Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?

[Gilgamar]

Originally posted by Grantref
I find it an absurd notion that the U.S. has the will to see this through. As a nation we have no stomach for causalties of our own citizens. The only reason Bush was able to get people to go along with this is because they insinuated that this would be a brief, easy, low-causalties operation.

You're joking. Right?

First off, we don't like to see American Casualties. But no country likes to see it's sons and daughters die. Luckily however we have a military that is trained and willing to die not only for ourselves (America) but also for the greater good of other countries (Iraq for instance). Anyone who doesn't believe this should sit down with a group of American sailors, soldiers airmen or marines and ask them what drives them. Why they do what they do.

Secondly, Bush did NOT insinuate that it would be over quickly. at the start of everything he specificly said that it would be a long, drawn out process that will take time, commitment and perseverance. It would not end in a day, a wek, a month or even a year. It would be an ongoing process that would likely take many years to effectively stabilize Iraq and be able to turn it over entirely to it's own people.

[Kharum]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Kharum, it wouldn't matter who was President and it wouldn't matter what country was there.

I'm not sure what your point here is. No one has said it is a matter of who is President.

That's why I asked, because unless you actually want us to fail, your criticisms are misplaced.

What is your reasoning here? By what twisted feat of logic do you arrive at the conclusion that feeling the need to offer criticism is to be equated with desiring to see failure? If you observe someone performing a task and you would like to see that task concluded with the best results possible but the person is not performing the task in such a way that will achieve those results, then it would not be inappropriate to offer suggestions and even criticism, particularly if that person had already been informed that his particular method might not represent the best choice available.

Now is a time to be positive, not negative. The surest way for us to fail is for the US to get into a rush because whiners, Bush haters, and biased media want to portray everything as a failure.

Again, what is your point? No one was arguing that we should rush the job. I suggested that the US needs to reconsider the current course it is following but, just in case you weren't aware, pulling out of Iraq is hardly the only alternative to pursuing the current course. That said, the US really needs to consider whether or not it truly has the will to bring not only democracy, but a stable democracy to Iraq. Will involves more than shaking pom-poms and shouting, "All the way, USA!" If you want to preach about will, you should take it to the Administration and Congress. If the effort in Iraq fails it is not going to be the result of whiners, Bush haters and a biased media, it is going to be the result of a government which couldn't bring itself to commit to the price tag for bringing Iraq into the first world (which is what we have to do, as third world vassal states have been notoriously unreliable in the maintenance of democratic ideals).

But, given that the US went in with a significant underestimation of the amount of resistance that would be encountered after the fall of the regime and the number of troops needed on the ground, and given that the US went in with a significant overestimation of the degree to which the Americans would be welcomed as liberators and the amount of time that that would give them to get the country back on its feet, and given that the US has until now been slow in acknowledging its earlier miscalculations and acting to correct them despite the potential political costs, I feel rather justified in my skepiticism about the will of the US to carry this project out in any meaningful way.

But now that we are there, you need to put your Bush hate to the side as far as this ONE ISSUE (Iraq) is concerned and be supportive and positive.

Theodore Roosevelt says it better than I ever could: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Kharum
If you observe someone performing a task and you would like to see that task concluded with the best results possible but the person is not performing the task in such a way that will achieve those results, then it would not be inappropriate to offer suggestions and even criticism, particularly if that person had already been informed that his particular method might not represent the best choice available.

For the love of God, Kharum, that is outrageous arrogance. With all due respect, you don't know jack squat about democratizing a country that has been enslaved by a dictator for decades and is surrounded by violent, religious fundamentalism. How can you POSSIBLY "offer suggestions" for something you are utterly clueless about?

Who are you and what training do you have to be able to know if we are "not performing the task in such a way that will achieve those results"?

If you want to "offer suggestions" to someone about how to paint their house, because you've painted a house before, fine. If you are a chef, and you "offer suggestions" to someone about baking a cake, fine. But if, for example, your knowledge of physics amounted to nothing more than a few Saturday morning Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, you shouldn't "offer suggestions" to someone building an atom smasher.

