Conservatives, explain to me being against a time line in Iraq

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-01-2007, 07:54 PM

Humans need incentives to work, right? Isn't that a universal truism that conservatives hold dear? Isn't that what makes socialism inherently flawed?

Okay, now let's apply that truism to the Iraq situation...

You've got a guy, Omar, who is 22 and lives in Baghdad. He has heard Americans say he should join the Army and risk getting his head cut off every day. At the same time, he hears Bush promise that the Americans will not leave so long as there is still fighting. What exactly is Omar's incentive to risk his own ass to combat the bad guys?

Omar knows that he can continue to sit on his ass because the US military will pick up his slack. He's basically on security welfare. He's becoming dependent on the Americans for his security. First, he feels no need to risk his life because he knows that if he doesn't, the Americans will do it for him and secondly, as every day passes, he's becoming less capable of risking his own life because he's becoming accustomed to sucking on the American tit of security. And if he ever feels guilty about not pitching in and working, he can rationalize that he is a victim of the Americans and he deserves to sit on his ass while they clean up the mess.

Now this exact same dynamic is at play with a fat ass, worthless, lazy ghetto woman who continues to shit out kids and refuses to work because liberals insist that she be given a check. She won't work because if she doesn't, other people will work for her, and she becomes incapable of working the longer she sits around and watches Montel. To put the icing on the cake, she blames rich people for her problems and thinks she SHOULD be given a check by them.

Conservatives instantly see that situation and say we must stop it. We cannot enable people to be lazy and depend on the government, because after all, it's axiomatic that if you allow people to mooch, they will! Yes, yanking away the money will cause her great hardship, but hey, we can't let the cycle keep going!

So please tell me what about the Iraq situation is different and why the average Iraqi should seriously undertake the security of his own country if we're willing to stick around indefinitely.

JaJae · 05-01-2007, 08:01 PM

I'm against anything that tells the enemy how long we will be there. They should be afraid that we will never go home until they are all dead or give up. You don't fight a war by telling the enemy when and under what conditions you're going to give up. You either fight a war or you don't. You don't kinda fight a war.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-01-2007, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm against anything that tells the enemy how long we will be there. They should be afraid that we will never go home until they are all dead or give up. You don't fight a war by telling the enemy when and under what conditions you're going to give up. You either fight a war or you don't. You don't kinda fight a war.

Ummm...okay, but how does that address the incentive question I brought up?

The trouble is that the Iraqis know as soon as they start looking competent, they'll have to start risking their own asses instead of ours.

Is it any surprise that in 4 years the Iraqis still are "training"? I bet my left nut that without any real incentive, i.e., a timeline, they'll still be training in 10 years, in a perpetual state of preparation, looking busy enough that we don't fire them for being lazy, but incompetent enough that others will end up picking up their slack.

I'm telling you...this entire situation can be reduced to an economic analogy.

JaJae · 05-01-2007, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Ummm...okay, but how does that address the incentive question I brought up?

It doesn't because it's unrelated. Imagine if after D-Day Congress said "Oops, you didn't meet your incentives, too many dead. Time to pack up and go home." Nancy Pelosi is not one to be trusted to put limits and restrictions on how we fight a war.

thomez · 05-01-2007, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It doesn't because it's unrelated. Imagine if after D-Day Congress said "Oops, you didn't meet your incentives, too many dead. Time to pack up and go home." Nancy Pelosi is not one to be trusted to put limits and restrictions on how we fight a war.

Is the establishment of security really a war? Because that is basically what we are doing right now in almost every circumstance.

JaJae · 05-01-2007, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Is the establishment of security really a war? Because that is basically what we are doing right now in almost every circumstance.

Yes, I think an enduring major combative military engagement is a war.

thomez · 05-01-2007, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, an enduring major combative military engagement is a war.

The problem is that it isn't a war of battles won and lost, or of territory, but of security. When the primary objective is providing security, it looks a lot like a police role.... a military does not excel in a police role... and never has.

JaJae · 05-01-2007, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

The problem is that it isn't a war of battles won and lost, or of territory, but of security. When the primary objective is providing security, it looks a lot like a police role.... a military does not excel in a police role... and never has.

