Certain Types Of Defeat *May* Be An Option

John Derbyshire is baffled by Bush's seemingly circular logic:

We seem to be saying to the Maliki govt.:  "Hey, you guys better step up to your responsibilites, or else we're outa here."  This, a few sentences after saying that we can't leave the place without a victory.  So-o-o-o:

—-We can't leave Iraq without a victory.

—-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can't achieve victory.

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

 

It's been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.

 

Well, yes.  However, it *may* be that Bush is simply greasing the skids for something resembling an "acceptable" US defeat.  Increasing our troops shows our commitment and gives the lie to Osama and others who took from Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia that the US lacked the stomach for an extended fight.

However - if we "lose" because the Iraqis don't have the will to a fight, well, we didn't really lose, now did we?  We're not the paper tiger, they are.  Say it with me, say it a lot, and maybe someone will believe it.

Look, of course this is pretty thin, but let me throw it out there as a possibility - Bush's plan is meant to lead either to something resembling victory, or to a face-saving withdrawal.

A pretty brutal way to save face, especially since it is someone else's face, legs, arms, and other body parts at risk.  But that may explain Derbyshire's paradox.

Comments

[Don]

Too generous. Bush is a coward. All else follows.

[P]

The Middle East is like CNN or MSNBC;
don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

[Florence Schmieg]

No way. Not this president. He wants to win!

[Terrye]

Why call Bush a coward, he is not the one who has been trying to surrender from day one.

The Iraqis have seen a lot of war for many years. They lost a million people in the war with Iran. They lost hundreds of thousands in uprisings that the world chose to ignore. They went through the Gulf War. They suffered through the sanctions regime put in place while Clinton was president which was in fact outright thievery and left the Iraqi people without the basic necessities of life. Then Saddam was taken down and Sunni terrorists began to target the civilian population which in turn helped inspire militias looking for revenge.

The US has lost about 3,000 men in over three years and we wonder if the Iraqis are up to the fight.

Maybe the problem is people like Derbyshire and their incessant bellyaching.

[Pofarmer]

Bush's plan has always been victory. Still is. All this is meant to do is placate the Dims, many of which were calling for more troops in October, which it has not.

Maybe if they give Rangel his draft?

At this point, it won't matter what Bush does, the left will howl. Wait till the first time he veto's something or other.

[Pete]

After blowing hundreds of billions of dollars Bush acknowledged yesterday that his plans were not working. This is after years of saying that they were working and that we were winning.

Like a gambler in a casino his strategy is to keep doubling down his bet. While he said that mistakes were made, it sure did not seem like he had learned any message while he threatened to escalate the war to Syria and Iran.

Poll: 70 percent oppose more troops in Iraq
Only 35 percent of respondents believe going to war was the right call

[drifter]

Withdrawal might be perceived differently if the Iraqi government kicks us out - which might happen if we insist on doing what we think is necessary.

[sbw]

John Derbyshire shouldn't get his knickers in a twist. Diplomacy works when people understand that war is a real possibility if diplomacy doesn't work. That doesn't mean you want to go to war... only that you are willing to go to war. It uses muscle without using muscle. In this case, we don't want to leave before things are settled, but we are willing to do so.

Never waste a syllogism when you can just crack your knuckles and look tough.

[cathyf]

A pretty brutal way to save face, especially since it is someone else's face, legs, arms, and other body parts at risk.

Well, all in all, not exactly unreasonable -- if indeed the only situation in which we need to "save face" is that the Iraqis f***ed up their end of the deal. If they lose this thing for us, we will indeed be driven from Iraq. Which will be the least of our problems if it happens, but will not be the least of theirs.

I think it's not so much a threat as a prediction, and a pretty common-sensical one at that. It says simply to an ally -- if we lose because you lose, then you will suffer the consequences of losing, too. This is not rocket science here, merely the definition of "ally" and "lose."

The more interesting point is that our allies the Iraqis seem to understand this for the most part, while such understanding seems far rarer among our allies the Democrats.

[Terrye]

Don:

I work in home health care. One of my clients was an old guy who survived the death march in the Phillipines. He spent 3 and half years in a Japanese POW and to this day he hates FDR and MacArthur for what he considers to be criminal stupidity.