This is not a political question like taxes, or gay marriage, or abortion, or health care where everyone can quite easily have an opinion on the matter. None of us will ever be faced with the challenge of democratizing a country. No nation other than the United States has even ATTEMPTED it.

This is not a challenge that a normal person might actually encounter in their lives, know someone who encountered it, or conceive of ever possibly encountering it. This is a TECHNICAL challenge of incredible difficulty. It is a challenge that the overwhelming majority of people cannot even BEGIN to comprehend sufficiently to "offer suggestions."

Treating this like a mere political issue is wrongheaded and dangerous.

Neither you, nor I, nor 99% of the nimrods spewing about it on TV, radio, and print have even the faintest shred of a clue about how to do something as enormous as democratizing a nation with such a turbid history. None of us have any business "offering suggestions" on how to do the job.

If we see an abuse (like the Abu Ghraib prisons) then of course we speak up and expose it. But "offering suggestions" for how to handle the overall task is absurd. Exposing the abuse has been done. Do you really think George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone like that would ever deliberately permit such things to occur?

George Bush ain't "my guy." I did not vote for him and he is not who I would pick as President. I get the impression you, Kharum, think my opinion on this matter is based out of support for George Bush. Well, it isn't. My opinion is based on despising the way excessive partisanship causes people to do things that are BAD for the country because they are blinded by partisan rage. For too many people, hatred for a party or an individual becomes more important than what is best for our country.

Originally posted by Kharum
Theodore Roosevelt says it better than I ever could: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Theodore Roosevelt seems to be the current liberal fave to quote. I wonder if they'll quote him on things like taxes and government handouts? Probably not.

Theodore Roosevelt's quote assumes you (in the general sense, not you specifically) wouldn't hope for disasters just because you don't like a guy personally. The quote doesn't apply to hoping for bad economic news or failure in Iraq just because "George Bush was selected, not elected and we have to get rid of him! WAAAHHH!"

That quote would apply if I was saying don't report things like the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison or if I was saying you should assume everything the President or our government is doing is CORRECT. I've never said any such thing.

I made it very clear that I am talking about the excessive partisanship that clouds the TRUTH. I am talking about pumping up every setback and ignoring every success. There is a huge difference between that and ignoring mistakes.

Furthermore, there is something very important that is true in our day that was not true in his: Perception is reality.

This is largely the result of the internet and mass media. Mere perception can shape or even control outcomes. That is why media bias is a far more severe problem than most people understand.

For example:

1) We are not failing in Iraq. Drowning out the truth with exaggerations of every thing that goes wrong, ignoring successes, and giving minimal, cursory coverage to the few successes that DO get reported increases the likelihood of failure.

2) The economy is booming- including jobs. Doing everything you can to talk down the economy because you don't want the guy you hate to get credit HURTS the economy. It lowers consumer confidence, it reduces the willingness of businesses to hire new employees, and it reduces investment.

[NOTE: This is the whirlwind that is being reaped for giving Clinton credit for the boom of the 90s. Presidents are not responsible for the national economy. REPEAT: Presidents are not responsible for the national economy. When you start giving them the credit or blame, you are setting yourself up for disappointment when good things happen while a President you don't like is in office.]

Just for fun, a few more gems from Teddy Roosevelt:

• "Far better is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
  
  Hmmm... Like trying to bring democracy to a region of tyrannies.
  
• "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
  
  I wouldn't personally go that far, but I can agree that a good moral education is more important than a college education.
  
• "A just war is in the long run far better for a nation's soul than the most prosperous peace obtained by acquiescence in wrong or injustice."
  
  Interesting and certainly applicable to modern times.
  
• "Any man who tries to excite class hatred, sectional hate, hate of creeds, any kind of hatred in our community, though he may affect to do it in the interest of the class he is addressing, is in the long run with absolute certainly that class's own worst enemy."
  
  That is good advice for John Kerry, race-baiters, and the class warfare crowd that cry ceaselessly about "tax cuts for the rich."
  
• "When I say I believe in a square deal i do not mean to give every man the best hand. If the cards do not come to any man, or if they do come, and he has not got the power to play them, that is his affair. All I mean is that there shall be no crookedness in the dealing."
  
  Good bye welfare. Good bye affirmative action.

