saddam is the bravest leader of all

[matt b]

Ok, international law is a tricky one. I think Norm Geras has it right here:.

i think he's talking shit- it means that anyone can do anything if they claim its moral

There is also the argument that politicians are elected to make decisions in their best judgement on our behalf, not carry out our uninformed orders.

ah, democracy. how sweet it smells

 

[Guybrush]

However I suggest that numbers are less important than having a decent aim or mission statement (or wheatever the hell the US military calls it), fit-for-purpose rules of engagament, and a determination to take control of the security situation. The US military seem like passengers at the moment.

But many military bigwigs think the lack of personnel does matter a great deal (I cannot give you a verbatim quote, but the testimonies are easily found with a little bit of googling I’m sure). The porousness of the Iraqi borders is a direct consequence of the lack of U.S. border guards, for example.

What I'd like to see:
Most importantly, disarm the militias (esp. the Shia militias in Baghdad) with a zero tolerance approach - in fact I'd disarm everyone, or if that's not possible, I'd certainly make keeping or carrying arms illegal in the "hot zones" where there is a lot of conflict.
Lean on Maliki to either get with this programme (and turn against the militias) or quit.
Amnesty for low level Ba'ath Party workers, especially the civil service. (I'm not saying let the insurgents off, but Iraq could definitely do with a btter infrastructure).
Progressive involvement of Sunni elements, protection of Sunni areas and a softly-softly approach to any not involved in the insurgency.

This sounds a lot like what has been attempted unsuccessfully in the past I think. The ‘zero tolerance approach’ against Sadr (which, I assume, means street fights in Sadr City) is going to result in a blood bath, I think (it did in 2004, remember?).

 

[vimothy]

But many military bigwigs think the lack of personnel does matter a great deal (I cannot give you a verbatim quote, but the testimonies are easily found with a little bit of googling I’m sure). The porousness of the Iraqi borders is a direct consequence of the lack of U.S. border guards, for example.

Well, of course - there are those who think that Iraq requires more troops, those who think it requires less and those who think that the numbers are right at the moment (inc. I think Abizaid?). There are doubtless persuasive arguments on all sides (for e.g. a bigger footprint would only be one downside to increased troop levels). What I'm getting at, however, is that changing the number of troops alone is not enough to change the tide - what is more important what these troops are going to do. Look at the troop levels: in December 2005 there were about 160,000 US troops stationed in Iraq (figures from www.globalsecurity.org and www.nambian.com), at present there is about 132,000 rising to 153,500 with additional troops. So what will the Americans accomplish with 153k in 2007 that they couldn't accomplish with 160k in 2005? It won't make that much difference unless accompanied by a change in policy.

I'm not against increasing troop levels, by the way.

This sounds a lot like what has been attempted unsuccessfully in the past I think. The ‘zero tolerance approach’ against Sadr (which, I assume, means street fights in Sadr City) is going to result in a blood bath, I think (it did in 2004, remember?).

Sadly, this is the only way to reduce the violence, and I think most Iraqis would be very happy to have the whole country disarmed. (In fact I heard an Iraqi woman interviewed on the streets of Baghdad by al Jazeera say exactly that - "no one should be allowed weapons"). Sadr City is the most important test of will because success there would establish US unwillingness to compromise for the sake of an easier ride to the militias, the fairness/non-partisan-ness of their approach to the Sunni faction (both locally in Iraq and regionally in the Middle East), and their desire to help ordinary Iraqis secure thir country from a terror which still plagues it. So although the fighting might indeed be bloody, the long term results would be less violence, rather than the continuation of what we have now. IMO.

 

[IdleRich]

Quote:

"Some people marched (shamefully I was there too)"

You marched against the war? I'd be interested to know what has happened since then that has made you change your opinions.

I'd still like to know the answer to this question Vimothy. The reason I ask is because I've heard lots of previous war supporters now admitting that they were wrong but you're the first person I've heard of to swing the other way.

 

[vimothy]

I'd still like to know the answer to this question Vimothy. The reason I ask is because I've heard lots of previous war supporters now admitting that they were wrong but you're the first person I've heard of to swing the other way.

Sorry - getting distracted by work.

Basically felt that I should do some reading and find out more about the whole thing. Read the usual uninspired shite that I thought I should (you know what I mean: anti-Americanism + post-structuralism + marxism + simmering resentment, etc), and eventually - I can't remember how I came across it - read Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman, which I recommend, even if you disagree with the War on Terror for ideological reasons, as a really lucid and informed book. This started me off reflecting on what was happening, who was fighting and what was at stake, as well as doing more reading of the, I guess to everyone else but I saw it in a new light I suppose, usual stuff: Hitchens, Aaronovitch (I used to think Aaronovitch was a "traitor"), Cohen, Bernard Lewis and beyond (generally conservatives in the US (not that conservative really means the same thing in the US as the UK) and lefties here), getting especially more interested in economics and globalisation and the failures of socialism (as an economic programme) and all of that shit.

I guess that's why I'm harping on about the left - I feel betrayed to some greater or lesser extent, by a movement that I think has lost touch with reality. (For instance, does anyone remember Tony Benn on Newsnight accusing the Iraqi left resistance parties of being stooges of the CIA, because they wanted to be liberated and didn't give a toss about Benn's ideas of "US imperialism")?

I don't think any of my values have changed, in fact I think, or hope at least, that I better understand them now - and how positive outcomes can be affected by political and economic "machines".

 

[vimothy]

Maybe I'm just a contrary bastard.

 

[IdleRich]

Thanks.

