The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[GG]

 

Incorrect. I'm asking you about your specific views to avoid doing exactly that.

 

And you won't answer the very simple, yes or no question... Why is that?

 

The question has nothing to do with 2003 or 2008. It's about right now. Today. It's about your opinion on the matter.

 

Do you, GG, believe today, that the US is capable of successfully executing a regime change war in the ME?

 

Yes or no...

 

No your question has evolved many many times.

 

Why don't you answer why you don't believe that US can be a force for good? What are these numerous failed experiments you're talking about? Why are Arabs inferior to Germans, Japanese & Koreans?

[Justice]

I can't speak for GG, but it sounds like his answer is yes as long as we stay the course.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

No your question has evolved many many times.

 

 

My question has evolved because I'm trying to have a conversation with you about your views so I can better understand it.

 

Stop running and answer with a yes or no.

[GG]

I can't speak for GG, but it sounds like his answer is yes as long as we stay the course.

 

 

Shhh, don't give it away.

[Deranged Rhino]

Why don't you answer why you don't believe that US can be a force for good? What are these numerous failed experiments you're talking about? Why are Arabs inferior to Germans, Japanese & Koreans?

 

All things I've never said...

 

Again, you can try to dodge all you want but everyone can see you're afraid to answer a question. That's just kind of pathetic.

 

 

Shhh, don't give it away.

 

So you DO believe the US can successfully execute a regime change war in the ME?

[GG]

 

All things I've never said...

 

Again, you can try to dodge all you want but everyone can see you're afraid to answer a question. That's just kind of pathetic.

 

So you DO believe the US can successfully execute a regime change war in the ME?

 

With the right amount of resources, the US can execute regime change on every planet that your UFOs come from. That's why your question is gator-level idiotic. Take a lesson from TYTT in how to properly frame a question.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

With the right amount of resources, the US can execute regime change on every planet that your UFOs come from. That's why your question is gator-level idiotic. Take a lesson from TYTT in how to properly frame a question.

 

Gotcha.

 

You believe in a fairy tale.

 

You believe the US is capable of executing a successful regime change war... if they had magical pixie dust that would sooth a war weary population, completely unite the country, and extend the terms for every representative in Congress, every Senator and the executive. :lol:

 

The US will never have "the right amount of resources" because our system is not designed for long term occupation, certainly not in this political climate.

 

At least you admit now that what you believe in is untethered from any semblance of reality.

[GG]

 

Gotcha.

 

You believe in a fairy tale.

 

You believe the US is capable of executing a successful regime change war... if they had magical pixie dust that would sooth a war weary population, completely unite the country, and extend the terms for every representative in Congress, every Senator and the executive. :lol:

 

The US will never have "the right amount of resources" because our system is not designed for long term occupation, certainly not in this political climate.

 

At least you admit now that what you believe in is untethered from any semblance of reality.

 

Hey gatorman, this topic was specifically addressed above. To recap for the hard of listening, US military is designed for long term occupations, and permanent troop levels deployed overseas are always between 100,000 & 200,000. You may have forgotten that a war weary population, and every representative in Congress, every Senator and the executive haven't had an issue with a 100,000 troop deployment in Afghanistan for 15+ years, without much to show for it.

 

So what's your point, other than grandstanding?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Hey gatorman, this topic was specifically addressed above. To recap for the hard of listening, US military is designed for long term occupations, and permanent troop levels deployed overseas are always between 100,000 & 200,000. You may have forgotten that a war weary population, and every representative in Congress, every Senator and the executive haven't had an issue with a 100,000 troop deployment in Afghanistan for 15+ years, without much to show for it.

 

So what's your point, other than grandstanding?

 

My point was to make sure I was accurately understanding your viewpoint because I respect you enough to have an honest conversation, even if you do continually go out of your way to misrepresent the opinions in this thread and elsewhere.

 

Your beliefs in this regard are untethered to reality to such a degree you had to couch your answer in hypotheticals and point back to wars fought on the continent close to a century to go as if they have any relation whatsoever to our modern world and the current state of geopolitics in total and in the ME region. That, my friend, is just inane. Afghanistan is ongoing, unending, and there's been zero signs of a successful regime change or the lives improving for the people living in that pile of rocks. Using it as a benchmark shows, again, that you believe in a fairy tale. We've been in country for less than a decade and a half and the job of true regime change hasn't even started. If we pulled out tomorrow, the country would collapse.

