11 September 2007

People who need to STFU.

So, I'm driving home from work and listening to the radio.

Democratic Congresscritter is quoted as opining that the Maliki government needs to be "sent a message" and that this message should consist of withdrawing all US troops from Iraq.

If you're that stupid, please don't talk about Iraq.

Without US troops in Iraq, what possible incentive could the Maliki government have for not retrenching, holding what he can, and preparing to try to ride out a real disaster?

We aren't "sending messages" here, we are talking about people's lives. And withdrawing from Iraq removes our ability to influence the situation in any way.

I know Maliki is not moving towards political goals as fast as the US would like. I'm not 100% thrilled with him either.

But some days, that's just not how politics works in the Middle East.


Blogger Consul-At-Arms said...

This whole "sending a message" thing goes back at least to Vietnam, when B-52's were employed to "send a message."

You don't use B-52's (or troop withdrawals) to send a message. That's what Western Union (or Instant Messaging) is for.

Use B-52's to deliver payloads over target and withdraw troops upon mission completion.

It's really that simple.

8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eh, the whole 'sending them a message' thing was a big part of the media blitz to hype people up before the war, too.

Here's a good example of 'sending a message' as a justification for the war:


In this case, the message was american troops 'going house to house' to tell the islamic world 'suck on this' was 'what this war was about'.

9:19 AM  
Anonymous Bill McD said...

whups, that was me.

9:19 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

My own viewpoint on this matter is colored heavily by Michael Yon's observations. He has several EXCELLENT observations in his various articles.

Fundamentally, he says (and I agree) that political processes are uglier than military ones. He mentions the discussion of the Iraqi flag and the words 'Allah is Great' (in Saddams' handwriting) is written on it. By comparison, he brings up the 'under God' controversy in our own Pledge of Allegiance, and how divided America is over such a simple matter. America cannot come to a workable, livable political compromise over this small matter, so how can the Iraqis be expected to be any different?

The fundamental difference between Iraqi political factions and American political factions is that the Iraqi political factions are more heavily armed. Suppose, for a moment, the the People United for the Separation of Church and State were all armed with AK's and RPG's, instead of press conferences and picket lines. How many US churches would be attacked?

So the fact that Maliki is not making great progress in moving Iraq forward with political progress bothers me little. He is an elected Head of State, and if her merely finishes his term unassasinated, he will have accomplished much.

Politics in any democracy is slow and ugly. It is that very ugliness that is its charm. Contrast the ugliness of American, British or any other democracy in its political change with the ruthless efficiency of Saddam, Stalin or any other genocidal state. The genocidists are efficient, their political processes are direct and linear. To complain that Iraq is not making swift, efficient political process is merely to acknowledge that it IS a democracy at work.

Those that complain longest and loudest about this lack of political progress are also those who overtly admire the thugocracies of the world. There is a logical connection between these POV's.

2:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home