Petraeus's Ponzi Scheme

They came, they saw, they… deserted.

That, in short form, is the story of the recent Iraqi government "offensive" in Basra (and Baghdad). It took a few days, but the headlines on stories out of Iraq ("Can Iraq's Soldiers Fight?") now tell a grim tale and the information in them is worse yet. Stephen Farrell and James Glanz of the New York Times estimate that at least 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, or more than 4% of the force sent into Basra, "abandoned their posts" during the fighting, including "dozens of officers" and "at least two senior field commanders."

Other pieces offer even more devastating numbers. For instance, Sudarsan Raghavan and Ernesto Londoño of the Washington Post suggest that 30% of government troops had "abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was reached." Tina Susman of the Los Angeles Times offers 50% as an estimate for police desertions in the midst of battle in Baghdad's vast Sadr City slum, a stronghold of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.

In other words, after years of intensive training by American advisors and an investment of $22 billion dollars, US military spokesmen are once again left trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster (from which they were rescued thanks to negotiations between Muqtada al-Sadr and advisors to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, brokered in Iran by General Qassem Suleimani, a man on the U.S. Treasury Department's terrorist watch list). Think irony. "From what we understand," goes the lame American explanation, "the bulk of these [deserters] were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon."

This week, with surge commander General David Petraeus back from Baghdad's ever redder, ever more dangerous "Green Zone," here are a few realities to keep in mind as he testifies before Congress:

1. The situation in Iraq is getting worse: Don't believe anyone who says otherwise. The surge-ified, "less violent" Iraq the general has presided over so confidently is, in fact, a chaotic, violent tinderbox of city states, proliferating militias armed to the teeth, competing regions armed to the teeth, and competing religious factions armed to the teeth. Worse yet, under Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. has been the great proliferator. It has armed and funded close to 100,000 Sunnis organized into militias reportedly intent on someday destroying "the Iranians" (i.e. the Maliki government). It has also supported Shiite militias (aka the Iraqi army). In Basra, it took sides in a churning Shiite civil war. As Nir Rosen summed matters up in a typically brilliant piece in the Nation, Baghdad today is but a set of "fiefdoms run by warlords and militiamen," a pattern the rest of the country emulates. "The Bush administration," he adds, "and the U.S. military have stopped talking of Iraq as a grand project of nation-building, and the U.S. media have dutifully done the same." Meanwhile, in the little noticed north, an Arab/Kurdish civil war over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, and possibly Mosul as well, is brewing. This, reports Pepe Escobar of Asia Times, could be explosive. Think nightmare.

2. The Bush administration has no learning curve. Its top officials are unable to absorb the realities of Iraq (or the region) and so, like the generals of World War I, simply send their soldiers surging "over the top" again and again, with minor changes in tactics, to the same dismal end. Time.com's Tony Karon, at his Rootless Cosmopolitan blog, caught this phenomenon strikingly, writing that Maliki's failed offensive "shared the fate of pretty much every similar initiative by the Bush Administration and its allies and proxies since the onset of the 'war on terror.'"

3. The "success" of the surge was always an expensive illusion, essentially a Ponzi scheme, for which payment will someday come due. To buy time for its war at home, the Bush administration put out IOUs in Iraq to be paid in future chaos and violence. It now hopes to slip out of office before these fully come due.

4. A second hidden surge, not likely to be discussed in the hearings this week, is now under way. U.S. air reinforcements, sent into Iraq over the last year, are increasingly being brought to bear. There will be hell to pay for this, too, in the future.

5. A reasonably undertaken but speedy total withdrawal from Iraq is the only way out of this morass (and, at this late date, it won't be pretty); yet such a proposal isn't even on the table in Washington. In fact, as McClatchy's Warren Strobel and Nancy Youssef report, disaster in Basra has "silenced talk at the Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawals any time soon."

Since April 2003, each administration misstep in Iraq has only led to worse missteps. Unfortunately, little of this will be apparent in this week's shadowboxing among Washington's "best and brightest," who will again plunge into a "debate" filled with coded words, peppered with absurd fantasies, and rife with American symbolism that only an expert like professor of religion Ira Chernus is likely to decipher. "It's time," he writes, while considering the upcoming Petraeus testimony, "to insist that war should be seen not through the lens of myth and symbol, but as the brutal, self-defeating reality it is."

Comments (112)

1. LvLiberty-Why do you believe that you decide who is anti America and who isn't and why do you believe that you decide who loves America and who doesn't?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/07/2008 @ 10:52am

2. Mr. Englehardt lists five things that should be kept in mind as America once again hears testimony from General Petraeus. There is no "attack" anywhere in the piece.

   In light of the fact that the Bush administration has systematically removed or otherwise silenced all the prominent officers who have voiced anything other than the administration talking points, any and all testimony by Petraeus is deserving of a great deal of skepticism.

   In fact, it's difficult for someone who does love their country to see Petraeus as anything other than a uniformed lobbyist for a failed administration, willing to sacrifice more young lives in order to secure his position. He is actively participating in the politicization of the military, and in doing so is pissing on the trust and honor of those he is tasked to "lead".

   Posted by drhammer at 04/07/2008 @ 11:08am

3. well, soon the credit will dry up.....

   then the soldiers will return.

   ah, what a tangled web...

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/07/2008 @ 11:17am

4. Liverty is correct. the constitution plainly states that anyone disagreeing in the slightest with what the American gov't says or does is un American. you can look it up.

   the constitution also enshrines the ten commandments into American law. Blasphemy and heresy are punishable by death, the way the Founding Fathers intended.

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/07/2008 @ 11:29am

5. learn some history ED!

   everybody knows thomas jefferson found the constitution written on golden plates.

   whatever happened to them seer stones?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/07/2008 @ 11:50am

6. LVLIBERTY... Why would Mccain run on truth ?? This administration has never liked the truth. In fact Your administration has done all it can to hide the truth. Dare I say LIE..? Oh yes, the lies have come since 9/11. Can the action in Iraq even be considered war ? Think about it. War has sides. Who are we fighting ? Dont give some 'Islamo-Facist' BS..plz. I have been to Iraq 3 times now. There the reality is much different than the rosy 'freedom' agenda you and the others with your brainwashed mindset paint. Its a full blown mess. The IRAQI citizens DONT want us there. Thier neighbors DONT want us there. We have propped up the Iranian Govt.(ooh the boogey of the region). What more can this Bungling administration do to create more chaos in the region..?? Dont awnser that... I know theres more.. Gen Petraeus a 'genuine hero'... lol.. Do you think for ONE second that before he opens his mouth before any reporter/camera/congressman his 'thoughts' havent been pre-screened by VP scary's office. Of course they have. 'Huge Popularity'..??? Maybe from the same crowd that watches 'War Stories With Ollie North' (oh by the way, another 'hugely popular/genuine hero' LOL.... Anyway, may common sense invade your thoughts invade your 'Rush Limbaughed' mind. Sincerely, MR. Freedom Toast

   Posted by Vvf1969 at 04/07/2008 @ 11:55am

7. Results 1 - 10 of about 330,000 for warren buffet liberal. (0.27 seconds)

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/07/2008 @ 12:04pm

8. Happy-Do you have any facts to back up your claim that libs that play the stock market(there are many)don't like it?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/07/2008 @ 12:08pm

9. Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret.) testified before the Sen. For. Relat. Com. last week about the Iraqi political context of the war.

   http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040408D.shtml

   He said a military victory is not possible, and noted that Gen. Petraeus himself conceded that the military surge was only a tool to buy time to get the competing Iraqi interests to work out a political solution. And that didn't happen, no matter how well the surge temporarily decreased violence, if it did. It failed to accomplish its intended goal, which was political: helping the parties work out a political solution. Instead, Kurds and Sunnis are now fighting for control in the North, Turkey has complicated the picture, the US has "rented" Sunni soldiers in western Iraq at $300/month per soldier (but does not own them, making their "loyalty" obviously temporary), and besides the Sunni-Shiite split in the rest of the country we now have in Basra and Baghdad a major Shiite-Shiite eruption, temporarily calmed only because the Bush administration's closest ally, the ISCI and its Badr militia, went to the Bush administration's biggest nemesis, Tehran, and obtained their good offices to broker a cease-fire.

