1

You would be right on point if we were not the trigger for the genocide. We have an obligation to prevent a genocide of our making.  Read Bush's speech to the UN and read the UN resolutions.  This is different than a Dafur or Rawanda or even Bosnia. I would go further and say that this expected blood bath would be a disruption so large and cause a dominio effect that would be in the direct interest of the United States, not excluding the oil issues.

2 I disagree.  Whether we "triggered" it or not, that's just a moral argument, and I myself put little stock in *purely* moralistic arguments. 

I'm not much in favor of sacrificing American soldiers just so I can feel more moral.

Let the soldiers live; I'll just have to bear the shame of making an immoral calculation as best I can.

3 Damn Ace.  Cold blooded much?

4 And I find the "we triggered it" argument to be perilously close to a convenient descent to "America's to blame."

Yes, we bear some responsibility.  You know who bears an awful lot more responsibility?  The Iraqis themselves.

5 Wow...you are going to get hammered for mentioning Obama and Br'er Rabbit in the same post. Tarbaby indeed.

6

I note that you agree that consequences of a genocide would be reason to prevent it though absent any consequence a genocide should not be our concern as it would hold no national interest. 

7 Yes.  Do you disagree?  More than rhetorically?  More than in the sense that it would be "nice" to spare Darfur of genocide?

We could save a lot of people from genocide if we were willing to sacrifice an awful lot of soldiers' lives to do so.  Historically, we have not been so inclined.  And I think that policy has been generally right.

There are situations when purely moral considerations are enough to justify military action -- but in most of those situations, we have relatively few troops at risk at all, and those risks tend to be lower-order ones.

We could have stopped the Sri Lanka fighting, I suppose, had we just interposed tens of thousands of US troops between the two sides.  We didn't.  Was this is a mistake?  I don't think it was.

8 Ace: you're right on most of the above, but there's a big difference between keeping troops in Iraq to go after terrorists and keeping troops in Iraq to play babysitter.  In order to do the former, we don't have to do the latter. 

Let the Iraqis (including Al Sadr) fight it out for control.  Let them kill as many of each other as they'd like. Their respective beef is not with us, per se, but with each other, and us only to the extent that they see us as a tool/protector of the other side.

Not so with Al Qaeda.  They're there to kill US soldiers.  Unlike the militias, they're the ones likely to follow us home and strike us elsewhere in the world.  They're the ones we want to kill, and regardless of where they are, whether theyt be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or, yes, Pakistan.

Every American soldier who dies, or is even used, trying to play peacemaker among parties who don't have a real grudge against us, is one less soldier alive and available to go after the real targets, Al Qaeda.

BTW, this is the framework of the eventual compromise between Democrats and Republicans.  Notwithstanding Edwards' bumper sticker crack, the Dems can't backtrack on the 'war on terror' and the Republicans will eventually have to admit that they can bring the Iraqis to water but they can't make them choose to live in peace with their neighbors.  Pulling back to bases outside of the metro areas and going after Al Qaeda gives each side a bit of what they're looking for... it's just a matter of time until we end up there.

9 Sure, I agree, genocide by its self is not enough... but it's enough by the argument of the left usually so their dismissal of this is hypocritical and inconsistent - so typical these days. The left has no integrity left at all, its all about power for them, at any cost.

10 Hypoethetically -- what is a US soldier's life worth in relation to a non-American's life?

This question actually illuminates very clearly where someone stands on such issues.  For me, one US soldier's life is worth at least 50 non-American's lives (in the best of conditions, with truly innocent and deserving foreigners being saved) and 100-1000 non-Americans in most other circumstances.  In Iraq, due to the Iraqis largescale assistance of those trying to kill us, I've gotten to the 1:1000 figure.

Yes, there are good people we're saving in Iraq.  there are also a lot of very bad people.  Averaging it out, for me, it's to the 1:1000 level more or less.

If there were no national security reason to remain in Iraq, I would say:  Let them sleep in the beds they've made, until they get their throats cut in the middle of the night.  No way would I be willing to risk additional *American* soldiers to spare non-American ingrates.

But there is a national security interest here, and a strong one.

But the prospect of genocide alone?  Trust me, I won't be having nightmares about that should it come to pass.

11 I disagree when one of the reason's we went into Iraq was to prevent the mass killing of Iraqis . Again, review what was said in the run up to the war.  If this is how you feel, you should have spoken up when we found no stockpiles of WMD.  Causing more of what we went into Iraq to prevent is not just a moral failing but a stratgeic and foreign policy failure. 

12 Sparing Iraqis from Saddam's horrors was for me a bonus moral reason, but I didn't support the war for that reason, certainly.  It was, for me, all about the WMDs, Saddam's support for terrorism, and the idea that the Middle East needed to be shaken up -- given a democratic, decent regime as an example for the others -- in order to head off the truly horrific carnage we're headed for if the Arab/non-Arab Muslims don't abandon their jihadi delusions pretty damn quick.

13 The empty whole where my humanity should be salutes you from its position of "not giving a fuck about Michael Vick's dogs."

No blood for "morality."

Brother Obama indeed.

Everybody's got a laughing place, a laughing place, to go-ho-ho!

14 India intervened to stop the war in Sri Lanka. But it didn't stop.

15 Couldn't agree with you more

16 Sure, risking large numbers of US soldiers' lives to end far-off conflicts isn't something I'd be comfortable ordering.

But, in my opinion, it's an outrage that we haven't dropped any cruise missiles into Khartoum by now.

17 If they all blew one another to smoked bacon, it'd be fine with me. But another last chopper out scene will tell the world that, once again, the USA has shown itself to be a worthless friend and a harmless enemy.

Better that we level the whole country than we allow that impression to stand.

18 Hypoethetically -- what is a US soldier's life worth in relation to a non-American's life?

I don't think that's a meaningful question.  To me, all human life is equally valuable per se.

The difference is that we, American civilians, in essence have absolute power over our soldiers.  They cannot refuse an order from us.  It's not whether their lives are inherently more valuable, it's whether we can in good faith order them to go die.

19 For the most part, I agree, particularly about sending our soldiers to stop a genocide. Emotionally compelling, but not in our national interest.

I wouldn't ignore the Syrians or the Saudis. I also don't think we'll be leaving the region, not permanently anyway, for a long, long time no matter who is President.

20 Well, a somewhat well-thought-out post, instead of the usual grunting and screaming.  I'm shocked.

But what about that Army and USMC at their limits?  Ain't too many Soldiers and
Marines in the NCO ranks in combat arms who haven't done three or more tours.

21

Well, I'm not sure how, among other consequences of this, we can enlist the support of "moderate" (or non-radical or less Islamist - however you wish to phrase it) Muslims to help us fight the hardcore Islamists if we tell them that, "Sorry, you're on your own" if things start to go bad.

Imagine being a pro-Western Muslism and hearing that the US will let you and your friends, neighbors, cohorts be slaughtered? Would you go out of your way to assist the US? Or lay low?

I'd know what I'd do. Lay low. Try to survive.

Smart thing to do.

 

 

22 Sandy,

All humans lives are equally valuable?  Objectively, maybe, from an Angel's POV.

But you're not an angel looking down from on high, you're a human.

Does not subjective value enter into it?

Who's more valuable to you -- your wife or a stranger?  If you have the chance to save only one from a car sinking into frigid water, do you flip a coin to decide?  Or do you go straight for your wife and let God see to the stranger?

I hate this bullshit "all human lives are equal" crap.  I hear it from a lot of liberals unwilling to concede that an american should be more concerned with the welfare of an American than some random nonamerican.

23

Finally, Ace admits that he doesn't think the lives of brown people are worth as much as white Westerners.

And he's wrong about it being about national security. America is so powerful and so well-armed that its national secuirty cannot be threatened by any nation.

America goes to war for the money. It's all about colonialism, imperialism, and corporate fascism.

 

 

24 ...and Christianism.

25 10-4 Ace, even if you get shit for it.

In the long run, keeping America strong does the most for the world. There's too much injustice in the world and we've got too little means to take care of all of it. Just need to take care of ourselves and do good along the way while doing so.

26 Wow, Ace. I thought this was a blog for morons, and here you go dispelling that notion, at least for a few minutes. Great post.

27 I agree, EricH.

Our foreign policy is rotten through and through.  There is no benefit to taking America's side, and, short of goading us into outright war, no cost to opposing us.  An amoral rational actor should never side with America; the smart bet is to be neutral or mildly opposed to us.

