This could become a huge problem:
The Army appears likely to fall short of its full-year recruiting goal for the first time since 1999, raising longer-term questions about a military embroiled in its first protracted wars since switching from the draft to a volunteer force 32 years ago.
Many young people and their parents have grown more wary of Army service because of the likelihood of being dispatched on combat tours to Iraq or Afghanistan, opinion polls show. U.S. troops are dying at a rate of two a day in Iraq, more than two years after President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended.
The Army says today’s economy offers attractive alternatives to many high school and college graduates.
The recruiting statistics appear to bear that out. Officials said Wednesday that although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350.
The Army said it lowered the May target to “adjust for changing market conditions,” knowing that the difference will have to be made up in the months ahead.
The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February _ each month worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent
And in case you are wondering, this is not the solution (via Pharyngula):
A single mom with a meager income, Marcia raised her kids on the farm where, until recently, she grew salad greens for restaurants.
Axel’s father, a Marine Corps vet who served in Vietnam, died when Axel was 4.
Clearly the recruiters knew all that and more.
“You don’t want to be a burden to your mom,” they told him. “Be a man.” “Make your father proud.” Never mind that, because of his own experience in the service, Marcia says enlistment for his son is the last thing Axel’s dad would have wanted.
The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.
Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, “Not interested,” the sarge turned surly, snapping, “You’re making a big (bleeping) mistake!”
Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the door.
Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, “Not interested,” the sarge turned surly, snapping, “You’re making a big (bleeping) mistake!”
Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.
I can’t verify that story other than the link provided, but, if it is true, that is a problem itself- and not the solution to a recruiting shortfall.
synuclein
Hey John,
I also caught that story about the Marine recruiter and Axel in a column on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website and set up a diary about it on Daily Kos. I’ve gotten some interesting comments from someone who indicated he’s an Army recruiter and that this Marine might be setting himself up for a court martial (if it ever gets that far).
Brad R.
I know we disagree about the wisdom of the Iraq war, but I really think it’s a major factor in the fall in recruitment.
The problem is not a military one, it’s a political one (and even if it were a military problem, I’m in no position to be an armchair general).
A lot of people simply don’t understand why we’re fighting this war. The most recent ABC News/WaPo poll pretty much confirms this. (And please, kids, do not send me links of Powerline and friends “debunking” the poll, I have enough of a headache.)
The lack of WMD in Iraq has really hurt Bush’s credibility. Regardless of whether he “lied” about Iraq’s weapons capabilities, it was the lynchpin in his case for war in Iraq. Yes, Bush mentioned promoting democracy as a reason for taking out Saddam, but that alone would not have been sufficient to warrant a war. (Troll repellent: yes, it’s good that Saddam is gone. No, I don’t hate freedom.)
The question is, “What do we do about it?” On good conscience, we can’t just pack up and leave Iraq without a stable government in place- that’s just begging for a Khmer Rouge-esque disaster. At the same time, from a political perspective, we can’t just stay there without any end in sight- we need definitive benchmarks to signal when we can start bringing the troops home (not the mention the fact that if we need a large military force to address some future threat, we’re gonna need all the help we can get).
I welcome any ideas.
Kimmitt
We’re going to leave anyway, so it may as well be now.
Oliver
Man, I can’t figure out why kids won’t sign up to be mulched up in a desert somewhere for no reason. The mind boggles.
ppgaz
Kimmit, I’m afraid the answer is, we are stuck there. Colin Powell was right, if he said to Bush, as Woodward (I think) reported: You are going to own the place. Whether we should have gone in there or not (I didn’t think we should 13 years ago, or 3 years ago, or now), is another matter. The most we can hope for in that regard is to hold the potatoheads accountable.
But there we are, there. And we owe it to the people of Iraq and Middle East and just about everywhere to stay until we can leave behind something stable and sane, if we can. My hunch is that this is going to take a hell of a long time, and cost a lot more lives and money, but we have no choice.
