Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[Spock]

Yep, he don't want nobody in the M.E. but Muslims.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Because this is a very long post, I'm going to divide it into sections.

Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel comments


I see your point. Yet I still disagree with you very strongly about there having been a mistranslation.

I guess you're saying he's willing to infuriate the entire Western world in order to please his extremist supporters at home. And this, of course, also lends strength to the US position on his nuclear program. I tend to agree with you there. Only I think he's pleasing them by actually saying it, rather than by pretending to have said it . So to you, a translation error has "tricked" the entire Western world, and it also has deceived the Middle East. He tricked everyone! Except a handful of Farsi translators whose case was only good enough to make it onto the Guardian, the most ultra-liberal paper there is . . .

Let's look at the broader context of these comments, rather than relying solely upon the Guardian. At a conference in Iran called "A World Without Zionism," Ahmadinejad said, "Israel is a rotten tree that one swift breeze will blow over." Here's a quote from CBS News.

If you still think Ahmadinejad was mistranslated, please read this article on his comments that was released by Al'Jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

They have Farsi speakers. They know the language. They are the major Middle East paper, and yet they apparently were "tricked" as well.

Ahmadinejad also seems to have repeated his calls multiple times in the same speech. His diplomats overseas argued to Western countries, "no, he was misunderstood!" And how did Ahmadinejad respond, when he heard what his diplomats were saying?




The "page of time" phrase does not necessarily suggest it will happen a long time from now. It could just as easily be pointing to the larger sweep of history that Ahmadinejad already cited in the same speech when he referred to this being one piece of a larger conflict that has been being waged for hundreds of years.

And this claim, "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," certainly does not imply it will take a long time for Israel to be destroyed. Rather, it says it is ready to be destroyed now.

Ahmadinejad's use of the word "soon," when saying that this disgraceful blot will b e wiped off the face of the Islamic world implies that it will be indeed happening soon and not at some long term fuzzy future. He also described a "wave of attacks," which contradicts the Guardian's claim that he doesn't mean for it to happen violently. Though I agree that he would accept it being non-violent, if he felt that was an option. He has advocated that Israel be moved to Europe.

Here is the way Ahmadinejad is quoted on his own website:

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadine...index-e.htm#b3
I think we can at least trust Ahmadinejad's own website to accurately translate his intent.

What Ahmainejad is saying is that he wants Israel to be replaced by a bi-national state where Jews and Palestinians live together in equality, with the right of return to those Palestinians and their immediate descendants who
fled the country in 1949. This would be the ideal situation, but it's not going to happen- the Palestinians are going to have to settle for the crumbs in a two-state solution

Whether he means what he says, or whether he really would like to see all the Jews driven into the sea is another matter (never trust a Holocaust denier), but that is what he is saying.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree, GreyMouser.

As for myself, I tend to take Ahmadinejad on his word when he says that he'd like to see Israel wiped out. He's funding Islamic extremism, and he is an Islamic extremist himself. He is in complete accord with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Khamenei is very, very vociferous in his rhetoric against the US. Khamenei called for attacks on the United States in response to the pope's comments, for example.

Originally Posted by MSNBC News

In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the comments to call for protests against the United States. He argued that while the pope may have been deceived into making his remarks, the words give the West an “excuse for suppressing Muslims” by depicting them as terrorists.

“Those who benefit from the pope’s comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests,” he said, referring to the United States.

They're all very dangerous people, probably some of the most dangerous people there are to world stability in modern society. In view of Ahmadinejad's Middle East policies and rhetoric, I tend to take him at his word.

Personally, I don't really believe he's likely to attack Israel once he has his nuclear weapon (though he might). I suspect he's more likely to hold that over Israel and the surrounding nations as a weapon that cripples Western influence in the Middle East.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

On the bright side: Thank God for the African Union's presence in Darfur!!!

Amen! That looked like it was going to come up pretty awful- not that things are so great now, but they could always be worse-much worse.