28

I hear it from a lot of liberals unwilling to concede that an american should be more concerned with the welfare of an American than some random nonamerican.

Amen Brother! This is all misdirected horseshit. Can you say "Enough with the immigration already?  Legal or not?"

At the risk of sounding like a liberal in this context (although, I suppose I'm not ashamed of it, in this context)  We've got some people to take care of at home here. The homeless, the mentally ill, (both related in my opinion) our roads, libraries, crime, and schools.

Let's take care of the people in our society first. Worry about the others, if we can, later.

29 I hear it from a lot of liberals unwilling to concede that an american should be more concerned with the welfare of an American than some random nonamerican.

Eh.  I just counter that with "think globally, act locally".

Who's more valuable to you -- your wife or a stranger?

Your wife.  But yeah, I agree.  I'm human, too.  And that's part of it, I'm not trying to pretend to be above that.

But my main point is that the power relation between the US public and the US military adds an important moral dimension to these things.  Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just thinking "out loud", but it seems like an important aspect of this to me.

30

sandy is right...

but he doesn't even know why he's right.

You're accidentally saying something accurate. It's an anomoly because your wingnut brainwashing has poisoned your mind.

31 No!!!!!  Don't throw me in the briar patch!  Anything but that!

32 funny how Bush has got people all mixed up.  liberals, who normally could care less about American soldiers are all hot and bothered to save them, while republicans, usually the ones who are so patriotic (defined as liking America and Americans more than others)  are the ones sacrificing our troops to the altar of nationbuilding.

33

stevesterm, liberals don't care about the lives of the soldiers.

You're wrong...

but you don't even know why you're wrong.

34 and by the way, here's a scoring system you can use at home to determine the relative value of US soldiers to others.  And, despite the comments above, it's not a black/white thing, it's a US/everybody else thing.

35

It's all about colonialism, imperialism, and corporate fascism.

You forgot the JEWS!!!!

And oil.

Now, go back under your rock please.

 

36 >>while republicans, usually the ones who are so patriotic (defined as liking America and Americans more than others) are the ones sacrificing our troops to the altar of nationbuilding.

That's because we aren't doing traditional nation building. We are trying to prevent another Afghanistan, which, didn't work out so well for our longterm security.

You were right about the first part. Liberals by and large don't give a shit about our soldiers and only care about evil AmeriKKa spreading her imperial ways and gaining power for liberals. Go spend an hour at DU and you will be cured of ever thinking that liberals want this war to end because they care about our soldiers.

37 There's an enormous difference between a genocide in a far off land where we don't already have a presence and a genocide that results from us choking out of a war that's completely lopsided in our favor.

38

I'm right. But I don't even know why I'm right.

So, I guess that makes me wrong. And I don't even know why.

Right?

39

Hmm, is Obama on record anywhere as to President Clinton's bombing of Belgrade to stop the ethnic cleansing by Milosevic? I guess he was in the Illinois legislature at that time; but he must be on record somewhere as to whether that action was appropriate or not. Ditto the non-intervention with the Hutu and Tutsis in Rwanda. Or Darfur?

Second, this will be interesting to see how Hillary Clinton responds. If she supported the intervention during the Kosovo War to prevent that genocide, how can she now turn a blind eye to (potential) genocide in Iraq?

And wasn't the liberal/left strong supporters of going after Milosevic? But now, apparently, don't care about mass murder in Iraq?

 

40 The best part in all this will be watching Obama's supporters try to agree with him when their natural reaction is to use American military strength where ever needed to solve various humanitarian crises.  Of course, their out could be that they only care about genocide when there is no national security interest.

41

"America does not risk thousands of casualties "merely" to prevent genocide. We like to make rhetorical noises about doing so, but we never do."

But I thought that was why we went into Bosnia?  To prevent genocide, right?  Or at least that's what President Clinton and Madame Albright said to me.

42 But another last chopper out scene will tell the world that, once again, the USA has shown itself to be a worthless friend and a harmless enemy.

Better that we level the whole country than we allow that impression to stand.

Indeed, and that's only one of the considerations. We lose there and al`Qaeda has a huge morale boost, not to mention funding and membership. It's a huge loss to the world if we quit and run, Vietnam was a possible strategic step toward a communist cascade takeover of nations. Terrorists in charge of Iraq is catastrophic to the whole world.

43

Ace I generally agree with you but here we part ways. Perhaps in context only though. Logically speaking, if it is not our job to prevent genocide, then you should have been calling for our withdrawal as soon as Saddam was caught. There was no other reason to stay. If you want to say Nation Building, you put a govt. in place and a military in place in order to prevent genocide. All of our efforts since we caught Saddam and didnt find any WMD have been to prevent genocide. Call it a military operation, call it preventing Iran from coming in, what have you. It all leads to the same common denonimator. Which is preventing genocide. I also dont want to hear that we went in to build a democracy. Because, I think we can agree, that doing that entails the fact that genocide should not be able to happen in a democracy.

Ace, I also think you forget what a lot of people, including myself have said from the beginning. "We shouldn't be going in if we dont intend to finish the job." I mean this goes back to my childhood and I believe a lot of peoples childhood when your Dad told you " Whatever you do, finish what you start. Its the right thing to do."

Now I agree, if there is a revolution or genocide where, for example. we have a base. Germany, Japan the Philippines, we should pack up and roll out. We had no hand in it. Do you think if you would have asked Iraqis if they wanted to be free of Sadaam with the condition that we would leave as soon as he is gone that they would have agreed?

 

Either way Ace, long time reader, first time poster. Keep up the good fight bro.

44

It's kind of amazing how suddenly new-school conservatives are starting to ditch Krauthammer's naive "Democratic Realism" and all the other trendy permutations of idealism in favor of good, old-fashioned Kissingerian Realpolitik. 

As a Catholic, I think the "Realist" school of foreign policy doesn't jibe with what the well-formed moral positions on Just War that are laid out in the catechism.  But it's much better than the wild-eyed, psychedelic, feel-good, nation-building "freedomania" that has never worked in the past. 

I do think it's high time that American leaders thought about America as a nation-state with actual citizens who have freedoms, legitimate interests, and beloved families....  as opposed to America as the "midwife of globalization" or some abstract "spirit of capitalism."  

45 I'm unwilling to stoop to the level of the UN when it comes to genocide. 

46

Well, it is kind of nice to finally see a liberal honestly admit he does not give a damn about the "poor suffering masses" in a third world country.  I now expect that Obama will never advocate US intervention in Darfur or Somalia or Serbia or anywhere else where US vital interests are not threatened.  Good. Let's hope Hillary follows his example.  After all, callous liberalism is at least honest liberalism.

As for Iraq, well, Ace, as you pointed out we do have strategic arguements for staying - we need to defeat al-qaida and prevent Iran from getting a secure foothold there.  Otherwise al-qaida will have a second secure base to plan attacks and destabilize our allies in the region, and Iran will be able to dominate the oil resources there and threaten Israel and Saudi Arabia more than they already do. 

As part of defeating both a good arguement could be made for creating a strong stable Iraq - if we can. 

47 Let me boil this down for you, Fuckmuffin...

An American life is worth at LEAST 100 times the life of any fucking foreigner, and I don't care if they are shit brown, piss yellow, inside-the-asshole black, critically caucasian or pink with purple polka dots and green fucking stripes.

The only exceptions are for those countries that truly appreciate the U.S. and are allied with us.  The Brits and Aussies that haven't surrendered to the goat fucking 'slims are two that come to mind.  Japan would be another even though their youth don't like us, but fuck the youths, youth is wasted on the young.

RE: Iraq - I say we pull back to Kurdistan and Israel, the only groups in the middle east that truly like us, let the rest of the sand niggers settle their 2+ millennium long war of extermination against each other, and then we deal with the last man standing for the fucking oil because I am sick and fucking tired of $3/gallon gas and that is the only thing those shitbirds have to offer us to repay all the treasure we have invested there.

By "deal with" I mean, "Open the tap, Hadji, and let the oil flow.  You got what you wanted, your group is now top turd on the shit pile thanks to us.  Now, it's buck a gallon gas for us or a .45ACP to the back of the head for you....  Your choice."

And regarding repayment, I don't mean just the war.  If it weren't for us building their oil infrastructure, those fucking retards would still be scooping it up in buckets to grease their wagon wheels, and they wouldn't be able to hold us hostage with it.  Every-fucking-thing that resembles the 20th century those camel-cock-munching motherfuckers have they have us to thank for.

No matter what we do we are going to be regarded as imperialistic assholes, so we might as well act the part and get something for it.  And if the rest of the world don't like it, fuck 'em.  Our Navy alone can bring the rest of the military power on the planet combined to it's knees.

48 Only two mentions of Darfur on this entire page (as of but not including this comment)?

That's the issue at stake here.. Not that Obama is wrong -- I agree with him and you on this issue -- U.S. military force should be used to protect and secure U.S. interests.  And I do mean "interests", as in "self".

It's that Obama is flatly contradicting the usual Democratic approach to military force, which is to send our soldiers to die for *nothing* (i.e. where there are no U.S. interests at stake, such as Darfur and previously Somalia.)  If he actually came out and explicitly repudiated that approach in favor of the principle of national self-interest, I'd be floored... but more likely, it's a politically expedient thing he said, not a change of heart or sign of independent thinking on his part.  That's what he should be called on.

49

Great post ace.  As the wife of a military officer, you've got it right.

Is it worth it to sacrifice my husband's life if it would stop savage bastards from killing a bunch of people in a foreign country?  Honestly, not to me or to our kids.

I'd much rather have him here at home in case we have a savage bastard outbreak here.  Not to sacrifice him, but to have him help me defend our kids in our own home.

Sorry if that seems selfish to some of you idealists.  If you want so badly to SAVE DARFUR, the UN is looking to hire "peacekeepers" and "observers" to work over there as we speak. 

50

Has everyone forgotten the "why" of the war in Iraq?

We did not go there to save Iraqis, we went there to save

Americans in America! To show strength, and to let them

know that they cannot bomb America without conseguences.

Americans do not care about the Iraqi people, that is the

first thing seen when reading the above comments.  So,

what is the problem?  Leave, take the consequences of

leaving which will be nothing because to kill people in order

to save themselves, as in bombs, does not bother America.

Wow!  we are the superpower, don't mess with us!

If that were only true, and if you could not get enough

help from allies now, think about the next war.

Oh, wait, what war?  If you cannot fight the terrorists,

who are you going to fight?  Terrorists kill Americans....

really enjoy doing so, cant't go there again!

Hmm.  Well,  I guess we will have to think about it, give the

liberals about twenty years and they will have found a

use for all the military "stuff"  they hate so much.

Leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of the terrorists AGAIN,.

America.  You are so darn good at cutting and running!

51 You know what I like?  I like the way he wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- let the brown people die -- and to stay out of Darfur and the Congo -- let the black people die -- but doesn't say a WORD about pulling out of our ten-year-old one year comittment to Kosovo.

So let the brown trash die.
Let the black trash die.
But Obama's lookin' out for whitey!

Maybe we should be considering his candidacy...

52 Oh,. and the last time we focussed like a laser on American interests, the left began screaming "No blood for oil!"

53 Oh, and try this one:  we stood by and let the iraqis get slaughtered after Desert Storm in a fit of James Bakerish 'realpolitik'.

How'd that work out for us?

54

Great post over at Cold Fury a couple of days ago:

So let’s see if I have this all figured out here.

After more than ten years of empty bluster from both the UN and the Clintonistas, Saddam remained a swaggering, villainous, terror-sponsoring dictator — a brutal thug responsible for torturing and/or murdering literally millions of his own hapless subjects and those of neighboring Islamic kleptocracies. Terrorist attacks against American interests were increasing in scope, audacity, and deadliness. Clinton continued his bumptious shadowboxing routine, with no discernible result. He did manage to lock up a meager handful of those who had attacked us — after the fact, naturally; Democrats strongly disapprove of preemptive defense — but as far as doing any real damage to the continuing ability of radical Islamofascists to execute their nefarious plans against us, Clinton was the usual empty-suit Democrat, with no real understand of or empathy for the military option, and a visceral loathing not only for the prospect of using it, but for those in uniform who would be charged with carrying out any order for such he might give. That loathing assuredly went both ways, soldiers not being nearly as stupid or childlike as Democrats like The Creep generally assume.

Then, as a direct result of the failure of Clinton’s feeble charade of concern for national defense to fool a living soul, Osama bin Laden, having witnessed first-hand in Somalia how empty The Creep’s turgid rhetoric was, plotted the attack that would establish once and for all the hollowness of America’s justly vaunted military, absent the will and intelligence to make proper use of it. No insult to that military is expressed or implied here; the fault lies entirely with the political class, and with the people who twice elected these Pecksniffian frauds to high office. Osama was essentially correct in his assessment.

And he rewarded our timorous reluctance to face down our enemies with 9/11.

Bush, having surrounded himself with at least a few close advisors who don’t suffer from the Liberal Disease of unswerving reliance on foreign-aid bribery, pointless UN resolutions, and cringing, supplicatory diplomacy to achieve American foreign-policy and national-defense goals — with never anything but a limp wrist reinforcing the velvet glove — momentarily did and said the right things in immediate response, to the shock and horror of a Muslim world grown accustomed to seeing the US retreat again and again in the manner of an old, tired hound fleeing the bite of a horsefly. We quickly removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, then turned our attention to the festering sore that was Saddam’s unpredictable and threatening regime.

Saddam, in contrast to liberals’ perfectly typical dark, whimpering predictions of doom and defeat, went down like a ton of bricks, and in almost incredibly short order was being dragged from his last sanctuary: crouching in a cesspool, disheveled, humiliated, and with his lip bloodied. He’d undeniably come a long, long way from his golden palaces and unquestioned sovereignty, and the Muslim world took note of who it was that dragged him there.

In the wake of that unexpected show of will and national self-respect, Qadafy suddenly had a change of heart about his WMD programs and came clean for the first time about them, leaving aghast a Western world that had previously had no idea how far along he was in his pursuit of nuclear weapons. Egypt promised free and open elections. Even Saudi Arabia made some slight (albeit probably insincere) nods in the direction of liberalization and the checking of the terrorist threat, for the first time in memory. Real progress was undeniably being made.

And the only prodding required to achieve these goals was a fit and proper embrace of the idea that, when viciously attacked by primeval savages, the United States reserved the right to destroy any regime that countenanced aiding and abetting them. The only truly surprising thing about it all should have been that it had taken us so long to decipher Osama’s “weak horse, strong horse” message — to figure out that strength is father to cooperation and respect, whereas weakness and vacillation breed only contempt.

And then, the retreat began.

In the face of relentless baying from the mainstream press, spurred on by same from a left wing that objectively despises everything America stands for and yearns only for its defeat and diminishment, Bush returned with forlorn alacrity the spine he had borrowed from his closest advisers and began backtracking. The “Axis of Evil” became not an assemblage of blackguard states to be dealt with sternly and with clarity of vision, but “partners in peace” to be fecklessly negotiated with. Hamas became not a terrorist organization dedicated with an ironclad fidelity to genocide and the destruction of the only true Mideast democracy, but the legitimate government of the all-but-formally-recognized State of Palestine. Hezbollah lobbed Katyusha rockets into Israel, and Israel’s response was eyed warily for the remotest sign of “disproportionality.” The promises garnered from meetings with thuggish crypto-fascist religious dictatorships were to be viewed not with a seemly suspicion but with child-like naivete and blind, over-optimistic trust. And always, always, always, the plaintive note could be faintly discerned underneath Bush’s increasingly Clintonesque bravado: “just don’t hurt us anymore — please.”

And now Syria has invaded Lebanon, and Iran careens along utterly unchecked on its way to becoming a sort of terrorist superstate, and Democrats continue squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance for an immediate and unconditional surrender and generally dancing to the Islamist tune, shrilly advocating for “fighting” terrorists in any place other than where we know for sure they now are. And now some Republicans are joining them.

But who can blame them, really? From the opening moments of the Iraq campaign, when “shock and awe” were abandoned for something a whole lot more quotidian and supposedly “humane,” Bush has allowed the slow, sure Democratization of this war through his own ineptness and lack of vision, and it’s almost complete. The only thing lacking now from full realization of the same old high-handed Democrat war-losing strategy is humiliating news footage of American helicopters leaving embassy roofs, with desperate locals falling from the skids like raindrops. But we’ll see that soon enough.

http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=8392

55

Holy Cow...  Is MOMinuteman kidding or what?  A Kosmonaut?  He/she/it (?) is like a cartoon of what the liberals imagine that conservatives are all about.  You might try breathing in a bag for a little while...