I don't think it matters what the purpose is. A war isn't defined by the objective or purpose. It is defined by the act.

JaJae · 05-01-2007, 08:40 PM

Not to be prude, but:

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c :

I think what is happening in Iraq is clearly a war.

thomez · 05-01-2007, 09:07 PM

You can call it whatever you want, but it is primarily a security (police) role (in the war, if you will). It is a bad position to put your troops in.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-01-2007, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It doesn't because it's unrelated. Imagine if after D-Day Congress said "Oops, you didn't meet your incentives, too many dead. Time to pack up and go home." Nancy Pelosi is not one to be trusted to put limits and restrictions on how we fight a war.

How can you say it's unrelated? You can define the mission in Iraq in a lot of ways, but undoubtedly an essential part of it is to hand over security to the Iraqis and leave. You can't complete that part of the mission without getting over the incentive problem.

Donkey® · 05-01-2007, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They should be afraid that we will never go home until they are all dead or give up.

Ha ha. Nice.

1: They are not afraid of us.

2: We are doing a pretty shitty job killing them all or making them give up.

Scrum · 05-01-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It doesn't because it's unrelated. Imagine if after D-Day Congress said "Oops, you didn't meet your incentives, too many dead. Time to pack up and go home." Nancy Pelosi is not one to be trusted to put limits and restrictions on how we fight a war.

Imagine 4 years after D-day we are still sending people onto Omaha beach to be shot. You're damn right we should think of something else, like perhaps a diplomatic solution.

Even if we do pull out, we will have over a 100K Blackwater types there fighting in our name.

Funny that Pelosi is so untrustworthy, but the clowns who have gotten everything wrong from the start are the ones we should be putting faith in.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-01-2007, 10:45 PM

A year ago, 18 mos ago, 2 years ago I was against a timeline. I'm not against one now.

Kytro · 05-01-2007, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm against anything that tells the enemy how long we will be there. They should be afraid that we will never go home until they are all dead or give up. You don't fight a war by telling the enemy when and under what conditions you're going to give up. You either fight a war or you don't. You don't kinda fight a war.

Maybe against a conventional army, but there is no reason to think they will eventually give up.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-01-2007, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You don't kinda fight a war.

I agree, but that is exactly what we're doing right now. Refusing to give the iraqis incentives to fight themselves is kinda fighting a war within a war kinda already being fought. It's just another way of half assing things to raise the probability that things won't go our way.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-01-2007, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I agree, but that is exactly what we're doing right now. Refusing to give the iraqis incentives to fight themselves is kinda fighting a war within a war kinda already being fought. It's just another way of half assing things to raise the probability that things won't go our way.

I actually tend to agree with the premis of that statement now

DosEquis · 05-02-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

A year ago, 18 mos ago, 2 years ago I was against a timeline. I'm not against one now.

I am not so sure that a timeline for withdrawl should be public, but I would definitely support and encourage benchmarks.

Over the last few months I have taken a liking to Joe Biden's plan.

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

A year ago, 18 mos ago, 2 years ago I was against a timeline. I'm not against one now.

I am not against a timeline now either as long as it has a few elements:
1. It can't be public to the point where it gives a year's notice with the exact date.
2. It can't be unconditional to progress made and the current state of Iraq.
3. Nancy Pelosi and her posse shouldn't be a determining factor in progress. It should be determined not by Pelosi or Bush, but by the Generals on the ground... specifically the ones that were voted in unanimously with bi-partisan support.
4. Any bill passed can't include millions of pork barrel spending to buy votes.
5. And finally, the bill can't change rules of engagement for our troops on the ground while they are still in Iraq.

If those criteria were met, I would support a timeline. I'm not not necessarily against a timeline. I'm against this stupid legislation and I don't think people should trust Pelosi on this. It's amazing people don't trust Bush, they don't trust the general the Dems voted in unanimously, but they trust Pelosi's judgment despite her recent actions in the middle east. She clearly has no concept of what's going on or what is good for the region whatsoever.