Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Paul Campos--Eternal Optimist
Local law professor and Tuesday columnist for the Rocky Mountain News declares the liberation of Iraq from Hitler-like dictator Saddam Hussein a complete failure, a waste of time, money and American lives.
If the point of the Iraq invasion in 2003 was to complete Gulf War 1, remove Saddam Hussein, prevent him from ever again invading another neighbor or having access to WMD, and allow the Iraqis to vote for their own government, I can't see how any rational person can say we've failed. If the point was to make Iraq as peaceful as the Amish countryside (OK not a great example), then we still have work to do. Baghdad is not the kite flying paradise it was before March, 2003, as portrayed in Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll admit. We've failed to make it Michael Moore's fantasy, for sure.
First fatuous quote:
Thus we are stuck in a terrible situation: While there are rational arguments in favor of escalating the Iraq war and withdrawing altogether from it, the one course that almost every expert on the question agrees makes no sense - maintaining enough of a military presence to inspire both the insurgency and sectarian violence, but not enough to effectively curtail either - is the course on which we seem destined to remain. (Emphasis added).
Almost every expert agrees that what we're doing is wrong? Campos only cites non military experts Fareed Zakaria and Senator John Warner (R-VA) and neither of them say that. So cut and run is right; flooding Iraq with American troops is right; providing security and training as the Iraqi government slowly gets up and running is wrong. Glad that's clear. I think just the opposite. I'm willing to bet most military men with 602 knowledge of Iraq agree with me.
Second fatuous quote:
All of which means it will become increasingly clear that American troops are being killed and wounded in Iraq for no good reason. And, as in Vietnam...
You know Viet Nam wasn't just a disaster because, even as our forces triumphed, the leadership back home lost heart and then the war, but also because we then betrayed an ally (the Democrats betrayed South Viet Nam in 1975) and the rest of the World's nations said under their breath, never trust the U.S. to stay a difficult course.
Let's repeat that lesson to the world, and encourage our enemies and cower our potential allies by cutting and running in Iraq. Excellent idea, professor.
UPDATE: I try to remember to email what I write to the author of the article I'm writing about. This time Paul Campos responded: The 101st Fighting Keyboarders springing into action is always an inspiring site.
Cute (site for sight is very subtle) but I can't say it really responded to my criticisms or arguments.
If the point of the Iraq invasion in 2003 was to complete Gulf War 1, remove Saddam Hussein, prevent him from ever again invading another neighbor or having access to WMD, and allow the Iraqis to vote for their own government, I can't see how any rational person can say we've failed. If the point was to make Iraq as peaceful as the Amish countryside (OK not a great example), then we still have work to do. Baghdad is not the kite flying paradise it was before March, 2003, as portrayed in Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll admit. We've failed to make it Michael Moore's fantasy, for sure.
First fatuous quote:
Thus we are stuck in a terrible situation: While there are rational arguments in favor of escalating the Iraq war and withdrawing altogether from it, the one course that almost every expert on the question agrees makes no sense - maintaining enough of a military presence to inspire both the insurgency and sectarian violence, but not enough to effectively curtail either - is the course on which we seem destined to remain. (Emphasis added).
Almost every expert agrees that what we're doing is wrong? Campos only cites non military experts Fareed Zakaria and Senator John Warner (R-VA) and neither of them say that. So cut and run is right; flooding Iraq with American troops is right; providing security and training as the Iraqi government slowly gets up and running is wrong. Glad that's clear. I think just the opposite. I'm willing to bet most military men with 602 knowledge of Iraq agree with me.
Second fatuous quote:
All of which means it will become increasingly clear that American troops are being killed and wounded in Iraq for no good reason. And, as in Vietnam...
You know Viet Nam wasn't just a disaster because, even as our forces triumphed, the leadership back home lost heart and then the war, but also because we then betrayed an ally (the Democrats betrayed South Viet Nam in 1975) and the rest of the World's nations said under their breath, never trust the U.S. to stay a difficult course.
Let's repeat that lesson to the world, and encourage our enemies and cower our potential allies by cutting and running in Iraq. Excellent idea, professor.
UPDATE: I try to remember to email what I write to the author of the article I'm writing about. This time Paul Campos responded: The 101st Fighting Keyboarders springing into action is always an inspiring site.
Cute (site for sight is very subtle) but I can't say it really responded to my criticisms or arguments.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:31 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
OK Roger I am not going to remind you about revising the history of American involvement in Vietnam. See previous responses.
Now I need to remind you not make up history out of whole cloth with respect to Iraq.
I never thought George H.W. Bush was a great thinker, except when it camre to Iraq. His stated reason for not deposing Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of GW I was that he had no exit strategy. On the other hand, perhaps he, or one of his advisors, knew enough history to conclude that if he deposed Saddam Hussein, Iraq thereafter would closely ressemble Iraq now. I understand 60 more mutilated bodies of Iraqi men were found arouind Bahgdad in the last 24 hours.
Th Iraqi government will never be able to run Iraq. To do so, it must disarm evry political group except arms of the central government. Do you think that is going to happen, particularly when there is evidence that elements of the local and central government are responsible for ongoing violence? I seem to recall an expression about taking arms from the Arabs but let us not slight the Kurds in that regard.
Time will tell whether the liberation of Iraq from a Hitler like dictator was a complete failure. If you're betting on a successful transition to a republican government, I'll take the under. Saddam was evil. If what replaces him is as bad, what was accomplished?
I agree, that a withdrawal from Iraq at this point will be counterproductive. Do we have the capability to put more troops on the ground there? Or do you believe that that tactic also is unwarranted?
What is your plan Roger?
Now I need to remind you not make up history out of whole cloth with respect to Iraq.
I never thought George H.W. Bush was a great thinker, except when it camre to Iraq. His stated reason for not deposing Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of GW I was that he had no exit strategy. On the other hand, perhaps he, or one of his advisors, knew enough history to conclude that if he deposed Saddam Hussein, Iraq thereafter would closely ressemble Iraq now. I understand 60 more mutilated bodies of Iraqi men were found arouind Bahgdad in the last 24 hours.
Th Iraqi government will never be able to run Iraq. To do so, it must disarm evry political group except arms of the central government. Do you think that is going to happen, particularly when there is evidence that elements of the local and central government are responsible for ongoing violence? I seem to recall an expression about taking arms from the Arabs but let us not slight the Kurds in that regard.
Time will tell whether the liberation of Iraq from a Hitler like dictator was a complete failure. If you're betting on a successful transition to a republican government, I'll take the under. Saddam was evil. If what replaces him is as bad, what was accomplished?
I agree, that a withdrawal from Iraq at this point will be counterproductive. Do we have the capability to put more troops on the ground there? Or do you believe that that tactic also is unwarranted?
What is your plan Roger?
# posted by 
: 11:10 AM
: 11:10 AM
I am unaware of my rewriting or making up any history. Accuse me of it with examples if you have any. My recall about the first President Bush's reason for not driving on to Baghdad was that the UN Mandate he had only allowed him to liberate Kuwait, which he clearly had. Perhaps you have additional information.
Th Iraqi government will never be able to run Iraq.
This statement is idiocy. Sorry, I can't say otherwise. They're running it now although there are places where an insurgency or tribal revenge like killings are going on.
I do believe we could put more troops into Iraq, but I personally don't see the point since the insurgency is dying and being replaced with a Sunni/Shia internecine affair.
My plan is to provide security for the government where it needs our help and train the Iraqi army and police force, acting as a sort of police of the police where needed. I would always keep some troops, on big well guarded bases, there for the probability that we might have to take military action against Syria and/or Iran. Thanks for your long, thoughtful comment.
Th Iraqi government will never be able to run Iraq.
This statement is idiocy. Sorry, I can't say otherwise. They're running it now although there are places where an insurgency or tribal revenge like killings are going on.
I do believe we could put more troops into Iraq, but I personally don't see the point since the insurgency is dying and being replaced with a Sunni/Shia internecine affair.
My plan is to provide security for the government where it needs our help and train the Iraqi army and police force, acting as a sort of police of the police where needed. I would always keep some troops, on big well guarded bases, there for the probability that we might have to take military action against Syria and/or Iran. Thanks for your long, thoughtful comment.
Perhaps I overstated the point with the term "whole cloth" but I don't think you can agrue that the point of GW II was to complete GW I and then take the position that the UN resolution preceeding GW I limited the coalition to expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
The insuregncy is rife in Anbar province;there are tribal conflicts; there is ethnic clensing of neighborhoods; there are sectarian killings all over Bahgdad. Jordan is undergoing a boom because the Iraqwi middle class is fleeing Iraq. Yet my statement that the Iraqi government will never be able to run Iraq is idiocy?
Obviously, if the U.S withdraws from Iraq there will be no insurgency unless the insurgency, perhaps Ba'athists all turns on the Iraqi government.
60 bodies in the last 24 hours Roger. If 60 bodies were discovered in D.C. in the last 24 hours would you believe the local government was running the show effectively?
Post a Comment
The insuregncy is rife in Anbar province;there are tribal conflicts; there is ethnic clensing of neighborhoods; there are sectarian killings all over Bahgdad. Jordan is undergoing a boom because the Iraqwi middle class is fleeing Iraq. Yet my statement that the Iraqi government will never be able to run Iraq is idiocy?
Obviously, if the U.S withdraws from Iraq there will be no insurgency unless the insurgency, perhaps Ba'athists all turns on the Iraqi government.
60 bodies in the last 24 hours Roger. If 60 bodies were discovered in D.C. in the last 24 hours would you believe the local government was running the show effectively?
# posted by : 5:54 PM
: 5:54 PM << Home