The Media

And meanwhile that . . . if I was a swearing man, I'd curse the media right now. I'd curse globilization's creation of a flat world, for it is the flatness of the world that is playing a major role in creating enmity between the US and the Islamic World. Whenever one incident occurs in which someone in the West does something against Muslims, the media spreads it all around the world and the whole Muslim world is angered and comes to feel more and more that we are engaged in a crusade against them. Incidents like illegal torture in the battlefield and other actions by Western leaders or individuals which can be viewed as part of a battle scheme against Islam can easily be found and picked up on by international media. These things are bound to happen, because not everyone in the West is perfect. There are some evil people in the West and there are some people who make mistakes. The media splashes those inevitabilities around and then to the Muslim world, we look evil and look like we're planning their destruction.

If you're talking about things like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram prison or "extraordinary rendition"; these were policy decisions- and with the caving of McCain and Co. today, they will soon become legal US positions. Do you think that they should never have been revealed? How about Maher Arar, the Canadian who was seized by the US and shipped to Syria to spend months being tortured- should he be silenced?

If you don't like the media reporting you disappearing people, holding them indefinitely without charge, killing them, torturing them or shipping them off to be tortured on your behalf, then DON"T DO IT!



....

The New York Times revealing that we could use Bin Laden's satellite technology against him caused him to stop using that kind of phone, and since we've lost track of him.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. It was the (right-wing) Washington Times that was accused of this because of its story in 1998; and even that was not true- it had been revealed that bin Laden used cellphones as far back as 1996, confirmed- boasted- by bin Laden himself

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101994_pf.html
File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths'

As for why he was lost track of:

The Taliban were routed by small teams of Special Forces, who directed devastating airstrikes and guided their Afghan allies on the ground. But victory was never achieved. America's Afghan proxies allowed Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to slip away and reestablish their operations in Pakistan. The Taliban were driven out, but were never disbanded or politically reintegrated, and their reconstituted forces, drawing from the Iraq playbook, have made this the bloodiest year yet.

Of course we will never know what would have happened if the war in Afghanistan had been handled differently: if America had taken up NATO's Article 5 declaration ("an attack against one is an attack against all") in earnest and led a genuinely multinational force; or if the expanded coalition had deployed 200,000 troops, rather than 20,000, and stabilized the whole country, rather than just Kabul; if peacekeepers from Muslim nations had been enlisted; if ground troops were in place to cut off Mr. bin Laden's escape; or if the 5th Special Forces Group had been permitted to continue its hunt for bin Laden, rather than being redeployed to prepare for Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0921/p09s02-coop.html

IOTW, if the Bush Adminstration had ever been serious about the War on Terror, instead of using it as an excuse to do what it wanted to do anyway i.e. invade Iraq...

The media uncovered the identity of one of our CIA agents and also has been responsible for splashing around the world the secret programs our government uses to hunt down terrorists

.

The person responsible for revealing the CIA's top undercover agent working on Iraq's WMD programs was... Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage...maybe. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were also deeply involved in trying to expose her. Originally it was thought that this was simply revenge for her husband ( former ambassador Joseph Wilson) blowing the Administration's BS story about Niger uranium; now it looks it may have been an attempt by Cheney to discredit the CIA for failing to find the (non-existent) Iraqi WMDs that Cheney's OSP, relying on Iraqi exiles, was insisting were there.

But I have become certain that even as the media is giving our enemies great power, it is giving us crippling weakness. Though it goes beyond the media, in my view. And I wouldn't say that we should eliminate freedom of the press- I think that their freedom is a necessary weakness of our free society. It damages the free world and strengthens our enemies, but it's necessary. We won't sacrifice the freedom of the press in the war against terror. But MAN, if I could just wring the media's neck . . .

I'll stick with Thomas Jefferson here- far from being a weakness, a free press is one of our greatest strengths- if only they spent half the time on serious stories that they do on missing white girls....

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "

"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe. "

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

If you're talking about things like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram prison or "extraordinary rendition"; these were policy decisions- and with the caving of McCain and Co. today, they will soon become legal US positions. Do you think that they should never have been revealed? How about Maher Arar, the Canadian who was seized by the US and shipped to Syria to spend months being tortured- should he be silenced?

Show me evidence, please, that Abu Ghraib was a policy decision.

