Still indifferent to the surge

I continue to be indifferent to “the surge”, considering the debate over it that’s raging in the capitol largly a distraction from the real question:  how do we muster the will to prevent us from allowing a catastrophe even greater than the one that’s going on now?

Some are not as indifferent.  Rev. John Krenson makes the moral case for the surge at One Hand Clapping.  Here’s a snippet:

The only moral course we have today among many poor choices is to successfully finish what we started. We have the technology. We have the military and industrial resources necessary. The question is do we have the will – the question asked of me personally in Afghanistan and of my comrades in Iraq. If we leave now as Mr. Kmiec demands, make no mistake that there will be a bloodbath of proportions we have yet to acknowledge or realize. It will make the casualty toll of the current insurgency look like a schoolyard fight. That, if for no other reason, should cause us to exercise our responsibility in Iraq. Anything less would be inhumane. We will succeed if we have the will to succeed.

I’m largely sympathetic to Rev. Krenson’s argument without the hope—I don’t believe that success as nearly anyone would define success is within our grasp in anything like an acceptable timeframe.  I continue to believe that there are both a moral and pragmatic reasons for our maintaining a substantial military presence in Iraq.

The pragmatic argument depends entirely on whether we are better able to prevent the violence in Iraq from overflowing Iraq’s border while within Iraq or from outside and, try as I might, I haven’t been able to provoke anything like a substantial discussion of that question.

37 comments… add one
  • Ken Hoop Link

    “I’m largely sympathetic to Rev. Krenson’s argument without the hope—I don’t believe that success as nearly anyone would define success is within our grasp in anything like an acceptable timeframe. I continue to believe that there are both a moral and pragmatic reasons for our maintaining a substantial military presence in Iraq.”

    Well, here’s a great way to pose a loaded question: posit that acting both morally and pragmatically are unacceptable.

    But do you believe in democracy? Then you leave,in fact you left
    in 2004. Since then a series of polls have shown consistent results,
    Iraqis in large majorities have wanted us gone. Now this does not
    include many government officials who believe US departure constitutes
    their death warrants. But that juxtaposition speaks to the sustainability/popularity of the government.

    Those who believe the US allowed a bloodbath in southeast Asia by way of departing Vietnam also are oblivious to the fact the French had
    warned us our increased presence in Vietnam would set in motion an
    ultimate bloodbath.

    The Reverend might similarly believe police intervening in a domestic
    squabble had the means to bring the couples together permanently
    but the reality is, more often than that, they become the targets.
    Compounding this analogy, no one, neither Sunni nor Shiite, called
    in the policing US occupiers. And both approve of continued insurgency
    attacks on them.

    Yeah, the choices are poor, but staying in Iraq also bolsters the
    temptation of Bush to widen the war to Iran-to redeem his legacy,
    and pressured by the neocons who want him to attack yet another enemy of their prized favored nation. US troops in Iraq would likely suffer
    great consequences from a prepared Iran and their Shiite brothers
    in Iraq.

    Feingold and Kucinich have the best answer-defund the war and
    place the troops out of harm’s way.

  • I’m don’t think the surge will be successful, but I will support it anyway? Why? It’s now policy and I want us to ultimately succeed. Fools hope perhaps, but like all good soldiers, once the decision is made, I’ll do my best to see that it’s carried out and successful.

    Ken, don’t worry, you will likely get your chance. If/when the surge fails then your wish will probably become, for the most part, reality.

  • Ken, you might want to read those polls more closely. Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave…eventually. They don’t overwhelmingly support our immediate withdrawal.

    As to democracy I can only make a couple of observations. First, democracy and polls aren’t the same thing. Second, you don’t have democracy when one or more of the parties striving for office are armed (as is the case in Iraq).

    Feingold and Kucinich are both irresponsible idiots. We’ll continue to have interests in Iraq and in the region whether we withdraw or not and neither of them give a damn about those in a mad dash for the door.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Not true, Dave. Better Google the MSNBC and Pew and ZogbyPolls etc. from 2004 on.

