"Win the peace"...

Well okay then, let me ask you this: What do you think Kerry will do with Iraq once he's in office?

Instead of obsessing on the armageddon we're getting if Bush is re-elected, how about telling us what the alternative is going to be?
 
What do you think Kerry will do with Iraq once he's in office?

IMO it doesn’t really matter what he does, nor what Bush does because the battle for Iraq is seemingly lost when the best the US can do is maintain “tenuous stability”, and no a leadership change will not change the Iraqi’s minds. But what will happen is that Al Q will have lost the primary source of propaganda value, the face of GWB. I think what will be important is that Kerry will probably re-start negotiations with the Isr/Pal issue that has been left to fester for far too long, and form there will slowly re-build American credibility if he can present the US as a honest broker again. Iraq is not exclusively unto itself as a problem, all Iraq is, is a metaphor for the rest of the region. You will never get what you want in the Middle East if the Isr/Pal situation is not solved. To believe (naively) that Iraq is a problem unto itself is losing the biggest picture, that’s what I fear about America’s short sightedness. Also I do believe that Kerry will at least garner more sympathy for the US compared to Bush, and slowly re-build America’s legitimacy (it would need many democratic administrations). That’s what Kerry will do, even if does nothing in Iraq.
 
But specifically, what do you think Kerry will do with regard to Iraq?
 
Kerry will manage the Iraq situation much like Clinton managed his entire Presidency: By valuing polling data above all else.

Kerry doesn't know what he thinks about anything. If you ask Kerry whether or not he preferred Coke to Pepsi he would more than likely say "Let me get back to you on that..." and then call Bob Shrum for advice. It's that sort of thinking that cost Al Gore what should have been an easy victory.

John Kerry should apply for a job with Waffle House Corporation. I actually have a bit of empathy for all of the Democrats and disillusioned Repubs out there because they really don't have a decent candidate to get behind.
 
Well he certainly won't manage it with press conferences. He seems to be determined to break Bush's record for being incommunicado.

Hey man. Don't you dis on Waffle House. Das good eats.
 
But specifically, what do you think Kerry will do with regard to Iraq?

What will he do is a good question, and it’s foolish to say that we can know. Already Kerry said he would try to bring the international community in into Iraq (which won’t happen), but I think that Kerry can play the victim and garner more supportive positions from the French and Germans, to put in more aid, and debt relief. What else can he do? Bush would not be able to do all those things; he has destroyed America’s traditional moral authority internationally. The future of Iraq is in the Iraqi’s hands, the US fucked it up but seemingly can’t fix it.
 
Okay, that answers my question.

I disagree, I don't think Kerry will do that at all, I think he will do absolutely nothing in Iraq and pull us out within six months.

If we make that assumption, the question then becomes: "Is that the best course of action for America, and/or the world?"
 
I disagree, I don't think Kerry will do that at all, I think he will do absolutely nothing in Iraq and pull us out within six months.

Well then that’s your opinion, and u cannot prejudice Mr. Kerry because you believe he may do x. You have to prejudice Kerry on what he said he would do. We can prejudice Bush because he has shown us how his administration works, and he habitually lies to the American public from everything from the situation in Iraq (full knowing its in the shits, he says we are winning), and the economy.

If we make that assumption, the question then becomes: "Is that the best course of action for America, and/or the world?"

I don’t think America has a choice, are we going to descend into this Vietnam mentality that thinks that staying there longer is some how going solve the situation. No matter what America does imo its not good news for anyone.
 
I'm not convinced that a lying president (an assumption I don't share, btw, but I don't want to change the subject) equates to a failure in Iraq. You're focused on one particular, extremely negative viewpoint. There are others. Not everyone thinks that Iraq is unsalvagable. And it's clear to me that Kerry won't even attempt to salvage it. (In fact I believe that's clear to you as well, it just doesn't fit your ABB agenda. My only further thought on that is that you should be careful what you wish for.)

It's not a question of staying there longer to solve the problem. Iraq is not Vietnam. We're building infrastructure and facility with specific goals in mind. We're building self-government with specific goals in mind. Those things may fail, yes, and they certainly have been problematic. But you don't *assume* something is impossible just because it is *difficult*. There is an argument for staying, it is a valid argument, it is substantially different from the Vietnam argument, and you cannot dismiss it out of hand.
 
You have to prejudice Kerry on what he said he would do.
Click to expand...

By the way, Kerry has *said* that he will pull the troops out within six months. So I *am* prejudging him based on what he has said.
 
I'm not convinced that a lying president (an assumption I don't share, btw, but I don't want to change the subject) equates to a failure in Iraq.

Then how do you explain Bush saying that the US is winning in Iraq, yet during that same period we now know that Bush knew the best Iraq could accomplish is “tenuous stability”? Are you telling me that isn’t lying? A lying president is a failure of the social contract, never mind Iraq.

