k wrote:
I shall expect everyone who claimed that a positive Petreus report would serve as proof we should stay to shut the fuck up and realize that they really believed the second case -- that we should stay regardless -- all along.

Not necessarily. My view has been that we should stay unless it is more destructive to our interests and those of the people of Iraq to stay than it is to leave. The fact that we have had some success in curbing the violence means that it is not more destructive to stay than it is to leave. Basically, I think we have a responsibility to the security situation there if we can have a positive impact on it. Furthermore, I have some hope that the Petreus numbers are just the beginning, and we'll see further improvement a few months out. This is really still preliminary. Its really the earliest they could have possibly agreed to report and hoped of showing some results. However, that hope is obviously not solidified by this report.

I simply also suspect that our staying will make things worse, in a lot of ways, not least of which is the effect on the US.

This is the fulcrum of our present disagreement.

So here we are. Nothing's been proved. Nothing's changed.

I don't agree. There has been a change. The change is not as significant as Petreus would have you think, but the violence levels have begun to drop, which is substantial, as they have been going up steadily for 4 years. If we pull out it is certain that the violence levels will exceed their prior peaks. If we stay, it is possible that they will continue to drop.

Decius wrote:

So here we are. Nothing's been proved. Nothing's changed.

I don't agree. There has been a change. The change is not as significant as Petreus would have you think, but the violence levels have begun to drop, which is substantial, as they have been going up steadily for 4 years. If we pull out it is certain that the violence levels will exceed their prior peaks. If we stay, it is possible that they will continue to drop.

Well, it's not like it matters much, since no one in congress has a spine, Bush is gonna do what Petreus said and the military realities are going to force our hand one way or another pretty soon.

I just heard NPR's pentagon correspondent and a former commandant of the Army War College (as well as a Brig. General i think) note that the military cannot sustain the current troop level beyond a March time frame. Thus, all of Bush's talk about drawing down troops over the next 6 months is quite literally a simple concession to reality, as well as theatre. Given his track record, that's actually pretty amazing but it's not exactly a mindblowing plan. If we don't we could quite literally destroy our armed forces completely.

It's questionable if we can sustain even the March troop levels for long. At 130,000 troops, that's the same as the pre-surge level, and you'll recall that a lot of people were questioning if that could be kept up for much longer.

This AWC Commandant, Scales, noted that Bush has called this a "long war" and then he offered up the analogy of Iraq as a marathon. My argument (not his, exactly) is that a lot of people knew that, but Bush ran us in there like it was a fucking sprint and burned the whole country out. We're limping along at milepost who knows what, and all Bush has on offer is "At least this section is downhill! I'm sure the rest of the course will be!"

I'm not convinced. I'm glad less people are dying at the moment. I hope it'll stay that way, I really do. I just shudder to think of the long term cost of "winning" this war.

The "Homeland" has a lot of work ahead of it on the domestic front to pay for all this bullshit Bush has gotten us into. He's demolished the credibility not just of his administration but of the institution of government. We're turning into a surveillance state, at best, well on our way to a jackbooted police state. Science is under attack, Christian extremism is reaching new heights and fear fills in all the cracks. And, oh yeah, DHS still hasn't made me feel much damn safer.

Even America isn't invincible. I think we're on the fast track to finding that out the really, really hard way. I'm scared to death, not of Al Quaeda, but of the lunatics they've made of Americans.

So yeah, when I think about Iraq, it's not in isolation. It's leveraged against all of the other shit that needs to get done and isn't getting done, and won't get done while we spin our wheels in a blistering desert trying desperately to get a group of people to act like a country, while they insist on killing each other over a bunch of goddammed religious claptrap.

Whatever. I give up. Let's stay forever. I just hope Japan or France will still take me when I have to become a refugee from the broken land America seems destined to become.

k wrote:
Well, it's not like it matters much, since no one in congress has a spine, Bush is gonna do what Petreus said and the military realities are going to force our hand one way or another pretty soon.

I agree, sort of. I think there are a lot of people in Congress on your side of this issue. There just aren't enough of them to pass a bill...

