PDA

View Full Version : Crush the Insurgents in Iraq


Evilmav2
05-26-2004, 03:41 AM
http://www.multied.com/Bio/UGENS/Sherman.gif
Crush the Insurgents in Iraq: What George W. Bush can learn from Lincoln and Sherman.

From the May 23, 2004 Washington Post
by William Kristol & Lewis E. Lehrman
05/24/2004 12:00:00 AM

"THE UNITED STATES WILL LEAD, or the world will shift into neutral." Wise words from President Bush on May 20 to congressional Republicans. From the beginning, the president has made clear that we must lead and win the war on terror. To win the strategic war, we must of course win tactical battles. The central battle in the war on terror is Iraq. Unless we win that battle, we will see America itself, and the world, shift disastrously into neutral in the broader war.

In every war there are crucial turning moments, hard to foresee. They often occur in the midst of public despair about war prospects. Today there is considerable despair over the situation in Iraq. But despair existed in Britain and the United States after the fall of Singapore in World War II--before the U.S. Navy's astonishing destruction of a Japanese carrier force in 1942 at Midway. In August 1864 there was a widespread belief in the North that the Civil War could not be won. President Abraham Lincoln believed that the war stalemate and the terrible casualties could lead to the election of his opponent, George McClellan, who might repudiate the Emancipation Proclamation and sue for peace on the basis of the status quo ante--a free North, a slave South.

But Lincoln pressed forward. He argued that "no attempt at negotiation with the insurgent leader could result in any good. . . . He affords us no excuse to deceive ourselves. . . . Between him and us the issue
is distinct, simple and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war, and decided by victory."

Then Atlanta fell to Union troops in the late summer of 1864. Lincoln was reelected, with 80 percent of the soldier vote. Shortly thereafter came the 13th Amendment, the abolition of slavery, the surrender of the Confederacy and the beginning of a long process of Reconstruction. Lincoln's war aims were ultimately realized.

What of the war aims of President Bush? He intends passage of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30, and elections in January, followed by the establishment of a representative Iraqi government and the successful reconstruction of Iraqi society.

If a provisional Iraqi sovereign government is to operate effectively from July until the elected government takes power in January, adequate security is necessary. This requires striking a decisive military blow against the armed insurgencies that seek to prevent the Iraqi government from coming into existence. As was the case in 1864, the immediate task is therefore the destruction of the armies and militias of the insurgency--not taking and holding territory, not winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, not conciliating opponents and critics, not gaining the approval of other nations. All of these can follow after victory over the violent insurrection.

So any armed insurgency opposed to a peaceful transition in Iraq must be destroyed. Fallujah must be conquered and terrorists denied safe haven in Fallujah and other centers of insurrection. Moqtada Sadr's militia must be rendered powerless. This will have to be accomplished primarily by American and British military power--however useful various political efforts can be, however useful Iraqi and coalition forces can be. Then a sovereign Iraq, with continued U.S. military and other assistance, will be able to move ahead with the task of political and economic reconstruction.

Such decisive military victories in Iraq would be respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike. The new Iraqi government could then depend more confidently on Iraqi and American police and military power until it is ready to provide fully for its own police and military security.

Strategic success for the global war on terror depends on a decisive tactical victory over the armed insurgents of global terrorism in Iraq. Decisive military blows struck against violent opposition to the July passage of sovereignty and the January general election in Iraq would permit a supportable outcome at the polls in Iraq and the subsequent successful reconstruction of a democratic nation.

Meanwhile, as after William T. Sherman's victory in Atlanta, the reelection of the president at home would follow--with a mandate to carry on, and to win, the global war against terror.

Lewis E. Lehrman, a former Republican candidate for governor of New York, is a partner in the investment firm L.E. Lehrman & Co. William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.

Mavdog
05-26-2004, 09:11 AM
It only took the south about a century to completely recover from the destruction wrought by the war between the states and Sherman's march.

The Iraq answer is not more destruction, it is rebuilding.

LRB
05-26-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
It only took the south about a century to completely recover from the destruction wrought by the war between the states and Sherman's march.