    Only the Kurds want us to stay-and the argument of the Shias and Sunnis, to your point is the occupation failed to maintain stability and that Iraqis themselves have a better ability to do so after we’re gone. And the same polls show majorities approve of insurgent attacks on US troops further demonstrating the error of your statement and the Iraqis’ most important
    wishes. For failure to assist an occupier against an insurgency dooms the occupier.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    One more thing, Dave. The only interest we have in the Mideast is oil. And as James Burnham, a real conservative said long ago, whoever controls the oil will sell it at market prices–unless our Israeli First tampering
    turns the whole region into an oil-unavailable powderkeg,which would be our just desserts.

  • Your point, your Google.

    The only interest we have in the Mideast is oil.

    Hyperbolic hooey. Of course, oil is an interest but it’s not the only interest. We have an interest in preserving stability in the region for humanitarian reasons. We have an interest in preserving stability in the region for security reasons.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

    Liberal humanitarian/Wilsonian world-improving garbage,Dave. Are you Jewish or merely a dupe of the Zionist Lobby which has brought havoc to the region under the guise of humanitarian concern when their real concern is expanding Zionist borders until they equal Old Testament
    perimeters? Or maybe you believe oil barons are humanitarians? What a crock.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Dave, do you believe giving half of Europe to Stalin was humanitarian?

  • Relevance? The subject is the Middle East in 2007 not Stalin or Europe in 1946.

  • Hmm. I’m not Jewish and I’m not a Wilsonian. I’m not especially Zionist—I’ve taken a bit of flak here on being skeptical about those who freely intermingle folklore, history, and politics. I don’t think the Israelis are out friends; I just think they know a strong horse when they see one.

    Ken, if you think we can secede from the world and continue to prosper, you’re kidding youself.

  • “Are you Jewish or merely a dupe of the Zionist Lobby . . .”

    I suspected you were an anti-semite from earlier exchanges, but it’s not an accusation I throw around lightly. The above remark, however, could only have been written by an anti-semite. Not because you criticize Israel, but because you assume that only a Jew or a Zionist could reasonably support Israel.

    Are you an Arab, Ken, or merely a terrorist dupe?”

    See why that’s a problem?

  • In Latest Speech, Congresswoman Sherri Davis, R-CA, Calls for Bipartisan Bridge-Building

    Calls for ‘London Bridge of Unity’ between Republicans, Democrats and the Nation; cites former president Ronald Reagan as ‘bipartisan role model,” “major bridge-builder”

    ===========================================================

    What followed was a long rambling quotation which didn’t seem to have any relevance to the post to which the comment was attached and which seems to have been copied from a press release.

    In the future please make your comments shorter, more to the point, and relevant to the discussion at hand.

    Dave Schuler
    The Glittering Eye

  • Dave,

    I think that the answer to your question The pragmatic argument depends entirely on whether we are better able to prevent the violence in Iraq from overflowing Iraq’s border while within Iraq or from outside depends on how you view the situation. Some people view Iraq as part of the war on terror. That is, they still buy the administration’s propaganda that we went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMD which he would supply to al Qaeda. There are others, who like myself believe that although Iraq was not part of the GWOT when we went in, it has become part of it to an extent, though I do not believe that if we left Iraq or Anbar would become an al Qaeda sanctuary because too many intelligence agencies would be involved in the ensuing chaos that would be antagonistic to al Qaeda. There is another view which sees Iraq as a complete distraction from the War on terror, as such the faster we leave Iraq the more we can focus on the GWOT. Finally, the radical view on the extreme left is that it’s all this administration’s fault and as such, all we have to do to bring world peace is to withdraw from Iraq, and come home.

