In your last two sentences you pretty much answered your own question. Not only are those at the top stupid despite (in a couple of cases - not including Dubya) purportedly high IQs, their arrogance negates any possibility at a realistic evaluation of their stupidity and/or failures. Their greed got them into this, their arrogance & utter, complete, psychopathic lack of concern for the welfare of US troops keeps them from admitting failure.

I'm not sure I agree with your solution, Adam, but you've nailed the problem right on the head. And this war is becoming so like Vietnam it's terrifying.

For example, we now have the body count game. So why is it when we attack them, 20 of them die and 1 of ours in injured? If they're so lame, we should have wiped them out months ago.

In Jameson Veritas

Adam, your plan B sounds sensible to me, although a mass exodus of refugees fleeing civil war might complicate it. But your points 1 through 4 are just smartass ranting based on dubious assumptions. Maybe you're mostly trying to be funny or bitterly satirical.

Still, your overall point is right on: that our attempting to train the Iraqi army is too large a task for us [we don't have the men or the patience to do it, and they don't either] and likely to prove pointless anyway [chaos will continue to rule].

AA: IMO you're right on with points 1-4.

The Iraq Invasion fans are simply bankrupt. They're out of ideas and stand helpless watching the situation get worse daily. What is their strategy? The best I hear is to throw another 20k soldiers into the war. How weak. And after that how many soldiers? This is exactly the way the Vietnam fiasco escalated.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Asking military generals, bipartisan committees, etc, to suggest solutions to the DISASTER IN IRAQ is -- for me -- like assembling a group of mathematicians to suggest how one can remove a parked car from a Black Hole.

ie, there ISN'T A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

ie. Discussing the merits of a tow truck -versus- jumper cables IS A FUCKING DISTRACTION AND A WASTE OF TIME.


At some point:

a) somebody has to realize that;
b) THEN they have to tell the American people.


Note: since the media and the public appear to be on about a THREE YEAR TIME LAG for the realization of reality re. Bush the Retard & Iraq, then I would guess that the sleeping, shopping giants will wake up about 2009.



Meanwhiile...

Keep yer eye on the swinging pocket-watch.

On a sociological/psychological level, I think it's important to realize that Americans -- for over 200 years -- have nurtured a deep, inherent belief that they could solve any problem -- given a little Yankee Ingenuity + lawyers, guns, and money.

Americans just can't wrap their little pea-brains around the concept that some "experts" might experience brain-freeze when confronted with some unanswerable Zen Koan authored by the Bush administration.

We've always thought we were Superman -- but I think that when Bush invaded Iraq, he uncovered a huge hidden stash of Kryptonite.

Over the next few months, take note of building anxiety as Americans start to realize this. ahahaha.

"when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down"

NOTE: if the USA -- WITH the greatest army in the world -- can't put down the Iraqi civil war/insurgency, how can we expect a newly trained bunch of chain-smokin' semi-literate tribal misogynists to succeed?

It's a joke -- except that American GIs continue to die.

======

Historic Note:

I wrote a piece around here early on in the IraqI Invasion: pointed out that if one placed the American army on patrols in an "occupied" Los Angeles -- the Crips and Bloods -- given a few IEDs, AK-47s, and RPGs -- could kick the Army's ass.

Welcome to "asymmetric warfare".

We can't possibly expect to get Iraq standing on its feet without the intervention of the world body. The challenge is that we have weakened the UN. That process began with the first Bush's administration. Off course we put our thumbs up the noses of the entire world when we went blazzin in there in the first place using Powell's "irrefutable evidence" (a satellite video of few guys unloading a truck) as justification.

We need to start with Israel. Until that situation has been dealt with equitably, we don't stand a chance trying to resolve anything in the Middle East. Whichever solution that we come up with, it will not be accepted simply because we are not trusted because of our uneven handed approach when dealing with the Palestinians. Whomever we leave in power, will be suspect, rightfully so.

We went there to steal from them and now 500K people are dead, there is not governance, no jobs, no real commerce and no basic functions. They live in chaos. The report failed to state that WE are the problem. Whatever we do or say will be taken wrongly. We need an international voice that consists mainly of Muslim countries to draw up a solution.

