Comments on: Difficult Does Not Mean Impossible… http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-212402 Mark Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:11:48 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-212402 No, I wouldn't...I think we need to make a commitment to stay in Iraq for many, many years...and depressing as that may sound, it's exactly what we're doing or have done in the past in the Balkans, South Korea, Germany, Japan, etc., etc. Now what the troop profile will look like, where the bases will be, whether we'll still be in the Green Zone, etc., I frankly don't have the expertise to recommend. However, my wishes are moot - if there is not progress with this latest plan, withdrawal will begin, if not before the end of the Bush administration, certainly after - and it will be dictated by domestic politics, for better or worse... No, I wouldn’t…I think we need to make a commitment to stay in Iraq for many, many years…and depressing as that may sound, it’s exactly what we’re doing or have done in the past in the Balkans, South Korea, Germany, Japan, etc., etc. Now what the troop profile will look like, where the bases will be, whether we’ll still be in the Green Zone, etc., I frankly don’t have the expertise to recommend.

However, my wishes are moot – if there is not progress with this latest plan, withdrawal will begin, if not before the end of the Bush administration, certainly after – and it will be dictated by domestic politics, for better or worse…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-212376 peter Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:54:05 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-212376 I would argue that the “augmentation” is only an incremental change to the existing policy, and to expect significantly different results from the addition of 21,500 troops is an exercise in optimism. But for the sake of argument, let’s call it a new and different strategy. If we send the additional troops, and things haven’t changed within a reasonable time frame – let’s say six months – would you then call for disengagement? I would argue that the “augmentation” is only an incremental change to the existing policy, and to expect significantly different results from the addition of 21,500 troops is an exercise in optimism. But for the sake of argument, let’s call it a new and different strategy. If we send the additional troops, and things haven’t changed within a reasonable time frame – let’s say six months – would you then call for disengagement?

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-212314 Mark Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:18:43 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-212314 No, the past strategy proved to be unworkable, and we adjusted - the troops aren't even deployed yet on the current strategy, it's still in in the initial stages... No, the past strategy proved to be unworkable, and we adjusted – the troops aren’t even deployed yet on the current strategy, it’s still in in the initial stages…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-212299 peter Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:09:44 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-212299 Well, we don’t know that. Unless your suggestion is that we remain in Iraq for perpetuity, there is likely to be a bloodbath whenever we decide to go. It only makes sense to remain there if our presence will reduce the intensity of violence which will ineluctably follow our exit. Given the fact that our presence has not stopped the violence yet – in fact, the violence continually worsens, despite our presence – it is by no means a certainty that things will get worse if we leave. It is at least equally plausible that neither foreign troops nor anything else can stop the bloodshed until the warring parties simply get too exhausted by it. Perhaps Iraq will continue to “go to seed” regardless of what anyone does, or perhaps the departure of foreign troops will cause a de facto partition of the country where the three main groups control three separate areas. I think it is starry-eyed to predict that the vacuum caused by our departure will force the factions to compromise, but it is at least possible. However, to dismiss disengagement as unworkable not only makes assumptions which may well be unwarranted, but it ignores the fact that the current strategy has already proven itself to be unworkable. Well, we don’t know that. Unless your suggestion is that we remain in Iraq for perpetuity, there is likely to be a bloodbath whenever we decide to go. It only makes sense to remain there if our presence will reduce the intensity of violence which will ineluctably follow our exit. Given the fact that our presence has not stopped the violence yet – in fact, the violence continually worsens, despite our presence – it is by no means a certainty that things will get worse if we leave. It is at least equally plausible that neither foreign troops nor anything else can stop the bloodshed until the warring parties simply get too exhausted by it. Perhaps Iraq will continue to “go to seed” regardless of what anyone does, or perhaps the departure of foreign troops will cause a de facto partition of the country where the three main groups control three separate areas. I think it is starry-eyed to predict that the vacuum caused by our departure will force the factions to compromise, but it is at least possible. However, to dismiss disengagement as unworkable not only makes assumptions which may well be unwarranted, but it ignores the fact that the current strategy has already proven itself to be unworkable.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-211965 Mark Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:53:41 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-211965 Disengagement is not a workable plan: it presumes we can just leave and let Iraq go to seed, with no consequences. If we leave today, we'll be back, and if it's hard now, it's going to be hell then... Disengagement is not a workable plan: it presumes we can just leave and let Iraq go to seed, with no consequences. If we leave today, we’ll be back, and if it’s hard now, it’s going to be hell then…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-211951 peter Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:50:27 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-211951 There are a lot of peripheral suggestions in the ISG report which fall in the pie-in-the-sky category -- but the central thesis that we should disengage from Iraq is a serious and workable plan. This would not be my suggestion -- I favor a referendum on whether we should stay or go -- but nonetheless I wouldn't dismiss the entire report because some of the 75 or so suggestions they made are questionable. There are a lot of peripheral suggestions in the ISG report which fall in the pie-in-the-sky category — but the central thesis that we should disengage from Iraq is a serious and workable plan.

This would not be my suggestion — I favor a referendum on whether we should stay or go — but nonetheless I wouldn’t dismiss the entire report because some of the 75 or so suggestions they made are questionable.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-211939 Mark Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:43:17 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-211939 Well, it's not enough to have a plan - it has to be a plan that can work. It amazes me that people say Bush's plan is unworkable, yet smart people such as yourself bring up the Iraq Study Group, whose report suggests linking the Iraq conflict to the 60-year Israeli/Palestinian disaster - explicitly! Yeah, that'll work... Well, it’s not enough to have a plan – it has to be a plan that can work. It amazes me that people say Bush’s plan is unworkable, yet smart people such as yourself bring up the Iraq Study Group, whose report suggests linking the Iraq conflict to the 60-year Israeli/Palestinian disaster – explicitly!

Yeah, that’ll work…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-211895 peter Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:02:19 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-211895 I'm not linking the Iraq Study Group to the opposition -- Ed Meese and Allen Simpson are somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney -- Sandra Day O'Connor was responsible for Bush getting his job -- only pointing out that the meme that the administration is the only one with a plan for Iraq is ludicrous. I’m not linking the Iraq Study Group to the opposition — Ed Meese and Allen Simpson are somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney — Sandra Day O’Connor was responsible for Bush getting his job — only pointing out that the meme that the administration is the only one with a plan for Iraq is ludicrous.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-211888 Mark Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:44:12 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-211888 Not at all, it just shows I understand what the two words mean... Not at all, it just shows I understand what the two words mean…

]]> By: mikebdot http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/comment-page-1/#comment-211840 mikebdot Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:14:18 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/25/difficult-does-not-mean-impossible/#comment-211840 Mark: It's also interesting that you link "opposition" to partisanship... Mark: It’s also interesting that you link “opposition” to partisanship…

]]>