Pottery Barn rule revisited

[Mickey]

I wanted to address this specific paragraph of yours that I lighlighted:

Are you basing this opinion on actual information from military personnel? Or is this a position you've reached after careful selection of only the negative news reports that support your "Bash is bad" argument?

 

The reality is that we haven't seen the Iraqi soldiers show any capability in fighting the insurgents on their own because - to date - we have not done a very good job of training these Iraqi soldiers. It's only recently that the high level military officers are recognizing their faults in how they've executed these Iraqi training programs or in how they've prioritized this aspect of the war. So my point is to give our own military and the Iraqi military a chance to switch gears and correct this training deficiency before declaring the whole war hopeless and unwinnable.

 

And many military officials DO believe that we'll be able to win the Iraqi War over terrorists; but unlike people such as yourself, they have the virture of patience and realize that an Iraqi democracy won't stabilize for at least several more years. As soon as we're able to properly train enough Iraqi troops for urban guerilla warfare, we will be able to pull our own US troops out of Iraq. And once the Iraqi cilivians, Iraqi soldiers, and Middle Eastern Muslims in general see that there is no longer a US occupation and that the insurgents are only fighting other Muslims, the terrorists will begin losing their support base within Iraq and among neighboring Middle Eastern countries.

 

You are probably reading this and laughing at my optimism. But I am basing this optimism on a myriad of opinions I've heard from people that work directly with military personnel and with US counterterrorists. I value these people's opinions over everyone else's because they're the ones who actually work with the data and facts surrounding the global war on terror. At the very least, they have more exposure to the various faces of the truth than do politically biased lawyers like yourself who love complaining for the sake of complaining, even when no viable alternative solutions to problems have been proposed by the complainer.

418201[/snapback]

You misread my post and my intentions so bady that there really is no point in responding. If at some point you want to discuss this with a little respect for eachother, let me know. You'll have to excuse me if I choose not to bother debating anything with someone who can't refrain from personal insults.

[Mickey]

Endless occupation. 

 

Which isn't democracy, either.  Frankly, I've always thought the justification of "democracy for Iraq" was total bull sh-- anyway.  Akin to saying "You'll be a democratic society whether you want to or not!" 

 

Or worse: based in the unrealistically polyanna idea that anyone, once exposed to the Western liberal idea of democracy, will embrace it wholeheartedly to the exclusion of all else.  It's not entirely unlike Victorian England's attitude to the colonial world..."But of course you'll accept our rule, once you understand what it's like to be subject to the British crown..."  It's the same peculiar blind arrogance that, just because we accept it, everyone else must eventually come around to our point of view as well...

418200[/snapback]

I agree that it was unrealistically pollyannish but at the same time, I have to be honest and tell you that I seriously thought it coud be done. Damn that Friedman.

[cromagnum]

A responce from a highschool dropout,employed in the building trades.I thought from the begining, wmd scenario was a stretch,by the way it was being told to the public. Although I did not believe the ''nuke story'' and the drone planes, I did believe the chemical weapons were there. And it appears they destroyed them,due to the agreement from the last war we waged on iraq,or their hidden or moved. Now you would believe they they would use the chemicals with the mortars they launch at the american's. Thankfully that has not happened.Do I believe that iraq will be transformed into a democracy, no. Yeah I understand were building road's school's hospital's. Do I believe this war will prevent future attack's, from a another small militarized country, yeah.. Otherwise we will dominate.So hopefully the lesson that we displayed in iraq will show these countries that if you allow these types of organizations to function like they were in afghanistan, your done. Because BOMBING caves and mudhuts and controlling small villages is not sending a terrifying enough message !!! Will this make the U.S. safer,yeah. So in the end the message is do NOT mess with the U.S. good philisophy. Iraq deserve it???? Hopefully when their country recovers, and what faction rules,will be less insane then saddam.King of the hill is tough position to be in,always has always will. Now the question everyone's asking when will fuel prices go down. I say when we pullout of iraq, or the situation there settles down? I believe the only way that situation resolves is we back away with the satisfaction that the world know's we will not tolerate terrorist attack's.Although it seem's the message the middle east is giving in response is you want the oil, the price is going up. $2.70 a gallon, will probally go to $3.a gallon. We will get use to paying this amount, no choice.What was the price of gas before the war $1.20 a gallon ,we will never see that again.The best we can hope for is more fuel efficient motor's,and eventually elimanate oil as a fuel.

