Part-Time Pundit

You make great points, but unfortunately the Anti-Bush people don't think logically so they won't accept most of what you posted.

RESPONSE:
Probably true, but we still can't let them be the only ones talking. The rest of society, I have faith, can distinguish between rational points and fever swamp ranting.

Unfortunately, when I comment on many of the liberal blogs my comments get deleted because they can't handle the truth.

RESPONSE:
Well the ideal left =wing culture is a society of bobble-heads...

I find things are quite the opposite, many of the conserative blogs I find don't allow any comments, or delete them. Usually, they talk about some set of 'rules' they enforce, then use them to justify their selective editing. It is part of the definition of Liberalism, that we not only permit points of view we dislike, we actually take some time to engage them and try to understand them.

Your 3 points about the rules of war may be rational, in that you provide justifications for them, but unfortunately they expose a rather simplistic view of war.

Yes, the wearing of uniforms does have some bearing upon the Geneva Conventions and an army's responsibilities. To say that that's the reason a state dresses up their military, however, is laughable. Far more important than any potential protections that might be gleamed from said conventions is the need for an army to be organized and obedient. Advertising campaigns about 'An Army of One' notwithstanding, soldiers need to supress their individuality and act as a group - uniforms and shaved heads are part of that process.

Secondly, far more important than following rules of war is the need to win. Armed groups that confront the U.S. military are so unbelievably out gunned that they have to be more than a little crazy - or desperate - to take up arms. If using a mosque buys them any tactical or strategic advantage they will do so without hesitation. The Irish resistance used churches when fighting the British. The history of our own revolution contains numerous examples of civilian, religious, and other 'off limits' structures being used to house supplies and provide military infastructure.

Your third point, that one someone surrenders the fighting is over. Come on! We're not talking about a game of checkers here. How many groups of confederates adopted terrorist tactics and continued to fight after the 'official' surrender in the Civil War. Or take any example from the Indian Wars, when a tribe was crushed not every brave shuffled off to the reservation to starve to death. Many adopted guerilla tactics, after all they really had nothing to lose.

My main point is not that you might not have the most developed understanding of how armed conflict works, my point is that our military leadership does. The kind of warriors who graduate from West Point have studied historical battles and wars to a level that makes both of us look like ignorant children. When they planned for the invasion of Iraq then never expected to fight an insurgency that wore uniforms, they knew the enemy was going to use every aspect of Islam to shield their activities, and they bloody well knew that things would not be over once Saddam fled to a spider hole. They had an extensive plan for the occupation of Iraq, Bush and Rumsfeld threw that plan out and came up with a new one. One that placed more of an emphasis on how they could sell this war, and less on what the realities were going to be. Remeber the whole, 'they'll greet us as liberators with flowers and candies' line of crap. Nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of the middle east believed that.

So now we have a christian army (that's how the insurgents are going to play it) in the heart of the muslim holy land. These kids are raised on stories of Salidin kicking out the Crusaders like we watch cowboy movies and Rambo.

We never had a chance of making that country better with a military intervention. We just didn't. Liberals were saying that for months in the lead up to the war, but not the liberals someone like you listens to.

You have to realize that a corporate media - one which will profit from a war - is going to find it much easier to provide you with dork liberals (and sell you on the notion that liberals want to kill babies or root for terrorists - damn that's offensive ) than to allow their ideological opponents an actual opportunity to confront their spin. I may well be the first real liberal you have ever interacted with. Liberalism is a complicated, and noble ideology.

Finally, if you want to focus on the rules of war, you should understand that an occupying army has a responsibility to provide security. The Bush administration chose not to send even a quarter of the troops necessary for that obligation, and their refusal to prevent looting or even leave the Green Zone permitted these terrible things to begin in the first place. Death squads are active in Iraq, with killings that sometimes number 1000 a month. Hands tied behind their back, tortured with power tools, gunshot to the head. This is the Iraq of today. Not the Iraq your going to see on MSNBC.

Sorry to take up so much of your time, but I've wandered across your blog quite a few times and been bothered by it. I finally got a typepass or whatever, so I finally have a chance to try to save your soul.

Stay groovy, and remember that the world is not that complicated, you just have to get out of the mainstream press to get a more accurate view.

Is a 'simplistic view of war' wrong? I think not. Just because a view can be made more complicated does not make it more right.

There are rules of war and I believe the young men and women in the U.S. military prefer following them as much as possible. Barring risking life and limb of course.

The Haditha incident, which has been quite high in the MSM's attack on Bush and the war, has recently been spouted as an example of how young U.S. warriors are really vicious murderers. This is before the facts are presented to a military court. This is also accepting some 'facts' from questionable sources. -

Many terrorists would love to demoralize our army and keep democracy from forming in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq sets a precedence that might spread through the Middle East. They would lie to keep it from happening. We may have had terrorists lies printed by the MSM concerning this Haditha incident.

