Post Defeat Policy

It appears that the US will lose the war in Iraq. If this occurs what are the policy implications? Regime change for countries who fund terrorism and defy the international community will be out of the question for the foreseeable future. The deaths of Americans by muslims will have been shown to change American foreign policy and frighten the American people. Going on the offensive against terrorism will have been discredited. This will result in a boon to terrorist organization and those who fund them. To counter this new threat will take dramatic action. Government policy must be changed.
The military budget must be dramatically cut. Having a large military, but not the will to fight is a huge waste of money. The budgets of the Army and Marine Corps should be slashed. The budgets of the Air Force and Navy should not be cut as much. Since, besides the UK, there is no military on earth with a navy or air force to compare with ours, deploying those branches would not risk massive casualties. This makes them a potentially useful tool.
The budget for homeland security must be dramatically raised. We will need more scanners at ports, more security at airports, more security at border crossings, more protection of bridges, arenas, and power plants. Hopefully, most of this money can be taken from the military budget.
The gas tax should be raised by two dollars a gallon. A seventy five cent per gallon raise right away and then another the next year and fifty cents the third year. This will lead to reduced use of oil in the US and a fall in the price of oil which will destabilize Iran and Saudi Arabia. A cut in the price of oil will mean less money available for those who finance terrorism.
A crackdown on illegal immigration. The wall on the border should be built, and businesses required to document immigration status of all employees. Many more immigration workers should be hired to find and deport illegal immigrants and make sure legal immigrants do not overstay their visas. A national ID card might make this easier. Tougher screening for legal immigrants from muslim countries should also be a priority.
I still hold out hope the war can be won and these policies will not need to be implemented, but the clock is obviously ticking.

Share this

>Going on the offensive

>Going on the offensive against terrorism will have been discredited

Only going on the offensive in the sense of nation building has been discredited. We're likely to see the US continue to use the military as a tool against terrorism, but in a purely punitive and retaliatory manner.

Use the Air Force for this

This is why I want to leave the budgets for the Air Force and Navy much more intact, they can do the punitive missions.

Air support

We can do a lot to tilt the balance of existing conflicts in favor of our foreign friends by lending them our air support, while they do the ground fighting. As was done in Afghanistan, I believe. Let them put their boots on the ground.

Lose the war to whom?

"It appears that the US will lose the war in Iraq."

This whole "lose the war" stuff is absolutely ridiculous. Who will we have lost to, Al Qaeda? That's laughable. So what if we didn't meet every goal. Has Al Qaeda met all their goals? Have they set up a sharia state in the U.S. ? Have they established any of their wacky goals? Have the united all Muslims under a caliphate? Have they removed all U.S. influence from every Muslim nation? Have they erased Israel off the map?

Last I've looked we've had more military casualites under Bill Clinton from accidents that under George Bush from all sources.

Do you realize just how absolutely silly the left is?

woah nelly

Easy does it there, Macker. It's right as far as I can tell that's framing this as "win vs. loss." That's one of the best rhetorical strategies the O'Reillys of the world have left; "so you're saying you want America to lose?"

One could uncharitably interpret your rhetoric as barely concealing (hopefully subconscious) bigotry given that you have what I'm coming to refer to as the "they" problem. The "they" problem is marked by characterizing the diverse strains and goals of Muslim thought as falling under the same rubric. Like, what... The war in Iraq was directly against a group called Al Qaeda? Do "they" have the goal of setting up a sharia state in the US? Do they oppose "US influence" or military bases?

I hope that's not what you mean- it's also plausible that you could just be seriously confused about the war in Iraq and the goals therein. After all, the things you actually wrote weren't the worst examples of the "they" problem I've ever seen- but the tone seemed suggestive of it.

aaaathatsfiveas.blogspot.com

Did I say the right was any better

I think O'Reilly is silly also in an idiotic sort of way.

Sure I mean it

Sure I mean it. I mean it because that's what they've said their goals are.

They, in this case refers to, of course, Al Qaeda, it's a pronoun useful in the English language to refer to the groups being discussed. In this case "they" have explicitly called for the establishment of a "pious caliphate". They have also called for the other things I stated. Do some research.

Don't try to psychologize me. I can do the same thing for you. I try not to uncharitably interpret others writings. I don't find it useful to understand their actual positions. It only serves to support fallacy and it sure does tend to piss them off. I guess if that's your goal you should continue to do it.

How about this. After what I've read of your writings you are obviously pro-terrorist. What with defending "they" and all. "They" being terrorists. In case you didn't notice it's not Saddam's army that's causing trouble in Iraq, it's terrorists. Terrorists killing mostly Muslim civilians. Sure it's not only Al Qaeda, so what.? Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck for the rest of the "resistance" too.

I described how one faction that is fighting us has lost. I can do the same for all the others. This isn't brain surgery you know. They have objectively lost, and the U.S. army has objectively won. It's not a retorical strategy because I'm not using it to push any position. Unlike Reilly I am not saying "if we leave then they've won so we can't leave". Leave or stay, from a military standpoint we've "won" at this point.

As for any ideological losses well that's caused by people like you. If your one of those who thinks all killing is equivalent. If you think that a soldier forced to kill innocents because a terrorist is using them as human shields is morally equivalent to a terrorist purposely targeting an killing innocents then I have no use for you since you are part of the problem. You make terrorism a viable strategy and it is you that is partially responsible for the increased body totals. Then there's your habit of calling terrorists by the term civilian. You make the U.S. army look like a bunch of murderers even when they are killing terrorists, since you equate killing with murder, and terrorist with civilian.

