Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Tex -USMC-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    6246

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Tex -USMC-

  11. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]A Return to Sanity, Finally

    Over the past few weeks we have seen a number of despondent editorials by former supporters of the war. These are good omens.

    By Fareed Zakaria

    In his prime-time speech last week, George W. Bush HIT all his familiar themes—we must show resolve, stay the course, finish the job, etc. But this masks a very different reality. Over the past three weeks the Bush administration has reversed itself on virtually every major aspect of its Iraq policy. Thank goodness. These shifts might be too late to have a major effect, but they will certainly help. The administration has finally begun to adhere to Rule No. 1 when you're in a hole: stop digging. But it needs to go further and move decisively in a new direction. Consider the magnitude of recent policy reversals:

    The administration had stubbornly insisted that no more troops were needed in Iraq. But today, there are 20,000 additional soldiers in the country.

    From the start it refused to give the U.N. any political role in Iraq. Now the U.N. is an indispensable partner, both in the June 30 transition and in preparing for elections.

    Radical "de-Baathification," the pet project of the Pentagon and Ahmad Chalabi, has been overturned. The Army that was disbanded is being slowly re-created.

    Heavy-handed military tactics have given way to a more careful political-military strategy in Fallujah, Karbala and Najaf that emphasizes a role for local leaders.

    Imagine what Iraq might have looked like if these policies had been put in place 14 months ago.

    Iraq policy has been wrested from the Pentagon and is now being directed by Robert Blackwill, a diplomat on the National Security Council. Blackwill is a smart, aggressive, effective problem-solver who has little time for ideology or ideologues. Since he had no previous history or baggage on Iraq, he has been able to focus on getting it right rather than proving that his original theories were right.

    But old mistakes still infect Iraq policy. Many of the problems that have plagued Iraq have been the result of the machinations surrounding Iraq's Governing Council, which commands almost no respect among the Iraqi people. That was why Washington realized last November that it needed a new set of players. The United Nations was invited to pick this new "interim government" so that it was not seen as a U.S. puppet. So who ended up announcing the new interim prime minister last Friday? The Governing Council. And who's in the interim government? Council member Ayad Allawi as prime minister, and (in all likelihood) Council members Adnan Pachachi as president, and Ibrahim Jafari and Jalal Talabani as vice presidents. Two of the four are exiles whom the United States has supported. Most of them are intelligent, decent and politically astute. Allawi waged an impressive campaign, garnering support from several quarters. But to get backing from the Governing Council is one thing; getting it from the Iraqi people is another.

    What's done is done. The two keys going forward are (1) to give this government internal credibility and (2) to internationalize dramatically the external assistance to Iraq. First, it's crucial that the rest of the group not be retreads from the Governing Council. Then, the new government will need the endorsement of various leaders within Iraq, most importantly the senior clerics in Najaf. The U.N.'s representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, has been in constant touch with Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The latter should be given whatever concessions are necessary so that he will recognize this government.

    The new government will need to establish its credibility, which means its power vis-a-vis the United States. Washington is currently engaged in a foolish debate over whether the new government should have authority over American troops in Iraq. Without giving it formal military authority, there has to be some way to make clear that it will have authority to approve or reject offensive military operations. It will likely have that veto anyway. American soldiers will not be able to launch a Fallujah-like attack in the future if the sovereign government of Iraq condemns it. That's political reality. Why not give it in theory what it will have in fact?

    The other source of legitimacy the government will need is international. There will almost certainly be a U.N. resolution on Iraq in the next few weeks. But what is needed is a strong resolution, endorsing the new government and inviting countries to help it in all possible ways. So far, Washington has been unable to get much by way of troop commitments. It has asked 12 countries for help, and only two have responded positively. Countries will be more likely to help if the United Nations is given greater control and authority going forward.

