[lit-ideas] Re: Dark Thoughts on Iraq

Hi Marlena - 

The article on the "oil spot" strategy was in Foreign Affairs. I'm not 
surprised that -- though it gained some prominence when it was first published 
-- nothing has changed. 

Nothing's changed because the oil spot strategy requires a major influx of 
military to handle the necessary security. If one area at a time is secured and 
expanded, it needs to be protected so the residents there feel able to function 
safely every day: take their kids to school, go to work safely, enjoy their 
lives again. 

The biggest difficulty is that Rumsfeld hasn't changed his idea of a small 
agile military. Plus recruiting is being resisted by school districts, colleges 
and parents. This counter-insurgency strategy is not something new under the 
sun, but it certainly has the earmarks of something that could make a 
difference. 

This administration, though, seems intent on remaining ineffective at 
everything they do -- except in campaigning for re-election. There Bush is 
effective. Mario Cuomo said campaigning is poetry; governing is prose. If I've 
quoted him correctly, George is a poet.

Stan Spiegel
Portland, ME 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:44 PM
  Subject: [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: