good gawd you're on a roll

What do you think the three words were?

D. Eastbrook

One thing that bothers me most is when people claim that they are providing a service with their dissent. That would be true if their dissent was presented constructively instead of subversively.

What amazes me most is that all criticizm can be easily presented constructively, yet it almost never is. People who complain that their patriotism is attacked when they criticize don't even realize that they are being unpartiotic and that they can easily find an audience for their criticism and be patriotic in sharing it.

It's not that they criticize, it's that they work against our efforts rather than trying to improve them and mitigate the negetive aspects. They can enhance the posetive aspects of what were doing while addressing the negetive. But they don't.

We touched on this issue yesterday, after Kevin Drum wondered exactly what “whatever it takes” really means. I said then, and still believe today, that “‘Whatever it takes’ is what we’re trying to avoid.” What Simmons has reminded all of us is that just because we’re trying to avoid something, doesn’t make it avoidable.

I'm starting to worry that trying to avoid 'whatever it takes' actually makes it more likely to happen.

Consider a bit of history: once upon a time, Judiaism was a very aggressive 'kill the unbelievers' sort of religion. Read the Old Testament, see for yourself.

The jews didn't really reform into their current, much milder form until around the first century AD or so.

The catalyst seems to have been this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-Roman_Wars

I'm not sure the US has the guts to 'get Roman' on a billion or so muslums. Right now, we don't. After another atrocity attack or two, we might. OTOH, after another atrocity attack or two, we might go well beyond anything the Romans could have imagined.

We retain the capacity to turn their countries into glass at will. If "another atrocity attack or two" actually occurs on American soil, we will swiftly regain the will.

I pray daily that our present policy of relative restraint does the job. Because I want neither leaders who would be unwilling to use ultimate force in retaliation, nor to live in a nation with such a retaliation forever on its conscience.

The three words?

We The People...

"because they weren't ruthless enough"

The hindsight strategists are as old as mankind.

Doesn't it sound a bit like populist Fascism, too?

F you, Tom. There is such a thing as not being ruthless enough. Whether we are doing it now, or we're being just ruthless enough, will be clear in a decade or so.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Easy to Say

"I just wish they’d sometimes keep the big picture in mind." -- Stephen Green

But VERY hard to do when the vaunted American public education system is cranking out thousands upon millions of people who have been raised to think that they all have THE 'answer' and don't you dare contradict them, because they all have been taught they have high self-esteem, i.e., they cannot possibly be wrong.

Admittedly, not all of them are stupid enough to believe it, but enough of them do. Just look around you. We generally refer to them as 'moonbats' and the vast majority of them are considerably younger than I am.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Stephen Green
RE: History Lessons

Yes. Athens bit the choda with the Syracuse campaign. Doing it in a half-hearted manner.

I'm not certain that ruth/merciless methods are necessary. But certainly cold-heartedness with respect to the enemy; until he is defeated.

If we were to be as the Athenians at Melos or the Romans in Iberia, I'd saw that we WERE becoming like those dark and evil empires of old.

I think the system we've developed, e.g., how we treated Germany and Japan after their defeat in WWII is by far superior.

How do we apply this? Well, very much as we are doing it today. Illegal combatants are killed or detained (indefinitely). Where necessary towns are razed and everyone in them carrying a rifle is treated like an illegal combatant.

I would take things a step further and apply a variant on the Pershing Technique.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Additionally

With respect to what else....

Every play Civilization?

I think Syria and Iran are next on the list. I've mentioned this before, but We should take on Syria by land and let the Israelis take out Iran's nuke program. Then, if Iran decided it wanted to attack US in Iraq, our air and naval air forces could chew them up.

I think the recent series of pronouncements by Iran of their burgeoning military prowess are pretty much psyops in an effort to forestall any such action. But then again, I don't have access to the information they have at the NCA-level.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

For the three words, I nominate:

New York City

If we were to be as the Athenians at Melos or the Romans in Iberia, I'd saw that we WERE becoming like those dark and evil empires of old.

If our options are to be as cruel and brutal as the Romans, or to be defeated, do you have any doubt which we will choose?

I think the system we've developed, e.g., how we treated Germany and Japan after their defeat in WWII is by far superior.

By what measure?

Japan's status as an ally is more based on it's current interests than any gratitude for our generousity after WW2. Germany's status as an annoyance also has little, if anything, to do with our generousity after WW2. And it should be remembered that our generousity was largely based on our own self-interest, as we wished to deny Stalin the opportunuty to suck Germany and Japan into the Soviet sphere of influence.

---

With regards to Civ- we don't have the manpower to do Iran and Syria at the same time, and events in Iran make them the priority. Looks like Baby Assad gets a few more years to be an @-hole.

The Israelis don't have long enough legs to do the job, and the Iranians aren't going to be stupid enough to attack US forces in Iraq overtly.

...

While Bush has done plenty of things I don't like, I'm still glad he gets to make this call instad of Al Gore or John Kerry.

[shudder]

ps: note to self, spellcheck is my friend. It's spelled generosity.

bah.

'Three words' possibilities:

Madame President Clinton

9/11 Tenth Anniversary

President Bush assassinated

Hussein Goes Free

South Park Cancelled

I think this interpretation of the Sicilian campaign is flawed.

It's not that the Athenians weren't ruthless. They never got to the point of being able to be ruthless. The didn't even get into the main city of Syracuse, not from lack of ruthlessness, but from inept generalship.

The real lesson, among many, is if you're going to embark on an ambitious campaign, don't put it in the charge of a general who thinks the campaign is a bad idea, and then dilute his authority by putting multiple generals in charge.

The Athenians could very well have taken Sicily, or at least Syracuse but they made a lot of mistakes. The worst was when they were putting the city under siege and building walls around the city, Nicias stupidly directed that two walls be built simultaneously. If they had built one wall initially, they would have closed in the Syracusans and doomed them. Instead, they wasted time building two walls and the Syracusans just rode around the ends of the wall and routed the Athenians.

The Athenians never got a chance to be ruthless.

Stephen,
An extraordinary post, and I echo the sentiments of the first poster.

It's a very scary thing to contemplate, and it's exceedingly difficult not to come off as some gun-nut lving in self-imposed solitary confinement in some mountain range somewhere when posing the question: are we being ruthless enough?

It's a question that I would think, and I have absolutely no hard data to buttress this, that the vast, vast majority of Americans just do not want to seriously contemplate, because it could mean that they honestly arrive at the answer they most fear: a solid "No, we are not."

It, in my mind, is the exact same argument made when child development experts tell you emphatically not to spank your child when angry...HUH?! Wait, from my childhood, the lessons learned, or should I say taught to me, that remain the most vivd, the freshest in my mind, are the ones where Pop got really, really pissed, and let me have it as I so richly deserved.

I may be revealing a bit too much of my plebe status here, but what comes to mind as well is a couple of graphs from one of Heinlein's books, where an instructor and student are having an animated discussion. Student starts by stating the her mother thinks that "...violence never solves anything." Instructor answers that perhaps she could go ask the city fathers of Carthage whether they think that point of view is worth a damn. She retorts that "...everyone knows that Carthage was destroyed!!" His response is something to the effect of "...well then the use of violence settled their destinies rather thoroughly, didn't it?"

I will never stop being in awe of the stupidity revealed by people when they spit out various forms of "But gee, gosh, I'm such a likeable person, I'm sure that if that tyrannical despot ever got to know me, he'd be fine with me" as international diplomacy.

surf-actant

I'll guess what Drum has to say about this post...

RACISTNEOCONIMPERIALISTWARMONGERZIONISTHILTER!

It is always difficult to know how to comment on things I have responded at length upon... if I point to the articles it looks like I am trolling for reads... and if I try to summarize... well, entire encyclopedias are put at peril and the dictionary gets pureed.

