9 years and 4500 Dead Americans

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The Ba'ath models itself on Fascist philosophy, and has since its WW2-era invention. Have a google at it. I think you will find it interesting.

And is it not so that neither you nor I would like to have to live on the difference between the "totalitarian right" and the "totalitarian left" anyway? Your drawing a distinction between them is, I think, ill advised: give Leftism Revisited: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn, a good read.

It's magisterial, thorough, in places eccentric, and unrebutted. He makes a hell of a case for "left" totalitarians and "right" totalitarians being undistinguishable, and contends there is little point in trying to partition either philosophy from the other. I found his thesis fascinating. He did show an eccentric devotion to the throne of Austria-Hungary, for a strange note in the work -- figures Austria-Hungary's royal house's fall was the proximate cause of Eastern Europe's slide into a hell of collectivism and un-capitalism and Western Europe's close, and he believed ill-advised, approaches thereunto. How it might have prevented that descent by there still being an Austria-Hungary or its empire, I don't recall his getting into. Perhaps some other work.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Personally, I just can't get tired of obliterating tyrannies, and can't understand or appreciate those who do.

I've seen what less-than-democracies behave like. It's enough to make you clean and re-clean your assault rifle and hone your bayonet most of the afternoon, I'm tellin' ya.

The worthwhile "exit strategy" is spelled W-I-N. Regardless of resistance, uncaring of time. Make that which is less-than-democracy or pretends-to-democracy extinct. Your world will improve.

I've also seen first hand the darker actions actions taken by "less-than-democracies." I sincerely hope that people of all nations gain their freedom - whatever THEY may define that freedom to be.

However, the US has plenty of problems at home to resolve before it goes frisking off to baby sit others. No one freed us from colonial rule but ourselves. We appreciate our liberty the more because of that. Let others do the same.

Besides, if US foreign policy is actually to go forth and demolish non-democracies, shouldn't we be going after the greatest remaining communist regime of them all - red China? But, no, far from it. US corporations can't outsource US jobs to China fast enough. Plus, we count on China to continue to take our worthless paper dollars to pay our debt, else the entire house of cards would collapse.

Far from attempting to make the Chinese communist regime extinct, the US is salivating for their co-operation. Don't give me that crap about Afghanistan; our actions there and in Iraq only show up the obvious hypocrisy inherent in US foreign policy.

[Lamplighter]

One day after the US troops leave Iraq the turmoil deepens...

NY Times
JACK HEALY
December 19, 2011

Arrest Order for Sunni Leader in Iraq Opens New Rift

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government was thrown into crisis on Monday night
as authorities issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president,
accusing him of running a personal death squad that assassinated
security officials and government bureaucrats.

The sensational charges against Tariq al-Hashimi,
one of the country’s most prominent Sunni leaders,
threatened to inflame widening sectarian and political conflicts in Iraq
just one day after the last American convoy of American troops rolled
out of the country into Kuwait.

Reidar Visser, an analyst of Iraqi politics and editor of the blog historiae.org,
called the situation the worst crisis Iraq had faced in five years.

“Any leading Sunni politician seems now to be a target of this campaign by Maliki,”
Mr. Visser said. “It seems that every Sunni Muslim or secularist is in danger
of being labeled either a Baathist or a terrorist.”
<snip>

Members of the Iraqiya coalition walked away from Parliament on Saturday,
accusing Mr. Maliki of seizing power and thwarting democratic procedures
through a wave of politically tinged arrests in recent weeks.

The boycott was the culmination of months of political discord,
and signaled the near breakdown of relations between two
of the country’s most powerful political adversaries.

And the beat goes on...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

tw, what are the strategic objectives and exit strategy in Afghanistan?

The strategic objective was the elimination of bin Laden and those who protect Al Qaeda. The exit strategy involved phase four planning that had to be accomplished within a year after hostilities ended. But wacko extremist blindly follow their political agenda - America does not do nation building. No phase four planning was possible due to a wacko extremist political agenda. Everyone heard the wackos subvert the exit strategy. "America does not do nation building." Any better educated American saw the disaster in that sound byte. The least educated blindly repeated it as something good.

Having surrendered to the Taliban in 2002, a strategic objective is no longer viable. We got bin Laden. We probably can no longer take out those who protected him due to that 2002 surrender. So we have a real problem in Afghanistan.

What is worse, a defeat will not be known until after we leave. Because the strategic objective was so subverted back in 2002. Unsolvable problems created by wacko extremists in 2002 are now apparent in the attitude of every Afghanistani. Now made even worse because Afghanistan is considered by so many Pakistani power brokers as to be an enemy. Even every ally adjacent to Afghanistan turned against us or remained reluctant (well paid) friends during the George Jr administration due an obvious problem. 99% of all problems directly traceable to their intelligence. A legacy we must now live with.

So many who were once our allies and friends have little trust of Americans. George Jr destroyed America's relations with virtually every nation in the world. Just fixing this damage has kept Hilary Clinton extremely busy. More reasons why the strategic objective may be impossible. A viable exit strategy - too late for that. Just more in a long list of legacies created by people who think just like UG. Where big dic thinking and excessive military power can solve everything. Right. As if nobody bothered to learn from - Deja vue Nam.

All attempts to achieve a strategic objective were subverted by George Jr. He even disbanded Alec Station in 2005. A group created by Clinton in 1996 to only do one thing - get bin Laden. Anything by Clinton was evil, said wacko extremists. Besides, a strategic objective in Afghanistan was contrary to the George Jr administration political agenda. George Jr needed that bogeyman alive. So George Jr did what was necessary to subvert the strategic objective.

We suffer consequences of that subverted agenda. Complicated by generals who would fight forever rather than admit George Jr made the objective virtually impossible to achieve. We will never really know until after we leave. Because of the American surrender in 2002, the Taliban have better cards to play.

How many $billions are paid annually to corrupt governments because we are stuck in a quagmire? If we don't pay big bucks for the friendship of adjacent nations, then we have an army stuck in Afghanistan like the Nazis in Stalingrad. Appreciate this mess we inherited because George Jr so harmed our relations even with countries north of Afghanistan. And a military unwilling to admit the strategic objective may no longer be viable.

Due to the 2002 surrender, our every option in Afghanistan is a bad one. Another example of how American soldiers get massacred when the people forget to get educated - and listen to Limbaugh, et al.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Islamo-fascist was great war propaganda but poor political science.

Islamo-fascism is how the least educated extremists among us are told how to think. Empowered by an emotion call hate. If using emotion, then they will not ask damning questions that can only come from logic and education.

The sound byte was invented for the same reason that George Jr could disband Alec Station in 2005 - to all but protect bin Laden. A true right wing extremist conservative should have been angry. But the least educated among us (wacko extremists) are told by Limbaugh, et al how to think. Just like a good Brown Shirt. So wacko extremists were joyous when Alec Station was disbanded. Protecting bin Laden was good for the political agenda.

Wacko extremists even got Lowes to stop advertising on a program that introduces Americans to a patriotic American minority group. Because wacko extremists need Islamo-Fascism to inspire more hate just like the KKK. How many in Europe have heard how wacko extremists got Lowes to endorse their hate?

Hate rallies wacko extremism - a group unique from conservatives due to an inability to think for themselves. Extremists need Islamo-Fascism and other soundbytes to shout down the bourgeois and intelligencia.

They would only be shouting Georgian chants for our amusement if it did not cause the massacre of thousands of American soldiers for no purpose. Islamo-Fascism is recited loudly by those who would otherwise be members in good standing in the KKK. Hate is a major source of their political power.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

One day after the US troops leave Iraq the turmoil deepens...

NY Times
JACK HEALY
December 19, 2011

Arrest Order for Sunni Leader in Iraq Opens New Rift


And the beat goes on...

Jeez, they could at least wait until the dust of departure has settled.

I was glad we have managed this more-or-less dignified exit, although as has been pointed out, there are still lots of foreigners running about in Iraq, many of them with guns. I hope Iraq holds together for a few years at least. It would be embarrassing if it disintegrates too soon. I suspect within five or ten years it will face another major upheaval and will either break up or be seized by another tyrant.

IMHO, the Iraq war was NOT worth it. Yes, the world is down one brutal but insignificant tyrant. #$%% him, but so what? The price was an enormous political and economic strain on the US and its allies, and has left these substantially weaker than before. Meanwhile, resurgent Russia and China - the real threats to global peace and justice - have grown unchecked.

Originally Posted by Undertoad
tw, what are the strategic objectives and exit strategy in Afghanistan?

Not just TW, I'd like to hear anyone answer this question.

The worthwhile "exit strategy" is spelled W-I-N. Regardless of resistance, uncaring of time. Make that which is less-than-democracy or pretends-to-democracy extinct. Your world will improve.

Yeah nice soundbite, what conditions constitute winning? And are you really keen on bleeding indefinitely in the mountains of FUBARistan while China continues to move ahead of the US?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

<snip>

Not just TW, I'd like to hear anyone answer this question.
<snip>

IMO, Bush's war in Iraq came about for one rather trivial reason...
It drove GWB nuts that Sadam was giving $10K to the families of suicide bombers in Afghanistan.
It was then up to Cheney to contrive the war to gain control of Iraq's oil fields,
which the oil industry wanted for when the Saudi fields run dry.

----

My answer to the UT's question is the same as back when
doves and hawks were arguing over how to get out of Viet Nam.

