[POL] Winning Hearts & Minds...
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-



What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.

blash fucking blash blah. idiot.

When you've got 'em by the balls ....

Maybe because it wasn't?

Guessing was your first mistake. I'm sure you know the whole story.

Carroll knew the risks when she went over there, just like each and every soldier.

America is evil. God save 'The Resistance.' :rolleyes:

Oh, save the horseshit. Your views fall into the "All people who disagree with America are evil" - America is perfect". You're not much better than Jesse - You're a frigging parody.

I don't think Jesse would like you much.

And for yoru information, I am in the military so forgive me if I get a little pissed when all I ever see in the news is how terrible we are from a news media that cares very little for reporting good news.

Heh - I don't particularly care. Jesse's politics are nowhere near mine, but I find it absurd that you all of people criticize him for seeing the world in black or white terms - your criticism may have value, but the hypocrisy is amazing.

Then take the lead on this one then.

The implication of the story is that the women were not at all involved in the insurgency. But I see no evidence to support that implication. Having knowledge of the insurgency and of the location of insurgents might itself be viewed as being an accessory to the insurgency.

I think it is far from clear from the story whether the US military acted properly or improperly in the incidents noted, though the implication the writer wants us to draw is clear imho. The fact, for example, that the one woman was released after the one officer complained does not mean that the woman was released because the officer complained. And the fact that the woman had young children at home likewise has nothing to do with whether she should have been detained or not. And the fact that the military hopes the arrest of a wife might lead to the surrender of the husband does not of itself prove that the arrest of the wife was improper.

While it would not surprise me that US forces may have detained some females without good cause, I'm not convinced by this story that anything improper occurred here, and there is no evidence of a widespread policy of unwarranted detentions by US forces.

I also see no equivalence between these detentions and the kidnapping and possible execution of Jill Carroll or other innocents taken and sometimes brutally executed by insurgent parties.

One can always attempt to justify the actions of terrorists by saying they are reacting to some supposed wrong.

Well scrutinized, JW.

What's frustrating to me is that our military (and the Israelis, and anyone else who happens to fall afoul of some Muslim extremist) is fighting a group of people that specifically targets civilians, often hides behind its own women and children when launching attacks and generally uses every dirty trick imaginable.

But as soon as any U.S. or Israelis individual responds with any kind of remotely questionable tactic, the left-wing media grasps on for dear life, claiming there's some sort of moral equivalence.

I don't say this to excuse tactics like holding the mother of a nursing baby to try and smoke out the criminal father. But painting the entire military with this brush for one exception, when the soldiers they are fighting refuse to act with any honor whatsoever, does seem very anti-American. And I mean that term not as a patriotic one, more in a "I hate Bush so everything the government does is bad" sense.

Now, I realize the terrorists are outnumbered, and some like to romanticize their tactics as constructed out of desperation. If they were to wear uniforms and stand up like men and fight, they would quickly be eliminated. But hiding behind women and children and targetting civilians is just pure cowardace.

And it's a stupid tactic. Want the U.S. out of Iraq? How 'bout putting away the weapons for a few months? This romanticized "insurgency" is the only justification for the troops in the first place. And don't think for a second they don't know this. Extremists strengthen their hold when everything is in disarray. These attacks are designed to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, not drive it away.

A general from the Air Warfare College was in my squadron the other day. And he mentioned that the term "GWOT" was slowly fading away for a new term "The Long War" to describe US intervention in the Middle East.

He also mentioned that the insurgency is a tough opponent that knows how to fight. Not by taking on the US military, but by taking on US opinion and willpower.

It's a masterful tactic with great vision. They knew we would be in conflict for a long time and are way ahead of us in the battle for "hearts and minds".

And it is my contention, that the "resistance"--not in their wildest dreams--would have found the US and European media on their side of this conflict.

I fail to see the part where I back the 'resistance.' I just get a bit peeved when our own armed forces take hostages. I expect the terrorists to do it. I expect better from our Army.

