[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Iraq stuff again was:First impressions of Vista

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: Aaron Kulkis

> Attacks on the streets of Baghdad have fallen off significantly.
> 
> A lot of them have run to Iran.

 Casualty counts that I've seen have not dropped off significantly.
There are reports (e.g. here: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=173730)
that insurgents are synchronizing their bombings with American patrols:

 "When the Americans come through on patrol or -- even worse -- when they
set up permanent checkpoints (either U.S. or Iraqi-manned), the Mahdis
have to lie low, since the Americans (or their Iraqi sidekicks) will
arrest or kill them. The community is then essentially left unprotected
and open to intruders.

The Sunni jihadists know this, and they also know that the Americans
(and their Iraqi sidekicks) have neither the ability nor the inclination
to spot and interdict suspicious looking outsiders. So they target
precisely those Shia neighborhoods that the Americans are busy "pacifying."
Very often, as in the case of the New Baghdad bombing, they time their
attacks just after the Americans pass through, and before the Mahdis can
return to the streets."

 It's not an intended consequence of American patrols, certainly,
but it's hard to come up with a way to avoid it.

> In any event, at present the threat to our nation is grave ...
> A withdrawal that demonstrates a lack of resolve will put truth
> to bin Laden's claim that all that's needed to defeat us is
> casualties on TV plus time.

"One of the real motives for the invasion of Iraq was to give the
world a demonstration of American power. It's a measure of how
badly things have gone that now we're told we can't leave because
that would be a demonstration of American weakness." - Paul Krugman

>  Everything perceived as defeat, or
> wavering in the face of aggression, encourages more recruits to
> some or many of the various radical factions -- both the Sunnis
> and Shias see the U.S. as the main obstacle to worldwide imposition
> of Sharia law (and no, it's not only women who suffer under it...)

 So what? Those idiots *can't* impose 'worldwide Sharia law'. No way.
They can't field a competent army:

 http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html

 And Islamic culture also produces second-rate science:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers#Legacy

 Their whole social system bears more than a passing resemblance to
feudalism. The only thing that supports it is the reserves of oil there.
Their economies can't be productive (or stable) any other way:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_curve

 Terrorists *are not an existential threat to the United States*. They
can cause harm, occasionally a lot of it. But they *do not threaten our
country's existence in the slightest*.

 It makes sense to take steps to deal with and mitigate the problem.
However, the best steps for doing that consist mostly of beefing up
physical security. Reinforced cockpit doors, more intelligent
arrangement of parking and security at airports. How about Bill Maher's
suggestion of a "people's Secret Service"? A corps of trained security
professionals who patrol airports, big sporting events, public
gatherings, etc. The existing Secret Service doesn't attempt to check
everyone in a crowd, they intelligently focus their attention on known
risk factors. And it works.

 Now, hire, say, 10,000 of them, and pay them a good wage, say $100K
per year. That's $1 billion per year. The Pentagon spends more than
that before breakfast every day. That will actually cut the terrorism
risk drastically, *and* not interfere with civil rights. (The Iraq war
costs us more, possibly much more, than $70 billion per year.)

 Then go further. Let's assume the "public Secret Service" actually
costs $30 billion per year (double the salaris, administration, equipment,
transportation, standard government waste). Now, we spend another $30
billion per year working on (a) reducing our need for oil by increasing
efficiency and (b) reducing our need for oil by alternative means of
generating energy. The price of oil drops drastically because demand
drops. The terrorists get starved for funds since the Middle East
countries are no longer oil-rich. We're *much* better off than we are
now *and* we save at least $10 billion per year (along with many, many
soldiers' lives and limbs).

 Even *more*, we then have troops freed up to do other things, like
protect the U.S. from actual existential threats.

 Now, let's deal with the worst-case scenario. The absolute worst thing
terrorists could *possibly* do is get hold of a nuke and detonate it on
U.S. soil. Say, in New York. That would indeed be bad, and would hurt us
a lot. But it wouldn't end the U.S. (Let's note that Katrina did what
the government says it's been working to prevent, the destruction of a
major American city. Does the response to Katrina lead you to believe
they are doing a good job of preparing for that?)

 First off, note that having our troops in Iraq doesn't protect us from
nukes in any way. There are no nukes to be had in Iraq. There aren't
even nukes to be had in Iran, and won't be for at *least* 5 years.

 Second, note that control over the materials for making nuclear weapons
is the most effective way to deal with it. No enriched Uranium, or
Plutonium, or Thorium... no bomb. Period. So securing existing nukes and
working to limit construction of enrichment facilities (which are beyond
the capacity of terrorists to produce) is the best strategy.

 What's the fallback? Actually monitoring shipping is an important step.
Sounds like a job for... the people's Secret Service. Then there's
intelligence work and policy and all that. Stuff we're *already* doing,
which has *nothing* to do with Iraq.

 Leaving Iraq would be a mess, certainly. But we cannot 'win' there
without a *massively larger* investment of money and troops. How about
something like the alternative proposed here:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=full

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                   (313) 227-2317

     "Patriotism does not mean that you think your country is perfect, or
 blameless, or even particularly likeable on balance; nor does it mean that
  you serve it blindly, go where it tells you to go and kill whom it tells
 you to kill. It means that you are committed to keeping it alive and making
  it better, that you will do whatever seems necessary (up to and including
  dying) to protect it whenever you, personally, perceive a mortal threat to
           it, military or otherwise." - Spider Robinson
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.