Many liberals would love to have every Republican believe that democracy is not possible in Iraq. When it does happen it will make President Bush look good. Many of these caring and love filled liberals appear to be willing to spread the lies possibly coming from terrorists to return to the level of power they had before Clinton lost it for them.

So which side should I vote for? The side of 'doom and gloom', 'It is costing us too much' and 'we are losing so let the terrorists have their way' OR the side that looks forward to a better world because another democratic country has been born.

I was serious when I suggested that you might not have ever actually encountered an real liberal before. The only place where we ever get to express our opinion be the internet or a few publishing companies. . .

What the ... are you talking about when you refer to democracy in Iraq?!? Please tell me you are not older than twenty, cuz no adult should have such simplistic views about how the world works. Do you know that polls in Iraq have about 80% of the population just wanting us to leave right know, no matter the consequences?

To take another tack, do you know the short term history of Iran? They had a functioning democracy about fifty years ago, but the democractically elected leader did not behave the way the corporate ruling class in America wanted, so we overthrew him and imposed the Shah. The Shah was an SOB, as have been so many of the leaders that our county supports because it pleases our business interests, to the point that he got overthrown by an islamic revolution. Do you know about Henry Kissinger and the October Surprise?

Look kid, I don't mean to be a prick, but reality is a little more complicated than the weak stuff you be put'n on your blog. No one but the most childish of thinkers is talking like 'we are losing so let the terrorists have their way.'

There is the crap that the ruling class puts into the mainstream media, and then there is realty. They have controlled the newspapers, the radio, and now the cable networks for over two hundred years now. There is a grain of salt you are required to possess, and it don't look like you've got it.

"Many terrorists would love to demoralize our army and keep democracy from forming in Iraq. Democracy in Iraq sets a precedence that might spread through the Middle East" -- that's silly. You do understand that the Palestinian had a democratic election where they decided to elect Hamas, since the Fatah PA was worthless and corrupt (they were designed to be that way.) GWB and his board of directors didn't like that democractic result, so now we are cutting all funding to the Palestinian Authority, looks like a bunch of children are going to starve to death cuz their parents didn't have the good sense to vote the way Washington and Israel insisted the should.

Or how about the democratically elected President of Haiti who go forced out by the U.S. Or the threats leveled against Hugo Chavez. Havn't you read up on the history of Hawaii?

Look kiddo, there is reality and there is fantasy. Everbody knows that the 'Left Behind' novels have sold millions and that fantasy be lucrative in America. But in war it is all about reality. Either you kill them or they kill you. That's what going on in Iraq, if you don't want to deal with it, stop talking about it.

Strike one... this is my house. You want to criticize my ideas, by all means. Great minds discuss ideas. Don't make personal jabs, you've got your own blog. Small minds discuss people.

The amount of people who want us to leave has no bearing on democracy being present or not. The new government has been there, what, 2 weeks now? We'd like to get out too, we're just not willing to leave a power vaccuum.

I know about how we tend to prop up the worst kind of men. The only hope I have with Iraq War II is that it eventually lets us out of the region so they can be left to their own problems. We at least are pretending to be on that course, as opposed to Oil for Food, where we were pretending that we were going to be there to do "humanitarian" work, but instead make sure Saddam kept getting rich and the people kept getting starved.

The fact that Hamas got elected proves that democracy can work in the Middle East. Just because they elected the people they did doesn't mean our democracy can't reflect we don't want to prop up people with their values. Elections have consequences. However, analogizing Palesting with Iraq is simplistic. Iraq has three distinct ethnic groups, only one of which would have any link to Palestinian thought. They aren't "under occupation" in the sense that Israel has part of what they think is their land. They are starting a new government that hasn't had the time to be corrupt.

I've read the conspiracy theories about Haiti, and it leaves me one question. I don't doubt that we have the capacity run a head of state out of Haiti. I just don't see why we would. It's freaking Haiti, what in the world would we benefit, or more appropriate, "fat cat business interests" benefit with *anything* that goes on in Haiti? Last time I checked, they don't have any oil, and most of their people live in complete poverty. I can't find one asset that would make anyone in Washington blink over it regardless of who is in charge. Short of Al Qaeda storing nukes on the island, I just don't see why we would be interested in Haiti, conspiracy theories aside.

Chavez likes talking shit against the US, we talk shit against him. That's how international politics work. You think Chavez would be playing nicey-nice if he had our military might and we had his?

Now, this slugfest gritty IR realism is a school of thought, I just don't buy the we have to wipe everyone out mindset. I think there are more factors involved, and I think, pound-for-pound if we leave a semi-functional government in Iraq, those poll numbers will turn out just fine.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: