/dev/null Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 What is this history of failure are you referring to?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 13, 2017 Author Posted April 13, 2017 Are you saying that ME people are somehow inferior to Germans Japanese and Koreans? Do you, GG (not the neocons), believe the United States is capable of successfully occupying a ME country for the necessary amount of time required to accomplish a lasting regime change that benefits the people of that ME country? If so, please explain why, despite history proving otherwise, you believe the US is capable. Or are we in for another six months of you running from a question?
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Or are we in for another six months of you running from a question? We're back to this I see. How's this, since we have a lot of newbs on the site, why don't you ask the question again, and see if I don't answer it.
meazza Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 I want to know what's going on here badly. Basically to DR everything is a neocon conspiracy and he's informed because he reads the intercept or Russian tv. I miss the days when Dwight drane was the craziest guy on this site.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 13, 2017 Author Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) We're back to this I see. It's a simple question, I'm trying to cut to the meat of the issue. Are you really not going to answer it? It's an honest question: Do you, GG (not the neocons), believe the United States is capable of successfully occupying a ME country for the necessary amount of time required to accomplish a lasting regime change that benefits the people of that ME country? If so, please explain why, despite history proving otherwise, you believe the US is capable. Basically to DR everything is a neocon conspiracy and he's informed because he reads the intercept or Russian tv. I miss the days when Dwight drane was the craziest guy on this site. I'm asking about GG's personal belief/opinion. And the bolded is just not true. I suggest you re-read the OP Edited April 13, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 It's a simple question, I'm trying to cut to the meat of the issue. Are you really not going to answer it? It's an honest question: Do you, GG (not the neocons), believe the United States is capable of successfully occupying a ME country for the necessary amount of time required to accomplish a lasting regime change that benefits the people of that ME country? If so, please explain why, despite history proving otherwise, you believe the US is capable. Putting aside your view that Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc aren't evolved enough to support a stable government, US was well on the way to stabilizing Iraq by 2012 and the ongoing US involvement was not going to stress resources nor lead to a catastrophic outcome that we're witnessing now. There was very little rationale for leaving in 2012 because the insurgence was tamped down and casualties dropped to single digits (probably to the same casualty levels on US soil). And every serious foreign policy expert warned that an early exit would leave a vacuum for the insurgents to return, or worse, allow an open zone for a worse regime to take hold. Yet, the President took the first opportunity to run and conveniently blame the Iraqis for kicking the US out. Obama's decision to cut and run is emblematic of his penchance to always take the easy way out of a situation, long term consequences be damned. It was the same in his foreign policy, domestic policy, relationships with Congress and pretty much anything his administration touched. And it's amazing how somehow you spin Obama's mistakes as being part of a neocon doctrine, when they opposed every single one of his moves, and have been proven right in warning about the Sally Field foreign policy. Still have no idea where you're pulling out your factoid of "history proving otherwise," because history is fairly well-documented that the horrible outcomes result when the US LEAVES not when it stays.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Putting aside your view that Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc aren't evolved enough to support a stable government, US was well on the way to stabilizing Iraq by 2012 and the ongoing US involvement was not going to stress resources nor lead to a catastrophic outcome that we're witnessing now. There was very little rationale for leaving in 2012 because the insurgence was tamped down and casualties dropped to single digits (probably to the same casualty levels on US soil). And every serious foreign policy expert warned that an early exit would leave a vacuum for the insurgents to return, or worse, allow an open zone for a worse regime to take hold. Yet, the President took the first opportunity to run and conveniently blame the Iraqis for kicking the US out. Obama's decision to cut and run is emblematic of his penchance to always take the easy way out of a situation, long term consequences be damned. It was the same in his foreign policy, domestic policy, relationships with Congress and pretty much anything his administration touched. And it's amazing how somehow you spin Obama's mistakes as being part of a neocon doctrine, when they opposed every single one of his moves, and have been proven right in warning about the Sally Field foreign policy. Still have no idea where you're pulling out your factoid of "history proving otherwise," because history is fairly well-documented that the horrible outcomes result when the US LEAVES not when it stays. I understand the point you're making, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it doesn't answer the central portion of his question. The question, as I understand it, is: Given the political realities in the United States, media coverage, and general unwillingness of the population to spend it's sons, daughters, and treasure on prolonged foreign engagements; and given the amount of time and resources it takes to execute a wholesale regime and cultural change to implement a western democracy, do you believe doing so is possible? And if so, why?
