Just finished reading "Imperial Hubris"

[Elvis]

I don't think it matters if people die so long as they're brown. ZING

[test123]

Giving Isreal land is like giving Tom Cruise his own state. There is no logic beyond "God gave it to them" for it to exist in the first place. The "Isreali" people is a devided people, Orthodox and zionist jews. The first wishes one state for both Palestinians and Jews to live in together in peace. The latter a Jewish state that has boarders into Bagdad.

Iran embraces the orthodox way as the right and only way. The US a Zionist state (AIPAC).
That is why Iran wants to "wipe Isreal off the map".

[Elvis]

The entire notion of "wiping Israel off the map" is a lie.

In Arabic that meaning couldn't be extracted from what he said. He meant the political regime in Israel. He goes on to say in the Mike Wallace interview that he wanted the Palestinians to decide for themselve (in Israeli politics). To allow them a voice and let the chips fall where they may.

This part of the interview was cut from the mainstream version most people saw. The full cut was on CSPAN once I believe.

[Khamsin]

Scheuer suggests that in order to stop terrorism, the US would have to rethink its foreign policy and essentially take talking points from Bin Laden as our new course of action.

I fail to see how their reasoning for committing acts of terrorism matter, unless we can somehow use it to bait or trick them. The way to stop them is to eliminate them, not cater to them.

If we give in to terrorist complaints, then it'll only provoke more terrorism once they discover they can control us through it.

That said, I hope Obama wins and can redirect our focus where it belongs. I think Bush got a little sidetracked.

[Beckwin]

so you don't question the morality of what we've done just because the response to our actions have been violent? I'd suggest at least trying to approach the issue with a broader perspective. and saying that turning to a more peaceful and less imperialistic policy would provoke more terror? that sounds like the terrible GOP appeasement argument.

but then again you're khamsin so you're probably not serious anyway.

[Khamsin]

Well, I am serious, I'm just not republican.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and think that a lot of our forces and lives have been put at stake in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. There are better places and better ways to focus on combatting terrorism, if we actually choose to honestly do it without slipping our own secondary agendas in there. But so far, we've just been getting sidetracked on other issues that aren't really solving the problem.

Whether or not the solution has to necessarily be violent, I don't know. I'm not a treehugger, I won't shun violence when its necessary. Yet, not all violent situations warrant violence in return. Sometimes it escalates things and makes them worse. Sometimes, there's no other way and to not respond with violence allows the perpetrator to walk all over you. It's really a case by case thing. I do know we wouldn't be here now if we weren't willing to shed some blood to defend what we believe in. And I use "we" loosely, since *I* wouldn't shed blood, I'd run screaming like a little girl.

However, simply accommodating those who would commit acts of terrorism on us doesn't sit well with me. We don't have to be backed into a corner in this, and we don't have to let them threaten us like that. Sure, changing our policies might calm them down, but is it in our best interest outside of them leaving us alone? How much worse would things be if people got in the habit of blowing random shit up and making demands which we cater to?

It's definitely not a good situation we're in, but what can we do without sacrificing our own well being to cater to those who would attempt to sway us with violence? Do we respond with violence or simply bend to their will? Or is there another way?

[Churchill]

One alibi for me, the book was wrote a few years ago, before the surge and recent developments in Iraq.

My view as far as winning/losing goes is mixed. I can only speak ambiguously here but, if we did begin to win, we would be too vain/hasty in declaring it and transfer authority and powers too quickly in order to appease the US citizens, essentially securing a defeat.

I also completely support fighting and killing terrorists, I just support it in a way such as the US conducted war against the Barbary Pirates etc. There is nothing wrong with doing strikes against terrorists leaders, but occupying Muslim lands is not necessary to do this nor is blaming countries for not helping us get our crusade on.

[Gwynplaine]

You should get a blog.

[Churchill]

You should get a blog.

I'm not allowed.

[test123]

How do you combat a tactic? Viet cong used their tactics and the US didnt like it, they wanted them out of the jungle for a "fair fight".

If you don't like foreign powers in your country you use whatever tactics at your disposal.

Look at US Independence and expansion.