First, on the Muddle East. My basic premise is that anything, even absolute chaos, is better than Authoritarian states supporting terrorism. Any non-unidirected state forces terrorists to become one faction amongst a few or many, and factional fights are messy, brutal and a constant drain on resources. So even if the barest of factional states gets set up in Iraq and Afghanistan that is far better than state supported terrorism. Link here for a better overview.

Second, the synergistic conception of the modern US Armed forces is a form of Net Warfare that uses military, information AND social networks to achieve ends. This is now specifically trained for before going in-theater. By working at all levels simultaneously, the Armed Forces apply asymmetrical pressure against insurgents and terrorists. 'Winning hearts and minds' is only a part of this and being able to effectively integrate across the broad spectrum of capabilities yields something very difficult to ascertain. I have multiple postings on this and on possible scenarios on Iran. Wars are no longer 'One size fits all, but fits none well' affairs, but are highly customized, adapted and morphing at a rate that no static hierarchical control system can cope with.

Third, goals for the Global War on Terrorism. I will not repeat that link. Summary: ensure banking only with trusted systems and no outside funds allowable, enforce full cargo inspection and authorize civilian groups to stop and inspect shipping and give warrants for seizure of goods flowing to enemies, help Nations that ask for it in ridding themselves of terrorist and transnational influences eroding their states, military hot pursuit *anywhere* against enemies as we will not be blackmailed by nuclear states giving safe harbor to enemies of the US, and securing the borders, the Nation and liberties and ridding the Nation of pernicious influences eroding the very conepts that make the Nation possible.

Give the avowed enemies no quarter in anything, as they do not offer any.

Secure the Union so that the Laws of the Land may be equally applied and upheld. Ensure that the Rights of the People are upheld, but that the Powers and Rights lent to Government are used fully and Justly. Those Rights were given over in 1787 and have served us well as a People. Those seeking to take them back for *compassionate* reasons are pulling at the fabric of the conception of the Government and causing the Union to fail.

Defend the Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic that seek to erode the concept of liberty as granted by the compact between the People in the Constitution. This is a Nation of individuals freely keeping a society together as individuals, NOT a group of folks thrown together with separate rights. No group is due rights greater than the individual.

Give help, friendship and honor to those Nations that would see us prosper. Those that place their Faith in us as a People should be given full help and recognition for same no matter how lowly their Nation be.

Use the Terrible Swift Sword of the Republic. The edge is the military and but the easiest way to cut and slice and skewer. The heft of that blade is We The People who must become engaged in the fight to retain all that makes this Nation possible.

We are in a Zero Party State and that cannot hold. In this state of affairs, the duly elected Representatives no longer abide by their Oath, defend the Constitution or secure domestic tranquility. Further, no member of Government in any branch has addressed the problem that the Nation State system is eroding under influences within States and between them. That bodes no good for the future.

Not bad... only a mere pocket dictionary and a small reference manual chopped up. As to links, well my blather can be found...

I'm not sure I'm glad you directed us to that essay, I believe it is one of the most frightening things I've ever read. God Help Us...

Ruthlessness in pursuit of a goal is sometimes necessary as more than adequately outlined above.

In other posts on this site I've seen widely varying goals for Iraq. The short story was thought-provoking indeed, and well-written. However, it would be comparatively easy on the same narrative model to use the Crusades as a base example of historical Christian folly and extrapolate from there to a future of Judeo-Christian imperialism where Muslims are imprisoned without trial, and so forth...Many Muslims believe their religion is misunderstood and distrusted by the West, and they return that fear and distrust in spades.

My point being, the U.S. military does not have a clear goal (regarding religion) in Iraq. Instead we have an ambiguous tension between our Judeo-Christian heritage and our supposedly secular governing structure.

This is not to say that people aren't suggesting other goals that seem essential (i.e. putting an end to the insurgency, re-establishing infrastructure). It's difficult to be ruthless in winning a peace. Now, in wiping out the insurgency, ruthlessness might be a more useful tactic. But there will be associated costs that we are unwilling to pay, economically and in terms of our own national self-image. We are too invested in being humanitarian good guys winning the peace. That would be the Christian thing to do. But ruthlessness will involve killing the innocent by definition and being honest about it. That second part, not so likely given our nation's own religious baggage.

Kindly explain to me how being ruthless enough doesn't include your
impassioned and apparently able body signing up for ruthlessness duty.
Or have you in your little Greek fantasy cast yourself as Demosthenes,
and thus your golden tongue is too valuable to spare?

We may still get the chance to be as ruthless as possible to survive. I felt the war in Afghanistan was necessary, but the invasion of Iraq was a big, big mistake. However, once we went in, we had to win.

What I didn't know was how much Iraqis hated each other. Who would of thought, we would be in a country were they hate each other more than they hate Americans. Instead of introducing democracy and individual freedom, we have upset the balance of power among literally age-old rivalries: Shiite against Sunni and Arab against Persian.

The coming civil war could easily escalate to include the whole of the Middle East. Everyone in the world will be affected. We may very well have to become as ruthless as we can to survive as a country but the life we know today will be gone.

We all signed up on 9/11 - it's just some don't want to realize it yet.

Americans knew endgame when the 2nd plane hit the Tower.
What we're doing is the hard way.

And Sistani's in a bind of his own making.

TO: rosignol
RE: Can't?

"With regards to Civ- we don't have the manpower to do Iran and Syria at the same time, and events in Iran make them the priority." -- rosignol

You're just not 'ruthless' enough.

And, I suspect, you don't quite grasp the concept of managing your forces in a two-front operation. We can go into that idea in detail, if you wish.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. It is my considered opinion that Syria already has WMDs. Iran is just trying to build their own.

scout29,

"Who would have thought"?

"Who would have thought"???

TO: Hago Harrington
RE: You Talk'n to Me?

"Kindly explain to me how being ruthless enough doesn't include your impassioned and apparently able body signing up for ruthlessness duty." -- Hago Harrington

Been there. Done that. 1970-1997.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive...and airborne-ranger qualified.]

Hago,
Am doing it, Semper Fi...

surf-actant

Hago,
"Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share."

-Ned Dolan

surf-actant

The next question is: Has Hago?

Besides, I suspect that we already have more than enough manpower to be _ruthless_. It is being nice that strains the resources.

How's this for playing Romans:

- Take the oil terminals (Marines).
- Take the oil fields (airborne).
- Relocate everyone from the combined area + 100-mile right-of-way around the pipelines (72 hour notice then bulldozers, or gunships, if need be)
- Wipe out all strategic infrastructure outside the area of interest: sea ports, airports, major roads, military bases. Those B52s aren't all retired yet, are they?
- Patrol the boundary with gunships, hellfire anything that tries to come in. Predators -- if they can be produced cheaply in large quantities -- are even creepier.
- Contract with Indian companies to work the oilfields and terminals.

Scary? Yep. But not at all manpower-intensive. And I didn't even mention drilling through glass...

...Max...

Max - My only question to your scenario is this: are the indian (or whatever) companies going to be willing to send oilfield workers when their corporate HQ's are being suicide bombed regularly.

For all those who say "I don't want to live in a country that is "ruthless enough" to do what is necessary . . ." for me, Dan Simmon's essay shows the alternative choice. Slavery can is very peacful once you accept your chains.

/sarc off

TO: Max
RE: Ruthlessness a la Romans

Don't forget the nukes.

TO: rosignol
RE: A Two-Front Operation

In my considered opinion, it would be easy to take on the Syrians and not be overly worried about the Iranians.

Here's the operational scenario....

[1] Some activity on the part of Syria, either on the ground or discovered by US intelligence services, evokes a military response from the US.
[2] Israel, in the form of pro-active self-preservation, launches a surprise attack on some of the nuclear research facilities in Iran.
[3] The US engages the Syrian military in a ground campaign with the objective of overthrowing the last Ba'athist government in the Middle East.
[4] Iran, peeved at Israel, cannot attack Israel directly. So, it claims the US supported the attack by the Israelis and attacks US forces in Iraq.
[5] US Naval and Air Forces clean the Iranian's collective clocks; think "Highway of Death" and deep strikes at remaining nuclear research facilities.
[6] With Syria overrun and a new democracy growing there, Iran is now on its own against US.
[7] Having been crippled by superior airpower, the ayatollahs' government probably topples to Iran's internal democratic pressures. It too becomes a democratically governed nation.

