POLJUNK

"Why would an enemy engage in combat, and put himself in harm’s way, when remote controlled IEDs are just as effective?" - HA! Perhaps the most ignorant statement ever made on a blog.

Just as effective? Well, they're more effective than waiting for
traffic accidents, but not by an awful lot.

This is what combatants do when they can't field an effective fighting force.

So, can we ditch our landmines now?

And really, was it ever in question whether the Iraqis (either through their regular army or through "insurgency") could mount a real defense in the face of US forces?

Redjack, it's not the US troops the combatants are afraid to face. They don't want to face their own people. Setting a bomb in the middle of the night allows them to hide for the US and the rest of the Iraqi people.

And as far as their effectiveness, I'm not talking about the IED's ability to defeat American troops, which isn't the poitn anyway I don't think. It's more their ability to confound our operations there and make headlines. So far, pretty effective.

Are landmines the only weapon currently being used by US troops? Of course not, because landmines (and IEDs) are not really effective offensive weapons, militarily.

"Make headlines" - so, you admit that it takes accomplices and know-nothings in the MSM and blogosphere to allow the terrorist insurgents to accomplish their goals.

If you knew that, why give Marc at USS Neverdock a hard time for pointing out such willful collusion at the NYT?

I'd say it's because you're invested in a US defeat for partisan purposes.

Derek, I'm always a bit leery of this body count stuff. Part of me says "It's part of the job and the troops know this" and part of me says we need to know what price we're paying because we need to be able to do cost/benefit analysis.

What I find bitterly amusing are the conservatives who now call for throwing in the towel, withdrawing the troops (I am very opposed to this) and declaring essentially pyrrhic victory ("We ousted Saddam. Now it's up to them.") That is utterly craven. It is one thing when people who never wanted the war to begin with call for immediate withdrawal--that is consistent with their beliefs all this time. It's another when those who rattled the spears and belittled the opposition as "traitors" now seem to think we've done our part, mission accomplished.

True to form, leaving someone else to hold the bag.

No, landmines aren't the only tool in our aresenal, we know that. But that's irrelevant. You're the only one talking about the Iraqi insurgency in terms relating it to a military force.

And to expect the media, mainstream or otherwise, to NOT report on what is without a doubt newsworthy is to be delusional.

And back the fuck off on saying I want a US defeat for ANY purpose. Go question Condi Rice's patriotism, she's the one blaming the troops for this mess.

Would also agree with Redjack on the twittery and short-sightedness of the MSM when it comes to this stuff. That's not to say they don't sometimes do a good job reporting, but please don't try to "interpret" everything for me. Also, I think they're rather disingenuous about the reasons they must give us daily casualty reports with opinion polls.

I don't doubt for a moment there are some in "the media" who have an agenda, but that goes both ways. I also don't think there's a concerted effort to conspire to undercut the effort. It's a copout and gives the policymakers an out. Reporting on the results of bad policy is not the problem here.

Well, Derek, you give every indication of taking schadenfreude in perceived bad news for our troops in Iraq, so what do you expect people to think? Especially after you admitted that the MSM are willing tools in the terrorist insurgency's propaganda war.

We know they do this for partisan reasons, but it still makes them allies of the terrorist insurgency.

You're amplifying their talking points. What does that make you?

barabjagal: agreed on the Sunshine Patriots from the Right.

"you admitted that the MSM are willing tools in the terrorist insurgency's propaganda war."

Please, step back from the bong and re-read these posts.

And again, you're confusing reporting on bad news with hoping for bad news. And I hope you're not still clinging to the idea that not supporting our President's bad policies equates to not supporting the troops. That's so 2003!

Derek, how do you figure the casualty figures are being "minimized" by Neverdock? They are what they are, needless of amplification by the media.
IEDs are sent anonymously -- the guided missiles that you sniff about are unquestionably Coalition.
It is interesting that you so clearly identify with the practical terrorist that is fearful of putting himself "in harm's way".

Only wackos use the abbreviation "MSM."

Classic. I love this. I can't believe anyone is still clinging to the idea that any criticism of the policies is some kind of kinship with the insurgents.

I don't identify in any way with the insurgents.

I;m reading between your lines here, Derek. Especially the part where you said that the effectiveness of IED's was in making headlines.

So terrorist propaganda is okay to push if it's "newsworthy"? Who made up that rule, and why wasn't I invited to the meeting?

I see you tried to finesse the agenda journalism bit, but come on, no one with a functioning brain cell thinks for a second that there is anything like parity as far as ideological diversity goes within the MSM.

Jake: analogy is not the weakest form of argument, truism is. Only insecure morons post one-liners.

I'm just saying: when people use the abbreviation "MSM" they sound like tinfoil hat-wearing, conspiracy theory-believing wackos. That's all.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m07/dec97cas.pdf

Here are casualties figures from the Pentagon for 1980-1997: Reagan, Bush '41 and five years of Clintoon.

1993-1997 saw 5,278 soldiers die; of those, 56 were from hostile causes.

So far there have been 2,363 deaths in Iraq and 280 in Afghanistan.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Much less loss of life (almost half) in a Global WAR on Terror than Clintoon's first five years of peace.

Where was your big mouth back then Derek? Were you complaining about the loss of our soldiers' lives then???

Actually, Commodore, I was. I was opposed to Clinton's bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia as well as the intervention in Somalia. But not because I didn't think either was a just action, I just didn't think either would work. I think I batted .500 on those.

"So terrorist propaganda is okay to push if it's "newsworthy"? Who made up that rule, and why wasn't I invited to the meeting?"

Um, newsworthy ANYTHING is newsworthy. It's right there in the term. Would it be more newsworthy to report that casualities were coming by way of frozen turkeys dropped from planes? (Ok, yes, that would be more newsworthy--but I digress). The point is that the US is suffering casualties, HOW is more of a sidebar than it is a main story.

The idea that we'd be greeted as liberators and that this would be won in a "matter of weeks, not months" (thanks, Rummy) is being debunked daily by reports of these casualties. I hate to hear about them. Hate it. And I fully understand there's a price in war, my question is what are we paying for?

Oh, and if you think I'm an apologist for Bill Clinton, you're barking up the wrong tree.

What are we paying for? So far, three new democracies in the Middle East and over four years of having jihadis meet Allah facing our troops there, instead of our civilians in Manhattan.

Side benefit: over 195,000 Iraqis are alive today who would have perished under Saddam.

Derek- YOU brought up being opposed to Bubba's Bombing Campaign. Why does the left only use casualties, IED explosions and blood as a metric to judge progress by. The battle of Iwo Jima was over after 36 days of fighting in March 1945. Nearly 7,000 US forces died in that conflict. In August 1945 Japan unconditionally surrendered. If you apply the same metric you libtards are so fond of.. the US LOST World War II at the end of March 1945, because of a HUG E spike in casualties.

I think what we need are remotely controlled IUDs -- for domestic use, of course.

Howdy, Chief. Please refrain from namecalling unless it's something better than "libtard." I;m not very liberal,a ctually, I love guns.

Casualties are clearly not the only metric for evaluating the war effort. I won't even get into how much weight it SHOULD carry, but let's be clear that it certainly matters.

The purpose of this post was really to point out how callous some can be when discussing the casualties and how inconsistent people can be when it comes to numbers. To imply that those killed in Iraq by means other than combat somehow make the cost of war lower is disingenuous and, yes, callous.

Neverdock wasn't doing that, he was pointing out that the NY Times is spinning casualty numbers.

Re-read the first line of his post:

"Every single death is a tragic and I'm not playing down any of them,"

Congratulations on your analysis. That certainly sounds disengenuous and callous to me.