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 I understand the point you're making, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it doesn't answer the central portion of his question. The question, as I understand it, is: Given the political realities in the United States, media coverage, and general unwillingness of the population to spend it's sons, daughters, and treasure on prolonged foreign engagements; and given the amount of time and resources it takes to execute a wholesale regime and cultural change to implement a western democracy, do you believe doing so is possible? And if so, why? Oh, I know he was going to get to this point eventually, but I addressed the fundamental question first - could US help turn a regime change into a stable country. The right question is not whether it would be a model western democracy - but a groundwork for a functionally stable government? - To me, the answer is an unequivocal YES, which started to happen in Iraq by about 2010 and probably needed another decade of US presence. The second part of the question is purely political and media driven, that wasn't aligned with the situation on the ground. I like using that term, because Obama used it constantly on the campaign trail, and of course once he was in the White House he did everything but listen to his generals on the ground. It's also why I laugh at Greggy for slamming the gullible media in the run up to the Iraq War (there's valid criticism of that), but few are criticizing the distorted coverage that things were still a huge mess in 2011. The fawning press aligned with Obama's campaign premise that Iraq was a quagmire and that Afghanistan was the "good war," when in fact it was totally opposite. The Iraqi surge worked and by 2011, casualties significantly dropped. The US won the goodwill of many tribal chiefs in Anbar, the tide was turning but by no means was victory secured. Too bad that's not how it was reported, and Iraq was always cast as the perpetual quagmire, contrary to what was actually happening.
Justice Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 I'm enjoying this debate. Good points made by both parties involved. The only problem is GG doesn't answer the question. You say the mistake was we pulled out of Iraq and I agree, but can you see a scenario that involves us being there long-term. Is that something you think us citizens will support? Is that something future administrations will support?
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Oh, I know he was going to get to this point eventually, but I addressed the fundamental question first - could US help turn a regime change into a stable country. The right question is not whether it would be a model western democracy - but a groundwork for a functionally stable government? - To me, the answer is an unequivocal YES, which started to happen in Iraq by about 2010 and probably needed another decade of US presence. The second part of the question is purely political and media driven, that wasn't aligned with the situation on the ground. I like using that term, because Obama used it constantly on the campaign trail, and of course once he was in the White House he did everything but listen to his generals on the ground. It's also why I laugh at Greggy for slamming the gullible media in the run up to the Iraq War (there's valid criticism of that), but few are criticizing the distorted coverage that things were still a huge mess in 2011. The fawning press aligned with Obama's campaign premise that Iraq was a quagmire and that Afghanistan was the "good war," when in fact it was totally opposite. The Iraqi surge worked and by 2011, casualties significantly dropped. The US won the goodwill of many tribal chiefs in Anbar, the tide was turning but by no means was victory secured. Too bad that's not how it was reported, and Iraq was always cast as the perpetual quagmire, contrary to what was actually happening. I agree with all of this, as we've discussed before. The problem is that the political realities in the United States made completing what was necessary in Iraq an impossibility. It likely would have required a stable US presence for at least another 15-20 years to accommodate a culture change, and for true peace, and the prosperity which accompanies, to emerge. And that's the problem. The political realities in the United States aren't going to change any time soon.
Justice Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 I agree with all of this, as we've discussed before. The problem is that the political realities in the United States made completing what was necessary in Iraq an impossibility. It likely would have required a stable US presence for at least another 15-20 years to accommodate a culture change, and for true peace, and the prosperity which accompanies, to emerge. And that's the problem. The political realities in the United States aren't going to change any time soon. Didn't John McCain say it could take 100 years?