This scenario eliminates the problems the ayathollahs have been fomenting in both Iraq, vis-a-vis al-Sadr and company AND regionally with their nuclear weapons program.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If it came to it, once we were through with establishing a democratic government in Syria—while holding the Iranian ground forces at bay via superior airpower—we could roll into Iran. And THEN the government would probably collapse through internal revolt by the democracy-hungry younger generation.

What was that graffiti I heard about in Tehran in the Summer of 2003?

"Freedom through American boots!"

Chuck and surf-actant: Hago was addressing Mr. Green, not you.

Julie: As Hago is apparently against the war, it hardly matters whether he's served.

Ned Dolan et al: This should go without saying, but it usually doesn't: Our forces in Iraq aren't really protecting us or defending what few freedoms of ours remain. If they're fighting for anyone other than themselves and the administration, they're fighting for Iraqis. They're probably fighting for other things too, such as access to oil to ensure our "economic security," as any stroll through US policy documents will show. But it's not as if Iraq = Athens and the US = Sparta and by invading that sad country we somehow saved our own skins. If that isn't clear to you by now then you haven't read widely enough.

That should read "Slavery IS very peaceful once you accept your chains" PIMF

Jeff:

>> are the indian (or whatever) companies going to be willing to send oilfield workers when their corporate HQ's are being suicide bombed regularly >>

Yes. India had 2 prime ministers assassinated in the office on my memory, and I am not THAT old yet. I am positive they would consider it "cost of doing business". And note that they already have a long mutual track of grievances with their Muslim neighbours...

As expected, many Dan Simmons' fans have turned on him for writing this essay. Some claimed he wrote it as an April Fools joke but Dan has stuck by his story's premise.

Creative writers are supposed to be liberals and expousing these views has caused an uproar.

"Allah-o-Akbar"

That was my first thought of what those last three words might be. That this man, who has come to warn his Grandfather of a future of dhimmitude under Islam cannot free himself of the compulsion to utter "God is Great."

Stephen, this essay is horrifyingly....possible. This is the fear that I try to keep bottled up, even as my husband and I make plans for our future.

I pray that sometime soon, the majority of America will wake up and see what is looming.

I pray that Europe will fall/fail first, so that America will see what will happen if we give in.

I sometimes even hope that we will again be the victim of a horrible terrorist attack, so that our country will know, without a doubt, that there are more important things than tolerance and civil liberties. Is that horrible? To wish for such a horrible thing, so that we may be saved from far worse?

And I wish that every conspiracy nut who spouts off about 9/11 being preplanned by Bush, Israel, etc. would fall off the friggin' planet.

Thanks for the link.

Max - true India has more experience than most countries with Relgious Violence what with Muslin v Hindu v Sikh v Christian. So those companies would at least go into the enterprise with open eyes.

Rob,
If Hago's intent was to address Stephen and not Mr. Pelto or myself, he should have been more clear, but that's neither here nor there. It's the standard chickenhawk arguement, and as such is not only galactiaclly dim-witted but appallingly dishonest, as has been illustrated time after wearisome time. It displays nothing more than a desire to return to one's childhood, where playground taunts actually carried emotional weight.

As for your contention that my fellow service members currently serving in uniform, whether in Iraq or not, are not protecting your freedoms, well then sir, I submit it is you has not read enough, or traveled at all. Your contention is quite beyond the pale. But in the interests of education, any basic application of Occam's razor will lead you to the conclusion that Saddam was of the opinion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", with all the AQ cooperation it implies. Give it time, but all those millions of Iraqi documents now being translated will clearly show this. Not only have I read enough, but I have boots-on-the-ground experience in that part of the world as well.

I may be wrong, but I think you have the analogy in this story backwards. I read it as US = Athens and militant Islam/self imposed dhimmitude by US citizens = Sparta, while Iraq in particular = Syracuse. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Lastly, you may not realize this, but the Ned Dolan post was mine. I put Mr. Dolan's name there to give proper attribution to the quote.

surf-actant

TO: Rob
RE: Well Then....

"Chuck and surf-actant: Hago was addressing Mr. Green, not you." -- Rob

...I would suggest that Hago Harrington learn to address his remarks properly.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Rob
RE: Au Contraire

"As Hago is apparently against the war, it hardly matters whether he's served." -- Rob

Now that you mention it. And since HE brought it up in the first place....

I'm curious if he's had the gonads to lay it ALL on the line for his country. If he wants to challenge someone else's personal commitment to this country, he is subject to EXACTLY the same question.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Rob
RE: Our Forces Over There

"Our forces in Iraq aren't really protecting us or defending what few freedoms of ours remain." -- Rob

So...tell us....

When did YOU graduate the Command and General Staff College?

"If they're fighting for anyone other than themselves and the administration, they're fighting for Iraqis." -- Rob

Actually, they're fighting for [D] All of the Above, and then some.

"They're probably fighting for other things too, such as access to oil to ensure our "economic security," as any stroll through US policy documents will show." -- Rob

So many documents....

...which ones are you thinking of specifically?

"But it's not as if Iraq = Athens and the US = Sparta and by invading that sad country we somehow saved our own skins. If that isn't clear to you by now then you haven't read widely enough." -- Rob

Well...as a matter of fact, I've read quite a bit. The library has over 1000 books in it. Many of which deal with history and military history. Not to mention a goodly dose of politics and philosophy.

So, I've read quite a bit. Probably a LOT more than you have, youngster. [Note: You come across as a youngster to me.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)

How bad does the next terrorist attack on US soil have to be before the "peaceniks" catch on to what is very obvious to us hawks. No matter how much we back off the terrorist will demand more. We will get into a "no win" situation very quickly as soon as we begin to give in to their "demands". There is only one solution that they will be happy with and that is dhimmitude for all non-muslims.

As for the question of whether Steven served or not, that is completely immaterial to the matter. There are more than enough men and women in this country that are willing to serve so that others may enjoy the freedoms that all Americans enjoy without having to face the "ultimate sacrifice". There are more ways to "serve" than in the military. I honestly believe that by posting here Steven is doing his part.

If I could get back into the service I would, but I doubt that they would take me as I'm much older and have had one too many surgeries on my spine. But, I would gladly serve again so that my boys and yours (girls as well) would not have to.

Jim
USAF 1979-1990

Stephen: Just wondering if you have read the recent policy paper by John Mearsheimer at U of Chicago? It examines the forces that drive US foreign policy and is particularly interesting given his reputation as a staunch Realist; as conservative and hawkish as one would expect from a Chicago boy. If you provide an email address I can forward you a copy.

TO: Jim [a.k.a. habu]
RE: How Bad?

"How bad does the next terrorist attack on US soil have to be before the "peaceniks" catch on to what is very obvious to us hawks." -- Jim

Probably so bad that the moderates start hunting them down and beating some sense into them, because the moderates lost relatives in the attack.

Otherwise, they'll just claim we brought it on ourselves.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: David
RE: Is This...

...Mearsheimer the same one who has been hiding ever since that paper he did with Walt came out two weeks ago?

The one where Taranto says....

Walt? Mearsheimer? Never Heard of 'Em!

Harvard is holding its nose in an effort to escape the stench emanating from the infamous paper in which Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer argue that U.S. support for Israel lacks a strategic or moral basis and is therefore the product of the machinations of the "Israel Lobby." Reports the New York Sun:

Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is removing its logo from a paper about the "Israel lobby" that was co-authored by its academic dean.

