T Nation

Republicans, McCain, Iraq


#1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5032531.ece

I'm curious as to how many McCain supporters wouldn't vote for him, if he was to announce that he'd have the troops out no later than 2011 (possibly earlier)?


#2

Either Mccain or Obama will be in the whitehouse in a few months. That's how it is.

Obama is a comprehensive non option.


#3

It'd still be a referendum on Obama, and McCain has the only chance to beat him.


#4

to the war-supporters who claim your forces must remain there until "the war is won" how do you win a war against an ideology ?

are you going to treat it the same way as your "war on drugs" ? because that particular war is quite the financial blackhole


#5

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#6

Unless we're going to engage in wholesale genocide, we will make them faster than we can kill them.


#7

The ideologues on our side have no qualms with either of those issues.


#8

Good response. But the following post raises a valid point.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

Good post. And I want to see the response. This could be a topic in and of itself.


#11

Kill the hostile ideologues. Better yet, help the non-ideologues kill the ideologues.

Also, introduce and support a new ideology.

It's called counterinsurgency.


#12

The problem is that the drawbridge is down. Muslims move here to places like Seattle, Dearborn, Irvine, and elsewhere and brign their religion with them, which mandates open-ended warfare against unbelievers in numerous places in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but most notably in Surahs 9:5 and 9:29. The next amnesty ratified by either president will be the end.

There are plenty of people that think the entire war on terror is completely idiotic because, as the poster above said, how do you fight a war on a tactic? In reality, we will have war with the Islamic world as long as we remain non-Muslim and they have money to spend above just a subsistence level.

There are still others who believe that there is no threat whatsoever, or that 9/11 was done by the Jews and that the mujahideen abroad are just a boogieman ginned up by the CIA for the purpose of ushering a police state. I already know the outcome of this sort of thinking, having read my history books. The rest will find out...


#13

Ding, ding, ding... winner!


#14

If you help the non-ideologues kill the ideologues, they end up killing their fellow non-ideologues too. Then we get blamed. There's no need to introduce a new ideology either. You really think they don't realize there are other ways of living, other forms of society in the world?

Anyways, what the heck is a non-ideologue anyways? Aren't we talking about people who'd be killing others to spread their own vision?


#15

"You cut right to the core of me, Baxter."


#16

You are quite right, but we are much too groovy now to embrace such narrowmindedness. We'd rather die than risk being called intolerant. Unfortunately our enemies do not suffer from this impediment and play on it in us incessantly with great success.


#17

There is a lot more to it than that. If Al Qaeda wanted to, they could launch a low level attack very easily. Buy a handful of submachine guns and shoot up a mall. Blow up a club in South Beach. Etc. That they have not done so says far more about the self-defeating nature of symbolic terrorism (i.e. nothing will be bigger than 9/11) than anything else. John Robb (author Brave New War) has written about this, and I think James Fallows has in the Atlantic.

Our borders, as noted above, are wide open. If they wanted to hit us in a small way they could.

It depends who you are talking about. It is not genocide to seek to surgically destroy Al Qaeda root and branch. It would be genocide to listen to the more unhinged folks here (Headhunter) and carpet bomb the Muslim world to seek out the small minority who hate us.

I've posted this here before, but it's the best short summary I've seen:

"So here is a theory of counterinsurgency. In six paragraphs and the form of a parable. Set in the rural South, where we both live.

The house next door to you is sold, and the people who move in are white supremacist skinheads. You discover that they've started up a methamphetamine lab in their basement. You think about calling your County Sheriff's Department, but you're not so sure. The cops strike you as generally overweight and none too swift. The only time you ever see them is in the mall, two cruisers parked side by side, the deputies gossiping and waiting for the next radio call instead of being on patrol. You're afraid that if you tell them about your neighbors the news will leak out and you'll get your house burned down one night. After all, you have a wife and kids and a mortgage.

But one day the SWAT team shows up to serve a warrant and kicks down the neighbor's door and drags them off to jail. You're incredibly pleased and highly relieved. You vow that the next time the Department is doing some charity work you'll write a check. And you tell one of the deputies that if he sees you out in the yard to stop and you'll let him know what's going on in the neighborhood.

Now let's shift that scenario to a slightly alternate universe where the Bill of Rights doesn't apply. The Sheriff's Department gets the word that someone in the neighborhood is cooking meth. They don't know who, but since no one in the neighborhood is telling them anything they think everyone might be white supremacists. So one night they kick down your door looking for the meth lab. They point guns at your kids and your wife and scare them half to death. While searching your home they break your furniture and throw your belongings everywhere. And they slap you around trying to get you to tell them where the meth lab is. By now you've forgotten all about your scary neighbors - you just want to get even with those cops.

Even worse, let's say that the cops find out exactly where the meth lab is. But they're afraid of the neighborhood, and they don't want to get shot at taking down the lab. So they call in a fighter bomber and drop a 500 lb guided bomb on your neighbor's house. That takes care of the meth lab, but it also blows down one wall of your house, breaks every window, and destroys the car you need to get to work every day. You don't know what you're going to do.

A couple of nights later, another neighbor comes to your door and says he's making a bomb to blow up the next patrol car that comes down the road. And would you help him dig the hole for $100?

You'd probably do it for nothing, wouldn't you?"

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/six_easy_paragraphs.htm


#18

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/03/us-mulls-un-extension-of-iraq-mandate/
The Bush administration is looking to the U.N. Security Council to extend a mandate for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond Dec. 31 - a move that would require Iraqi government cooperation but not Iraqi acceptance of a bilateral accord with Washington."

Um, the government wants us out and we're going to try and go around them? The Republicans deserve their upcoming loss. If they had one brain cell left between them, Republican leadership would've jumped at the opportunity to withdraw from Iraq as soon as Iraqi official began lobbying for it. "Mission accomplished...victory...we did our part...We're going to respect the wishes of the elected Iraqi officials of the sovereign nation we liberated...yadda, yadda." The debacle could've been over, and for some it would've been one less negative against the Republicans.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#20

Wrong - the ideology exists independently of our actions. We don't make Islamic radicalism. It makes itself in the stew of humiliation and backwater cultures that dot the Middle East - and, of course, that rabid hatred of Jews.

You have it backwards - weakness invites aggression. Always has. Human nature hasn't changed just because you subscribed to a paleocon weekly.

If what you posit is true, why wouldn't it be true in any conflict involving anyone? If Russia invaded the Ukraine, wouldn't it just create more Ukrainian "ideologues" who want to fight Russia? And, in turn, wouldn't Ukraine's fighting back just create more Russian "ideologues" that want ever more to crush Ukrainians?

If this were so, no nation would ever fight back when attacked under the theory that their actions would potentially "create more [enemies] than we kill". And as such, no war would ever be won or even engaged in defense - after all, why fight back if you think you will create more troops than you can kill (which is more likely to occur the more successful your defense turns out to be)?

Marxists are cute, even the ones on the Right. Cute, and preposterous.