[Voyager]

Does nobody care whether or not this this actually works?

I posted in post #3 that the surge is actually working, and no one in the next 12 posts have even touched on the actual state of war in Iraq. No one has even bothered disputing the statement. Has the outcome of the Iraq war become completely irrelevant beside vilifying the opposing party?

Have we really come to this?

Harry Voyager

[CanadianJeff]

I think it goes without saying that the war isn't going well. The military has been quick enough to point that out.

And if all the terrorists go into hiding isn't that sort of a bad thing? I mean isn't the goal to capture/interrogate them. That's going to be a lot harder to get done if they hide instead of fighting on the ground.

Frankly I question even if with the best tools and tactics terrorism can really be destroyed considering it stems from religion in most cases. I think a better approach would be to work with the peaceful muslim people against the radicals rather then go in full force against the radicals.

It's not like peaceful muslims agree with the actions of the radical half either.

[Voyager]

It means they've abandoned their checkpoints, their fortifications, their caches, and much of their bombings. It means they aren't going from neighborhood to neighborhood driving people out, or enforcing their terror.

It's kind of hard to work with those peaceful Muslims if they are all dead, or hasn't anybody noticed that?

In fact, it doesn't even "go without saying" that this has been an unmitigated disaster. Who are the main entities in this "Great Iraqi Civil War" we keep hearing about? The al Sadr Army, and al Qaida in Iraq. Neither of them are Iraqi driven factors. Al Qaida has been an outside entity from the get go. The al Sadr Army receives the majority of arms from Iran. Take a look at any photos you see of them armed, and you'll see most of them are using Khaybars. They don't make those anywhere other than Iran, and they aren't Sadam cache weapons.

At 15-20K USD (18k to 24k CAN) when sold used we aren't talking chump change here, either. To outfit that 10,000 army, we are talking about 200,000,000 USD. That's just the guns, not the ammo, and not the anti-armour mines we've been seeing as "improvised" explosive devices. There is a lot of money being sunk into turn the Iraq war sour, and its not coming from the Iraqis.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: Forgot this last point needed restating, but the goal of the Surge is to restore a degree of safety to the moderate Muslims. When al Qaida in Iraq and the al Sadr Army death squads are roaming about shooting anyone who doesn't tow their lines, it become very hard for anyone not in favor of killing each other to survive making themselves heard. The death squads trying to turn the peacefuls into extremists have a much harder time doing that when they are hiding in the out-country, and fighting them becomes much easier when they don't have innocent civilian populations to hide behind. Fewer Mosques, orphanages and hospitals for them to occupy and hold up in out in the wilderness.

[ejacksonian]

Actually, I don't think the surge is working; at least not the level it's supposed to be. In fact, 20,000 troops (can someone check then numbers for me please) is simply not enough; it has to be at least Shinseki's numbers.

However, I know that would be a hardI goal to reach within 6 months, but I do not believe they have to reach Shinseki's numbers in 6 months.

I just want to point out that what matters here are two things: the public's perceptions and the president's power.

First, the public's perception has already gone sour; the disapproval for the War in Iraq ranges from 60% to 70%. Among partisan lines, this means almost all Democrats and a solid majority of the Indepents oppose the war. Among ideological lines, this means almost all Liberals and Moderates oppose the war. I doubt Prosident can go any lower; the 30%-40% are almost all Republicans among partisan lines and Conservatives among ideological lines.

The President, or anyone for that matter, can make a fairly good if debatable argument that as he, the commander-in-chief, and the SOLE commander-in-chief, is the only person that can directly command administrate the troops.

However, if the President, or anyone says that, it would lead down the road of describing not only Executive War Powers, but Legislative War Powers as well. There's three things Congress can do with regards to War: rescind the resolutions that supported the war, which are non-bindingi in the first place, make new resolutions on the war, which are also non-binding, regulate the armed forces, which is binding, or cut off funding, which also would be binding.

The Senate has already started making non-binding resolutions. Now, there's several types of resolutions. The first kind is only approved by House, and not sent to the President for signature. They are called Sjmple resolutions. These are always nonbinding. The second kind is approved by both Houses, but are not sent to the President for signature. These are called Concurrent Resolutions. These are also nonbinding. The last kind are approved by both houses and sent to the President for signature. These are only binding only when the President signs it or both Houses override the Veto.

I'm unsure of what road the Senate is taking. The Huse, so far, has taken a back seat.