The Iraq war may have made the U.S. look bad to some people but I suspect they already had the propensity to hate America. That doesn't mean it was lost militarily.

I can also play this them vs. us crap on you. Seems to me that it's you with a "them vs. us" attitude. What's especially telling is how you managed to deduce a bunch of incorrect assumptions about my beliefs based on grouping me in your "out crowd". You just assumed that since I wasn't with you I must be with "them".

So do you like my uncharitable interpretation of your position? Hey, don't bitch that you didn't say any of that. You're the one who thinks it's just dandy to make things up in a way that makes other people look bad.

devolution

There's a certain schizophrenia to your post in that you seem to be admitting as true something I asked about, whilst also taking issue with my asking. If the "bad part" of my question was accurate, I guess I don't get the problem.

Before you read my response, I'll ask you to consider that there's a fatal flaw in your whole line of argumentation. You just failed to consider that there are people out there who actually know what they're talking about. There are experts on the topic of suicide terror (Atran, Pape etc.) and they actually draw conclusions about the intentions of these people, what gives them strength, what motivates them and so on. And what's more they actually use evidence and serious study and scholarship. It sucks really, because now that these guys came along we can't just sit in a talk radio booth and speculate about what motivates these radical islamists (signs of weakness, right guys?) I mean, who'd listen to that now? oh.


They, in this case refers to, of course, Al Qaeda, it's a pronoun useful in the English language to refer to the groups being discussed. In this case "they" have explicitly called for the establishment of a "pious caliphate". They have also called for the other things I stated. Do some research.

Maybe you should, because for one thing Al Qaeda isn't all that important these days. Far more threatening are al qaeda style groups which are, therefore, even harder to track. If you know the etymology of Al Qaeda you may even pause to question the usefulness of the "they pronoun" for them altogether. I find it useful still, but one must be careful.

Don't try to psychologize me. I can do the same thing for you. I try not to uncharitably interpret others writings. I don't find it useful to understand their actual positions. It only serves to support fallacy and it sure does tend to piss them off. I guess if that's your goal you should continue to do it.

I think if you reread you'll find that I was asking a geniune question. I asn't interpreting uncharitably so much as asking for clarification.

In case you didn't notice it's not Saddam's army that's causing trouble in Iraq, it's terrorists. Terrorists killing mostly Muslim civilians. Sure it's not only Al Qaeda, so what.? Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck for the rest of the "resistance" too.

Certainly, and if we go into another country and occupy it my guess is that we'll be fighting "resistance" there as well. Maybe it's a good time to make an argument here, lest someone misinterpret you as saying that every group involved in civil war infighting should be treated like Al Qaeda because they happen to be brown and holding a gun.

This isn't brain surgery you know. They have objectively lost, and the U.S. army has objectively won. It's not a retorical strategy because I'm not using it to push any position. Unlike Reilly I am not saying "if we leave then they've won so we can't leave". Leave or stay, from a military standpoint we've "won" at this point.

During the stock market crash, you could've used this same logic to prove that you hadn't lost your money. Right? I mean, someone else hasn't won it so I guess that means you didn't lose it.

As for any ideological losses well that's caused by people like you. If your one of those who thinks all killing is equivalent.

One useful way to think of this is to imagine what your counterparts might have said during any other military occupations. The Japanese BM during the rape of nanking would've produced arguments that decried anyone who questioned the mass slaughter as inflicting "ideological damage." I mean if we refuse to question something, any dissent could always simply be interpreted as damage in some way. If some guy steals something from you and you tell him it's wrong, he would do well to redicrect the conversation by accusing you of damaging him by calling him a thief. Genius.

Killing is equivalent? These are nonsense phrases- is any killing "equivalent"?

If you think that a soldier forced to kill innocents because a terrorist is using them as human shields is morally equivalent to a terrorist purposely targeting an killing innocents then I have no use for you since you are part of the problem.

Do you think any killing is the "equivalent" of another? Again, this is just nonsense meant to confuse the issue. The only person I've ever seen advocate moral equivalence was Ronald Reagan (and I say this only because he used those exact words.)

You make terrorism a viable strategy and it is you that is partially responsible for the increased body totals.

ha. If this was anything more than a tired, insincere rhetorical strategy you stole from Hannity then I might bother to be offended. THE expert on Al Qaeda- Jason Burke- says this (paraphrase): "every use of violence by the west in the Muslim world is a gift to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden." This makes perfect sense with about 3 seconds of thought. So I'll ask, which of us is advocating western violence in the Muslim world? And that would mean...

What's especially telling is how you managed to deduce a bunch of incorrect assumptions about my beliefs based on grouping me in your "out crowd". You just assumed that since I wasn't with you I must be with "them".

huh? I asked a question and you said "yes but fuck you for assuming I'd say yes" as far as I can tell.

Hey, don't bitch that you didn't say any of that. You're the one who thinks it's just dandy to make things up in a way that makes other people look bad.

As much as people use that bullshit argument "Oh your post is filled with so many blatant contradictions and obvious silliness I can't even respond" it's actually quite easy to take ludicrously specious arguments apart.

aaaathatsfiveas.blogspot.com