As long as we are not staying for some phony idea of “honor” (See: Nixon, Kissinger, and Vietnam). I feel sick when I see the names on the wall that are there for the “honor” of those jackasses.
But in Iraq, we have a different problem set. Pulling out and leaving a destabilized time bomb behind would just be a gross disaster.
Impeach Bush on the basis of the Downing Street memo, and subject him to public scorn and ridicule for what he did. But we own Iraq right now and we can’t just walk away from it. It would be neither prudent, nor right.
What worries me at this point is how these crackheads are going to manage this mess for the next three years. I don’t think we’ve seen the depths of their incompetance just yet.
Jon H
I think it might have been better if we’d split the country into three.
Instead of having one big pie, there’d be three smaller pies. With each group having a pie reserved for itself, members would be inclined to focus on their own pie and not meddle with the others. And each group would want to work hard to, shall we say, “make the pie higher”.
With three groups set up to build and defend their pies, each group might have been more motivated to resist outside interference such as the insurgents.
Corruption would be on a smaller scale, because people would have control over less territory.
The three states could probably be persuaded to control their borders carefully, because they’d be able to set duties and tariffs on imports and exports. That’d help control smuggling (or at least monitor it.)
Sectarian and ethnic violence would probably be reduced because people would have a safe haven to move to, if their neighbors got unfriendly. At present, each ethnic group can spread chaos wherever it pleases, so there isn’t really anywhere safe.
If we could have set up a Kurdish state in the north, we probably could have left them to manage their own affairs, for the most part. Any insurgent attacks there, after we left, would look extra bad.
Then we’d be able to focus our troops on the other two territories.
I can’t help but think such a divide-and-conquer approach would have been better given our limited troop strength.
I wonder if it’d be too late to start over this way, from scratch?
SamAm
ppgaz-
I have had sentiment similar to yours for some time now, but I now believe it’s too optimistic. The only way the Iraq situation can be resolved in our favor is if an Iraqi Army loyal to nation and not section is able to assume the vast majority of security duties. Secondly, the Sunnis have to be brought into the new Iraq on footing equal to the Shia and Kurds, which means there will have to be a meaninful political settlement widely accepted by that group.
I don’t see how either of those happen. I know the progress of the Iraqi Army is one of the (relative) bright spots, but while they may be moving forward, I see little indication they’re doing so quickly enough, or will. And the question of the army’s loyalty to either the Shia or Kurds is an open , unresolved question. Regarding the political question, with sectarian violence on the uptick, and the national government oficialy backing Shia militas for the first time, the chances for a peace settlement seems to grow slimmer. If the Sunnis cannot see themselves as part of the Iraqi political process (and they’ve certainly contributed to that impasse, to say the least, but not exclusivly) they’ll just continue to fight.
Ever present through all this is the time question; how long can the US military effectively maintain current force levels. I read somewhere, don’t know that this is accurate, but that NCO corps tend to break down around their soldiers’ 4th wartime TODs, which are already upon some soldiers, and will doubtless be the norm shortly. The recruiting numbers are a bigger concern. Political support for the war isn’t going to come back unless there are genuine breakthroughs, but in the entire occupation, has there been a single meaningful one in relation to defeating the insurgency (perhaps it’s too soon to say in reference to the elections)? With declining public suppport hardening, recruiting will not bounce back. So, it truly seems to be a matter of when, not if the US runs out of soldiers. When one considers even that even the Marines are falling short (albeit by a little) in recruiting, it’s hard to see what hope there is for the regular Army, not to mention the Reseves and National Guard.
Can the situation stabilize and improve vis a vis the Iraqi forces and a political settlement before the US military starts breaking down? It seems to me that is an unlikely enough outcome as to make it not worth the risk if it does not. For that reason, I’m of the opinion the US should set a timetable for orderly withdrawl, at the same time working for a political solution with the Sunnis (who know they rely, at least in part, on the US keeping them from being set upon by the Shia and Kurds) and throwing every possible resource at training Iraqi units. If we do that, I really don’t even care that Bush would call it a victory. It would save America, our society and out military from damage and recriminations that, no matter how much the fault of the idiots in power, we are better off not going through.
KC
What I’m waiting for is when the cost of this war really starts to hit us. It’s difficult for me to believe that we can run massive deficits, cut massive taxes, and have a war without facing some financial consequences. I’ve run through the gamut of emotions on this war, sort of for, sort of against, but now I’m pretty much feeling like it was a waste of time, lives, and money. When we pull out, when it comes time to pay the bills, I think everyone is going to wonder what the hell happened (Especially after finding no weapons, the revelation of Downing Street, and the general deceptive–yes I’ve come to realize deceptive is the right word–tendencies of this administration.).
p.lukasiak
It is posssible to leave Iraq without creating complete chaos — but its impossible to achieve as long as Bush is running the USA. The key is support of the international community, especially other nations in the MidEast — but with Bush in the White House, that support will not be forthcoming.
The first step would be to admit that the decision to invade was completely wrong. The international community knows that if it helps “fix” the Iraq problem, the Bush regime will consider that an affirmation of the correctness of its policies, and pursue further agression.
The second step would be to demonstrate that the admission of error was not merely words, by changing a host of positions on international issues. Acceptance of the ICC, Kyoto, withdrawing Bolton as nominee for UN ambassador, etc. are necessary to demonstrate to the world that the US is sincere in its efforts to work with the international community on issues of concern to the international community.
The third step would be to stop sabre-rattling toward Syria and Iran. As long as these nations remain on the Bush regime “hit list”, it is not in their interest to see the Iraq situation become stabilized — and they will operate in their own best interests.
Bush, by his very nature, is incapable of admitting mistakes, and feels that international support for whatever he does is his birthright. The people that Bush has surrounded himself with are dedicated to a world-view that is contemptuous of an internationalist approach, which is a reflection of Bush’s own sense of absolute entitlement.
In other words, it would be virtually impossible for Bush to take the necessary steps, because it would require him to change his character, and purge the government of the people he has relied upon for advice. We are therefore stuck in Iraq for as long as Bush remains in the White House…
Pug
If Bush, Rumsfeld & Co. aren’t careful one of their lasting legacies wil be the trashing of the mighty US military.
The dearth of new recruits for the Army is the first sign. The National Guard can’t be doing much better. This inability to get kids to sign up is a looming disaster for the armed forces.
I supported the original invasion of Iraq, but I sure have been disappointed that none of the justifications have turned out to be true and it has come down to our kids dying for somebody else’s “freedom”.
The irony is the Shiites rose up against Saddam after the Gulf War and the first Bush sat back and allowed them to be slaughtered. They were willing to fight for themselves and we didn’t help them at all. Disgraceful as the Bay of Pigs and nobody said much about it.
Jay C
“Axel was whisked away in a car”
John, do you have/are you going to follow-up for this “report”? It sounds more like a revival of the old British “press gang” system for Royal Navy recruitment – at least back then, the luckless conscript could at least get a decent drunk on before waking up “enlisted”. If this is how today’s Armed Services are going about their recruiting, we’re in WAY bigger trouble than we think!
That said, this story just seems too anecdotal, IMO, to be seriously credible – anyone else having trouble with this?
Shawn
There’s an interesting article in the Army Times, another case of hiding bad news?
DoD assumes responsibility
for releasing recruiting stats
Pug
OK, problem solved.
Just don’t announce the numbers. Such an elegantly simple solution, really.
Tim F
It’s hard to believe that all those pleas from Bush and the Fox pundits and the warbloggers for their followers to enlist to fight this war that they supported had no effect at all.
Wait, they didn’t do that. Even today not a single influential (chicken)hawk has encouraged his or her minions to sign up for their great and glorious war. It’s like they think they’re fighting with GI Joe figures or something.
Considering that the loudest wardroolers collectively never served in anything more challenging that the Boy Scouts, maybe that’s accurate.
BumperStickerist
echoing the disbelief about the ‘whisked away in a car’ comment ….
c’mon.
The ‘kid’ is an 18 year old community college student, not some 12 year old. and there were other adults in the room when this happened.
Taken to Seattle, put in a motel, awakened at 0330 ….?
After, apparently, having previously participated in a ‘cool chin-up contest’ in pursuit of an xBox … during which the Marines refused to let him leave.
read the whole article, John —
“sprung him from the recruiting center on a ruse?”
— “Even if your kids actually may want to join the military, if they hope to do it on their own terms, after a deep breath and due consideration, repeat these words after them: “No,” “Not now” and “Back off!” —
Ummmmm …. yeah.
I suppose it didn’t occur to Moms to just tell the kid after the first call – look, just tell them ‘no’ – call the cops if they come back.
Color me skeptical that there’s a larger point to this particular recruiting story.
I don’t doubt that recruiters lie to recruits – mine didn’t, but people I served with were told other-than-completely truthful things about their enlistments.
My hunch is that this story is going to go the way of the ‘John Bolton Chased Me Through the Halls!’ story.
Much as that one is now “My feeling was that John Bolton was coming over to talk to me but doing so in an manner I felt was aggressive’
Personally, I feel sorry for the kid, errr … adult.
If he is fucking stupid enough to allow himself to be slowly shanghai’d into the Marine Corps, then just wait until the Amway people get ahold of him.
gratefulcub
John H,
Impossible to split Iraq into three smaller states. There are no dividing sectarian lines. The MSM talks about the Shia south, Kurdish North, and Sunni Triangle. In reality, that is just them dumbing it down for us. Take Baghdad for example, it is ethnically and tribally diverse as the country as a whole.
Creating three states and allowing everyone to move to
Compuglobalhypermeganet
If anyone takes this “whisked away in a car” story as anything but propagandist fiction, I have two tickets to tonight’s NBA Finals game in Detroit to sell you…
Tim F
If only Jonah Goldberg’s readers would listen to his requests and enlist…
We’re in this recruiting mess because the right-wing thought they could win this war with the existing army and no more. That is clearly no longer true. Problem is, if the warmongers started asking people to enlist now it would be tantamount to admitting they were wrong. Based on the always-reliable Rightwing Infallibility Complex you can be sure that they’ll keep on denying that there’s a problem until we’re forced to draw down troops dramatically. Then, surprise!, NRO will the place to go for stabbed-in-the-back theories.
Barry
“The dearth of new recruits for the Army is the first sign. The National Guard can’t be doing much better. This inability to get kids to sign up is a looming disaster for the armed forces.”
From everything I’ve heard, the (Army) NG/Reserves are trashed. They aren’t getting their normal inflow of people leaving active duty, due to stop-loss and unwillingness to sign up for another tour of Iraq. The people who don’t mind doing a year of active duty, probably in Iraq, are tending to go into the Active Army. Many others aren’t enlisting, because a year every other year is too much. Still others are getting out if they can, before they get an 18 month stop-loss for an Iraq tour.
Aaron
I suspect if the international community had insisted we keep Yugoslavia as a functioning nation-state, we’d be having our hands full in Serbia.
More and more I wonder if breaking Iraq up would have been a smarter move.
Gratefulcub
We have no right to break up the nation! It is a sovereign nation. Plus, as I mentioned before, it isn’t feasible.
Tim F
Iraq can’t be divided geographically. Would Kirkuk go to the Kurds? The Turkmen who constitute a substaintial portion of the population? The Arabs who Saddam shipped north in an effort to reproduce Soviet relocation policies? Whatever the yanks decided you could guarantee a bloody civil war over choice real estate like Kirkuk and its surrounding oil fields.
To whom would Baghdad, a truly cosmopolitan city, go? Intermarrying has further blurred secratian lines.
Iraq isn’t Serbia and sorry to break it to you, but Bush isn’t Clinton.
gratefulcub
And all Iraqi leaders, from government officials to religious leaders, have consistently stated that they do not want a splintered Iraq. Many nations in the region have not become nationalistic. There was support for Nasser
Rick
We’re in this recruiting mess because the right-wing thought they could win this war with the existing army and no more. That is clearly no longer true.
This war was won with, I believe, only three divisions. It was in all the papers. Even the NYT.
Cordially…
Gratefulcub
The Iraqi war plan was for the Republican Guard to dissolve, and then fight a geurilla war. It seems to be exactly what is happening. I know the ‘Mission was Accomplished’ but I don’t think we can say the war is over. The war was not won, we captured baghdad, but today we don’t have control of it. The war rages on, regardless what the papers say.
Cullen
“The war was won with, I believe, only three divisions. It was in all the papers, even the NYT.”
Really? Define “won.”
Tim F
Rick reminds me of a certain fellow I had the pleasure of head-butting on some other forum way back when. Went by ‘Ricky’ then. Had an air of detached, hostile snarkiness. As far as trolls go the guy was a jedi master. No relation, right?
Rick
“Won.” Well, lessee…the insurgents–excuse me, the Minute Men–control no turf other than that on which they stand, no population center, damned little domestic support, no armor, aviation or heavy weaponry, and their Dear Leader, the would-be Saladin, has appeared in his skivvies in a Brit newspaper. “Mission Accomplished.”
Meanwhile, our Navy has resumed normal, global missions rather than maintaining a combat presence in the Gulf, and our strategic bombers appear to be doing duty at air shows, if at all.
Credit where it’s due: the Arabs and Islamists are very experienced bomb-makers, as the Israelis will attest.
So the victory was ours, quickly and cheaply. Pacification is going slowly in the Sunni “triangle,” but rather briskly in the Shiite and Kurd areas.
Cordially…
TimF: Troll? Nah. In fact, I’ll claim squatters rights here, as I go back some years. Back to when Andrew J. Lazarus was about the only leftwinger sharing his findings with the Juicers.
gratefulcub
“Won.” Well, lessee…the insurgents–excuse me, the Minute Men–control no turf other than that on which they stand, no population center, damned little domestic support, no armor, aviation or heavy weaponry, and their Dear Leader, the would-be Saladin, has appeared in his skivvies in a Brit newspaper. “Mission Accomplished.”
-In the words of your Dear Leader, “This is a different kind of war”. Controlling turf is not important. They have plenty of turf they can disappear and hide in.
-no domestic support is laughable. We have lost the ‘hearts and minds’ to the point that our Dear Leader doesn’t even utter the words anymore.
-They have no leader, not Saddam, not Zarquawi. There are plenty of local leaders. Capturing Saddam did nothing to the insurgency, capturing Zarquawi won’t either.
Navy and bombers
-Can’t fight insurgents with jets and warships. We tried, we killed a bunch of civilians (collateral damage). Now the population holds it against us.
The Shia and Kurdish area
-If you think pacification is going well there, you must be getting the happy news that the MSM refuses to show. They aren’t fighting us at this point, but that is because they have their eyes on a bigger prize. They need us to fend off the Sunni insurgency until they can get their own militias together to accomplish their goals.
The war is not over. The military did a fantastic job of going in and capturing Baghdad, and they have done everything they could in the aftermath. But there were too few of them for the pacification.
i would call it occupation, and so would you if the Soviets occupied Afghanistan. And more importantly, that is the way the Iraqis and everyone else in the world sees it.
Gratefulcub
Just to clarify……yes, there were too few troops for the pacification/occupation phase. But, that still isn’t the problem. More troops then would not have changed the outcome, and more troops now won’t save the situation.
Sojourner
“Won”?
That’s pretty funny. How come Bush, Condi et al. have to sneak into Iraq rather than announcing their arrivals with great fanfare?
How come it’s too dangerous for reporters to move around in Iraq?
Interesting definition of “won.”
John Cole
Everyone lay off Rick- we don;t have enough Republicans here as it is since I chased most of the true believers off by going to the dark side since Schiavo.
I don’t care if Rick and I disagree on everything, I don’t want this site turning into groupthink central.
Rick
Occupation follows victory. Short of victory, the ground is “rear echelon.”
The Shia and Kurds big prize is a say in the government–a stake, at last– of their nation. Even portly Mullah Jerry Faldobertson al Sadr-but-Wiser seems to have wised up on that score.
And, as a Goldbergian Commando, mind-controlled by the EIB, I sincerely hope the instability we brought to the region is felt in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran. Looks good to date.
Cordially…
Cullen
I see. I guess we have this one pretty much wrapped up then; “in its last throes” as it were. Sadaam in skivvies, and all is right with the world. I hear our casualty rate is worse than its ever been, including during our victory with the three divisions, but I bet that’s just some more propaganda from the leftist media. They’ve always wanted us to lose anyway, so we’ll just edit out from their news accounts any troublesome facts. Hell, we’ve gotten pretty good at that in the last few years. Even better, now that we’ve won we won’t need any more troops over there. That’s really great because for some reason we don’t seem to have any.
To paraphrase a wonderful quote about the second worst president we ever had and apply it to the vp of our worst one, “Dick Cheney before he dicks you.”
Pug
The whisked away story is an antecdote and any JC reasoning class will teach you antecdotes prove nothing.
The larger point is the shortfall in recruits. That isn’t fiction. It’s going to be tugh to fight a war if our guys don’t show up.
Cullen
John – sorry, it’s your site, but when someone throws out such an elastic definition for “won,” he must expect a flurry of snap-back responses.
Darrell
Gratefulcub wrote: We didn
Rick
Snap-back? It thought I was being tickled by ostrich feathers.
Those keeping their heads in the sand have lots and lots.
Cordially…
P.S. John, thanks for chivalrously offering the shelter of your manly Mountaineer skirt, but since I’m disputing you again in your latest posting, you may want to gather it up, instead. ;)
Cullen
Yo Darrell, our presence in Iraq is routinely called “occupation” by people across the political spectrum. See Cordially, Rick above.
gratefulcub
I second that opinion John. Don
Cullen
And you know what I saw down there? Bunkers.
Kimmitt
While oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia after WWI (according to the Wikipedia), apparently it was known to be in Iraq by the start of the war. In addition, Iraqi oil appears to have been a major part of the discussions during the partition.
(Iranian oil was discovered in 08; Iran was not part of the Ottoman empire, but overall, there was known to be petroleum in that part of the world during the period before WWI.)
Most of the rest of Middle Eastern oil appears to have been discovered since then. But I think her larger point — that it was oil, not tribal boundaries, which led to the formation of Iraq from the pieces of the Ottoman Empire — has a lot of validity.
Logic and facts have no place in their worldview
I’m as big a fan of the polemic as the next guy, but you gotta check your facts before saying stuff like this, man.
Darrell
Yo Cullen, is our occupation in Iraq analagous with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as claimed by some of this thread? I would think that comparison in particular merits the poster to be a scumbag, wouldn’t you agree?
gratefulcub
Compared but didn
Darrell
Kimmitt, please show me where in your links it says oil was discovered in Iraq before WWI? Oh that’s right, oil wasn’t discovered until 1927 with little idea as to the scope of the oil in Iraq until well into the 1930’s. Same with Kuwait and other Ottoman countries in the region. Not divided by oil fields. A 100% bullshit claim
I’ve got my facts straight. It seems your side is the one that needs to buy a clue.
Cullen
Darrell, I hesitate to use the SB adjective for anyone, but I agree that the Afghanistan analogy is inaccurate on a number of levels. But the fact remains that both involved invasions, whatever their motive and their aftermath.
Darrell
That’s right gratefulcub, I am in fact claiming there is a big f*cking difference between the US liberating Iraq and the Soviets invading Afghanistan or Eastern Europe for that matter in order to murder, control and exploit those nations.
You are such a typical leftist, trying to advance the idea that the US is no better than the murderous Soviet regime.
“Why is it when we do it it’s liberation, but when Hitler did it, it was for their own good?”
Like I said before, you can’t reason with this mentality.
gratefulcub
Scumbag? Wow.
It is not analogous. We come up short sometimes, as all in a war or occupation do, but we attempt to be humane, fair, and for lack of a better word
Jon H
gratefulcub writes: “Impossible to split Iraq into three smaller states. There are no dividing sectarian lines. The MSM talks about the Shia south, Kurdish North, and Sunni Triangle. In reality, that is just them dumbing it down for us. Take Baghdad for example, it is ethnically and tribally diverse as the country as a whole.”
Oh, I agree. What I’d hope to see is that the divisions would be drawn so that the ethnic orgnization would suggest itself, but would not be codified as law.
My main desire would be to subdivide the country into sovereign states with their own interests, in order to change the dynamics.
A scheme guided by ethnicity would probably be the best way to do that. There’s going to be friction no matter what, might as well set things up to act in our favor.
The oil is a problem, perhaps the best thing to do would be to just make that neutral territory in control of a neutral organization, and divide the revenue up evenly between the three Iraqi sub-states.
Maybe a corporation could be set up as the owner/custodian of the oil resources, with shares divided up equally between the three Iraqi sub-states. It could then auction off a limited-term royalty-based license to work the fields, and distribute the annual revenues between the three owning states.
Darrell
gratefulcub, when you compare the US liberation of Iraq to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and then follow that comparison up with “why is it when we invade, it’s liberation..”, yes, with such a ridiculous, and yes, unpatriotic comparison, you are going to get a reaction
Unlike the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US does not seek to control or dominate Iraq. In fact, we want the Iraqis to be self-sufficient as soon as possible. I think it’s difficult for many on the left to admit that overall, America is the good guy. Hence, the outrageous comparisons
gratefulcub
Jon
You make an excellent set of points. If we could divide these groups and spread the wealth and power equally, it would probably be for the best. I still contend that the groups would not negotiate the fair shares though. I think that it would result in major loss of life.
And, the ethnic and tribal lines are so blurry at this point that I don
Cullen
To turn that around a bit, Darrell, many on the right find it difficult to admit that America screws up sometime. It is healthy, important, and yes, patriotic to acknowledge that so that we can correct the problem and resume the wonderful experiment that gratefulcub so eloquently described.
gratefulcub
Well, here is all the ammo you will need to finish me off. I don
Darrell
Cullen, no one ever said we shouldn’t acknowledge or point out problems. I disagree that those on the right have that problem to any significant degree.. but that’s just my opinion.
What crosses the line, however, is an attitude on much of the left which NEVER, EVER gives the benefit of the doubt to America..seizing every opportunity to slam or criticize, even when the facts are shaky or nonexistant. Then others take it a step further comparing Bush with Hitler, terrorists with minutemen, ‘US is the real terrorist nation’, and in the case today, comparing US actions in Iraq with murderous Soviet aggression. Unfair, uncalled for, and unpatriotic
Cullen
Darrell, again, just use the same criteria for those on the right who NEVER, EVER acknowledge that we have made mistakes, some quite tragic and damaging, and call anyone who spells those out a traitor. You know who they are.
Darrell
No Cullen, I don’t. Please show us equivalent examples on the right of not acknowledging mistakes, which in any way compares to the left’s Bush=Hitler, America-Is-the-real terrorist, nothing-but-a-Quagmire, worldview.
I don’t believe both sides are equally guilty here. I think one side has demonstrably gone over the deep end
Cullen
Two words: Ann Coulter.
