Like it or not, we have the position as World Police. You might say the argument is really over policing methods, whether shooting first and getting answers to questions later is an appropriate policing tactic. There are nuances to the arguemnt of course. After all, Rodney King didn't stop immediately, did he?

so far from what I see of your responses, you are only twisting the words of what has been said into your own negative interpretations. You are not offering much in return - you seem to lack any constructive ideas, and you have taken the role of just predicting that any action is destined for disaster. This type of behavior is common at every level of society, and the people who engage in it only serve to disrupt and undermine others who attempt to actually do something. It may be that the people doing things are not doing the right thing, but to merely find fault without offering any alternative is not helpful, and if it turns out what was to be done would actually be the correct thing, then the disruptor earns for themself an amount of blame for standing in the way. (Unfortunately, those people who take on the role of disruptor often skulk away in the face of the success of their targets, and find some other actions to disrupt.) So let's hear it rbrooku. We're listening to you, you have the mike. You can't find fault without offering an alternative. .

"The Grand Strategy says to Muslims, ?If you can not police your own then we will bring you all to heel?. So it is not technically a Crusade against Islam, but is only a Neocrusade against Islam." I'm not sure I can follow this reasoning and if the conclusion follows the reasoning. The way it is put now makes the reasoning look like a straw man argument. Maybe you could rephrase it in a way so I can better understand? (I get the idea that you phrased it in a way to nag certain posters, but I feel your point you're trying to make got lost somewhere)

?so far from what I see of your responses, you are only twisting the words of what has been said into your own negative interpretations.? If you lack the training and understanding to properly use logic and therefore lack the ability to understand, I suppose it might look that way. ?Realpolitik? is dialectical, and if that is the highest Logic you have at your disposal, you?re doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over. ?You are not offering much in return - you seem to lack any constructive ideas, and you have taken the role of just predicting that any action is destined for disaster.? Au contraire, mon ami. I suggested we pull out (mostly) and let the Iraqis sort themselves out, like the three major groups eventually did in Yugoslavia. When they are ready for our help they will beg for it. We won?t be ?occupiers? and NATO and the UN will pitch in, too. I thought we would have learned something worthwhile from Vietnam, but apparently the line from Excalibur is appropriate. ?For it is the Doom of Man to forget.?

">The Grand Strategy says to Muslims, ?If you can not police your own then we will bring you all to heel?. So it is not technically a Crusade against Islam, but is only a Neocrusade against Islam.< I'm not sure I can follow this reasoning and if the conclusion follows the reasoning. The way it is put now makes the reasoning look like a straw man argument.? OK, what is the Grand Strategy? Obviously, invade and occupy a central Middle East country and to convert its government and culture into a Western style democracy. Then to project power from there and thereby force the Muslim countries of the Middle East to convert to Western style democracies. They don?t agree, we use military force to force them to agree. Put another way, ?If you can not police your own then we will bring you all to heel?. Simple enough.

"OK, what is the Grand Strategy? Obviously, invade and occupy a central Middle East country and to convert its government and culture into a Western style democracy. Then to project power from there and thereby force the Muslim countries of the Middle East to convert to Western style democracies. They don?t agree, we use military force to force them to agree. Put another way, ?If you can not police your own then we will bring you all to heel?. Simple enough." -- Rbrooku ---- That sounds like it to me. If not Western style republics, then at least install Western-neutral governments. I call it "Pax Americana." It appears to have been devised some years ago, and 9/11 demonstrated why it needed to go into full swing. I think Phases III & IV will involve serious treatment (Political regime destabilization/air campaign/invasion) of Syria and Iran within the next few years. Displacedjim

rbrooku: ?so far from what I see of your responses, you are only twisting the words of what has been said into your own negative interpretations.? If you lack the training and understanding to properly use logic and therefore lack the ability to understand, I suppose it might look that way. If you are an academic, you may be prone to elevate yourself above the unwashed masses and believe your own rhetoric is the fountain of wisdom. ?Realpolitik? is dialectical, and if that is the highest Logic you have at your disposal, you?re doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over. You have yet to use any dialectical method to prove the analogies offered are inherently contradictory, but merely interpreted things like bases in Iraq as if they were a Communist occupation, and the strategic stabilization of the Middle East, and its ramifications for China (a true strategic competitor) as some kind of opener for WWIII. Pithy pessimism may be all the rage among your peers, but around here I'd like to hear some constructive ideas, rather than your nattering nabobisms. ?You are not offering much in return - you seem to lack any constructive ideas, and you have taken the role of just predicting that any action is destined for disaster.? Au contraire, mon ami. I suggested we pull out (mostly) and let the Iraqis sort themselves out, like the three major groups eventually did in Yugoslavia. When they are ready for our help they will beg for it. We won?t be ?occupiers? and NATO and the UN will pitch in, too. I thought we would have learned something worthwhile from Vietnam, but apparently the line from Excalibur is appropriate. ?For it is the Doom of Man to forget.? Thanks, and it is nice to get you on the record. If you so stated earlier, I'm sorry I missed it. You may be suprised to think that I would agree with you that pulling out and letting civil war ensue may be a viable option if it proves impossible to get enough of the political centers of power in Iraq to come together on a stable government. But whether we continue with the counterinsurgency or pull out and let them find their center through a civil war, we will eventually have to re-engage the final form of the government, as we have those nasty strategic interests we must pursue....

?If you are an academic, you may be prone to elevate yourself above the unwashed masses and believe your own rhetoric is the fountain of wisdom.? Good thing I?m not an academic. ?You have yet to use any dialectical method to prove the analogies offered are inherently contradictory?? Because I?m not the dialectician here, you are. What, you think because you?re an American Capitalist that you?re not a dialectician? Didn?t know you had so much in common with those pesky commie pinko Soviets, did ya? Oh, you protest? Ah, with a handle like ?realpolitik? you should know what you?re inferring. Two sides of the same coin and all that. ?Pithy pessimism may be all the rage among your peers?? Annggkkk! Wrong again. My ?peers? detest pessimism, cynicism and hubris. Not that I don?t have all three, but my friends constantly remind me of their worthlessness. I suppose that makes you one of my friends, because my enemies wouldn?t even bother to say so. ?But whether we continue with the counterinsurgency or pull out and let them find their center through a civil war, we will eventually have to re-engage the final form of the government, as we have those nasty strategic interests we must pursue...? Yes, and they are much easier to pursue if you first allow an equilibrium to establish itself. In the end, even if you cannot define higher Logic, doesn?t mean you never use it. Just like when you recognize that the Iraqis have to be ready for help before we can really give it to them. Force someone to change only if you are short on enemies, right?

Oh please, Enlightened One, teach us in the ways of your higher logic. We, who are mere peons can but hope to grasp the complexity of your thought processes. Thanks for contributing at least one item worth discussion (the possibility of withdrawal and civil war) As for most of the other stuff you wrote, I guess I can only suggest: get over yourself! .

I object. Abu G was NOT a "stab" at setting up a Stasi type organization. It was NOT policy at all. No senior official in any agency, if advised of it, would have said "this is clever, but keep it quiet." All senior officials know this sort of thing CANNOT be kept quiet. Whistle blowers are part and parcel of our system, and they took longer than normal to do the deed, because so many were not experienced. If even one experienced MP were present, the thing would have been shut down instantly. As one senior officer said to me "Why can't something like this happen when I am around?" I feel the same way he did. Your perception of what this was about indicates a complete misunderstanding of our culture, our law, our military institutions, and our concept of strategy.