Derek Smart... er, Phillips said:

"Why would an enemy engage in combat, and put himself in harm’s way, when remote controlled IEDs are just as effective?"

Yes, IEDs are SO effective that we are still there after 3 years.

and...

"Does Neverdock also take issue with our own use of guided missiles?"

Missiles like Clintard used to blow up factories and empty camps during the 90s?
Yeah, they are as amazingly effective as IEDs!

Last time I checked, we invaded Iraq primarily with ground troops, and are patrolling it primarily with the same.

By the way, Derek, is there any war the U.S. could undertake that you would consider justified?

For many liberals and virtually all "progressives", the answer would be no. Given how many of them also wish the destruction of our way of life, I don't think our national interest is really what they have in mind.

However, since you say you are not that liberal, what do YOU think?

If no, why? If yes, why?

Ah, the old "liberals hate America" approach. I think I'll pass on that one. Come back with soemthing more original.

I'm really disappointed in you guys. I expected so much more. Is there no original thinking in the bunch?

"Every single death is a tragic and I'm not playing down any of them." And then goes on to point out that SOME of the deaths were accidental. The point being?

And sure, there's plenty to fight for. Do you really believe "democracy" in the middle east is one of them? Remember, kids, democracy is a means, not an end. It was democracy that got us Clintard (I love the variation on the word retard, very clever guys), and Hamas in the Palestinain territory. Are you going to be down with an Islamic Republic if the Iraqis decide that's what they want? It will after all be their decision.

The point being that the NYT was spinning the story.

Personally, I think we should have presented the Iraqis with a constitution, as MacArthur did to the Japanese, but, what can you do?

I do know that there has been more progress in the Middle East in the last four years than there was in the last forty.

Isolationism is a bankrupt foreign policy.

Hey, welcome to the very liberal idea of nation building. Glad to have ya.

Only wackos use the abbreviation "MSM."

Yarg, the rest of use "LSM" Lame Stream Media...

"Ah, the old "liberals hate America" approach. I think I'll pass on that one. Come back with soemthing more original."

Ok. The old school liberals, FDR and JFK had a love for this nation. The recent crop of liberal democrats, starting in the 70's, appear to have a kill america additude.

can you please explain this "kill america attitude?"

Aye, Cap'n Jack, LSM is right! The acronym may also be apt for Let's Stop McCain-Feingold! Yar.

"Ok. The old school liberals, FDR and JFK had a love for this nation. The recent crop of liberal democrats, starting in the 70's, appear to have a kill america additude."

That's horseshit and I could just as easily say that Old School Conservatives used to believe in smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent military action. Now it's all about NCLB federal expansion, K Street palm greasing, and pre-emptive (now possibly preventive) war. Who's killing America now?

"Who's killing America now?" - The Democratic Party's new base: foaming at the mouth Bush-haters and Islamist apologists, with the aid of their accomplices in the so-called mainstream media.

I thought you'd never ask, Derek.

Why do Bush apologists hate freedom?

So Derek... you are simultaneously going to weasel out of answering my question while adopting a pose of moral superiority?

Supposed I leave out any distractions and stick with just the question... could the United States EVER engage in a war that you would support?

I did answer the question, Cap'n. But I'll answer it again.

Sure, the US can and has engaged in military action I would support. I am from a military family, so don't get all high and mighty on me now.

I'll even acknowledge (again) that I changed my mind about the bombing runs in Bosnia. I initially didn't support it because I didn't think it would work and would lead to a ground invasion and prolonged occupation (sound familiar?), but I was wrong.

That has nothing to do with my not supporting the invasion of Iraq, which to this day hasn't been justified to my liking. And guess what, as a free thinking member of our citizenry, I am ALLOWED to disagree with the policy.

Why do you hate America so much, or at least the ideals upon which America was founded?

Derek, where are you reading a hatred of American principles? Could you cut and paste please? I must be missing it.