Thus, all of Bush's talk about drawing down troops over the next 6 months is quite literally a simple concession to reality, as well as theatre.

Nod.

We're turning into a surveillance state, at best, well on our way to a jackbooted police state. Science is under attack, Christian extremism is reaching new heights and fear fills in all the cracks.

I think this is pessimistic. We aren't running a surveillance state (but we are chewing away at the legal structures that prohibit us from doing so). I think the chips that were being thrown to the conservative "base" by Rove are tempered, nationally, by the unpopularity of the Republicans right now, and also become some of that stuff isn't polling as well as it was in 04 because a few people have grown up. I think that is receding.

Decius wrote:

My view has been that we should stay unless it is more destructive to our interests and those of the people of Iraq to stay than it is to leave.

but what about the political space?
it would seem the surge has shown some success militarily but if the point was to create an opportunity for the politicians, those at the center figuratively and literally went on holiday, so it has provided an opportunity to retrench and rearm however hopefully the Anbar model of a grassroots political shift has changed the longterm dynamic

when the troops start to draw down will the scale of the violence resume?

clearly none of the politians in Baghdad see or saw the current Whitehouse changing the military deployment seriously - they didn't feel forced to compromise

so as of jan 2009?

there was no guarantee the surge would have any effect on the escalating violence - i hate to say so but Bush is to be commended that his gamble partly worked -- it seemed such a move out of left field at the time, after the november elections

are American forces merely damping down the fire?

how realistic is 12-18 months for the new Iraqi army to step up to the plate?

if the center fails then US forces might shepherd partition?

by invading Iraq Bush needlessly created a huge fucking mess BUT if America leaves Iraq a better place yet America leaves less hung-ho, burnt but not beaten, with pride and wiser, less prone to semi-imperialistic adventures, still ready to hear the call, tempered, a better policeman??

ubernoir wrote:
when the troops start to draw down will the scale of the violence resume?

Its quite possible, but I think more time is needed to tell.

America leaves less hung-ho, burnt but not beaten, with pride and wiser, less prone to semi-imperialistic adventures, still ready to hear the call, tempered, a better policeman??

Sounds like the plot from a Disney film. I wouldn't get too ambitious about people learning political lessons. It does seem to happen here. For some reason the anti-gay movement, for example, has lost truck loads of political power recently. It seems to happen quietly without fan fare. You simply wake up and certain things aren't polling as well, and its not clear why other than a large number of people at some point over the course of a few years sat down one evening and thought about it. It seems like it has to be out of the headlines for a little while for it to happen.

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
when the troops start to draw down will the scale of the violence resume?

Its quite possible, but I think more time is needed to tell.

America leaves less hung-ho, burnt but not beaten, with pride and wiser, less prone to semi-imperialistic adventures, still ready to hear the call, tempered, a better policeman??

Sounds like the plot from a Disney film. I wouldn't get too ambitious about people learning political lessons. It does seem to happen here. For some reason the anti-gay movement, for example, has lost truck loads of political power recently. It seems to happen quietly without fan fare. You simply wake up and certain things aren't polling as well, and its not clear why other than a large number of people at some point over the course of a few years sat down one evening and thought about it. It seems like it has to be out of the headlines for a little while for it to happen.

call it the Disney scenario if you like but American self confidence is an odd beast
example a, after defeat in Vietnam and the humiliation of the Iran Hostage crisis there was Grenada and the US reaction to the successful operation was out of all proportion
the world can't afford either a hung-ho America or the US sulking and retreating inside itself
or do you delude yourself that the American body politic is mature or rational -- we know people make decisions and rationalise them after the fact a large percentage of the time
example b, Iraq -- America was hurt by 9/11 and simply lashed out at the first target that wouldn't do exactly what it was told -- America can be just like a spoilt child
call it the zeitgeist or whatever but sometimes there is a collective mood
yes people as individuals learn political lessons but i'm really talking about something far more ephemeral and it's often most clearly seen in art
art is, in part at least, a culture dreaming -- exploring the aspirations and neuroses of the age
compare mid/late 70s and early 80s Hollywood
it's all discourse -- memes -- dreams -- the cultural subconscious