 

You wrongly pin everything I say as me trying to tie it all to a neocon conspiracy. That's absurd. As evidence by the OP, I made it quite clear that trying to reduce the speculations and subject matter in this thread down to any one nation, ideology, or religion is a disservice to the truth. That remains true. I do not believe the neocons are twisting their mustaches and plotting to do evil things. I have, in fact, made that point several times. I do believe that many neocons, including you, sincerely believe they are operating in the best interests of their country.

 

I just believe, and history is proving it to be true, that their beliefs are short sighted, naive, dangerous and in practice do NOT serve the best interests of the country or any humanitarian crisis they're trying to alleviate. That does NOT mean the US cannot be a force for good or that I'm against military interventions when done properly.

 

What I was trying to get at by asking you a direct question was to see if you would admit that the notion of regime change wars is incompatible with our entire system of government. Because that would at least demonstrate an ability to honestly assess the state of the world and the country without being hindered by your partisan blinders. I had hopes you would actually come through on that, but alas. The truth is the "resources" we lack are the political willpower and stamina to sustain a lengthy occupation that stretches over decades. That means, regardless of intention, any regime change war (war being the key word) launched by the US is a fool's errand. Continuing to support that strategy, despite the cluster!@#$ of the past 16 years, and hoping that this time it'll be different ... is just insanity.

 

Many, many, MANY people have come to realize this fact.

 

But instead of admitting this, you just wrapped yourself tighter in your chosen partisan cloak. That's fine, of course, you're free to think whatever you wish. I said from the beginning of this thread I'm not looking to preach nor convert... just discuss. And I just wanted to make sure I was accurate in my assessment of your position.

 

And so now I know you are fine with the US committing war crimes so long as they're popping off on Russian or Syrians, you support the continued belief that regime change wars can work and should be pursued in Syria because you care about the people living there... but you don't care enough to do the math and realize that half hearted occupations that have no shot of being sustainable end up causing more chaos and bloodshed than they prevent.

 

One day maybe we'll discover that magical elixir that will grant the US the "necessary resources" to get the job done. Until then, the philosophy you're subscribing to is a net negative for the country and for the people you want to help.

 

It might be time to rethink your strategy, sir.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

And this is precisely why it's impossible to have an honest conversation with you. You lay out a dozen paragraphs explaining the various complexities in a hypothetical situation, but then insist on a yes/no answer to a question that doesn't account for a single complexity.

 

So in the vein of your questioning, my answer is yes, no and maybe.

Edited April 13, 2017 by GG

[Deranged Rhino]

And this is precisely why it's impossible to have an honest conversation with you. You lay out a dozen paragraphs explaining the various complexities in a hypothetical situation, but then insist on a yes/no answer to a question that doesn't account for a single complexity.

 

So in the vein of your questioning, my answer is yes, no and maybe.

 

There's nothing hypothetical about what I laid out above.

 

The reality is we are unable to wage regime change wars in that region of the world in such a way that it improves the lives of the people living in that country. That's not hypothetical, the only hypothetical added is the caveat you added to answer the question. "The right amount of resources" will never be available to us without dramatically retooling how our republic operates. The voting public doesn't have the stomach to sustain what would be required. This isn't the Greatest Generation, it's the Me generation.

 

You disagree with that assessment. That's fine, and the source of pretty much all our disagreements.

[GG]

 

There's nothing hypothetical about what I laid out above.

 

The reality is we are unable to wage regime change wars in that region of the world in such a way that it improves the lives of the people living in that country. That's not hypothetical, the only hypothetical added is the caveat you added to answer the question. "The right amount of resources" will never be available to us without dramatically retooling how our republic operates. The voting public doesn't have the stomach to sustain what would be required. This isn't the Greatest Generation, it's the Me generation.

 

You disagree with that assessment. That's fine, and the source of pretty much all our disagreements.

 

Look above at the back and forth with TYTT. You are focused on the second part of the question which deals with the stamina & will of the people to support staying the course to affect change, but conflate it with the main question of whether it can work at all. I keep reminding you to separate the two because they're not the same.

 

Basically in this thread I'm discussing policy & strategy and you're focused on the public relations effect of the policy & strategy. Not the same things.

 

It's undoubtable that US has been a far greater cause of good in the world, but the big human disasters happen when US gets involved but then leaves with a job half done. This of course emboldens the US critics to point to failures of US policies and strategies as if intentionally leaving a vacuum is part of that strategy.

 

You're not giving enough credit to the resolve of the US population to rally around a cause that they believe is just. I don't know if you did it intentionally but each example you site doesn't back your case. The Greatest Generation was dragged into WWII, and there was more opposition to joining the Allies until the Pearl Harbor attack. Yet, there are still many who firmly believe that Pearl Harbor was orchestrated by FDR to get US into the war. Sound familiar?

