Scared Monkeys Discussion Forum

General Patraeus is delivering his General's Report on Capitol Hill right now. I'm listening and thought I'd start this thread to get the monkey's reaction. Tomorrow is Sept. 11, and his report is certainly related.

He is in league with the Bushes and cannot give a true assessment.

It's impossible to know what's really going on in Iraq. No one in the Bush Administration has told the truth about it from day one.

The assessment calls for a beginning of a troop withdrawal of the 30,000 plus build up to "possibly" be finished by next summer.  Then we will need to maintain our former troop levels to maintain security for the future.  Seems to me that says we have made no progress what so ever in Iraqi security.  All we will do is to return to the status quo of 2006 with no end in sight.  All this means is that we will continue to sacrifice American lives as more and more nations pull their meager number of troops out of Iraq. 

We need to cease being the policeman of the world and let this type of action be handled by the United Nations.  We would be on much safer ground if we would just stay away from the civil wars of other nations. 

The US removed the structure that was in place, and is responsible for the civil war that is takng place right now. Saddam was an evil man, and he needed to go, but it should have been a multi-nation decision. And that's not what we were told the invasion was about anyway. All we have done is plunge the Iraquis into chaos. Whatever is needed to finish the job should be done, and then we need to leave them to either sink or swim on their own. We can't stay there forever, but since we made the mess, we do need to clean it up. And the next time a President decides to send us into war, we need to be sure he's smart enough to understand what he's doing.

  B  R  A  V  O !   

My question to all of you:

what do you think of Daufur?  Should we go there?  TIA

The sad thing is, we are stretched so thin and now the talk of going after Iran possibly within 6 months, I don't believe we can manage going IN TO Darfur.  But we definately need to do something.  I just wish I had an answer.  Isn't that what the UN is for?  I know, what a joke!  But something needs to be done, however, we can't tackle the world!  We are to busy protecting it.

my next question is ...

if we should not be in Iraq, why should we stop a civil war in Darfur?  Why is Darfur more important?

Not trying to be a smart aleck... just wonder why one and not the other? 

As for the UN... I now understand the old 70's bumper stickers saying get us out...  :wink:

Mrs. Red, I do believe you have a legit point.  Of course, it can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson and the "League of Nations."  The structure of the United Nations is so flawed that it is rendered virtually non functional.  While I would never be one to advocate isolationism there is a point at which we as a nation can no longer sacrifice the lives of our own to protect the world.  As the decades have passed, I think history has proven that other nations are contributing less and less to the functionality of the United Nations. 

I have no answer as to how that is to be fixed except to say we as a nation can not expect to survive if we expend all our resources beyond our own borders while other nations seek to increase their own wealth at our expense.

Perhaps it is late and my thinking is cloudy, but that is just my thought process this evening.
 :sad:

I don't believe your thinking is cloudy at all GO. 

I am not an isolationist, but I do agree GO.


I also have been curious about the people that scream for Darfur and think that Iraq should be left to its own devices. In particular actors and actress, and yes I do hear people around me saying this...

and I just wondered.

MrsRed,

I had a Darfur conversation with Carnut. He said we are involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq and don't want to get into a third war with a Muslim country. The Darfur situation is very complicated. And also we are stretched thin.

I agree with what you are saying... my question is for those that say out of Iraq and are screaming to go into Darfur?  Why should we, it's a civil war...?

I am very interested in the reasons people think this...

We still have troops in Bosnia; I remember our president telling us at that time they would be out by Christmas.  Was that in 2003 or 2004?

That Bush has done nothing but keep us in wars, first Bosnia (oh, wait -- that was not in 2003-2004, now was it?). That was not even Bush.  Who was the president back then?  Were we not defending Muslims in that war?  Darn, how quickly I forget.

Mrs. Red:

You've touched upon the very essence of the issue.  The decision to intervene militarily anywhere must be based upon an assessment of national interest, period.  Such interest must then be weighed against prospective costs and benefits.  In the case of Iraq, you're dealing with absolutely CRUCIAL national interests for the United States, and it's puzzling to me that these interests are being completely ignored in the current public discourse, much to our country's detriment.  What are the United States' crucial interests in Iraq?  Consider the following: 

1)  Preserving unrestricted access of petroleum resources to world markets. 

2)  Impeding and/or discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.   

3)  Denying to enemies of the United States the vast wealth derived from petroleum resources in furthering interests inimical to our own. 