[Charla]

It's definitely not a good situation we're in, but what can we do without sacrificing our own well being to cater to those who would attempt to sway us with violence? Do we respond with violence or simply bend to their will? Or is there another way?

We have to get away from "Israel gets what Israel wants, absolutely." Soften that stance and build mutually positive trade relations in the region and I think extremism will slowly subside, and we might get something closer to the more secular cultures that used to dominate the region (btw I believe history very much supports that economic and social prosperity are the best weapons against religious fundamentalism/totalitarianism).

Asymmetrical conflicts tend to be more easily resolved by non-military means. Pretty much none of the previous asymmetrical wars have turned out well for the militarily superior nation involved.

[Elvis]

How do you combat a tactic? Viet cong used their tactics and the US didnt like it, they wanted them out of the jungle for a "fair fight".

If you don't like foreign powers in your country you use whatever tactics at your disposal.

Look at US Independence and expansion.

AHEM, I believe the correct usage is "viet congs"!

[SDSD]

Churchhill and like minded posters,

If you liked or want to read Imperial Hubris, I'd also recommend Imperial life in the Emerald City. I read it at the beginning of the year, and it's very fair in its presentation of the early occupation of Iraq.

From Publishers Weekly
As the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, Chandrasekaran has probably spent more time in U.S.-occupied Iraq than any other American journalist, and his intimate perspective permeates this history of the Coalition Provisional Authority headquartered in the Green Zone around Saddam Hussein's former palace. He presents the tenure of presidential viceroy L. Paul Bremer between May 2003 and June 2004 as an all-too-avoidable disaster, in which an occupational administration selected primarily for its loyalty to the Bush administration routinely ignored the reality of local conditions until, as one ex-staffer puts it, "everything blew up in our faces." Chandrasekaran unstintingly depicts the stubborn cluelessness of many Americans in the Green Zone—like the army general who says children terrified by nighttime helicopters should appreciate "the sound of freedom." But he sympathetically portrays others trying their best to cut through the red tape and institute genuine reforms. He also has a sharp eye for details, from casual sex in abandoned offices to stray cats adopted by staffers, which enable both advocates and critics of the occupation to understand the emotional toll of its circuslike atmosphere. Thanks to these personal touches, the account of the CPA's failures never feels heavy-handed. (Sept. 22)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The New Yorker
This revealing account of the postwar administration of Iraq, by a former Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, focusses on life in the Green Zone, the American enclave in central Baghdad. There the Halliburton-run (and Muslim-staffed) cafeteria served pork at every meal—a cultural misstep typical of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had sidelined old Arab hands in favor of Bush loyalists. Not only did many of them have no previous exposure to the Middle East; more than half had never before applied for a passport. While Baghdad burned, American officials revamped the Iraqi tax code and mounted an anti-smoking campaign. Chandrasekaran's portrait of blinkered idealism is evenhanded, chronicling the disillusionment of conservatives who were sent to a war zone without the resources to achieve lasting change.
Copyright © 2006

[archibaldcrane]

AHEM, I believe the correct usage is "viet congs"!

I say Chineses.

[Churchill]

Yeah that book documents near the same timeline as Scheuer's, but what I think is interesting is Iraq's current situation and what will happen because of our decisions. To sum it up really quickly, McCain's policy worked. (EDIT: Let me rephrase, the surge worked, I can't actually say who was behind it, in fact my old unit was the first affected by it and I'm pretty sure Gates made the policy by listening to Battalion Commanders instead of idiots higher up)

[Beckwin]

Yeah that book documents near the same timeline as Scheuer's, but what I think is interesting is Iraq's current situation and what will happen because of our decisions. To sum it up really quickly, McCain's policy worked. (EDIT: Let me rephrase, the surge worked, I can't actually say who was behind it, in fact my old unit was the first affected by it and I'm pretty sure Gates made the policy by listening to Battalion Commanders instead of idiots higher up)

isn't a lot of the success attributable to forging alliances with the Sunnis, which happened before increased troop presence? McCain actually got caught in a gaffe on the timeline of how that went down, and then gaffe'd again when he basically said "all success in Iraq is part of the surge."

[Churchill]

Part of it, but the media overplays that bit.

[Churchill]

Did I mention Bin Laden approves of this book? That makes it wrong.