   According to a recent poll cited by BBC, "Only 21% [of Iraqis] believe that the increase in US forces has made conditions for political dialogue in Iraq better, while 43% think the surge has made conditions worse."

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7299569.stm

   The surge has been a smaller part of a a larger pattern of Balkanization, says Odom. The feared bloodbath is, of course, occurring every day, and creating local warlords is a sure way to guarantee more chaos upon our withdrawal. Odom says to the committe that will hear Petraeus, "I challenge you to press the administration's witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator."

   And Juan Cole reports that the Times of London says Petraeus will make a big deal of Iranians who are supposedly "fighting" with Sadr.

   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3690010.e ce

   Says Cole: "This fixation on Iran just doesn't make any sense to me. The poor slum kids and Marsh Arabs in Basra who follow Muqtada al-Sadr don't even like Iranians. The primary Iran-linked force in Basra is the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq with its Badr Corps militia, which most Basrans code as Iranian puppets."

   http://www.juancole.com/

   Odom says, "The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran." This requires changing a lot of assumptions in the current administration, and even among Democratic presidential candidates who both have threatened (and it was meant as a threat) to leave "all the options on the table" with Iran, even suggesting using nuclear weapons (???!!! There's nothing like telling the whole world to follow our example and see these as a legitimate mode of warfare!)

   It's good to realize, and important to point out, that the Senate is hearing more than just one voice. They'll have no excuse for not debating this more thoroughly than they have in the past.

   Good article about Odom's testimony:

   http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/040708Lindorff.shtml

   Posted by JanKees at 04/07/2008 @ 12:15pm

10. Well, BushCo has clearly shown (and even stated on more than one occasion) that reality is at best tedious. When Joe Biden queried Dumbya about the potential for Iraq to go to hell (much as it has) it went like this

    '''Mr. President,' (Biden) ... said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

    Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

    Clearly mere facts are irrelevant.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/07/2008 @ 12:57pm

11. Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 11:59am

    When the trajectory changes...

    The problem is the trajectory doesn't change. If we must use stock market terminology, the war has a negative trajectory with management trying to spin any piece of good news until they can jump out with their golden parachutes and leave some other poor sucker to try and save the Hindenburg.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/07/2008 @ 12:58pm

12. Says Cole: "This fixation on Iran just doesn't make any sense to me.

    oil. and its price.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/07/2008 @ 1:27pm

13. Can we count on you to please continue attacking Gen Petraeus?

    so "attack" = criticizing his testimony?

    if petraeus were to say, "the earth is flat," and liberal critics responded, "based on what we now know, the earth cannot possibly be flat," then said critics are "attacking an american hero"?

    Liverty is correct. the constitution plainly states that anyone disagreeing in the slightest with what the American gov't says or does is un American

    it says no such thing, and even if it did, the constitution applies equally to members of the government, including the president. ergo, the president cannot defend a claim such as "the earth is flat". similarly, he cannot defend the claim "saddam had WMDs".

    Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2008 @ 1:33pm

14. The fixation (& duplicity) re Iran makes superb sense, if one is preparing to go to war against Iran -- air war, that is -- and needs a reason that can be stated in public.

    As for Iraqi resisters, 3 cheers for them. Why should they kill their fellow citizens & co-religionists? Just because they're being armed & paid by US taxpayers (with money borrowed from Communist China)? One would hope that if/when the hard times hit the US & dissent erupts across the country, that American National Guardsmen & soldiers will refuse to kill their fellow citizens or arrest them for imprisonment in Blackwater internment camps during the "operational contingency."

    It's a hope.

    Posted by sloper at 04/07/2008 @ 1:34pm

15. anything the president does, or a member of the goverment does, is open to criticism. that is what a democracy is. if one cannot criticize the president, or a member of government, then we have lost our democracy.

    liberty and emile are, in essence, authoritarians. of the most obvious, orwellian kind.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/07/2008 @ 1:35pm

16. Posted by DARLADOON 04/07/2008 @ 1:33pm

    DARLA, darling, the original poster was being facetious.

    Posted by sloper at 04/07/2008 @ 1:36pm

17. "One would hope that if/when the hard times hit the US & dissent erupts across the country, that American National Guardsmen & soldiers will refuse to kill their fellow citizens or arrest them for imprisonment in Blackwater internment camps during the "operational contingency."

    Posted by SLOPER 04/07/2008 @ 1:34pm

    More than one blogger has theorized that the administration would do away with, or substantially alter posse comitatus for precisely this reason. (For that matter, it may have already happened discreetly through the use of signing statements and executive orders.)

    Soldiers or mercenaries from across the country may not feel the same kinship toward you that National Guard members from your own state would.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/07/2008 @ 2:31pm

18. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=drhammer

    that "kinship" did absolutely nothing for the Kent State victims.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/07/2008 @ 2:43pm

19. We are enablers. The surge (and the soldiers who have died since the "government" of Iraq has taken office) are wasted effort. The central government does not wish to be a government of Iraq. It chooses to be a puppet of Teheran's administration. So be it. I can't see wasting one more American (or Iraqi) life on the project.

    Posted by midnight04 at 04/07/2008 @ 4:58pm

20. what makes petraeus such a hero? he wears a uniform? does everyone who wears a uniform qualify as hero?

    worship your HEROS, idolotrous rightwingers.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/07/2008 @ 6:35pm

21. the only action in his entire career was the Iraq war.most of his military career was spent behind a desk.

    Audie Murphy he ain't.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/07/2008 @ 6:47pm

22. a yes-man's career if there ever was one.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/07/2008 @ 6:48pm

23. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 6:39pm | ignore this person

    so those who wear wal mart and janitorial uniforms are heros? nazis wore really cool uniforms. can you rape, murder and steal in a uniform and still be a hero?

    what specifically makes petraeus a hero?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/07/2008 @ 6:52pm

24. other than his uniform...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/07/2008 @ 6:53pm

25. Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 4:50pm

    I'll tell you what's disturbing.....my belief there are many on the Left (perhaps you too) that really wants defeat and want the current, but likley temporary trajectory, to steepen its slope!

    Five years is not a temporary trajectory and we are so close to the bottom that "shorting" the war is like shorting penny stocks - both stupid and useless. Nor is the fact that you are defining "victory" as the stock market equivalent of holding on to a stock that continues to tank, year after year and "defeat" as selling it off - to continue with this flawed analogy.

    If you ran your own stock portfolio in the same way that you support the running of our national treasury, you'd have been broke by now and left telling stories about if you could have just held on for yet another year how you would have, could have, should have made the big time - like the conservative numbskulls that still support the Vietnam war. If only we stayed longer it would have all turned into a primrose path...sheer fantasy.

