Same comment now with formating!

Generally a good point. But would you say that we should pull out of Montana because of the unabomber? While the Iraqis don’t like us, they like that we are there now. At least according to the poll at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf. Among the hopeful bits for this mess – 55% think they are better off now, adding in “about the same” gives 79%. And do they want us there now?

Q29 – How long do you think U.S. and other Coalition Forces should remain in Iraq?

They should leave now 15.1
They should remain for a few months 8.3
They should remain for six months to a year 6.1
They should remain for more than one year 4.3
They should remain until security is restored 18.3
They should remain until an Iraqi government is in place 35.8
They should never leave 1.5
Difficult to say 10.6
Total 100.0

The unhopeful: 26% of the folks interviewed thought it was absolutely wrong for us to invade. While 41% think the war liberated iraq, 41% think it humiliated Iraq. Fully 18% think attacks on coalition forces are acceptable compared to 1.5% acceptability for attacks on Iraqi police.

The raw data is much more interesting than this synopsis though, so go check it out. (Another gem: the esteem for Japan). We get such a weird little slice from the media (I don’t think it’s a conspiracy of the left or the right). It’s nice to see some slightly rawer data even if it is collected by a bunch of english blokes walking around with clipboards.

Generally a good point. But would you say that we should pull out of Montana because of the unabomber? While the Iraqis don’t like us, they like that we are there now. At least according to the poll at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf. Among the hopeful bits for this mess – 55% think they are better off now, (adding in “about the same” gives 79%. And do they want us there now…

Q29 – How long do you think U.S. and other Coalition Forces should remain in Iraq?

Base = Respondents who are aware of the coalition forces
They should leave now 15.1
They should remain for a few months 8.3
They should remain for six months to a year 6.1
They should remain for more than one year 4.3
They should remain until security is restored 18.3
They should remain until an Iraqi government is in place 35.8
They should never leave 1.5
Difficult to say 10.6
Total 100.0

The unhopeful: 26% of the folks interviewed thought it was absolutely wrong for us to invade. While 41% think the war liberated iraq, 41% think it humiliated Iraq. Fully 18% think attacks on coalition forces are acceptable compared to 1.5% acceptability for attacks on Iraqi police.

The raw data is much more interesting than this synopsis though, so go check it out. (Another gem: the esteem for Japan). We get such a weird little slice from the media (I don’t think it’s a conspiracy of the left or the right). It’s nice to see some slightly rawer data even if it is collected by a bunch of english blokes walking around with clipboards.

I guess the point of saying sorry is about acknowledging the truth. The truth does not change depending on our ability to stomach it.

History is full of examples of good intentions going bad, it all boils down to the type of leadership your country (USA) has at the time, Carter good on domestic, lousy on foreign, Reagan, lousy on domestic, good on foreign. It has always been this way sine 1776, whatever your government of the time’s philosophy usually this dictates your meddling in other countries politics. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor before you would come to the aid of those being destroyed by Hitler, just think of how many of the Holocaust victims may have been saved had you entered a year earlier. I digress, my point is you should not act alone if your convictions are strong enough and you have the full support of the World Community, the invasion of Iraq or the removal of Saddamm Hussein should have been done through the United Nations or if that is not suitable then through NATO, at least it would be a combined effort. Bottom line though is the job should have been finished in 1991, that was when the iron was hot. 13 years later and you are losing troops because why???. So what’s the point in saying sorry. The deed is done, live up to your responsibilities and ensure you don’t make the same mistake twice, children learn to avoid the same mistake after awhile I am sure lofty politicians can do the same, if that’s what they want.

Nick Bauman,

Well, by deciding to nation-build Iraq, we’ve chosen to move towards empire. This was my real objection to the war: by undertaking it, we are not acting in a self-interested manner.

We were lucky though. The current administration is not only wrong, but incompetent as any CEO who ignores his underlings. Had they been competent, our country would be on a much more disturbing course.

I respectfully think you’ve glossed over the paper. “But merely ‘toughing it out’ is not a solution. The longer the occupation continues, the greater the potential it will disrupt society rather than rehabilitate it. Thus, important and complex goals must be accomplished as quickly as possible,” it says. (p.42)

For a while, I didn’t think there were any sane, non-binary people in America. Beyond left and right. These papers were a breath of fresh air to me, confirming that these people exist, just sometimes they’re unable or made afraid to speak. So I mention them, returning the favor.

Don’t apologize.
Don’t admit mistakes.
Both show weakness.
Never expose your soft underbelly, it leaves you sucseptible to enemy attack.
When there is nothing to be gained toward your own goal, why admit anything ?

Considering the technological options that are available to the us (jdams, cruise-missles, advanced command and control, total air superiority, etc…) going into a country and toppeling a government is relatively easy.

If you really want to create some sort of long term change in the government of a country, then a long-term commitment, or ’staying the course’, is necessary.

In order to maintain a sustained military presence, it is absolutley necessary to involve more than just a few major countries in this endeavour. For this reason, diplomacy is the utmost weapon in any conflct and the united nations is the field that this battle must be one on.

Any leader that ignores this necessity, and mis-spends the valor of their armed forces as a result, is mis-directed at best.

Tayssir John Gabbour,

So, I read the document. Basically it says that winning the peace is much harder than winning the war. That winning the peace means a large-scale mobilization for a long period of time, that brutal occupation is a reality of this. All that isn’t new. It’s the Hawk argument that has worked so well for the Israelis and the English. Something along the lines of “Peace will break out any day now if we just stay the course”.

The question remains: if we seriously think that we have “the one right way to live”, and imposing that way to live on other people, peacefully if possible, violently if necessary, then you have to acknowledge that we are more an empire than a republic. And isn’t that exactly what we stand against, on principle? What are we if we become what we most deplore? What justification do we have except the age-old justification of any state: the will to exert power over people. Pure dominion.

Don’t misunderstand: I’m not outright condemning your posting, I’m just saying these are the choices. We should be honest about the choices.

Yep, in mid 1979 the us began to aid the mujahideen. At least that was alleged by Robert Gates (former director of cia) and Zbginiew Brzezinksi (Carter’s nat sec adv) in their memoirs.

http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Natrajan-0109xx-Afghan%20Timeline.htm

Of course, coming to the aid of a (formerly) democratic ally where a series of military coups were in process should not come as any major suprise.

We should not forget that the not-yet-president Reagan crowd was playing around with adnan khashoggi, trading arms with both iran and iraq and (allegedly) preventing the release of the us hostages in iran in time for the us election in nov 1980. Add to that the continuing 6Billion dollars of aid to the mujahideen in the ’80s and it is pretty clear who put the taliban into control of afghanistan.

Of course the point to this thread is government apology…

Sure, us foreign policy leaves plenty of room for apology, but this is unlikely to happen. It is much more likely to see the eventual opening of trade (ala mainland china, vietnam, and eventually cuba and n korea).

What I would expect would be personal acceptance of responsibility and, if not a direct apology, then at least action. Little things like mediating peace, monitoring democratic reforms, etc…

The sort of things that you would see from Jimmy Carter, but never from Reagan or Bush(sr).

For all of their meddling in the region, the recent republican ex-presidents have had little to offer in the way of apology or action. That is shameful.

I could point out that the military is for implementation issues and not deciding policy, which would neatly answer your question. But looking at a couple disturbingly serious comments on this thread, which appears really about:

- a satirical thought (apologizing for mistakes, what is he smoking…)

- innocents are jailed for 15 years and our national response is “oops”

I couldn’t bring myself to make a 100% serious post. Really just asking if everyone read the paper I linked to.