    Over the past few weeks we have seen a number of despondent editorials by former supporters of the war. They despair that Ahmad Chalabi will not be handed the keys to the country, that we are not crushing the insurgency with massive force, that we are sharing power with the United Nations, that Brahimi has been given so much power. This is a good omen. It means the grown-ups have taken control. It might not solve the many problems in Iraq. But it does mark the return of sanity to America's Iraq policy.

    http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html

  13. Posted

    crazy_o.gif

    Who the hell cares?

    edit: Even if this weren't a completely idiotic line of discussion, think about this. Considering the fact that both females and males inhabit these forums, I see no reason why bisexual, which is by definition a lack of sexual preference, is innapropriate for that sort of arrangment.

  18. Posted

    My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

    (During a microphone check on August 11 1984, unaware that he was being broadcast )

    biggrin_o.gif  wow_o.gif  ghostface.gif

    Say what you'll say, but the man was fuckin' hilarious. unclesam.gif

    What the hell- you will be missed, Ron.

  21. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Anyhow, IMO for his contribution to ending the cold war, America and the rest of the western world owe Reagan a debt of gratitude. Of course he did a bunch of not-so-good things as well and the extent of his contributions can be debated. The seriousness of the cold war situation warrents however that one is very appreciative of the type of contribution that he made. So I'm happy to overlook the things I strongly disagreed with.

    And that's one of the reasons why Reagan's policies should be looked at with a very powerful microscope before they are rubber stamped by mainstream historians. With hindsight, a move like starting production on an entirely new ICBM class with reputed first-stike capability seems less mind-numbingly risky than it did back then. And I reiterate, today we are seeing the results of such self-assured recklessness play out with a much less sympathetic set of circumstances.

    As for overlooking smaller disagreements, that is a dangerous concession to make to right-wingers in America. These folks (ex: Icefire) think that Reagan hung the moon and stars, and would name half the government buildings in America after him; at the same time, they are convinced that Clinton brought the country within an eyelash of total moral collapse. They will naturally brook no argument in the matter. Of course, you don't have to worry about that.

    edit: and I suppose that's what admiration of a black/white worldview will get you.

  22. Posted

    What you are telling Tex is the neatly revised story of the cold war that portrays the US as the obvious winner. It certainly was not that day. Western victory was not at all for granted. Soviet economy was not such a joke as people seem to think it was. To a wide extent America and the Soviet Union were equals. In the late '70s the Soviets were ahead in the race. Reagan turned that around. It was not something that would have happened by itself.

    The gap between the perception at the time and the core facts was rather immense at the time. However, just because victory was not assured at the time does not mean that I am peddling ravisionist history. If you'll look back at my thesis, it is that Reagan was not solely responsible for any of this, and there were many mitigating factors. The fact that he was ushered in after a startlingly ineffective president was one of them- any indication of solid, competent leadership when contrasted to the bungling of the latter half of the Carter administration is certainly going to seem even more pronounced due simply to the comparison of the two. Also, the changing of the old guard in the Kremlin- the old Party men were dropping like flies, and as such the USSR was quickly coming to a leadership crossroads. These and many other factors make the situation, when viewed from the bird's eye of history, as neither as dire as you paint it, nor as rosy as you say that I indicate it was.

    Now, one point does stick. I wasn't around to sample the psychological climate of the period. But to say Reagan led us out of it singlehanded is tantamount to saying he grabbed your hand while in a dark room, picked a direction, and headed for what everyone hoped was the light switch. Read my posts again- he deserves credit. He certainly was not a bad president, at least in terms of his foreign agenda. But he does not deserve to be put on a pedestal, and that's all I'm saying.

  24. Posted

    Tex, Reagan was largely responsible for the strategy that broke the back of the Soviet Union.  You are probably too young to remember, but the early 80's were a time of deep fear and paranoia as we were on the verge of a nuclear showdown with the Soviets.  Tensions were very high and everyone expected war.  Reagan did a lot to ease those tensions, restore America's military and fix our broken spirit after Vietnam and eventually end the Cold War.  It happened in 1991, but the seeds for change were sown in the 80's under Reagan.

