Newark Execution Murders

[Munkay]

Let's suppose you're right. How do you explain that both the Congress and the Senate passed to the hands of the Democrats in the last election? If the hot fear topic is terrorism (and it is) and fear is what drives voters in the US, then shouldn't both of the houses still firmly be in Republican hands?

To put it bluntly, no. The fear mongering in politics isn't a partisan problem, both parties seem equally invested in this kind of political practice. I don't see the liberal swing in Congress as anything particularly different, except maybe for the colored animal on their banner.

The fear mongering in politics has become a kind of cycle: hype up one concern more than the others, promise a definitive solution, if solution is somewhat effective get re-elected to continue and finish the job, if unsuccessful face a loss to the other party who has a new cure-all answer.

In 2006 the popular opinion swung the other way, and felt that the Republicans have failed to live up to the fears of terrorism. Democrats (at least the ones in the Northeast) road a platform that consisted of: 1. The Republicans haven't focused enough on homeland security leaving our country vulnerable to new attacks; 2. The Republicans haven't focused enough on Al Qaeda hide outs in Afghanistan/Pakistan; 3. The Republicans have us stuck in Iraq and they will get us out (a few campaigns were so bold as to allude to the 'Unhappy Iraqi's mean more terrorists in the future' argument). As a result the Dems road a wave to Congress while some great moderate senators got bounced because they were riding the wrong animal.

Propaganda about studies proving the "US is more vulnerable to attacks now than before 9/11" were touted, everyone remained scared of their middle eastern descendant neighbors, and control of Congress swapped hands. The result a year later? Efficiency, a paradigm change to fear quelling, a much safer America, and the end of foreign wars. Wait, no, none of that happened. But that's the nature of the creature that is Congress.

What has remained along with the attitude that 'the Republicans got it wrong' is the same intensity of fear. Not only did the Republicans get it wrong, but you must elect us to quickly fix the dire problem.

As I said earlier, I don't want to make light of the threat of terrorism. There's a good reason to have a bit of irrational fear about it. But the fear is being amplified by both sides, and both are trying to ride that wave for their advantage.

With all that said, I do feel I must make a qualifying statement. I've spoken in some very broad strokes about politics in America, strokes broad enough that even I can think of some places to nit pick my argument. But I do think the general weight of my argument is true, we're in a very odd situation when it comes to politics. Personally, I gave up a long time ago believing politicians were super-human moral beings. It's a dirty affair run by some imperfect descendants of monkeys. It's not an excuse for their poor actions, but it's also the reason I don't think they should be crucified for them either. We'll see how the next election shapes up, but as I see it right now there doesn't seem to be much change, except some immigration and health care hot topics thrown in to the mix.

Cheers,

Munk

[Ashock]

To put it bluntly, no. The fear mongering in politics isn't a partisan problem, both parties seem equally invested in this kind of political practice. I don't see the liberal swing in Congress as anything particularly different, except maybe for the colored animal on their banner.

The fear mongering in politics has become a kind of cycle: hype up one concern more than the others, promise a definitive solution, if solution is somewhat effective get re-elected to continue and finish the job, if unsuccessful face a loss to the other party who has a new cure-all answer.

In 2006 the popular opinion swung the other way, and felt that the Republicans have failed to live up to the fears of terrorism. Democrats (at least the ones in the Northeast) road a platform that consisted of: 1. The Republicans haven't focused enough on homeland security leaving our country vulnerable to new attacks; 2. The Republicans haven't focused enough on Al Qaeda hide outs in Afghanistan/Pakistan; 3. The Republicans have us stuck in Iraq and they will get us out (a few campaigns were so bold as to allude to the 'Unhappy Iraqi's mean more terrorists in the future' argument). As a result the Dems road a wave to Congress while some great moderate senators got bounced because they were riding the wrong animal.

Propaganda about studies proving the "US is more vulnerable to attacks now than before 9/11" were touted, everyone remained scared of their middle eastern descendant neighbors, and control of Congress swapped hands. The result a year later? Efficiency, a paradigm change to fear quelling, a much safer America, and the end of foreign wars. Wait, no, none of that happened. But that's the nature of the creature that is Congress.

What has remained along with the attitude that 'the Republicans got it wrong' is the same intensity of fear. Not only did the Republicans get it wrong, but you must elect us to quickly fix the dire problem.

As I said earlier, I don't want to make light of the threat of terrorism. There's a good reason to have a bit of irrational fear about it. But the fear is being amplified by both sides, and both are trying to ride that wave for their advantage.

With all that said, I do feel I must make a qualifying statement. I've spoken in some very broad strokes about politics in America, strokes broad enough that even I can think of some places to nit pick my argument. But I do think the general weight of my argument is true, we're in a very odd situation when it comes to politics. Personally, I gave up a long time ago believing politicians were super-human moral beings. It's a dirty affair run by some imperfect descendants of monkeys. It's not an excuse for their poor actions, but it's also the reason I don't think they should be crucified for them either. We'll see how the next election shapes up, but as I see it right now there doesn't seem to be much change, except some immigration and health care hot topics thrown in to the mix.

Cheers,

Munk

The only thing that the Dems have stated about the whole terrorist/war issue regarding Republicans is your 3rd point about being stuck in Iraq. I haven't seen anything about your first 2 points being used by the Democrats. You can say a lot about both parties but one thing is certain: The Republicans are tougher on the whole terror issue than the Democrats. They take it more seriously or whatever else you want to call it. Call it using the terror card or whatever else but the fact remains that they are tougher. To deny that is just dishonest. So, while your first post *was* good, as was already pointed out above, I think it was simply wrong.

[Munkay]

The only thing that the Dems have stated about the whole terrorist/war issue regarding Republicans is your 3rd point about being stuck in Iraq. I haven't seen anything about your first 2 points being used by the Democrats. You can say a lot about both parties but one thing is certain: The Republicans are tougher on the whole terror issue than the Democrats. They take it more seriously or whatever else you want to call it. Call it using the terror card or whatever else but the fact remains that they are tougher. To deny that is just dishonest. So, while your first post *was* good, as was already pointed out above, I think it was simply wrong.

Ashock, I respect you as a poster on the lounge (and will continue to after this post). But I'm really surprised by your response here.

There was plenty of propaganda in the 2006 election by Dems about Republicans being too 'focused on Iraq' and not on the real sources of terror, Al Qaeda in the -stans, and homeland security. If the senators and reps in your area didn't resort to these tactics, than I do think that is great. But I do know what I read, what kept me troubled the night before the elections, and kept me uncertain up until voting day in the booth.

Charlie Bass was bounced from the House after serving as a 6 term veteran. I truly believed he stood for the best interests of NH first, and partisan politics second. He was beat out in 2006 by Paul Hodes, after the national Democratic party pumped tons of money into his campaign. This campaign was more of a smear-fest of Charlie Bass, something at least in this case he really didn't deserve. The 'failings' of Bass included arguments about the republicans failure on the war on terror at home.

Look, I know my posts have come off with a republican lean. That's not an excuse for their actions. But I do think a lot of people have decided the liberals are the 'good guys' and the republicans the 'fear mongering bad guys'. And the problem is I don't see it that way. It's muddled and both parties are doing their part to continue the culture of fear - whether or not it was the republicans who created the fear about terrorism. If the democrats were concerned in stopping the culture of fear, I do believe they'd be calling out the republican fear mongering directly. Things like the 'terrorism color scale' are fear mongering personified, tied in a neat little bow, and delivered to the citizens of the US. Instead of calling for an end of overblown worries, I hear new solutions to the problem. The problem is that their solutions still treat the terrorism-problem like a dire gaping hole that needs to fixed.

There may be a hole in the dike that needs plugging. But there are also a lot of other holes letting in water. But both sides are too busy yelling the sky is falling over one or two topics (terrorism and Iraq), while ignoring the other ones. And that, like it or not, is continuing fear-mongering.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

The only thing that the Dems have stated about the whole terrorist/war issue regarding Republicans is your 3rd point about being stuck in Iraq. I haven't seen anything about your first 2 points being used by the Democrats. You can say a lot about both parties but one thing is certain: The Republicans are tougher on the whole terror issue than the Democrats. They take it more seriously or whatever else you want to call it. Call it using the terror card or whatever else but the fact remains that they are tougher. To deny that is just dishonest. So, while your first post *was* good, as was already pointed out above, I think it was simply wrong.

It struck me while reading this, that perhaps our military is really rather brilliant. The USSR went to Afghanistan and because it became a radicalizing lightening rod for Islam, thousands of Jihadist around the muslim world went there every year to become muhajadin warriors. Had the US done the same, what would have been different? So, could it be possible that the Iraq war was done intentionally to draw this same effect away from the bleak mountains and undefendable terrain of Afghanistan, into an area more able to be defended from endless insurgency. So, perhaps a strategy in taking on pan-Islamic jihadism is to attack them across the broadest front possible, thus preventing them to organize and mass their muhajadins in one place. Drawing it to Iraq also resolved the Saddam problem, and if things get out of control the failed state of Iraq is bounded by the strong military states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey which would intervene to preserve their own national interests. Two of which are mostly with the US when it comes to military.

I agree with Munk on this one. All sides are fear mongering. Most of the current dems leadership are doves, and always were doves even though in the face of political pressure they voted for the Iraq war. For the dems that were hawks, and for the dems that are doves (as well as the liberal press), as soon as the peace became difficult to secure they turned on the opposition President. This has been true since the Aircraft Carrier "Mission Accomplished" press fiasco, where the intent of the victory message was for the crew of the carrier, not for the world. What has happened since the new presidential race began is that more Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush, and also use the Iraq war as a political tool. Worse than the Democrat turncoats that have worked hard to search for a scapegoat to explain their support of the war, are the increasing number of Republican turncoats that have done so for fear of political survival. Yeah, yeah, everyone decries the lack of WMDs in Iraq, and the zealousness of the Tenents CIA to support a war. But, it was Congress' job to also review the evidence and come to their own conclusions. Congress and the President were given bad data equally, and they all jumped quickly into a war. Everyone is equally culpable for that, except the few who voted against it. I've used this analogy here before, but Iraq under Saddam was like a crack house which didn't happen to have any evidence in it at the time we kicked down the door. Do we regret kicking down the door, seizing the house, and trying to rehabilitate it?

So, what kind of fear are they mongering? Quagmire? Another Vietnam? Pan-Islamic Jihad? Nuclear terrorism? Losing the war? Or, as I've decried from day one, the parade of death. Any success is ignored, and it is so much more delicious to the press to have story after story on the latest victims of IEDs or suicide car bombs driven into crowded markets. Does anyone think that pulling out would be a good idea?

This supports one of my major libertarian tenets, in that wherever possible with any endeavor, government takes your money and makes a mess. The US military is doing a great job considering the asymmetric difficulties they face, and they will win in Iraq and Afghanistan if the politicians will get out of their way and allow them to win. But, with a one sided story always pointing out the bleakest, worst, and darkest, it tends to sap everyones courage and morale, or worse, give rise to anger and radical retaliation to those attempting to do the right thing. The right thing in this case is the fend off a civil war, and external insurgency forces in Iraq long enough for them to create a central government powerful enough to defend themselves.

[NuurAbSaal]

The US military is doing a great job considering the asymmetric difficulties they face, and they will win in Iraq and Afghanistan if the politicians will get out of their way and allow them to win.

I rather liked your post up to this point. Failure to realise that some "wars" cannot be resolved by military means (alone) is what created this whole mess, and belief by too many people in your statement is what, in my opinon, will keep it a mess.

I did not, and still don't, support the decision to invade Iraq but realise that pulling out now would only make matters worse.The world now is, again in my mildly informed opinion, not a safer place than it was before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nor can any amount of military activity, save perhaps massive commitment of troops to create some sort of military-enforced police state, remedy that situation.

The mess has been created (and yes there was a certain mess already in place in Iraq). It is going to take years to get that swamp of violence to dry up and military action can, at best, be only a part of it. I said earlier that pulling out is not an option, as troops are quite abviously required to maintain a semblance of security (if only at times and in certain places), real security however, one that transcends the Iraqi borders and spreads to affected nations, can only come from drying up support for the ideology that fuels the terror in Iraq and elsewhere. Now, I could try to sum up my ideas for how such a thing could be accomplished, but I'm afraid I'd be sitting at my keyboard until well into tomorrow and the key points are blatantly obvious and utterly unrealistic (oil, reason, cooperation...).

So I'm going to leave it at that and hope I'll be forgiven.

take care
Tarabulus


EDIT: Re-reading your last paragraph I found our positions in the matter of keeping troops in Iraq and for what reason to be rather the same, so the elaboration on my part about why troops are needed is kind of pointless. Still disagreeing about the "winning" though.

