No, that is not a typo. And actually, the response that I have received (and am receiving) is a very pleasant surprise. A bit of background – yesterday, I posted a diary here about my thoughts regarding the “surge option”, and thought that this would be an issue that I could get some good dialogue from our RedState counterparts on.
So, I signed up for an account last night, and was very up front (full disclosure as to who I was, etc.) with my thoughts, and, figuring that a wrong step or comment would result in a banning or some other fate worse than death….So, I was clear, concise and direct – but also respectful – all without knowing whether I would get any replies, or if so, replies that would be respectful as well.
And lo and behold, not only were the comments pretty respectful (even if I didn’t agree with them), but they were plentiful and I was surprised to find the diary right smack in the middle of the Recommended Blogs list.
Why did I do this? Well, this was my first venture to RedState (other than some on and off lurking) and I thought this was an issue that would generate some good comments and thoughts, and a healthy debate. I also wasn’t going to go anywhere near Freeperville or LGF because I wasn’t looking to be shouted down or lower my intelligence level just by reading.
And while I think that there are some good and well thought out replies (again, even though I don’t really agree with some of them), I was welcomed by many of them. The moral to me here is that even if you disagree, if you are respectful and make clear points and stay on topic, then dissent is actually welcomed. I guess we can say the same here, piefights nothwithstanding…
If you are interested in reading the comments, I liked the diary above, but if not, then the full text of my diary is below:
Questions about “the surge” from someone on the left
In the interest of full disclosure, I post as a frequent diarist and a front page contributor on some of the “lefty” blogs. And while I have lurked here on and off for some time, I haven’t really jumped in to comment or post until now.
So, why now? Well, I posted a piece yesterday with my thoughts on the “surge” that is being discussed and am looking for some thoughts from those of you here.
I don’t know if this will be read by a lot of you, but I truly welcome some thoughts other than “yeah, great post”, so that is why I am here…While I am and have been a critic of the war in Iraq (but not Afghanistan) for quite some time, my main criticism relates to the troop levels, armor and equipment, as well as the cutting of veteran’s benefits when they return.
All that being said, I wanted to lay out some thoughts here about the recent call to add 20,000 – 50,000 troops for a “limited time” and see what the reaction is to my thinking.
I really have two main issues/questions to raise with respect to this (and they are laid out to a degree in my post linked above).
For starters, my thought is that the US needed at least double the number of troops back in 2003, if not more than that. Not my words, but those of General Shinseki and a number of others (not to belabor this point – just as background and I can certainly find sourcing for other Generals or prominent figures if need be). Now that the level of violence is what it is, I don’t see how even 50,000 troops would have any material impact.
My argument here is that if we are to build up a troop presence at this stage (and I personally am against this), then we shouldn’t do it halfway – we should send in at least another 300,000 – 500,000 troops. Of course, this leads to the question of where we would find this number of troops (among other questions), but if you want to do it right, then we would need much more than 50,000.
I think that it is fairly disingenuous of Senators like Reid and McCain (see, I am equal opportunity here) to call for this number and that they both should know that this wouldn’t be more than window dressing for political cover. I think this is even moreso the case when the Joint Chiefs of Staff are unamimously against this, as is soon to be retiring General Abizaid.
My other issue is less strategic than it is dealing with the disconnect between this and setting a timetable for withdrawal. We have heard many indicate that if we set a timetable for withdrawal, then the insurgents will just wait us out until we withdraw. Regardless of whether I agree with this line of thought, the same question would apply to a temporary surge.
Why wouldn’t al Sadr or any of the other insurgent groups, militias or terrorists who are in Iraq just wait until the surge is over and the 20,000 – 50,000 troops are redeployed from Iraq before continuing their violence against each other and our remaining troops?
As I said at the beginning of my post, I don’t know if this will be read or commented on by many of you, but I do want to see what your thoughts are on these two questions/issues. So as to not be accused of a “drive by post”, I will stick around to see if there are comments and will respectfully reply to them, as I am not looking to bait anyone here or stir up crap just for the sake of it (I don’t have the patience to do that over at Daily Kos or wherever else I post anyway).
I look forward to your thoughts and comments.
Not bad, eh?
More discussion over at big orange
I commend you on reaching across the divide in a polite and respectful manner.
