A Stupid Question
January 13th, 2007 | by Craig |Really, as you know, it’s the only kind I ask, but I thought it worth “throwing out there.”
On more than one site, I have read the proposition that if we withdraw from Iraq, then suddenly, all will be sunshine and roses and peace will reign throughout the region.
My question is this: What specific event(s) in the past, say, 1000 years would lead someone to that conclusion?
54 Responses to “A Stupid Question”
By Steve T. on Jan 13, 2007 | Reply
Well, I’m not sure that anyone is saying that it will be all flowers and rainbows in Iraq when we leave, and if you could provide a link, I’d gladly call them fools.
I think the idea is that if we’re going to stay, we’re going to have to accept a lot more casualties for the next 10 years. I think we all know the American public won’t accept that.
Anyways, I don’t recall us having to fight the Vietnamese “over here” instead of “over there” after we withdrew from that one. Things weren’t pretty, to be sure, but they wouldn’t have been any less pretty had we stuck around, in my opinion.
The American public is something that has to be taken into account in every conflict we decide to engage in. If Iraq were to be won (and I don’t think that’s possible), we’d probably need a draft, and 10 more years of fighting. Ain’t gonna happen. Not in a democracy.
By DMerriman on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
It will all be sunshine and roses, and peace will reign throughout the region — if the region is the U.S.
Iraq and its people, however, would be scrood.
By Craig on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Had I remembered where I saw it, I would have provided a link.
By Jim - PRS on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
It is a curious notion to think that we can end the war simply by declaring it to be over and bringing the troops home. When we did that in Vietnam, the war was over for the U.S. (although we know what happened to the Vietnamese), but that is not the case now.
If we were to simply pack up and leave, the bad guys will still want to kill us — every one of us, and without a U.S. presence over there, they’ll be in a much better position to do just that, and does anyone think they won’t try?
By Tony Rosen on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
“I don’t recall us having to fight the Vietnamese “over here†instead of “over there†after we withdrew from that one”
That’s not an “apples to apples” comparison.
By darkman on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Tony Rosen;
In what way do you think it is not a true comparison? You disagree without giving a reason for your disagement or what you think should be the real analogy.
By Matt Singer on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Strawman sales are at an all time high!
By Craig on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
By Matt Singer on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
I keep reading that if we just stop criticizing the President that the military won’t be overstretched and we’ll be greeted as liberators anew.
Anyways, strawman means a sham argument created to be easily defeated. That’s what you’re dealing in here.
By Steve T. on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Oh and by the way, Craig- If you had seen it on more than one site, a mere five minutes of looking should provide you with at least one measly link, no?
By Cammy on Jan 14, 2007 | Reply
Are your fingers broken, Steve T.?
By michael erickson on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
I can’t count the number of people who said I was wrong in comparing Vietnam with Iraq. Hardly, not only will we be there another 10-20 years look at all the other places we have troops remaining after we either went to save them and or defeat them.
To think that the argument holds that we will be fighting the people from Iraq on our soil is weak at best. Surely, we may have factions that would attempt to do just that, but the whole Iraq conflict (call it a war if you want) was served up on a silver platter by our esteemed leader and his henchmen.
It is ill-conceived to think that we can change a government or people’s religion that dates so far back I am not sure the average American can even grasp that straw.
Short of dropping a very BIG bomb on the whole mess means that we will continue to see these types of conflicts time and time again.
Having been in Vietnam myself, I can assure you that we have no business in Iraq with either our military or our government. It is high time that we take care of our own people FIRST and let the chips fall where they fall.
Entering Iraq (and Vietnam) was wrong then and it is wrong now. The BIG question is this:
IF we are a democratic nation built on the majority rules then why if 80% want OUT are we still there?
ANY politician voting to keep this mess going will be “GONE JOHNSON” come election time. If you think the vote in this year’s election was loud just watch the march on Washington real soon!
By Craig on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
9.) I wouldn’t doubt that you hear that from some quarters. I was just checking to see if you knew what that word was; you toss it around with fairly cheerful abandon. I’m not sure I see a strawman here, but, whatever floats your boat, y’know.
10.) Some things are worth spending time out of my busy day; some are not. Guess what? I get to decide. Sorry, but the polls are closed and you are not eligible to vote.
By Tony Rosen on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
Oh, and since you were in Vietnam, you knew all the politics behind the war … nice.
I was going to reply, but you can keep that one yourself.
By Gman on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
Mike, when you say “let the chips fall where they may” are you including the “chips” from the Twin Towers in conclusion?
I’ve often questioned Iraq’s significance in the “war on terror” but after reading this I’m willing to reconsider my previous thoughts on why Iraq has to be a component of that war.
