-saving information. I know that this policy has a high cost. I also think it's worth paying. And, for what it's worth, I think President Bush agrees with me.

What is torture used for? Can it extract information? Are there more effective ways?

What should we do with all these terrorists once we're done with them? If we let them go, where's the justice? If we keep them locked up, aren't we wasting resources?

Bobby:

On the assumption you are not a moonbat, let me take a crack at the arguements presented:

1. Iraqi civil war - yes, there is a low-level civil war going on now, between Sunnis desperate to regain power and Shiites bent on revenge and Kurds eager to keep what they have. Our ability to influence this conflict is very significant as long as we stay. It will disappear if we leave. IF we stay, we can gradually turn the civil war into a cease-fire, then a non-violent conflict (let them hash it out at the polls, not with AK-47s).

2. IF we leave, why would anyone trust us again or follow us back if we decided to go back? Who is going to ally themselves with a country that cuts and runs when the going gets tough? Why would anyone take risks for us if we show we are not trustworthy? Reputation does matter. To an extent, the perception of power and will are real in their own right.

3. A government in Iraq does not have to be pro-American. They have only to renounce Islamic Fascism, not support terrorism in any manner, shape or form, and abide by democratic rules for government. NONE of this requires that they like us. IF they turn out as anti-American as the French, that will be just fine.

4. IF we stay, we can turn Iraq into a graveyard for terrorists. The more the terrorists commit themselves to Iraq (and killing their fellow Muslims) the more they will discredit themselves. Think how much easier terrorist recruiting will be if they have a whole country to operate from AND can boast that they defeated the USA!

5. Iran's influence is a problem. We can, if we stay, try to convince the Shiites that we are a better alternative as an ally. We will have no influence if we leave. (Iran is really a subject for a thread of its own, but later).

6. IF we stay and stabilize Iraq, Turkey will fall in line with us. We can then take the battle to Syria and/or Iran, if we choose. Syria, once the border with Iraq is sealed, will be in a strategic box and we will have the key. As for Iran, the single biggest concern is preventing them from developing nuclear weapons - and we are more likely to prevail diplomatically if we have a credible big stick in the background - something we will NOT have if we leave.

7. The Iraqi Army and police are making enough progress so that they are the main target of the terrorists. What does that tell you?

8. If we leave, we will only encourage OBL and Iran. We can also forget about having any influence with moderate countries in the region. Who is going to trust their security to a paper tiger? In fact, our leaving may trigger a wider war, as Iran will no doubt try to take advantage of the power vaccum. In the worst case, we could see an Iran-Israel nuclear war.

Muslihoon, here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

Can it extract information?

Yes it can. I am in the strictly-anti-torture camp, I think. But I have to admit that it can be effective.

In practice, in the real world, it is rarely used to extract information.

It's often used to extract pre-determined confessions. For example, the cops decide that they know who committed a murder. They want a conviction, so they twist the guy's arm and make him sign a paper admitting to the crime. Case closed. This is standard operating procedure in China.

It is also used in order to punish and intimidate people, obviously. For example, no Iraqis would criticize Saddam for fear of torture.

It is also used for fun, because jailers often turn sadistic. It's the ugly side of human nature.

Are there more effective ways?

No, but there are less effective ways of exerting psychological pressure which are still somewhat effective.

1. Iraqi civil war - yes, there is a low-level civil war going on now

I wouldn't even call it a low-level civil war at this point. Rememer, Zarqawi is trying to ignite a civil war, and has failed to this point.

On point 2, I would remind Odom that it is the credibility with the terrorists that is the biggest issue, and it was that lack of credibility that encouraged them before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

why should we care for the welfare or interests of terrorists?

I have no problem with feeding them pond scum and cockroach souffles and having a little Deer Hunter style firearms entertaiment.

I dare say we get some of those grey aliens in on the deal for a bit of stainless steel rod anal probing too. Get that twisted England woman in an alien suit and let her have at them with the rod.