4)  Denying enemy states the ability to use terrorist proxies in advancing their interests.

These national interests are both valid and persistent.  Why do you suppose the votes in Congress were so lopsided in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq?  It's because every serious politician in the country recognized what was at stake and the imperative of the United States to protects its crucial interests.  By contrast, all other considerations and competing objectives in Iraq are of but peripheral concern.  Is it necessary for the Iraqis to unite under an effective, democratically elected government of national reconciliation for U.S. goals to be achieved?  No, but it would be helpful.  Is it necessary that there be an end to sectarian violence in Iraq?  No, but it would be helpful.  Is it even necessary for Iraq to avoid devolving into civil war?  No, but it would be helpful.  Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Iraqi society succeeds or fails, whether the Iraqis reconcile or not, or whether they eschew violence or kill each other down to the last man.  Core U.S. objectives are still achievable under all circumstances, as they have been consistently achieved since day one of the invasion.  There are possibly alternate ways of achieving them, different from the current path, but these aren't being seriously debated on the merits, I'm afraid. 

What we're seeing today is almost exclusively superficial sloganeering anchored firmly in the pursuit of domestic partisan political advancement.  Partisanship should end at the water's edge, but that's not the case now.  Why not?  You'll find the answer's origins in the 2002 mid-term Congressional elections.  Given how closely divided both houses were, and given the historical electoral advantages acruing to non-presidential parties in mid-term elections, the Demcrats had strong expectations of taking control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  When the votes were counted, though, the Republicans scored a historic landslide victory.  Democrats surmised that their poor electoral performance was due to a "war bounce" enjoyed by the President and his party.  Their answer was to attack that war bounce, not by dilligently working to demonstrate superior command of U.S. national security or military policies -- that would be too difficult and take too long -- but by undermining the war effort, itself.  It was the easiest thing to do.  Since 2002, the Democrats have worked tirelessly to hamper the Government's ability to prosecute the Global War On Terrorism.  They have worked tirelessly to promote doubt among the American people that they face any threat.  They have worked tirelessly to undermine public confidence in the war's justness and necessity.  Finally, they have worked tirelessly to enhance the enemy's ability to inflict damage on U.S. personnel and national interests, while at the same time diminishing the Government's ability to respond. 

Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. all know what's at stake.  They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back.  They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents.  What would they not do?  Whom would they not betray in their pursuit of raw power?  The answers are "nothing" and "no one".  These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow. 

GreatOwl: 

You're asking questions that the overwhelming majority of people forgot the answers to long ago:  "What is the U.N.?"  "What is it good for?"  "What are the limits of its usefulness?" 

The U.N. is an international organization intended to reduce conflict among nations by offering avenues for international cooperation beyond traditional bilateral diplomacy.  The key term here is "cooperation," which implies that U.N. authority is accepted voluntarily.  The U.N. is NOT a super-national government asserting its authority through coersion.  All member states retain their full sovereignty, and are free to reject the expressed will of the collective membership, but they do so at their peril. 

The design and organization of the U.N. is rooted in pragmatism, not idealism.  All nations are NOT created equal, and the U.N.'s structure thoroughly reflects this.  When examining this structure, the essential utility of the U.N. becomes apparant.  At its core, the U.N. is a vehicle through which the Great Powers can assert their will in matters where they agree.  It also affords an orderly mechanism for deciding issues where the Great Powers don't care.  Period.  That's it. 

Recongnizing the limits of the U.N. as a vehicle to advance national policy is the key to avoiding frustration and disappointment.  The U.N.'s effectiveness breaks down where the Great Powers disagree.  Actually, it breaks down where the Great Powers lack unanimity of agreement.  This is an unavoidable limitation of ANY such international organization, and as such is not to be lamented.  Rather, this limitation is to be WELCOMED.  It protects the citizens of each sovereign member state from possible arbitrary depredations inflicted by any "tyranny of majority."  Also, U.N. resolutions are not self-enforcing.  To have any practical effect, they must be voluntarily enforced by the membership, and only those member states that have important national interests at stake in any specific issue can be expected to voluteer for such duty.  Unfortunately, the U.N. and its processes do not eliminate the possibility of diplomatic duplicity, nor can they.  Member states may publicly agree on a matter and support it, yet secretly (or even overtly) undermine enforcement of any relevant resolutions. 

Given the above, it should therefore be understood that the U.N. neither "legitimizes" nor "de-legitimizes" any course of action.  It merely expresses a collective sense that might or might not be just and fair.  Moreover, that collective sense isn't self-enforcing and may fail through member duplicity and/or insufficient membership will.  Where no collective sense emerges, the members are left to decide issues outside of U.N. channels, relying upon the traditional elements of statecraft:  diplomacy, economic leverage, and war.  Even in the presence of such collective sense, each member state much remain vigilant, and retains the primary responsibility in defending its own national interests.  In conclusion, the U.N. is both a tool and a process for advancing U.S. foreign policy, and neither its origin nor arbiter. 

Dear Steve,

I think we are so lucky that you are a member of Scared Monkeys. Your posts have been very informative and thorough regarding analyzing what's going on in the world today. However, obviously you are a fanatical Republican and an example of someone who sees only your side of the picture.

1) "They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back." Can you give me an example? In simple terms, please.

2) "They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents. You don't really know that they are rejoicing." Can you give me an example in simple terms?

3) When you say "These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow" it makes me realize you are speaking your opinions only and nothing factual at all.

From now on, I'll read your posts with grains of salt.

*****************
SteveDinMD wrote: Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. all know what's at stake.  They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back.  They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents.  What would they not do?  Whom would they not betray in their pursuit of raw power?  The answers are "nothing" and "no one".  These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow. 

SteveD... I persoally agree with what you said. great post.

Louise:  

     I would not say that I'm a fanatical Republican.  I have little or no use for many Republican politicians.  Rather, I would say that study and experience have engendered in me what would be described in the current political context as a profoundly conservative world view.  Mind you, that description depends on one's perspective, and perceptions of what is liberal and what is conservative have changed a great deal over time.  My ideal world is one moved by industry and thrift.  Its core values are duty, honor, and country.  Its stock in trade is comprised of individual liberty and the rule of law, before which all stand equal.  It's a world without political or hereditary elites, where advancement is strictly by virtue of merit.  Finally, it's a world where personal responsibility takes precedence over self-gratification.  Most of these were radically liberal ideas back in the age of absolute monarchs.  They were the ideals of the Enlightenment, upon which the United States was founded and which are embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Not SO many years ago, these ideas defined the middle ground in the political spectrum.  Today, alas, they are increasingly dismissed by opinion-makers and their media mouthpieces as but the rantings of a right-wing lunatic fringe.  I would counter by noting that the middle of the road can seem far to the right when veiwed from the left-hand curb.  Moreover, I've come to my philosophy of life not by happenstance and not through blind faith, but in the course of a journey of discovery guided by logic.  

     My life's work has been the defense of this country, and I take my work seriously.  In affairs of state I am no novice; I am no dilettante.  It's my business to know what the U.S. national interests are and how they might be advanced or defended.  Informed opinions on these matters can differ, but seldom in good faith radically, which brings me to the point I'd care to make.  Consider Senators John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.  Each had for years been outspoken in his/her rhetoric denouncing Saddam Hussein.  Each voted in favor of the war.  Now they're against it.  Why?  Do they admit to an earlier error in judgement?  NO!  They claim they were lied to.  How can this be?  They were aggressively anti-Saddam long before G.W. Bush took office.  Did Bill Clinton lie to them?  They say "No."  According to Hillary, she didn't even read the relevant National Intelligence Estimates.  How, then, can she claim to have been lied to when she wasn't even inclined to even the most basic due diligence when deciding issues of war and peace?  Did she have something better to do that day?  Of course not, and her rhetoric becomes ever more ridiculous by the day as she tries to reconcile all her contradictory positions over the years.  For all her attempts at obfuscation, she knew then what she knows now, as do they all:  the Iraq War was an essential element of U.S. foreign policy.  

     If the Iraq War was important to fight then, it should be especially important to win now, yet these senators vote time and again to cut off funds to our troops in the field.  That's not all.  They've voted to prevent the Government from using technical intelligence capabilities against the enemy.  Following the lead of the 'New York Times' they've revealed state secrets, and U.S. personnel have died as a consequence.  They've voted to give illegal combatants -- i.e. terrorist who have murdered our countrymen -- access to U.S. courts and taxpayer financed legal help.  In light of all this, can it be said that these three senators are doing their level best to assist the war effort?  I don't think so.  Alternately, do they have some obscure plan to advance our national interests by some other means?  It doesn't seem so.  When asked what should be done, they simply repeat their mantra, "Withdraw the troops now!"  The natural follow-up question for them is "Then what?"  to which you'll receive but deafening silence as an answer.  No, there's not plan, at least not one for advancing our national interests.  