By The Polish Wolf on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
In fairness, I thought that the ’strawman’ being referred to was Vietnam. Vietnam was so much bigger than Iraq as to be incomparable. We’re not even remotely near the same number or rate of casualties, we’re fighting insurgents, not invaders (Even when we were fighting the VC, I think it was pretty clear that we were fighting North Vietnam, if only by proxy), etc. At the same time, I haven’t heard anyone claim that peace will take over in Iraq once we leave; a better claim is that war will not take over any faster. Iraq wasn’t part of the war on terror, but we may well have made it a terrorist camp by now.
By Walter Greenspan on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
Michael Erickson, we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
It is said that, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and asked him what type of government had been decided upon by the delegates. Franklin stated: “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”
By Steve T. on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
Damn, I’m going to go ahead and start creating other people’s positions for them.
Seems like it’s pretty damned easy, and might give me some false sense of righteousness. And it would probably take less time out of my busy day than finding out what people on the other side actually believe.
By Craig on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
On the bright side, self-righteousness won’t be much of a reach for you, Steve.
By Dave Budge on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
Touche’
By Chad on Jan 15, 2007 | Reply
Walter,
Michael Erickson, in his comment above, never suggested that we lived in something other than a repulic. He questioned, “[if] we are a democratic nation built on the majority rules then why if 80% want OUT are we still there?”
This is a democratic republic, although some might allege otherwise. We are indeed built upon the notion that majority rules, although sometimes a plurality is sufficient.
The bit about 80% is clearly exaggerated, however.
By colby natale on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
So getting an argument going about faulty propositions is worth spending your time on, but defending allegations about said propositions by including one link is not?
Explain how that doesn’t sound evasive?
By Wulfgar on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
I gotta throw the yellow flag on this one, Craig; not because of the strawman liberal slant (hell, there are those who think that the Iraqis will be better off if we leave). No, the illegal procedure foul is the hypothetical; Us be leaving? No, no no, it *ain’ gonn hap’n*. The Incompetent in Chief has already said that we’re going to commit more folks to rousting civis and training Shi’ite militia death squads masquerading as the Iraqi Security forces.
I have no delusions about peaches and cream if we leave … but I am confident that it will be rotten peaches and creamed for us if we stay.
A better question: if various and sundry groups of Iraqis seem so hell bent on killing each other, then why are we sticking around to train them to do it with greater efficiency … at our expense?
By Craig on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
You guys crack me up. Really. Not a single one of you has even taken a stab at the question I asked; but the projection going on here would make a junior psych major giddy.
Colby, you can believe me or don’t. I don’t really care. I’m a pretty prolific surfer, and by the time I remember to comment on something, days have passed. Would it make you feel any better if I said I’d overheard it in conversation? Would that make it any less believable or valid? As I indicated to you on an earlier thread, please let me know what standards you expect me to uphold, so that I can: 1.) attain them; and 2.) make sure that you are following the same ones.
The point, which all of you missed, is that the region has been in turmoil for a thousand years, give or take, and our staying or going isn’t going to probably make a whit of difference in the long run.
You guys.
By TMM on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Not that the pot needs another spoon, but I seam to recall (no, I don’t have a link either, but this is out of shear laziness) a lot of concern for civilian casualties we’ve caused in Iraq. Should we leave, I believe whatever number we have caused will look like a pittance when compared to the resulting carnage.
By Steve T. on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
We haven’t addressed your question because it was built on a faulty premise, or at least a premise that was based on the opinion of very, very, very few of us liberals. Your point was far from missed.
But why am I even telling you this? You know it as well as I do. I will dismiss that junior psych major comment as pretty typical (if useless) Craig-talk.
Anyways, this is another one of those 20 word posts that just takes off in the comment thread. Well done.
By Wulfgar on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Dammit Craig, that was completely unfair. I directly addressed your ‘point’. The Iraqis will continue to kill each other regardless of our presence … which is exactly what I pointed out.
The only real question is why are you and I helping them do it with more efficiency and paying for the privilege? Do you have an answer to that?
By Craig on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Bravo, Steve! Bra-vo! The self-righteousness works for you; I’d stick with it.
I’m trying to keep this as simple as I can so’s you can follow along, so try to keep up:
1.) I did not suggest that it was the viewpoint of ALL liberals, much less a majority that this was the case (hence the phrasing “more than one,” as opposed to “several,” “many,” or “most”.) It was a site or two that I saw in passing and thought, “Well, isn’t that odd?” I further thought it might be good discussion fodder.
2.) You’ve taken a simple question and read what you assume to be my position on keeping troops on Iraq, which you know nothing about, as I haven’t stated it.
