[lit-ideas] Re: Dark Thoughts on Iraq

Hi, Eric,
I'll share my thoughts!
 
In a message dated 9/28/2005 4:24:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx writes:


Unless I also post some dark thoughts about Iraq, people will think  
I'm a full-time (instead of temp) swinish hack. So here goes.

*Must  an armed, fanatic minority can successfully impose its will on 
a cowed  majority?

Must they? No. Will they? Maybe. I think it is still a bit too early to  
tell...
 
not to mention--the 'book' has not been completed and the end of History  has 
not occurred.
 
People *can* and *do* change situations--even if things look bleak and even  
if the armed fanatic minority successfully imposes its will--it does not  
necessarily mean it will be that way *forever* 
 
Life and history (to me) seems fairly fluid and the concept of change (to  
me) appears to be real and dynamic.
 


*Is  there anything better than the Bush plan: tough it out
with an average of 2  or 3 of our men murdered every day while we 
train the Iraqis to take over  their own future as soon as possible? 
Absolutely.  The method towards success was, in fact, spoken of in (I  
think--can get the reference and article if you would like...) Foreign Policy  
some 
time ago (and they mentioned and sent it out again via email not long  ago)  
 
(I had, actually, heard of this from a retired military person I know--who  
had been frustrated, even, with some of the same sort [as well as active  
military] with how much in Afghanistan has been done.
 
The basic idea (and this IS what our military really had wanted to do--not  
arguing whether or not we should or should not be in Iraq...but if we were 
going  to be there, there was a certain way to manage and accomplish the  
situation)
 
Think of landing in a spot. You 'take over' that spot and make sure it is  
protected, guarded. You rebuild that spot so that the civilians in that spot do 
 
NOT have their infrastructure ripped apart--and you only do the spot you can  
handle, watch over, protect, etc.  
 
After that spot, its civilians, etc. is secure, rebuilt and there is a  clear 
understanding that the intent is NOT to destroy or damage but to bring an  
ultimate constructive 'good' to the land, the people, the place--you very 
slowly 
 enlarge the spot.  And, then repeat.
 
and repeat. VERY SLOWLY and carefully crafting the ever-enlarging  protected, 
taken-care of civilians, infrastructure, etc.  
 
The biggest problem with this plan is that those in charge of the Bush's  
plan of attack wanted the 'shock and awe'. The military did not want to go that 
 
direction and there WAS a different plan.  They, many of them, really  tried 
to push this systematic concept which would have been carefully  crafted.  It 
would have, however, taken more people and more time [though,  as it happens, 
it may not have taken more time--and it definitely would have  saved an 
incredible amount of lives and created the 'goodwill' that *might* have  made 
the 
whole invasion a bit more palatable....(for people like me who were  very upset 
at the whole war - believing that if there is conflict that there are  so many 
creative people/methods of resolving issues that war in the traditional  sense 
is simply not something that is generally necessary.)
 
The article in Foreign Affairs (or was it Policy? I may have to go look it  
up after all...) does not talk about this--but my friend who went over to both  
Iraq and Afghanistan several times told me (shortly after the War in Iraq 
began)  that 'you would not believe how many careers are being ruined.'  When I 
 
asked about this--he said that the military at certain levels who were very  
aware of the problems that the Bush plan was going (and beginning) to cause 
[not  just in regards to military casualties, but to civilian deaths and ill 
will]  were trying to do what they could to NOT have to go the direction they 
were 
 being told to do. 
 
Would it be possible to try to go back and do that sort of method?   
Probably. Would take even more of a commitment and (my thought) some major  
revamping 
of how things are structured there--but I'm sure that if one got  together all 
the people whose careers were ruined <wry look>, they'd  probably be able to 
come up with some sort of strategic insight.
 
 
 


What the Iraqis will make of it is anyone's  guess.
It's very difficult to know, that is true. But, that can be rather  
exciting--in time, maybe they will be able to take the 'good' from all possible 
 
scenarios and mesh them together. 
 
Since we do NOT KNOW--we can hold that tension of the opposites and not go  
down a horrid negative road, too.  (I do not necessarily think it is best  to 
go down the la-la-land of how everything is going to be wonderful, either. I  
think and hope that all involved will be prepared for all possibilities and  
create positively from that information.)
 
You are right--we do not KNOW...but that is not necessarily 'bad'!



*Will America have the political/societal will to last over the  long 
haul? Has Binladen read us correctly there?
 
Depends on what we end up doing...I am concerned at how we are doing in  
Iraq--If we stay the course in the same way, it would be healthier for the  
Iraqis 
(I think) if the USA and others left ... (of course, I do not know how  that 
will impact on our ability to pull oil from the area...On the other hand,  
surely Bush is going to stop using Suburban gas-guzzlers for his Secret Service 
 
and use the Ford Escape Hybrids--that will help.)