The Iraq answer is not more destruction, it is rebuilding.

I don't know where you came from, but this is hardly the case. Having been born a centrury after the civil war in the south and having vivid memories of my childhood, I can tell you for a fact that it was long before a century that recovery took place. In fact my grandmother who was born, raised, and lived in the south her whole life that by the time of here early childhood, the late 1890's, restoration had taken place then. Most history books list reconstruction of the south as having completed no later than the late 1800's, so 35 years maximum. That's a hell of a lot less than a century even at worst case estimate.

Try to at least get your facts reasonably straight before using them to shoot down someone else's opinion.

Mavdog
05-26-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It only took the south about a century to completely recover from the destruction wrought by the war between the states and Sherman's march.

The Iraq answer is not more destruction, it is rebuilding.

I don't know where you came from, but this is hardly the case. Having been born a centrury after the civil war in the south and having vivid memories of my childhood, I can tell you for a fact that it was long before a century that recovery took place. In fact my grandmother who was born, raised, and lived in the south her whole life that by the time of here early childhood, the late 1890's, restoration had taken place then. Most history books list reconstruction of the south as having completed no later than the late 1800's, so 35 years maximum. That's a hell of a lot less than a century even at worst case estimate.

Try to at least get your facts reasonably straight before using them to shoot down someone else's opinion.

oh yeah? well my grandmom told me...

Tremendous failure of logic and history in your post LRB. Are we relying on what our older relatives say to support positions? not likely...at least for me, I'll rely on the facts.

If the "restoration" of the South's industry had taken place by the "late 1890's", why is it that the south had less GSP than the northeast, the mideast, and the great lakes up until the 1960's, finally surpassing them in the 1980's? The facts are "reasonably straight"that it was not until the last half of the 20th Century that the south totally recoverd from the war.

You should try to rely on the actual facts and not on what your grandmother told you.

LRB
05-26-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It only took the south about a century to completely recover from the destruction wrought by the war between the states and Sherman's march.

The Iraq answer is not more destruction, it is rebuilding.

I don't know where you came from, but this is hardly the case. Having been born a centrury after the civil war in the south and having vivid memories of my childhood, I can tell you for a fact that it was long before a century that recovery took place. In fact my grandmother who was born, raised, and lived in the south her whole life that by the time of here early childhood, the late 1890's, restoration had taken place then. Most history books list reconstruction of the south as having completed no later than the late 1800's, so 35 years maximum. That's a hell of a lot less than a century even at worst case estimate.

Try to at least get your facts reasonably straight before using them to shoot down someone else's opinion.


oh yeah? well my grandmom told me...

Tremendous failure of logic and history in your post LRB. Are we relying on what our older relatives say to support positions? not likely...at least for me, I'll rely on the facts.

If the "restoration" of the South's industry had taken place by the "late 1890's", why is it that the south had less GSP than the northeast, the mideast, and the great lakes up until the 1960's, finally surpassing them in the 1980's? The facts are "reasonably straight"that it was not until the last half of the 20th Century that the south totally recoverd from the war.

You should try to rely on the actual facts and not on what your grandmother told you.

That's one hell of a jump to blame all differences in GSP solely to the Civil War. I haven't checked your facts on the GSP, but I'll give that too you. So if you want to judge recovery as being until the south surpassed one of the other regions in GSP, then sure go ahead. However that is not what most historians, who just happen to agree with Granny and all the many other people who I personally knew, that the reconstruction was complete by the late 1800's.

And who knows it make take centruries before Iraq has more GSP "than the northeast, the mideast, and the great lakes." i/expressions/rolleye.gif

Mavdog
05-26-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB That's one hell of a jump to blame all differences in GSP solely to the Civil War.

yeah, the war was just a minor event in the south. Didn't do much, except to completely alter the entire socio-economic structure of the region.


I haven't checked your facts on the GSP, but I'll give that too you.

Then I'm right.


So if you want to judge recovery as being until the south surpassed one of the other regions in GSP, then sure go ahead. However that is not what most historians, who just happen to agree with Granny and all the many other people who I personally knew, that the reconstruction was complete by the late 1800's.

"recovery" would be when the south regained its position of equality that it enjoyed prior to the war. That is the data i referenced, data which proves I am correct.


And who knows it make take centruries before Iraq has more GSP "than the northeast, the mideast, and the great lakes."

With the lack of progress we are experiencing in Iraq it may take even longer than that.

LRB
05-26-2004, 04:51 PM
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't checked your facts on the GSP, but I'll give that too you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then I'm right.


No, that is not what I said. I gave the very specific point of the GSP stastics being as you said they were for the sake of argument because for the overall argument this one point is not relatively by itself without a great deal of supporting documentation that you did not have to present or if you had it did not present. Sure the Civil War was a major event in the south, but so was it in the North as well. However to claim that it was such an overiding factor that all other factors combined paled to being trivial nuances in determining the comparative economic prosperity of the south versus other areas of the country is far from being established by your single reference and single stated economic statistic. I'm sure you read this in a book somewhere and thought it great, even if it is far from being accepted as a commonly accepted theory, much less fact. Further more you have defined recovery in an extremely narrow and not generally accepted manner. Most aknowledged historians would not define economic recovery so narrowly nor create a moving standard with so many possible outside influences. One man's far fetched ideas does not an accepted principle make.

And it would be ridiculous to say that Iraq isn't recovered until their GSP equals the US because they were never anywhere close to being equal before the war. Of course leftist extremists will use any idiotic argument to try and confuse the truth when they're flat out wrong. I see this is no exception.

Mavdog
05-26-2004, 05:40 PM
whew, brevity would be nice.

So the original writer's analogy was to Sherman and the south, a very destructive march to say the least.

Are you supporting a "scorced earth" policy to control Iraq? Mow down the cities to crush the opposition?

That's the real question, not the timeline of the south's recovery.



Originally posted by: LRB
[quote]
And it would be ridiculous to say that Iraq isn't recovered until their GSP equals the US because they were never anywhere close to being equal before the war. Of course leftist extremists will use any idiotic argument to try and confuse the truth when they're flat out wrong. I see this is no exception.

what?
yes LRB, it "would be ridiculous to say that Iraq isn't recovered until their GSP equals the US". Anybody, including those "leftist extremists", would be idiotic to try and argue. Are you through arguing with yourself?

LRB
05-26-2004, 05:54 PM
Are you supporting a scorched earth policy Mavdog. You're the only poster that I've see speak about it so far?

Evils article suggests taking out the Iraqis fighting a peaceful transition instead of appeasing them. I hardly feel there is a need to level whole cities unless it is the whole cities who are fighting.

Mavdog
05-26-2004, 08:08 PM
LRB this is in the above. You tell me how the reference is not to Sherman. Sherman was successful, but at a price:


In August 1864 there was a widespread belief in the North that the Civil War could not be won. President Abraham Lincoln believed that the war stalemate and the terrible casualties could lead to the election of his opponent, George McClellan, who might repudiate the Emancipation Proclamation and sue for peace on the basis of the status quo ante--a free North, a slave South.

But Lincoln pressed forward. He argued that "no attempt at negotiation with the insurgent leader could result in any good. . . . He affords us no excuse to deceive ourselves. . . . Between him and us the issue
is distinct, simple and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war, and decided by victory."

Then Atlanta fell to Union troops in the late summer of 1864. Lincoln was reelected, with 80 percent of the soldier vote. Shortly thereafter came the 13th Amendment, the abolition of slavery, the surrender of the Confederacy and the beginning of a long process of Reconstruction. Lincoln's war aims were ultimately realized.

The article clearly supports an aggressive action immediately against the armed groups. Many of these groups are in the urban areas, meaning lotsa damage to cities. Leaving the people's livelihood intact is a good way to make friends. I don't want more destruction of the cities, we neeed to be building.

Shouldn't the Iraqis police themselves? After all, june 30 isn't very far away.