Several days ago, Allahpundit caught a potentially important L.A. Times article which purports to outline “the way forward” in Iraq (my bold): As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a…

The LAT says the Pentagon says yay (emphases mine):

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American……

We cannot do what is necessary to win a war with EMBEDDED ENEMY REPORTERS on the ground with our troops, actively undermining and demonizing our efforts. (CNN, REUTERS, AP, BBC, et al) Even if this strategy does commence as a “new direction,” the democrat traitors assuming power now will do everything they can to prevent a US military victory of any kind. It’s in their DNA.

The only thing the 14th-century mindset understands is violence and overwhelming force. It’s also the only thing they respect. This is why the only real “solution” is an overwhelming military victory, where the enemy fears to tread on the rights of free peoples.

The soldiers also have messages for the American Public, words I don’t see splashed all over the media outlets, because what they say is somehow passed right over and ignored by some. What follows are not my words, it is theirs……

The buzz about a possible major build up in Iraq is probably a bit premature. But that news coupled with news of the Saudis offering support for Iraq’s Sunnis in the event of a US pull out sends a strong…

This question is actually an attempt to change the subject in an argument you’ve clearly lost. And further, an attempt to put an argument into the mouths of the victors that they weren’t making. Pathetic.

The Apologist on December 13, 2006 at 2:50 PM

I was engaged in a dialogue with someone else. Why bother with someone as pathetic as me?

I was stationed at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana on 9/11. Once Pres Bush made his comments and prepared to board AF 1 to leave the 8AF Commanding General told him something along the lines of “Sir we are ready and at your disposal – just give us the word”

That is still the case with the military – give the green light and it will happen.

As for cutting budgets I don’t think the Dems would go down that road until late next year, which would mean things have not gotten better. Personal opinion is that none of the candidates really want Iraq to be major issue in 08 primaries – much easier to offer a chicken in every pot and to fill in every pothole than to commit to an Iraq solution they would have to defend four years later.

Good that Saudi and Jordan are speaking out – they need to acknowledge their stake in the outcome.

All I can say is that I’m glad smarter people than are dealing with this problem…..at least, I hope smarter people are dealing with this problem. If they’re all on my level, we’re doomed.

JadeNYU on December 13, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Well you’re one of the smarter people on this blog for what that’s worth!!! Your US Civil War analogy is interesting, but again, if the North are the Shiite and the South are the Sunni, who the hell are our troops?

I also despair of my own poor ability to find any way out of this. Let’s hope there are better minds at work.

My theory is that Iraqis do not identify themselves as Iraqis first and foremost; they identify themselves as Sunni, Shiite etc. (And given the history there, why would this not be the case). If democracy means submitting to the other, in ways real or perceived, well it seems like a hard sell.

I can’t imagine why this is your theory. I’ve seen so many examples of the exact opposite being the case in direct quotations from Iraqis that I wonder where you see data suggesting your theory. Inter-marriage between Shiite and Sunni is more prevalent in Iraq than anywhere else in the Arab world as I understand it. It’s why ALL Iraqi pols, including Kurdish leaders, say breaking the country up into three states is impossible. And democracy isn’t submitting to the “other”, it’s submitting to the law. That ain’t a hard sell in a region so familiar with submission to religious law. It will take time to disentangle the two concepts, but there’s no reason it can’t work.

“If Sunni militias are targeting Shiite militias and visa versa, they are both our enemies?…Given that Shiite outnumber Sunni 4 to 1, what is the logical outcome?
”

That was the error of yours I was adressing in my previous comment, Honora. And the logical outcome is dependent not on gross demographic numbers but on the numbers of willing combatants and the quality of those fighters and their armaments. As Saddam proved over and over again. Also, the numbers who’ve fled are actually a little higher than 1.6 mil, closer to 2.1 million from what I hear, and the great majority are tribes and clans that were most loyal to Saddam, who’ve since fled to Jordan and Syria. Only to send their young back across the border to join the insurgency.

As far as this goes:

“The less how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question would be: if democracy is born from violence, does violence necessarily beget democracy?”

This question is actually an attempt to change the subject in an argument you’ve clearly lost. And further, an attempt to put an argument into the mouths of the victors that they weren’t making. Pathetic.