During one TV show, there was a vehement debate between talking heads,
and Shirley McLain (an outspoken dove) was asked how she proposed to get out of Nam.
Her answer was: " By boat "
.

[ZenGum]

Yeah, but Afghanistan is landlocked.

We're really screwed now, aren't we?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

It drove GWB nuts that Sadam was giving $10K to the families of suicide bombers in Afghanistan.
It was then up to Cheney to contrive the war to gain control of Iraq's oil fields.

George Jr's autobiography demonstrates why none of that was relevant to him. Remember, George Jr was only a figurehead. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al made the decisions. George Jr did not even read his own memos - as demonstrated by the 911 Commission Report and reported by his Secretary of the Treasury.

Purpose of war is to take a conflict to the negotiation table. That's the only purpose. The military gets there. Then a leadership presents surrender terms and implements plans made before a first battle was fought. Basic military doctrine understood over 2000 years ago.

When Swartzkopf asked for those terms, our civilian leadership had no plans. Swartzkopf had to invent terms, on the spot, without any planning or forethought. It was not his job. Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the other Washington based leadership failed to do their job.

Saddam attacked and killed maybe 10,000 or 20,000 civilians in Basra as US soldiers watched helplessly from less than 5 miles away. Saddam kept and liberally used amour to suppress all dissent. Surrender terms were so flawed that we eventually had to create no-fly zones for another decade. Clinton finally solved many of those problems with multiple cruise missile strikes.

Cheney, et al are recorded in history as the reason why Saddam survived. They needed any excuse to exonerate their legacy. They invented reason to attack Saddam. To have the military correct their mistakes.

Iraqis could not liberate themselves from Saddam because Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al screwed up. Failed to understand that the purpose of all war is only negotiations at a peace table. No way around military principles taught 2500 years ago. Civilians threw away the military's resounding victory by not planning for the peace.

Irony was obvious with the fall of Baghdad. Within days, it was obvious that a same civilian leadership (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) had, again, done no planning for the peace. You can read that obvious problem when it was happening here in the Cellar. Next six months required implementing of phase four planning. Those same civilian leaders (and Paul Bremer) did no planning. Their 'do nothing' eventually made necessary an insurgency.

This was so obvious to all generals that one general after another resigned rather than take command of Mission Accomplished. In order to find any general, Rumsfeld had to promote a one star general (without any experience but as a division commander) to two stars so that he could take command.

Sanchez was totally unprepared for the job. But he was the only general that would take command. As a result, thousand of American soldiers were killed. In part because another basic military doctrine was violated. Only one supreme commander can be in the field. Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al had so little grasp as to create two constantly fighting commanders - Bremer and Sanchez.

In Desert Storm and Mission Accomplished, a military victory was trashed by ignorant civilians who only had their political agenda. Extremists such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other "Project for a New American Century" founders had no basic knowledge. Worse, their political agenda said, "America does not do nation building".

Mission Accomplished was those extremists trying to protect their legacy. Find any excuse to take out Saddam so history would not blame them. Because they made no plans for the peace. So what did they do in Mission Accomplished? Again, made no plans for the peace.

And what did they do in Afghanistan? No plans for the peace explain why America all but surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2002.

They attacked Saddam to protect their legacy. Then made the exact same mistakes again. Read posts that describe it as it was happening in the Cellar back in and after 2002. Because their mistakes were that obvious that long ago.

[tw]

Wow. The Axis of Evil now expands to include FUBARistan. Another nation we must unilaterally attack for no reason.

Again we attack a nation that our citizens believe is evil ... but cannot find on a map.

[Beest]

Originally Posted by SamIam

No one freed us from colonial rule but ourselves. We appreciate our liberty the more because of that. Let others do the same.
.

I'm not great student of American history but, I understand there was a significant contribution by a foreign military power in the Revolutionary War. I don't know if it's considered that the colonists would have succeeded without French assisstance.

[SamIam]

Well, sure, the French were helpful for reasons of their own. But their contribution bares no comparison with US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc., etc., ad nauseum. France did NOT turn up with a big army and land in the colonies to inform them that they were going to have a revolution now because France thought it was a cool idea. Colonial America decided on its own to break with the British. This is what I was trying to get at.

Also, I have read that the 13 colonies would have gained their freedom with or without France. French participation simply meant that the war ended sooner than it might have otherwise done. I don't know what the consensus of the historians is, though.

[Lamplighter]

What about the Indians ?

Think of the Indians

[infinite monkey]

Without whom your dumbasses would have been royally fucked. And I do mean royally.

[Trilby]

UG - I'm .....I'm nearly speechless.

Nearly.

If you think the US went into Iraq to take out a dictator, you're a bigger idiot than you appear.