Robert Kaplan on Iraq
Written by YellowJacket on September 12th, 2007Robert Kaplan has a good article on the current situation in Iraq here.
His final word:
Bottom line: I suspect we will be stuck in Iraq with tens of thousands of troops for years to come. The results we obtain may be meager, but they’ll still be better than if we suddenly withdrew.
13
AM
You speak of “tens of thousands of troops” as if it’s just a commodity — like buying milk at the grocery store. Then again, it’s just poor people. Who cares how we dispose of them?
If you’re in favor of these tens of thousands of troops, why don’t you put your ass on the line and become one of them?
13
AM
Projection strikes again. On one hand many liberals will accuse conservatives of being “chickenhawks” (real cute) and unsupportive of the troops for advocating a foreign policy with teeth, all the while attempting to mock us by saying the troops are poor hicks; then in a different argument the true liberal thought about the troops comes out: it is generally people of your political persuasion, not ours, who denigrate the troops as being sheep for Bush, or unintelligent (a la John Kerry), or being unable to have the wherewithal to know nearly as much about foreign policy as you and your fellows in intelligentsia.
That was a long sentence. Hope my English was up to your immaculate standards. Actually, I don’t. I don’t care what your IQ or GRE score is either. I only care about your ability to rationally debate, which you seem not to be able to do.
13
PM
I don’t see how those two things are inconsistent. Yes, the US military is an inflated jobs program for people who don’t have any better career opportunities and is mostly made up of idiots. The problem is that you’re sitting back in your chair, smoking your cigars and feeling proud of what a brave patriot you are all the while using SOMEONE ELSE as your cannon fodder.
I repeat — You’re only brave when it’s someone else’s ass on the line. You come up with all these machinations to justify your own lack of service, but the fact remains: you fervently support sending other people to die but are unwilling to do so yourself.
13
PM
You have no idea whether I am “unwilling to serve,” or not, and quite frankly it’s none of your business. You don’t know my backgroud, personally, physically, medically, and professionally, and you don’t know jack about my career choices and options. Like I said, none of your business to begin with, and a strawman argument that lends nothing to the debate.
Thanks for proving my point. Too bad for yourself and others who look down their noses at those poor idiotic souls in the military, the facts and statistics of the volunteer military prove you to be quite wrong, such as this report: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1561.cfm
13
PM
Of course you’re unwilling to serve — you and all the other armchair warriors on this website. Given that the military recently lowered the IQ standards required to join, I can’t imagine what “ailment” keeps you from picking up a gun. Probably something like my dad’s “flat feet” that kept him out of Vietnam.
I’m not interested in your report from the Heritage Foundation. I don’t post links from the DailyKos in support of my arguments.
13
PM
Likening the Heritage Foundation to DailyKos is beyond absurd.
Oooooh, “armchair warriors!” Man, you’re clever. I guess nobody can ever, ever advocate for any specific foreign or domestic policy unless he’s willing to take x role in it.
Exactly what does not serving in the armed forces have to do with an opinion on foreign policy?
And, given how little you obviously think of the men and women in the armed forces, how would joining them give me or anybody else any additional credibility in your almighty intellectual eyes?
Cat got your tongue? I just used two of your arguments against each other, showing an intellectual inconsistency in your rambling (just one of many).
13
PM
Publius: Since I am a retired Airborne, Ranger Infantry Officer who served in 5 Divisions, do I have the bona fides to say, “Your attacking the person instead of the arguments is weak. You aren’t competing in the arena of ideas with the politics of personal attacks?”
14
AM
You did not use my arguments against each other. If you’d read more carefully, my argument is that you and your buddies are fighting this war on the backs of these impoverished, ignorant kids who don’t have any better options in life. You’re only brave as long as it’s other people’s lives that are on the line.
I repeat one more time: You and the other cowards on this website have yet to provide any explanation for your lack of service. If it’s because you’re a chicken, just say so.
14
AM
Langley, Proverbs 14:7.
14
AM
Typical arrogant tone that conservatives adopt when they lack a response, especially about their own cowardice.
Sean, what is it that keeps you from picking up your gun and heading over to Iraq? Or do you only support the war as long as people less important than you are dying?
I honestly think that every single one of you is uncomfortable with this, so you come up with these asinine machinations of excuses as defense mechanisms to keep you from actually confronting the issue — which none of you has.
14
PM
Hahaha, oh that is rich! You, Mr. SAT/GRE/Intelligentsia, saying that we are arrogant! Oh man, stop, you’re killing me here.
