| | William, please help me out here, if you don't think al-Qaeda ought to be the most important target for US forces, but you still think they ought to be a target for US forces, what is your point?
Hi John, sorry for the tardy response. I wanted to return to a a few of your points.
I did not write Al Qaeda "ought" be the most important target. I wrote "I don`t accept the premise that Al Qaeda is the most important target of US forces [in Iraq], nor the administration's foremost justification for continued occupation of Iraq."
What is my point? You asked of me, "You don't think pulling out militarily from a region that is known to have active al-Qaeda operations to be considered surrender?"
I answered no. I answered the other implications of your question. I put aside the implied premise that Al Qaeda is the Adminstration's number one target or the number one Administration justification for occupation.
It could be that Al Qaeda ought be the number one target. But I didn't write that.
You find that the context of a massive and overwhelming US military presence in the region is 'a red herring.' I understand your point, but I don't share it.
In the context that I perceive, and that you might grant --war against [Islam][Islamic fanatacism]['terrorists'] -- the presence of the US force means to me that the war can be successfully prosecuted without 150,000 US and allied troops on the ground in Iraq.
You assert, "If the US loses, Canada loses." I am sure you are right in a sense . . . in that if the US loses the war against 'terrorists,' my country will have to bear some fallout. I agree. But . . . this doesn't mean that I share your implied premise (and I hope I get it right): Withdrawing US ground forces from occupation means defeat in the War on Terror.
Further, our nations differ on Iraq. Our country was opposed to the US led invasion, and is now overwhelmingly opposed to continued occupation. Our government committed forces to the War on Terror, and to Afghanistan, but not Iraq.
Canada occupies a diffent spot in the galaxy of opinion held in the Middle East. We are neither a major (or even medium) military power, nor have we played a part in US foreign policy in the region post-WWII. Sure enough we have been and will be a target of wrath from time to time (as evidenced by the arrests of terror suspects in Toronto earlier this year) . . . but the War on Terror is not conducted only by ground forces in Iraq. In any case, we are a close and committed military ally of the United States, and closely co-ordinate our intelligence, counterintelligence, and counter-terror operations with the US forces.
But you bring up a good point, it is infuriating to me as an American that many Canadians stand by criticizing the US, when the people who are truly suffering are the Iraqis themselves. Why don't those Canadians who criticize the US help Iraq (help as in advocate to their government to mobilize the Canadian military to Iraq) and provide security if they are so damned concerned about what the US is doing? Why don't they step up to the plate and help make Iraq secure? The invasion already happened, all that these Canadians (the ones that seek US failure in Iraq) are doing is trying to punish George Bush for his arrogance, to teach him a listen in humility perhaps. But what are the consequences of teaching our President a listen in humility? Unimaginable slaughter for the Iraqis? A terrorist government ceasing power? Is it worth abandoning Iraq to that future if it is to just humiliate one man to the detriment of us all?
I understand that it can be irritating to be criticised, and that's a good point to bear in mind. I don't know exactly what you would do to change our government's policy or public opinion in Canada.
Why don't [the critics] help Iraq? They may do, John, they just may not do it as you suggest is in Iraq's best interest. As usual, Canada will devote millions to redevelopment, will commit troops to UN peacekeeping efforts in a post-occupation Iraq, and will likely accept and settle scores of thousands of refugees. Canada tends to its own myths and observes its own historical constraints.
Here is a simile I have heard (but do not entirely share): US broke Iraq. Canada will wait to help fix it. We will not give our ally what we consider to be the wrong help, or help that is not in Canada's national interest.
I have no idea if you think George Bush cares a whit about Canada/Canadians, or purported attempts to humiliate him, or to make him humble.
In any case, Bush, whatever his faults, is not guided by public opinion in other countries.** Further, just because you think that Canada 'ought' to do this or that, reality intrudes.
Bush re: Iraq has the support of less than 10% of the population of Canada who respond to polling. This, in our country, restricts government action. We presently have a minority Conservative government. Any move off the status quo would bring about its fall. There is, in my opinion, nothing, squat, diddly, that Canada can do to 'punish' George Bush now or in the future. Our country is simply not that important.
I am not sure why I am urged to accept your premises if I disagree with them. So, when you cast the argument as a stark choice between supporting the US militarily in Iraq (which won't happen) and "Unimaginable slaughter for the Iraqis," I have to pass.
The slaughter in Iraq is internecine and mind-bogglingly complex. The roadside bombings and market massacres are slaughter which the US forces have been unable to temper, let alone slow, let along help.
Is there a future even more hideous slaughter coming? Perhaps, but neither you nor I can be sure of this. In the event more than 100 bodies are found tortured and executed every night in Baghdad (which I can certainly imagine), this will be civil war.
There have been uncertain and unpredictable results of US involvement in foreign civil wars in history. I don't know why we need accept the most positive prediction from you, when a reading of military history, and an attention to entrenched military philosophy, suggests that the best option is to prepare for the most negative imaginable scenario: a complete breakdown of society and its institutions of control, and an unleashing of sectarian forces who will battle until they are satisfied that it is the right time to stop.
"Is it worth abandoning Iraq to that future if it is to just humiliate one man to the detriment of us all?"