gratefulcub
Darrel
I know exactly where you are coming from. There are people that think we are always in the wrong, and believe it or not, I am not one of them. I crossed a line comparing us to the Soviets, partially for a reaction and to steer the conversation in the direction that it went. I used fiery rhetoric and analogies for an over the top effect. I do not compare the Iraq war with the 10 year occupation of Afghanistan. But I did want to make the point that while we aren
Darrell
gratefulcub, ok fine. You want to criticize past US military interventions in Central America or whereever, fair enough. Mistakes have been made and to some extent it’s good to reexamine what we did right and what we did wrong. But too many on the left make such criticisms of the US, ignoring the context of the those times. For example, most of our prior military interventions were in the context of a bitter cold war struggle with the Soviets their satellites. In Central A. and elsewhere the Soviets and Cubans were actively trying establish more footholds. It’s the lack of context and even-handedness which pisses me off about much of the left’s criticisms of the US. The left tends to make sweeping 1 sided criticisms of the US without perspective or facts. I’m not looking to cover wrongdoings, but unfair unbalanced criticisms amount to nothing but smears in my opinion
Rick
Darrell,
But remember: Cuba has universal health care, and total literacy. Its regime meets with certain approval.
Cordially…
Jon H
Darrell writes: “Unlike the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US does not seek to control or dominate Iraq”
But we do want a bunch of big permanent bases, and a huge embassy which will probably be a massive SIGINT base.
Those things are, no doubt, highly suggestive to the Iraqis that their government will serve at the US’s whim.
Regardless of what is actually intended.
Rick
But we do want a bunch of big permanent bases, and a huge embassy which will probably be a massive SIGINT base.
Jon H,
Then why are the Germans so intractable? Same setup, including no exit plan for our overstretched military.
Cordially…
Sojourner
“Please show us equivalent examples on the right of not acknowledging mistakes, which in any way compares to the left’s Bush=Hitler, America-Is-the-real terrorist, nothing-but-a-Quagmire, worldview.”
Oh, this one’s easy. Bush and Cheney, the you’re-with-us-or-you’re-against-us twins. These boys claimed that those of us who do not support them are unpatriotic and aiding the enemy. I consider that a pretty substantial slur against me and millions of my fellow citizens.
And how many mistakes have these boys admitted to? Hold on a moment. Let me count. Um, none.
One other point, Darrell. Never confuse criticisms of the government with criticisms of the country. Frankly, I have a difficult time thinking of a single good thing the current administration has done. But challenging the government is not unpatriotic and does not mean that someone hates this country.
That’s what the right-wingers want people to believe but it’s bullshit.
ppgaz
Won?
1. What did we win?
2. The “coalition” can’t even control a 2-mile stretch of road to the airport
3. The country is out of control
4. Chart the KIA rate since the “Mission Accomplished” tv show
The “coalition” slid easily into the country two years ago against opposition that couldn’t have stopped any invader. The big, bad Hussein regime with all its purported threats and weapons just disappeared into the landscape.
Nobody in Washington had any idea what they would do with this car once the dog caught it. And as near as I can tell, they still don’t to this day.
However, the situation today is worse than it was two years ago. We have no idea when we can have our military back, or how much it will cost before we reach that day. Our citizens are turning more and more unhappy with the situation. Recruiting is in the toilet. Iraq is about one notch and a half short of civil war.
As I said earlier, we can’t pack up and leave. We’re stuck.
But the worst effect, IMV, is that this ill advised, ill-planned and dishonestly sold adventure is sucking all the air out of our own politics and our own government.
Make your own list of the very large problems that pose real threats to the health and safety of this country and its citizens, and the compare and contrast to the nonsense you see going on in Washington D.C. and ask yourself if you are dreaming.
The Capital Gang is fighting over whether a nominee is pro-choice, and preaching to you about Defense of Marriage — against a strawman. The Capital Gang is spending money like a dentist’s wife with a new credit card, and steering the country directly toward a fiscal train wreck of gigantic proportions.
The mess in Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. It affects the whole world, and its citizens. Like Colin Powell said, we bought it, and we own it. Congratulations.
What was it we “won”, again?
Rick
ppgaz,
Lemme help you.
Don’t say I’m not a compassionate conservative. ;)
Cordially…
Rick
Darn caps lock!
Rick
John,
Just a little update on your last example: http://media.nationalreview.com/065818.asp
Let’s await more details.
But the media (outside of the Washington Times) just couldn’t possibly flub anything, right?
Cordially…