Perhaps the only solution will involve carving up the country into states, where the states have a great deal of autonomy, socialize the oil reserves dividing the proceeds accordingly by state and have them guarded by an international force (paid for by the residuals from the oil). There should be no centralized claim on those funds. This may discourage a lot of the infighting. If the states are self contained and are responsible for their own sustenance, the citizens would be more apt to hold their local leaders accountable rather than some bad guy from another group. The restructuring process should be configured and overseen by the world body with a large representation of Arab states.

But anything that is done would have to be in conjunction with a drastic overhaul of our Israeli/Palestinian policy.

Bush was successful with his bid for war to Americans because of our ignorance and lack of interest in world affairs. Another factor is that we are a country of morbidly prejudice people. It is deeply ingrained in our fiber.

Bush knew that Americans would think Iraq, Afghanistan, who cares, they are all the same. "They" are probably all in on it.

It got really silly when Indians were being harassed because they dressed "sort of like Arabs" and looked sort of like them. The poor Sikhs were really in trouble. That turban got them in a lot of trouble (I guess because Disney story of Aladdin??).

Shark sez:
We've always thought we were Superman -- but I think that when Bush invaded Iraq, he uncovered a huge hidden stash of Kryptonite.

Wow well put. However I think that most people on the left weren't quite as naive as those in the right. The excessively self assured, overly patriotic persona of many in the right is a major source of frustration for many on the left. They see that view point as terribly naive, fantasy driven (John Wayne movies), ignorant and counter productive since sticking your head in the sand and saying "we are it" doesn't make you more secure, more loved and more "it". However disputing the stars and stripes vision of the world has, since the Regan era, been looked upon negatively, one is often tagged as being anti American. Overseas however, that perspective has landed us the reputation of "the dumb Americans".

On a sociological/psychological level, I think it's important to realize that Americans -- for over 200 years -- have nurtured a deep, inherent belief that they could solve any problem -- given a little Yankee Ingenuity + lawyers, guns, and money.

And we've not solved much in 200 years--not even our own problems (slavery, Civil War, yet racism is still rampant) much less the rest of the world's (Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq).

Pretty second rate...

"The excessively self assured, overly patriotic persona of many in the right is a major source of frustration for many on the left."
- Zedd

Mainly because the majority hardly ever put their own asses on the line, preferring instead to send someone else over to risk life an limb.

I don't think the war in Iraq is unwinnable, or that it should just end so that we can all save face. By doing that, you are listening to the insurgents, rather than the 90 per cent of Iraqis who don't want the place to descend into further bloodshed.

But it's being conducted way too much like the Vietnam War: a huge build-up of men and materiel and a pretty heavy-handed but piecemeal approach, probably in all fairness just in keeping with the fact that that's how US military strategy has evolved over the past half-century or so.

It worked fine in WWII, when the American big-business approach was exactly what was needed, but running a successful counter-insurgency campaign of this nature requires some extensive thinking way outside the envelope. It certainly inolves having most of the population on your side. Therein lies the key.

Don't expect anyone to begin thinking outside that envelope anytime soon, however, while the people at the Pentagon and the White House are more worried about building their own little empires and grinding axes than about the real nature of the threat.

This has nothing to do with a weak US that lacks will, either. It is about the nature of the conflict and the unworkable strategies being employed to deal with it.

The US, just like any country, has every right to stand up to its enemies. It also owes it to itself to do it right, resonsibly, and ideally in a way that will bring an end to all the hand-wringing at home.

I can tell you how the collective Arab mind of the insurgency will work on this: if you leave now, you are as weak as piss and you are fair game for anything else we can do to you. And that means anywhere, any time.

But if you stick it out, we will always think twice before we provoke you. The second option is the better one for America in the long run.

Unfortunately, Stan, you have defined the precise reason why the Americans have to get out of Iraq.

"Don't expect anyone to begin thinking outside that envelope anytime soon, however, while the people at the Pentagon and the White House are more worried about building their own little empires and grinding axes than about the real nature of the threat.

This has nothing to do with a weak US that lacks will, either. It is about the nature of the conflict and the unworkable strategies being employed to deal with it."

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the Americans who perceive that they are raking in billions in war contracts want to allow the government to actually succeed by thinking outside the box. They'd lose a fortune. And that is far more important to them than any damned flag, any patriotic feelings or concern for soldiers putting their lives on the line.

You know as better than most that Iraq, as a country with a national identity, is as real as a cigarette commercial. Far far better to allow that nation to devolve into its constituent parts than to impose upon it an unnatural unity. Kurds living newar the border of Turkey do not feel any affinity with Turkey. But they care about Basra only to the degree that exports of theirs go through unhindered without an exhorbitant amount of baksheesh paid out. Only the Sunni in Iraq have an investment in keeping control of Kurdistan and Shiastan, as they themselves have little in terms of natural resources to exploit.

The solution to bringing peace and prsperity to this part of the world lies in an economic union expressed by a single Arab state with room in it for autonomous Druze, Alawi regions working in alliance with a Christian Lebanon and a Jewish entity here in Israel, and an independent Kurdistan. This entity would have much the borders of the ancient Assyrian Empire, except that its control would stretch to Nejd and Hijaz as well.

Now you tell me. Which American or European coporate giant would benefit from such a thing? The answer - none.

Thus, Americans will be kept occupied fighting a non-ewnomy in Iraq while its biggest enemy in the region, Saudi Arabia, goes untouched and the Persian Empire is reborn to the east....

STM

What is "the collective Arab mind".

Is there such a thing??

What about a collective white mind

What about a collective hispanic mind


Come on people...

Clavos #11

The trouble is that we didn't learn anything from that specific challange because no one actually faught back so we are taken aback when people actually want to take arms and fight against our will to control them.

With slavery we sort of phased it out, as it was comfortable with us, always blaming the Africans at every level with all seriousness and sobriety! Depicting them as lazy (lazy slaves, ha ha), unintellegent and unAmerican for expressing discomfort at "our" money driven genocide.

We expect the Iranians and everyone of that region to be fine with our invasion and declare them as evil for finding any fault and fighting back against our money driven genocide (500K+ dead). We declare Al Jazeera to be evil and inflamatory because they dare speak of the human toll of the war.

I think America is full of good and caring people but I don't think that most actually look at this conflict and many in the world as involving human being with pride and love for self just as they.

*The real reason Bush/Cheney started the Iraq War -- to get the oil exploration contracts in Iraq for their Texas oil buddies that Saddam was giving to the Russians and the Chinese -- has become unattainable. So why don't they get out if they haven't succeeded in their own secret mission?*

Adam - let me be perverse and suggest that the situation is a partial defeat at worst from this perspective since the oil fields of 'Kurdistan' are more or less securely in 'Western' hands...the conflict now centers around which companies end up with development rights for the fields in the south

sac

Troll:
Good point, but I believe we had those deals in Kurdistan before the war, since the Kurds have been going their own way even under Saddam and he couldn't touch them.

I.e. -- the war has not succeeded in getting our oil companies any deals to explore Iraqi oil fields elsewhere in Iraq, and it's a total failure from the POV of the real reason Bush/Cheney invaded (to get the oil deals for their Texas oil buddies that Saddam was giving to the Russians and the4 Chinese).

Adam

*we had those deals in Kurdistan before the war*

Adam - I've been looking for evidence of pre-war development contracts/deals for Kurdish oil fields without success...got any sources for this - ?

STM: "...a successful counter-insurgency campaign... requires some extensive thinking way outside the envelope."

Coupla points:

1) Fer starters, 'thinking outside the ENVELOPE' gave us Abu Ghraib -- among other things.

2) 'thinking outside the envelope' usually ends up with one starting to resemble one's enemy relative to morals, etc. [see torture, killing civilians, scarin' the shit outta innocent little kids, etc. etc] Win the battle, lose yer soul. ...Which, frankly, I don't think really bothers a lot of Americans, so-- never fucking mind that one.

3) See France vs Algiers, mid-1950s [et al] -- for more... ummm... great examples of successful 'innovative' thinking in fights with insurgents.

4) oh, and did I mention... WE LOST IRAQ.

YANKEES COME HOME.

~NEXT!

Dear STM,

(and anyone else who wants to Make My Day)

Please give relatively contemporary examples where Armies of Occupation and/or a nation succeeded long-term against indigenous guerilla insurgents.

Thanks in advance,
S

USA

"Please give relatively contemporary examples where Armies of Occupation and/or a nation succeeded long-term against indigenous guerilla insurgents."

Malaya, 1948-60 ... by the British. It took years, as you can see. It is regarded, also by the US military, as the classic example of how to use small-scale units of highly trained troops in a counter-insurgency role, and in combination with a hearts-and-minds type campaign to win over the local populace.

Malaysia, an islamic nation, and at that time under serious communist threat, remains a very stable, democratic country with a high standard of living - one of the highest in the Asia-South Pacific Region. It remains a part of the British Commonwealth. They have their problems, but hey ...

The US in fact uses a similar type of operation quite successfully in Afghanistan, so why not Iraq? I suspect there are political reasons behind it, and some Pentagon meddling.

There you go mate ... all true. Ask our friend SFC/SKI, now serving in Iraq, he might be able to further enlighten you.

I have only studied it briefly as part of my modern history studies, and only really touching on the Australian Army's involvement, so if you want more you'll find it on the net.

Zedd asked: "What is "the collective Arab mind".

Is there such a thing??

Yes, there is Zedd. There is a unity among Arabs in terms of race, as much of what is now the middle east in terms of nationality was simply an artificial creation decided at the stroke of a pen by the victorious colonial powers (Britain and France) after WWI.

Arabs still regard themselves as brothers and think similarly AS Arabs, rather than as Iraqis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, etc. Tribal loyalties are also still much stronger than those of nationality.

I lived there as a kid so, unlike many other occasions, I'm not just talking through my arse here.

STM

So there is a collective white mind

Most whites are christian, all have European ancestry, have Western ideals....

Look you staying in the Middle East probably makes you even less capable to comment on those people. Like missionaries in the past, Westerners bring their ethnocentric perspective to other cultures, get it all wrong and use thier "expretise" to enterpret the culture of a people in which they never understood.

There is no collective Arab mind, white mind or any ethinicity's mind. There is a word called CULTURE perhaps that is what you meant? There are traditions but there is no collective mind. That sort of thing causes an over simplification of a people and causes such things as an attack of an innocent people because they are "close enough" to the perpatrators, like we did when waging war against Iraq.

Your statement is offensive so please don't use it again. I would suggest that you go even further to explore why it is. You may be a bigot and you don't know it. Most don't and very few ever claim to be but multitudes are.

"Your statement is offensive so please don't use it again. I would suggest that you go even further to explore why it is. You may be a bigot and you don't know it. Most don't and very few ever claim to be but multitudes are."

That statement is probably way more offensive than anything I might write about the collective Arab pysche. There is such a thing Zedd, and yes, if you read my bloody post properly, it does have cultural origins. And no, I don't believe there is a collective white mind, black mind, Asian mind, whatever.

As I say, and I'm supposing from the tone of your comment that you didn't read the post in full, the countries of the Arabian region are an artificial creation - made at the stroke of a pen less than 100 years ago in a place that until then had been totally tribal.

Arabs still tend to think of themselves as Arabs first, and as brothers and sisters, not simply as Jordanians, Saudis, Iraqis, etc ...

So mate please, don't sit there like you're in a lower east side cafe f.cking lecturing me about bigotry. I went to school in Baghdad, do not hate Arabs or even mildly dislike them, in fact the opposite is true - and I live in city full of Arabs, and understand (from their own admissions to me) that they have a different attitude to life, love and the universe than I do.

That is not bigotry: it's fact, and I don't need a nonsense lecture about how politically incorrect I am.

I may well be politically incorrect, but the truth is I'm not that bothered whether you like it or not. I'm sick of these kind of debates being hijacked by people with misguided notions of what people can or can't say - or think.

You have every right to your own beliefs, whatever they may be, but please don't foist them on me. I'm just not interested.

@ #26

Very nicely put, Stan The Man...

Kudos!

STM

I read your post.

All civil/geographical distictions are man made. God did not make Sidney, Sidney. It was carved up for reasons which suited man.... Shame on you. That was a silly statment to make. All countries were carved up by man. Most indigenous people weren't asked.

Who said anything about you hating Arabs. I said that there is no collective Arab mind.

Listen whether whites want to admit it or not, you are united and consider one another bretheren. The laws which govern international bodies favor white countries or those with large white inhabitants because you see each other as bretheren. You mask your unity by using code words "the west" because your history has forced you to feel shame for your self love (white supremacy and emperialistic ideas). You dont mean West, you mean WHITE! If the soviets had behaved there would have been another code word other than "the west" to mean White.

Arabs fight amongst each other, have tribal strife like all groups in the world. They also share a kinship, rightfully so because they are akin (???).