Abuses by soldiers under pressure in war are bound to happen. But when the mass media spreads them all over the world, everyone gets mad at the isolated incidents.

I was thinking of Abu Ghraib, Norway's comic strip, the pope's comments, President Bush's suggestion that we were on a "crusade." You're right that many US policy decisions also are angering people, and I do not argue that that's the media's fault. Those were calculated choices of what the administration believes is best for our people.

I have not had the charges of torture proven to me to my satisfaction, personally. In fact, I tend to believe that the US is actually not committing torture, and I'll explain why.

It's essentially because I trust Senator John McCain's views when it comes to torture. Here's why I do:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

On October 26, 1967, McCain was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam, by a Soviet-made anti-aircraft missile, landing in Truc Bach Lake. McCain was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five-and-a-half years, mostly in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. He suffered two broken arms and a broken leg after ejecting from his plane. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by another soldier's rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as Hanoi Hilton.

Once McCain arrived at the Hanoi Hilton, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.[3]

When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), in charge of all US forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to go home, in an effort to embarrass the American military. Senior POWs had ordered there would be no return home unless all POWs were permitted to, and McCain, as did most POWs, followed orders, and refused to be repatriated back to the United States.
McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message which was written in Vietnamese, but did so only as a result of torture (to this day, he cannot raise his arms above his head, due to his two broken shoulders from the severe beatings administered by the North Vietnamese). It is that period during his capture that he most regrets. After McCain signed the initial statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement. This time, he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because he refused to sign any more statements for his captors.[3]

Senator McCain has strongly opposed US policies in the past, US positions such as Guantanamo Bay. He's about as strongly anti-torture as anyone can be. If he accepts the interrogation policies Bush offered, then I believe that they do not violate the spirit of the Geneva Convention.

Having the meaning of the Geneva Convention clarified at this time is extremely important. Our interrogators have to know what they can and can't do in a clear way, or they'll be unable to act.

My feeling is also that if President Bush feels he needs to get government approval for his interrogation policies, rather than just committing them without legal authority in Guantanamo or other places, then he isn't torturing. For if he's already using even illegal and more rigorous methods elsewhere, why would he fight so hard for legal ones that won't do as much good? Granted, I may be wrong on this.

But as far as I'm concerned, if Senator McCain thinks these interrogation methods are acceptable, then they are. It's a matter of trust to me, but I think that trusting in this way is very logical.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

If you don't like the media reporting you disappearing people, holding them indefinitely without charge, killing them, torturing them or shipping them off to be tortured on your behalf, then DON"T DO IT!

I was primarily talking about non-policy decisions. I was primarily talking about inevitable errors committed by our leaders or troops, or other groups, which get spread around the entire world and turned into anti-US ammunition for the jihad worldwide. This is the automatic result of free mass communication like we have.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Sorry, but this is simply not true. It was the (right-wing) Washington Times that was accused of this because of its story in 1998; and even that was not true- it had been revealed that bin Laden used cellphones as far back as 1996, confirmed- boasted- by bin Laden himself

This doesn't show that he wasn't also using the other kind of phone as well.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0921/p09s02-coop.html

IOTW, if the Bush Adminstration had ever been serious about the War on Terror, instead of using it as an excuse to do what it wanted to do anyway i.e. invade Iraq...

If Bush wasn't serious about the War on Terror, as you have pointed out, there are lots of policy decisions he could have made which would have been more popular.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I'll stick with Thomas Jefferson here- far from being a weakness, a free press is one of our greatest strengths- if only they spent half the time on serious stories that they do on missing white girls....

It weakens us from within by demoralizing and causing despair of victory amidst our population, and it strengthens our enemies from without by spreading around all information, including isolated incidents that inevitably will occur because there are so many people in the West, and some of them are bound to be rotters, and others are bound to make mistakes. Isolated incidents interpreted as universal feeling and universal policy will continue occurring, and when spread around by the mass media, all the Muslims will get mad at these incidents instead of a few. And the rift between our civilization and that of many Muslims will continue to grow. It all works to their advantage, and that's not even counting the media's abuses of freedom, where they uncovers things that were much better left quiet.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "

"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe. "

As I said, free press is a necessity of free society. That doesn't mean it isn't a weakness, though.