 

[Guybrush]

Regarding the troop levels: Yes, there were 160,000 troops at a time, but even that was woefully insufficient. Have a peek at this summary for information on this topic. Here are some telling quotes:

Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld's opening bid was about 40,000, "a division-plus," said three senior military officials who participated in the discussions. Bush and his top advisers finally approved the 250,000 troops the commanders requested to launch the invasion. But the additional troops that the military wanted to secure Iraq after Saddam's regime fell were either delayed or never sent.

Franks, the former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), has acknowledged that he felt more troops were needed in Iraq. He wrote in his recent book American Soldier (Regan, 2004) that he projected that 250,000 troops would be required to secure postwar Iraq, as he acknowledged in an August 16, 2004, appearance on CNN's Paula Zahn Now.

 

[vimothy]

Regarding the troop levels: Yes, there were 160,000 troops at a time, but even that was woefully insufficient. Have a peek at this summary for information on this topic. Here are some telling quotes:

Again, I think there are good arguments for increasing troop levels and for leaving them as they are (based around established COIN principles - not just political bullshit). I will try to dig out the arguments made by various military analysists and writers after the weekend. But my point remains the same: what can be done with 153,500 in 2007 that couldn't be done with 160,000 in 2005? I think the situation requires a new strategy, as this (more troops) isn't by itself the panacea its being built up to be in some quarters.

 

[vimothy]

i think he's talking shit- it means that anyone can do anything if they claim its moral

No it doesn't - why would you act in an (subjectively of course) immoral way? Why would you not choose the more moral path?

ah, democracy. how sweet it smells

Hm... You want the reins?

[how does the old quote go: "deomcracy is the worst political system, except for all the others"?]

 

[craner]

You could read Kagan/Keane. I think that's the plan. Well, it's a lot better than Baker-Hamilton.

 

[vimothy]

Scanning through it, it seems sensible and positive. I'll give it a proper read on Monday. I'm sure you can guess, I'm no fan of the Baker-Hamilton axis or any of the other so called "realists" (let's wheel out Nixon's corpse while we're at it).

 

[vimothy]

Thanks for the debate everyone, it's been (for the most part) really engaging.

 

[rewch]

superb... keep it up

 

[matt b]

No it doesn't - why would you act in an (subjectively of course) immoral way? Why would you not choose the more moral path?

bin laden claims he is acting morally. therefore according to the above quote he is justified in doing it.

[how does the old quote go: "deomcracy is the worst political system, except for all the others"?]

i don't agree with that either

 

[craner]

WSJ on David Petraeus .

 

[crackerjack]

Quite agree with Vimothy, not on the case for war, but in his distaste for where too much of the left is going, Galloway, Respect and Benn being some of the most obvious examples of this. Everything is seen through the prism of "anti-imperialism" (ie anti-capitalism, ie anti-Americanism). The kind of thing that leads to this

"bin laden claims he is acting morally. therefore according to the above quote he is justified in doing it."

No, Matt B. The point is to see it through the morality you subscribe to. That doesn't mean if you believe in one thing and Bin L believes the opposite that both of you are right. it means you adhere to certain fundamentals (and here's one I'd like to think we can all agree on: democracy + freedom of speech = good; dictatorship = bad) and don't subject them to the moral relativism that makes excuses for people who won't allow women an education or gays the right to exist.

btw Aaronovitch is now as much a Communist as Beckham is a Man Utd player.

 

[matt b]

Quite agree with Vimothy, not on the case for war, but in his distaste for where too much of the left is going, Galloway, Respect and Benn being some of the most obvious examples of this. Everything is seen through the prism of "anti-imperialism" (ie anti-capitalism, ie anti-Americanism). The kind of thing that leads to this

"bin laden claims he is acting morally. therefore according to the above quote he is justified in doing it."

The point is to see it through the morality you subscribe to...<snip>

you're making an assumption that i agree with galloway et al- i don't.

also, you wilfully misread my bin laden comment- it isn't my own view but a criticism of the Norm Geras position.

the point is that morality IS relative- religions claim a moral justification for all sorts of things you mention above. they would state that these ARE fundamentals.

i think part of the problem we face with regard to religious fanatics has been fanned by justifications for actions based on 'certain fundamentals' as stated by bush and blair, rather than legal justifications. that was the point i was trying to make.

with regard to aaronovich, i know he's not a communist, but some the authoritarianism that comes with communism remains in his current world view.

 

[crackerjack]

Matt B
I wasn't misrepresenting you and I know perfectly well the context in which you're comment was made. The problem is, when you cite Bin laden's own convictions as a counterweight to those of the pro-war lobby then you're indulging in moral relativism.

I'm curious about this legal argument that so many put forward these days. Is the UN the sole arbiter of international law? Are there any limits to your faith in international law? Would you, e.g. have opposed the Tanzanian overthrow of Idi Amin or the Vietnamese in Cambodia on the grounds that neither were UN-approved? Where did you stand on NATO's action in the Balkans?

Also, if democracy isn't the least worst option, what is?

 

[matt b]

Matt B
I wasn't misrepresenting you and I know perfectly well the context in which you're comment was made. The problem is, when you cite Bin laden's own convictions as a counterweight to those of the pro-war lobby then you're indulging in moral relativism.

i repeat. morality is relative.

I'm curious about this legal argument that so many put forward these days. Is the UN the sole arbiter of international law? Are there any limits to your faith in international law? Would you, e.g. have opposed the Tanzanian overthrow of Idi Amin or the Vietnamese in Cambodia on the grounds that neither were UN-approved? Where did you stand on NATO's action in the Balkans?

your examples suggest you don't know how international law works.

i have little faith in international law, but its all we've got. otherwise we are in the position i described above