The new version of the paper also has a more prominent disclaimer warning that the paper's views belong only to its authors.

The changes appear to be a sign that the university is distancing itself from the document in the face of a furor from faculty members, Jewish leaders, and a congressman who say it fails to meet academic standards and promotes anti-Semitic myths.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck - That's the one. It certainly is interesting, I'd encourage you to read it.

David, did you read Dershowitz' response?

---

Well, there is that 3/11/01 letter suggesting that Iraq work w/the Paleos to attack US interests....

Chuck, I haven't?
Where can it be found?

TO: David
RE: An Interesting Read

"It certainly is interesting, I'd encourage you to read it." -- David

Considering I find Taranto and I in frequent agreement, I think I'll pass on the suggestion.

RE: The Dershowitz' Response

"Chuck, I haven't?
Where can it be found?" -- David

That was Sandy P asking you about that. Not myself.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Well if the U.S = Athens and Iraq = Syracuse then does mean George W. Bush = Alcibiades?

Athenians: For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Thucydides, The Melian Dialogue

TO: dave
RE: George W. Bush = Alcibiades?

Seem to me that Mr. Bill would be closer to Alcibiades than is the Bush.

"...his [Alcibiades] ostentatious vanity, his amours, his debaucheries and his impious revels became notorious. But great as were his vices, his abilities were even greater. In his youth, Alcibiades encountered a group of itinerant teachers who taught him the art of rhetoric, a corrosive skill in which a person can argue for whatever he or she believed regardless of the subject's moral values. He was a very talented speaker with stunning eloquence and oratory skills that enabled him to grasp his audience's attention in his later political career." -- Wikipedia on Alcibiades

Hope that helps...

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Or are you suggesting that Bush will join the terrorists in Iraq, as Alcibiades did the Spartans against Athens?

TO: Carl J
RE: The Athenians...

...could use some lessons in punctuation.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck. Why don't you try doing some research before throwing these ambitious military plans out there. Israel CANT destroy Iran's WMD attempts. To take them out would require sustained operations against a litany of targets scattered across Iran (not to mention dealing with various air defenses). Unfortunately, Israel has only a handful of planes with the range to bomb Iran, and even then the extra-fuel would displace payload. It's logistically impossible and an option you've gotta take off the table.

On the other hand, for the United States, with bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Qatar, carriers in and around the Gulf, and superior aircraft, the task would be straightforward. It's the absolute hell Iran could raise in Iraq that makes us think twice. The two most powerful Shi'ite parties- both funded by Iran, and lord only knows what nastiness their intelligence services could spring if a stabile Iraq ceases to be in their best interests (its in their best interests because a pacified Iraq is also a Shi'ite ruled Iraq).

That was for Chuck, who would do better taking a step back from the pundit trenches and learning the realities of the situation before meting out judgements with such arrogance.

Islam is not the enemy. It is a tool, manipulated by those who enjoy the ME's oil wealth (the Imams, the dictators, their various elites) to keep the people in line and induce popular support for their autocratic regimes.

Lack of ruthlessness is not our fault, rather it is lack of effort. 150,000 is a measly number to pacify and reform a country of 20 million. It is like Syracuse. The Greeks didn't have the resources to win. Neither do we, though I won't stop hoping.

Rob: "Julie: As Hago is apparently against the war, it hardly matters whether he's served."

Of course it matters. It bears directly on his ability to be adequately informed.

People who have never been in the military frequently have really strange ideas about it and what it is for.

Via Powerline:

Today's Harvard Crimson story on Alan Dershowitz's paper responsding to the execrable Mearsheimer-Walt "Israel Lobby" paper reports: "Walt and Mearsheimer did not return repeated requests for comment."

Speaking of time travelers and Islam...

In his book, "Lest Darkness Fall," L. Spraque deCamp has an American archaeologist travel back in time to sixth century Rome, where he introduces printing, distilling, double-entry bookkeeping, and so forth. Eventually he becomes involved in politics and military affairs.

At the end of the book, after having saved the Roman empire from collapsing, he sends a note to Emperor Justinian of the Eastern Roman empire, which among other things states:

"...in about thirty years there will be born in Arabia a man named Mohammed, who, preaching a heretical religion, will, unless stopped, instigate a great wave of barbarian conquest, subverting the rule both of the Persian Kingdom and the Eastern Roman Empire. We respectfully urge the desirability of securing control of the Arabian Peninsula forthwith, that this calamity shall be stopped at the source."

Talk about non-PC....

Of course, this was published back in 1941...

TO: William
RE: Research

"Why don't you try doing some research before throwing these ambitious military plans out there." -- William

Gee, William. Maybe you should tell us why we CAN'T do it? And, while you're at it, what are YOUR credentials vis-a-vis military planning?

RE: Israel

"Israel CANT destroy Iran's WMD attempts." -- William

Not all of them. But it could destroy some of them, thus triggering Iranian ire and attack.

We'd handle the rest after Iran attacks. Maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote earlier. I think I explained that.

RE: Iran

"It's the absolute hell Iran could raise in Iraq that makes us think twice." -- William

How is that?

"The two most powerful Shi'ite parties- both funded by Iran, and lord only knows what nastiness their intelligence services could spring if a stabile Iraq ceases to be in their best interests (its in their best interests because a pacified Iraq is also a Shi'ite ruled Iraq)." -- William

Again, perhaps you should go back and re-read what was written before.

The point is that ayatolla-run Iran will ALWAYS be a threat to democracy. It will always be funding al-Sadr et al. So, why not deal with the root cause?

Or would you rather go on-and-on-and-on-and-on?

RE: Just For Chuck

"That was for Chuck, who would do better taking a step back from the pundit trenches and learning the realities of the situation before meting out judgements with such arrogance." -- William

Do tell us when you graduate from the Command and General Staff College. I graduated in '86.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

The AP has now taken to using quotation marks when a reporter uses the term "war on terror."

In order for dissent to be valid, both sides have to agree we're at war in the first place.

That is not true in this case.

This same story brings to light a fundamental worry I've been voicing on and off for a good year now- namely, do we still have the ruthlessness it takes to win against this kind of opponent? I fear our nation, and moreso the West as a whole, has grown too soft.
As a corollary I have trouble imagining the aforementioned ferocity coexisting with our long-term goal of fostering democraic reform in the Middle East, which seems (to me) to be the only solution that doesn't end in the Century War.

And the news from Europe doesn't fill me with hope, either.

Iran--you don't need to destroy the WMDs. Just bury them under 50 billion tons of rubble along with their makers. Destroy Iran's infrastructure temporarily, then apologize to the Europeans when they have to walk to work, so sorry, jerks.

Syria--you don't need to invade. Just bomb every building bigger than 5000 square feet, destroy every house with a mercedes in front, bomb every army barracks and anyone in uniform or carrying a weapon. You don't have to occupy Syria. Let Syria stew in its juices with its infrastructure totally kaput. Syria is surrounded by neighbors who don't like Syria very much. Iranian fascists can't get to Syria in sufficient quantities to patch all the leaks a real bombing campaign would start.

It's pretty obvious, yes? There are only so many jihadis. If they're recruiting for jihadis to Iraq from as far away as France, Britain, Spain, Morocco, Pakistan, etc. just give them a few more countries on fire--thin them out even more, dilute the mix.

Give the pissers something to cry about, hey?

...give the pissers a hell of alotta reasons to hate us... if that's what you mean...

Chuck, I appreciate the sentiment. We do have to deal with Iran, but the best method is not outright military action. A far more effective and less costly one would be to induce gradual reform of the system- they do have a willing population and the superficialities of representative government.

Unfortunately, the kind of pressure we need to apply to bring about this reform- more tariffs (force the europeans & chinese to join in), limited bombing, possibly a blockade, cannot be applied if they have Nukes. Eliminating the Nukes are thus a short term problem.