McEnroe, I don't know what your point is about Baker's realpolitick...  except perhaps...  that "realists" always try to profit from the messes of the-pie-in-the-sky "nation builders."  It's like the pragmatists offer a voice of "reason" and they are relatively reasonable, but only because they are standing next to raving lunatics. 

I can't say I know what the answer is.  I just think it's funny that people are trying to suddenly steer clear of that sort of pollyannaish position that was in style when the prospect of President Hillary seemed impossible. 

56

Agreed, Ace. 

So let's ask the Obama campaign for copies of his speeches in opposition to our humanitarian efforts abroad, in Kosovo, Beirut, Somalia, etc., and especially his Letters to the Editor and position papers applauding the Clinton administration for wisely staying out of Africa during the slaughter in Rwanda.

57

Going into a country to prevent a genocide is different than leaving a country and allowing a genocide.  Like it or not, the fate of 25 million Iraqis is in our hands.  We are bound to honor our promises and stand up for basic human decency in that country. 

 

58 While I agree with the general gist of what Ace is saying, I can't agree with the specific words he's using.  I can't say I'm "indifferent" to something just because I'm not willing to order an American to go die stopping it.

Anyhow.  Oops wrote:
It's kind of amazing how suddenly new-school conservatives are starting to ditch Krauthammer's naive "Democratic Realism" and all the other trendy permutations of idealism in favor of good, old-fashioned Kissingerian Realpolitik.

Yeah, but Kissinger was in idiot asshole promoting immoral old-fashioned realpolitik nonsensical which is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Sure, there has been some over-the-top neoconism, but still.  Kissinger sucks.

59 Baker sucks, too.

Sure, we should look after ourselves first.  But that doesn't mean dicking other people over in the name of "national interest".  If we had helped the Iraqi Shiites against Saddam, we'd be better poised to deal with the Iranian mullahs now.

60 fluffy --

Mike gets it; unfortunately, all the gains from the early resolve have been squandered.  Now there's no will to win.  Damn shame.

61 "Logically speaking, if it is not our job to prevent genocide, then you should have been calling for our withdrawal as soon as Saddam was caught. There was no other reason to stay."

I see a number of people posting this but it is entirely wrong.

It was entirely logical to have supported the initial effort to rebuild Iraq as a democracy, but then been disillusioned and no longer think that it is possible. Reinforcing failure without serious hope of success is useless.

62 The poster who suggested that Bush has fucked up the political allegiances and positions is entirely correct. The Republicans, the people who are supposed to be level-headed and skeptical, are now the ones staking their entire reputation on Middle East civilization and one-worlder nonsense.

63 "Going into a country to prevent a genocide is different than leaving a country and allowing a genocide.  Like it or not, the fate of 25 million Iraqis is in our hands.  We are bound to honor our promises and stand up for basic human decency in that country."

Our promise was to give them freedom. Guess what? We gave it to them. We didn't promise to adopt the country for two decades, destroy the American military, give the US to socialists, and neglect every other thing we have to worry about in the world. I.e. Russia and Iran looking a little emboldened lately?

64 What exactly is Obama's position on Darfur? I'll accept realism if it's consistant.

65 M1R great stuff

66 Our promise was to give them freedom. Guess what? We gave it to them. We didn't promise to adopt the country for two decades, destroy the American military, give the US to socialists, and neglect every other thing we have to worry about in the world. I.e. Russia and Iran looking a little emboldened lately?

Posted by: MlR

 

Close, but no cigar, MIR.  They are not truly free yet.  Leaving Iraq before it is ready to stand on its own will do far more to embolden our enemies that staying there and completing this task.                            

                                                                                                                        I also believe fighting in Iraq is strengthening our military.  Our forces gain from the experience and our tactics and intelligence and equipment also benefit. 

67

It's amazing how easily we speak of sacrificing or taking other people's lives.

From behind the keyboard, I would love to indulge in the fantasy of playing the moral and principled. But the question one should ask themself is this: would *I* be willing to sacrifice my life to save an Iraqui? How about 100? 1,000? 1 million? Or better yet, how about the lives of my children? Would I make that deal? The answer to both questions is: absolutely not. Honestly, it makes me feel like a bit of a coward (not sure why) - but there it is. Life isn't fair. There are innocent people dying every day all over the world - including locally. What seems to me to be nonsensical and inconsistent is that most of us would probably risk our lives to save someone who was drowning, about to be hit by a car, etc. I guess when it's in front of us, we take the chance, but we don't look for it. Not sure.

Ace, I disagree with some of the less important things you said, but the main thrust of your commentary is spot on. It's one of the main beefs I've had with Bush & co. right from the start of the mission. It's not being "sold" (communicated) properly to the American people. Too many differing justifications. Bush sounds very much like an idealistic liberal. Or maybe it's a Jesus-complex? Whatever happened to "no nationbuilding"? I remember it being discussed in the debates before the '00 election. Talk about a 180! There has been way too much focus on the Iraquis, and far too little emphasis on national interest. But one thing Bush has said many times, but not forceably enough and it gets lost amongst all the other messages, is that it's better to fight AQ there than in America. It's also better to have the enemy somewhat concentrated in Iraq, rather than dispersed.

 

68 I agree that there are a lot of reasons that Senator Obama needs to be taken to task on here; his betrayal of the Liberal policy of saving lives with the military, the reversal of the concept of humanitarian efforts, etc. We all know that's not going to happen, ever, because not a single Republican in power has a testicle between them.

Or maybe it's a Jesus-complex?

That's just dumb as hell.

69

ACE, I've found your comments to be disgusting.

Fortunately it isn't representative of the average American.

Bush and his cronies went to war after creating and doctoring evidence of weapons of mass destruction. After rolling through Iraq, they disbanded the police and the army. The US had no post war plans in place despite warnings from the State Department that what has happened could happen.

The vacuum created post war (and disbanding of the Iraqi army) allowed Al Qaeda to enter the country and along with Sunni and Shiite extremists, to arm themselves and create a civil war.

But now you see no moral imperative for the US to stay in Iraq? You agree with Bush, that America should stay simply because it is better to fight "terrorists" in Iraq rather than in the US.

I find that argument insipid and suggest it a real reason why America does not hold the moral credibility to be the world’s only super power.

Australia, the UK and Spain went to war alongside America and are also responsible. This was despite a majority of their respective citizens being of the view that to go to war in Iraq was wrong (we took to the streets in protest). Along with Bush, all those leaders should all be tried for war crimes. Yes, going to war based on a falsified intelligence, putting US and allied soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and most importantly innocent Iraqi citizens at risk. Over 3,500 American dead and an estimate of Iraqi dead at between 100,000 and 300,000 (not to mention the wounded).

And suggesting that young US soldiers are there with superior motives to the extremists is misplaced. US motives are ulterior rather than superior: now that the mess has crystallised, you would prefer to destroy Iraqi society fighting terrorists there rather than incurring any risk to your own society. Moreover,  you require ongoing access to oil. Whilst the I think the US soldiers themselves are the real unfortunates in this conflict, the US needs to recognise they are young kids and in way over their heads. No wonder in certain circumstances, they have been found to have committed atrocities.

But really, why take any responsibility for a dictator you help to power (Sadam Hussein), armed and funded (Iran - Iraq War) and then, when he stopped behaving, you instigated a 10 year blockade stopping all medicines (amongst other things) into the country (Post Desert Storm). Unfortuantely, this is going to come back and hurt the US, to the extent its not already. And as an Australian whose lived in the US, that makes me sad, but you really don't deserve anything better if you refuse to be accountable and responsible for your own actions. As a footnote, it is going to come back and hurt all of us ... Britian is already experience home grown terrorists spurned on by the perceived injustices in Iraq.

70 eman you are obviously not in the military then

71 Australian, you are spouting nonsense.

Food, medicine, and other civil infrastructure was not blocked by the sanctions against Iraq.

But hey, why bother with facts when there's America-bashing to be done...

72 Moreover,  you require ongoing access to oil.

Yeah, we do, and it's too bad we had to invade Iraq to get oil which we could never have obtained from Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or even, oh yeah, America itself.

P.S.  Michael Moore speaks the truth, man, and Canadians all leave their doors unlocked.

73 The real problem is they turned the country over to the Iraqi pols too soon. They weren't ready for govening and they still aren't. They are no better than a smalltown city counsel. Corruption is rife. It takes time to build a new country when there is no war; it will take decades to straighten out the mess in Iraq. Redeploying our troops to the fringes where they are so far away from the mass-killing they can't intercede is stupid. It isn't in our national interest to just sit on the sidelines and be sitting ducks for terrorists.

