Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Whenever it seems impossible, our nation's most revered war cheerleaders find new ways to descend even lower on the wrongness scale.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • Now Afghanistan...

    DanielGree... Saddem (sic) was deposed in about three weeks, an amazing feat.

    That was an amazing feat. It's just too bad the dropped the ball and totally fucked it up by going into Iraq.

  • Don't copy me, Bucky

    What was so amazing?

    Amazing feat my ass.

    -- bucky1

    Knock that off.

  • Kagan's definition of civil war

    Iraq is home to a number of different religious

    groups and ethnicities, and the boundaries between

    any of them can become flashpoints in the context of

    rampant violence. But only two such boundaries

    threaten Iraqi society existentially—the boundary

    between Shia and Sunni Arabs and the boundary

    between Arabs and Kurds.

    snip

    That civil war is now over.-----Iraq: the way ahead:p.6

    When Kagan defines civil war, he appears to be talking about conflict among these three groups-Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The current violence appears to be Shia on Shia, and Kagan might defend his statement by saying that this is not what he was talking about, and that the current violence doesn't represent an "existential threat" to Iraq.

    I doubt civil war is over in Iraq (using his definition), and I'm not sure that Shia on Shia conflict isn't an existential threat to Iraq, but I don't see where current violence proves him wrong per se.

  • casual_observer

    I doubt civil war is over in Iraq (using his definition), and I'm not sure that Shia on Shia conflict isn't an existential threat to Iraq, but I don't see where current violence proves him wrong per se.

    So there's some legitimate definition of "civil war" that excludes government forces waging war against domestic militias for control over key cities -- just as long as the forces are the same ethnicity and religion? I'd love for someone to find a definition of "civil war" that excludes that. By that standard, America never had a civil war.

  • @Silash

    Even if I am right about Kagan describing the Shia/Sunni conflict

    Neither you or Kagan are in a position to know anything about the region or the situation. Neither of you are Arabic speakers, nor have you ever spent any time in the region. Nobody who had these skills and and expertise, other than Iraqi National Congress types like Ahmed Chalabi, an Iranian asset, would have considered embarking on this clusterfuck. It only served the purposes of Iran.

  • Silash

    Seems to be stretching an argument that is basically reasonable. In fact, this is exactly how Kagan will probably defend himself. Wielding logic like a blunt instrument, it works, as long as you parse out the nomenclature and divorce ALL of the turf wars going on in Iraq to simply a generic sunni vs. shia fight. Under those terms, no one has proved that THE civil war hasn't ended. Kagan could--and probably will--argue as much.

    My only point is. This is way too much tempest for such a finely filtered tea. Silash, actually, AGREES with Glenn.

  • GG

    I'm not defending his definition of what civil war is. My understanding is that not only Iraqi security forces are fighting, but the Badr Brigade as well, both against the Sadrists. All Shia. But, if I read him right on page 6 of his study, that is his definition.

  • I was looking at that the other day

    By that standard, America never had a civil war.

    -- GlennGreenwald

    The definition of Civil war at Wiki. Some people argue that our civil war was actually a rebellion that was put down and not a legitimate case of civil war.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

  • most cynical war ...

    "So?" -- ondelette

    Hell, I could type a long list like yours, and you are old enough to remember most of the various things. I remember the domino theory before that mean pizza delivered. I remember the war in Cambodia that did not exist; and had a family member who was 'not there' in military intelligence who was his mother's third and last son in the war zone. Ah, but he was not there so no law was broken.

    The biggest thing I remember was that we were fighting for our very way of life against a nation of rice farmers and we killed a million of them before we tired of the bloodshed. I knew men who dropped the napalm on women and children even as the nation pretended that My Lai was an extraordinary event that had no parallel in the rest of the war.

    Oh, I think the cynicism was as great; and one could argue greater.

    One does not need to, as both are moral disasters beyond our ability to fully comprehend. But think for a moment; what if Truman has ended WWII without using nukes and we had not started the cold war. What if we had left Korea and Vietnam alone and treated the world as we did Europe?

    Time will not let us go back, but at some point we will see that cooperation beats the hell out of force and violence.

    I'll let you have the last word as I must go now.

  • Three weeks

    Wait a minute. Is all the time the US spent dropping leaflets on the Iraquis warning them of the coming invasion, and encouraging them to lay down their weapons when they meet US troops, counted in the "three weeks"? Cause that's an act of war, in any book.

    Danielgre, my wife's not feeling well and I won't be posting, and I don't feel like being irritable. Listen pal, just do yourself a favor and maybe not post and actually read the posts and the comments. There's no need for you to get chewed to ribbons, rhetorically and intellectually, and you ain't got what it takes to go out any other way. Save yourself some embarrassment. Shit, I'd try to run interference for you if I could be here but I can't.

    You arouse sympathy, really "amazing feat"

    Dan, tell your feats to do their stuff.

  • History repeats itself ad-nauseum

    Traditional military tactics don't work very well against guerrillas. We proved that in Vietnam, and we've spent five years proving it again in Iraq. The Russians spent about ten years proving it in Afghanistan.-- Alkaline

    Especially guerillas that are motivated by more than a chance to make a few bucks. Iraqi government forces and "pro"-American forces fight as long as they are paid. Anti-government forces fight for blood revenge, their beliefs, their honor, and for Allah. They are personally committed enemies with long memories and patience over generations. The "surge" to them is just a cloud passing overhead on an otherwise clear night.

    This was all predictable and ignored. I think we like the flavor of war.