    Your viewpoint guides your understanding of what the best course of action is. I agree with you that withdrawing precipitously from Iraq would lead to an expansion of the conflict, and our eventual return to fight or reestablish peace between Shiites and Sunnis. However, I do think that those who argue that we may need to withdraw to contain the situation, also have a point. That is, not an immediate withdrawal, but a phased withdrawal of sorts, coupled with moves to prepare the strategic environment in the region to prevent the violence from spreading. This view, is based on my belief that the administration cannot (politically) do what is necessary to “win” in Iraq. By win, I mean establish stability and security, enough so that Iraqis can allow their political process to resolve their differences. To do this, I believe that (following previous successful interventions such as those in the Balkans) we need at least “1 soldier for every 100 people” in country, something that would require an additional 120,000 to 160,000 troops. Absent that, I think that (or without a new strategy) then we need to look for better ways to contain the Iraqi situation and not allow it to spread throughout the region while at the same time not placing our troops in more danger than they need to be to accomplish the new mission, which as many have recently noted is no longer democracy promotion in the Middle East, but containment of Iran. This, even as I think that we need a new strategy for addressing Iran that goes for a soft-kill not a hard-kill of the theocracy.

  • This can lead to a bloody civil war in Iraq, but if coupled with a Biden like approach for creating three separate regions with their own armies, under a central government, it can possibly prevent that scenario from coming to pass. Of course, this will also depend on how inevitable a full fledged civil war is in Iraq. I think that it can still be prevented but only with a change in strategy. Absent that, I think we need to move to containment and post-civil war reconstruction thinking. That is, accept the fact that it is going to happen and seek to mitigate the worst possible outcomes, such as Iran’s full emergence as regional hegemon, the rise of Islamist radicalism and the ensuing refugee crisis that will ensue. This while using our influence with parties in the region to defuse and end the civil war.

  • nykrindc, I think your analysis is pretty solid. I’d add one thing: IMO once we withdraw, we’re gone for a generation come what may.

  • I assume you mean a la Somalia…I disagree. The reason, economics. A unstable Middle East that has Saudi Arabia and Iran engaging in proxy warfare in Iraq, and targeting each other’s vessels in the Gulf has the potential to damage not only our economy and the entire West, but also China’s and East Asia’s generally. Point being, we don’t go back, China comes in, posing a security dilemma for our own economic stability. Mainly, China comes in and succeeds where we fail and guess who has access to most of the oil coming from the region, and becomes the guarantor of security for the global economy? In short, I think we have too many interests in the region to pull another Somalia like disengagement.

  • I think we’re taking the same conclusions off in different directions. I see the scenarios you’re pointing out as reasons we shouldn’t leave Iraq in the state it’s in now. You, apparently, (forgive me if I’m putting words in your mouth) think that if things get bad enough we’ll come back to stave off those scenarios.

    I find that hard to believe: every argument for leaving is a better argument for not returning by an order of magnitude. But, as I’ve said in other posts, this is a judgment call—where one comes down on this depends on ones assessment of risks and rewards and how one evaluates the political situation.

  • Agreed. I just think that with a new president in office, American’s clear the slate and given him/her some room to maneuver. This is particularly true where our interests are threatened. Currently, I think the president has spent his capital and politically speaking Iraq is already lost (at least within our country). If we continue with the president’s course, more support is likely to ebb leaving us far beyond the point of return. I guess that’s my calculation. All he can do is let Iraq bleed us slowly, but we cannot win, at least not with the current plan hence I move toward containment and regrouping. So yes, we seem to go in different directions there.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    I’ll tell you what the relevance is, Dave. The US plutocracy has
    for a century portrayed its greedy empire-building, (in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine) inclusive of intervention in World War Two, as “humanitarian” when it was nothing more than empire-building. The result in an easily avoidable world war two,not yet then a world war, was giving half of Europe to Stalin while, as Charles Lindbergh pointed out, capitulating to the narrow interests of the liberals, the Anglophiles and the Jews.