Everyone makes mistakes, in fact the Democrats who supported both the Iraqi Liberation Act and the invasion of Iraq now said they made a mistake.

The difference with Bush is that he expected to admit his mistakes, everyone else just sort of flutters their eyelashes and says "Who me?"

[P]

""70 percent oppose more troops in Iraq""

68 percent oppose gay marriage. I take it the democrats will change their position Pete??

[clarice]

cathy, I agree. I also think that Maliki was made to fully undertand that while he's been diddling around for domestic political advantage, if he doesn't get off the dime and we leave, he'll be on the gallows just behind Hussein.

[abe]

Derb, is pulling his dumbass routine. Of course we can leave with out victory, that's established. we can achieve victory with or without Maliki & co. We are unwilling to forge ahead solo because it would involved massive escalation of bloodshed. So Maliki plays ball, or we go, and it's his fault. that's where we are at, where Derb with my tea and crumpets?

[Rick Ballard]

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.

/=

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

What a sloppy paraphrase. Has some leftist infected Derbyshire?

I continue to read it as I have before - "I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart."

[Rightmom]

The Iraqi General that will be reporting to Al-Maliki has picked Kurdish soldiers for this task and Al-Maliki has let the militia's know they must disarm or they are on their own. In the face of those two news items I would say that the President has laid the law down to Al-Maliki and changed the ROE and this will be a success. I do not not believe and never would that this President would do anything but leave Iraq with full victory. He is a true Patriot.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Don, just to save everyone's time, let's just summarize:

fuck you.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Now, with that out of the way:

Tom: so you're saying that John is saying that Bush is saying we've got to win, and we need al Maliki to get it together to win. If he doesn't, we can't win and we'd leave.

Well, duh. We've got to win, and we either will win --- or we'll lose.

That's deep, man.

[Another Bob]

FYI to Rick B. - Good to read your comments again, here and YARGB. Thought you might have been gone for good.

[Terrye]

70% don't support a surge? Well only about 15% support immediate withdrawal and there Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha are ranting and raving anyway.

The Democrats support the ISG, the ISG supports a surge. Go figure.

I think more people would support a surge if it was not a huge one {and this is not} and if they understood that it was not forever.

[Terrye]

Charlie,

Thank you kind sir for taking care of the obnoxious drunk. I would have told him the same thing myself..but I am too much of a lady.

[user]

"Well, all in all, not exactly unreasonable -- if indeed the only situation in which we need to "save face" is that the Iraqis f***ed up their end of the deal. If they lose this thing for us, we will indeed be driven from Iraq."

When exactly did the Iraqi people make a deal with the U.S.?

[Pofarmer]

Do any of the lefties care that the 9/11 attacks are estimated to have cost us over $500,000,000,000?

What would another 9/11 attack cost? What did it cost for the embassy bombings? Barracks bombings? Repairs to the USS Cole? USS Stark? Mogadishu? What did it cost to maintain the No-fly zones?

Anyone?

[Pofarmer]

When exactly did the Iraqi people make a deal with the U.S.?

Well, it's a pretty simple deal. Get your shit together, and we'll leave. Kind of a "deal you can't refuse."

[Jake - but not the one]

Ralph Peters says that if the surge doesn't go after Sadr City, then it is all kabuki. Yet I hear that Sadr City is off the table. Ralph gives Bush one more chance - or one more one more chance, I forget which.

Anyway, time will tell, but I am betting on kabuki, except with real swords (so to speak).

Oh, and another thing - we had no Iraqi allies going into this thing, so I am not sure that we can blame our so-called allies (puppets seems much closer to the truth, except I don't know just who is pulling the strings) for their inability to pick up after us.

Jake

[sbw]

PoFarmer: What did it cost to maintain the No-fly zones?

Re: 1991-3003 No-Fly Zone. From historyguy.com -- unverified, non-authoritative source:

According to the New York Times in an article on August 13, 1999, American and British forces have escalated the continuing war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Since the beginning of 1999 through August 1999, Allied pilots launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets. ... The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq.

[Don]

Actually cowardice, not only Bush's but many Americans, explains a lot of America's post 9-11 behavior.

[boris]

Cowardice?

Those who only went along after 911 because the country was angry. Cowardice. Then changed back when the going got tough. Cowardice. Then having voted, cowardlike, for the policy they now renege, they lie about what they knew when they voted and falsely blame somebody else for lying to them. Cowardice. When that didn't work they undermine the war effort they initially pretended to support (like cowards) and sabotage any way possible it's success in perception and execution. Now that's cowardice.

[PeterUK]

"Actually cowardice, not only Bush's but many Americans, explains a lot of America's post 9-11 behavior."

Except you Captain Courageous? Perhaps you would like to expand on what you obviously think is a fine sounding phrase?

[Terrye]

Peter:

Hey, these guys are perfect. Left to the Saddam would be running Iraq like some mafia Don and they would preaching self righteously about how America does not stand up dictators.

[Old Dad]

News flash for the reality based community. The United States can't be defeated militarily in Iraq. We are eminently capable of securing the country through massive force. We've chosen a different path, and now yet a slightly different path. We've chosen not to destroy Iraq in order to save it. It's a bloody business.

The most encouraging news from last night's speech is the apparent change in rules of engagement. It will be bloody, but make no mistake, our guys will slaughter the insurgents whole sale if we turn them loose.

The strong horse can reappear if we want him back. The Iraqis will back the strong horse, but we've got to let the troops fight to win.

General Petraeus is a warrior, and a brilliant tactician. Turn him loose, and we'll win.

[Sweetie]

"The US has lost about 3,000 men in over three years and we wonder if the Iraqis are up to the fight."

3,000 volunters too. But the Dems know it's already lost..........as they've been telling us for 3 years.

[cathyf]

When exactly did the Iraqi people make a deal with the U.S.?

In 1992 when Saddam signed the cease-fire agreement.

[Pofarmer]

News flash for the reality based community. The United States can't be defeated militarily in Iraq. We are eminently capable of securing the country through massive force.

Exactly right. The only thing that could maybe push us out would be a nuclear strike by Iran. Even then, we could strike back and wouldn't be defeated. We ain't even close. The only way we are defeated in Iraq is if we quit.

I've been reading a book on the N African campaign, including Sicily, and some of the battles for Italy. There were a couple times in N Africa that it was really dicey. We were losing major battles, 10's of thousands of allied prisoners taken. If Rommel and Von Arnim had worked together, they probably could have pushed to the sea in Tunisia and really wreaked havoc, especially if they had been properly supplied. If Rommel had been properly supplied from the start, we probably could have never even landed in Africa. You wanna talk about losses? Incompetence? There you go. This thing ain't even close.

[clarice]

Abc has an update--says US forces did 2 raids in northern Iraq (y guess special forces) that the Iranis were doing consulate work but the office was not yet designated a consulate and the Iranis had no diplomatic status..Another raid ocurred at the Irbil airport, but the Kurdish security folks were unaware we were coming and there almost was a shoot out.
The liaison office that was raided issues travel permits for Iraqis traveling to Iran and other consular tasks and is on a waiting list to be officially declared a consulate. Technically, according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the Iranians working in the liaison are not diplomats.

The Iranian foreign ministry has said the raid was "against a diplomatic mission" and is demanding the release of those who were abducted.

Neither the central government in Baghdad nor the regional authorities in Kurdistan had any advance knowledge of the U.S. raids against the Iranian targets, although the Iraqi government has long been aware of Iranian support for armed factions inside Iraq. Zebari said that "we are not questioning or doubting the credibility, the integrity of our friends in the coalition," but he said "this is a very delicate situation
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2788262&page=2

Jawa report has some crazy story of a nuclear explosion in the Irani dessert area and the locals are sure it was another crashed UFO.

[clarice]

More odd explosions in Iran.
"Tehran - Three explosions which Thursday shook the southwestern Iranian port of Khorramshahr were caused by mine- sweeping operations, a local official told the Fars news agency. Khorramshahr's district governor Mohammad-Alii Shirnai told Fars that owing to the expansion of the operations, the sound of the explosions was quite strong and shook some buildings in the city. Following the initial Fars report, there had been speculation of renewed sabotage acts in in Khorramshahr "

Odd blasts

Let's see an UFO crashes in the desert near a nuke facilities and mine sweepersd making a racket in an area known to be rebellious..what does this mean?
Is the 12th imam stirring?

[Extraneus]

The Democrats must truly fear the potential consequences of Bush taking the gloves off and going after Iran.

[clarice]

Latest update:
"UPDATE II: When I'm on to something, man, I'm really on to something! Ace brings us this update from al Reuters: 3 explosions in Iran:

Three strong explosions jolted southern Iran on Thursday, the semi-official Fars news agency reported, but gave no information about possible casualties....

Khuzestan, the heartland of Iran's oil industry, has been simmering with unrest among the province's mostly Arab population for more than a year.

Which means this is an active area for Sunni Arab unrest. Which is deliciously ironic since Iran seems to be actually helping to fund Sunni insurgents in neighboring Iraq.*

I believe Ward Churchill calls this type of thing "chickens coming home to roost."

UPDATE III: Yet another update from Ace that the Mullahs are about to execute some Arabs from the area. Which is more evidence of my Sunni theory. Payback: 'tis a bitch.

UPDATE IV: From GM, a Christian originally from Persia:

Dr. S.,

I'm under the impression that the explosion near Kerman (central Iran) was exceptionally powerful. The three explosions in the Arab area of Khuzistan (the south west corner of Iran) were relatively ordinary bombs. There is quite a distance between the two areas. In the past couple of years Khuzistan has been the scene of clashes between the Arab minority and the regime's thugs including a few bombings.

Isn't it interesting that the same AhmadiNezhad who cries rivers for Arab terrorists of Palestinian areas, subjects the Arab minority of Iran to torture and execution.

*Why would Iran fund Sunni insurgents? For the same reason they fund the Sunni group Hamas--common enemies."

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/#186028

[PeterUK]

The reverse engineered Roswell UFO crashed on a secret mission in Iran One just has to love these Pys-op people.UFOs,Jolly Green Auras and Imams hundreds of years old living down a well,all this and the BOMB!

[PeterUK]

That is Clarice's link BTW

[PeterUK]

Explosions claimed to be mine defusion.
Since we have had a shed load of UXBs de-fused since 1945 the procedure seems clear,remove the fuses and steam the explosive out,the explosive can also be burned,but large explosive devices are rarely detonated in situ,for obvious reasons.
The really picked a time to do it,straight after Bush's speech.

[Patton]

The Democrats much prefer their policy of simply starving the innocent Iraqi population and killing them silently and having their boy Saddam toss them into mass graves, while the press sat at home and took the captive audience on the latest tour of Britneys' hoo hoo.

[clarice]

Yes, it does seem an odd way to clear the harbor--"Hey Abdul, we found mines which if they explode can shut the harbor, what should we do?"
"Hussein, you know the drill..explode them where they are."

Man, these explanations are dopes. I know that average IQ in Arab land is about 87 but the Iranis ain't Arabs.
They must think the official news accounts are funnier than we think the NYT is.

[lurker]

68 percent oppose gay marriage. I take it the democrats will change their position Pete??

And there are efforts within United Nations in making same sex marriage and abortion legal global laws. United Nations is in the process of creating a one-world government.

[lurker]

The Democrats much prefer their policy of simply starving the innocent Iraqi population and killing them silently and having their boy Saddam toss them into mass graves, while the press sat at home and took the captive audience on the latest tour of Britneys' hoo hoo.

They certainly did try that and it didn't work.

[Rick Ballard]

I wish these guys would wear different colored jerseys. It would make the scoring at home so much easier.

I've got the mine disposal deal as an error against the Persians (for assigning the task to Arabs). I suppose that it might be scored as a goal if the the Arabs were Sunnis although there's always the chance that the Persians assign ordinance disposal to Sunni Arabs as a form of light recreation.

This is gonna take a spreadsheet.

[lurker]

Why the United States Must Leave Iraq - strange that Cato gave a talk on this one...

[clarice]

You could make big bucks with that spread sheet, Rick..Better yet make it a video game.

[lurker]

Why the United States Must Leave Iraq - strange that Cato gave a talk on this one...

[Terrye]

patton:

What's a hoo hoo?

[Terrye]

lurker:

When I was farming I read something from CATO to the effect that if we just ship all the milk into the US in powder form from New Zealand it would be cheaper and people would never know the difference. From then on I wondered about CATO. so far right they are bumping up against left.