[Damieux]

Originally posted by Aristotle
For the love of God, Kharum, that is outrageous arrogance.

No, outrageous arrogance is trying to silence and intimidate opposing political opinions. The importance of public perception on the reality of politics is a timeless excuse of those who seek to stifle free speech. “Perception is reality” was every bit as true in the days of Teddy Roosevelt as it is today. Hell, if I cared to take the time, I am certain that I could find a famous quote from ancient Rome that expressed this same sentiment.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about Kharum, a citizen of the United States, offering suggestions on how he thinks his government should handle its affairs. That is in fact his civic duty.

There is nothing different between Kharum offering suggestions and you expressing your opinions in this, or other, threads. None of us (to my knowledge) are experts on the topics under discussion. Nor is any true expert or authority likely to heed our opinions or suggestions. Kharum’s suggestions are at least expressed in articulate posts that reflect the diverse sources that he obviously reads. I find them extremely refreshing when compared to the regurgitation of neoconservative propaganda from sources like townhall.com that is so sadly prevalent in other posts.

It is clear who is the partisan in this discussion, and its not Kharum. Your post attributes intentions and opinions to Kharum that he has never expressed. You attack him for “excessive partisanship” and yet you are the one who keeps diverting this discussion to the election and away from our handling of the occupation of Iraq. Over half of your post is dedicated to election year political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Kharum has expressed legitimate concerns about our mishandling of the occupation of Iraq that have nothing to do with the election in November.

Evidence is increasingly mounting that the U.S. has thus far mishandled the occupation of Iraq. From the outset, the occupation of Iraq was characterized as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. However there is a strong case to be made that we failed to capitalize on the Iraqi good will that we won by toppling Saddam Hussein by badly underestimating the amount of resources necessary to win the hearts and minds. Before we even invaded Iraq, there were warnings from humanitarian groups and military officials that the U.S. was not devoting adequate resources to the post-invasion occupation. The problem in Abu Ghraib prison, for instance, can be traced to a failure to properly train the troops responsible. Also, the U.S.’s ideological efforts to compare Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler led to mistakes like the de-Baathification policy that we are only now correcting. Another part of the problem, I think, is the way we initially went into Iraq, with complete disregard for the United Nations and world opinion. The administration was clearly correct in concluding that this decision did impede our ability to invade Iraq, but I fear that it is now damaging our ability to form a government in Iraq that the Iraqi people will recognize as legitimate.

As for the title question of this thread: “Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq?”, my answer is: I hope so, but I increasingly doubt it. I fear that we have now missed the opportunity when we could have handled the problem by throwing resources at it. I absolutely agree with Kharum that a new direction is needed. That is a wholly separate issue from whether the current administration can provide that new direction. People should stop trying to suppress legitimate concerns about the handling of the Iraq occupation with cries of partisanship.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Damieux
No, outrageous arrogance is trying to silence and intimidate opposing political opinions.

Whew. Good thing I didn't do either of those things.

Originally posted by Damieux
The importance of public perception on the reality of politics is a timeless excuse of those who seek to stifle free speech.

It is stifling free speech to expect people not to offer up worthless opinions about topics they are utterly clueless about?

When people offer opinions about things they are completely unqualified to discuss, they are just blowing hot air. That is neither productive nor worthwhile. In fact, it can be quite the opposite.

It is not stifling free speech to say a professional chef with no training in science or engineering shouldn't give his opinion on how to build a Space Elevator.

I am quite happy to listen to Kofi Annan or Condoleeza Rice speak on the matter. They have widely divergent views but at least they are qualified to comment on an issue such as democratizing a country like Iraq.

Originally posted by Damieux
There is absolutely nothing absurd about Kharum, a citizen of the United States, offering suggestions on how he thinks his government should handle its affairs.

How positively naive. The sooner we abandon the fallacious and detrimental belief that mere citizenship somehow qualifies someone for having a worthwhile opinion on extremely complicated issues, the sooner we can start actually solving problems. There is a reason why our system of government was created as a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. That reason is that most people are not even remotely qualified to weigh in on most issues.

If you don't like the opinion I am putting forth, take it up with the Framers of the Constitution.

This is the same "timeless excuse" celebrities trot out when they go around telling people what to think. They do enormous damage to our country by misusing their celebrity and speaking without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the subjects they address.

Kharum strikes me as a very intelligent person, but he doesn't know the tiniest thing about democratization of a third world tyranny surrounded by violent religious fundamentalism. Neither do you. Neither do I. That isn't an insult. If it were, I'd be insulting myself just as harshly. It is simply a statement of fact.

A flaw in our culture is that we make people think their opinion is a helluva lot more valuable than it really is. Sometimes, one's opinion just isn't worth a tinker's dam.

When there are abuses, then it is vital that they are exposed and that we talk about them. But it is arrogant and foolish when unqualified people think they have ANYTHING valuable to offer regarding the incredibly complicated technical issue of democratization.

Originally posted by Damieux
You attack him for "excessive partisanship"

Please read more carefully. I never accused him of this. When I used "you", I specifically noted it was in the general sense and not directed at him.

The people I accuse of "excessive partisanship" are the current politicians, the people in the media who cover politics, the pundits who appear on TV news shows, the talk radio shock jocks, and the everyday citizens who embrace all of the above. I cannot even read or watch such things anymore because all reason and debate are gone. All that remains is Gotcha! politics and the Blame Game.

Originally posted by Damieux
Evidence is increasingly mounting that the U.S. has thus far mishandled the occupation of Iraq.

Compared to what?

Compared to all the other countries that have taken over a tyranny and replaced it with democracy?

Ooops. Nobody has done that but us, and in every case it took decades.

Considering this will take 5-10 years at a minimum (and the longer it takes, the more likely we are succeeding since it means the people want us there), isn't it a little premature to proclaim that the sky is falling? Doing so only fuels the morons who think you can just pull out and hope for the best. Yes, there actually were and are mainstream candidates for President who claimed they would do just that.

Originally posted by Damieux
Another part of the problem, I think, is the way we initially went into Iraq, with complete disregard for the United Nations and world opinion.

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, the people in charge of the countries (France, Germany, and Russia) and entities (United Nations) who opposed us were all receiving illegal kick backs from the Iraqi Oil for Food Program.

Do you honestly think we would EVER have obtained their support when they were too addicted to bellying up to the trough?

Get real.

[Damieux]

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is stifling free speech to expect people not to offer up worthless opinions about topics they are utterly clueless about?

Absolutely. Kharum is doing exactly the same thing that every other intelligent person does who needs, or wishes, to form an opinion on an issue in which he has no personal expertise. He is relying upon the opinions of people who do have that expertise, and he is deciding for himself which opinions he finds credible. This is the exact same approach that is followed throughout every aspect of our society. Business leaders, politicians, judges and others daily make decisions by reviewing expert opinions and deciding for themselves which ones they find credible. This is also exactly how citizens of a democracy should form the opinions that they need to participate in their own government.

Once Kharum has educated himself and chosen those experts he finds credible, it is entirely appropriate, and in fact his civic duty, to participate in our democracy by voicing the opinion that he has formed. The extent to which Kharum’s opinion has value, and the extent to which Kharum has fulfilled his civic duty, depends upon how carefully and critically Kharum has chosen the experts on which he relies. Given the intelligent tenor of Kharum’s posts, and his past ability to provide divergent sources in support of his opinions, I have a high degree of confidence that Kharum has very carefully and critically evaluated the experts on which he relies. I would wager that in this matter he has done his civic duty better than I have done mine.

To denigrate Kharum’s opinion simply because he does not have personal expertise in the matter is ridiculous and overlooks the way that our entire society functions. Kharum has educated himself on the issue, chosen the experts whom he finds credible and formed his opinion. He has voiced his opinion in public debate, and I am certain that he will act upon that opinion when his opinion as a citizen in our democracy matters. This is what it means to be a responsible participant in a democracy (representative or direct), and it is utterly wrong of you, though you may disagree with his conclusions, to suggest that he ought to do otherwise.

[Aristotle]

You still haven't said how I was STIFLING free speech.

Please re-read my post in its entirety.

It isn't stifling free speech to expect people to be qualified to discuss an issue before they do so. It is just common sense.