Hopefully this is the push to seriously find alternitave fuel. As for alqueda man i hope we keep hunting them, to the point of extinction. History will record it and unfortunately it will come down to religon ,muslim's against christian's. Same argument different millenium!!! Meanwhile in the end that oil keep's this country powerfull milatarily and socially. And the first gulf war was about oil,yeah I know we liberated kuwait,it was still protecting the flow of oil. It's allway's about the money..... Meanwhile why the hell are we in iraq????? needfull thing's. Just the way it is......wasn't henry david thorough who wrote about being a glutton when he lived in a cabin in the wood's on walden pond........humun nature.. HEY you people have a great site here,thankfull for the opprutunity to post...Glad I live in america , we are lucky to live in such a country...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I agree that it was unrealistically pollyannish but at the same time, I have to be honest and tell you that I seriously thought it coud be done.  Damn that Friedman.

418398[/snapback]

 

That's because you're a liberal. You're unrealistic and polyanna by definition.

[chicot]

Well, I'm not so sure about the kurds. They seem to have a genuine interest in democracy. The Sunnis are a lost cause.

 

The Shia, well, you had to think they would try and organize a theocracy.

 

My main question is WHY did the Sunnis not come to the table? They had so much to lose by not doing so.

417990[/snapback]

 

Well, the Sunnis are involved in all the wrangling over the constitution. It's also likely that they'll vote in large numbers in the referendum on the constitution.

[Mickey]

Well, the Sunnis are involved in all the wrangling over the constitution. It's also likely that they'll vote in large numbers in the referendum on the constitution.

418593[/snapback]

I hope so, this effort at building a democracy there is in need of a morale boost.

 

Do you think that Iraqi's might have better luck with the "insurgency" with us out of the picture? It just seems to me that we have given the insurgency our best shot and they are still just as deadly as ever. I can't see why the Iraqi's would do any better but then again, maybe a homegrown force will succeed where a foreign one failed. What do you think?

[Berg]

Umm....I'm not sure that whether Colin Powell accurately described Pottery Barn's precise in-store breakage rule is really the point.

 

For the record, Powell is quoted by Woodward in Plan of Attack as referring to the "Pottery Barn Rule" and as describing it to the President:

 

"Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it."

 

Columnist Thomas Friedman claims they got the reference from a column he wrote in February 2003 where he used the term "pottery store rule".  Friedman says that in speeches, he used the phrase "Pottery Barn rule".

 

My point, sticking with the metaphor, is that this pot was already broken before we walked in to the store.  We just picked up the sharpest pieces and tossed them away.  Let the Pottery Barn pick up the rest.

417505[/snapback]

 

Pottery Barn doesn't sell pots.

[Berg]

I'm not sure how real of a concern that is --- look at the Afghanistan model. At this point, reducing troop levels to ~75,000-50,000 at the end of the year or next spring wouldn't be viewed as caving to AQ. Well, they can think we're caving and they probably will say we are b/c that's what they do, kind of like a family pathetically insulting the fire that just destroyed their house. We've done some major damage to their networks.

 

The thing is, after a big pullout of Iraq, there isn't any one area that receives the majority of the focus. We'll be left to dealing with more concentrated areas. Unless Pres. Bush goes to the next entry on his list (Iran? NK?). Another large-scale operation for this admin seems out of the question at this point (barring concrete developments, b/c our credibility is shot, with the world at large and among our own people). Trust that the govt is more or less telling the truth is the thing that's been most damaged by all of this. To go with the analogy, after spending $200B for something that's broken and wasn't our fault for breaking in the first place, who wants to shop at Pottery Barn again?!

417686[/snapback]

 

Pottery Barn will replace it or refund your money.

[chicot]

I hope so, this effort at building a democracy there is in need of a morale boost.

 

Do you think that Iraqi's might have better luck with the "insurgency" with us out of the picture?  It just seems to me that we have given the insurgency our best shot and they are still just as deadly as ever.  I can't see why the Iraqi's would do any better but then again, maybe a homegrown force will succeed where a foreign one failed.  What do you think?