-- to my eyes, and please correct my perceptions, if they are wrong, this question contains the following premises:
1. Any withdrawal of US occupation forces means "abandoning Iraq."
2. The future of Iraq (given its abandonment) means a terrorist government, unimaginable violence, and (successful) attacks on the West (not just the US, and not just its military allies)
3. Humiliating Bush is the aim of all Bush critics.
I am not sure you grant good faith to the opponents of Bush's military policies.
I do agree wholeheartedly with this: "By fixing Iraq, the west will benefit."
The question is, how does one nation, or a consortium, "fix" Irag? It seems that there is only one way, the Bush way, that you will accept. I think this is arguable. You may not.
"I'm glad you are wavering in your view, it suggests you have a conscience and you are realzing the reality of what abandoning Iraq will mean."
This is insulting, John.
"But my intent is [ . . . ] to try and convince others why punishing the President by abandoning Iraq only serves to the detriment of us all.
With respect, you haven't convinced me up till now.
"That a majority of Americans want to abandon Iraq I would be skeptical of anyways as many polls tend to mislead the public. It depends how the question is phrased and how well the sample population is."
I agree. One must examine the polling data of each poll to measure its accuracy and its stated results.
"William I would disagree that the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave."
Okay, fair enough. What warrants this position? I mean, what do you know that puts the lie to the idea? How can I correct my perception of this issue if it is wrongly-held? You write, "A lot of polls I've seen have shown that the majority of Iraqis are confliced on this. " Can you give some references to these polls you have seen?
With regard to the Maliki government, let us both agree that it is not in control of Iraq, and does not enjoy the support of the factions in the civil war. Indeed, it can be argued that the Maliki government coalition arms and supports Shi'a terror against its Sunni opponents.
"In addition, it is a popular myth that insurgencies historically are militarily successful."
Okay, I understand your point. My point was that it is difficult for a foreign power to realize its goals of ending civil conflict in another land. Does the historical record support this point? Your example of the British in Malaysia supports your contention that it IS possible to realize its goals in a given civil conflict. The insurgents were defeated in Malaysia. But, it must be admitted that the British goals in Malaysia are different than the US goals in Iraq.
I had asked of you, John, "If I could ask you anything in this thread, it's that you read my messages over several times, and offer me linquistic charity, as I will do you.`
You reply, "I'll take your words William the only way I can, literally. And I will try to be as fair as I can in how I interpret them."
Good!
"All I ask is you try to keep focussed on the issue at hand and not shift the debate."
No. I can't agree with your premises in this request.
When you write, "you often like to shift the argument to unrelated or irrelevant issues," I disagree -- and I insert the unstated assertions (you shift the argument unfairly; your points are irrelevant." I don't grant you the ability to determine the shape of my argument, points, or interests, and I don't accept the denigration of my opinions. When you write, "this position is a red herring and just shifts the issue to a meaningless debate," I am insulted and believe you are not granting me linguistic charity. When you write, "[a] debate I honestly don't care to get into nor is relevant to the issue of Iraq," you close the discussion to what you want to talk about. That is not fair.
I thank you for the opportunity to carefully reason out my positions. I have learned a great deal in this thread. My aims in discussion are realized (according to the Principle of Charity that guides my efforts at discussion).
"[I]t seems you had issue with the word "surrender"
Right! -- in the sense that the emotional wallop of the word is unhelpful. Surrender is bad for those who seek Victory.
"but I don't know what would be a more appropriate term for withdrawing from a known enemy stronghold?
Withdrawal is the word I use, in the phrase, 'withdrawal of occupying forces.' You can continue to use the word surrender if you want -- I think I know what you mean by this: failure, humiliation and perceived defeat of the US in its mission, and possible needless death for millions, and unimaginable horror being visited on Iraqis, and a terrible consequence for the West.
Where we disagree, I think, is that this withdrawal/surrender/failure will inevitably lead to the events and situations you have posited.
On that note, I enjoy reading and thinking about what you right. I am not aiming to dominate or humble you, but merely to increase my understanding and abilty to reason objectively. For that, again, I thank you and the other participants in this very interesting thread. It was not my intent to 'shift the the argument,' but to critically examine yours, and I apologize if I left another impression.
WSS
++++++++++++
I had written " -- it is tempting to call all the factions and all the fights in Iraq 'the terrorists.' Tempting but simplistic and not reflective of reality."
John responded, "Whatever fraction of them that are terrorists still does not mean there are no terrorists to fight right William?"
Yes, I agree.
"What is the fraction? 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 of them are terrorists?"
For discussion, let us say 100%
"I should think anyone that is content to blow up a marketplace full of innocent men, women and children could meet the definition of terrorist"
I agree.
"so I'm satisfied there is sufficient evidence to say they are there."
So am I satisfied that 'terrorists' are there. Agreed.
"So what relevancy then does that have to my stance that we ought to stay and fight those terrorists?"
To my way of thinking, we need to tailor strategy and tactics to the reality on the ground. There are probably 100 armed factions in Iraq, some Sunni, some Shia. Some are backed by roque elements of the Maliki government and coalition." To call them all terrorists enough said, risks an inappropriate response -- the more detail we know about their constitution, goals, allies, tactics, geographical bases, institutional support, allies, etc, the better for an effective military and intelligence response.
|
|