    It's unfortunate you don't apply the same rigor to your politics that you do to your stock portfolio.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/07/2008 @ 7:08pm

26. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 5:10pm

    the lefties here can always be counted on the act according to their anti-military, anti-facts, anti-history bigotry towards US military actions.

    You forgot anti-stupidity. It is a fact that you have some strange notions about Islam and want to conduct what amounts to a Crusade. I think bigotry is exactly the right word, for you and people like you.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/07/2008 @ 7:11pm

27. Posted by DRHAMMER 04/07/2008 @ 2:31pm

    Soldiers or mercenaries from across the country may not feel the same kinship toward you that National Guard members from your own state would.

    Don't forget the human rights abusers from Chile, South Africa and many other places around the globe. It's only a matter of time before the products of the School of the Americas can come back and share with us everything they have learned.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/07/2008 @ 7:14pm

28. the School of the Americas is the mother of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/07/2008 @ 8:32pm

29. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/07/2008 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person

    oh so successful in iraq! saw a report on CNN today. apparantly the iraqi troops conducting the "offensive" against al sadr militants only went into combat with american troops at their backs, locked and loaded!!!!

    jeez! how many years we been training these guys? how many buzillions of $ we spent training these guys???

    har har - the iraqi commander looked like a confused scaredy cat and the iraqis insisted on taking a lunch break before dissapearing a few minutes to return claiming to have killed one enemy (while the background fire continued unabated...)...

    hey! where's all that iraqi oil? where's all that iraqi gratitude for us bringing them so much bloody "freedom"?

    har har har!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/07/2008 @ 8:36pm

30. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 7:40pm

    I take my information from the Qu'ran, the Hadith's, Sunnah, the statements by the vast majority of Islamic clerics, the jihadists, and the weight of history.

    All filtered through your personal agenda. Much like how you want to imaginatively interpret Christ's simple "turn the other cheek" into some strange conception that only applies to individuals on their own and not when they are performing individual actions in the service of the state. It's bunkum - and a perversion of the scripture, and I have no doubt you are doing the same in your readings in Islam.

    Further, you want to pretend that you are a kind hearted Christian, but "they" are making you support a Crusade. Call it what it is and own it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/07/2008 @ 9:05pm

31. You know, if all of this weren't coming at such a high and devastating price, and basically being done for a complete waste of a "cause"..........this would ALMOST be really, really funny. Somehow, I really think from people like myself to say to everyone who has been dumb enough to have supported this fraud of a cause and Bush and his people in general "I told you so" doesn't even come close to covering it adequately at all.

    Posted by molotov at 04/07/2008 @ 9:40pm

32. Are all the 'Conservative' voices here so ignorant that they cant see facts..?? The neo's pushed for this mess and really dont give two bowel movements as to what happens to Americans who actually serve thier country..

    How many of the usual 'voices of reason', Ditto-heads that continually prove thier ignorance have actually served in the military. (yeah im talkin to you and you)

    The article was about Gen. Parrot and the mess in Iraq. Not warren Buffet,The Stock Market Or LIberals.

    Happy, what do you know about war besides what you see on the history channel..? Ill even give you credit if you were a cook in the army... But chances are you've never been shot at. Isnt The O'Reily Factor on... Shouldn't you be getting the news....???

    too much... Tell me who we are fighting... Ill let you know who I was fighting over there... IED's. Thats not war. Srry noob.

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 04/07/2008 @ 10:26pm

33. Why does Engelhardt denounce as lies statistics showing substantial improvement? The number of attacks and casualty numbers are markedly low. Al Qaeda has clearly been driven out of several provinces. The Sunni Awakening Councils are supporting us. Captured documents show insurgents shouting in despair and complaining of desertions. ....

    MarkCanyon misses the point. The Americans are supposed to end the civil war, not take a side. Just from these posts, anyone can see that not enough Americans believe in the war for it to serve any purpose. Of all the candidates, only Obama had the (temporary) courage to say that it's been a waste of men. If a few grunts and doughs joined in the scarper maybe we'd get somewhere.

    Posted by bagehot at 04/07/2008 @ 11:13pm

34. untermensch schwein!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/07/2008 @ 11:13pm

35. "Ponzi Scheme".....a term often believed by the Left to be the same as the stock market.

    Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 4:50pm

    you mean the federal reserve system?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:24am

36. Lincoln was dead wrong on the war with Mexico. He wanted a smaller US. We would not resemble the nation we are today.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 5:28pm

    ha ha!

    the mexicans are taking it back.

    ha ha!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:26am

37. come to think of it, the americans tried to take over canada, too.

    yikes!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:26am

38. Islam's world conquest.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 7:40pm

    BOO!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:28am

39. Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 10:42pm

    happy,

    thousands and thousands of people are dying.

    kids, grandmothers, janitors, drummers.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:30am

40. But the facts are the reality.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 11:17pm

    life must suck being so afraid.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 12:31am

41. liberty,

    is there any evidence that jesus existed?

    if so, can you send a link?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/08/2008 @ 02:08am

42. Posted by HAPPY2 04/07/2008 @ 11:28pm

    Happy would you please desist from posting all those right wing stats. The lefties are trying their hardest to get Engelhardt's premature rebuttal of Petraeus's, yet to be delivered presentation, into their little heads. So please don't stuff them up with all that factual material.

    BTW I notice Brooks in today's NYT has come around to see that the only political change that will work in Iraq is the present burgeoning bottom up process. Don't expect the Dems and certainly not the Libs here, with their irrelevant Benchmarks, to quickly latch onto that reality. A reality that has been obvious to many of us for some time.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 04/08/2008 @ 02:26am

43. Posted by MARKCANYON 04/08/2008 @ 03:44am | ignore this person

    are you still a nazi?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/08/2008 @ 05:01am

44. I love the fact that the world's richest man, the most successful Capitalist in the U.S., is a liberal. The irony of it is ever so sweet. I think of it every time I hear a pompous ass claim democrats or liberals (or whatever) hate America and or enterprise.

    Having studied 19th Century British literature (and currently living in Europe (by the way, check out what's up in 'Socialist' Scandinavia: an economic renaissance), I see liberalism for what it is really about: freedom. American liberalism did move towards collective social security (joining the broader left), but it is likewise a joke to claim that modern American "conservatism", a mix of social and economic conservatism (read economic 'liberalism'), in which the social conservatives have completely taken over, is any more pro-Capitalist than liberalism except for its rhetoric.

    Moreover, a traditional conservative would most likely want to run like hell from Iraq, rather than keep waving an ever-more tattered flag as the facts make the brutality and cynicism with which the occupation is being carried out ever more obvious and the chances of success ever bleaker. Bush himself ran against nation-building in 2000.

    Also, God bless The Nation for giving us a decent source of info. that is not fit for prime time t.v.!

    Posted by hawkdove at 04/08/2008 @ 06:40am

45. Lastly, to LVLIBERTY,

    You have repeatedly claimed to know what is in the heart of liberalism and "Islam" - though I'm not sure how to put agency into an ideology, it is rather through its followers - things you cannot know. Take this example: your friend, the pastor, is bringing Christianity into a very hostile environment, a hotbed of RADICAL Islam (analagous to the "let's shoot doctors" brand of Protestantism), a nation just short of civil war, and finds trouble. O.K. He makes a judgment. Try this: a Baghdad family has its door kicked down by U.S. Marines, a misunderstanding leads to two adult men being shot to death. The family hears about other killings and some rapes by G.I.s My question: When I hear that story (or read it, I have), what can I conclude about America and Christianity?

    Just think about it.

    Posted by hawkdove at 04/08/2008 @ 06:53am

46. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/07/2008 @ 11:17pm

    No one that is killed prior to receiving the gospel even has that opportunity, so why would it be my agenda?

    What of those that reject the Gospel? What of those, like myself, that reject your peculiar understanding of it?

    ...your vitriolic way...

    Sayeth the man who every day posts some assine comment about "liberals" - such as: the lefties here can always be counted on the act according to their anti-military, anti-facts, anti-history bigotry towards US military actions.

    So many biblical options to choose from. Should I reference reaping and sowing? Or taking the beam from one's own eye?

    And just as you cannot debate Islam on the merits...

    I judge things, not by putting my own special sauce on scripture, but by deeds. When I look at the history of Islam, I don't see a religion that is particularly different from Christianity in terms of its use of violence and its proclivity to coerce people into accepting it - although I think you can make the argument that Islam has been frequently more tolerant of different religions than Christianity has been.

    ...you likewise cannot find any biblical support that Jesus was somehow admonishing men who lived under occupation by a foreign military to somehow make that occupying power change it's policies to those of Christ.

    Why, on earth, would I make such a stupid argument as that?

    Governments cannot be saved by Christ. It is an individual matter.

    And governments are made up of...who? Individuals. And through acknowledging the power of government before Christ that many individuals lose their way. By creating this seperation between individuals and government, you want to excuse the actions that individuals do in service to government, such as a global war on "terror" that is focused on Islam and puts individual Christians in a position of doing unspeakable things.

    But back to Islam. Try and provide something that counters the overwhelming evidence of Islamic writing and history to justify your position. It does not exist, and you show yourself to be a person lacking any credibility.

    I refer to the living example of Islam in the world today. There are many Muslims in every country of the world - let's call them the vast majority - who only wish to practice their faith and have no desire to commit acts of violence. But your analysis ignores such people in favor of your interpretion of their scripture and of Islamic history.

    I'd love for you to meet my friend who is a Pastor in Pakistan. He oversees 13 churches and 3 schools there. A couple of years ago, the jihadists killed two of his nephews as they left his main church. The stories he tells of Islam. The way he has to limit our conversations whenever we are in contact when he is home in Pakistan because they listen to his calls and monitor his email to see if he speaks against the "prophet".

    Sounds like the Inquisition. Again, if you are truly looking at this historically and comparatively, you can't say this kind of behavior is particular to Islam, reprehensible as it may be.

    You seem to have very little clue what Islam is and what it's history has been. I wish all these things about Islam were not true. I wish they allowed open dialogue about faith. I wish they didn't kill Christians, especially those who convert from Islam. But the facts are the reality.

    You seem to have very little clue what Christianity is and what it's history has been. I wish all these things about Christianity were not true. I wish they allowed open dialogue about faith. I wish they didn't kill Muslims, especially those who convert from Christianity (such as the Spanish Inquisition).

    You catching any of the irony here, LVL?

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 08:52am

47. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/08/2008 @ 12:26am

    If Benedict Arnold would have got the job done, you too could have been American, Frosty. I can only imagine what an influx of people from the North would have done to the American psyche, but I suspect it probably would have been good overall - although from your perspective, I can understand why you'd rather not.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 08:56am

48. with their irrelevant Benchmarks,

    the benchmarks were set by the mis-administration.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 09:58am

49. PLAYCON MAGAZINE PROUDLY PRESENTS:

    THE MARCH, 2003 PLAYCON CLUSTERBUSTER CENTERFOLD,

    MISS ADMINISTRATION!!!

    Don't Miss Next Month's Special Miss Freedom Spectacular. You'll Be Wired!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 10:38am

50. what's up with "the girls next door" showing them in the all together, with nipples and pubis blurred, while Janet Jackson's costume "mishap" brings the FCC on their neck?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 10:52am

51. Bury your heads in the sand you sad neo-cons... Lvliberty, I'll bet you bought that Huge plastic Anti-Chemical attack kit the sold at home depot right after 9/11 didn't ya...come on, admit it .. Please stop with the jesus shite here ok....?? You can live by your fairy tales and all of us 'librals' will live with ours... Save your preachin' for sunday at church... Praise Jesus. Watching Gen. Parrot on tv right now... More govt masturbation. Ambassador Crock-o-shite with a real rousing statement straight off the VP's speechwriters desk... How sad. SELL .. SELL !!! SELL NOW !!

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 04/08/2008 @ 10:52am

52. All this "training" of Iraqi soldiers is and always has been a fraud. If people's heart are in what they're fighting for, they can be trained in a matter of weeks or months. If their hearts are not in it, no amount of training will provide them with a backbone. The fact is that Iraqis know that they're being used for our interests, not theirs, and they demonstrate it by slinking away in the heat of battle. This simple fact should have shown the American people 5 years ago that this was not a war of liberation but an alien occupation that was supposed to turn Iraq into a compliant regime. You will notice that Iraqi men have no problem standing their ground when they are doing something they believe in, such as fighting as militia and insurgents.

    There are two basic cultural stands: personal loyalty vs. abstract law-based right-and-wrong. Americans in general believe in abstract ideas and consider people who fall back on tribal and family ties to be corrupt and cowardly. Iraq, on the other hand, thinks anyone who would choose abstract ideas such a national identity over the ties of family, tribe, and region to be a scoundrel. The American military knows how to channel soldiers' attachment to their brothers in arms into a willingness to serve the military's goals. The two loyalties reinforce each other. In Iraq, we are expecting men to betray their deepest loyalties in order to serve a broader purpose. It will never work.

    Posted by EvelynU at 04/08/2008 @ 11:24am

53. we're training them? it would seem that they should train us.

    we have 90,000 sunni troops on our payroll. we have the puppet gov't on our payroll. we are paying Shiite militias. is there anyone we're not paying?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 11:30am

54. is there anyone we're not paying?

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 11:30am

    the chinese.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 11:34am

55. The lefties are trying their hardest to get Engelhardt's premature rebuttal of Petraeus's, yet to be delivered presentation, into their little heads

    we already know what the presentation will contain: enough "good" news to remain for as long as possible.

    BTW I notice Brooks in today's NYT has come around to see that the only political change that will work in Iraq is the present burgeoning bottom up process. Don't expect the Dems and certainly not the Libs here, with their irrelevant Benchmarks, to quickly latch onto that reality. A reality that has been obvious to many of us for some time

    ah yes, the "burgeoning" bottom-up process. should take 6-9 months, right? those pesky liberals, always wanna cut 'n run just as we were turning the corner.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/08/2008 @ 12:03pm

56. perhaps those troop-lovers, harvey79, liberty, riobravo, should listen to the troops, instead of david "how many times can i get it wrong" brooks:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/08/troops-want-withdrawal/

    Posted by darladoon at 04/08/2008 @ 12:08pm

57. just in case there was any doubt (there isn't): here is where americans stand on the war:

    by a 25 point margin, americans want out of iraq, regardless of progress/lack of progress:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/106309/Iraq-War-Attitudes-Politically-Polariz ed.aspx

    Posted by darladoon at 04/08/2008 @ 12:35pm

58. Funny how the conservatives on this site are ignoring the Soldier. Why don't you acknowledge VFF? Is it because being that he has actually been over there he knows more than any of you will ever know about the situation? That you can't contend his statements with lose or made up facts, with interpretations of information you don't know the half of?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:01pm

59. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 2:01pm

    First of all, no-one knows if VVF really is a soldier. He could be of the same order as one of those 'lifelong Republicans who are now voting Democratic' that seem to be so common on MSNBC.