I get really upset when people assume all Republicans are horrible people, or all conservatives are religious nuts, or the other things that sometimes pass on lefty blogs. I’m a diehard leftist, unabashed and unapologetic. But that doesn’t mean I think everyone else is wrong. I know what I know based on my life experience. They know what they know based on theirs. The more we can enter into respectful, open, honest dialog with each other, and refrain from the automatic assumptions about each other, the sooner we can make this world a better place. Because when we engage in the rhetoric of hate, guess what? WE become part of the problem.
So no “rethuglicans” in my vocabulary, etc. I hope others will think about what they hope to accomplish with frustration and anger, and how much more they might accomplish with a different tack.
it’s a lot easier to be gracious when we have at least a little power. It was tough when we had none and were still getting blamed for everything.
Hey, I understand the frustration!! I hope “we” are truly in power. Just because it’s a Democratic majority doesn’t mean progressives or ‘the people’ really are represented. I’m waiting to see what our leaders do with this power..!
over at Dkos how you amaze me. One thing I left out over there was after reading the comments at RedState, I was surprised yes by the nice discussion and how civil it could be. Shit, we cannot do that here half the time. But, what was upsetting was the casualness in their discussing taking out more Iraqis. And the talk of tens of thousands as if they were a bunch of locusts or pests of some kind and not human beings at all. Did you find that upsetting?
Yes. It’s all very abstract. Statistics.
YES.
Very upsetting.
Just kill ’em all. Don’t spare their mosques. Don’t try to fight a humane war. I wanted to jump in and say read “The Art of War” – the only way to wage war successfully IS to do it as carefully as possible with as much respect to the native population as possible, or else you lose the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people, without which there can be no victory.
that too and then I couldn’t read anymore. Too much disconnect with real feelings and humanity. Only damaged American soldiers (and they are out there) can talk like that and they are the ones who would be doing the “taking out”. Most soldiers though who have done time in Iraq know both sides of the fence. The good and the bad, and they care about what happens to the Iraqi people and slaughtering another 30,000 to get “bad guys” is not an option. The thinking/feeling troop in Iraq has experienced the pain and insurgency that unnecessary death and destruction brings and has no taste or stomach for it. So who do we send to take out Mookie and his bad guys……our most demented fucked up soldiers along with anybody posting things like that at Redstate? Will they have to pass a potential sociopath test? My husband refuses to fire on innocents and he isn’t alone, so what do you do it if the bad guys hide among the innocent and over half of your soldiers refuse to fire because it isn’t legal and they challenge the order?
civil Aloha, don’t take it too seriously girlfriend. They don’t have many friends, they really really need each other to keep that denial afloat so don’t rock that boat baby. It gets messy over here but this community is a prize because we choose to be together now…not forced togetherness out of desperation. Though I think we probably started out that way ;). You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose but you can’t pick your friend’s nose unless you’re on Redstate!
You pull everybody out, as rapidly as is safely possible.
As a veteran of Desert Storm who traveled a significant part of that battle field after is was over including the “highway of death”, I for one do NOT want to see a surge which by any other name should be called an escalation. The troops are being sent in to attack Al Sadr and his militias, which will definately result in a fight with large parts of the Shiites and a blood bath in Baghdad and attacks on the supply convoys from Kuwait.
Deaths would escalate far above anything the US has seen since Vietnam, and once the battle started there are only two possible outcomes.
First we are able to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and destroy the Al Sadr movement which would open a large hole in the city of Baghdad and southern Iraq which Hakim would try to fill with a lot more violence in the regions of Iraq which right now are relatively quite and stable.
The second possibility is much worse to speculate on, it involves the US troops getting attacked relentlessly, and the command resorting to large amounts of Air Power to give the troops the cover they need. Losses on both sides would be atrocious at this point and the outcry among the Arab and Muslim states would be almost deafening, let along European states.
The results for the troops who survived would haunt a significant portion of them for the rest of their lives, as images of the highway of death do me.
The legacy of this escalation would be horrible for both the US and Iraqi people and probably last for a generation or two.
If they sent troops to defeat a militia like al Sadr’s they would be well advised to heed the words of Winston Churchill;
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill
The escalation of the war in Iraq with another 30-50,000 troops especially sending them in to attack al Sadr, will release a hurricane the Middle East has not seen since the crusaders felt it.
agreed – there was way too much – “kill as many as we need to” for my taste. Actually, even one is too much for my taste…..