418628[/snapback]

 

The problem with the current Iraqi army is that it's inexperienced and underequipped. Most of it is made up of people who have never seen combat. It is also heavily infiltrated by the insurgency. Many of the soldiers have distinctly ambivalent feelings towards the US and that doesn't help much with motivation - there have been thousands of desertions and at least one or two occasions when battalions have actually started fighting on the side of the insurgents. The experience is all on the other side - it's almost certain that a significant number of the insurgents are soldiers who lost their jobs when Bremer took the crazy decision to disband the Iraqi army. Unlike the current Iraqi army, these are likely to be battle-hardened from experience gained in the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf war (and it's sequel).

 

At the moment there's quite an unreal situation in Iraq due to the US presence. Everyone is playing hardball because they know the US will catch them if they fall. If the US was to leave or, at the very least, set a deadline for leaving, then it would help concentrate the minds of the leaders of the various communities to sort out their differences. They would have to come to some sort of agreement because the alternative would be unthinkable. In any event, in a few of the provinces, the situation is so bad it could hardly get any worse.

 

You've also got to take into account what effect a US withdrawal would have on the insurgency. I know the media likes to paint the insurgency with a one size fits all description but that just isn't the case. There are at least some insurgents who, while quite happy to attack the US military, would draw the line at killing fellow Iraqis. Some elements of the insurgency would stop fighting. Even ex-Baathists would have to start thinking seriously about the endgame and think about what will emerge in Iraq. The support that the insurgency draws from the Sunni community due to the occupation would also decrease. Of course there would still be the nutjobs like Zaqawi and his ilk who just like blowing stuff up, but without the presence of the Americans as a common enemy, many of the homegrown insurgents would quickly turn on them.

 

Frankly I think the US plan to impose it's vision on Iraq is destined to fail. Unless the US plans to stay for ever, as soon as it leaves whatever system is in place is likely to fall. Now that can either happen now or later on when thousands more Iraqis and Americans are dead and billions more dollars have been spent.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

At the moment there's quite an unreal situation in Iraq due to the US presence. Everyone is playing hardball because they know the US will catch them if they fall. If the US was to leave or, at the very least, set a deadline for leaving, then it would help concentrate the minds of the leaders of the various communities to sort out their differences.

419019[/snapback]

 

 

Either that or they'd just enter a decade or so of bloodletting.

[Mickey]

The problem with the current Iraqi army is that it's inexperienced and underequipped. Most of it is made up of people who have never seen combat. It is also heavily infiltrated by the insurgency. Many of the soldiers have distinctly ambivalent feelings towards the US and that doesn't help much with motivation - there have been thousands of desertions and at least one or two occasions when battalions have actually started fighting on the side of the insurgents. The experience is all on the other side - it's almost certain that a significant number of the insurgents are soldiers who lost their jobs when Bremer took the crazy decision to disband the Iraqi army.  Unlike the current Iraqi army, these are likely to be battle-hardened from experience gained in the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf war (and it's sequel).

 

At the moment there's quite an unreal situation in Iraq due to the US presence. Everyone is playing hardball because they know the US will catch them if they fall. If the US was to leave or, at the very least, set a deadline for leaving, then it would help concentrate the minds of the leaders of the various communities to sort out their differences. They would have to come to some sort of agreement because the alternative would be unthinkable. In any event, in a few of the provinces, the situation is so bad it could hardly get any worse.

 

You've also got to take into account what effect a US withdrawal would have on the insurgency. I know the media likes to paint the insurgency with a one size fits all description but that just isn't the case. There are at least some insurgents who, while quite happy to attack the US military, would draw the line at killing fellow Iraqis. Some elements of the insurgency would stop fighting. Even ex-Baathists would have to start thinking seriously about the endgame and think about what will emerge in Iraq. The support that the insurgency draws from the Sunni community due to the occupation would also decrease. Of course there would still be the nutjobs like Zaqawi and his ilk who just like blowing stuff up, but without the presence of the Americans as a common enemy, many of the homegrown insurgents would quickly turn on them.

 

Frankly I think the US plan to impose it's vision on Iraq is destined to fail. Unless the US plans to stay for ever, as soon as it leaves whatever system is in place is likely to fall. Now that can either happen now or later on when thousands more Iraqis and Americans are dead and billions more dollars have been spent.

419019[/snapback]

Your end conclusion is exactly what I most concerns, that the result we are hoping to avoid by staying is an inevitable one. If that is the case, better we face it now, arrange some deadlines and start to withdraw rather than to do that anyway a year or two from now after many, many more soldiers are killed to no purpose.