    The economic realities that brought about the Soviet Union's demise were beyond Reagan's control- yes, amping up the arms race did shorten the USSR's lifespan, but there is no question that it was just a hastening of the inevitable. As for his easing the level of tension between the two countries, it's fair to say that he was responsible for the then-high level of tension in the first place- easing that tension was his respnsibility, because of how hard he pushed the Soviets during his first term. And, to argue a wider view, in light of the former Soviet Republics almost utter inability to function post-collapse (and the international community's inability to help them reform), I submit that a hastening of the Soviet Union's collapse may have been less beneficial to us than say, if it were to collapse 5 years later. The utter economic ruin that the USSR faced translated with devastating consequences to the new confederal states, and the speed with which it came about meant that many of the balleyhooed reforms conducted by Gorbachev were still-born; victims, just like the Soviet Union, of a crushing economic reality. A more protracted end to communism would have been less dramatic, but ultimately it may have been more beneficial. But I digress- my main point was that the Soviet Union was, circa 1980, a fundamentally flawed creature, and would have gone the way of the dinosaur without any prodding (which, at the time, amounted to near-brinksmanship), given no Reagan and a nominal arms race. Why move the Pershing II's? Why bother with the Peacekeeper? Flooding the petroleum market in 85-86? Risky moves that happened to turn out okay.

    Not only this, but we are seeing now what a dangerous game Reagan was actually playing, because we have the benefit of seeing a president operate on many of the same principles and policies, but without the same serendipitous confluence of circumstances that Reagan presided over.

    As for his rebuilding the military, no question there- although the fact that half of it was dissassembled again after only a few trips to the Carribean and one to Iraq should weigh into the equation. Mending some ill-will? Certainly. But those are the hallmarks of a competent but unremarkable presidency. On the other hand, what about Iran-Contra? Our close relationship with Iraq (a relationship that in part contributed to the trip mentioned earlier)? The CIA mucking around in Afghanistan at the time? All of these too fall at Reagan's doorstep, but the teflon president is instead romanticized and idealized. All I ask for is a little bit of realism.

  25. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]The government in ST is militaristic/fascist. Blatantly untrue. On p. 143 is states plainly that "in peacetime most veterans come from non-combat auxiliary services." And "veteran" means simply someone who has gone through the service. The Federal Service is not fascist either because there is no dictator in whom all authority is centralized (the Sky Marshal can be replaced), there is voting, and (apparently) a free market economy. The Terran Federation is a republic, one with a democratic form of government where the right to vote is a privilege that is earned by service.

    Fascism occurs and prospers on more levels than the purely superficial ones you cite. In fact, most instances of fascism occur on the psychological and educational levels. Our main character, Rico, is continually pointed out, by himself and others, as being not especially bright. Nonetheless, he is a favorite of his H&MP professor, and an ideal candidate for OCS. In fact, in OCS History & Moral Philosophy (a glorified political reeducation seminar) serves as a litmus test for judging if a cap trooper is worthy of holding a commission, or even worthy staying in the Army for the duration of his term, and by extension, whether he is worthy or not of citizenship. In fact, read the opening quotation from John Paul Jones for chapter 12 (the OCS chapter)- it exhorts the necessity of absolute despotism in military matters. And a government formed of military veterans will brook no interference in issues deemed important enough... just as everything else about the Federation, the outer veneer is admirable and, to any right-minded Western-educated person to be right and good, but if you look past the surface, something ugly lurks.

    Take another example, the 'other' forms that Federal Service may take. Sure, on outer examination it seems nice, but the Fleet Sergeant at the recruiting desk derides that as idiocy. What non-military Federal Service entails is a 2-year term of slavery, whether on a work crew or as a human lab rat. They dangle a carrot, a carrot that is repeatedly admitted to being mostly symbolic (but engineered by the society nonetheless), and then exploit volunteers mercilessly. Sure, all of it seems admirable at twenty paces, but look closer and the system starts to get muddled and uncertain, just like an Impressionist painting. I could do this all night, but I'll refrain.

×