The First Amendment applies to us all, not just the people you tend to agree with. That means we're free to point out bias in a newspaper story, and to argue with those who disagree.

Sorry if you find that so taxing you feel the need to throw up strawmen.

Oh, the irony! I can't take it!!!!

Perhaps you could explain the "irony" as well with some cut and paste? Three examples to indicate a trend will do.

You do know I'm not your secretary, right?

Derek,

Ok, you say you would support a war, but as I originally asked, why? Under what circumstances would it be justified? I mean the real underlying principle or principles.

As for Kosovo, you have said why you thought it was feasible, but not why it was justifiable and the Iraq war is not.

I do think there ARE principles that determine a just versus an unjust war.

I know this seems trollish, but I am serious. I've not yet discussed this with anyone on the other side of the Iraq war debate who would calm down and actually do so... they fall back on assorted boilerplate invective against Bush's intentions or whatever.

And yes, I will be happy to articulate my own position.

"Ok. The old school liberals, FDR and JFK had a love for this nation. The recent crop of liberal democrats, starting in the 70's, appear to have a kill america additude."

That's horseshit and I could just as easily say that Old School Conservatives used to believe in smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent military action. Now it's all about NCLB federal expansion, K Street palm greasing, and pre-emptive (now possibly preventive) war. Who's killing America now?"

Actually, neither of them is horseshit. Both of them are spot on, as far as I can see.

Sure, the US can and has engaged in military action I would support. I am from a military family, so don't get all high and mighty on me now.

Ok, you say you would support a war, but as I originally asked, why? Under what circumstances would it be justified? I mean the real underlying principle or principles.

So, ya gonna answer his question, or what?

Have you guys read any of the other posts? Try it.

And Ragner, you are a master of debate. It's stunning.

I've read all of the posts on this thread, as well as the ones on the much longer thread at USS Neverdock.

I surmise from the fact that Ragnar and Cap'n Anthony have cut and pasted parts of other posts that they are reading them as well.

Cap'n Anthony's question seems fair. You said you intitially didn't support action in Kosovo because you didin't think it would work and would lead to a ground invasion, and then changed your mind when you perceived that it was working.

That shows an eagerness to hop on the winning side, but doesn't explain what underlying principles were at work that needed to be supported.

How did the action in Kosovo work in America's best interest? In the end, that's the only justification for sending US troops into harm's way.

In Iraq, that benefit has been obvious - jihadis dying in their own lands and no new terrorist attacks on the American homeland.

And Ragner, you are a master of debate. It's stunning.

Derek -

Not so classy responding to my completely legitmate question with a petty insult. I doubt anyone's much impressed with that sort of stuff, but knock yourself out.

To answer your question, I've read every one of the comments on this post, though I don't see what that has to do with the question you were asked.

Back to the point, are you declining to answer the question?

Is your answer "I'll get to that later when I have time to elaborate the nuances of my core warfaring philosophy" ?

Is your answer "I don't have a philosophy, really, I just go with my gut in a given situation" ?

Is your answer "that's my own personal opinion and it's none of your damn business" ?

Is your answer "nanny-nanny boo-boo you're a poopy-head" ?

I imagine any one of these would be acceptable as an answer.

Jesus, Ragner, give me a minute. There are lots of OTHER posts on this site too, you know.

And now, my much anticipated answer:

It wasn’t bandwagon jumping that changed my mind on the Kosovo operation, it was the fact that our Airforce was able to achieve the mission without a ground invasion. I didn’t think that was possible, I was wrong. How many times do I need to say that?

The mission in Kosovo was clear—and obviously achievable: "Our military objective is to degrade and damage the military and security structure that President Milosevic (Yugoslav President) has used to depopulate and destroy the Albanian majority in Kosovo." (From prepared statement of William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, to the Senate Armed Services Committee on 15 April 1999.)