Also, if you don't think this will play like gangbusters in the Arab media - then you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter how many schools or hospitals we build if we continue to act against our ideals.

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.

It's a matter of ratio. You may not back the terrorists, but you are supporting the erosion of support for our side.


Again, it's about ratio's. One negative news article is a drop in the bucket. But that buckets about full when you look at all the shit the media has said about us. And then when you look at the terrorist's 'bucket'....it's plumb dry. The perception, which is where you get your anger from, is that US soldiers are generally bad.

But if you put 100,000 soldiers in a hostile enviroment, you are bound to find some soldiers that break the law, that aren't fully aware of the law, or are put in situations that is sure as hell looks like they are breaking the law for fun.

And granted, I understand that there is nothing to report when a soldier does his job. Nothing to report when a soldier goes above and beyond the call of duty to risk his life to save others or to complete a mission. Nothing to report when a soldier works 30 hours straight. Nothing to report when they are shot at. Nothing to report when they are away from their families for months on end. Nothing to report when they have rebuilt schools, roads, a law-abiding foreign army, a government and a democratic nation out of the ashes of a thug infested dictatorship that threatened everybody and killed their own by the thousands and paid Oil for Food donations to Hamas suicide-bomber families.

But after all that, the only thing some left-wing snot-nosed ass-kissing reporter could come up with to write is that the US military are just a bunch of terrorists? Well, the journalists deserve to be scrutinized too.


Then stop asking for the armistace to be signed like they were back in the old days and to bring our troops back pre-maturely. Give them a break. Give them some support, and let them do their job.

As an insider of sorts, I can assure you that 99% of the armed forces is strictly regulated and monitored. If somebody is doing something wrong or against the LOAC (law of armed conflict) then somebody else is gonna complain. But just because it's the United States does not mean that everybody is perfectly good and lawful. Their are thugs in the military and they are dealt with.

To shoot off this article (and the many others before this) as proof that the US armed forces is fucked up....well...it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted. Tunnel-visioned due to prejudices, really. You don't know the first damned thing about how awesome and lawful and civil service minded for all people our armed forces are because all the mainstream-media ever tells you is when they screw up.

You sit there and point at Walter Jones and say, "Look at that loser, he gave up a sack in week #4, oh and by the way gave up another sack in week #9. He also was flagged for holding. If he's so great, why was he flagged for holding?. He sucks." And that's the wrong way to look at whether or not Walter Jones is a bad offensive tackle.

You have to look at the whole picture before you judge. And this article is another story to tip the scales of reality in the wrong direction.

LOL. So you refuse to take a stand when terrorists or guerrillas hide behind and use women and children? It's not right or wrong? You're judgmental of our armed forces yet you refuse to pass judgment on them?

Well said.

If the United States were overrun by a foreign military, would you support the use of guerilla tactics to resist them (i.e. Red Dawn)? What is your feeling on the Allied resistance forces in WWII?

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?

I dunno, I see a couple of different things here:

1) I don't see how guerrillas taking cover behind civilians has anything to do with taking hostages. One is being put in a no-win situation while the other is voluntarily putting yourself in the situation.

2) I think JW is right, saying we didn't get the whole story from the journalist. It just seems like there are some inconsistencies in the story.

3) The "if you're not fer' us yer' agin' us" rhetoric is tired, tho, too. It's the "ends justify the means" theory. What it fails to note is that there are other ways to reach the ends that don't involve those means. Thankfully not a lot in this thread so far.

SI

There's these jerks downstairs who always play their music too loud. Not only that, but it's at all hours of the day and night. No one ever needs that much bass unless they're trying to be asshats to the neighbors. I'd uh-- never mind, perhaps I've said too much.

SI

Based on the examples I gave, I would guess that you'd bomb military convoys and such first...

Do you believe that the "resistance" in Iraq is primarily bombing military convoys? Are most of the people who have died at their hands American soldiers?

I thought we were having a discussion about guerilla tactics (the hiding behind women and children thing)...