Nobody’s uncomfortable with this. You’re uncomfortable with discussing the issue - our foreign policy, more specifically war in Iraq - so rather than debate it, you try to derail the conversation with your lame “chickenhawk” “why don’t you go fight” non-argument.
Care to actually debate or are you going to continue attempting to create a sideshow?
14
PM
I’ll be happy to debate the merits of the war with you at some other point, but that’s not what we’re talking about now. I agree that the two issues are separate.
I want to know why none of you is serving. I repeat one more time: Do you only support the war so long as it’s someone besides you dying? Four times, you have refused to explain your cowardice. Are you going to go for a fifth?
14
PM
It’s such a game.
Conservatives are puffing out their chest about how we are fighting the terrorists or opposing Islamofascism (whatever that’s supposed to be.) We’re doing nothing of the sort. We took out a nationalist secular dicator to the benefit of Iran. Now our guys are wandering around building schools and construction projects for people who hate us in between trying to keep an artifical state from descending into civil war.
And our right wing president tells us we should do this because history and culture don’t matter and “freedom,” whatever that is, is the desire of every human heart. This triumph of pretty universalistic abstractions is the exact opposite of conservatism and everything Kirk talked about.
Publius, you should be grateful Bush is president and conservatives are so easily fooled. He’s the greatest gift the Left could have received.
14
PM
Ill bite to Publius’ “moveon-ish” taunt. Im not serving because Im a cancer researcher. Science is what I am good at. Im sure some soldiers in Iraq right now are thankful people like me try to solve big problems like cancer. I didnt enlist because I wanted to be a scientist. Am I a chickenshit Publius? If so, be man enough to say it. What do you do with your life? Is it anything meaninful?
Now, according to you being civilian disqualifies me from having an opinion about war that is favorable. Then I suppose we can only have a govt composed of former military. Hey, Id be all for that! That would purge all of the 60’s leftovers from govt . Following your logic however, no liberal that is not serving or has not served cannot shape policy on the war. I think Ill take that too!
So what is the actual point of your babbling? Make it and be done with it.
14
PM
Publius, you don’t get it do you? Why is there even a “debate” needed on why some person is or isn’t doing a certain profession? On one hand you say they are separate issues (the merits of the war vs. who is serving or not serving) yet on the other hand you respond to any sensible argument about the war with, “why aren’t you serving? You coward!!”
Our support of the war has nothing to do with what we chose to do with our careers. Get over yourself and your own personal insecurities, and either debate the issue of war in Iraq or not. I’m not asking, or even caring, about what you do for a living - apparently you’re a part of the “intelligentsia,” as you so often remind us, but beyond that I do not know and do not care about what your profession is.
“Explain our cowardice”? What kind of projection is that? Cowardice from what? From serving? Why is that, because some on this blog support continuing the war in Iraq so that the Middle East does not descend into chaos and cause even more problems for us?
Are you really telling me that for any policy, domestic or foreign, a debate cannot be held until everyone justifies why or why not they are directly involved in it? What a joke.
14
PM
I love hearing the “Well why don’t YOU serve?” question, because it means the person asking it has bankrupted his supply of cogent arguments. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of sticking out your tongue and going “Nyah-nyah!!!”, and is only slightly less absurd.
ChemistryDave hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the internal contradiction of Publius’ argument. Unless, of course, Publius actually served in the military. Did you Pubby? If so- good for you. But if not, then by your own argument YOU aren’t qualified to have opinions on military, security, or national defense issues. After all, only those “idiots” who volunteered to serve their country because they had no other options should be able to have opinions on those topics. Isn’t that your argument?
By the way, since when did serving in the military make you an expert on foreign policy and defense issues? When I was in basic training a few years ago, I don’t seem to recall ever getting “Magic Smart Pills” that made me an infallible expert on those topics. Serving in the military can give you perspective on a lot of things, but it doesn’t automatically qualify you to make important decisions like the ones we’re making in Iraq.
Look, there are a lot of smart people in the Army. But I knew a lot of people in the Army who were just, well… not that bright. They served, and good for them, but their service didn’t make them defense experts. Meanwhile, I’ve known a lot of very intelligent people who could never adapt to the Army lifestyle. Are you telling me they can’t be allowed to make foreign policy decisions because they’ve never gone through basic training???
Finally, let’s not forget that many of our best war-time Presidents never served either. Lincoln briefly served in the state militia during the Black Hawk War, but that hardly counts. Wilson and FDR never served either. Meanwhile LBJ, who presided over over the disaster that was the Vietnam War, DID serve in the military.
15
AM
OK, now we’re getting somewhere.
Dave - other priorities
Langley - ???
Celtic - ???
The difference between my posture and your posture (and no, I have not been in the military) is that YOUR foreign policy goals require OTHER people to go to Iraq and die — many not so voluntarily, with extended tours and stuff. Further, you’re largely doing it on the backs of people who are in the military because they don’t have good job options, like chemist in an air-conditioned lab. I ask one more time: do you only support this foreign policy as long as it’s somebody else who has to die for it?
My foreign policy goals do not require that anyone else die in Iraq.
15
PM
For an IQ-worshipping Intelligentsia, you sure are slow on the uptake, Pubes. I thought when I mentioned that I went to basic training and knew a lot of people in the Army, it would have been somewhat obvious that I served in, oh, I don’t know- THE ARMY. But clearly I overestimated your critical thinking skills.
So not only does your inane “Why don’t YOU serve?” argument not even apply to me, but you’re doing your best to avoid answering the questions posed in my previous post. Probably because you can’t.
Oh, and by the way- I left a very nice job shortly after receiving my Master’s Degree so I could serve in the Army. I had options aplenty… jackass.
15
PM
No, I took it that you had served in the past but were not currently serving. I assume you “served” at some point when we were not actually involved in a conflict (i.e. you were on the dole)?
Also, every idiot and his brother has a master’s degree these days. That’s about as impressive as completing basic math at a community college.
16
PM
Man, the signs of desperation are so clear.
“Why aren’t YOU in the Army? How dare you propose any policy without being directly involved???”
“Um, I was in the Army….”
“…… uuuhhh…. I ASSUME YOU DIDN’T ACTUALLY SERVE AND YOU WERE ‘ON THE DOLE’ YOU CHICKENHAWK!!!”
All when you could just debate the real issue at hand… but that would be too easy, so you prefer character assassination and mindless rambling. Hey, at least it provides us entertainment.
16
PM
Man, the signs of desperation are so clear.
“Let’s fight them over there so we don’t do it over here”… that’s the best one I always here.
yep, Im still waiting for Osama… what happend to “smoking him out”?
17
AM
Langley, that’s six now — Going for seven?
I already addressed both of your “points”:
1. My position is different from yours because my position does not require that we send people to die in Iraq. YOUR position requires OTHER people to go to Iraq and die. Do you only support this foreign policy as long as it’s somebody else who has to die for it? You are unwilling to do so.
2. I’ll be happy to debate the merits of the Iraq war with you at another time, but that’s clearly not what we’re discussing in this thread. I’ve been trying to discuss your cowardice, and the only reason it’s gone on for so long is that you have yet to provide an answer.
Man, this is as bad as trying to get W to answer a simple question at a press conference. It really is quite a simple question. So far, of all the brave patriots on this website, only one of you has provided an answer.
17
PM
1. As I’ve said: you know nothing about how “willing” or “unwilling” I am to join the armed forces. And, it doesn’t matter. I’m not answering the question because that would give legitimacy to your absurd notion that you have to join the military if you want to have credibility to discuss foreign affairs. Maybe I’m willing, maybe I’m not. Maybe I have the God-given abilities to join the military, maybe I don’t. Maybe I have plans to join in the future, maybe I don’t. The fact of the matter is, with regards to your “argument,” it doesn’t matter. It’s none of your business. Again, on one hand you act like the military are a bunch of idiots, then you turn it around and claim that one can’t have an opinion on the war in Iraq unless they join the military (which would make them an idiot in your world).
2. That isn’t what we are discussing. It’s what you are attempting to steer the discussion towards, because yet again you won’t actually debate the war, the effectiveness of the surge, an alternative that you would propose, or the effect of this military campaign on the Middle East as a whole. You are attempting to engage in character attacks via the absurd “chickenhawk,” attempt, even going so far as assuming that someone who TOLD YOU he was in the military didn’t “really serve,” because that’s the only “argument” you know how to engage in, and I’m not falling for it. I’m not giving legitimacy to your warped notions about what it takes to debate the war in Iraq.
17
PM
That’s seven. It’s obvious that you have no answer that would leave your self-respect intact, so we may as well stop this now.
17
PM
My self-respect is just fine, thanks. No need to project your insecurity onto others because you don’t feel comfortable discussing a military campaign and feel the need to use lame excuses projected onto others for not discussing it. But thanks for your concern.
18
AM
That’s eight. In fact, I have discussed the merits of the war and where we should go from here in other threads, but that’s obviously not what we’re discussing here. You apparently don’t like what we’re discussing here so you keep trying to change the topic.