Quiet Consensus on Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Oct 7, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It is a better read than the normal Mark Steyn tosh, but ignores the fundamental reality of the situation:

    Memories are short - such offensive operations occured last year and this year when Fallujah and Ramadi were flattened. The insurgency went elsewhere.

    The flypaper strategy is simply not credible. The insurgents in Iraq are not the same as the plotters of the World Trade Centre attacks - they are a new phenomenon. The insurgents are drawn from former Iraqi Army personnel and from foreign fighters taking advantage of the porous borders. The disparate anti-Saudi and anti-Western franchise/coalition that is known as Al Qaeda will continue to generate plotters and bombers with their eye on strategic targets in the US, Europe and Asia. The main difference is that the invasion and inept occupation has created a climate of greater sympathy for these terrorists in areas with a Muslim population. Finally, these terrorists are no fools and are not going to be simply distracted by the insurgency in Iraq.

    I don't know what the political situation is like in the US. It appears that there is no broad anti-war consensus such as most European nations have - for example, the 2million march in London in 2003. However, I suspect there is no broad pro-war consensus. The clock is ticking, Dubya's ratings are falling and the casualty count is rising. The real test of opinion will be the midterm elections next year. Incidentally it was interesting to see Dubya give his first press conference for four months in an attempt to placate his fundamentalist Christian supporters.
  2. A more reasoned response than the usual flag-waving hubris. There are however, a number of points that need to be examined.

    Kerry, Clinton et al's decision to vote in support of action must be viewed within the agenda that was set by the administration in the lead up to the 2002 elections. The Post 9/11 support for monkey was so high and the preposterous "you're with us or the terrorists" frame painted dems into a corner. It had nothing to do with the correctness of the policy, but rather it had everything to do with being politically outmanoeuvered. There's also the issue of the fact that the consensus exists only because no-one on either side has the first fcuking clue about how to get out of the mess that Monkey-Boy has put us in. Let it never be forgotten that this was a war of choice.

    There's a lack of mass protest on the street because there's no draft. Nixon figured out that once you remove the prospect of members of the general population having to choose between going to war, going to prison or going to Canada, they won't kick up too much of a fuss about some other poor sod having to go. As people have started to take hits elsewhere, the economy, public services being reduced etc. in order to pay for Iraq and the big tax cut for millionnaires, they start to get angry, hence Monkey-Boy's poll numbers tanking ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml )

    And what happens when you try to get them to define what they consider a 'win' to be? Peace with honor... now where have I heard that before?

    Classic trick, word an assertion that can't be substantiated so that it takes the form of a question. Most people don't notice the difference and there for this conjecture gets confused with an estimate. The real question for me is, how many of these Jihadists were in the game before the invasion took place?

    And of course the West is entirely blameless for its image problem. It's not as if we've been rolling over there, taking their land and their resources willy-nilly for half a milennium now, is it? Oh, wait... It doesn't matter in any case, the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy has quickly and decisively acted to allay fears of a overbearing, paternalistic superpower breathing down their necks.

    Clearly no-one sent that email to Karen Hughes. (See above.)

    Ah, more Post-Marxist Hegelian nonsense a la Francis Fukuyama, who drank the Kool Aid in the midst of Post Cold War euphoria to confidently pronounce that liberal democracy and capitalism was the highest plane of human existence, in a state of complete ignorance of other cultures and intellectual and philosophical traditions. The very fact that 'Islamic extremism' and the 'Asian values' movements exist is to challenge this very notion. It is a very arrogant type of person who admits to having all the answers. How is liberal democracy and capitalism working out for the American underclasses?

    Yeah, because they're attracted to Iraq by the fact that it's easier to go up against the US Army than the TSA. :roll: YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING THE SAME TYPE OF PEOPLE!

    ...in an electoral process that makes 1950s Mississippi pale in comparison for being rigged towards achieving a particular outcome. It's not much different than the plebicites that Saddam used to organise.

    I could go on, but I'm knackered and I need some kip.