[Jester]

It struck me while reading this, that perhaps our military is really rather brilliant. The USSR went to Afghanistan and because it became a radicalizing lightening rod for Islam, thousands of Jihadist around the muslim world went there every year to become muhajadin warriors. Had the US done the same, what would have been different? So, could it be possible that the Iraq war was done intentionally to draw this same effect away from the bleak mountains and undefendable terrain of Afghanistan, into an area more able to be defended from endless insurgency. So, perhaps a strategy in taking on pan-Islamic jihadism is to attack them across the broadest front possible, thus preventing them to organize and mass their muhajadins in one place. Drawing it to Iraq also resolved the Saddam problem, and if things get out of control the failed state of Iraq is bounded by the strong military states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey which would intervene to preserve their own national interests. Two of which are mostly with the US when it comes to military.

First off, you did go to war in Afghanistan, and still are at war there.

Second, if this was the strategy, it ain't working.

This has been true since the Aircraft Carrier "Mission Accomplished" press fiasco, where the intent of the victory message was for the crew of the carrier, not for the world.

The president flys his jet onto an aircraft carrier, and declares that major combat operations in Iraq are over, in front of a flag that says 'mission accomplished', and you're calling this a press fiasco? Gimme a break.

Congress and the President were given bad data equally, and they all jumped quickly into a war. Everyone is equally culpable for that, except the few who voted against it.

There is ample evidence that the President and his administration demanded data to support their war policy, and put strong pressure on the intelligence community to provide it. Accuracy bedamned, they wanted a war, and stopped at nothing until they got it. All parties were negligent in their dutes (and the Democrats were weasels, as usual, except for a noble few) but to equate the liars with the decieved is wrong.

I've used this analogy here before, but Iraq under Saddam was like a crack house which didn't happen to have any evidence in it at the time we kicked down the door. Do we regret kicking down the door, seizing the house, and trying to rehabilitate it?

If the polls are to be believed, yes.

So, what kind of fear are they mongering? Quagmire? Another Vietnam? Pan-Islamic Jihad? Nuclear terrorism? Losing the war? Or, as I've decried from day one, the parade of death. Any success is ignored, and it is so much more delicious to the press to have story after story on the latest victims of IEDs or suicide car bombs driven into crowded markets.

Aside from the eternal "we got rid of a vicious tyrant," what progress is there exactly? Violence has been consistently escalating, rebuilding has ground to a halt, and the old Iraq is flying apart into a sea of sectarian armies.

Does anyone think that pulling out would be a good idea?

I do. The majority of Americans do. The majority of Iraqis do. The majority of the world does. I think the question is "who's left that still doesn't?"

The US military is doing a great job considering the asymmetric difficulties they face, and they will win in Iraq and Afghanistan if the politicians will get out of their way and allow them to win. But, with a one sided story always pointing out the bleakest, worst, and darkest, it tends to sap everyones courage and morale, or worse, give rise to anger and radical retaliation to those attempting to do the right thing. The right thing in this case is the fend off a civil war, and external insurgency forces in Iraq long enough for them to create a central government powerful enough to defend themselves.

"We coulda won in 'nam 'cept for those damn hippies. Curse their flag-burning souls, sapping our morale!"

You're losing because you haven't got any way to win. The situation at home has almost nothing to do with it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

First off, you did go to war in Afghanistan, and still are at war there.

Second, if this was the strategy, it ain't working....

And we are still in Japan, Germany, Balkans, and South Korea. So, what? The Afghan force is mostly special forces aiding the national Afghan army. It's a very different force from Iraq, which has become some of that, but mostly a police and training force. I could bicker with each of your counter points, but I'll leave that for now. Suffice it to say that we disagree and have different viewpoints. I am saying that if the externally fueled jihadists from the Islamic world were added to the Afghan problem, we'd be in the same war that the USSR was in which built the likes of OBL. That was the point.

So, the strategy may well be that it is very good to engage the front on Islamic extremism broadly, from within other like minded nations that seek to maintain their existing political hegemony, rather than succumb to radical theocracy. For those failed states, or those who succumbed... Well, I think this is the crux of "You are either with us, or against us." Which politically I read as saying, you are either supporting the forces of radical Islam or you are helping us to fight it. After 911, we declared war on Islamic extremism wherever it exists, not with any particular nation. I guess there is a middle ground though, which is reserved for the fence sitters. We could argue about that last group, which are either in fearful political jeopardy, or trying to ignore the problem hoping it is a passing fad. Personally, I rather think radical Islam has become a popular ideological movement in some nations, much like the hippies of the 60's.