[The Gaffer]

Lief, I see nothing in the sources that you cite to contradict what I said:

Originally Posted by that al Jazeera story

such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies

Let's remind ourselves of where Ahmedinejad comes from:

Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.

His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.

Again, it is largely thanks to the US intervention in Iraq that moderates such as Khatami got spanked by sloganising Holocaust-deniers in the Iranian elections. Way to torpedo all the diplomatic progress that HAD been made towards integrating Iran into the international community.

You have conflated the issues again: because Ahmedinejad regards Israel as an occupying force, and therefore illegitimate state, he must have said that all Jews should be killed.

Are you saying that those translators in the Guardian were wrong? Why do you think they were not reported in more right-wing media? I think you really should question this deeply. You are being manipulated.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If we attack those Islamic nations that are producing WMDs or are supporting terrorist attacks against us, we spread the jihad by our presence. If we don't attack, we allow valuable training grounds for terrorists to remain intact and we permit WMDs to spread among the most dangerous elements we face in modern world society. Which means that in the long run, we may suffer even more. Diplomatic and economic action had been tried and they did not work with the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Baath Party in Iraq

Which is precisely why invading Iraq was such a mind-bendingly stupid thing to do in the first place. GM is right: the War on Terror was just the excuse to invade. The rest of the world knows this.

Think about that for a moment. Seen in that context, it is surprising how mild the reaction has been, really. What would US politicians be saying if China had invaded Canada on a false pretext?

Are you saying it is the New York Times's fault that you haven't caught bin Laden? Surely you are not serious about that.

[Lief Erikson]

What I posted strongly contradicted what you said, Gaffer. I cited Middle East news sources which quoted him the same way the mainstream press did. They would have had Farsi speakers amongst them- no miscommunication is likely at all there. I quoted Ahmadinejad's own website, which said that Israel would be "wiped away." I cited other times that Ahmadinejad said the same thing, and I know of no translation arguments in those comments. I cited his defense of the words "Israel will be wiped off the map," in which he rejected the world's criticism as "invalid," and according to the mainstream newspapers, stood by his claims. It's not just the conservative papers that say this- there isn't any mainstream paper but the Guardian that makes the claims you have just cited. Everyone in the world disagrees with the Guardian! All the major nations, all the major papers, (including in the Middle East). Ahmadinejad's own website confirms this translation of his words, and he has made other statements that say that Israel is a "rotten tree that one storm will sweep aside." He this will happen "soon" through "attacks." All this I posted and cited in my other post. All of it contradicts yours .

Yes, I'm saying that the Guardian is wrong. It's an ultra-liberal paper and a place to which strongly liberal Farsi speakers would rally.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Again, it is largely thanks to the US intervention in Iraq that moderates such as Khatami got spanked by sloganising Holocaust-deniers in the Iranian elections. Way to torpedo all the diplomatic progress that HAD been made towards integrating Iran into the international community.

I don't see the relevance of this to the argument. All that this means is that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, which has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Which is precisely why invading Iraq was such a mind-bendingly stupid thing to do in the first place. GM is right: the War on Terror was just the excuse to invade. The rest of the world knows this.

If you're right that the War on Terror was used as an excuse to attack Iraq when they really wanted the oil, then you're right, it was certainly a very bad move. Morally and politically. However, this is not proven.

The intelligence that Iraq was developing WMDs was very good. This is apparent by the fact that about 90% of Democrats voted for the war in Congress, in addition to the Republicans. Both sides of the political spectrum must have been duped in a huge and extremely well developed and sophisticated lie, for you to be right. This is our entire Congress, some of the most professional people we have.

The fact that they were all so fully convinced, and the majority of the American public as well, shows that our best information at that time said that Saddam had WMDs in Iraq.

Hence, based upon the choices available to us at that time, the best possible decision available to us was to invade. Invasion has had many negative reprecussions. Leaving WMDs in the hands of Saddam (assuming that our intelligence was correct) would have been an even worse move.