3.) That junior psych major hit you pretty hard, huh? You must be a junior psych major?
By Craig on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
Rob, you are correct. You did tackle the question and I apologize.
However, you make the same mistake as my esteemed colleague, Steve. You assume you know what my position is when I haven’t stated it.
TMM hits it the closest, I think. If we’re sending more troops, it’s not going to be near enough, and as I have stated before, we no longer have the stomach to do what it takes to win wars, and that is to beat the enemy into utter, abject capitulation.
By Steve T. on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
I’ve got to say it, Craig: Your demeaning tone in our squabbles is kind of refreshing. Seriously.
This is the funny part about all of this. You seem to be distressed because we are not addressing the question you ask. But none of us are going to defend positions and viewpoints that we do not hold. To ask us to do so is rather… evasive of you.
You knew the implication of this post when you put it up, so do me a favor and don’t get your panties in a wad when some of us on the left have some knee-jerk reactions to it. You’re conveniently oversimplifying things. You and I both know that you’re smarter than that. Do me another favor and quit playing dumb in order to maintain that refreshingly demeaning tone.
Do I need to ask what your position on keeping troops in Iraq is? Seriously? I apologize for assuming too much, Craig. If I’m wrong, feel free to put me in my place by actually telling me what your position is.
By Colby Natale on Jan 16, 2007 | Reply
This isn’t the first time Craig has put up a post that indicates his position on an issue, only to later say he never said his position and use it to blame us for assumptions.
Most people have an opinon when they put up a post Craig, and accept that commenters are going to interpret said position from the tone and context of the post as well as past history.
That said, your post sure makes it sound like anyone who thinks peace would permeate the region if we pulled out is a crazy person, thus indicating that you don’t favor that position. Like Steve says, if we keep getting your opinions wrong why do you put up posts that hint at but misrepresent your views?
By Craig on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
What’s next? A lecture from Paris Hilton on the virtues of modesty and chastity?
By Wulfgar on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
To be honest, Craig, I’m not assuming your position at all. I just think we keep getting the wrong answers because we’re not asking the obvious and more correct questions.
By Mark T on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
You said “On more than one site, I have read the proposition that if we withdraw from Iraq, then suddenly, all will be sunshine and roses and peace will reign throughout the region.”
That may be a mischaracterization - and I don’t recall reading that anywhere. I do get around a little.
If American troops are a magnet for violence, then withdrawing American troops (in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi people) will reduce violence. It will not be rosy. 82% of them want us to go home, 77% of them think we don’t give a shit what they want.
The real fear here is that a Democratic Iraq will retake control of its oil, expel the US from its 14 military bases, retake control of its own economy - you know - democratic rule. That is the one thing the US cannot abide.
By colby natale on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Craig, I am curious, what was your goal in posting that question, especially in its brief format, if you didn’t want to have a conversation about what you actually think? Is your objective really to belittle people for assuming your position , or is it just to argue about who is more demeaning between you or Steve T.?
Next time try explaining what you think rather than putting up a post that indicates a position that you don’t claim to have.
By Steve T. on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Craig- I was actually serious about your tone being refreshing. I can be a dick to you today, and tomorrow you won’t be all butthurt about it. Some people take this blog stuff a little more personally than you. I enjoy not having to mince words.
Wait a minute… you’re not actually mad, are you?
By Ed Kemmick on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Damn, I feel silly for weighing in here, but Craig, you have accused people of misstating your opinions and yet you won’t tell us where “on more than one site” you read that all will be sunshine and roses if we withdraw from Iraq. How can any of us begin to respond to that absurd idea if we don’t see what the person who allegedly said it actually said? Was there any context we missed? Did the person who said it present any historical precedents? Was the position more nuanced than you’re letting on?
Until I see the original post or posts, I wouldn’t presume to comment. Meanwhile, as for the line of reasoning that folks in the Middle East have been warring and fighting for 1,000 years and thus the situation is hopeless, I don’t buy it. Few places on the planet pursued war as widely and aggressively and for as long a time as Europe, and look at it now. Now, the right dismisses Europe as a haven for spineless peaceniks. There is always hope that with time these things will change. I don’t think we will change them, however, by throwing our bombs into the mix. In a region where violence endlessly begets violence, maybe wisdom would point to a new approach.
By Walter Greenspan on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Craig, could the reason that “we no longer have the stomach to do what it takes to win wars, and that is to beat the enemy into utter, abject capitulation” be because of the feminization of our culture, reflecting the feminization of the pulpit?