Livy says otherwise. You ready to dispute Livy?

Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 2:05 PM

In the preface to the histories, Livy writes:

“Events before Rome was born, or thought of have come to us in old tales with more of the charm of poetry than of a sound historical record, and such traditions I propose neither to affirm nor refute. There is no reason, I feel, to object when antiquity draws no hard line between the human and the supernatural : it add dignity to the past, and, if any nation deserves the privilege of claiming divine ancestry, that nation is our own.”

That’s a problem that (to my admittedly limited knowledge) did not exist in Japan and Germany where people identified with the country.

It is, perhaps, similar to the early US where (even up to WWII, but, especially during the Civil War) people identified much more as Virginians, Georgians, New Yorkers, etc than they did as Americans. Of course, that comparison is not entirely helpful as those ‘tribal’ affiliations had existed for a fraction of the time that the Sunni/Shiite tribal affiliations have existed for. Furthermore, there was nothing inherent in the beliefs of a Virginian that said that New Yorkers were evil and needed to be killed.

Will they ever have American style representative Democracy? Perhaps not. However, I don’t think that would be necessarily a failure. Perhaps there are other solutions. Some politicians have suggested dividing Iraq into cantons like Switzerland. Of course, as others have pointed out, you would still have the problem of some cantons absolutely hating the others (not to mention, the Sunni fear of being left without any oil wealth).

Personally, I think everyone in Iraq would benefit from less dependence on their oil wealth. Israel has no oil and yet still manages to be a wealthy country. If the Sunnis had an economy developed as Israel’s is, they would not have to fear that they lack oil reserves in their area.

All of this aside, militarily, I believe victory is achieved when the region is stabilized enough for our soldiers to leave (and to leave an area that will no longer be supporting terrorism – whether monetarily or by offering safe harbor/weapons).

Politically, victory involves achieving this without having to instill another dictator (whether friendly to the US or not).

All I can say is that I’m glad smarter people than are dealing with this problem…..at least, I hope smarter people are dealing with this problem. If they’re all on my level, we’re doomed.

Honora, you are correct in that we are using the word “democracy” categorically. I would also think we are using the term war interchangeabley to mean violence as well. Framing the arguement in those terms I think it is reasonable to argue that “democracies” generally are born through war/violence. The violence is driven by the classic struggle of power. ie. we have but won’t give it up without a fight.

Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 2:02 PM

You are right. There is a big difference between categorically and generally however, which was my point. (Actually now that I think about it, the best example of peaceful emergence of democracy would be some American Indian tribes, Iroquois etc. No matter).

The less how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question would be: if democracy is born from violence, does violence necessarily beget democracy?

My theory is that Iraqis do not identify themselves as Iraqis first and foremost; they identify themselves as Sunni, Shiite etc. (And given the history there, why would this not be the case). If democracy means submitting to the other, in ways real or perceived, well it seems like a hard sell.

We shall see.

I’m not sure what your point is. I think we are all aware of this, the issue it seems to me is: can our military affect “peace” given these circumstances?

honora on December 13, 2006 at 2:04 PM

Yes – if politicians allow them the leeway to do so.

Welcome to the 21st century. I am familiar with Livy. I read parts of this years ago. In Latin.

Good on ya again.
Which takes me to the next question. Your original statement was The Roman Republic was not born from war/violence.(

Greece, was not a product of war. Ditto Rome.)

Livy says otherwise. You ready to dispute Livy?

Whose hypothesis is that? Someone claimed that democracy (I believe the word categorically was used) is only ever achieved via war. I guess the awkwardly worded hypothesis refers to Iraq?

honora on December 13, 2006 at 1:57 PM

It seemed to be yours with your suggestion that the Roman Republic and democracy in Athens were established “relatively peacefully”, when the truth is that their respective origins were anything but.

I don’t know if I could say “categorically” as the other poster did, but regardless, in almost every instance democracy has only been established in the wake of violence, and I’d be willing to be that if there are any exceptions to that rule, it’s only becuase those countries saw history clearly and allowed democracy to take root to avoid the potential for violence.

Honora, the militias are targeting civilians on both sides in order to cleanse their neighborhoods of sectarian opposition. Sunnis in a Shia community are the natural ally of Shia who don’t like Mahdi Army or Badr Brigades. And vice versa. A homogeneous community is easier to control through terror than a mixed one. Witness Germany and Japan versus Iraq and Afghanistan. Mixed communities make constantly shifting alliances much easier. Why do you think Hitler and the Soviets cleaned out minorities? Witness the Balkans. Etc. etc.

The Apologist on December 13, 2006 at 1:50 PM

I’m not sure what your point is. I think we are all aware of this, the issue it seems to me is: can our military affect “peace” given these circumstances?

Whose hypothesis is that? Someone claimed that democracy (I believe the word categorically was used) is only ever achieved via war. I guess the awkwardly worded hypothesis refers to Iraq?

Honora, you are correct in that we are using the word “democracy” categorically. I would also think we are using the term war interchangeabley to mean violence as well. Framing the arguement in those terms I think it is reasonable to argue that “democracies” generally are born through war/violence. The violence is driven by the classic struggle of power. ie. we have but won’t give it up without a fight.

How about citing Nature? This is an article about a head to head comparison of Wiki and Brittanica.
Good on ya. Glad you still like Wiki. It is still lazy and I can’t link to the internet my source because it is a BOOK. Furthermore, it cites Livy. Do you know who that is? A roman historian (died circa 17 AD). By the way he wrote a little volume called The History of Rome. I’ll trust him over Wiki anyday.

Source:

Translated from the original in Jean Bayet, ed., Tite-Live: Histoire Romaine, Tome I, livre I. Paris: Societé d’Édition “les belles-lettres,” 1954, pp. 92-95.

Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:55 PM

How about citing Nature? This is an article about a head to head comparison of Wiki and Brittanica.
Good on ya. Glad you still like Wiki. It is still lazy and I can’t link to the internet my source because it is a BOOK. Furthermore, it cites Livy. Do you know who that is? A roman historian (died circa 17 AD). By the way he wrote a little volume called The History of Rome. I’ll trust him over Wiki anyday.

Source:

Translated from the original in Jean Bayet, ed., Tite-Live: Histoire Romaine, Tome I, livre I. Paris: Societé d’Édition “les belles-lettres,” 1954, pp. 92-95.

Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:55 PM

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Liv1His.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

Welcome to the 21st century. I am familiar with Livy. I read parts of this years ago. In Latin.

It didn’t make them any different from most of the world at the time, which further undermines the hypothesis that democracy cannot result from war in cultures that have little-to-no previous experience with it.

thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:48 PM

Whose hypothesis is that? Someone claimed that democracy (I believe the word categorically was used) is only ever achieved via war. I guess the awkwardly worded hypothesis refers to Iraq?

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

Hell yea!
Seal the borders and disarm all of Iraq. A spit wad should be the only major weapon that fighters can count on there.
Take AK47s away from the Kindergartners if we have too.
Make the Country so safe that even Olmert could go for a walk there.
If any want to fight give them all they want, and a little more!

If even if Bush does pull a Lincoln, and he’s shown no stones in that regard as of yet, the DEMOS will cut off funding in a heartbeat!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 13, 2006 at 11:55 AM

No, they won’t, Dread Pirate. This would be like the beginning, all over again. The military would get pumped up, the right would get pumped up, and all the people in the middle that say their biggest complaint is that we are “half-assing” this war would have nowhere to hide.

I want to believe this will work.

honora on December 13, 2006 at 11:56 AM

O.M.G.

Source:

Translated from the original in Jean Bayet, ed., Tite-Live: Histoire Romaine, Tome I, livre I. Paris: Societé d’Édition “les belles-lettres,” 1954, pp. 92-95.

Honora, the militias are targeting civilians on both sides in order to cleanse their neighborhoods of sectarian opposition. Sunnis in a Shia community are the natural ally of Shia who don’t like Mahdi Army or Badr Brigades. And vice versa. A homogeneous community is easier to control through terror than a mixed one. Witness Germany and Japan versus Iraq and Afghanistan. Mixed communities make constantly shifting alliances much easier. Why do you think Hitler and the Soviets cleaned out minorities? Witness the Balkans. Etc. etc.