Furthermore, I'm not the government. I do not even have the capacity to stifle free speech.

Originally posted by Damieux
To denigrate Kharum’s opinion simply because he does not have personal expertise in the matter is ridiculous and overlooks the way that our entire society functions. Kharum has educated himself on the issue, chosen the experts whom he finds credible and formed his opinion.

First, saying someone isn't qualified to give an opinion is not denigrating their opinion. It is just offering MY opinion.

Second, for issues of sufficient complexity, choosing experts you like the most and siding with them just isn't good enough.

For example: If someone knows nothing about quantum physics, their opinion on the Cophenhagen Interpretation Observer Paradox vs. Parallel Universes isn't terribly relevant. Simply picking which camp of physicics they prefer doesn't make for an opinion that is worth anything.

It takes a lot more than just HAVING an opinion to make that opinion worthwhile or valuable. Believing otherwise is just feel-good, naive, touchy-feely, hyper-sensitive nonsense.

[Dalaena]

Oh, please, just because someone doesn't think you're qualified doesn't mean that's a suppression of free speech, which, by the way, doesn't mean squat between two people. You take up free speech issues with the government, not on some internet game forum. Free speech isn't a right you demand from other people.

Kharum made his opinion known.

Ari made his opinion known.

Damieux made his opinion known.

If disagreeing means that there's a suppression of free speech, then you're all 3 guilty of it, not to mention hypocritical if you're accusing one person of suppressing free speech, and in turn trying to suppress the freedom of speech for the person you're accusing. (Boy, this really gets confusing with all these accusations flying around, eh?)

The topic is: Will the addition of more troops solve the problem in Iraq?

[Damieux]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Second, for issues of sufficient complexity, choosing experts you like the most and siding with them just isn't good enough.

Please re-read my post. I try to choose my words with care. I never suggested that it suffices to choose the experts that you “like” most. Far too many people do that. What you must do is to choose the experts that you find most credible. This means the experts that you believe most likely to be correct regardless of whether you “like” them or not.

Originally posted by Aristotle
If someone knows nothing about quantum physics, their opinion on the Cophenhagen Interpretation Observer Paradox vs. Parallel Universes isn't terribly relevant.

It would be absolutely relevant if the person were called upon to make a decision that depended upon those competing theories of physics. Every day judges who have no technical training or expertise whatsoever are called upon to make legal decisions that turn upon highly complex technical matters. They make these decisions by reviewing the competing opinions of experts who do have the technical training and by deciding which expert they find most credible.

Each and every citizen of the United States is a Judge of our government. We are called upon at each election to render our decision on its performance. Further, the government acts only through taxes provided by the fruit of fruit of our labor. Thus we citizens are complicit in every thing that our government does. It is absolutely our civic duty to form and express opinions on the actions of our government. A lack of expertise does not absolve us of this duty. Instead we must simply choose whose expertise we find credible.

Originally posted by Aristotle
First, saying someone isn't qualified to give an opinion is not denigrating their opinion. It is just offering MY opinion.

Your words to which I was responding were “worthless opinions about topics they are utterly clueless about.” Suggesting that Kharum’s opinion is “worthless” and suggesting that he should not express it because he is “clueless” due to a lack personal expertise is definitely not just offering your own opinion. It is denigrating his opinion.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You still haven't said how I was STIFLING free speech.

Denigrating the opinions and suggesting that they should not express them is attempting to stifle free speech.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Furthermore, I'm not the government. I do not even have the capacity to stifle free speech.

You don’t have to be the government to stifle free speech. You merely need to suppress the free flow of ideas. Granted, as you are not a state actor, there is no Constitutional violation if you stifle free speech. However, you most certainly do have the capacity to stifle free speech. You can do it as a participant in this forum simply by browbeating other participants. More drastically, you can do it as the administrator of the forum by deleting posts. None of these things are unconstitutional or illegal, but they certainly do inhibit the free flow of ideas.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Damieux
Denigrating the opinions and suggesting that they should not express them is attempting to stifle free speech.

Suggesting that someone not post something because you believe that it's stifling free speech is also stifling free speech by your argument.

Anyone still interested in the actual topic?