But in answer to your question, it's pretty clear that most of the people who have died are not American soldiers, but I'm not sure that proves anything. There are Iraqi soldiers and police as well, and a damned lot of them have been killed. According the U.S. military statistics released less than a week ago "most" of 34,000 insurgent attacks from last year were aimed at military targets (U.S. and/or Iraqi).

Suicide and car bombings amounted to approx. 1.4% of attacks. Perhaps 99% of their military is strictly monitored and doesn't attack civilians. Maybe if you put 27 million Iraqis in a hostile environment you're bound to find a some insurgents who target civilians. But to use that to infer that the Iraqi insurgency is fucked up, well, it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted... or whatever...

Maybe everyone likes to be very selective about what data they read, and is just looking for something to fuel their existing prejudices... And maybe the reason that the U.S. military gets held to a higher standard is the fact that Iraqi insurgents have never claimed to be saints, while the U.S. has spent every day since 9/11/2001 explaining how vile and cowardly it is to wage war in a manner that does not respect human rights and the rules of warfare. Hypocracy always sells newsprint.

I know I was very upset to hear about the kidnapping of Jill Carroll. Truly this practice of kidnapping and executing journalists is about as low as you can go. I don't think it means I'm finding a "moral equivalence" to find it sad that at the same time we're violating internationally recognized human rights by kidnapping Iraqi women and holding them hostage. We don't execute them at the end, so that's a nice thing. Carroll will probably die. But it's still sad.

I'm not sure how an "attack" is defined by the military, but I'm not sure that number in any ratio means much of anything. Most of the "attacks" I'm guessing were during our numerous counter-insurgency operations last year. That, daily mortar fire, and suicide bombers at checkpoints is the bulk of the contact as far as I'm aware.



Do you have any meaningful numbers that reflect what % of deaths caused by the "Resistance" is Iraqi women and children and what % is American soldiers. 17,000+ attacks against American soldiers has caused how many casualties? 17,000- attacks against Iraqi civilians has caused how many casualties? That might help us better understand the motivations of the "Resistance".


The US Military and the terror-insurgency get their respective reputations not based on what they claim, but how they have acted and reacted. Again, the media is distorting this for their own personal gain. Perceptions slowly becomes reality if you ignore the facts.


I've already responded to this sort of nonsense.

It's standard propaganda in any war to accuse the other side of conducting the war immorally or unfairly. What's curious is that American media, since Vietnam, has leveled that accusation primarily against American soldiers.

Question for Dutch et al: This is not the first report of the US taking hostages, so even if it is not correct in this case it is more than likely happening. Is taking hostages justified for the US military?

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.

Karl Rove couldn't have said it better.

I'm sure he could have - he's a lot smarter than I am.

The slow moral decay of America.

Obviously, you have no idea what that actually means. When I was in the service I actually recieved training on how to take hostages, one aspect of which was how to make sure no laws were broken.

Enlighten me. How did you take hostages?

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.

It's lawful to detail "civilians" who have information, or in the case of the mother in the article linked, is giving aid and confort to the enemy.

I think Jesse and I would both agree with you.

So, we all agree that there are legal and illegal ways to take hostages, and nobody really knows what this article describes. Where's the usual partisan bickering? Why can't we always be this reasonable?

No, Dutch and I agreed that taking hostages is illegal. We both agreed that detaining enemy compatants is legal. You said that there were legal ways to take hostages. Did you mean arresting someone?

I think that highlights the real problem in Iraq. As soon as any military organization starts having to behave like a police force, things become confused. It's not what we should ask them to do, and not what they are primarily trained to do. I think it's probably why Colin Powell thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, that this result was likely.

So what I'm saying is that people like this reporter shouldn't act suprised when the military carries out police-type orders in a military fashion. If they have a problem with it, they should be pushing the government to change how security is handled in Iraq, not hounding the Army for doing the job they were sent in to do.

There are legal ways to take hostages, but I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it and start taking hostages.

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

Someone who is providing aid or assistance to a combatant or unlawful combatant (Iraqi insurgents are unlawful combatants (not legal combatants) by the Geneva convention standards) become a legal belligerant target by Geneva standards.