Having Israel fire the opening shot would be a disaster. Their twenty or so fighters (the ones that can reach Iran, they've got about 1200 shorter range fighters that are useless in that arena) might- if they're lucky- destroy one target. A few might also be shot down, boosting Iran's confidence while creating an international crisis that would make Iran look better, not worse. They aren't dumb enough to retaliate against non-Israeli targets for an Israeli attack, atleast not openly, so Israel would be diplomatically shot, Iran boosted, and the WMD program sped up out of their panic.

We can't launch the attack either until we clean up Iraq, putting enough soldiers there to keep whatever troublemakers Iran's planted in line, for otherwise we might lose all we've gained in Iraq in exchange for Iran's WMD program.

Best approach is to fix Iraq, racket up the pressure on Iran, collect good intel so we actually know where the WMD's are, then strike.

Back to the story:

I like to think the three words were "No Fate, Grandad."

(Go watch Terminator and T2 if you don't get the reference.)

Stephen,

Mr. Simmons is a good writer and he knows how to push our buttons, but I don't buy his predictions for a minute.

I suspect that in reality, long before things ever came anywhere near to being as dire as predicted by our time travelling friend in the story, we would incinerate large swaths of the middle east and not loose a moment's sleep over it.

Neither do I take such a pessemistic view of what is going on now in Iraq and other places in that part of the world. Perhaps Mr. Simmons really did vote for Kerry. That's a picture of the future so bleak that only a modern liberal could dream it up.

He's correct in that there will be a time in the future where we will have to act and at much greater cost than now, but that's if we do not act now. I wish for and suspect we will see a better future.

I coincidentally had a lunch with an old friend a couple of weeks ago. A friend who I hadn't seen much of in the last six years. He's very left of center and very involved in democrat politics. We used to have political debates and when, over lunch, we ventured onto the topic of Iraq, he had the same sentiments. His words were, if we were going to be an empire, we should do it wholeheartedly. Even if it meant being ruthless.

What I found amusing was that here sat this leftist, an attorney, the very apotheosis of the system and he and those like him are the first ones to clamor for the end of the very freedoms they claim to cherish.

Good story though.

TO: WIlliam
RE: Appreciation

"... I appreciate the sentiment." -- William

Do you? I wonder. But, at least you've stopped suggesting I'm ignorant of how to wage war. After 27 years in the infantry, I think I've got a fair idea on how it's done.

Better than you, for certain.

RE: Dealing with Iran

"We do have to deal with Iran, but the best method is not outright military action." -- William

War is seldom the "best method" of dealing with another country. But it IS an effective method. However, on occasion it seems to be the only method that actually gets where we want to go. Take, for example, the war with Japan. If you read Costello's book The Pacific War, you'll notice he says the war could have been averted back in the 1880s, had we kept to a strong naval presence policy in both oceans. But we didn't. Then we tried economic sanctions. They only PO'd Japan's imperial designs. We tried every peaceful measure we could think of and it all backfired on US.

"A far more effective and less costly one would be to induce gradual reform of the system- they do have a willing population and the superficialities of representative government." -- William

That's what we're trying to accomplish, as I see it. However, the ayatollahs of Iran see it too and they are adamantly opposed to such a thing. Hence they are funding the likes of al-Sadr. And, I suspect, they blew-up the Golden Mosque. Sort of their version of the Reichstag fire.

"Unfortunately, the kind of pressure we need to apply to bring about this reform- more tariffs (force the europeans & chinese to join in), limited bombing, possibly a blockade, cannot be applied if they have Nukes. Eliminating the Nukes are thus a short term problem." -- William

Why not?

Then again, if you think they don't work, the only course of action is to eliminate the nukes. How do you propose to accomplish that?

You can use war as an option, but it seemed to me that you were leaning away from that.

As for me, all the tools of international diplomacy, including war, are still on the table.

RE: Israel's Actions

"Having Israel fire the opening shot would be a disaster." -- William

I disagree. How would it be a 'disaster'? What form would the 'disaster' take?

"Their twenty or so fighters (the ones that can reach Iran...might- if they're lucky- destroy one target." -- William

That's enough to take out a facility or three; given the proper munitions.

Ever hear of a computer simulation called Harpoon? Very accurate. I highly recommend it for people who would REALLY like to gain a grasp of the operational art of air-sea warfare.

"A few might also be shot down, boosting Iran's confidence while creating an international crisis that would make Iran look better, not worse." -- William

There's that possibility. So what? We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.

As for the much-feared 'international crisis'....as if we were not faced with one already? Or that the "Death-to-America-chanting" ayatollah's with nukes would not be an 'international crisis' of even greater magnitude?

Hopefully you do not live in a large metropolitan impact area, or downwind of such.

"They aren't dumb enough to retaliate against non-Israeli targets for an Israeli attack, atleast not openly, so Israel would be diplomatically shot, Iran boosted, and the WMD program sped up out of their panic." -- William

Good for Israel and too bad for US.

As for Israel being 'diplomatically shot'...so what. They've been there before. Heck. They're there all the time. No big thing.

As for 'speeding up' Iran's nuke program....they could hardly be going faster. So there's no loss there.

RE: US's Action

"We can't launch the attack either until we clean up Iraq, putting enough soldiers there to keep whatever troublemakers Iran's planted in line, for otherwise we might lose all we've gained in Iraq in exchange for Iran's WMD program." -- William

You seem to lack a grasp of logic. We CAN launch an attack. Any time we want to. It's a matter of doing it in an effective manner. Not the shooting of one's wad like Mr. Bill did against Sudan and Afghanistan.

And again, you seem to keep dealing with these Iranian attack dogs as Hercules against the Hydra, until he wised up. You remind me of playing Whack-a-Mole; striking at the heads whenever they pop up. If you figure it out, you might get to the point that Hercules did and stuff the holes.

Personally, I prefer to pull the plug on the power supply to the machine. It's much more effective.

"Best approach is to fix Iraq, racket up the pressure on Iran, collect good intel so we actually know where the WMD's are, then strike." -- William

I do believe that we know where the development facilities are, already.

As for the pressure on Iran, we're already doing that.

As for Iraq, we're working on it, but Iran keeps causing trouble. But, not for long....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Because they love us so much as it is now, right, William? I never much saw the point of trying not to piss off folks who're sworn to our destruction...

No I don't think Bush will join the terrorists, but I was trying to highlight the inane comparison between the U.S in Iraq and Athens in Syracuse. Its more more valid than saying Iraq is like Vietnam. It has no bearing on the current situation, and implying that Athens, and by extension the U.S should be commiting more massacres is obscene.

TO: dave
RE: Your Post

"No I don't think Bush will join the terrorists, but I was trying to highlight the inane comparison between the U.S in Iraq and Athens in Syracuse." -- dave

Seems to me that either you were ignorant of history or you thought we were.

Either way, your point was lost in the poor analogy.

RE: Ruthlessness & Massacres

"It has no bearing on the current situation, and implying that Athens, and by extension the U.S should be commiting more massacres is obscene." -- dave

So. Tell us where being ruthless of necessity requires "massacres".

Admittedly the Athenians and Romans and Chaldeans and Egyptians and French Roman Catholics committed such things. But that doesn't mean we have to.

For example. My approach to 'ruthlessness' would include razing Fallujah and moving all the inhabitants into a controlled-access community of our 'construction'.

Anyone caught smuggling weapons or explosives or involved with the opposition to the democratic government of Iraq would be sent to someplace like Gitmo for the rest of their natural life. There, they would tend pigs.

And upon their death, their carcass would be fed to the pigs.

No massacre involved.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

My guess on the three words --- "Islam delenda est".

"They had grown soft since their slaughter of every combat-age man and boy on the island of Melos, the enslavement of every woman and girl there."

So the continuation of such activities was preferable? Do you wish merely wish for the preservation of your country or the preservation of it as something worth defending? How, on a practical level, can we be more ruthless in Iraq? And talking about razing towns and making Muslims keep pigs doesn't count, because you know full well its never going to happen.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria... So now we have to invade upstate New York, too?

