Bush's speech last night. Discuss.

[Hux]

Alas I think it's fair to say that most of the middle east and Iraqis don't subscribe to the definition of war you found on dictionary.com

I think in terms of perception, which is reality, it was viewed as an unprovoked invasion by an outside power, a Christian one at that.

[The Chameleon]

I totally disagree. Without an exit strategy nothing is accomplished you are then simply committing to staying forever and propping up a bullshit democracy that can't stand on its own. Even if you win you need to have a vision of someday leaving the country to it's own peace. If you are loosing terribly you need to have an exit strategy to stop the bloodshed and loss on you side, especially when victory is near impossible. had. It has to do with the ideal that someday you'll leave. The American never plan to leave just like every other country they currently have bases in. If you stay there forever you are a target forever and how can the war ever end if you don't bring the troops home?

I hat eto tell you (and I know this will raise you r ire) but the world was a better/safer place with Saddam in it.

Now I do concede they guy was a tyrant and vicious dictator that killed innocents. But so is Bush and he's killed many many more. Also while Saddam was in power, the area was much more stable and the quality of like in Iraq was better. Now with him dead the US has turned him into a hero and a martyr, which will only give extremists another figure to rally behind. Iraqi's have no power, and live in a crippled war zone fearing instant death at every turn.

The world is actually more dangerous and worse off with him dead. I would have had no problem with imposing him forever but the American needed him dead real quick so none of their involvement with his crimes and much worse could be revealed in court, hence the rush to hang him.

As for Darfur and the like I think that the UN should direct all effort be the humanitarian, military or sanction based and the US should take their direction not the other way around. If it is not you country you have no right, regardless of what is happening, unless it is a clear threat to your sovereignty. That is why it is imperative to work with the UN. Problem is that the US already gave the UN the big Fuck you when it invaded and now the UN has never really recovered.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Guest

[Birdy]

hux,

war is war, regardless of who started it and why, provoked or unprovoked. bombs, guns, troops, special ops, guerillas, all signs of war.

i can't believe i'm having this conversation.

[Hux]

I can't believe you can just brush away all historical detail, analysis, circumstance, comparison - everything and just say:

“war is war, regardless of who started it and why, provoked or unprovokedâ€

I find that unbelievable. I would like to see you sit down with a war historian, ie. an expert, I think I would enjoy it.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Maybe put another way, are "the good guys" always "the good guys"?

[Birdy]

I can't believe you can just brush away all historical detail, analysis, circumstance, comparison - everything and just say:

“war is war, regardless of who started it and why, provoked or unprovokedâ€

I find that unbelievable. I would like to see you sit down with a war historian, ie. an expert, I think I would enjoy it.

Hux, i have sat down with war historians, more than you probably can imagine.

I find it really hard to believe that you don't think what is happening over there can be termed 'war'. Can armed conflict only be called war if it is provoked? That's a bunch of bullshit.

[Mr.Flibble]

Actually, war is not always war.

But let’s deal with some important clarification issues first.

The current conflict in Iraq was initiated by the presentation of evidence that was later revealed to be inaccurate and false. The utilisation of "pre-emptive self-defence" as cause for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was completely baseless.

Pre-emptively attacking a nation requires irrefutable proof that nation A has the capacity and mens rea to launch an attack against nation B (see Israel and the six-day war). Iraq, despite its bluster, did not have the capacity to attack America or even its regional allies with any significant military ordinance. This fact was sufficiently known to many in the Intelligence community both within America and in Europe. The majority of the information about Iraq's WMD program was collected by individuals such as Achmed Chalabi, a convicted criminal and unreliable intelligence source to say the least.

Even if there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the Bush Government knew this while presenting their case before the UN, its recent discovery does retro-actively categorize the US invasion of Iraq as a unilateral military action that is illegal under international law. I state this knowing full well that international law is only as effective as its enforcement capacities.

Now if we are using the standard definition of war as a conflict between two sides then we must define the nature of America (and its allies) opposition in Iraq. Who are they fighting? Who is supporting their adversaries? What are the stated goals of the belligerents?