    Stalin killed twenty million Christians which we rarely hear about, though we are deluged by the Jewish-dominated Hollywood with exagerrated Jewish losses, mythologized in a capital “H” Holocaust.

    (I expect, incidentally when the rotten American
    plutocracy is forced by economic and political pressure to finally withdraw our troops from occupied Europe, Europe will de-Americanize its laws and not be vulnerable to the apt criticism of the current Iranian president who pointed out it is a crime in many European countries to even question the STATISTICS of the “Holocaust”–but not to question the divinity of Christ–whose metaphysic was that which united and made Europe Europe at the time of the Crusades.)

  • Ken Hoop Link

    “Ken, if you think we can secede from the world and continue to prosper, you’re kidding youself. ”

    Schuler, if the empire-builders wreak much more “humanitarian” havoc
    on the world as they have wreaked in Iraq, you’re going to find out whether we can prosper or not ;the world’s opinion of us has deteriorated precipitiously since 9/11-2001 and I suspect when Russia & China get though with the friendly relationships they are building with eg Iran, while working in concert to push America back to the Western Hemisphere where it belongs, you’re going to discover whether we can prosper or not.

    Much of it then and now will depend how we handle ,once our attention is focussed on it, the Mexican revanchism /subversion of our country.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Mr. Takhallus-

    Didn’t take a course in logic in college, did you? If I had “assumed,”
    I wouldn’t have posed the question. You’re merely a hypersensitive
    typical American who’s in the grip of that traditional double-standard applied to one particular minority group which has been immune to
    criticism until fairly recently, thank Mearsheimer and Walt.

    Of course there’s another decadent group of kooks who believe they
    are conservative-and are portrayed as such by the media-who promote
    Zionism. The “Christian Zionist” evangelicals who compose the majority
    of what passes for “conservative Christian” ranks in the US, but who
    long for the Apocalypse. Need any more evidence the US Empire is on the
    precipice of a fade from “glory?” Let’s at least break the fall a little by
    listening to Dennis Kucinich and saving some troop lives.

  • Ken:

    So the answer is yes: you’re an anti-semite. Thanks for erasing any doubt.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    http://www.votevets.org/

    Your glossary was written in the late 1900s by the Anti Defamation
    League of B’nai B’rith. Most of the world doesn’t subscribe to it anymore.
    Meanwhile, let’s save the troops (above link.)

  • Wow, Ken is quite the loon.

    First of all, the US had little choice but cede parts of Europe into the Soviet’s sphere of influence. By saying that America “allowed” this to happen you’re suggesting that America could have prevented it. So tell us exactly how you would have kept Eastern Europe free from Soviet domination? Oh, and BTW, we considered an attempt at the time and rejected it (see: http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/ )

    “Exaggerated” Jewish losses in the Holocaust? Are you high? We have very good numbers on Jewish losses because the Germans were so efficient at keeping records. With Stalin’s crimes, 20 million is just a convenient estimate because no one knows. And Stalin wasn’t killing “Christians” per se, though the majority of victims were Christian. Christians weren’t his targets – entire classes of society like the Kulaks were. And the comparison is meaningless in any event because Christianity is a religion and Jews are an ethnic group. Stalin’s atrocities are indeed terrible, but just because he managed to kill more people does not dimish in any way what Jews went through in WWII or any other victims of genocide.

    “I’ll tell you what the relevance is, Dave. The US plutocracy has
    for a century portrayed its greedy empire-building, (in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine) inclusive of intervention in World War Two, as “humanitarian” when it was nothing more than empire-building.”

    As usual, you have nothing to back up blanket statements like that. When has anyone of any prominence ever claimed that the US entry into WWII was for “humanitarian” reasons? Or Korea? Or Vietnam? Or Grenada, or Panama, WWI, or any other conflict with very few exceptions (Somalia). Has any other country on the planet ever intervened for “humanitarian” purposes?