I brush my teeth everyday. Do you and Jesse do that as well? We could hang out sometimes and share a cherry coke maybe? :)

Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing to convince me of the need to brush your teeth. Ever. I got rid of my teeth at a young age because... I'm straight. Teeth are for gay people. That's why fairies come and get them.

hxxp://www.mcpeepants.com/s015.shtml

The reason WHY the British lost the war is because they refused to "lower themselves" to the guerrila tactics of the Americans. Oftentimes abiding by the rules when absolutely no one else does causes you to lose. Of course, to some liberals, that's exactly what they want to have happen -- anything to make Bush look bad. This is why the liberal media just refuses to print anything positive about this war, or anything positive to what our soldiers are doing there -- just this drivel.

Let's assume for a second that Iraq isn't so dangerous that reporters can't venture outside a couple mile square area without a full military escort. What should be reported on that isn't that is more important than the 'drivel' of credible allegations of the US engaging in war crimes?

Well, firstly, your assumption that US Solders are participating in war crimes is patently FALSE. Let's get that out of the way.

How about how the US is helping rebuild roads, and schools and buildings? How about what the US is doing in a positive way/ That's more important that anything else, in my opinion, but instead we get a bunch of crap like this article.

But keep on focusing on your "negative" since that's what you seem want to do.

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?

Liberals and conservatives alike have already said that taking hostages is a war crime. There have also been a number of soldiers already convicted of war crimes in the Abu Ghraib etc. hearings. So, you're wrong, there are some soldiers that are participating in war crimes. The pandemic nature of some of the war crimes also suggests a central organization to it. There is also the fact that many people believe Guantanamo Bay to be a violation of the Geneva Convention.

So what positive stories haven't been covered?

I think you are confusing news with propaganda.

No, you and Jesse are by referencing the article referenced at the beginning of the topic.

If it's a positive aspect of the Iraqi occupation, it's "propaganda". If it's anything that tears down the military, it's news. Funny, that.

:rolleyes:

I would be more than happy to look at official numbers, but I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. military does not track civilian deaths. IraqBodyCount.org shows that approx. 25,000 civilians were killed between March, 2003 and March, 2005. 18% of them were women or children. 37.3% of the deaths were caused by U.S. or U.S.-led forces. 13.3% were caused by anti-occupation forces. 2.5% were caught in the cross-fire between occupation and anti-occupation combatants. 11% were cause unknown, the rest was linked to criminal activity.

If it is from a news organization, Jesse and I tend to think it is news. If it is from an official propaganda organ of the US Military, we tend to think it's propaganda. That doesn't just seem funny, that seems logical to me.

BTW, what were the stories that you don't think the news agencies are covering?

I finally put my finger on what these stories reminded me of:

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?

Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.

What I mean to say is that the US Military is about the most biased place to get news on Iraq in the world. And all of that may be true, I have no reason to think otherwise, but it's not really news. It's basic stuff that has been going on forever. Take the first story. The biggest revelation in it is that they have found some ammunitions and destroyed them. I read about 2 dozen of those stories on CNN over the past two years.

Actually, that'd be CNN.

You know what, fuck this. I feel like I am in bizarro world, trying to explain why the AP is less biased than the US Military's news organization. I'm not going to dignify it with any more responses.

It's up to the individual to try and remain objective based on the information they have access to. Personally, I think the media leans more towards sensationalism rather than a liberal or conservative bias. If the story will bring readers or viewers, they will spend a lot of time on it, regardless of the overall value or slant of the story. That isn't to say that different media outlets aren't predisposed to emphasize different aspects of a story.

If you have an agenda, you are always going to see what you want to see and ignore other factors. That applies to both sides of an issue. Usually if you make an effort to be objective, then you find that the reality lands somewhere in the middle. Of course if people expended effort towards being objective, we wouldn't have nearly as many POL threads here.

You said it.

Because they don't get on their knees and offer oral sex (can't forget the women) to every member of the miltary and the administration on a daily basis?