[kandrathe]

I rather liked your post up to this point. Failure to realise that some "wars" cannot be resolved by military means (alone) is what created this whole mess, and belief by too many people in your statement is what, in my opinon, will keep it a mess.

Good point, and I agree. Let me clarify further. After 911 we declared a war on terror, and winning "The War on Terror" is the only option. To lose would mean the success of anarchy within the West, and the success of extremist theocracies in many states throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. I would also say that what you see in Iraq is not "war" in the classical sense. Is France at war? They have as much violence. What you see in Iraq is a police action trying to root out an insurgency, and is a part of the War on Terror. The US is engaged in an asymmetrical nationless war against a violent ideology characterized by those justified by their twisted beliefs in remorselessly killing infidels or taking hostages and beheading them. Whether the fledgling Iraqi democracy succeeds or fails is immaterial to the real war, which is to prevent whatever remains from being a threat to the US or its allies.

So, the war is not just in Iraq. And, there is a part of that insurgency conflict which may be unwinnable by the US, or the Maliki government. The part that we may be losing is the part where the nationalistic Iraqi's kick us out due to a civil war, which they may do eventually if political unity between Shia, Sunni and Kurds is impossible. Or, we may lose that part of the war, because we choose to give up trying to keep it unified. This may not be a Vietnam because there is no strong Iraqi opposition leader driving a nationalist ideology, but it is looking alot like a Lebanon where whomever gains power is quickly destroyed by their opponents with the help of external state sponsors (Syria, Iran, Saudis, or Turks). Like the war weary Afghans, or Lebanese, the insurgency will end in Iraq when the people get tired of fighting, or a strong national government(s) are able to subdue/placate their opposition. But, whichever scenario, it will be the Iraqi civilians who may suffer in untold millions depending on our decisions. Iraq was artificially constructed after WWI, and maybe like the Balkans, or Yugoslavia in particular it needs to disintegrate because the only thing that held it together was a brutal dictatorship. When free, these people may decide that they don't want to share governance with each other. I have always maintained that a provincial federalist solution would have been a better choice for Iraq.

But, hopefully this disintegration can be staved off until we have accomplished the part that is important for winning the "War on Terror". This objective is that hopefully even within a peaceful transition to a multi-state solution for disintegrated Iraq, that each component not devolve into a haven for terrorists. This means that any new state have a solid government with a rule of law, and hopefully a respect for liberty and individual rights. Democracy is secondary to the previous statement. Either way, peaceful or war torn, eventually, the West will be on the hook financially to engage in nation building in what we now call Iraq.

[Jester]

The Afghan force is mostly special forces aiding the national Afghan army. It's a very different force from Iraq, which has become some of that, but mostly a police and training force.

We're losing the war in Afghanistan. If you think it's just a matter of staying behind like in Korea, or Japan, you're sorely mistaken.

Canada will be pulling back from major combat operations (very much NOT policing or the 'afghan army', whatever the heck they're doing) in 2009. Good luck getting someone else to bite the bullet.

Violence is increasing, the Taliban is gaining ground. The cushier situation up north is merely a bubble, to be popped as soon as military power moves out of the south.

You already are in another Soviets-in-Afghanistan war. You just managed to convince your allies to fight it for you. But that's not going to last more than a couple more years.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

Good point, and I agree. Let me clarify further. After 911 we declared a war on terror, and winning "The War on Terror" is the only option. To lose would mean the success of anarchy within the West, and the success of extremist theocracies in many states throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Only it's not a "war", there is really no point to reach that would qualify as "victory" and the "success of extremist theocracies"? I don't think so.

I would also say that what you see in Iraq is not "war" in the classical sense. Is France at war? They have as much violence.

You gotta be kidding me... tens of thousands dead and utter anarchy in FRANCE?

Iraqi's

Good to see that one happens to other people too:)

But, hopefully this disintegration can be staved off until we have accomplished the part that is important for winning the "War on Terror". This objective is that hopefully even within a peaceful transition to a multi-state solution for disintegrated Iraq, that each component not devolve into a haven for terrorists. This means that any new state have a solid government with a rule of law, and hopefully a respect for liberty and individual rights. Democracy is secondary to the previous statement.