Bringing the troops home isn't the answer either, unless the final solution (remember that phrase) is to do our own genocide of Arab and Persian lands by nuking Demascus, Tehran, Gaza City and possibly the Saudi capitol as well. THAT would change everything for a very long time, if not end the conflicts. It's now or never to find a better way because in the end the last word is a mushroom cloud over somebody's head. Better them than us.

74 Bush and his cronies

and that's where I stopped reading, it's not like it's going to be followed by anything but the usual BS.

75

Sandy, I hear you on Kissinger and Baker.  I think there is a better path (as I've said, I prefer the writings of the Catholic theologians/philosophers on war...  and believe me, Christian civilization has accumulated a great deal wisdom on war, but it is tempered by the notion that God is the author of all things and that we are all accountable to Him.) 

That said, most people in this world who do not hold a Christian worldview (even if they might be nominally Christian) and they are the ones making foreign policy decisions.  And, non-Christians often hate the idea of Christianity because it makes them feel guilty (so the powerful do the hegelian thing and war against it openly from the left or subvert it secretly from the right).

So it is probably naive of me to believe that anyone would ever trust Christian theologians on matters of foreign policy.  But it would be a good idea if they did.

76 Oops, I don't know what your position is on my position on Baker (what is, this, the State Department?) but Baker was one of the voices for leaving Saddam in power in after Desert Storm, chanting the same "stability" cant Kerry was spewing before the 2004 election.  As a result, when the Iraqi people rose against Saddam and the US withheld even air support, an entire generation of potential Iraqi leaders was butchered, followed by hundreds of thousands more over the next decade.

As far as I'm concerned, those deaths should weigh as heavily on our national conscience as the 3-million-plus Cambodians, Laotians and Vietnamese who died after our pullout from SE Asia.  We owe it to their survivors to stay there until Iraq has a fighting chance to survive on its own...

77 I agree with Richard, and would add that moralty is no democrat's strong suite, after the slaughter they caused, when they gave Vietnam and most of Southeast Asia to the communists. And after they tried to give Centeral America to the communists in the 1980s, I don't trust them to be involved in American foreign policy, much less control it.

78 Iraq may have the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world. Osama bin Ladin and his crew is going to use the billions of dollars that will generate to make Obama, the democrats, and our children piss blood, if they manage to give them Iraq, just like thay gave Vietnam to the communists.

79

Hey Ace, when you reach a point in life where you start justifying reasons to allow genocide - it's time to take down the mirrors and do like Teddy does - drink whiskey, lots of it, so you can feel even less of that self-loathing than you must feel now.

As for me, if someone asked me to pull the switch on 1,000  or even 100 innocent women and children - I'd say no.  How bout you?  I guess you just answered that.

80

Australian is right.

But she doesn't know why she's right.  

Australian forgot to mention brown people and the stealing of oil to feed the gluttonous and obese Westerners.

Read more, Australian.

 

81

The claim that preventing a genocide is irrelevant to our national interest and not worth soldiers' lives ignores two important facts.

First, the short term consequences of our behavior are unfortunately not their only ones. Our policies affect the behavior and policies of all nations. If we betray friends and they become the victims of genocide (and even sometimes when they do not) this has a tendency to upset our remaining allies and unite our potential enemies.

Consider two examples. First the second world war. Chamberlain and the British and French governments betrayed their erstwhile ally, Czechoslovakia at Munich, allowing for the dismemberment of that country, and subsequently permitted its complete occupation by Germany, for the very reason you give: to prevent the loss of life of British soldiers if they refused to do so.

This behavior had two indirect effects. One was to greatly enhance the power and prestige of the Nazi regime. The second was to convince Stalin that the Western powers were unreliable allies. We now know that in response to this determination, he fired his pro-West foreign minister (Litvinov) and replaced him by Molotov, who was instructed to take steps to form an alliance with the Nazi government. Molotov initiated the contact with Ribbentrop that led to the Hitler-Stalin pact whose provisions included the joint invasion of Poland by Russian and German armies that was the first battleground of World War 2.

In short we know now that Stalin's reaction to the betrayal of the Czechoslovalian government was to start World War 2. So did this policy really save British soldiers' lives in the long run?

The betrayal of the governments of South Viet Nam and Cambodia by our Cngress in 1975 is only weakly attributable to a desire to save soldiers' lives, since it involved only a refusal to resupply the Cambodian army with ammunition and weapons, and the failure to supply air support to the South Vietnamese army when that country was invaded by a North Vietnamese Army. Yet the betrayal and bloodbath of our erstwhile friends (Vietnamese friends slaughtered in the (low) hundreds of thousands, Cambodians slaughtered in the low millions) has had an important effect in encouraging the formation of revolutionary groups intending the same results in their own countries, for example in el Salvador. The behavior of al Qaeda itself follows the tactics of terror developed and perfected by the  Communists, with the addition of a religious component. Its faith in its ultimate success is based to a great extent on the analysis that we will eventually again betray our friends and run away.

So the question is: does betrayal of friends by us actually save lives, or merely postpone the loss of lives of our soldiers?

The second point is a bit more subtle. We are now the strongest military power in the world. This fact is a potential threat to many other nations, since, if we chose, we could destroy them. This threat becomes palpable if we are seen to be using that power to promote our interests in a very narrow sense ( as represented by the statement that one American is worth a thousand wogs.)  If we are seen as casually abandoning allies once they are attacked ruthlessly enough to endanger our soldiers' lives, our ability to have allies at all is diminished and we encourage everyone to plan to develop their own power.

Being the greatest military power the issue arises: what do we do if and when a rogue state attacks its neighbor? do we ignore it on the principle that our soldiers' lives are more precious than international morality? Children often test the limits on them that are set by their parents, and in a similar way rogue regimes test the limits on them that we set. We can envision a world that relies on us for its protection against rogues, or a world in which rogues slowly take over the world outside us. Is the latter really in our best interest? Will it ultimately save our lives? Or does it provide a menace to us orders of magnitude greater than that of global warming?

The Soviets developed indirect methods of attack that have been developed further by al Qaeda and other Islamic movements. Will breathing new life in such movements really ultimately save American lives?

The point I am trying to make is that if you wish to have allies in the world you have to convince them that you are respectful of their interests as well as your own. We have two important real interests in Iraq. The first is in defeating and weakening al Qaeda which has seen fit to fight us there. The second is to protect the weak Sunni states of the Persian Gulf (whose oil supplies are vital to our allies)  from the potential (nuclear) military power of Iran. Most Iraqis share these interests. To give them up now makes no sense at all. But to give the impression that we would sell them out the moment our interests differ is not necessarily our best policy.

 

 

 

 

82

Pulling back to bases outside of the metro areas and going after Al Qaeda gives each side a bit of what they're looking for... it's just a matter of time until we end up there.

This is exactly what we did from the end of major combat operations in 2003 until the end of 2006 and it simply didn't work.  To the contrary, the "light footprint" approach had the opposite effect: it allowed AQI and the sectarian militas to flourish.  Petraeus has rightly figured out that to really do damage to these guys, you have to be living and moving among them.  Hence the current counteroffensive. 

83 My question: What, exactly, enables Al-Qaeda in Iraq, should we withdraw, to continue to operate in a poor desert full of unemployment and religious rule?

You answered this nicely, actually: "They needn't worry about the economy; these people don't work for a living, after all. They get paid to kill by foreign benefactors, and from what they can steal from the local populace."

To fund a dedicated, sophisticated terrorist organization still takes quite a bit of money. Not on the same order of magnitude as, say, the US Army of course. But thats still a lot of food, a lot of training, intelligence, travel, ammo, etc etc ad infinitum.

Why not, instead of wasting blood and treasure in Iraq, going after these "foreign benefactors" in the form of the house of Saud and others? Smash them, take back what allows them to fund terrorism in recompense for their treachery (ie return the oil fields back to their rightful, western owners) and leave Al-Qaeda strapped for cash.

This turns the problem far more into the "law enforcement" problem democrats like to pretend terrorism is and less of a geopolitical issue.

The thing is, you can't force someone to be free, and most of the middle east thinks that this "democracy" thing is a novel way for their tribe to scrape their way to the top without (as much) killing involved. You aren't going to affect cultural change in the mideast without measures that the American people would find repugnant. Lets stop pretending that democracy means freedom and let them go to hell in their way, and keep ourselves safe.

84 >>Why not, instead of wasting blood and treasure in Iraq, going after these "foreign benefactors" in the form of the house of Saud and others? Smash them, take back what allows them to fund terrorism in recompense for their treachery (ie return the oil fields back to their rightful, western owners) and leave Al-Qaeda strapped for cash.

How, exactly? It's no secret, as you said, that the only way we are ever going to really stop jihadists is to cut off their funding. Yes, the House of Saud along with many wealthy families (such as the bin Ladens) provide the money to make all this work, but how exactly would we go about stopping it?

If we wanted to cut off the money and security sources we would have to take out Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, Syria, Iran and Pakistan for starters. Realistically, do you think we could ever get a majority of Americans to support that or even accomplish it? We don't even have a majority of Americans who want to finish the job in Iraq and as awesome as our military is I doubt they could take out what is essentially the entire middle east and parts of Asia by themselves.

No matter what any of us personally feel about the middle east, its culture or the people, we need to understand that wars are fought for one reason, national security. National security is a broad term and it includes not just the overt threat of a nation or group attacking and killing our citizens but the less obvious threat that can be made against our country through the destruction of our economy and way of life.

Like it or not we do live in a global economy and it is in our national interest, our national security interest, to insure that other nations and regions that we rely upon treat us in a fair and equitable way. Take a look at the Asian markets. Every time they hiccup, our markets take a beating. We rely on Asia as a major trading partner and when they start to suffer, so do we. We need those markets to buy our goods and in turn provide us with an outlet for our goods. If Asia became destabilized by a major regional war, we would face the obvious threat of someone attacking our people but we would also face the less obvious but equally damaging threat to our economy. That may sound cold but its an economic reality. Prices would rise, interest rates would rise, poverty would rise, unemployment would rise, etc., etc..

In the middle east, we face the obvious threat from terror groups and nations such as Iran against our people and allies but we face the equally damaging threat of having our economy destroyed. Aside from pistachios and some cool rugs, the one thing the middle east has that we require is oil. Everbody knows it. That's why we are there. It's why we aren't in Africa because they don't have what we need. Sound cold? Too bad. It's the truth. But much to the dismay of the morons who inhabit Kos, we aren't there to steal it. We are there to make sure it is not used by gov'ts or groups as a weapon to threaten not only our economy but the world's economy. In fact, stealing their oil and allowing them to sink further into poverty would be antithetical to our national interest and security. We want, we need them to be stable and prosperous to sell us what we need and to in turn buy our goods and services.

That's why, as much as we may have issues with the Saudis we are better off working with them to reform their country, particularly as it has to do with supporting jihadists, using soft power rather than military. In truth, we care about them being an open society only to the extent that they are a good partner. With all respect to Sandy, not many people lie awake at night worrying over the plight of human rights in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis cracked this code a long time ago. As did the Kuwatis, the UAE and some of the more moderate gov'ts in the region. Saddam Hussein, the mullahs in Iran, Yemen, eh, not so much.

Iraq was a message. I don't care what the public rhetoric was, we took out Hussein for the simple reason that by his actions he was not only threatening us and our interests militarily but economically by destabilizing the region. The message was play nice with us and we will play nice with you. Fuck with us and we will take you out. Do we care that you have a Jeffersonian democracy? No, not really. We just want your country to be open and free to the extent you will play nice as a member of the world community and economy.

That's why we need a stable Iraq. We need them to be a member of the world community in an open way so that their people will be prosperous and stable and less likely to be swayed by radicalism. We need them to be an open trading partner so that we can buy their oil and keep our way of life intact. And we need them to be an example to the region of what can happen when you cooperate with the world community instead of fighting against it.

In the long run, we will spend a lot less blood and treasure by finishing what we started in Iraq now rather than leaving and returning to a much messier situation.

85 Oh and, if you want a real life example of why "just take their oil" is a really, really bad idea, put the words Churchill, Roosevelt, British Petroleum, Operation Ajax and Iran into your favorite search engine.

Been there, done that, got the mullahs.

86

Dear Australian,

"Bush and his cronies went to war after creating and doctoring evidence of weapons of mass destruction. After rolling through Iraq, they disbanded the police and the army. The US had no post war plans in place despite warnings from the State Department that what has happened could happen."

Whoa, dude, what a revelation!  Damn, you must have donned your "Cloak of Invisibility," hid under the the table in the White House Situation Room, and have been feverishly scribbling notes when Bush convened his Legion of Doom to draw up plans for the "Ultra-Top-Secret-But-Deliberately-Obtuse-And-Overly Complicated-Imperial-Plan-For-The-Invasion-Of-Saddam's-Sandbox" (Code Name: Operation Grand Slam).  You must have felt just like 007 when he hid under that scale model of Fort Knox in "Goldfinger."

It must be GREAT to be a super-secret agent.  Bet you win big bucks playing Chemin de Fer at Monte Carlo and pick up all the hot babes too.

87

Jack Straw - that was themost cold-hearted, concise and blatently correct assessment that I have EVER read as to why we are in Iraq.

If only Bush was capable of comments like:  "That's why we are there. It's why we aren't in Africa because they don't have what we need. Sound cold? Too bad. It's the truth. But much to the dismay of the morons who inhabit Kos, we aren't there to steal it. We are there to make sure it is not used by gov'ts or groups as a weapon to threaten not only our economy but the world's economy. In fact, stealing their oil and allowing them to sink further into poverty would be antithetical to our national interest and security."   .........."Iraq was a message. I don't care what the public rhetoric was, we took out Hussein for the simple reason that by his actions he was not only threatening us and our interests militarily but economically by destabilizing the region. The message was play nice with us and we will play nice with you. Fuck with us and we will take you out. Do we care that you have a Jeffersonian democracy? No, not really. We just want your country to be open and free to the extent you will play nice as a member of the world community and economy."

See the thing is, I originally posted in here because I find it distressing, that all of a sudden, Obama and those tired of hearing about the deaths of 4,000 Americans and daily car bombs are suddenly embracing "genocide chic".  Genocide is not a parlor game.  Before you lightly dismiss it - STOP!  THINK about what your words really mean.  Turn your back on the cries of mass murder and you have turned your back on civilization and yourself.  Look, War is hell - but to pretend that we can "just say no to war" is as stupid, simplistic and fantasy based.  The idea that we can just come home or deploy and not have to worry about the war on terror blowing up 400,000 in a city in NY or having to endure those daily car bombs right here in the USA.

Jack Straw is absolutely right.  The reason we are not in Africa is because we do not have a foreign interest there.  Being there would not provide the "cost/benefit" quotient that Ace is arguing for.  Look I get the concept of a cost/benefit quotient - but we are IN Iraq and unlike Africa - we can effect change there.  Many Iraqi people have stood with us to help us fight a war that, unless you have a child-like liberal mind, you probably agree is having some positive impact in this war which will not stop affecting us if we just pack up and go home.  Deaths of soldiers in Iraq are tragic - God Bless their familes.  God bless them.  But 40,000 + people die in automobiles each year and we don't simply round up all autos and tell everyone to walk because we have moved beyond a point where it makes sense to do so.

Bottom line - the idea of just waving off Genocide just cause we are tired of the war is simply WRONG,.  The world is complex.  War is complex .  Thinking you can write off all Iraqis as little brown folk incapable of democracy is simplistic.  Packing up and going home won't end this war on global terror.  So why do it when so much slaughter will be the ONLY result?

88 Ace,
I think you're off base on this one.  This isn't a clean-slate intervention; genocide would result from our actions based on prior national interest.  Even lacking national interests in the current situation, it would be wrong to simply wash out hands. More here.

89 What was it Obama said about intervening to prevent Genocide in 2005?

90 nice analysis on this, some interesting points to consider that I previously had not.

91 We don't even have a majority of Americans who want to finish the job in Iraq

I know that leftists say that but there's never been even a poll yet that claims this. There's just polls that indicate displeasure with how things are going and with the way the Iraqis are responding to our efforts, not that say "we should leave now and the hell with Iraq."

92 Man, there's a lot of stupidity on display here. 

Let's start with Ace.  Lots of the tossed-off comments about the impoverished desert just show you haven't been keeping up.  New estimates of probable reserves -- unproven because SH more or less knew of them and didn't want his client Sunni getting uppity -- indicate that there's ~100 bbl there.  And the country's biggest natural gas field has just been found, stretching from Mosul all the way to KSA.   The take-away number is that it makes Anbar's per-capita oil wealth about 3X the ROI (Rest Of Iraq).  So the desert Sunni are sitting pretty, and AQ would be fabulously wealthy if it took over. 

Second: moral precepts have hard survival reasons behind them.  To KISS, recall the Neihbur sequence: "When they came for the Jews, I didn't object, because I was not a Jew."  Etc., until they came for him.  Most serious morality has a strong prophylactic component: pay me now, pay me later.  Later is MUCH bigger.
In this case, one good genocide leads to another.  And standing by plays royal hell with your major asset: international respect.  Lose that, and all your influence is bought or enforced at gunpoint. 

Third:  Leftist idealism is simplistic feel-good stuff, but conservative idealism is values-based, and holds that values are tools and weapons of great power.  In the ME, having a liberty-values enclave prospering in the midst of ranting medieval "Submit or Die" theology with access to modern travel and accelerants is a pearl of great price. 

Fourth: "Thousands of American lives" are not yours give or not.  Ask the soldiers -- volunteers all -- if they think their risk is worth it.  Not your call.  The "treasure"?  Billions sounds like big numbers, but in terms of the US GDP a billion is 1.2% of 1%.  That's a decimal fraction of .00008, if you prefer.  Get over it.

Fifth:  The classroom effect is almost invaluable.  This kind of "asymmetric challenge" is THE wave of the future, and learning how to do it right and getting a significant success in hand will have numerous short, medium, and long-term payoffs.  Nothing is free.

And so on.  Suggestion: factor in the Anbar oil, and start your analysis over. 

93 Pulling back to bases outside of the metro areas and going after Al Qaeda gives each side a bit of what they're looking for... it's just a matter of time until we end up there."

This is exactly what we did from the end of major combat operations in 2003 until the end of 2006 and it simply didn't work.

I want to know where this latest leftist talking point came from. It's so hilariously contradictory and idotic I break out laughing half the time when I read it.

This statement is, as you accurately point out, exactly what the left was criticizing in 2006 and calling for a change of tactics. This proposal is precisely what we were doing before and it was failing to break the "insurgency" (in other words, the death squads and terrorists). The Surge was hailed as a brilliant idea, Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve the use of Patraeus' ideas, which were precisely to stop doing what this fool says.

Now the complaint is that we should go back to doing that again? This is just the depths of stupidity or deliberate falsehood. Just disgusting, and I've seen that very line over and over with slight variations all over the internet recently. Some Kos talking point, no doubt.

94 P.S.  The Darfur commentary also displays lack of awareness of the ground facts.  Exon-Mobil discovered oil in the south, were evicted by the government militia, and China was invited in to continue the exploration/exploitation, along with co-Islamic Malaysia.  The government sent in and equipped waves of militias and freebooters to push the locals out or into labor camps, and the Chinese followed.  They set up refineries in the northern desert, and fast links to the ports.  Oil and refined product is being exported as fast as it can be extracted.  The genocide is, irony of ironies, all about Big Oil.  Anti-American Big Oil.  How 'bout that?

95 PPS.  That should have been "0.8% of 1%", of course.

96 >>P.S. The Darfur commentary also displays lack of awareness of the ground facts.

So, youse wanna argue facts, does ya?

Fact. The US imports about 15% of its oil annually from Africa. This compares with about 22% we get from the middle east.

Fact. China, which is outstripping the US in demand (growth not overall) gets about 30% of its oil from Africa.

Fact. About 8% of the world's known deposits of oil are in Africa. This compares with about 62% in the middle east.

Fact. The US kicked its own companies out of the Sudan in 1995 when we put sanctions on Sudan for human rights violations.

Fact. China was already in the Sudan as a player and filled the void we left. The Sudanes welcomed the Chinese and their national oil company to stay because they were about the only choice they had.

Fact. China gets about 9-10% of its oil annually from Sudan.

Fact. The US gets the same amount it always has, 0%.

Fact. We get most of our African oil from two places, Nigeria and Libya. We only started working with Libya again after they get rid of their WMD (not to mention their Iraqi nuclear technicians).

Fact. While we may not be in Sudan, we are all over Africa, particularly off the coast of Somolia helping insure the waterways stay open. We go where it serves our interests, full stop.

As I said earlier, we aren't actively in the Sudan trying to stop their civil and ethnic war because we have no interests there. They don't have anything we need. China, on the other hand, is there.

How you like my awareness now, bunky?

97 Oh and thanks, Becky.

98

The difference in the long-run between enligtened self-interest for a group and proper moral behavior is very, very slim.

While focusing on our interests is good, so is focusing on morality.  Right now, we are training for the day when every man can have a fusion device built by nanites in his basement.  Make the weak, immoral decision now, and we won't have what it takes to deal then.  And lots of people then will blame God for allowing Nuts with Nanites to blow up the world, but it will be their fault because in the time of preparation they chose poorly.

99 Listen to yourself, exposed as an ultra-conservative. To you, "Never again" means look the other way.

You'll have to live with your shame.

100 I'm not much in favor of sacrificing American soldiers just so I can feel more moral.

Let the soldiers live; I'll just have to bear the shame of making an immoral calculation as best I can.

That's probably what GHWBush said after Gulf War I, and look what that led to. Moral is one thing, but leaving the cleanup costs (with bloody interest accruing constantly) to a future generation is in and of itself also pretty damned immoral if you ask me.

So, if we were to leave Iraq to self-destruct, providing a place for AQ and other terrorists to regroup, would you be willing to promise that doing so would make America safer in the long term than just wiping them out like we should have done in the first place?

I still prefer the Keyzer Soze style of combat: kill the terrorists, kill their families, kill their friends, kill their friends' families, their dogs, burn their villages, sow the charred remains with salt, and parade tour groups through the salt so they learn their lesson.

Like I always say, "If it's good enough for Scipio, it's good enough for me."

101 Australian, can we also try Clinton for forcing us into Bosnia without U.N. approval? 

You know, losing lives and using the m ilitary in a civil war with no end and simply wasting lives trying to change a country's viewpoint?

Or is it just the Conservatives who start wars you don't like?

Based on a lie?  Well hell, you better go tell the French, British, Russian, and Australian intelligence forces that they were part of a Bush lie since the mid 1990's (oddly before Bush was even President... what a long range plan).  That or it wasn't so much a lie, as simply being honestly wrong due to poor intel.


Hell, I'd try to clear up and explain the idiocy you've got there, but I don't have the time to repeat again why your cliche trite inaccuracies aren't exactly landing home.


Oh, and Ace, you're ok with us staying out of Darfur; you think the massagre after Vietnam was acceptable and not something that the U.S. should worry about (or maybe Kerry's "there was no massacre" defense)?  You think Rwanda went perfectly.  Heck, maybe we shouldn't have bothered getting into those Wordl Wars either.  They didn't directly threaten us, and part of isolationist self-absorbed stupidity is throwing allies under the bus...

You're about one step from Ron Paul's foreign policy here.  Do we really have a security interest in South Korea?  Taiwan?  Do we really need them so badly as to risk troops and expend resources on bases, etc.?  You might want to reconsider... or openly admit your support for the last hope for Conservatives?

102

Wow.  At what point do you look in the mirror and say to yourself - I could care less if a million women and young girls are raped and viciously murdered.  I don't care if infants cry as they are thrown, alone, on top of a mass of bodies.  I don't care because George Bush Lied and so they deserve it.

Well.  At least this issue allows you to come to terms with what type of person you are. 

As for me, if there is something that I can do to prevent this horror - I will gladly step up to the plate.

103 What the hell does Obama know about surfing- he's from goddam Illinois

104 We wouldn't be in this predicament if we'd fought the war right- all out, kill everyone, strike fear into the rest

105

Barry, it is meaningless because we ARE in this predicament.  We need to step up and do what is right. 

At some point, we need to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.  A discussion of who/what/why/how/ and when is wholly appropriate and I even understand Ace's willingness to dip  into cost/benefit.  We can't save the world from every Somalia or Darfur. I fully understand that.

However, you'd have to be disingenious or uninformed NOT to realize that Iraq has  a population capable of establishing a civilized society.  There are many good people there, willing to sacrifice their personal safety to make this happen for their children and grandchildren.