By Ed Kemmick on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
You know, the last time the “feminization of culture” was a big concern was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Nietzsche was one of the prophets of the times, sort of an early version of Victor Davis Hanson, though Nietzsche was much more frank about his thoughts on the nobility and necessity of war. War was the great cure-all, of both cultural ennui and excessive feminization.
World War I put something of a damper on that school of thought, but human beings never learn. We see-saw back and forth. So, yeah, damn the feminization of our culture. If only we had the stomach to really wage war, we’d show ‘em.
By colby natale on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Anyone else think there just might be a correspondence between the ideology of
and
Maybe we don’t wage the kind of war Craig and Walter advocate because it creates the kind of situation Kemmick refers to; one which we don’t want.
Of course, now Craig and Walter can say “We never said that was our position!”
By JP on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Maybe part of the problem is, we’re using tools of war improperly. The job of the Army (and other branches) is to kill people and break things. They, save the MPs and SPs, are not law enforcement.
What Iraq needs more than patrols to ambush, is enforcement of the rule of law - a job for police and the Iraqi government. It doesn’t hurt to have this backed up by force of military, but at the end of the day it is up to the law enforcement folks - qualified, trained mediators and enforcers of law. Para-military? Perhaps in this case, but not U.S. Armed Forces patrolling the streets (read: targets).
The administration did a fine job of crushing the Iraqi military or beat the enemy into utter, abject capitulation but then tried to use the same 16# sledgehammer to do finish carpentry.
Of course I’m oversimplifying this, and the socio-economic dynamic has so many variables that it can’t be easily boiled down to a 30-second-soundbite solution.
Pull out the coalition forces? Absolutely. When? Sooner rather than later. What needs to happen first? The Iraqi military needs to have a cadre of sergeants and captains (as opposed to privates and generals) to run the show, and they need to back up the police. Wouldn’t hurt to reach out to the sheiks that have actually run the country for the last 1000 years and bring them into the fold as well.
Jeez - that’s not even worth two cents.. but respectfully submitted nonetheless.
By Craig on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
Colby, you would do well to remember your Von Clausewitz:
Fortunately for me, I can bow out of this discussion as you obviously know what I am thinking and can sum up my thoughts for me. Or Walter can, since we must think exactly the same thing.
Further, maybe you want me to implement some sort of metadata for each post that indicates my mood at the time, what I hope to accomplish (which is generally nothing), and my exact position on any arguments that might be advanced. Like LiveJournal, but more in depth?
I mean, I’m just zis guy, you know?
By Mr Mackey on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
War is bad, mkay?
By Gman on Jan 17, 2007 | Reply
It gets a little tiring when folks start arguing about argumentation. Talk about ennui…
By Craig on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I dunno, Gman, somehow it seems rather fitting…
By colby natale on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
That is not what I am saying, and you know it. I am just genuinely curious why you keep coming down on people for assuming your position and yet continue to seem to be unwilling to tell us what your position is.
Do you have one?
By Kristina K on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I dunno. I thought he stated his position pretty well.
Here..
The point, which all of you missed, is that the region has been in turmoil for a thousand years, give or take, and our staying or going isn’t going to probably make a whit of difference in the long run.
And here..
TMM hits it the closest, I think. If we’re sending more troops, it’s not going to be near enough, and as I have stated before, we no longer have the stomach to do what it takes to win wars, and that is to beat the enemy into utter, abject capitulation.
Maybe your glasses need to be adjusted or something..
*shrugs*
By colby natale on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Kristina,
Perhaps you are the one who has a hard time reading, because you say:
AFTER Craig himself already said “You assume you know what my position is when I haven’t stated it”. BTW, he said that after he had already written the comment you reference above, so even he didn’t seem to feel that was indicative of his position>/i>.
As for the second quote of his you refer to, it in no way addresses the original concern of people who feel our leaving would benefit the region. Plus, people who have attempted to argue with him based on that quote have been accused of assuming his position:
…said after I was addressing what I had taken to be his opinion. I think Craig would disagree with your comment, “I thought he stated his position pretty well.” Of course, that is me doing more assuming.
By Kristina K on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
To be truthfully honest, Colby, I don’t think you really want to know Craig’s position. What I do think by looking at the pattern of this thread, is that you’re here mainly to goad him, by any means, into a response.
That’s a bit trollish in nature, don’t you think?
I think Gman hit it on the nail, btw.
I also think that this thread in itself has been beaten into utter, abject capitulation.
Signing out.
By colby natale on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
I love it, we all get criticized making assumptions about what other people think, criticism which you seem to defend, and then you go around and make assumptions about what I think:
I guess what goes around comes around.
By Craig on Jan 18, 2007 | Reply
Gah! Enough!