    Also, your definition of empire seems conveniently large as to encompass any sort of influence be it cultural, economic, political or military. I bet you are one who believes that Japan is part of America’s “empire.” Perhaps you should pay attention the the “empire” nations like China are building in places like east Africa.

    I can’t go on – I’ve probably already made a mistake by feeding this troll. And yes, based on your statements here, Ken, you are certainly an anti-semite.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Andy

    Wrong, empire-defender. The “choice” was to stay out of Europe’s affairs,keping our defenses strong-just as Pat Buchanan outlined in his “Republic or Empire” book.

    And as Arno Mayer himself Jewish says in his “Why Did the Heavens
    Not Darken” tome, the statistics of Jewish losses are very much still in dispute. By the way 30,000 OPENLY IDENTIFIED Jews were found still
    alive in Munich after the war. As Mayer says, the Nazis opponent,as
    far as violence was concerned was “Judeo-Bolsheviks,” whereas
    most “Jewish” losses occured at the unexpected defeat at the war’s end
    the result not of planning but of unexpected defeat coupled with FDR’s unconditional surrender demand.

    Finally, David brough humanitarian concern into his rationale for
    staying in Iraq. My references to such were to demonstrate the US
    plutocracy has a history of wreaking havoc and enlarging bloodshed
    in the world thru “staying” in regions far from its shores.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    http://www.counterpunch.org/elkus02072007.html

    By the way, Al Qaida very much approves of escalation and the
    surge.

  • Ken,

    No surprise that you would quote Mayer, an avowed Marxist who’s ideas on the Holocaust have been roundly criticized and don’t match the historical record. But that’s not really surprising since most hard-core Marxists reconstruct everything, including racism, into class warfare. I wonder why the Germans made Jews wear the star of david on their clothes and not the hammer and sickle?

    As for staying out of Europe, remember that Germany declared war on the US. So are you seriously arguing that the US should sit in America and do nothing when another nation declares war and proceeds to attack it?

    Finally, David did bring humanitarian concerns as a rationale for staying in Iraq. That’s a separate issue that what you described. Here’s what you said again:

    “The US plutocracy has for a century portrayed its greedy empire-building, (in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine) inclusive of intervention in World War Two, as “humanitarian” when it was nothing more than empire-building.”

    So tell us, please, how these interventions were argued by anyone as humanitarian? You confuse the idea of a humanitarian intervention which is distinctly different from what Dave was talking about which is the opposite of intervention – withdrawal.

    Finally, you still haven’t explained how the US alone or with other allied powers was supposed to keep the Soviets from dominating Eastern Europe. We’re all waiting with baited breath for your cogent analysis.

  • And I have to laugh at the work “escalation,” considering troops in Iraq peaked at just over 160,000 in late 2005. Even with the Surge troops we won’t reach that number, especially considering there are fewer coalition troops now than in 2005.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Andy

    You can also “wonder” why the original Bolsheviks were so heavily and disproportionately Jewish,leading to the Mayer analysis of German perpectives. Maybe researching Kevin MacDonald’s fine work
    on Judaism will help you.
    No question, Hitler erred in aligning with Japan and giving the noxious
    Anglo-Jewish FDR/Churchill power bloc an excuse to toss unwarranted
    ultimatums at Japan then allow a foreseen Pearl Harbor to turn a
    90% American disapproval rate into a pro-war stance. Years
    of British-Jewish propaganda hadn’t stirred the naturally non-interventionist
    American masses into a Germanophobic war lust.

    Dave trusts the American plutocracy to act in a humanitarian manner
    by staying in Iraq-this is a political and strategical misjudgement.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Andy

    Your “tell me, tell me” chilsih repitition of queries about the Soviet control of Europe–comments that exactly echo the unwashed who say leaving
    Vietnam early caused a bloodbath. The US plutocracy caused the bloodbath in Southeast Asia to occur by its very entry. The same applies
    to its entry into the European theater of the war.