    Even if he/she actually is a soldier, if you have listened to Petraeus' testimony today you would know that recruitment goals have been easily met, so obviously VVF is NOT representative of the military at large. Thus, it is YOU who are practicing selective hearing, not us.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2008 @ 2:11pm

60. LV, You say Muslims want to kill everyone. Why is it there is a large population of Muslim Americans or how about the ones in Europe. Christianity has just as bloody a history of any other religion but you somehow glorify it. The Inquisition, the whole sale slaughter of Native-Americans, vast amounts of torture, the witch-trials, all Christian. Maybe you should gain an understanding of the bloody history of your own religion before you start criticizing others. You say that you understand Islam and the history, why is that many many many Islamic advisors after the attacks of 9/11 and the actions of RADICAL Islamic worshippers, decried their actions. Saying that that is not what Islam stood for. That Islam was about peace. Why do you choose not to listen to those people LV? Why do you choose only to listen to the radicals? Is it because it justifies your hate of Muslims? If I employed the type of logic you give then I should hate all Christians. After all RADICAL Christians, abortion bombers, the IRA, kill tons of people. The IRA just bombed the Britain. RADICAL Christians hung a young gay mail from a fence and beat him till he died. Many members of the KKK are RADICAL Christians. Do not begin to pretend your religion does not have just as bloody of a history from RADICALS. You use your bias to justify the way you feel, that all Muslims NEED to be killed. Otherwise you would be in support of the destruction of Christianity due to it's more radical sects.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:12pm

61. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 2:11pm

    Then why has no one stepped to his comments? Why has no one tried to defend against them. I notice often times when a lot of the conservatives can not answer the comments of a person with "facts" they ignore them. I know plenty of people in the military who think we should be pulling out. Why are so many generals coming out against the war Pont? Why are so many soldiers defecting and refusing to continue terms? You say they are meeting RECRUITMENT quotas. That means these are NEW people coming in why don't we talk to the old ones? The ones who have been there 3 or 4 times? See what they say?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:15pm

62. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 2:15pm

    I notice often times when a lot of the conservatives can not answer the comments of a person with "facts" they ignore them.

    That's common to both liberals and conservatives, I think.

    I know plenty of people in the military who think we should be pulling out. Why are so many generals coming out against the war Pont? Why are so many soldiers defecting and refusing to continue terms? You say they are meeting RECRUITMENT quotas. That means these are NEW people coming in why don't we talk to the old ones? The ones who have been there 3 or 4 times? See what they say?

    Just because the war is diffult, doesn't mean we should cut and run. After all, the lefties have been calling for that since day one.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2008 @ 2:23pm

63. The question is not whether the war is difficult or expensive, or both. It is. The question is whether cutting and running at this point, i.e., a replay of Saigon 1975, is the best policy.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2008 @ 2:25pm

64. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 2:23pm

    I didn't say we should cut an run since day one, I said before day one that we shouldn't go at all. We aren't asking that we cut and run because the war is difficult, we are asking that we cut and run because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. That isn't "cut and run" that's accepting the facts of the situation. Intelligently retreating due to the futility of your actions is just as honorable as staying and trying to beat a wheel out of metal with a wooden stick.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:26pm

65. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 2:25pm

    There are plenty of people who want to govern there. Who could possibly do a great job with the country, they are just not people America wants in. Everyone America wants in is not wanted by the majority of the people there. We say we invaded to protect these people from a dictator. That we were protecting Iraqis, but to them what is the difference between American rule and Saddam rule when you still have no rights and there is still killing in the streets?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:28pm

66. The US should never drill in ANWR. We should remove all our forces from Iraq first. We are destroying our own future for some ambiguous, undefined "success". Locally, and in an I believe related story, every day, I pass "save the mountain" anti-wind signs. Today, I read that all the bats in the Northeast are disappearing, on top of the bees and the birds. That was the main argument against wind energy in my state; that wind might be some menace above and beyond all the power lines, pollution, automobiles, etc.

    Now wind energy can be stored for future use, avoiding spikes in the grid, it is part of our current and future energy mix, yet New York is falling further and further behind. I do what I can, getting 100% of my energy from wind, having to come from some other place, limiting the efficiency because of local morons.

    Many states now even have wind cooperatives and have incentives for farmers to produce wind energy, and who collectively, on average, own 30% of their respective wind farms in Minnesota, Iowa, N. and S. Dakota, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, and Wisconsin.

    Anybody who wants "energy independence" for our state needs to support wind vehemently...and we need some "save the planet" signs. If we continue on a carbon path, we can expect more Iraqs from Insane McCain.

    Posted by jrs112 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:33pm

67. I know a lot of our local Conservatives on this site will support this especially probably LV however look at the facts of the situation. The ONLY way for us to come out of this with a "victory" something most Generals in the military have said is not possible. Is to create a dictatorship in Iraq run by America. To take away peoples rights in order for us to keep the country, more specifically the oil, secure. We would have to be just as dictatorial as Saddam and just as brutal to those who don't agree with our interests. There are too many people in Iraq who do not want America there. There are too many competing interests that, due to our lack of understanding, we can never reconcile. American's hate to accept the fact that Democracy is not possible in certain places but I think it is not possible in Iraq they need to decide their own form of government and they need to decide who will lead not America because the more we make decisions for them the more they hate us and the more we look like idiots around the world because our decisions fail. I think it is best for Iraq and for America if we leave now and let them decide how they want to be run.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:35pm

68. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 2:26pm

    We aren't asking that we cut and run because the war is difficult, we are asking that we cut and run because we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

    That's a complete non-sequitur. Whether or not you ever agreed that we should have gone in the first place has little or nothing to do with what we should do now.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2008 @ 2:38pm

69. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 2:38pm

    Read the rest and you will understand why I think we should leave now. I answer that question too.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:40pm

70. I have a question to all the Pro-Iraq war people? What is victory in the region? You say we need to stay until we have achieved victory but what is victory? What does that entail in this war?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:46pm

71. If Bush and neocons started this nonsense for selfish greed, why should American taxpayers trust these turds to do anything???

    Now they bail out all their rich buddies, while Americans STARVE...(neocons are not differentiating between screwing those foolish enough to reelect moron bush and other intelligent patriotic persons)

    You A*)holes.....you are the fox guarding the henhouse...Iraqis DO NOT WANT us there, they DID NOT ASK US to go there....THEY DO NOT LIKE US....either do Pakistanis, turkish, iranian...any other "different looking" people bush and his cohorts do not like....in this "war on terror" our govt. is on the wrong side!!! we are the antagonists....and we seek to destroy others..we are Rome in its' last throes...before it was overthrown...everything we do is isolationist, xenophobic, hateful......why do we protest Tibet when Bush just deports families who have a soldier in Iraq??? BUSH WANTS TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO PROTEST HERE IN U.S. ON THE NATIONAL MALL!!!! We have less rights than Tibetans(our media is just as closed as China's, our rights are as violated, our actions are monitored, Why don't you read the Patriot Act: you can get arrested FOR ANYTHING without right to trial or even notification of family(I hope you like Gitmo)!!!!!

    Some of Tom Brokaw's generation still see the world through the greedy, selfish lens of U.S. imperialistic doctrine and feel they have the right to trash other countries and our whole planet for short-term greed....: THESE SELFISH JERKS DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF OUR POPULATION!!!!

    Why do local uneducated cops now get some authority from moron Bush to harass anybody they feel like(just like in Iraq)???