All blacks feel a kinship and a brotherhood(African, Caribean, American, etc..) It doesn't mean that they have one mindset.

Do you think when Michelle Kwan is skating that a Korean will be pulling for the white girl? NO! They will pull for the Asian even though Michelle is Chinese. It doesn't mean that there is an Asian mind.

BTW I am not a bloke....

You sound like the missionaries of the past. Sorry guy, you just do. Check yourself.

Clavos

What are you talking about?

I suppose there is a collective hispanic mind that you want to tell us about.

Zedd wrote: "God did not make Sidney, Sidney."

No, but he possibly might have made Sydney, Zedd.

I didn't call you a bloke BTW ... I called you mate. It's not gender-specific.

Please, once again, don't lecture me on this stuff Zedd. You may have your own reasons for being over-sensitive, but you don't know anything about my own family background, so you are making an awful lot of assumptions about what I might and might not know about bigotry.

Should you choose to post again on this, I won't waste my time commenting. It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. Sorry if that sounds rude Zedd, but I just really hate this thought-police kind of nonsense.

As an aside, if I'd written the collective European mind, I wonder whether it would have caused the same uproar in your thinking.

Probably not, I suspect. Also, I am not a supporter of the continuing war in Iraq in its current, unworkable incarnation - which is what this post is about.

Stan the Man sez:(from their own admissions to me) that they have a different attitude to life, love and the universe than I do.

Again their world view is their culture goober. That is how we define a culture. Thats all!! nothng illuminating or special. Its thier culture SILLY.

They could very well say the same about you and your people (whites)and they did from what you say.

I have a completely different world view than asian americans because of my culture.

Again you sound like an old missionary. Believe me I KNOW. Because of my world view and experiences. You sound like you have good intentions but you are way off base. Just check yourself. What you said is condescending. Its called ethnocentrism. Its a difficult thing to overcome.

SMT

If you are a European, you can say whatever you want to say about yourself. So no I would have not said much. I would have prob asked if you were refering to culture or asked you to be more specific.

Yes Europeans have a history of white supremacy and imperialism so yes the rest of the world is more sensitive about how you view them.

I mean come on Australia exists because of the very topic at hand. So does the U.S.

The Aboriginals were at one point labled as "the missing link" by those European that lived among them and loved them.

So yes it counts to me what you call other people. It affects how they are treated.

You see the reason that the U.S. public didn't stop Bush when he was suggesting that we go to Iraq is because they didn't know the difference between Iraq, Iran, Afganistan or whoever. Many still confuse Arabs with Indians. Its pitiful... you have to live here to get the entire picture. Let Adam tell you....

So what you say about other people is VERY important. I come from a people who were defined by others, who got it WRONG!!.... its insulting!!

So no mindse, just culture.

zedd says to STM:

What you said is condescending. Its called ethnocentrism.

AND she says to him:

They could very well say the same about you and your people (whites)and they did from what you say.

I have a completely different world view than asian americans because of my culture.

Again you sound like an old missionary. Believe me I KNOW. Because of my world view and experiences.

Holy shit, zedd, have you NO sense of irony???

You accuse STM of condescension and ethnocentrism...LOOK AT YOUR OWN WORDS!!

Unfuckingbelievable!!

"I come from a people who were defined by others, who got it WRONG!!.... its insulting!!"

Sigh, here we go again ... me too, probably in much the same way as you, Zedd, but I'm not oversensitive about it. You assume to know an awful lot about me. Let it go Zedd, you've misunderstood me is all. Don't read things into things that aren't there.

BTW, there have been a number of books writen on understanding the arab mind (in fact that's the title of one) written in English by arabs themselves.

I you think this equates to something like, for instance, understanding the black mind as it relates to you in your country, you are wrong.

I don't regard people of arabic background born in this country as being arabs. They are not - they are Australians of middle-eastern descent.

You are trying to find things in my comment that aren't there. And really, I don't like being accused of bigotry. The reason is, I am not.

And that's what I really find offensive - you deciding what constitutes bigotry.

It's your problem, not mine.

Ps: in view of our intractable and seemingly diamterically opposed stances on this issue, can we just agree to disagree??

Clavos:

I will be condescending to you. You have a tiny brain. Don't bother....

SMT

Fair enough mate!