Replace "tear down" with "put on a pedastal" and we have you and others so what's your point?

Hey now ... keep up that sort of talk & you're just going to make CBS try harder ;)

US Forces just went out there and killed these people? Why?

Well, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you cannot change anyone's mind on the internet. Believe what you want to believe.

Read the report. Over 6600 were killed during the initial invasion phase, 630 during the first assault on Fallujah (Apr. 04), 775 during the second assault on Fallujah (Nov. 04), and there were a few other minor peaks in activity, but generally 20-40 civilian casualties per month. A large number of these, particularly during the invasion (over 6000 during that time alone), were related to air strikes. Shock and awe...

You change people's minds about politics in real life? When's the book coming out? ;)

We didn't target Iraqi civilians. Shock and awe, or rather, what happened at the beginning of the Iraq invasion is widely misunderstood. It was not really Shock and Awe. At least not to the Iraqi people or the television viewing audience back home. The primary goal of the bombing campaign was destroy command and control, AA systems, and communications throughout Baghdad while targeting any and all known military targets of high value. The only people that were shocked or awed by our military was the old Iraqi military, which ceased to function effectively within 48 hours of the beginning of the war. Shock and awe.

I can assure you that we were not about to waste this high-precision ordanance on killing innocent civilians. If we wanted to do that, we would take the smart bombs out of our planes and load them with old 1940's gravity bombs.

This is how I see the opposition's logic.

"The reputation of a terrorist, on a scale of 1-10 is a zero. But you can cite a day when they didn't kill a civilian, so they are now a 1 on that scale. And to commended and even called a "militant" or the "resistance"."

"The reputation of the US military, on a scale of 1-10 is a 10. But you can cite a day when they killed a civilian, so they are now a 9 on that scale. And to be ripped apart and called "terrorists"."

It's flawed logic when put into perspective.

A little touchy, are we? No one suggested that the US targets civilians. Nor has anyone called them terrorists. You can relax your persecution complex for a moment. You asked for the numbers on civilian casualties and I gave 'em to you. Maybe they didn't prove what you wanted them to prove. I'm sure they still had no impact on what you think about it. I don't think anything would. But so it goes...

Reread the thread.


I know that we do not target civilians. The terrorists do. I don't think you can see that.

Civilian deaths, World War II: about 37 million (35,000 alone in the bombing of Dresden, and about 100,000 immediately during the atomic bomb drops on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Civilian deaths, Vietnam War (including leadup): about 3 million.

I think we're improving. Still not perfect by any means, but our military is doing its best to go after only the people who are active participants. If they didn't care, Baghdad would have been a big puddle of blood long ago and the long-romanticized "insurgency" would be just part of a landfill, indiscriminately lumped in with their neighbors.

My standard disclaimer: nothing I say here should be construed as support for Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

I reread it. Mojo said he would bomb military convoys. You asked if the resistance in Iraq were targetting military convoys. Mojo produced a government report saying that, yes, most Iraqi attacks were against military targets. You countered with saying that the military probably doesn't define 'attack' correctly, because otherwise your point would be completely wrong. Mojo the produced evidence that said that the US killed some civilians. You created a strawman and asked why Mojo thought the US targeted those civilians. Mojo countered that they were byproducts of invasions. You attacked your strawman again, telling Mojo that no matter what he thought, the US did not target civilians. Mojo mentioned that nobody said that the US targetted civilians. You said to read the thread.

And that sort of relativity is missing from iraqbodycount.org and from most news reports. The truth is we have turned in our 1940's carpet bombing doctrine for high-tech "shock and awe" which targets the destruction of an enemies command and control and communications infrastructure. The reason for that was to be more surgical, more precise. To limit civilian deaths, and to reduce the effects of bad PR at home and abroad about how we fight wars.

The problem, as you correctly assertained, is that after the campaign of "Shock and Awe" was over, the Iraqi's, most notably the insurgents and their recruiting base weren't afraid to continue the fight. They never saw "Shock and Awe" because it wasn't aimed at them.