    When people who get thrown out of their homes still support morons in charge, we are living in some weird alternate faulty logic universe with no end in sight, just like bush/mccain's war.....

    congrats, idiots

    Posted by jrs112 at 04/08/2008 @ 2:47pm

72. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 2:40pm

    Pontificus is not interested in following your logic. You'll notice that he uses the standard Republican talking points about "victory" (a victory that conservatives can't define), "cutting-and-running" (ignoring the fact that they are the one's responsible for tying us up there in the first place), and some variation of we've turned the "corner" that has been the standard since Bush started this whole thing and would have had us turned 1800 degrees by now (talk about spin).

    No, it's all about trying to make his "audience" believe he is smarter than he really is. I believe the accurate term is sophistry. But his is a very peculiar application based on the practical observation that if you fling enough poop every which way, you can make yourself look good (hey, I've got less poop on me).

    Rarely does he offer any substantial commentary, and when a flaw is clearly evident in what little he presents, he'll avoid it and start trying to get you to focus on establishing your position, and since he hasn't bothered to establish a position himself, can spend his time attacking you.

    Best not to even play that little game.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 2:58pm

73. osted by SRJENKINS 04/08/2008 @ 2:58pm

    Thanks for the advice.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 3:01pm

74. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 2:46pm

    While you are at it, ask them what they are personally doing to bring "victory" however defined. The vast majority of conservative hawks have never served in the military nor do they wish to. Last time I bothered to discuss this with Pontifucus, he assured me that he stands ready to serve "if called". In the meantime, he has better things to do - like be a cheerleader for a war here when he doesn't have any skin in the game.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 3:01pm

75. Posted by SRJENKINS 04/08/2008 @ 3:01pm

    I notice the vast majority of war hawks have never served in a war nor would they condone their children. There have been multiple people who have suggested to pro-war politicians that THEIR children should serve in the military and in most cases they look at them as if they are insane. Everyone seems to be fine with sending other peoples children and family members to die in war just not their own.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 3:16pm

76. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 3:16pm

    Everyone seems to be fine with sending other peoples children and family members to die in war just not their own.

    Everyone in the military is a volunteer, this is not the '60s. Also, your feelings about this war have been echoed in every war, and they are no more relevant now than an any other case. Less so, I should think, absent conscription.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2008 @ 3:22pm

77. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 3:22pm

    I think it is always relevant. You can't be pro-war if you are not willing to sacrifice. If you believe in this war so much that you are willing to wave off all logical reasoning when it comes to pulling out. You believe you are doing the right thing then why are you not willing to sacrifice yourself? Why are you only willing to let others sacrifice? I think anyone who is pro-war should be immediately conscripted into the army. You shouldn't be allowed to support a war unless YOU are willing to sacrifice. I think that is part of the reason Americans are so easily pro-war because so many of the ones who are have never served. They have never experienced what it is to be in the military. We should bring in the European way of 2 years required military service from everyone. See how gung-ho people are then.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 3:38pm

78. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 3:38pm

    I think it is always relevant. You can't be pro-war if you are not willing to sacrifice.

    If you believe that only those in the service are qualified to speak in behalf of or against the war, then that disqualifies 99 percent of the anti-war types from having a valid opinion. You can't have it both ways.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/08/2008 @ 3:44pm

79. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 3:44pm

    If I am not willing to sacrifice myself or my family for a war I do not believe is right. So I am anti-Iraq war. I don't believe American lives should be sacrificed in a war that was nothing but a selfish choice by a man who has never been to war himself. I can be anti-war and have not been to war. I don't want to sacrifice in pointless endeavors. However to be pro-war you are suggesting that it is better to sacrifice than to not for a cause that is right. If you are so gung-ho about sacrificing others you have to be willing to sacrifice yourself. Pro-war and anti-war are very different. You don't have to have been to war to be against the sacrifice of others for a cause you don't believe in. You should have been to war to understand the sacrifice you are asking others to make.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 3:51pm

80. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 3:50pm

    So there are european countries who still do it? Which was my point to begin with. Can you not step into conversations to try to interject the look I'm smarter than you comment and then step out?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 3:54pm

81. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 3:44pm

    You don't have to go to war to know that you would not sacrifice your life for something. But you should have been to war if you think you WOULD sacrifice your life for something and if you are willing to sacrifice your life for the freedom of the Iraqi people then you should be over there fighting.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 4:05pm

82. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Cccomfo1

    don't be so touchy. I merely added some facts to the discussion. your inferiority complex aside, I made no claims about myself.

    if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:13pm

83. facts? we don' need no stinkin' facts.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:17pm

84. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 4:13pm

    I like how many psychological remarks people try to make about others on these blogs without ever having met the person. You don't need to say anything about yourself to prove your point. The fact of the matter is I was still right just because I didn't specify WHICH European countries doesn't remove merit from the point I was making. Your specification which had no bearing on the conversation is just a way for you to interject a completely pointless opinion into a conversation is to somehow show your mental superiority, however whether you like it or not it's not needed. I respect your right to freedom of speech but please if you are going to speak freely at least have a useful reason for doing it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 4:20pm

85. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 4:13pm

    I like how many psychological remarks people try to make about others on these blogs without ever having met the person. You don't need to say anything about yourself to prove your point. The fact of the matter is I was still right just because I didn't specify WHICH European countries doesn't remove merit from the point I was making. Your specification which had no bearing on the conversation is just a way for you to interject a completely pointless opinion into a conversation is to somehow show your mental superiority, however whether you like it or not it's not needed. I respect your right to freedom of speech but please if you are going to speak freely at least have a useful reason for doing it.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 4:20pm

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 4:22pm

86. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/08/2008 @ 3:44pm

    If you believe that only those in the service are qualified to speak in behalf of or against the war, then that disqualifies 99 percent of the anti-war types from having a valid opinion. You can't have it both ways.

    Speaking of having it both ways. Ponti regularly ignores the fact that there is a problem with "supporting" a fight that he is unwilling to actually fight in. The inability to follow through with courage on his own convictions tells us exactly what all the tough talk on "victory", "cutting and running" and so forth is worth - nothing.

    It also gives us a sense that we need to watch not only what people say, but what they do.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 4:24pm

87. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, advised our European partners to get rid of their conscripts. Defense Department officials praised France and Italy for shifting to all-volunteer forces and applauded Germany's decision to trim its number of conscripts. Military leaders encouraged aspiring NATO members to put an end to compulsory service.

    The United States halted conscription as the Vietnam War was winding down in 1973, largely in response to political concerns over social and racial inequities. Among NATO's members, Canada, Britain and Luxembourg also have a decades-long tradition of all-volunteer service. But all of NATO's other states -- including the new members from the former East Bloc -- relied on conscription to fill their ranks throughout the Cold War.

    Since the mid-1990s, though, Belgium, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain have ended the draft. The Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia plan to phase it out within the next several years.

    Each country ended conscription for its own reasons. Geopolitical factors played some role. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the large conscript armies that underwrote territorial defense during the Cold War seemed an anachronism. For the new members, the protection afforded by NATO reduced the need for large numbers of conscripts.

    New military missions also figured in. Conscripts in Europe are often prohibited by law from serving outside their countries, so they are generally unsuitable for NATO's new expeditionary missions. Some countries also found that peacekeeping and the fight against terrorism required longer periods of training than their short terms of conscription allowed.

    In addition, ambitions for military transformation -- fundamental changes in the way militaries fight, supported by modern information systems and other high-technology equipment -- fed into the allies' decisions. Volunteers typically serve longer than draftees. As a result, they often perform better in military tasks requiring a high level of skill. Longer service also translates into lower turnover, which in turn reduces the number of recruits who must be trained each year and cuts costs. Decision makers in some countries hoped to divert savings to new equipment, thus narrowing the gap in modern military capabilities between the United States and the rest of NATO.