As we haven't found any WMDs in Iraq, it appears we may have made a big mistake. But it was the best decision we could have made at the time, given the intelligence we had available to us. We thought they had WMDs because our best intelligence information said they did, so we had to go in.

And now we're faced with another situation again. We could pull out of Iraq now and leave it to Al'Qaeda and Iran, or we can stick it out and try to preserve the democracy we have created until its army is strong enough that it can defend itself. The second option is more painful in the short term, but the other would be far more painful in the long term. Hence, staying in Iraq is the right decision, just as going into Iraq in the first place was the best decision we had at the time. None of these decisions is a good one. Every option is a bad option. But we have to pick the best of the many bad options, and I think staying is the one we're taking.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Are you saying it is the New York Times's fault that you haven't caught bin Laden? Surely you are not serious about that.

Washington Post, it seems, was the paper that released that story. I do say it damaged our chances of finding him to no longer have access to hearing what he said into his phone.

[Spock]

"L" , some will never acknowledge the truth; some will never believe the truth; others do not want to know the truth.

It's an uphill battle; don't give up.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Good to hear.



Not to mention, according to Wiki, they had to renovate the Papal Apartments to make room for his 20,000 books. That's just too damn sexy.

No kidding? The guy must be a living dictionary... I wonder how many books John Paul II had in comparison...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Obviously less.

Hello, GM! Good to see you again.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Obviously less.

Hello, GM! Good to see you again.

Which is why I wonder

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Which is why, I wonder

Because he didn't read as much, I suppose.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Because he didn't read as much, I suppose.

Reason to wonder even more!

BTW, you inserted an extra comma into my other post, you hack editor!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I see that post was edited; I suspect you didn't catch it at first.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I see that post was edited; I suspect you didn't catch it at first.

No, I decided AFTERWARDS that it was worth saying something about ...

I was going to spare you...but

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Likely story.

[The Gaffer]

Lief, everything in those statements is consistent with my proposition that Ahmedinejad was referring to the perceived illegitimacy of the Israeli state.

The fact that this has been seized upon by both sides to demonise/sanctify his status as a crude figurehead of the enemy/righteous, exactly as is his intention, is beyond irony.

I have no idea what "ultra-liberal" means. The Guardian, in this article, attempts to shed light upon the mass manipulation of people's perceptions. Further, the newspaper contains a greater spectrum of opinion than you would imagine, from hard left to soft right.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The intelligence that Iraq was developing WMDs was very good. This is apparent by the fact that about 90% of Democrats voted for the war in Congress, in addition to the Republicans. Both sides of the political spectrum must have been duped in a huge and extremely well developed and sophisticated lie, for you to be right. This is our entire Congress, some of the most professional people we have.

Erk! "We all believed it, so it must have been good?" Not sure I follow the logic there.

(Do you know how long Congress members were given to read the Patriot Act before they had to vote on it?)

It was proven to be wrong, and thousands of people died, and continue to die as a result; terrorism got worse, by your own agencies' admission: therefore it was bad. In fact, of course, there was contradictory evidence from non-lunatic sources (remember Chalabi), the Bush Administration just decided to ignore it.

This is why no war had ever been launched before based on intelligence: it's very often wrong.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And now we're faced with another situation again. We could pull out of Iraq now and leave it to Al'Qaeda and Iran, or we can stick it out and try to preserve the democracy we have created until its army is strong enough that it can defend itself. The second option is more painful in the short term, but the other would be far more painful in the long term. Hence, staying in Iraq is the right decision, just as going into Iraq in the first place was the best decision we had at the time. None of these decisions is a good one. Every option is a bad option. But we have to pick the best of the many bad options, and I think staying is the one we're taking.

Yes, I agree, it would be immoral to walk away and let the whole place go up in (even more) smoke. It's hard to see any possible exit in the next couple of years. Building civil society has to be a major priority. It remains to be seen whether any US administration has that kind of staying power.

You'll have noticed that things have taken a turn for the worse in Afghanistan recently, with the Taliban resurgent. If we are serious about nation-building in these places, better not plan to go anywhere fast. Meanwhile, our military is tied down in unwinnable wars.