The current situation in Iraq is pitting American forces against militia's and guerrilla forces from both the Shiite and Sunni communities. These groups, supported by considerable domestic tension and armaments and training from foreign state and non-state actors have multiple goals, from simple continual destabilization to the establishment of a theocratic republic. The American army is neither capable nor orientated towards fighting an asymmetrical war against such diverse opponents with such diverse goals. Japan and Germany were nations with traditional military forces and homogenous populations that were orientated over centuries to follow a central political decision making body. Iraq was formed by the British in the early part of the 20th century from three divergent ethnic and religious groups to ensure resource access and transportation as well as cementing regional hegemonic influence.

The only form of authority that had successfully governed the country was based on secular totalitarianism. A form of government, though brutal and despotic, prevented the complete dissolution and instability we are witnessing now.

With these points in mind, the possibility of victory in line with traditional military concepts is impossible. One cannot win in asymmetrical warfare against an indigenous force driven by pre-existing ethnic tensions. That is a fact supported by a plethora of historical examples.

The only means in which success can be measured is by the ability of trained and deployed local regiments in front-line combat duty to maintain relative stability after the departure of foreign military forces.

That is why you cannot merely have “win†and “lose†in Iraq. America can never defeat the insurgents; it can only transfer the fight to Iraqi military and law enforcement forces. The measure of its success will not be “terrorist†body counts but months in which the nation avoids complete civil-war. Nothing that Bush has said indicates that he is capable of performing that task.

[Birdy]

Maybe put another way, are "the good guys" always "the good guys"?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying anyone is "good" or "bad". This isn't about taking sides. Rather it's about seeing the good amongst the bad, or the bad amongst the good. It's a nightmare situation however you wash it, but i think in say thirty years down the road things may look a little cleaner than they have in the past, even though they look so dirty now.

[d_rawk]

Welcome, Mr.Flibble. Hope you'll be sticking around.

[Birdy]

yes! welcome Mr. Flibble! I have stuff to say regarding what you posted, but no time to say it right now. I'm in the midst of planning a HUGE auction! Please hang tight!

[Mr.Flibble]

Thanks everyone for the warm welcome.

Due to my time constraints tonight, I cannot guarantee a prompt response either.

[Hux]

Welcome Mr. Flibble!!

[Birdy]

hi mr. flibble,

you bring up some really good points to consider.. thanks! my existence in this thread was to merely show that there can be some amount of good, in a pile of bad. I'm not a supporter of bush, nor a supporter of Iraq, but there has been a level of commitment to date from the US that would make merely 'pulling out' as some people in these forums wish for, disastrous.

I'll reconsider my win/lose decisiveness, but would like at some point in the near future to debate the whole 'war is not necessarily war' line with you. unfortunately right now i'm swamped with work.

again, welcome.. i like your style..... so far!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Welcome, Mr.Flibble's !

I think you nailed the problems nicely.

The current situation in Iraq is pitting American forces against militia's and guerrilla forces from both the Shiite and Sunni communities. These groups, supported by considerable domestic tension and armaments and training from foreign state and non-state actors have multiple goals, from simple continual destabilization to the establishment of a theocratic republic. The American army is neither capable nor orientated towards fighting an asymmetrical war against such diverse opponents with such diverse goals.

Bingo. They don't know just who they've been fighting, except in the terrifically abstract. That's the (perverse) beauty of the word "terrorists": it can stand for anyone who's the target of the day - and the US military seems pretty adept at making enemies with through hamfisted offensives (deliberate and unintended).

... you cannot merely have “win†and “lose†in Iraq. America can never defeat the insurgents; it can only transfer the fight to Iraqi military and law enforcement forces. The measure of its success will not be “terrorist†body counts but months in which the nation avoids complete civil-war. Nothing that Bush has said indicates that he is capable of performing that task.

I'd say, "Who's got my heady Muslim Gandhi" here, but then Gandhi was assassinated by one within his own fold on the heels of Independence.

It is a pity that Canada's given up its traditional role as peacekeepers in favour of the American role of offensive combat, rather than the other way around.