Note; Biden and Levin have now supported Warner's resolutions.

First, I think that the resolution of Warner/Snowe/Collins/Coleman/Biden/Levin/Nelson (Nebraska) is a simple resolution. There first goal is to get at least 60 votes. If they can do that, I'm sure this would become a concurrent resolution.

Note: I'm sorry to cut off like this, but I'm busy with homework. I will post this again with corrections and add more stuff later. Sorry.

[Voyager]

Perception only matters when the reality permits it. Frankly if we really had stuck our heads into a meat grinder, public perception thereof would bear absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

What I love is now the argument isn't "the surge is failing" but rather "it's not working as fast as we would like", never mind the fact that, oh, maybe 1/3 of the surge has actually gotten to Baghdad. Oh yea, did I forget to mention that perceptions can change, too?

They don't call it fickle for nothing.

[ejacksonian]

Voyager wrote:

Perception only matters when the reality permits it. Frankly if we really had stuck our heads into a meat grinder, public perception thereof would bear absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

What I love is now the argument isn't "the surge is failing" but rather "it's not working as fast as we would like", never mind the fact that, oh, maybe 1/3 of the surge has actually gotten to Baghdad. Oh yea, did I forget to mention that perceptions can change, too?

They don't call it fickle for nothing.

Unfortunately, in politics, perceptions usually wins over reality, which really means that reality only matters when perceptions permit it. Another problem is, people dispute what reality really is. And that's not just politics; that's also psychology and philosophy, which makea a whole another mess of arguments.

[Psudo]

Voyager wrote:

Does nobody care whether or not this this actually works?

I believe and agree with you. But I have nothing to add, seeing as we won't have numbers and substantial proof of the present until it's a bit farther into the past. I don't want to oppose your position, and I can't strengthen your position, so I address other people's positions.

CanadianJeff wrote:

And if all the terrorists go into hiding isn't that sort of a bad thing? I mean isn't the goal to capture/interrogate them.

No, the goal is to make them stop what they're doing. If they go into hiding, they're not killing people and disrupting reconstruction anymore. Similarly, if they're dead they're not killing people and disrupting reconstruction anymore.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Frankly I question even if with the best tools and tactics terrorism can really be destroyed considering it stems from religion in most cases. I think a better approach would be to work with the peaceful muslim people against the radicals rather then go in full force against the radicals.

Wow. Let's count the fallacies, shall we?

1) Straw Man. No one is going full-force against radical Muslims. The US Army has nearly 2 million troops. 150,000 are in Iraq. The surge is in the magnitude of tens of thousands of troops. We'll still have less than 10% of our troops in Iraq after the surge. If you include all soldiers based in the Middle East and northern Africa, it's still less than a third of US military manpower. For contrast, we had 5 million soldiers in WW2, back when US national population was less than half what it is now. That was full-force. This is not.

2) False Dichotomy. Possible approaches in Iraq include more than just "full force against the radicals" (implying a lack of association with moderate Muslims' help) and "work with the peaceful Muslim people against the radicals" (implying a lack of "full force"). For example, we could go full force with whatever peaceful Muslim backing we could get (my favorite plan). Or we could bail out and let the Muslim doves and hawks tear each other apart (what Democrat rhetoric seems to favor).

3) Self-contradiction. If "the best tools and tactics" still can't stop terrorism, then what is "work[ing] with the peaceful Muslim people against the radicals"? Isn't that a tactic? Thus, if everything you say is true, isn't it doomed to fail? You can't be right in both cases at once, or you failed to mention "best tools and tactics" referred only to military action, ignoring diplomacy. Which makes it another straw man argument; we're using diplomacy, too.

I list these fallacies to create a factual basis behind my following statement, so it is clearly not an irrational attack: That is an idiots argument. You are being an idiot. Knock it off.

Edited to fix a typo.

[Psudo]

ejacksonian wrote:

Unfortunately, in politics, perceptions usually wins over reality, which really means that reality only matters when perceptions permit it. Another problem is, people dispute what reality really is. And that's not just politics; that's also psychology and philosophy, which makea a whole another mess of arguments.

In the election of representative leaders, perception is everything. The outcome of policy, however, is immune to perception. Eg, if everyone on Earth unanimously agreed that the moon green cheese, it wouldn't change the composition of the moon one iota. Thus, the formulation of policy is subject to two forces: public perception, and the natural reality of things. The reason we put several years between elections is to get elected officials to focus on the natural reality of things a little more and the public perception a little less.

Voyager wrote:

What I love is now the argument isn't "the surge is failing" but rather "it's not working as fast as we would like", never mind the fact that, oh, maybe 1/3 of the surge has actually gotten to Baghdad.

The program was announced on Jan 10th. It is the wee hours of the morning of Feb. 1st as I type this. Is three weeks enough time to send thousands of troops thousands of miles, assign them posts, observe the change they make in the war to some level of confidence, and spread news of the change to the American public? If so, some before-and-after statistics should be available somewhere. Prove your point. Find them and show us.

[ejacksonian]

Psudo wrote:

ejacksonian wrote:

Unfortunately, in politics, perceptions usually wins over reality, which really means that reality only matters when perceptions permit it. Another problem is, people dispute what reality really is. And that's not just politics; that's also psychology and philosophy, which makea a whole another mess of arguments.

In the election of representative leaders, perception is everything. The outcome of policy, however, is immune to perception. Eg, if everyone on Earth unanimously agreed that the moon green cheese, it wouldn't change the composition of the moon one iota. Thus, the formulation of policy is subject to two forces: public perception, and the natural reality of things. The reason we put several years between elections is to get elected officials to focus on the natural reality of things a little more and the public perception a little less.

Voyager wrote:

What I love is now the argument isn't "the surge is failing" but rather "it's not working as fast as we would like", never mind the fact that, oh, maybe 1/3 of the surge has actually gotten to Baghdad.

The program was announced on Jan 10th. It is the wee hours of the morning of Feb. 1st as I type this. Is three weeks enough time to send thousands of troops thousands of miles, assign them posts, observe the change they make in the war to some level of confidence, and spread news of the change to the American public? If so, some before-and-after statistics should be available somewhere. Prove your point. Find them and show us.

Unfortunately, Democracy is made of two things: the rule of law and the rule of the citizens. Right now, the Citizens are apparently fed enough with the war in Iraq that they are bold enough to get Congress that's opposite of his party, show that that they disapprove the War in Iraq, want Congress to withdraw the troops (which they cannot do), but not want Congress to cut off funding (this also includes Democrats polled).

I want to point out again, people dispute what reality is. What you say is reality is not what others say is reality. Again, that's not just politics; that's also psychology and philosophy. Unforunately, the anti-war side is fairly larger than the pro-war side now, and with the elections of 2008 coming up, especially in the Senate, the Republicans might soon abandon ship.

Look here that I have yet to argue policy; the reason is before policy is politics and law, as you can never separate policy from law, law from politics, and politics from the citizens. I argue in the terms of citizens, because, in the end, things go their way; it's only a matter of time before citizens trump politics, law, and policy.

[Psudo]

ejacksonian wrote:

I argue in the terms of citizens, because, in the end, things go their way; it's only a matter of time before citizens trump politics, law, and policy.

Citizens change their minds. That is the role of ideology, which is the terms in which I argue.

[CanadianJeff]

1) I most certainly call the us military in Iraq with the intention to kill the enemy full force. Notice the word force not numbers but force. Killing is indeed using the worst form of physical punishment to stop the action.

Killing people is using the full amount of force on that person to stop their actions. That is what is meant by the term full force. "Full out war" is the term I tend to use if I was refering to the US or any other country putting all it's resources into exterminating an enemy.

2) I believe that Ideology is the root of the problem. Frankly if just killed the terrorists will rebuild their power base in a few decades because there will always be sympathy for the ideology of extremists. What I mean by working with the Muslims is having them denounce the ideas tat the terrorists use to recruit and showing more open approval of the western world. Those ideas pass onto children who in turn come to shoot down ideals that go against those beliefs.

3) Well since you misunderstood the key term here this one really doesn't work out. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. I really do respect your opinion. I think it's important we all have our critics to hold us accountable.

[Voyager]

Psudo wrote:

ejacksonian wrote:

Unfortunately, in politics, perceptions usually wins over reality, which really means that reality only matters when perceptions permit it. Another problem is, people dispute what reality really is. And that's not just politics; that's also psychology and philosophy, which makea a whole another mess of arguments.

In the election of representative leaders, perception is everything. The outcome of policy, however, is immune to perception. Eg, if everyone on Earth unanimously agreed that the moon green cheese, it wouldn't change the composition of the moon one iota. Thus, the formulation of policy is subject to two forces: public perception, and the natural reality of things. The reason we put several years between elections is to get elected officials to focus on the natural reality of things a little more and the public perception a little less.