Look at it like this:  Imagine that California has become the battle ground for the M13 gang  and car bombs are going off daily in certain neighborhoods in LA and Oakland.  The SF Mayor, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Arnold all happily sell out in exchange for re-election campaign cash.  It's not that hard to imagine that the M13 could easily turn a day in the life of an Californian into the day in the life of a Iraqi. 

Would you feel the same?  Would you advocate leaving the citizens that live there to rape/slaughter/genocide using the same arguments that are being used to leave the citizens of Iraq to this fate?  Think about what this really means!

Iraq is not Darfur.  Let's all work together to help prevent a genocide there.  Don't turn your eyes and cover your ears.  Be human, for God's sake.

An Iraqi genocide can be prevented.  Good people will do what they can to help prevent it.  What kind of person are you?

106

Becky writes:

Wow.  At what point do you look in the mirror and say to yourself - I could care less if a million women and young girls are raped and viciously murdered.  I don't care if infants cry as they are thrown, alone, on top of a mass of bodies...

Well, Becky, that is exactly what is happening in Darfur and Sudan. I'd love to see the letter you've written to your congressmen urging them to send US troops in there.

As far as Obama goes, if you read the article and not just the headline on Drudge, you'll see that he opposes military intervention in Darfur. Surprisingly, "the left" is not a monolith of people with exactly the same ideas. It seems to me that there is hypocrisy on both sides: many folks on the right did not want Clinton to interfer in Kosovo, but now don't want to leave Iraq for humanitarian purposes. Some on the left want us to intervene in Darfur, but not Iraq.

The sad truth is that most Americans can sleep just fine at night even if there is genocide going on in the world. The right likes to talk about Pol Pot right now, but honestly how many Americans even know who he is? They want US troops out of Iraq and if the Iraqis decide to wipe each other out, well too bad.

 

 

107

Hey you, Teresa, you sicken me.  Look how you so easily dismiss genocide by noting that "others" manage to do so.  Fuck you - go to hell.  Oh, and just for the record, I've never once stooped to writing "Fuck You" before  and I've probably written 1,000,000 posts.  But I found your particular defense of genocide it to be particularly offensive.

Sleep well.

 

108

yeah...and I've been out in the garden thinking about how you alone deserve the privilige of my stooping to writing,
"Fuck You".   And I'm sorry, to say it - no, I really am - that I wish upon you the same fate that you have dismissed upon the Iraqi people. 

And there you have it.  Think twice about what  you condone - because I really believe that I have cursed you with the same fate. 

Have a nice day.

 

109 I'm not condoning genocide Becky -- merely pointing out that many people do. And -- again -- I find it interesting that you are able to look past what is going on in Darfur and Sudan and Kosovo. Or do you think the Iraqis deserve some special consideration that you are unwilling to give anyone else? Put your money where your mouth is and write your congress critter urging intervention in Darfur or shut up.

110

Teresa - yeah, you aren't condoning genocide, you are simply one of those minions who allow a holocaust happen by doing nothing.  Actually you are worse, because you are distracting from the efforts of people who are attempting to call the alarm by shaking the shiny keys and say, oh look over here at Darfur - look over here at Sudan.

In post, #106, you said, "I'd love to see the letter you've written to your congressmen urging them to send US troops in [to Darfur and Sudan].

In 109 you said, ,   I find it interesting that you are able to look past what is going on in Darfur and Sudan and Kosovo Or do you think the Iraqis deserve some special consideration.

No, Teresa,  I have not sent a letter urging my reps to send troops IN to every corner of the world where neighbors are hacking each other up.  I've never asked them to send  troops IN to anywhere.  But what I am asking is that we not CAUSE a genocide, as we did in Saigon, by simply yanking our troops out because people like you are "tired" of the killing; So tired of the killing that you are willing to accept the genocide that will follow. 

Oh sure, you don't like the idea of genocide.  You aren't condoning it.  But genoicide of the Iraqi people doesn't bother you enough to set down your right/left prism and stand up against what will occur if we withdraw our troops too soon.

Look your post!  Look how carefully you have laid out the issue of genocide through a right v/s left prism.  Is that all it is for you?  An issue to be viewed between left v/s right.  You can't even do a gut check even over the lives of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions? 

You are a real peach.  When people like me stand up and say, that CAUSING an Iraqi genocide is wrong, you jump up and start screaming, Darfur! Sudan! Kosovo! Look over there!  Maybe for just one freaking second you might stop and allow yourself to think about what is going to happen if we withdraw from Iraq.  Then  look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are really ok with that.  Genocide!  This isn't a game.   But then, to do that would mean that you'd have to think about supporting our troops in Iraq.  And even a pending holocaust can't get you to stop and do that.

111 salt pepper set salt & pepper shakers salt and pepper shaker salt pepper shakers pepper shaker pepper shakers salt shaker salt and pepper salt pepper shaker salt pepper RC MODELS SUPPLIER R C MODEL WHOLESALE RC HOBBY AGENT RADIO CONTROL TOYS WHOLESALE RC TOYS SUPPLIER RC BOAT WHOLESALE RC AIRPLANES WHOLESALE RC CARS WHOLESALE RC HELICOPTERS WHOLESALE RC PLANE WHOLESALE REMOTE CONTROL CAR WHOLESALE RC ACCESSORIES SUPPLIER MINI RC TANK WHOLESALE RC TRUCK WHOLESALE RADIO CONTROLLED MODELS SUPPLIER RC HELICOPTER SPARE PARTS RADIO CONTROL HELICOPTER WHOLESALE REMOTE CONTROLS SPARE PARTS

112 出会いライブチャットチャットレディ出会い系出会い人妻フィリピンデリヘルチャットレディ車買取バイク買取アダルトライブチャット転職出会い

113 q w e r t y u i o p a s d f g h j k l z x c v b n m q1 q2 w2 w1 e3 w4 d3 d4 d5 d44 d5 d6 d9 d0 aa2 a1 a33 4a a4 ds sdf cz vx vc xv xvzx

114 ¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¢¥À¥ë¥È¥¨¥íSEXÉ÷¯¥ª¥Ê¥Ë¡¼½Ð²ñ¤¤¥¨¥í¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¨¥Ã¥Á½Ð²ñ¤¤½Ð²ñ¤¤¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹ÁÇ¿Í¥¨¥Ã¥ÁµðÆý½Ï½÷½Ï½÷SEX½Ï½÷

115 Tod Converter,MTS Converter,MKV Converter,Mac DVD Copy,Clone DVD Mac

116 GOOD replica watches review| miu miu handbags| replica handbags| fake handbags| gucci Handbags| replica fendi| Replica Louis Vuitton| Louis Vuitton handbags| replica Prada| replica Bottega Veneta| replica Burberry| replica Hermes| Jimmy Choo Handbags| replica watch| replica Rolex| Rolex Submariner| Rolex Yacht-Master| replica Breitling

117 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

118 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

119 buy air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa

120 buy xenical online

121 Viagra Oral Jelly

122 buy Tamiflu

123 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

124 Levitra

125 buy paxil online

126 prozac side effects

127 Fake Cheap Rolex | Fake Watches | Replica Breitling Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Rolex | Jacob & Co Replica | Fake Swiss | Swiss Fake Watches | Franck Muller Replica Watches | Replica Omega Watch | Fake Ebel Watches | Replica Swiss Watch | Omega Watch | Rado Watches | Panerai Fake Watches

128 Replica watches | Replica Cartier | soccer jersey wholesale | soccer jersey supplier | Replica watches | Ebel Fake | Corum Watch | Tissot Replica Watch | Fake Breguet Watches | Fake Zenith Watches | Oris Fake | Hamilton Watches | Hamilton Watch Replica | Replica Franck Muller Watches | Replica Ebel

129 plavix

130 soccer jersey wholesale | Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | replica soccer jersey | Fake Watches | Corum Watches Replica | Hublot Replica Watch | replica wristwatch | Breguet Fake Watches | Audemars Piguet Watches | Technomarine Watch | Chopard Fake | Chanel Watches Replica | Rolex Replica | Mont Blanc Replica

131 Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Omega | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Cartier | Fake Titoni Watch | Rado Replica Watch | Titoni Watch | Other Fake Watch | Replica Bell & Ross Watches | Replica Louis Vuitton Watch | Fake Longines | Benz Watch Replica | Cheap Corum Fake Watch | Hublot Fake Watches

132 prilosec coupon

133 cialis brand online

134 buy generic cialis

135 buy levitra brand

136 generic viagra brand

137 cheap levitra strips