AN EMAIL FROM THE FRONT

andrew sullivan ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | in iraq

[jim35]

"...No. But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq,..."

It probably does seem like a lot of soldiers, when you live in a country who's entire military, all branches, all ranks, includes less than half this number! But don't worry, the U.S. has always been willing to carry the water for those too useless to actually do something to help. A simple "thank you" will suffice.

[Dog Anchor]

Iraqi WMD is either still hidden in Iraq or is in Syria or Lebanon. It existed and it has not been destroyed.

I forgot...

Or in New York.

[Redleg Duke]

I see someone kicked over the outhouse and let the bugs out again!

[u-89]

You are saying that the war is all about oil. That some great power from outside the region must dominate those countries and if that is the case then it should be us that does it. It's an imperialistic position but not indefinable form a hardcore world view standpoint however it does put the lie to all the reasons for the war told to the American public.

P.S. your answer still avoids the basis of my original comments that the neocons are revolutionary ideologues and central planners who reject reality and that there is nothing conservative about them.

[CSM]

You stated it was a fact that WMD did not exist and that the administration lied, as if you could provide the proof that it was a fact, if you can not provide the documentation then you are lying now and if you can provide the proof that the administration lied then you have lied throughout this thread. You haven't provided a cintilla of proof for your claims, yet you state these claims as facts.

Provide the proof or shut your brie hole!

[jaykay]

Bush was ill served by his advisors who estimated the necessary troops to get the job done. It will likely cost him the election in November. The American people will not tolerate incompetence.

That is a nightmarish consequence of their incompentence. It is not too late for Bush to salvage something and save his presidency. He must crush Fallujah and Sadr and do it from the air with no more dead Americans. Anf keep doing the same to every hot spot that flares up. The he__ with international criticism. The U.N., E.U. and "arab street" don't vote in U.S. elections, at least not yet. Forget this "hearts and minds" B.S. I don't want their hearts or their minds.

[u-89]

"indefinable" should read indefendable. Sorry for the typo and the evils of spell check - I hit the wrong word.

[jim35]

You have not answered a single one of my facts. You have constantly made phony assertions, with no proof, and ignored everyone elses proof. Good luck in your dark fantasy land. This is pretty much what I'd expect from a Buchannanite anyway.

[Alberta's Child]

"Well, I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."

--- Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board . . . from a 2002 interview with PBS

This dope actually believed that the U.S. could win a war in Iraq simply by using a small group of special forces to support a military force comprised almost entirely of Iraqis.

No surprise here, though. This is the jackass who suggested in a television interview in 1998 that the U.S. could accomplish the same thing with no ground troops at all.

[Alberta's Child]

"We need not send substantial ground forces into Iraq when patriotic Iraqis are willing to fight to liberate their country, although measured numbers of Special Forces should not be ruled out."

Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board . . . from his 2000 testimony before Congress.

[dennisw]

You are saying that the war is all about oil. 

And world power!

That some great power from outside the region must dominate those countries 

Yep

and if that is the case then it should be us that does it. It's an imperialistic position

Better our "imperialism" than that of Russia or China.

but not indefinable form a hardcore world view standpoint

You can be called softcore where the world's bounty, everything tra la la, falls into your lap because you are an American. That you can have a nice comfy American lifestyle without America exerting itself in this world. Without gambles such as Iraq.

 however it does put the lie to all the reasons for the war told to the American public.

P.S. your answer still avoids the basis of my original comments that the neocons are revolutionary ideologues and central planners who reject reality and that there is nothing conservative about them.

You are tossing around catch phrases that don't apply. Neos are not central planners but it sure sounds nice to accuse them of it. Perhaps they are central planners compared to libertarians

[wingnutx]

A draft is neither wanted nor needed.

[Jim Noble]

Bush was ill served by his advisors who estimated the necessary troops to get the job done. It will likely cost him the election in November.

Point #1: Ill served by advisors. Correct in part. Rummy would not accept the abundant professional advice offered regarding the number of troops necessary to occupy and pacify Iraq. I suspect that he knew that IF he accepted an enlarged US Army with an extended multi-division expeditionary commitment in Iraq that any chance of "transformation" would disappear into the Pentagon miasma. He was right about this, but wrong to let his desire for transformation to govern his Iraq plan. If we fail in Iraq, the only transformation will be Kerry or, more likely Hillary gutting our armed forces. In short, Rummy won his bureaucratic battle but did not interpret the battlezone information correctly. How much responsibility Bush bears for this is uncertain-but it could be a lot. By allowing the advice of Wilsonians like Powell to play a role, Bush may have allowed Rummy to believe there really was a chance of a "free Iraq" coming into existence which could help us out and repress the bad guys side-by-side with us, eventually replacing us in this role. If we fail, this fantsay will be what does us in.

Point #2: Will cost him the election. Bush needs victory in Iraq to be reelected. There is no question about this. He does not need all matters settled, just like Lincoln did not need Lee's surrender to win in 1864-but until Sherman burned Atlanta, Lincoln was seen as likely to lose. Bush needs a similar, bold, simple-to-understand step that tells the booboisie that victory is in hand. Without it, he is going home in January. He does have six months to pull it off, and while his listening to bad advice about postwar Iraq and his neo-Wilsonian tendencies are both reasons to be concerned, he's not finished yet.

If he nukes Najaf, I'm fairly sure he'll be upwards of 400 electoral votes come November. If he's negotiating with camel-humping barbarians while we lose 60 guys a week come November, anybody-even John 'effin Kerry-can and will beat him easily.

[Alberta's Child]

I guess the months that he had to fight you leftys was part of GWB's plan to allow for us to go to war in March and allow SH to securly move or hide the WMD.

Your credibility diminishes substantially the moment you insert the term "lefty" into one of your posts to me. I'll stack my conservative credentials up against just about anyone else on this site . . . the fact that I've opposed this war from the start ought to be a very telling sign to anyone who knows me.

[Alberta's Child]

See #176.

[ericthecurdog]

Save that good point for later bump.

[CSM]

I don't think this quote is specific enough to support your claim disputing the 120K number. 120K is 60% of the 200K in the quote and 60% of an estimate could be argued to be "a much smaller force". In addition, we have special operations troops backed up by regular units.

Think about it, if your paycheck were to all of a sudden become 60% of what it currently is, your claim would be that you were being paid much less than before.

I just don't see that quote as anything but a vague statement that can be used to support either side of the argument.

[Mr. Mojo]

> I believe it is imperative that the U.S. is in the Mid East for two basic reasons: 1) The defense of democracy via Israel; 2) The defense of oil reserves for all the westernized world.

< If the Bush administration had publicly stated what you just posted here, it would have obtained neither public support nor (almost by definition) Congressional approval for the war.

Absolutely correct, and that's precisely why they chose to emphasize both the WMD and the humanitarian "lraqi liberation" angles. But just because the admin didn't publicly state our true intentions in the region doesn't make those intentions invalid. It's in our national defense interest (to put it mildly) to keep a sharp eye on terrorist enablers in the region and to make sure the oil keeps flowing our way no matter what kind of world crisis we face. Those reasons are good enough for me, and the fact that the admin chose not to use them in its pro-war argument in no way affects my view that our engagement over there is justified.

Now, how we're engaged over there is another matter entirely, and I'm not a fan (to say the least) of our insistence on "winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" - a nauseatingly overused phrase if there ever was one - at the expense of the lives of our brave fighting men. Way too much PC bullsh/t from my point of view, and a strategy that's bound to fail to boot -- liberated peoples invariably end up despising their liberators (see France), and these particular people wouldn't understand the concept (let alone successfully run) a democratic republic if you shoved it down their throats for decades.

I am truly amazed at how many conservatives have completely bought into the "weapons of mass destruction" nonsense

Although, as I mentioned above, there were more important reasons for taking the war to Iraq than finding Saddam's WMD stockpiles, the fact of the matter remains that he did have them prior to '98. ....so it was far from unreasonable to assume that they were still in his possession. Do you think it's reasonable to assume that a power-mad dictator like Saddam would intentionally destroy his most potent and feared weapons and then not show proof of their destruction (as was demanded by resolution 1441)? I don't. The only reason he'd destroy them would be to save his sorry ass, and the only way his sorry ass would've been saved is if he showed proof of their destruction. But he didn't, which leads me to believe that he didn't destroy them.

So where are they then, you ask? Well, he probably whisked them to either his Ba'athist buddies in Syria or to Libya ......or perhaps to one of the nations on Saddam's payroll that benefitted from the UN's "oil for food" program. Wherever they are, Saddam probably throught that he'd survive this conflict just like he's survived all the others, and that he'd be getting his goodies back in due time.