Voyager wrote:

What I love is now the argument isn't "the surge is failing" but rather "it's not working as fast as we would like", never mind the fact that, oh, maybe 1/3 of the surge has actually gotten to Baghdad.

The program was announced on Jan 10th. It is the wee hours of the morning of Feb. 1st as I type this. Is three weeks enough time to send thousands of troops thousands of miles, assign them posts, observe the change they make in the war to some level of confidence, and spread news of the change to the American public? If so, some before-and-after statistics should be available somewhere. Prove your point. Find them and show us.

A few weeks is enough time to get a few thousand troops over to Iraq; we aren't exactly talking the Normandy Landings here, and we have made inconceivable strides in airlift capacity since then.

The specific numbers and deployments are not available outside the military, but do remember that a single 747 can lift 500 people, and a single C-4 can deliver 70+ tonns of equipment. Even downgrading to A330's or 777's 300-350 passenger range, it would only take ~5 planes a day landing at the Baghdad Airport to have already transported the entire surge contingent, and all of their supplies, into the target area.

It also doesn't take more than a few weeks for people to figure out that we really are dropping in with enough troops to put a battalion into every contested neighborhood, and decide that they don't want to be there when it happens.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time tonight to address the concepts and philosophy of perception, so I'll just leave you with a rhetorical question, and its answer:

When tanks come crashing over the wall how much does it matter whether you believe they really are there? Only as much as you can influence the event yourself. That is what I mean when I say perception only rules at the leave of reality. Sufficient reality can, and will, overrule any amount of public perception.

Addendum: I really need to stop with these addendums, and go to bed.

On the "best tools and tactics" comment, it is very hard to work with those peaceful moderate Muslims when they are dead, and their peacefulness doesn't do much to protect them when the local death squads drop in for a visit. You just can't have a political solution when the people you're trying to politic with keep turning up dead.

[Psudo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

1) I most certainly call the us military in Iraq with the intention to kill the enemy full force. Notice the word force not numbers but force. Killing is indeed using the worst form of physical punishment to stop the action.

Ahh. I assumed you were referring to a group of soldiers as a "force", as commonly happens, making "full force" mean "with all the troops we can muster". For that mistake I honestly apologize.

All three fallacies remain. #3) Establishing a report with moderate Muslims to soften ideology in the region is still a tactic, albeit a diplomatic one. That and your claim that even the best tactics will fail cannot both be true as stated. (I wasn't asking for clarification of what you meant,) If you meant that even the best military tactics would fail, then you're arguing against a hypothetical situation in which the USA is using only military tactics. This situation is imaginary; we are using military and diplomacy in tandem.

#2) You're still suggesting that the USA's choices are military or diplomatic action. That is, kill radicals or talk to moderates. Those are not the only options. In fact, neither the option being used before the troop surge nor after is listed in that pair.

#1) ... You know what? Screw this one. It's such a tiny semantics argument. It's not worth the trouble.

Fine. Two relevant fallacies remain. It's still an illogical argument.

[Psudo]

Voyager wrote:

Psudo wrote:

The program was announced on Jan 10th. It is the wee hours of the morning of Feb. 1st as I type this. Is three weeks enough time to send thousands of troops thousands of miles, assign them posts, observe the change they make in the war to some level of confidence, and spread news of the change to the American public? If so, some before-and-after statistics should be available somewhere. Prove your point. Find them and show us.

A few weeks is enough time to get a few thousand troops over to Iraq

Fine, so the troops are there. Are they increasing or decreasing the overall violence in the area? Have the number of bombing occurrences soared or dropped?

I'll let you and ejacksonian have your perception vs. reality debate. Yes, reality is real, but perception is a part of that reality. The rest is arguing in circles.

Voyager wrote:

On the "best tools and tactics" comment, it is very hard to work with those peaceful moderate Muslims when they are dead, and their peacefulness doesn't do much to protect them when the local death squads drop in for a visit. You just can't have a political solution when the people you're trying to politic with keep turning up dead.

This is true. Explain to me how an unchanged or reduced US military presence would decrease this problem. Increasing troop levels at least has the rationale "More manpower can do more work."

In general, people love pointing out "Iraq is all screwed up!" but still can't show how withdrawing troops will improve the situation. Yes, it sucks that people are dying. How do you suggest we stop the killers? By backing off and letting them do their killing? Try again.