TO: dave
RE: Don't...

"How, on a practical level, can we be more ruthless in Iraq? And talking about razing towns and making Muslims keep pigs doesn't count, because you know full well its never going to happen." -- dave

...bet on it.

Given the right series of events, it could well happen.

It happened in Malaysia; razing towns and moving people to places with controlled-access. Done by the Brits to put down a communist lead insurrection. And it worked.

It happened in the United States; the confinement of the Japanese.

And raising pigs is more humane than the Pershing technique, execution by firing squad with the firing party slathering their bullets in the blood of a pig slaughter before the 'honorees' of the 'party'.

In other words...save for feeding the carcasses to pigs, it's all been done before.

Better go read some more history, dave.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Apples and oranges. In Malaya relocating the villages was not carried in reprisal yoked to something which by design, the majority of the populace would find offensive and humiliating.
How do you think such a move would go down with the Iraqi people, both Sunni and Shia?
What circumstances do you forsee then in Iraq that would make this possible, or preferable to existing tactics?

TO: dave
RE: Okay....

"Apples and oranges." -- dave

...obviously if you're not going to recognize the blatantly obvious parallels between the 1950s Malaysian insurgency and what's going on in Iraq, you're not going to wish to carry on a rational discussion.

Not my problem, compadre. I've seen that sort of comportment before.

But, just to put this into its proper perspective

"In Malaya relocating the villages was not carried in reprisal yoked to something which by design, the majority of the populace would find offensive and humiliating." -- dave

The relocation was to separate the wolves from the sheep.

And it worked. But far be it from me to have to drill that fact into your head.

"How do you think such a move would go down with the Iraqi people, both Sunni and Shia?" -- dave

The same way it went down in Malaysia, the relocation technique, and in the Phillipine Islands (the Pershing technique) rather effectively.

In the former case, Malaysia did NOT go 'communist'. In the latter case, the terrorist attacks—kidnappings, murders, etc.—STOPPED!

Pershing was brought back from the PIs as a captain and promoted DIRECTLY to general.

However, I don't recall the US doing in Nam what the Brits did in Malaysia.

You can consider the implications for yourself. No need to acquiesce...

Regards,

Chuck(le)

"obviously if you're not going to recognize the blatantly obvious parallels between the 1950s Malaysian insurgency and what's going on in Iraq, you're not going to wish to carry on a rational discussion."

My point is that there is a difference in context between what you propose be done in Iraq and what was done in Malaya. Thus the action would be viewed in a different light by the Iraqi populace and would not, I believe, be productive.
And again, under what circumstances do you see such measures being employed in Iraq?

TO: dave
RE: Really?

"My point is that there is a difference in context between what you propose be done in Iraq and what was done in Malaya." -- dave

Please point it out. I recommend using compare & contrast techniques.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. I'd like to get into the "offensive and humiliating" thing, but, all things considered, I recommend we 'focus'....

P.P.S. I'm detecting considerable topic-drift here. Maybe we should move this to some other venue?

I'd like to get into these circumstances in which we'd start razing Iraqi towns but you still haven't enlightened me. We've already had the torture and murder of citizens of coalition countries and nothing was done then, how much further do you think the enemy has to go before we take the measures you describe?

You think there is no contrast between a general policy involving relocating the sections of the population and doing it to make an example of one particular town?

TO: dave
RE: Issues

"I'd like to get into these circumstances in which we'd start razing Iraqi towns but you still haven't enlightened me." -- dave

Are you having trouble googling 'fallujah'?

Why should I chew up Stephen's bandwidth explaining history that would take pages of it to you when you, if you had the gumption to do your own research, could do it yourself at less of his expense?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S....

"You think there is no contrast between a general policy involving relocating the sections of the population and doing it to make an example of one particular town?" -- dave

I'd make it a general policy. I used Fallujah as an example for your consideration.

Why do you have a problem with providing you with an explicit example?

P.P.S. After all...you DID ask for an example, when you asked...

"...under what circumstances do you see such measures being employed in Iraq?"

So, having given you an example, as you asked for one, you now are saying I haven't 'enlightened' you?

Are you suffering from some obscure form of memory loss?

Furthermore, you have yet to provide your solution to dealing with the problem of al-Sadr et al.

It seems I answer a lot of your questions, yet you have no answers for mine.

Some people seem to think ruthlessness means mirroring Stalin, Romans, etc. No.

Ruthlessness simply means doing what you got to do, without hesitation or doubt. Ruthlessness means if you promise to protect an Iraqi family, you are willing, capable, and eager to destroy all and every threat to that family. Including Iraqi bureacrats, including criminals, including Americans breaking the law and victimizing the family, including anything and anyone in any country in the world that is a threat to that family.

If you catch a threat to that family, you execute that threat. You don't kill that threat on the battlefield, you don't detain it, you don't catch and release. You execute, in front of the family, in front of the village elders. You show your will and ruthlessness, and that you are an honorable man who obides by his promises.

That is ruthlessness, American style.

Currently, we are killing terroists on the battlefield, (unless CNN catches you shooting someone in the head in a mosque that is, then you get sanctioned). We are detaining terroists (unless you violate the right of the terroists to have a Koran without your hands touching it in the absence of gloves). We are releasing the terroists after we catch them instead of executing them. (and nobody suffers anyhting except the poor AMerican that gets killed by the guy released). Anyone that thinks this status quo is good, needs a second opinion.

Giving terroists at GitMo Korans handled with white gloves... isn't ruthlessness. Releasing criminals from Abu Ghraib back into the streets of Mosul as a "good faith gesture" is not ruthlessness. Waiting until Sadr and Jaffari blow up Iraq with their subversive conduct is not ruthlessness.

Waiting until Iran and Syria declare war on the US before hitting them with Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, Special Forces sabotage and espionage, and air bombardment is not ruthlessness.

A lot of things aren't ruthlessness, because it involves compassion, and honesty, and procrastination.

Compassion is for when you win and the enemy is defeated. If you think Iran, Syria, or even Iraq is "defeated", then you need a second opinion.

Athens' problem was that they were scared to face the Spartan Elite HOplites in battle, so they didn't meet them on the field. Athens was afraid they'd get their arse kicked. So they started a guerrila war that destroyed both Sparta and Athens as a power. The good thing going for us, is that the US Marines are not afraid to engage the terroists in hand to hand, house to house, city to city fighting. Urban fighting was supposed to "chew us up and spit us out like SOmalia". It ended chewing the terroists out and spitting them out of Fallujah.

But these victories won't win you the war, if you lay around in your base forever. You got to get out, push, get more victories, instill more fear in your enemies and more confidence in your allies. If the Iraqis who give us tips don't see us marching the criminals and terroists out onto the street of the average iraqi village, then executing them on the spot, the Iraqis will not believe we have what it takes to protect them from the terroists and criminals.

Ruthlessness is not a feel good party trick you show for your friends. Ruthlessness is honoring the promise you made to protect the children of Iraq, to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. If you are not willing to do what it takes to honor your promise, then you are neither ruthless nor honorable.

Nuclear weapons should not be used to destroy cities or populations, but they should be used. Take Saddam, or one of his friends, set him out in the desert where nobody grows anything or lives, and then air burst a nuclear bomb over him. Be sure to have all the cameras watching btw. That is ruthlessness.

When Zarqawi showed you on tv that he was having fun sawing off Nick Berg's head, Zarqawi was showing how ruthless he was. But beyond that, Zarqawi was showing that he enjoyed it, that not only was he ruthless, but he was a crazy socio-path as well.

If the Iraqis saw us execute one of Saddam's henchmen like that, or saw us execute Saddam himself, the Iraqis would understand implicitly that if we were willing to use one nuke, that the next one might be used upon them. Crime would hesitate, terroists would get less support. We would get more support because we explictly showed that we killed the guilty, and did not harm the innocent. That irregardless of our ruthlessness, we wouldn't kill innocents if we could help it. The good will help us, the evil will hesitate and ponder on their future in the insurgency.