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 I agree with all of this, as we've discussed before. The problem is that the political realities in the United States made completing what was necessary in Iraq an impossibility. It likely would have required a stable US presence for at least another 15-20 years to accommodate a culture change, and for true peace, and the prosperity which accompanies, to emerge. And that's the problem. The political realities in the United States aren't going to change any time soon. Again, it's a matter of perception and because it doesn't fall within Greggy's POV he ignores it. Nobody batted an eye that US had 100,000 personnel in a true quagmire in Afghanistan in 2010 (which Obama increased by 30K), but everybody was up in arms over 10,000 troops in a stabilizing Iraq. I also think that much more progress would have been made within 10 years, much shorter than 25.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) Again, it's a matter of perception and because it doesn't fall within Greggy's POV he ignores it. Nobody batted an eye that US had 100,000 personnel in a true quagmire in Afghanistan in 2010 (which Obama increased by 30K), but everybody was up in arms over 10,000 troops in a stabilizing Iraq. I also think that much more progress would have been made within 10 years, much shorter than 25. Again, I agree with this 100%. But it still doesn't account for the media and political realities here in the US. Those realities are that there will be elections, and whatever ongoing wars we are in, whether they are productive or not, will be used as a political tool by the opposition. The wars will be ended pre-maturely. Edited April 13, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
Justice Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Again, it's a matter of perception and because it doesn't fall within Greggy's POV he ignores it. Nobody batted an eye that US had 100,000 personnel in a true quagmire in Afghanistan in 2010 (which Obama increased by 30K), but everybody was up in arms over 10,000 troops in a stabilizing Iraq. I also think that much more progress would have been made within 10 years, much shorter than 25. If you look closely you'll see GG answers the question here, "everybody was up in arms over 10,000 troops in a stabilizing Iraq".
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Again, I agree with this 100%. But it still doesn't account for the media and political realities here in the US. Those realities are that there will be elections, and whatever ongoing wars we are in, whether they are productive or not, will be used as a political tool by the opposition. The wars will be ended pre-maturely. Correct, and that's why it was a monumental mistake by Obama and we're seeing the results, which Greggy thinks is all due to neocon's desire of regime change. Obama pulled a Kyle Shanahan in the 4th quarter, thinking the win was in the bag and nothing would go wrong, because at worst he was dealing with the JV team in the area.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) Correct, and that's why it was a monumental mistake by Obama and we're seeing the results, which Greggy thinks is all due to neocon's desire of regime change. Obama pulled a Kyle Shanahan in the 4th quarter, thinking the win was in the bag and nothing would go wrong, because at worst he was dealing with the JV team in the area. So the question then becomes, does it make sense to enter into a regime and cultural change with a 20-25 year exit strategy when our political discourse works in four year chunks, and at best will see 3-4, with the possibility of 6-7, different Administrations to execute properly? Edited April 13, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 So the question then becomes, does it make sense to enter into a regime and cultural change with a 20-25 year exit strategy when our political discourse works in four year chunks, and at best will see 3-4, with the possibility of 6-7, different Administrations to execute properly? In retrospect, especially with current divisions clearly not. But looking at it historically and understanding that all major military campaigns over the past century took decades to complete, and that US has over one hundred thousand troops stationed overseas, you can see why the decision could be made. The predictable answer of course is that the majority of the US troops are in stable civilized countries, and you shouldn't expect US troops to be of any help to a bunch of Arabs.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 In retrospect, especially with current divisions clearly not. But looking at it historically and understanding that all major military campaigns over the past century took decades to complete, and that US has over one hundred thousand troops stationed overseas, you can see why the decision could be made. The predictable answer of course is that the majority of the US troops are in stable civilized countries, and you shouldn't expect US troops to be of any help to a bunch of Arabs. Oh, yes. I can certainly understand why the decision was made, and in the case of Iraq specifically, it very well may have been the best strategic move in the interests of the US (I believe it was Paul who first made that case here when I was still just lurking). I'm just unconvinced that it makes sense as a general policy, given the current political realities.
GG Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Oh, yes. I can certainly understand why the decision was made, and in the case of Iraq specifically, it very well may have been the best strategic move in the interests of the US (I believe it was Paul who first made that case here when I was still just lurking). I'm just unconvinced that it makes sense as a general policy, given the current political realities. Sadly, his contributions are still missed. Coming up on the anniversary BTW. Hey Tom, is it 11 or 12 years now?
Recommended Posts