Not everyone thinks that Iraq is unsalvagable. And it's clear to me that Kerry won't even attempt to salvage it. (In fact I believe that's clear to you as well, it just doesn't fit your ABB agenda. My only further thought on that is that you should be careful what you wish for.)

What is there to salvage when the best the US can do is again maintain this morass? This from the part of the CIA whose purpose to predict what will happen in x countries, as scenarios? When you have no legitimacy you have no power, when you have no power you lose.

Iraq is not Vietnam. We're building infrastructure and facility with specific goals in mind. We're building self-government with specific goals in mind. Those things may fail, yes, and they certainly have been problematic.

Vietnam had a gov’t of its own as well, like Vietnam the Iraqi security forces are woefully trained, motivated, and many of them actually work for the insurgency. Like Vietnam everyone is a potential enemy. Like Vietnam there seems to be a Tet like offensive, the US is losing authority in Iraq like she did in Vietnam. This logic that somehow things will change is laughable, has history not taught the US anything?

But you don't *assume* something is impossible just because it is *difficult*.

Difficult has passed the US now…
 
Then how do you explain Bush saying that the US is winning in Iraq, yet during that same period we now know that Bush knew the best Iraq could accomplish is “tenuous stability”? Are you telling me that isn’t lying? A lying president is a failure of the social contract, never mind Iraq.
Click to expand...

No, that's not lying. That's his assessment. Mine differs, as does yours, but that's not the same thing as if he were hiding the current status of operations.

Again, it seems like all you want to do is talk about the politics of the situation. My interest in this specific discussion has nothing to do with politics. My interest in this thread is about what's best for Iraq. Remember, the subject for this thread is "winning the peace", not "anybody but Bush".


What is there to salvage when the best the US can do is again maintain this morass?
Click to expand...

I don't agree that that's the best that can be accomplished. I've read your postings, so I understand your point of view. I believe they're strong arguments, but they're not definitive. All they really prove is that the job is difficult. We've accomplished difficult tasks before.

Vietnam had a gov’t of its own as well, like Vietnam the Iraqi security forces are woefully trained, motivated, and many of them actually work for the insurgency.
Click to expand...

Correct. But in Vietnam we were not focused on rebuilding that country's infrastructure, and its economic and political viability. At least not to the extent that we are today in Iraq.

You'll note that I haven't said that's a GOOD thing. I'm saying it's different. I reiterate that I would not have gone to Iraq, and committed this country to spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the thankless task of building Iraq into a democracy that it may not even want.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to support YOUR proposal of spending the money AND getting nothing out of it. Those Iraqis are going to have a Democracy if I have to pry it into their cold, dead fingers.
 
Remember, the subject for this thread is "winning the peace", not "anybody but Bush".

Remember its my thread…;)

I don't agree that that's the best that can be accomplished. I've read your postings, so I understand your point of view. I believe they're strong arguments, but they're not definitive. All they really prove is that the job is difficult. We've accomplished difficult tasks before.

But has America ever accomplished these tasks before? No, American, nor the UK has ever one in these situations. How many times in the 20th century can I note power overstretching their powers, using the same logic you are that eventually things will get better. The UK tried the exact same thing in Iraq in the early 20’s and they lost big time: http://onwar.com/aced/nation/ink/iraq/firaq1920.htm I see the similarities big time.

Correct. But in Vietnam we were not focused on rebuilding that country's infrastructure, and its economic and political viability. At least not to the extent that we are today in Iraq.

The US has only spent 3 billion of reconstruction money; the US cannot build an economy without security. Security must come first, ask Adam Smith about that. Building schools does not change hearts and minds, if it did then the USSR would have won Afghanistan.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to support YOUR proposal of spending the money AND getting nothing out of it. Those Iraqis are going to have a Democracy if I have to pry it into their cold, dead fingers.

Ok but, you won’t like the results. You decide, arrogance, or logic.
 
Remember its my thread…
Click to expand...

Yes, and you put it in the "World Events" forum, remember?


But has America ever accomplished these tasks before?
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly valid question, and the comparison with UK is excellent. That's exactly what we're trying to avoid. Iraq must not become our Suez.

Where you and I disagree is that I don't believe it will necessarily come to that. It might. It might not. Perhaps when we look back on it, the comparison we make will be not Suez, but Bosnia. Nation-building that came at an ugly price, and may not have been entirely successful, but it didn't end an empire, and it pretty much had to be done.


How many times in the 20th century can I note power overstretching their powers, using the same logic you are that eventually things will get better.
Click to expand...

That's not the logic I've used at all. That may well be the logic other people are using, yes. My logic is that things will get better if we work hard and push forward to achieve our goals. I'm not standing around with my thumb up my ass waiting for things to get better. I agree that would be stupid.


Building schools does not change hearts and minds, if it did then the USSR would have won Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

It's an excellent point. Fortunately we're doing more than build schools. We're building governments and economic infrastructures as well.

Sucks, but what can you do.
 
Yes, and you put it in the "World Events" forum, remember?

This thread was made prior to the existence of a separate politics forum, and prior to ur arrival.

That's a perfectly valid question, and the comparison with UK is excellent. That's exactly what we're trying to avoid. Iraq must not become our Suez.

The problem is that the problem is happening, u have not avoided it u have instead walked right into it. It’s too late now to say that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the US just leaves Allawi (Saddam jr) in power and leaves. I don’t see the relation to Suez though…that is a totally different situation. An insurgency that is growing after more then one year of “benevolent” occupation is indicative that this fallacious argumentation that “staying the course” will work is going to cause the US a lot of pain.

Nation-building that came at an ugly price, and may not have been entirely successful, but it didn't end an empire, and it pretty much had to be done.

Nation-building has bankrupted empires, it’s not the actual occupation that is the problem it’s their effects. America is not special, America is not exceptional, and America is not exempt from history. You cannot say that more cognitive members of society told you not to go, but ignorance of history, and American arrogance won out yet again. But this time to your own detriment.

My logic is that things will get better if we work hard and push forward to achieve our goals. I'm not standing around with my thumb up my ass waiting for things to get better. I agree that would be stupid.

How can that be accomplished if before any economic development can occur security has to be maintained. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle, that u cannot get out of. Watch:

No security= no investment= no jobs= unemployment= rebellion= no security.

The US lost the opportunity to fix this.

It's an excellent point. Fortunately we're doing more than build schools. We're building governments and economic infrastructures as well.

Name me the empire that didn’t do that? America is not exempt from history.
 
This thread was made prior to the existence of a separate politics forum, and prior to ur arrival.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. I apologize.


I don’t see the relation to Suez though…that is a totally different situation.
Click to expand...

The comparison (from the anti-Bush perspective) would be that in both situations a failing empire is/was attempting to secure an economic asset. I don't see Iraq that way myself, and if you don't either, great. A lot of people here at Sciforums seem to, but far be it for me to put words in your mouth -- I don't think I've ever heard you tout the party line that Iraq is about securing oil for the US. But from the simpler perspective of an aging empire attempting to perform an overseas military action, the comparison seems to be legitimate, at least to me.


How can that be accomplished if before any economic development can occur security has to be maintained. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle, that u cannot get out of. Watch:
No security= no investment= no jobs= unemployment= rebellion= no security.
The US lost the opportunity to fix this.
Click to expand...

And we should all sell our homes and live in the street, because armageddon is coming tomorrow. You and I might as well drop out of college, while we're at it. There's no point in ever attempting to do anything. "Cats and dogs, living together!" (What movie?)

I'm not being serious here, just giving you a hard time for your pessimism like I always do. I think your points are valid and I can't say that you're wrong. I just happen to believe that success is possible. It's funny how you and I contrast each other this way -- you the pessimist, me the optimist. I should review my Voltaire, surely there's a pessimist in Candide to offset Dr. Pangloss. (hehe)

Name me the empire that didn’t do that? America is not exempt from history.
Click to expand...

Can't do it. You win! (hehe)
 
The comparison (from the anti-Bush perspective) would be that in both situations a failing empire is/was attempting to secure an economic asset.

Yes but the Brits/French/Isr would have won it wasn’t for Soviet, and American pressure. No such situation exists now; the Americans have no real pressure. This is a failure of American military/political policy alone. America is an empire that is on the decline, all Iraq is, is an mere exaggeration of that fact.

But from the simpler perspective of an aging empire attempting to perform an overseas military action, the comparison seems to be legitimate, at least to me.

It’s a cry for empire; this is an attempt for America to show off its power one last time before her economic prowess subsides and surrenders to that of Asia. America has reached her peak of power, and once u’ve reached the peak of power there is only one way…that’s down.

I'm not being serious here, just giving you a hard time for your pessimism like I always do. I think your points are valid and I can't say that you're wrong. I just happen to believe that success is possible. It's funny how you and I contrast each other this way -- you the pessimist, me the optimist. I should review my Voltaire, surely there's a pessimist in Candide to offset Dr. Pangloss. (hehe)

I would be an optimist if I were to actually see optimistic things coming out of Iraq. I am not going to mask myself from the reality because of the ridiculous idea of hope and belief. Pathetic even imo.
 
Yes but the Brits/French/Isr would have won it wasn’t for Soviet, and American pressure. No such situation exists now; the Americans have no real pressure. This is a failure of American military/political policy alone. America is an empire that is on the decline, all Iraq is, is an mere exaggeration of that fact.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can say that America is under no pressure in Iraq. I don't see how America could possibly be under more pressure.
 
I can't agree with that at all, unless we're just defining "pressure" differently. To my view, the insurrection is *entirely* driven by outside forces. Sure they're picking up some local talent, but Iran is pouring meat over the border as fast as they can sign it up. Syria's probably still doing the same, and the Palestinian groups in Israel when they have the time.

The pressure from kidnappings is also present, and you've got KofeandCupcake Anan running around calling the whole thing illegal. How much more pressure can there be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top