*Will my fellow liberals prefer to have Bush fail (as Paul  Stone 
thinks) rather than let Iraqi freedom win? If we do prefer to see  
Bush fail, won't his failure be OUR failure? If Bush fails, why do 
my  fellow liberals think that they live on a special reservation
insulated  from all the repercussions of history?
No. I think the two scenarios that I would prefer are:
 
1) we go back to the discarded Plan A (with whatever adaptations need to be  
made) and really focus on rebuilding the infrastructure that we destroyed--if  
that means we pull into a little circle and start 'over' then we do that--us 
and  the Iraqis [we almost have to stay there and do this as a 'penance' for 
having  wrecked it in the first place. We broke it/we made the mess--so I look 
at the  'best' way to understand WHY we stay is that we need to fix what we 
broke--we  need to repair the infrastructure we destroyed.  Example of "natural 
 
consequences" in terms of 'discipline', in a way. For those who don't know, 
that  would be what you would do if you had a kid who broke/made a mess in your 
 home--the healthiest way to both solve the problem and teach at the same 
time is  NOT to spank and send to the corner or not be allowed to hang out with 
 
[potential] friends.  BUT to be given a dustpan and broom/towel and clean  it 
up. In my house.  Actually, since in our house we operate on the  principle 
that 'there but for the grace of g-d go I",  <g> we ALL  have done this for and 
with each other--and so often all in the same room would  pitch in to fix what 
was broken or clean up the mess. But, especially the one  who broke/made the 
mess is aware of what was done to cause the mess--and *has to  apologize*, 
too.  I think we ought to apologize and then explain how we  would try to 
fix/clean up--and (one hopes) would be given the opportunity to  clean up what 
we 
broke and messed up...  
 
(It might also help with keeping those who ram/are bullies to learn and  
grow...not sure if just heading home/being spanked/going to the corner  
necessarily teaches and causes personal and collective growth and  development.
 
 
 
__________________--

*Ralph Peters talks about a "strategic raid"  strategy, punitive 
expeditions for specific enemy crimes or attacks, which  has a 
definite 19th century British imperial feel to it. Is this the best  
future strategy? It is not too satisfying as a cure, especially when 
you  work enemy WMDs into the mix--they nuke NYC so we nuke Tehran? 
who'll lose  more with that math?
 
MB--Have been reading an interesting book on Strategic Planning for  Success 
which talks about lots of different things--one that I have found  intriguing 
is how many companies/corporate types are now beginning to look  at things in 
a duel manner--beyond the 'short-term' vision...to look at the  societal 
impacts of our decisions as well as the corporate impacts.  
 
So, I would say that for those who have not evolved into being able to  think 
beyond just concrete thinking and go into more abstract thought--yes, it  
would probably be satisfying. Kind of like it is satisfying to make a million  
dollars but not really care/understand the impact of not paying a living wage 
to 
 your suppliers/workers has on the long-term effects of creative thought 
being  drawn to your company...
 
_____________________________

*Will the US eventually have to revert to the fortress America type  
isolationism? Vichy Europe is almost gone already. They'll be 
majority  Moslem within thirty years, assuming they don't have a 
thirty years wars  type religious civil war.  Yet I think they're 
more likely to just  quietly surrender to the islamofascist 
inevitability.
 
Here again (to me) is the whole 'either/or' kind of thought.  Yes, if  your 
only choice is to either have a fortress mentality or to surrender and lose  
the identity of a certain historical and real number of People (who are, truly, 
 
as valuable and worthy as any other culture...)
 
There are all sorts of methods of Honoring Each Other that might occur.  
Granted, it does seem that people (whether in charge or not) seem to bounce 
from  
one to the other (and,yes, each has its positives and each has its  negatives)
 
I'd rather, again--look for that third way out--which takes work, education  
and a willingness to learn the concept of *respect*--for the fortress often  
comes because of a woundedness and a way to protect oneself...and the other is  
one being a victim and the other a victimizer.
 
Tough to learn 'the third way out', though. 
_________________

*And by that time, we're likely to be an economic colony of Red  
China, courtesy of the globalists.
 
ONLY if the 'globalists' do not get a conscience and make positive healthy  
choices for those who work for them, those who do business with them, etc.
 
Globalization is not *necessarily* 'bad' or 'evil'.  It's when it is  managed 
and handled with disrespect and a cavalier manner towards all that the  
company/situation is going to impact.
 
and, remember--China itself may be kind of full of a bunch of selfish  
leaders...but Life is all about Change...and the only thing that does not 
change  is 
that everything changes...
 
Looking at the beginning of Autumn and a Season of Change,
Marlena in Missouri

Other related posts: