Lieberman offers clear assessment on Iraq

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Which culture is best the Asante, Akan, Igbo, Baule, or Yoruba? I think that the Baule is 13% better than the others, because the per capita income of the group is %7 percent higher, and they have %3 percent better music, and there dancing is worth %2, and there fashion sense is %1 better.

Your example is more related to economics than culture, and in that case it makes a good explanatory variable. If you are serious about finding an answer to something you can look for it by doing sound analysis of economics, geography, history, and even sometimes as a last resort culture. But as a fallback variable it is pretty weak, especially in the instance of large scale problems. Africa presents an enormous problem for a cultural explanation, because it has not got anything like a monolithic culture, but has hundreds of ethnic groups. However, Africans did have a near universal experience in colonization. Which affected them in much the same way, was removed at the same time, etc. Certainly it would seem more logical to look at these events to try and find a root cause and a solution to the problems that plague the continent.

Do you consider religios beliefs, how much value a society places on civil liberties, indeed, how much a society values human life itself, to be be aspects of a culture?

[myboynoah]

Sorry for abandoning the thread I started (and which has taken an unexpected turn). I’ve been in bed all day. I think I caught the SiEQ flu, so if what I write is Nyquil-induced incoherent drivel, then I’ll use that excuse, much like SU does with his “hey, couldn’t you see that was TIC?”

I still see only one rational choice, as outlined by Lieberman: remaining in Iraq until some form of credible stability can be established. Frankly, I don’t know what the Democratic leadership proposes as an alternative, aside from a staged pullout. That’s it, cut and run, let the Iraqis work it out (if I’m wrong, please correct me).

Another component of their message is the blame game and putting forth the “reinstitute the draft and send in 300,000 troops” strawman. These are just politically expedient arguments, not helpful dialogue leading to a solution. Reid’s “the war is lost” statement while our men and women are still on the field of battle is unforgivable. Pelosi’s missing the Petraeus briefing says much about where she is on this issue.

So I see basically two choices (both bad choices): 1) stay in strength and do what needs to be done to establish stability until the Iraqis can take over, or 2) commit to disengagement now and get out, leaving the Iraqis to work this out on their own. Both choices involve the eventual pullout of U.S. troops, only under extremely different circumstances. I fear the consequences of number 2 much more than those of number 1. I’m left with only one choice.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Moreover, I never said colonialism didn't do damage. It did. But to deomonstrate the overly-simplistic trap of laying everything at colonialism's feet as the utlimate bogeyman consider India. India is today ascendant as a world power, and a lot because of the language, legal system, political system, and education system, etc., that Great Britain left behind. These are defining aspects of British culture.

I thought you had a trial to preare for? I just don't have time to deal with all of your comments but this was too much to leave lie. No one here, except you, ever said that all of ANYTHING could be laid at the feet of colonialism. Stop doing this! You know very well that only you raised this ridiculous spectre, and then you pretend that by shooting it down you have somehow dealt with my objection to your position. Please.

[SeattleUte]

Detroit: Which culture is inferior: The drug culture or LDS culture?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am so tired of this "one choice" rhetoric. It simply isn't true. We have many choices, it is just that none of them are remotely good.

Things are awful in Iraq (and let us not forget the reasons why and hold those responsible for the current situtation). But is our presence there helping? Hard to see how. We supported Al-Sadr, who is now controlling enormous parts of the country and is going to be nearly impossible to remove. We dismantled the military upon arrival, leaving the country without any enforcement officers in the streets. We are currently protecting the Shiites, the group that most wants us destroyed. We are incredibly unpopular in the region and among the people in Iraq. They want us to leave.

So, are we to come to the conclusion that we have to stay? Hardly. There are persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue, contrary to the "clear cut" language of Lieberman and others.

What happens if we do stay? We continue to protect the Shiites to our own detriment and to the region's detriment. Our troops continue to be killed in the process. The Iraqi public continues to grow more enraged with the American occupation of Iraq. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites continues to slowly escalate towards a full-blown civil war, leaving millions dead and huge instability in the region as Iran and Saudi Arabia grow increasingly involved. We continue to operate without any actual plan (according to our own generals). Eventually we have to leave anyways, but not until we have suffered many more casualties unnecessarily.

If we leave? Civil war, millions dead, huge instability in the region.

Both staying and leaving result in the same problem, absent a dramatic shift in our policy (and even that may not be sufficient).

What I find so amusing in all of this (in a tragic sort of way) is that those who claim we have to stay make the claim that this is one of the most critical moments in our history. They say this is vital to the very survival of our nation. They say our very freedom is at stake. And their solution? 10,000 more troops! WOW! 10,000! Victory is here!!!