As for Iran and Syria. A neat trick is this. Just go in and take a town, and give it to the Iraqis. And say, "The Iraqis annexed this portion for security reasons, America had nothing to do ith it". How could they prove otherwise?

This way, you have a neat bargaining chip. Do what I say, or our friend Iraq will end up conquering more towns. This will focus Iran and Syrian efforts on their own territory, instead of Iraq. Focusing away the violence and arms and money and terroists and networks. This makes the Syrian's and Iranian's on the defensive, where they should belong. Best defense is a good attack.

This requires ruthlessness, the ability to override the international sham that is "sovereignty". This requires telling people we don't care, and they don't have the power to make us care. This requires unilateralism, which Bush doesn't have. Because Bush doesn't have unilateralism, America is not seen as being ruthless.

Anybody that needs to check with his mommy and his friends before going to the bathroom, ain't someone to be feared. I ain't going to entrust my life and my family's life to the promises of that guy, for sure. And neither will Iraqi, Syrian, nor Iranian in the end.

We can't launch the attack either until we clean up Iraq, putting enough soldiers there to keep whatever troublemakers Iran's planted in line, for otherwise we might lose all we've gained in Iraq in exchange for Iran's WMD program.

Bah.

Iran's 'planted troublemakers' are already doing everything in their power to make Iraq into hell- both for our troops, and the Iraqis.

There are reasons to hit Iran, and reasons not to hit Iran, but that isn't one of them.

As far as the Israelis are concerned, the only way they can pull it off is either by mid-air refueling from USAF tankers somewhere over Iraq, or out-and-out landing and resupplying.

Personally, I'm up for letting them operate off a US airbase in Iraq. There won't be any Iraqis around a USAF flightline, and the Israelis are certainly discreet enough to paint over the big blue Star 'o David to get this job done. As far as the Iraqi government is concerned, Iran is not their friend, and so long as the Israelis aren't totally blatant about it, they can deny it had anything to do with them. It's not like the Israelis don't already have a rep for sneaking through their neighbor's airspace.

So the continuation of such activities was preferable? Do you wish merely wish for the preservation of your country or the preservation of it as something worth defending? How, on a practical level, can we be more ruthless in Iraq? And talking about razing towns and making Muslims keep pigs doesn't count, because you know full well its never going to happen.

There seems to be somewhat of a gap... shall we say. On a practical level, how are we to be more ruthless.... added to being ruthless is not going to happen. Logically, obviously it isn't going to happen cause you ain't ruthless enough. Why would something happen if you weren't willing to DO IT, will God drop in for a Deus Ex Machina?

Very strange. As if the idea of willpower and ruthlessness is understood by some people to be entirely different ideas. I hope people don't think that ruthlessness is about what they think will happen. Ruthlessness is about making things happen that people don't want to happen and don't think will happen. That's the entire idea...

What the coalition did to Fallujah is not the same as what you advocate. The populace was not forcibly removed from the town, they were not provided with alternate accomodation, they were not subject to the same level of scrutiny upon return and, nor were transgressors subject to punishments exploiting their religeous sensibilities. They were merely killed, which is probably a better option.

Without meaning to sound like a fence sitter I don't believe we have a solution to Al-Sadr; he is an Iraqi issue, which they have to deal with him. As a Shia militant and enemy of Saddam Hussain he should be our ally, but how fucked up is it when he's one of our most bitter enemies?

I bet you could find 50 million Americans who would kill every muslim they could find before they would even fake a submission to Islam.

Without meaning to sound like a fence sitter I don't believe we have a solution to Al-Sadr; he is an Iraqi issue, which they have to deal with him. As a Shia militant and enemy of Saddam Hussain he should be our ally, but how fucked up is it when he's one of our most bitter enemies?

Iraq issues are our issues there days- we're trying to build a stable Iraq, and Sadr's busily throwing sand into the gears. That's because Sadr is one of Iran's pet troublemakers I mentioned earlier, and he always has been. Do some research on where he went when Saddam decided he'd had enough of the guy, you'll see.

I say we should kill Sadr, and do it in a way that makes it clear that the same fate awaits Iran's other pet troublemakers, too.

Very insightful post. I recall that my first thought upon hearing about the 9/11 attacks was recalling the phrase "Carthage must be destroyed".

Ros, death in a pizza oven would pay him back for the crimes he has already commited.

"I say we should kill Sadr, and do it in a way that makes it clear that the same fate awaits Iran's other pet troublemakers, too."

As things stand now, I can't see us killing Al-Sadr. We had the chance, or at least the motivation to do it a while back but I think its long gone now.

Syracuse was a democracy. Alcibiades argued succesfully for the invasion as a way to cut off Athen's enemies from their Sicilian breadbasket. Alcibiades jumped ship before the invasion and joined the Spartan side(he returned back to the Athenian side a few years later) Yes Athens would at Amphipolis 8 years later but by 390 BC she an Thebes, an ally of Sparta, formed an effective alliance against Spartan hegemony and together agressively promoted democracy in the Hellenistic world. The battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C., won by the Macedonians under Philip and Alexander, ended the democratization of the Hellenes.
Read Hanson's book, A War Like No Other.

TO: Ymarsakar
RE: Ruthlessness Defined w/Copious Examples

"Ruthlessness simply means doing what you got to do, without hesitation or doubt. Ruthlessness means if you promise to protect an Iraqi family, you are willing, capable, and eager to destroy all and every threat to that family. Including Iraqi bureacrats, including criminals, including Americans breaking the law and victimizing the family, including anything and anyone in any country in the world that is a threat to that family.

If you catch a threat to that family, you execute that threat. You don't kill that threat on the battlefield, you don't detain it, you don't catch and release. You execute, in front of the family, in front of the village elders. You show your will and ruthlessness, and that you are an honorable man who obides by his promises.

That is ruthlessness, American style." -- Ymarsakar

Well stated.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: dave
RE: The Fallujah Example

"What the coalition did to Fallujah is not the same as what you advocate." -- dave

Definitely memory loss issues.

First you asked for an example of where the policy I advocate would be implemented.

I give you that.

Then you claim that the policy I advocate wasn't carried out there.

Where did I say it had been carried out there?

RE: Talk Is Cheap

"Without meaning to sound like a fence sitter I don't believe we have a solution to Al-Sadr; he is an Iraqi issue, which they have to deal with him. As a Shia militant and enemy of Saddam Hussain he should be our ally, but how fucked up is it when he's one of our most bitter enemies?" -- dave

You're not a 'fence sitter'. You just have no policy other than hoping other people will hand the problem for you.

If any rational person would qualify THAT as a 'policy'....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[A lack of planning is no substitute for inaction. -- US Army Staff Puke axiom, of how to do things in the worst possible fashion]

TO: RollCast
RE: Where Were You on 9/11?

"...my first thought upon hearing about the 9/11 attacks was recalling the phrase "Carthage must be destroyed"." -- RollCast

I was at work. I had been at work, in Denver, for three hours, when my associate, who shows up around 8 am, came in and informed me of what she'd heard on the radio during her drive in to work.

My first reaction was, "Sounds like an act of war to ME."

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: dave
RE: Killing al-Sadr

"As things stand now, I can't see us killing Al-Sadr. We had the chance, or at least the motivation to do it a while back but I think its long gone now." -- dave

What makes you think we can't kill him now?

Seriously.....what has he done that makes him impervious to bullets and/or bombs?

Have we failed to find the proper form of kyptonite?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

The three words:

"Kill them all."

It is the same solution proposed by Kurtz in _Heart of Darkness_ and _Apocalypse Now._ No civilized man would desire it, yet our enemies are not civilized. They display the will to act that we do not.