 

You go to great lengths to speculate how the Deep State molds public opinion on foreign policy, yet you use that same public opinion as the reason the US wouldn't have the stamina to fight a good fight. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't nearly go as far as you in thinking that everything that the media spurts out is from the mouth of the Deep State, but politicians & media do have a huge tilting effect on public perception. Again, take the Afghanistan example. If what you're saying was totally true, there would be a massive outcry for US to get out of Afghanistan. But, we hear nothing. We didn't bat an eyelash when troop levels increased to 100,000 in 2010. But boy was there a lot of talk in whether US should keep 10,000 troops in Iraq in 2010, despite it being a much quieter place and far more important to US than Afghanistan.

 

Why was that? It's because the sitting president molded the media and public opinion in his campaign that Afghanistan was the "good war" and Iraq was the quagmire. Never mind that he had the two reversed. But it didn't matter because he set the conversation and tone, and everybody believed that Iraq was a mess, would continue to be a mess, and we needed to get out soon. Obama grudgingly accepted the surge, but used the quiet aftermath as the convenient jumping off point, despite the huge risks of an early exit.

 

Now consider this hypothetical. Bush starts the surge in 2005, and things are stable by 2008 and he extends the agreement to keep 10,000 troops. I think that in that scenario, US presence doesn't provide a wasteland for ISIS to grow & thrive, Iraq stabilizes more, and people are talking about its rise.

[TPS]

I can't speak for GG, but it sounds like his answer is yes as long as we stay the course.

which is totally unrealistic. "Just give it 10 more years..." and the Shia, Kurds, and sunnis will all be singing kumbaya.

The longer you stay, the more you become an occupying force in the eyes of all Iraqis.

 

GG provides a scenario where he believes a large enough force for a long enough time could create the possibility of a viable working state, but how exactly will the three religious groups be able to make it happen? Seems to me it would require a strong military, mostly made up of whoever holds power. Kind of like Saddam's reign....

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Look above at the back and forth with TYTT. You are focused on the second part of the question which deals with the stamina & will of the people to support staying the course to affect change, but conflate it with the main question of whether it can work at all. I keep reminding you to separate the two because they're not the same.

 

Basically in this thread I'm discussing policy & strategy and you're focused on the public relations effect of the policy & strategy. Not the same things.

 

It's undoubtable that US has been a far greater cause of good in the world, but the big human disasters happen when US gets involved but then leaves with a job half done. This of course emboldens the US critics to point to failures of US policies and strategies as if intentionally leaving a vacuum is part of that strategy.

 

You're not giving enough credit to the resolve of the US population to rally around a cause that they believe is just. I don't know if you did it intentionally but each example you site doesn't back your case. The Greatest Generation was dragged into WWII, and there was more opposition to joining the Allies until the Pearl Harbor attack. Yet, there are still many who firmly believe that Pearl Harbor was orchestrated by FDR to get US into the war. Sound familiar?

 

You go to great lengths to speculate how the Deep State molds public opinion on foreign policy, yet you use that same public opinion as the reason the US wouldn't have the stamina to fight a good fight. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't nearly go as far as you in thinking that everything that the media spurts out is from the mouth of the Deep State, but politicians & media do have a huge tilting effect on public perception. Again, take the Afghanistan example. If what you're saying was totally true, there would be a massive outcry for US to get out of Afghanistan. But, we hear nothing. We didn't bat an eyelash when troop levels increased to 100,000 in 2010. But boy was there a lot of talk in whether US should keep 10,000 troops in Iraq in 2010, despite it being a much quieter place and far more important to US than Afghanistan.

 

Why was that? It's because the sitting president molded the media and public opinion in his campaign that Afghanistan was the "good war" and Iraq was the quagmire. Never mind that he had the two reversed. But it didn't matter because he set the conversation and tone, and everybody believed that Iraq was a mess, would continue to be a mess, and we needed to get out soon. Obama grudgingly accepted the surge, but used the quiet aftermath as the convenient jumping off point, despite the huge risks of an early exit.

 

Now consider this hypothetical. Bush starts the surge in 2005, and things are stable by 2008 and he extends the agreement to keep 10,000 troops. I think that in that scenario, US presence doesn't provide a wasteland for ISIS to grow & thrive, Iraq stabilizes more, and people are talking about its rise.

 

Do you believe that if Obama left troops in Iraq that the situation would be stable by now?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Do you believe that if Obama left troops in Iraq that the situation would be stable by now?

It would certainly be far more stable. There would have been no power vacuum for ISIS to flow into.