The use of a mere 10,000 troops signals to me that they don't actually believe what they are saying. If our very freedom hinged on this decision, why not send in the full force and power of the US military? Isn't that what it is for? Send in 350,000 troops. Start a draft. Demand sacrifice from all levels of the American population.

I agree with your premise here. What none of the rhetoric is candid about is that ALL of that options are shitty. Until we acknowledge that, we can't talk realistically about what is the least poor choice.

I think we have a good idea at this point of what the continued cost of our presence there is. I think that there needs to be some talk about the cost, as best we can approximate it, of the slaughter that will ensue if we withdraw. Many folks who think we ought to get into the middle of what is happening in Darfur for humanitarian reasons seem to not be terribly focused on the idea that pulling out of Iraq may well create another Darfur.

I think that is the only reason I remain willing to support us being there. That is, staying there is the devil I know.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Detroit: Which culture is inferior: The drug culture or LDS culture?

That's like asking "Which vehicle is inferior: A Ferrari or the streisand remake of "A Star is Born", which is a star-vehicle?"

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think that is the only reason I remain willing to support us being there. That is, staying there is the devil I know.

But the devil you know is extremely expensive and is costing American lives. I might get beat up for this, but I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to the citizens of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq for their benefit and they don't want us there. If they end up killing each other, then Oh Well.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

But the devil you know is extremely expensive and is costing American lives. I might get beat up for this, but I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to the citizens of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq for their benefit and they don't want us there. If they end up killing each other, then Oh Well.

I feel the sentiment behind what you say, but at this point Al Queda doesn't need to cross and ocean to attack Americans. If we leave, that will be exactly what they do. That and that fact that no friend around the world will ever again be able to take seriously an offer of help, nor a foe take seriously a threat. I'm not saying that is worse than present reality, but maybe it is. I just don't know. I think that it is morally wrong if nothing else. I feel like we sort of bought it when we broke it, but no, that isn't a bottomless well either.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I feel the sentiment behind what you say, but at this point Al Queda doesn't need to cross and ocean to attack Americans. If we leave, that will be exactly what they do. That and that fact that no friend around the world will ever again be able to take seriously an offer of help, nor a foe take seriously a threat. I'm not saying that is worse than present reality, but maybe it is. I just don't know. I think that it is morally wrong if nothing else. I feel like we sort of bought it when we broke it, but no, that isn't a bottomless well either.

I agree with this, in essence. Saying "We didn't invade Iraq for their benefit and they don't want us there. If they end up killing each other, then Oh Well" is hopelessly isolationist. These events do not occur in a vacuum.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree with your premise here. What none of the rhetoric is candid about is that ALL of that options are shitty. Until we acknowledge that, we can't talk realistically about what is the least poor choice.

I think we have a good idea at this point of what the continued cost of our presence there is. I think that there needs to be some talk about the cost, as best we can approximate it, of the slaughter that will ensue if we withdraw. Many folks who think we ought to get into the middle of what is happening in Darfur for humanitarian reasons seem to not be terribly focused on the idea that pulling out of Iraq may well create another Darfur.

I think that is the only reason I remain willing to support us being there. That is, staying there is the devil I know.

Yep- no good answers to this problem. I am not even sure we know what the continued costs of our presence will be. History would suggest that it will only breed more contempt for our country and its people. Would that put us at higher risk? Put our interests at higher risk?

I am also concerned about creating another Darfur. What I don't know is whether we can prevent it by staying. If we can't, we would be better off to get out and save American lives while we can. The last thing we want is to be caught with over 100,000 American troops between two full out warring religious factions with support for the factions coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others. Who knows what will happen with Turkey and the Kurds, or with the oil that the Kurds control.

Staying under the status quo is not a good option. The Iraqis are devolving into a full civil war and will be there shortly. They are also growing angrier with the US occupation, killing our soldiers, and costing the US a fortune.

Leaving will produce an immediate civil war, but would save American lives in the short term (and maybe in the long term as the Sunnis and Shiites focus on exterminating each other for a while). But this also produces lots of moral questions, akin to Darfur.

Quite honestly, the least crappy solution immediately may also be the riskiest for the long term- the infusion of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into Iraq. That is the route I would follow at this point, though it could be nothing short of catastrophic.

The second best possiblity I see is to announce a date for withdrawal that is a year to two years in the future. This should calm down the insurgency (why fight when you know you can just wait things out with less risk), possibly allowing us to get more accomplished in the next year or two than would ever be possible otherwise. It also would force the Iraqis to get serious about preparing for their own security rather than relying on the power of the US military to handle their problems for them.