Katie
27-Mar-2012 09:37
[
Материал]
But I just don’t get the distinction you’re mainkg here. When you say “such things,” are you referring to human rights (you seemed to be in the previous comment)? That would imply brutality.I did mean brutality was an option, but I was referring to others, not us (though I guess we could be more brutal, I just don't see that in the cards or appropriate for us.) You can call it semantics if you wish, but unwinnable is not the same as we are unwilling. If people would say that, it would be a much more productive debate.the war is unwinnable given present and likely future circumstances.We can change those circumstances, and quicker than people think. Wartime should concentrate the mind. Withdrawal from Japan and Germany certainly are options, with new forces we raise covering them even if under trained, etc. If the political climate to do what is necessary is the problem, hence my earlier criticism of Bush for wasting the opportunity when he had a more forgiving climate, then we should be trying to change the climate. I am very unimpressed with the argument we cannot do what it takes to win given the climate being offered by people trying to destroy that very climate (not directed at you by the way.) It is dishonest. Nor am I claiming more troops are necessary. it may need no more than time. There are things going right, and some of them are of a long term nature that will only play out in time. For all the issues with Iraqi troops and police, they are better outfits than a year ago. One cannot just extrapolate such trends into the future, but one can say that if the pace of change keeps up it will eventually make a large difference, including in our ability to leave. If that changes for an extended period of time then reassessment would obviously be necessary. We also have to wonder about the government wielding those powers, but if we want to be realist about this, if all we do is put in another dictatorial central government, isn't that the stability we crave? That realistically must be (and always was) a possible outcome. I'll consider that a failure, but failure was always a possibility. Leaving now robs us of the chance for better and is much more likely to lead to greater instability. Personally I am comfortable with failure. It happens, and not allowing for it (either in planning or in assessing after the fact) is a huge mistake that all views on this seem to be ignoring, as if the possibility of failure is a good reason not to attempt something. In some cases such as this, even a low probability of success may be worth it since failure isn't necessarily worse and likely better than not attempting to succeed. Some failures are worse than others.I am not analogizing in the following example, but just showing what I mean. So no lectures about how they are not comparable. If I am at the edge of a cliff, and I cannot swim, but my only hope of living due to a tribe of cannibals about to seize me and behead me, is to attempt a leap into the potentially deadly surf, you jump. Unlikely to succeed, but preferable to just dying. In Iraq, while I think the assertion that leaving would be disastrous for us, though it could be, it would almost certainly have a bad outcome. So, if by staying, even if I were to see only a 20% chance of a significantly better outcome (say democracy and a relatively stable government) a 60% chance of a stable but undemocratic government, and a 20% chance of something along the lines of the chaos I see likely upon us leaving, then hey, I am going for the 20%. That is something along the lines of what I see my decision tree looking like. Obviously, vastly simplified for illustrative purposes, but close enough for government work.