     What can we say about the leadership shown by these three anti-war senators?  Leadership can be defined as the strength to urge necessary action, though it be unpopular, and it's an important virtue for those holding or aspiring to high office.  Reward often demands sacrifice, and those who would lead must have the moral clarity and strength of conviction to choose sacrifice when necessary.  Furthermore, policy choices are not always neatly divided among "good" and "bad."  Oftentimes all one's choices are bad, and the challenge is to choose the least undesirable.  Absent leadhership, the people can be confused by such situations, much to their detriment.  By this definition, I don't see any leadership from Kerry, Reid, or Clinton.  Do You?  

     Opportunism, by contrast, can be defined as the disingenuousness to champion superficially popular causes with full knowledge that they are inimical to the public good.  Opportunism is the soul of demagoguery, which is the bane of good government.  I view Kerry, Reid, and Clinton as opportunists.  Contrary to the national interest they have willfully undermined the war effort in the expectation that they will gain personal political advantage.  What's more, they're not alone in this pursuit.  In fact, the Democratic Party is shot through with such people, and the Republicans have a few of their own.  Just a couple of weeks ago, a leading Democratic congressman was asked how he and the rest of the Democratic caucus viewed possible victory in Iraq.  "That would be a problem for us," was his reply.  That pretty much says it all.  Any politician or political party that is in conflict with the national interest is by definition traitorous, and therefore vile and deserving of opprobrium.  I stand by my earlier post, and look forward to blogging with you again.  

Very Best Regards,

-- SFD

PS:  I encourage you always to read all my posts and others with a healthy dose of skepticism.  If you see a flaw or void in logic, by all means point it out!  

I disagree. We are fighting ONE war on TWO battlefields. Look at WWII. We were in Britain, Italy, France, Poland, Germany, Japan, the Philippines just to name a few. Wow. That's, like, 7 WARS right there!! This is one war against Islamic extremism that they, the enemy, have taken to many countries. It's not just Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is fighting us in a proxy battlefront in Iraq. Israel fought proxy battlefronts in Lebanon against Iran. Britain and Spain and others have endured attacks in their countries too. So they too are fighting this war. This is what some people just can't wrap their minds around. One war with different battles that we together must win.

This is a good analogy if only it were consistent with WWII.  WWII we were indeed on many battlefields and we had a significant portion of our allies along side us.  Right now those allies are not providing the same percentage or proportion in supporting the cause.  In many cases, they are withdrawing their military support leaving us to fight alone in many of these locations.  Token participation on the part of other nations does not represent a commitment to support the cause to resolution.

Now is when they most need to step up to the plate IMO.  The extremists have a stronger commitment and stomach for winning than a lot of us do, it seems.  Too many people think (Spain & France are in this category) that if we just let them go and continue to control things then they will go away and let us live in peace. Not going to happen - look at how over the summer France struggled with trying to take back the "French" way of life  - they banned headscarves in school and it completely backfired - they had to back down and give in.  We, IMO , are getting to a point in this country where a lot of people need to wake up and stop rolling over.  I remember reading about a company in Nashville that was sued and lost because they didn't allow the Muslims to have thier prayer hours and rugs while on the job.... OH yeah? try it as a  Christian.... see what happens... and yet the Muslims were given the time, back pay and a room set aside for them.  I don't disagree with prayer and I don't particulary have a problem with someone taking a break to pray.... but it's the special treatment being demanded and given while not being given to the majority that bothers me.

I don't know if I am expressing this clearly, but my bottom line is also this... in many aspects of the War on Christianity, which I believe exists - just like the war against Jewish people, and there is one - I think it is a cog in thier wheel to a one world, one religion that they are fighting for.   IF this war on terror doesn't succeed, we will all be wearing burkas and beards - just my opinion...

I am not going to get into a debate of what will or will not happen in our ever changing society and world.  What I do observe is that we are "enablers" or the behavior of our former allies.  We seem to think we can stand alone on every issue.  As one of the nations drops out of the equation we find it necessary to increase our support to replace what has been lost.  We are now paying the price for that as the rest of the world no longer sees themselves in a support role.  We simply have to begin to draw the line somewhere.  We can not continue to sacrifice our own as the rest of the world slides slowly into the shadows.