What again is the mission in Iraq? I keep hearing “the spread of democracy.” That doesn’t mean anything. The Iraqis have had three elections and we still don’t have a government in place. They have no standing army that’s ready to fight (thanks to Paul Bremmer). They have no working economic infrastructure. They have a looming civil war and an ever fracturing population.

The mission in Kosovo was interventionist. So was Iraq. Again, welcome to the very liberal idea of nation building. Why I didn’t initially agree with Kosovo (based on my assumption that ground troops would be necessary) was a cost-benefit analysis. The benefit to US interests (avoidance of a civil war that could have easily spread throughout the region given ethnic strife and historical precedent—WWI anyone??) didn’t outweigh the cost of a ground invasion and prolonged occupation. The cost of a 30-day bombing operation WAS worth the cost, in my estimation. I’m all for putting out little fires before they become big ones, but let’s make sure there IS a fire first.

The cost of the Iraqi invasion and occupation does not come close to the benefit we may see. In fact, the benefits we’ve been sold (a stabilized middle east, launching pad for democracy, battle ground for the war on terror, etc) all seems to be based on faith and not fact. These are what we hope for, they are not measurable outcomes. The idea that we’re “fighting them there so we don’t have to here” is silly. That assumes they can’t do both. Well, ask the Spanish or the British about that.

Yes, there’s a humanitarian benefit to both operations. The stopping of ethnic cleansing and aggression in Kosovo is a great and honorable thing. Everyone agrees that Saddam is a bad guy. But he was contained and posed no threat to anyone, especially the United States. If you have a problem with containment as a policy, tell it to Ronald Reagan.

Now seriously, we must move on. There’s plenty more to argue about on this site.

If I'm reading you correctly, the standard is a clear mission objective coupled with measurable benefits (in terms of U.S. national security) which exceed the costs of the operation?

Derek,

So if I understand you, your position is an essentially utilitarian one. That is, if the benefits to the warring nation and, more diffusely, to mankind in general, outweigh the costs and negative consequences, then the war is justified?

Fair enough. My position is based on a concept of Just War. This position is my own and I do not claim to be a spokesman for anyone else on the pro-Iraq war side.

First, a war must be in the national interest of the nation undertaking it. For example, if the Iraq war were primarily about securing strategic oil reserves, as many opponents and perhaps a few proponents claim, it would indisputably be in the national interest. HOWEVER, that by itself is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to undertake a war. I would consider wars of pure aggression and plunder to be unjust, and to be the nation-state equivalent of robbery or assault.

Second, the war should not be in violation of any treaties the nation has with its opponent, unless the other nation has itself already violated them. This type of overt treachery was more characteristic of premodern times than today, where alliances tend to be fairly stable. I leave out coups, assassinations and other forms of treachery outside of war. In our case, the US had for years been in a state of indeterminate cease-fire with Iraq, punctuated by desultory low-level combat such as Desert Fox. It was the policy of both the Sr. Bush administration (more on that later) and that of Clinton to remove Saddam from power... so this condition was met handily.

Third, the target nation must in some way be a threat or a declared enemy of the warring nation. I realize that this point is a matter of hot dispute even now regarding the Iraq war. Was Iraq, or rather the Ba'athist regime a threat? You and many others may say no, but I disagree. Regardless of what anyone may now claim postwar, virtually the entire prewar world believed Saddam still had WMD, hell... his own generals believed it. He is KNOWN to have had them and used them earlier, during the Anfal campaign against the Kurds. Earlier still, he had been progressing well in a nuclear weapons program until interrupted by an Israeli airstrike. Moreover, quite a few goodies, including Ba'ath leaders, escaped over the border to Syria during the war. The missing WMD are not yet a closed case. HOWEVER AGAIN, I don't see the war as hinging on the WMD and I think it was a mistake on Bush's part to emphasize them. The Ba'athist regime DID harbor terrorists, DID attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. during his Kuwait visit after the first Gulf War, DID... despite its secularist origins, fund Jihadist groups, including the families of suicide bombers attacking our ally Israel. Saddam WAS a declared enemy of the United States. That is enough for me, call me what you like.

Fourth, though not itself a justification for the warring nation, the nature of the government ruling the target nature should at least be considered. An electoral republic is at least somewhat representative of its citizenry, which is to say legitimate. When one goes to war against such a government, one is effectively at war with the people of that nation, and so such a war should not be undertaken without great care. The same does not apply to a gang of thugs like the Ba'athists. They seized power by the sword, ruled by it, and had no remotely plausible mandate from their people to rule. Anyone, I mean anyone, who came along and toppled them from power would be no less legitimate than they were.

As I said, that by itself does not justify the actions of a warring nation, but it does obviate any right of resistance by the regime of the target nation. Such a war could in fact be against the government yet for the populace.

Note that nowhere did I mention altruistic justifications for a war. While they might indeed have nice results, I don't consider them to be reasons by themselves to spend a nation's blood and treasure.

Nor did I mention the UN or any other international body. Leaving aside that the UN is a useless and parasitic club for dictators and busybody Scandinavians, I believe that a government owes its duty, its loyalty, and all its considerations of warmaking to its own citizenry and not to the citizens, let alone unelected tyrants, of other nations.

While I consider the Iraq war to be a just war, I might agree with you on some, though not all, complaints about how the occupation and reconstruction has been handled.

Kosovo was also such a war, though more tenuously. Unlike Iraq, Kosovo was not one battle in a larger ideological or civilizational conflict... or if anything we were de facto on the other side of that conflict, though it was not relevant to the Kosovo war itself.

In Iraq however, regardless of the originally secular nature of the Ba'ath, we were dealing with one front in a very large and very old, though long dorman, conflict with Islam. Militant Islam and its ideology of war and world conquest long predate the very existence of the United States and was not conjured into being by our foreign policy blunders. This is a point that Bush ignores or obfuscates just as much as his opponents. Nonetheless, I consider it to be very important indeed, and a reason to take a much more serious and hawkish view of our international relations, including with governments like our supposed friends the Saudis.

Let me emphasize that I am not a Christian and am not talking about some kind of apocalyptic crap. However, the jihadis are. Others who consider themselves atheists or secular humanists ought to be very concerned about the threat the ideology known as islam really poses to our civilization and its liberties. It is not a threat of the same order of power as communism once was, but it is older and more resiliant.

The above may seem a tangent, but it is the larger context in which I view the justification for the Iraq war. Again, I mean the war and not every action or lack of one since then. Nor do I pretend that the president shares my overarching ideological view of the situation.

Ah yes... I mentioned Bush sr.

Regardless of the limits of his UN mandate, I think the right time to topple Saddam was during the first Gulf War. His army was in complete route, the people of Iraq were ready to rise up, and he had not yet put the infrastructure of a guerilla war in place. Bush sr. was stupidly loyal to the fiction of international law, and not only failed to overthrow Saddam, but then failed to support the people of Iraq when they followed his call to overthrow him themselves.

Clinton then pissed away eight years while talking a good game about regime change. It was left to the current president to finish the job.

And if that sounded like blind Bush worship to you, take a look at my blog, and what I had to say about the UAE port deal, immigration, or the age-old struggle with Islam.

Feel free to flame me if you like.

Thanks, Cap'n, for that reasoned and rational response. Seriously.

But as to the war with Islam, I wonder what your views are on what intent (what desired outcome, maybe) the militant Islamists have? Some argue that they would just as soon leave the US alone if we'd not meddle in their affairs. Do you have an opinion on that?

And that's not meant to spark the "blame America first" argument. The last thing I want on this site is pathological namecalling and recitation of talking points--from either side.

Additionally, how do we solve the problem? If we're talking about people who gladly give their lives for the cause, then obliteration isn't the answer. How do we get at the root of their frustration that leads otherwise normal people to blow themselves and otehrs up?