 

And over several generations of peace and the prosperity it brings, you would likely have seen a flourishing Muslim democracy which may have led directly to a reformation. A foundation on which a stable ME/Northern Africa may have had a chance to have taken root.

[Deranged Rhino]

It would certainly be far more stable. There would have been no power vacuum for ISIS to flow into.

 

And over several generations of peace and the prosperity it brings, you would likely have seen a flourishing Muslim democracy which may have led directly to a reformation. A foundation on which a stable ME/Northern Africa may have had a chance to have taken root.

 

Walk it out though, 44 leaves troops in and 45 comes in undoing everything 44 did because he has to politically.

 

What are the odds Trump removes forces from Iraq? If not him, then 46?

 

The goal is noble, I don't dispute that and for all those who remember I was vociferously in favor of that plan in '03.

 

The foolishness in '03 was two fold: 1) misleading the public about WMDs meant you were going to have a divided populace no matter what, 2) not anticipating the inability of our system of government to support long term occupation.

 

You can't do regime change in one decade, you can't do it in two. Like you said, you need several generations (a generation being 15 years -- that's several decades at least). And because our political leaders changes so frequently, and because our voting public has become more and more entrenched in their own echo chambers, the idea that the populace and Washington can remain united in an extensive occupation campaign is untethered to reality.

 

44's administration bears a lot of responsibility for the current state of Iraq, that's inarguable. But it's still much less of a responsibility than 43's administration bears who launched an ill conceived and poorly thought out plan in the first place, and did so by using deception.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Walk it out though, 44 leaves troops in and 45 comes in undoing everything 44 did because he has to politically.

 

What are the odds Trump removes forces from Iraq? If not him, then 46?

 

The goal is noble, I don't dispute that and for all those who remember I was vociferously in favor of that plan in '03.

 

The foolishness in '03 was two fold: 1) misleading the public about WMDs meant you were going to have a divided populace no matter what, 2) not anticipating the inability of our system of government to support long term occupation.

 

You can't do regime change in one decade, you can't do it in two. Like you said, you need several generations (a generation being 15 years -- that's several decades at least). And because our political leaders changes so frequently, and because our voting public has become more and more entrenched in their own echo chambers, the idea that the populace and Washington can remain united in an extensive occupation campaign is untethered to reality.

 

44's administration bears a lot of responsibility for the current state of Iraq, that's inarguable. But it's still much less of a responsibility than 43's administration bears who launched an ill conceived and poorly thought out plan in the first place, and did so by using deception.

Which is well and good, but as I said, had the Obama Administration not done what it did, Iraq and all of the ME and Northern Africa would be far more stable, with the strong possibility of actually reforming Islam in the process.

 

I'm not speaking to political viability domestically. I'm talking about the results of occupation divorced from domestic politics.

Edited April 14, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

Which is well and good, but as I said, had the Obama Administration not done what it did, Iraq and all of the ME and Northern Africa would be far more stable, with the strong possibility of actually reforming Islam in the process.

 

I'm not speaking to political viability domestically. I'm talking about the results of occupation divorced from domestic politics.

 

And I don't entirely disagree with that assessment.

 

I just think it's folly to put the blame solely on 44's bad decision when the worst decision was ignoring the political realities of our country and forcing an invasion that the people of the country were not on board for and expecting it to last long enough to achieve sustainable change on the ground for the people of Iraq.

 

Which is why, today, any further ideas of launching regime change wars in the region would be equally as foolish and equally as likely to fail, causing more bloodshed and chaos for the people we're supposedly trying to help.

 

To me, the argument GG is making is ignoring the original sin and focusing on the bad choices made after the worst decision was already made.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

And I don't entirely disagree with that assessment.

 

I just think it's folly to put the blame solely on 44's bad decision when the worst decision was ignoring the political realities of our country and forcing an invasion that the people of the country were not on board for and expecting it to last long enough to achieve sustainable change on the ground for the people of Iraq.

 

Which is why, today, any further ideas of launching regime change wars in the region would be equally as foolish and equally as likely to fail, causing more bloodshed and chaos for the people we're supposedly trying to help.

 

To me, the argument GG is making is ignoring the original sin and focusing on the bad choices made after the worst decision was already made.

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. Though at the time we did not have the benefit of hindsight, and all of our prior attempts at nation building had been successful.

 

And I still believe that the argument that doing what we did in Iraq was in our best interests as a nation, and in the best interests of western democracy to be very persuasive.

[DC Tom]

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. Though at the time we did not have the benefit of hindsight, and all of our prior attempts at nation building had been successful.

 

Really?