Winning the "[sic!]War on Terror", right. All the good-will building of the US Armed Forces should pay off eventually and the Iraqi civilians will cast down the evil extremists for you. No wait, you are creating more of those as you go along, silly me. And peaceful mulit-state after years of more or less ignoring the fact that you are dealing with different groups, ethnicities, muslims. Right.

Either way, peaceful or war torn, eventually, the West will be on the hook financially to engage in nation building in what we now call Iraq.

Well, some companies are making a killing, harhar.

Seems to me that you are ignoring key facts about the whole mess but are quite good at coming off supportive and optimistic, especially about that whole "winning" part.

Let's just disagree on most of it and leave it there.

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

Seems to me that you are ignoring key facts about the whole mess but are quite good at coming off supportive and optimistic, especially about that whole "winning" part.

So I take it you believe that if we were just a little nicer to the murderous extremists they would finally see the error of their ways, or perhaps the rational Islamic world would finally grow a spine and denounce them? Or, maybe we should go back to the Clinton strategy of ignoring them, and whenever they perform a murderous act, we should prove our impotence by lobbing a cruise missile at some token symbolic target? I'm no expert in asymmetrical warfare, but I know you don't win by being weak, hiding from them, ignoring them, or as well by bullying them. From what I've read, we are doing the right things in Iraq now. I don't know if it will work, but in my opinion developing a strategy and trying to do something is better than what had been done the previous two decades. I believe ultimately that this is a battle of will, so whomever flinches first loses. Based on the opinions here, and the ever popular tide it will the us first. So if you are correct and defeat is inevitable, then I fear only more murder, mayhem and bloodshed can follow.

[kandrathe]

We're losing the war in Afghanistan. If you think it's just a matter of staying behind like in Korea, or Japan, you're sorely mistaken.

Canada will be pulling back from major combat operations (very much NOT policing or the 'afghan army', whatever the heck they're doing) in 2009. Good luck getting someone else to bite the bullet.

Violence is increasing, the Taliban is gaining ground. The cushier situation up north is merely a bubble, to be popped as soon as military power moves out of the south.

You already are in another Soviets-in-Afghanistan war. You just managed to convince your allies to fight it for you. But that's not going to last more than a couple more years.

-Jester

The Soviets lost or had to discharge 1/2 a million solders due to illness, and wounds. More than 50,000 were killed. The Afghans lost over a million people, with 1/3 of the country fleeing to their neighbors. The population of Kandahar during the Soviet bombings went from 200,000 people down to less than 25,000.

Comparatively the total coalition death toll thus far from late fall 2001 to July 5th of 2007 was 573. What are you talking about? You make these blanket claims, but from where I sit you just pull this stuff out of... thin air.

[NuurAbSaal]

So I take it you believe that if we were just a little nicer to the murderous extremists they would finally see the error of their ways, or perhaps the rational Islamic world would finally grow a spine and denounce them? Or, maybe we should go back to the Clinton strategy of ignoring them, and whenever they perform a murderous act, we should prove our impotence by lobbing a cruise missile at some token symbolic target? I'm no expert in asymmetrical warfare, but I know you don't win by being weak, hiding from them, ignoring them, or as well by bullying them. From what I've read, we are doing the right things in Iraq now. I don't know if it will work, but in my opinion developing a strategy and trying to do something is better than what had been done the previous two decades. I believe ultimately that this is a battle of will, so whomever flinches first loses. Based on the opinions here, and the ever popular tide it will the us first. So if you are correct and defeat is inevitable, then I fear only more murder, mayhem and bloodshed can follow.

The fundamental error, that you keep making, is assuming that this asymmetrical warfare is the way to win the War on Terror. A huge political effort supported by as many nations as possible is, in my limited understanding of it all, the only way to slowly put an end to the tragedy that's happening in Iraq right now.

American policy looked promising at the start of Afghanistan and then things kind of got out of hand, politically speaking. Decisions were made that make achieving above-mentioned effort nigh impossible. And not only because of a certain perceived lack of trying on part of the US ("coalition of the willing" and the rest can go to hell), other governments, being made up of politicians, added their own way of failing to the mess.

Continuing what you are doing now is not going to solve anything, ever, unless you consider nuking stuff or deploying hundreds of thousands more troops. Ask Israel.

This whole "whoever flinches first" crap might fit well in a John Wayne movie but it's totally out of place in middle-eastern reality as I perceive it.

take care
Tarabulus

[Jester]

The Soviets lost or had to discharge 1/2 a million solders due to illness, and wounds. More than 50,000 were killed. The Afghans lost over a million people, with 1/3 of the country fleeing to their neighbors. The population of Kandahar during the Soviet bombings went from 200,000 people down to less than 25,000.

Comparatively the total coalition death toll thus far from late fall 2001 to July 5th of 2007 was 573. What are you talking about? You make these blanket claims, but from where I sit you just pull this stuff out of... thin air.

Obviously, you're not going to lose as many to casualties as the Soviets, or cause as much devastation. That's not my point.

What I mean is that you're in a losing war in Afghanistan with no obvious way to change that fact.

I don't know where you get this thin air garbage. My country is at war in Afghanistan. I pay attention to how we're doing, and the situation does not look good. The best we can manage is an unpopular standstill against the Taliban, and unless someone else wants to take our spot after 2009, even that is going to collapse. Casualties are not high, but progress is going backwards. Give it another few years, and it's looking like the country will be split between warlords and Taliban, just like before the invasion. We will have accomplished little or nothing.

-Jester

[Thenryb]

Right on, Jester. I agree with almost every conclusion you have reached. I am old enough to remember how McNamara's Mathboys and a few whiz-kids left over from the Kennedy years (eg McGeorge Bundy) snowed LBJ into thinking the Vietnam conflict was capable of successful resolution. The case was never made for invading Iraq to begin with and the consequence of uncontrolled violence between Sunni and Shia completely predictable. This has been held in check for centuries by various tyrants such as Hussein and the Shah of Iran. I have no clue what should be done now that we have created the vacuum. The problem seems insoluble to me. Certainly none of our presidential candidates seem to have a clue. Most of them were snowed by the briefings preceding the war into voting to support it. Anyone who had the judgment at that time to withhold support certainly deserves kudos, although that does not mean they would have much of an idea how to bring it to an end.

[Jester]

The case was never made for invading Iraq to begin with and the consequence of uncontrolled violence between Sunni and Shia completely predictable. This has been held in check for centuries by various tyrants such as Hussein and the Shah of Iran. I have no clue what should be done now that we have created the vacuum. The problem seems insoluble to me.

Let's not forget the Kurds, who are provoking a war with Turkey in order to liberate their compatriots and establish a separate Kurdistan. This will force the US to pick between its most loyal allies in Iraq and its most powerful ally on the borders. I think the Kurds will get the short end of the stick, but you never know.

Certainly none of our presidential candidates seem to have a clue. Most of them were snowed by the briefings preceding the war into voting to support it. Anyone who had the judgment at that time to withhold support certainly deserves kudos, although that does not mean they would have much of an idea how to bring it to an end.

Barack Obama opposed the war. Of course, he is making up for this lapse in misjudgement by offering his support for the next one in Iran, in order to look 'tough' on foreign policy. Still, there is at least one candidate who opposed the war running for President, and that's something, I guess.

-Jester

[Thecla]

Let's not forget the Kurds, who are provoking a war with Turkey in order to liberate their compatriots and establish a separate Kurdistan. This will force the US to pick between its most loyal allies in Iraq and its most powerful ally on the borders. I think the Kurds will get the short end of the stick, but you never know.

My impression of Kurdish history is that they've consistently got the really short end of the stick. They must be among the ones most worried by the possibility of a rapid US withdrawal, and they deserve a better fate in the future. While I'm sure there's a huge desire among Kurds for an independent state, my guess is that the majority would settle for some sort of de-facto independence within Iraq and don't want to provoke a war with Turkey at this point. If and when things in Iraq deteriorate further, who knows what will happen.

But it's certainly ironic that the strongest US allies in Iraq, the Kurds, have connections with a terrorist group (the PKK) that is responsible for perhaps 37,000 deaths in Turkey, or that despite claims to promote democracy, the US is supportive of a military dictator like Musharraf (personally, I think they just came up with the "democracy" thing out of desperation when the "WMD" thing didn't work out, so you can hardly blame them).

But, back on topic, I've also heard that the Newark Murderers had PKK connections.