    This is what Dave said.” I continue to believe that there are both a moral and pragmatic reasons for our maintaining a substantial military presence in Iraq.”

    The Iraqis say and have said since 2004, “get out,” you haven’t restored
    law and order, in fact you are the cause of the disorder,besides not knowing hot to restore order.” Thus the MSNBC 2004 poll results
    above. Taking the Iraqis at their word, it is immoral and unpragmatic
    for America to stay, however, as Schuler is a loyal subject of the plutocratic elite and defines pragmatism from the perspective of a
    subject, his use of the term does not mesh with mine.

  • Andy:

    I take a certain childish pleasure from having figured out many messages ago that this guy was a raving anti-semite. I’m awarding myself two points.

  • Ken,

    I’m done with you – this is my last post feeding the troll. You make wild accusations and comparisons then call me “chilsih,” by which I assume you mean childish, when I call on you to substantiate your facts. You still haven’t answered the basic query wrt WWII and our “allowing” the Soviets to dominate Eastern Europe. Instead you continue to inapt and inept comparisons to Iraq and Vietnam.

    WRT Iraq, the basic question Dave is getting at, which he’s talked about previously, is whether it is morally justified, after invading Iraq and destroying the old order, to simply up and leave creating a power vacuum that would likely lead to a great amount of bloodshed to say nothing of American strategic interests (and yes, I understand that you believe that acting in one’s strategic interests means you’re a belligerent empire). There are actually good and valid arguments for withdrawing totally from Iraq – it’s too bad you’re too obsessed with Jewry to make them.

  • M. Takhallus,

    Yeah, I figured that out too, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    ” You still haven’t answered the basic query wrt WWII and our “allowing” the Soviets to dominate Eastern Europe. Instead you continue to inapt and inept comparisons to Iraq and Vietnam.”

    I’m sorry I can’t set aside my myriad postings to tutor you alone, Andrew.
    ‘Twould be a repetitive adventure, but beauty can come from repetition;
    take Poe’s poetry, for example.

    The plutocracy “allowed” the set of circumstances to de-volve (notice I say de rather than “e”?) which caused the Soviet domination ,by imperiously venturing forth in the first place, where the natural American nation, before it was conquered by the Rooseveltian plutocracy, had no business sallying forth. Had we stayed out of the war,as Buchanan showed, the odds are Hitler and the Soviet would have fought to an exhausted standstill and settled with much less of Europe remaining under the Stalin impress.

    The comparisons to Vietnam and Iraq are simple and have already been
    implied: America cannot bring political “humanitarianism” to Iraq, which
    only fools believe was its intention, rather than that of transmogrifying
    Iraq into an Israel-friendly vassal. Neither could have America stayed
    in Vietnam long enough to create a “friendly” stable government without
    causing even more bloodshed than actually happened,because the Vietnamese writ large would have overthrown an American-installed
    puppet,just as the Iraqis will fight any fugaciously installed puppet
    until it is erased.

  • Ken Hoop Link

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/wjews08.xml

    By the way, I am certainly not an anti-semite, whatever that means.
    Anti-semites deal in obscurantist myths about Jews. Ever heard
    about the “blood libel?” (See link)

  • Ken Hoop Link

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/wjews08.xml

    By the way, I am certainly not an anti-semite, whatever that means.
    Anti-semites deal in obscurantist myths about Jews. Like the oft-
    repeated and ridiculed “blood libel.” (See link) I never believed in such extravagant claims,doubtlessly manufactured by hateful bigots.

  • Devil's Advocate Link

    At this point, I am so disgusted that I agree with you: the so-called “surge” leaves me indifferent. The Cheney/Bush administration has created an abominable mess in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and was no threat to us. It abandoned Afghanistan and never bothered to find Bin Laden. Soon, it’ll be attacking Iran to distract people from the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it will cause a worldwide conflagration. I don’t give a damn any more. This country is doomed.

Leave a Comment