    But while strategic and military factors clearly mattered, one of the most important reasons for European leaders was a weakening of the legitimacy of the draft. Across much of Europe, conscription was nearly universal during the Cold War, and military service was widely regarded as a duty of citizenship. As countries downsized their militaries, however, the number of draftees required to fill the ranks fell sharply. Eventually, so few eligible youth were called up that the draft began to seem unfair. Once that happened, young people quickly lost confidence in conscription as an institution of national life. By the time Spain ended compulsory service, some 75 percent of draft-eligible young men claimed conscientious-objector status. In the former Communist countries, outright draft avoidance and the costs of enforcement became serious problems. In nation after nation -- as in the United States during the Vietnam War -- popular support for conscription plummeted, dragging public support for the military down with it.

    If the United States really is contemplating a return to the draft, it should give some thought to its own advice to European militaries. While not suited to every circumstance, volunteer forces are indeed more efficient and better suited to the expeditionary missions we expect and the high-technology capabilities we want for our military.

    Even more important, the charges of unfairness across Europe echo a lesson we should have learned in the 1960s: A draft that is substantially less than universal is not politically sustainable in a modern liberal democracy. Even if the United States had to double the size of the deployable Army, our military would still need to draw in only a small fraction of American youth each year. And a draft that leaves most people out will inevitably appear unfair to those who are forced in.

    America's future decisions about its own all-volunteer force will be national ones; what our allies do or say about it will not play a part. Nevertheless, the United States could learn a great deal from the nations that -- for reasons of their own -- followed our advice and dropped the draft.

    The writer is a principal research scientist in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editor of "Filling the Ranks: Transforming the U.S. Military Personnel System."

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:24pm

88. for you to interject a completely pointless opinion into a conversation

    I stated no opinion, just reported a fact or two.

    your categorical statement is just false.

    the facts I reported are most relevant to your rant.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:27pm

89. Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person

    god forbid someone should disturb your ignorance. da noive.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:29pm

90. your categorical statement is just false.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 4:27pm

    In fact it is not false. I didn't say all Europeans I said Europeans, as in those from Europe. The countries you so felt the compulsion to name are European. Whether they are phasing it out or not has no bearing on the fact that right now there are European countries who do it. Which doesn't at all change the conversation I was having. My point was we need to do what some Europeans do with 2 year mandatory service.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 4:35pm

91. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 4:29pm

    It's not ignorance it's using a general statement to make a point that has nothing to do with the fact that countries are phasing it out. I know countries don't do it anymore and I know even more are phasing it out. However as long as some do it the original point I was making still stands so your interjection to present to me a fact I already know and I am sure many people on this site already know is not needed.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 4:39pm

92. My point was we need to do what some Europeans do with 2 year mandatory service.

    that little word SOME makes all the difference. facts are such pesky things aren't they.

    the article I quoted made some very important points. like draftees not being able to serve outside their own country.

    this is relevant particularly in the case of Germany, which still has conscription. their contingent in Afghanistan for instance is limited to peace keeping in the north. the US would like them to participate in aggressive combat operations in the south. this is not popular with the German populace.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:39pm

93. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/08/2008 @ 10:38am

    ALL

    Up until like 14 months ago my eldest was a soldier in operation Desert Debacle. She said it was de rigeur for the Iraqis to run when the shooting started. This is the norm - she said they Americans would spend more time rounding them back up than training them most days.

    (Speaking of facts and reality...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/08/2008 @ 4:52pm

94. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/08/2008 @ 10:38am

    So this is what progress looks like - yee-haw.

    ALL

    Up until like 14 months ago my eldest was a soldier in operation Desert Debacle. She said it was de rigeur for the Iraqis to run when the shooting started. This is the norm - she said they Americans would spend more time rounding them back up than training them most days.

    (Speaking of facts and reality...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/08/2008 @ 4:53pm

95. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=leftofcenter

    this was also the case in Vietnam with the ARVN.

    also when out glorious soldiers liberated Iraq, the enemy forces just melted away, to fight again another day.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 4:56pm

96. "we need to do what some Europeans do with 2 year mandatory service."

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/08/2008 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person

    NOT THESE EUROPEANS

    Germany has conscription (Wehrpflicht) for male citizens. They are obliged to serve nine months either in the military, which they can refuse, ...Wiki.

    If not these Europeans, which Europeans were you referring to again?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 5:00pm

97. I'm an idiot ... Posted by MARKCANYON 04/08/2008 @ 03:44am | ignore this person

    who could disagree?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 5:29pm

98. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/08/2008 @ 4:52pm

    Could it be that it's just easier to say rather than debunk, yet again, another line of bull about how we've turned the corner or need to be patient?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/08/2008 @ 4:55pm

    Translation: Bush administration doesn't learn from it's mistakes, and repeats the same old lies (Cheney, for example, is his desparate attempts to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 or muchroom clouds years after this has been debunked.)

    Speaking of facts or reality, you have any? Or do you just like making things up like most of your conservative brethren? Or does the best thinking occur below the neck - the gut, or maybe lower?

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 5:31pm

99. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/08/2008 @ 5:53pm

    Then how do you explain the Generals and Commanders? Are they all miscreants?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 6:18pm

100. which Europeans were you referring to again?

     Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/08/2008 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/08/2008 @ 6:26pm

101. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/08/2008 @ 5:53pm

     And just as it was with Nam, most anti-war veterans are usually miscreants and malcontents.

     Did someone mention something about "your vitriolic way"? And if the people that actually go over and serve, and see for themselves why it is a bad idea are "miscreants and malcontents", what words do you use to call pro-war non-veterans? Cheney and Bush are two notable examples among the legions of them.

     It's my experience that people that get all excited about the military are people that never served in one, or those that prefer when told to jump, ask "How high?" and don't bother their consciences with the "why". Then again, there are those like yourself that buy into some other justification for their actions beyond "just following orders", like: "spreading freedom", "threat of Islamic world domination" or some such.

     Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 6:44pm

102. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/08/2008 @ 7:40pm

     LvLiberty states that the Bible has never been used to justify an act. I have heard the Bible quoted by people who have killed others.

     "This actually epitomizes the normal argument structure that emanates from many on the left. Rather than an actual debate of the facts, they resort to the type of fallacies that satisfy their need to be superior to others, yet have a reality that will not stand up to the scrutiny of logic and reason"

     Are you going to continue with the asinine narrow minded view of the world or are you actually going to bother to debate the facts. You only presented counters to some of the arguments. The bible has been used to justify the killed of others due to the interpretation of the way it's written. For instance abortion clinic bombers use it to commit their acts.

     On top of that do you think repeatedly saying this is the blah blah blah left argh they are demons arguments actually work? You can say it as much as you want but it is your own narrow-minded interpretation of the world. It's crazy how not everyone not even the majority of people are how you see them to be. It's just you filter the facts through your interpretation and come up with some asinine fact like you stated there.

     "Therefore they exercise the false conclusion that I want all Muslims killed despite my saying just the opposite."

     You never said the opposite. You stated before that the Qu'ran justifies the killing of all non-Muslims. Therefore you must defend yourself against these people.

     Tell me what straw-man is that building up? On top of that your interpretations of the Qu'ran seem to be different from many Muslim scholars who argue that the Qu'ran does not justify the killing of others.