The insurgency by Nazi forces after Germany surrendered lasted maybe a month. And the people of Germany wouldn't hide or shelter them or support them. The german people had enough. The Iraqi people primarily missed the invasion. One day they woke up and said, "Is Saddam really gone? Are the Americans really in control of Baghdad?"


I know you didn't support the decision. These soldiers that are there joined up for a lot of reasons. But none joined up to kill civilians, so I can assure you that they could appreciate your remarks. That much I can guarantee. As for the insurgents? It's hard to figure why they would be so willing to kill civilians. To actually target them. Perhaps I'll leave that up to some others to defend. Maybe iraqbodycount.org has the answer, but I doubt it.

Why is that relativity important? The idea of anti-war people isn't that the war kills as many people as other wars, the idea is that the war kills a lot of people and they think it's not worth it. Is putting on trial a cruel dictator a good thing? Yes. Is it worth 1 life? 10 lives? 30,000? 100,000? 1 million? 1 billion? Sooner or later even you Dutch would say it isn't worth it. So it doesn't matter that more people died in WWII or in Vietnam. What matters is the people dying now, and the benefit derived from that cost. I, along with a clear majority of the world and an increasing majority in our own country, do not believe that the loss of life and money is worth anything that there is to gain in Iraq.

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.

I'm working on my mind control through the internet. I'm having a problem with DSL subscribers and there are quite a few bugs with those people on AOL. Other than that, I have mind control down when I have line of sight.

Speaking as a veteran, thank you for your kind words.

The only problem with that argument is that Saddam basically had his nuclear program stopped after the 1991 War in Iraq, save when ordered a "crash program" to extract enough fissile material for a bomb that could be used against invading coalition forces or Israel right before the current War, which was unsuccessful. To quote the Post, Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

Yet your belief would be wrong. It however, would hold true to other countries that for some reason we aren't invading. Imagine that...

C'mon Chubby, Pakistan are our allies! Who cares that their lead scientist probably sold more useful info to terrorists than Saddam ever did.

Some of the liberals in this thread make me sick. I literally tore my body apart to make this country safer and yet I have read the drivel like that in the article and what is stated in the thread.

Despite what the article is trying to portray, the US military is one the most ethical fighting forces in the world. It's drilled into our skulls from the time we entered basic training to be ethical in what we do on- and off-duty. 99.95% of the entire military does what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that .05%. Instead of attacking the military as a whole, you should be going after the individuals who actually make those unethical decisions. And what I mean by "individuals" is the troop(s) who committed the act.

What's being done here is "bush league" and is the actual moral decay that most of the liberals are clamoring about.

This is a stunning lack of knowledge of the realities of foreign policy. It of course would have been better to demand Musharraf hand over Khan to the United States to stand trial (or demanded Khan stand trial in Pakistan), which would have led to a coup and a takeover by anti-American forces in Pakistan. :rolleyes:

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.

And when you pick wrong simply ignore the fact that you backed the person who you now say is the spawn of Satan...

Who says we picked wrong? Are you really suggesting that a) should have and b) could have allied ourselves with Iran in the 1980's? If so, please give me some details on how that would have worked. I'd love to hear it.

Or maybe you're suggesting that we should have backed the Soviets in their invasion of Afghanistan, rather than supporting the mujahadeen. Again, I'd love to hear details of how that would have worked.

I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

I think people are more concerned with the systemic nature of the problems, which suggests some centralized direction. After all, if people in Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all using the same immoral techniques, it's hard to believe it is some kind of coincidence or just a couple of bad apples. Dismissing a story of hostage taking and violating the Geneva Convention as 'drivel' does not give you the moral high ground.

That's because the Soviet Union isn't still around.

Here's a novel concept: Choose neither.

You're right, now we can be the only bully on the block.

Who says we were allies with them? Perhaps we were using them as much as they were using us. Could we have chosen not to support either? Why would we have done that? We're not isolationists, and there were tactical reasons to root for an Iraq victory, most notably stopping the Ayatollah's pronounced goal of spreading his theocratic style of government to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries. Plus, there was that whole hostage taking situation (to bring this thread back full circle) in Tehran in the early 80's.