Now, what's that Oliver Hardy catchphrase I'm trying to recall...?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, everything in those statements is consistent with my proposition that Ahmedinejad was referring to the perceived illegitimacy of the Israeli state.

They all say it should be wiped out, because it is illegitimate. They refer to violence accomplishing this, and he says it will happen soon.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Erk! "We all believed it, so it must have been good?" Not sure I follow the logic there.

Again, these are some of the most professional people we have. And from both parties, they agreed it is valid. This shows that the evidence was very substantial. It may have turned out to be wrong, but war was the best decision we had available to us at that time.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It was proven to be wrong, and thousands of people died, and continue to die as a result; terrorism got worse, by your own agencies' admission: therefore it was bad.

Hindsight.

And I know there were people who objected to the war from the beginning, but these were not the Congress, some of the most highly professional people there are. They looked at the evidence and judged Saddam to be developing WMDs because the evidence looked very strong.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

In fact, of course, there was contradictory evidence from non-lunatic sources (remember Chalabi), the Bush Administration just decided to ignore it.

Again, this was not the Bush Administration acting by itself, and it's rather nuts to say that the vast majority of Congress was just hoodwinked. That assumes a highly elaborate plot.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This is why no war had ever been launched before based on intelligence: it's very often wrong.

What about Israel's attack on Egypt? It was a preemptive strike based on intelligence.

But anyway, I disagree with your whole main point. Waiting for them to attack us first means that we let them gather more and more power. We let them become their maximum threat before we take them on. Taking them out early is far better.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, I agree, it would be immoral to walk away and let the whole place go up in (even more) smoke. It's hard to see any possible exit in the next couple of years. Building civil society has to be a major priority.

Agreed. And the Iraqi army, for that's the final hope for Iraq.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It remains to be seen whether any US administration has that kind of staying power.

I think the American public will elect someone in 2008 who will pull us out too soon, myself. That's my big fear right now, actually.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You'll have noticed that things have taken a turn for the worse in Afghanistan recently, with the Taliban resurgent. If we are serious about nation-building in these places, better not plan to go anywhere fast.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Meanwhile, our military is tied down in unwinnable wars.

All we have to do is get the Iraqi army trained up to a sufficient level that they can take this mess over from us. Then we can withdraw. We aren't fighting to win.

The Taliban has actually been taking a rather significant beating. They lost over 1000 men over the course of the summer. But I know that the fact that they support the Afghanistan economy of opium production means they'll get a lot of popular support. For that reason, taking them out will be a difficult job. Not undoable though, if we have the determination.

Many times, the West simply lacks the determination to see a thing through. We aren't willing to take casualties, and thus we become easy prey to Islamic militants who are. This is the public in the West I'm talking about, specifically the populations of Israel, Britain and the US. I expect that kind of feeling pervades the whole of the West though.

Meanwhile, the Islamic militants don't care how many of them die. They're willing to accept very substantial losses. That makes them more dangerous than us.

Our troops are highly trained and motivated. There is nothing wrong with our army- they are fully capable of taking on these militants and winning. But the Western public is not so strong as they are. That weakness really disgusts me, especially when I look at the wars nations have fought throughout history.

The causes of wars that people won were the ones they were willing to pay a heavy price for. "Give me liberty or give me death!" was a rallying cry in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. That is a tough spirit to break. But we expect cheap solutions and easy answers to all our problems now. Meanwhile, we fight an enemy who will do what it takes to destroy us. That is why we're not likely to win, in the end. If the US had a firm resolve, we would win.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Our troops are highly trained and motivated. There is nothing wrong with our army- they are fully capable of taking on these militants and winning. But the Western public is not so strong as they are. That weakness really disgusts me, especially when I look at the wars nations have fought throughout history.

The causes of wars that people won were the ones they were willing to pay a heavy price for. "Give me liberty or give me death!" was a rallying cry in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. That is a tough spirit to break. But we expect cheap solutions and easy answers to all our problems now. Meanwhile, we fight an enemy who will do what it takes to destroy us. That is why we're not likely to win, in the end. If the US had a firm resolve, we would win.

Right. The fact that young Americans of fighting age who support this war are unwilling to join the Army, i.e. put their money where their mouth is, shows that.