     The Bible has been used by you to justify your reason for defending yourself. So the Bible does in fact have a justification for killing others. This one doesn't have any bearing as I don't see defending one's self as a problem just a tidbit of the fact that the Bible does justify killing.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 7:54pm

103. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/08/2008 @ 7:40pm

     See he LV applies the typical argument I see from the right. He makes statements and then he contorts the meaning of those statements until they are something entirely different. He then when confronted outright lies in order to justify his previous statements

     Look look I can do it too.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 8:01pm

104. "Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. "

     Hmm.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/08/2008 @ 8:07pm

105. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/08/2008 @ 7:40pm

     The problem is that you want to change your arguments. On one hand, you argue that Islam is the problem. Then, you want to make distinctions between those that practice Islam as it conforms to your understanding and Muslims that don't. Which I understand because you want to duck the fact that you are essentially arguing for a modern day Crusade.

     You do a variation of the argument for Christianity too. Standard tactic of disassociating from those elements that are problematic in any ideology. It applies to Bush style conservatism and whether it's conservative. It applies to Christianity. And you want to flip the script, and try to do the same with Muslims but invert it, so that there are a few good Muslims so you can plausibly deny what you have been arguing all along - a war on Islam (you've just redefined Islam so you get to determine who is and who is not a "true" Muslim following the Qur'an, it least according to your bad interpretation of it.)

     Rather that go the sane course and limit it to fundamentalist Muslims (or Christians or anyone for that matter) committed to using violence, you want to make it about the Islam that conforms to your understanding, and then you are sloppy about drawing the distinctions between who you are actually talking about - frequently talking about Islam as a whole.

     But let's get into your understanding for a moment.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/08/2008 @ 7:47pm

     I refer to my copy of The Koran Interpreted by Arberry, which is generally recognized as a capable and unbiased rendering.

     If you actually read the whole passage of say a portion like that which starts at 9:5, not cherry picking from it, and give it a charitable reading, it sounds like a description of a historical moment, where they were being attacked - rather than a rule of behavior.

     You also leave out elements such as:

     "And if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do convey him to his place of security - that, because they are a people who do not know...so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them."

     Or let's read a little further:

     "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief; they have no sacred oaths; haply they will give over. Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and purposed to expel the Messenger?"

     And we could go on and talk about how jihad is typically thought about as "struggling in the way of God", which has spiritual, personal, defending oneself from enemies and other aspects. The fact that you reduce jihad to "religious fighting" only supports the Muslims position that translations don't do the Qur'an justice and demonstrates the bias you bring to your reading.

     I could go on, but really, why should I bother? Even if your rendering were accurate (which it is not), the problem is fundamentalist Muslims intent on using violence. You don't see me jumping out of my skin because black Muslims think the white man is the devil, anti-semites, "God Hates Fags Christians" or whomever.

     There are no shortage of people with ignorant beliefs, and who think some segment is responsible for the evils of society. We see such opinions on parade here every day running from John Maash's hate of unions to Mark Canyon admiration of Hitler.

     But the bottom line is that most people with kooky ideas only get as far as typing them out on some anonymous pamplet, small gathering in some basement or posting to some blog, but they can't manage to accomplish any of their objectives.

     There's a rare one or two that manages to move in some direction of action - such as the Weathermen, Oklahoma City or the Unabomber. But these are crimes, and they need to be addressed as crimes. You, however, with all your talk about liberty are basically accusing Muslims (or some sub-set you haven't yet rigorously defined) of thought crime.

     You see, LVL, I have the fundamental belief that liberty, freedom are concepts that mean you have to live with the fact that some people may use their freedom in ways we don't approve of.

     Posted by srjenkins at 04/08/2008 @ 11:07pm

106. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2008 @ 12:17am

     Well there is your problem LV. The world is not Black and White, neither is religion. No religion is black and white. All religions are open to interpretation. You think the Bible hasn't lost meaning or changed meaning after the many many translations it has gone through? The world is not black and white LV it is not this or that. You are not liberal or conservative, you are not right or wrong, you are not good or bad. Things are not the way YOU see them as right or wrong. The one thing I have learned in my short life is there are no absolutes there are only possibilities. There are no impossibilities only improbabilities.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2008 @ 01:16am

107. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2008 @ 12:45am

     I also hear many many fire and brimstone preaches quote sodom and gammorah and some other Old Testament books. I went to church for most of my life. I studied religion heavily. Religion is one of my main interests from a more outside point of view, I look at religion from and objective point of view and weigh it's positives and negatives. However I also know what it is to be like you. To be completely enveloped in a religion. To see nothing outside of it as being correct. I was there once. I prefer where I am now.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/09/2008 @ 01:20am

108. has this turned into the Vatican debating society?

     I recommend resisting Liverty's constant attempts at this.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 10:59am

109. Petraeus a "genuine hero?" Nonsense. Petraeus is not a Viet vet. He graduated from West Pt in '74 & went to his 1st duty station in Italy. Prior to his Iraq command, Petraeus has never done combat duty anywhere at anytime. He's a desk jockey, not a hero. The closest he came to danger was on a live fire exercise stateside, when a soldier tripped and accidently fired his rifle, hitting Petraeus in the chest. All those medals & ribbons covering both sides of his chest, all the patches on his sleeves, none of it for combat duty. He is a smart bureaucratic player, always pleasing his bosses, hence 4 stars. No hero he.

     Hugely popular? Wanna bet the huge majority of Americans have no idea who he is?

     Posted by sloper at 04/09/2008 @ 11:06am

110. Liverty, a self described preacher is just jealous because Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 5:55pm

111. ah yes, the "burgeoning" bottom-up process. should take 6-9 months, right? those pesky liberals, always wanna cut 'n run just as we were turning the corner.

     Posted by DARLADOON 04/08/2008 @ 12:03pm

     It was pretty obvious that despite the actual (as distinct from your attempted pre-emption with a very non-specific "speech net") low key, heavily qualified Petraeus/Crocker presentation, they gave the anti-war politicians very little wriggle room and my guess is that Obama was very impressed and could well focus on 100 months if not 100 years in Iraq, if he makes it at the big one. I mean Petraeus makes Pastor Wright look very pedestrian doesn't he?

     On the other hand Hillary's facial expression gave the clear indication that she was hoping that we would all remember the noblest speech she has ever given and the wisest permission she has ever granted. That is, when she gave GW her carte blanche to give Saddam the boot at the end of her great 10th October 2002 Senate Speech. Viz. …"And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. Thank you, Mr. President. "

     In other words what patriotic American politician would not want to identify with the Great American project in Mesopotamia now led by the super cool general.

     Like your attempt at irony but for those of us who long ago rumbled as to what was going, in the almost distance past, are thinking, not 6-9 months down the road, but rather of the bottom up "Awakening" which began in Anbar Province quite a whiles ago in this way...."Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies among the tribes and anti al Qaeda insurgent groups began forming alliances in the spring and summer of 2006.

     In September, the groups established the Jazeera Council in Ramadi, and began working more closely with Coalition forces to begin securing neighborhoods in Ramadi. The Sahawah Al Anbar, which followed the success of the Jazeera Council, was formed in October. The Awakening provided the disparate groups with a political platform, and began to work closely with the Coalition and establishing ties with the Iraqi government..."

     Hmmm, back in Spring 2006? My how time flies when one doesn't wear ideological blinkers and doesn't require elucidation top down, so to speak, if you get my drift.

     Posted by harvey 79 at 04/10/2008 @ 04:36am

112. Awakening? read Payola.

     Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2008 @ 10:42am