Hindsight's 20/20, and I'm sure we'll always be able to look back and say "mmm, wish we hadn't made that decision". But it's entirely unrealistic to say we'll never have to ally ourselves with people we don't like. You think the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam is bad? Take a look at Roosevelt hanging out with STALIN, fer chrissakes.

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

You're right, blast USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence then turn around and do the same thing while being righteous.

I actually like the implications of his idea; raise the American flag over the entire region, declare ourselves a true imperial power, a la Athens or Rome, and start building schools and hospitals. In a couple of generations everything will be great.

I don't think we were blasting the USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence as much as we were blasting them for what their influence meant for other countries.

And it's not as if we were attempting to annex Iraq, or even bring them into NATO. As a matter of fact, we came down on the same side as the Soviets in the Iran-Iraq war.

But then, maybe if we hadn't already been meddling in Iran, the Ayatollah would never have gained power. Supporting Saddam was closing the barn door once the horse was out...

I'm receptive to your argument that sometimes foreign policy is messy and you can't always be too picky about who you work with. For example, I agree that we're doing about as well as we can in our current dealings with Pakistan. However, the history of our foreign interventions suggests that we were tremendously lacking in foresight. Often times our later compromises were a result of trying to clean up after the blowback of our previous compromises. We wouldn't have to coddle Pakistan right now if we hadn't screwed the pooch on post-Soviet Afghanistan.

How much of the resentment we face in these various countries relates to the fact that we regard manipulating their governments as "the great game"? I just think that in the past we've been too quick to compromise our core values, without fully thinking through why we hold those values and what will be the long-term ramifications of our actions.

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

So this justifies completely ignoring looking at what the future ramifications may be of our actions? Of course, it is easier to just spout off "hindsight is 20/20" in response to everything...

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?

let me ask: why is it my job to come up with a plan? Am i running for office/in office? Nope, I'm not.

I think we should not be wasting our soldiers lives in Iraq. I think we should have found OBL by now but obviously Iraq is more important :rolleyes: I think we should be decreasing our national dependance on oil.

Cam, I realize that we couldn't have asked for Khan's extradition. But since it seems like Musharraf in power does nothing, since Osama is likely in Pakistan - why back him if in twenty years, it's likely we'll be talking about his 'torture chambers' and 'rape rooms' when a President needs a new target.

Now, I don't have a degree in International Relations or get a daily e-mail from the RNC telling me who to attack daily, but two things are to me abundanty clear.

1. Figure Out a Withdrawl Plan - Why? Because we're never going to win. Nations occupying others never end well unless there's a plan for getting out from the beginning (see Japan, Germany post-WWII. We set current reasonable expectations, those nations hit them, we got the hell out aside from bases we neogotiated for.) Fifty percent of Iraqi's now think the invasion was a 'bad idea.'

Is it likely Iraq will break down to sectarian warfare the moment we leave? Yeah. But it's likely to happen no matter when we leave, whether it's one year or ten years from now. Look at Yugoslavia. The moment their strongman fell, the nation fell apart almost immediatedly. Remember, Iraq has no centuries long history of being a united nation. It's like were drawn on a map by the British less than a century ago. There's an insane amount of tension in that nation and it's not likely to calm down whether we're there or not.

We've already won the war, but we're going to lose the occupation no matter what.

2. Actually finish the job in Afghanistan - Outside of Kabul, Afghanistan is still largely the same warlord controlled, crumbling nation it was before we got there. Actually get that done, then we can focus on the rest.

As for the rest, I don't know. I'll be honest with you. But what I do know is that it isn't 1985 anymore. We don't have to be an ally with a nation because otherwise, the Russians/Fundamentalists/Enemy of the Week will take it over. Any supposed idealism doesn't really take with me when we're buddies with some mini-Saddams already.

What's the vital interest? US corporations?

Many other countries of the world seem to do quite alright (in regards to oil) without invading Middle Eastern countries.