I may be too optimistic, but we are creating many thousands of battle-hardened veterans who will come home to engage in civilian life with none of the anti-military bias and ignorance that characterizes today's thought-leaders. They can't all turn out to be Murthas, can they?

This can't happen soon enough - I am shocked at the childish naivete I see in virtually everyone I know.

I flirted with the Democrats - actually voted for Gore. Never again - Democrats are dangerously stupid and could get us killed and enslaved if they are allowed to gain power. Their behavior at this time is clear indication of their unfitness.

TO: Sherlock
RE: All Murthas

"I may be too optimistic, but we are creating many thousands of battle-hardened veterans who will come home to engage in civilian life with none of the anti-military bias and ignorance that characterizes today's thought-leaders. They can't all turn out to be Murthas, can they?" -- Sherlock

Dollars to donuts?

Not bloody likely.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every man thinks poorly of himself for never having been a soldier or a sailor with hard duty at sea.]

Happy Liberation Day Iraq!

Right now we have over 1,000,000 American men and women who've been to Iraq, know what they saw... and know what the press and Democratic Party has been telling them.

If I was Howard Dean, I wouldn't be looking forward to that.

For what it's worth, here's a relevant passage from William Broad's book The Oracle:
"When the Athenians in 414 BCE laid siege to the city of Syracuse in Sicily, the attack failed and the dejected men prepared to leave. Suddenly, the full moon went dark, a grave omen. When the diviners ruled that the eclipse meant the expedition had to delay its retreat until the next full moon, and the commander agreed, the Syracusans proceeded to pummel, slay, and enslave the weary Athenians. Later, it was easy to assign blame. The military unit's best seer, Stilbides, had died, forcing the commander to rely on second-rate advice." (p. 15)

Point? As long as the US Armed Forces don't get into a sweat over an eclipse, and don't rely on second-rate seers, the relevance of the Athenian misadventure in Syracuse is perhaps not as great as Mr. Simmons imagines.

The advantage the US has over all its current enemies combined is unprecedented in history. With all due respect to Mr. Simmons and VDH, we're in uncharted territory.

Here is a discussion on whether it would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991 or in 2003. The alternate timeline of events is interesting.

My two candidates for the mysterious 'three words' -

1) "I am you."

2) "Second Amendment Repealed"

NO offense really, but you guys sound like little kids playing war. I just hope you don't get my kids killed with your games. Are you planning on growing up any time this century?

Yeah, ever so ruthless. Maybe, Baby Ruthless. That would explain a lot.

TO: kosmo
RE: Kidz

You don't sound old enough to have kids of your own yet, kosmo.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

My surmise at the three words?

Whatever it takes.

Perhaps Steve's guess of Islam delenda est should also be in the running.

Whatever it takes.
That's good.

What it's going to take is a World Cop.

One that has US power, and the moral authority of democracies, only -- commie China NOT; prolly not Russia.

I suggest again a Human Rights Enforcement Group, made up of democracies willing to put human rights of free speech and free religion ahead of "national sovereignty". All the UN members signed on to free religion and protection of their borders -- those states that don't alow free religion should not have their borders respected.

The USA plus India, Australia & Japan should invade and occupy Saudi Arabia, setting up Mecca & Medina as Muslim cities, with no cash from oil. The oil resources should go to pay for the soldiers who enforce human rights.

The three words:

- Sorry, couldn't resist

- F... you, Gramps

- Your novels suck

- See you later

- Solo shot first

- Au revoir, sucker

- No cheese, Gromit!

- Unicorns are cute

- Ontogeny recapitulates philogeny

- P = NP

- Episode III bites

- Ia Cthulhu fthagn

...any more ideas?

Right, let's save the Iraqis by killing as many of them as possible. We could learn a lesson or two from ole Saddam; now there was a guy who knew how to be ruthless...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

TO: A Hermit
RE: A Simple Touch of Reality

"Right, let's save the Iraqis by killing as many of them as possible." -- A Hermit

If that were true, Iraq would be a plain of radioactive glass right now.

So, since it isn't your premise is horribly wrong.

RE: The New Boss

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." -- A Hermit

Do contact us again when the new one starts feeding dissenters through a wood-chipper.....FEET FIRST.

Thanks for playing.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. You can go back to your cave again. But I recommend you get it equipped with a satellite dish so you can keep track of reality a bit better for the next time you come out and play.

I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terrorare your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "

I worry that my son might not understand what I've tried to be.
And if I were to be killed, Willard, I would want someone to go
to my home and tell my son everything. Everything I did, everything
you saw... Because there is nothing I detest more than the stench
of lies. And if you understand me, Willard, you'll do this for me.

"P.S. You can go back to your cave again. But I recommend you get it equipped with a satellite dish so you can keep track of reality a bit better for the next time you come out and play."

I suggest you consider the reality of genocide before taking a superior attitude. "Whatever it takes" given in the context of the admonition of the Athenians and referring to Kurtz' plan to "kill them all" is more than a little chilling.

TO: T.S. Garp
RE: GENOCIDE! He Says

"I suggest you consider the reality of genocide before taking a superior attitude." -- T.S. Garp

Which genocide? The Kurds by Saddam? Or the one in Sudan? Or the Athenians on the Melosians?

US wasn't responsible for any of those.

"...referring to Kurtz' plan to "kill them all" is more than a little chilling." -- T.S. Garp

I don't seem to see anyplace where I supported Kurtz's 'plan'. Maybe I was sleep-blogging. Could you point it out to me where I suggested such?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

My take on the three words: "You're the key."

We know that the writer plays an important role: "You wrote something . . . will soon write something . . . that will put your name, and all your descendents' names, on their list."

We know that the writer is currently "slumbering" but will "wake up" soon.

We know that the three words cause an existential crisis for the writer greater even than the knowledge of his family's fate.

It can only be that the three words are about him, that they place the terrible burden of the future world on his shoulders.

Chuck(les),

I simmply responded to your condescending remark about another poster's comments. The conversation here included what was meant by the words "whatever it takes." While you did not mention support for the kind of solution that Kurtz in Heart of Darkness suggests, but there are indeed many here (including Green himself) who do believe that an approach that includes killing lots of Iraqis (or just Arabs in general) is an acceptable response (turning countries into glass I believe is the phrase). Besides, if I wanted to go after your grasp on reality, I would comment on your opinion that we can manage Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria all at the same time--and all will turn out to be flourishing bastions of American-style democracy!

More three-worders:

- Ayatollahs are sexy

- Windows pwnz OS/X

- UR THE SUX0R

- Remember to floss

- Madonna should retire

- Eat pork products

- I'll be back

- Hava Naguila, baby

...somebody stop me!

TO: T.S. Garp
RE: Responses

"I simmply responded to your condescending remark about another poster's comments." -- T.S. Garp

Fine. But wouldn't it have been more effective to use factual material instead of your blind shotgun blast about genocide?

"The conversation here included what was meant by the words "whatever it takes." -- T.S. Garp

My comments to A Hermit were about his bogus claim regarding killing every Iraqi we could. Sort of like your bogus claim regarding 'genocide'.

"While you did not mention support for the kind of solution that Kurtz in Heart of Darkness suggests, but there are indeed many here (including Green himself) who do believe that an approach that includes killing lots of Iraqis (or just Arabs in general) is an acceptable response (turning countries into glass I believe is the phrase)." -- T.S. Garp

Taking a step closer to reality, here. However, you're not nearly to the point of what I was suggesting.

Keep up the good work. We can work through this together.

"Besides, if I wanted to go after your grasp on reality, I would comment on your opinion that we can manage Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria all at the same time--and all will turn out to be flourishing bastions of American-style democracy!" -- T.S. Garp

We could do that. Especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, not quite yet in Iran or Syria. Maybe in due time.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Another three-worder, based on how TT's grandfather's generation responded to the threat and made TT's future inevitable:

Bread And Circuses.