• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Brian Baird anti-war Democrat explains why we should stay in Iraq

ProfJohn

Lifer
So we have a Democrat who voted against the war and has been critical of Bush and Co for the entire duration of the war. But now here he is saying we should give the troops more time.

Since he penned this piece the anti-war left has launched an all out assault on this guy.

I don't think anything will convince the anti-war crowd on P&N that we should stay and try to finish the job. But I agree with this guys reasoning on staying. And I know that there are several people on here who were against the war who have said similar things.

We made a big mess and now we need to stay and clean it up or else the results down the road will be a disaster.
Our troops have earned more time
The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.

Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done.

To understand the magnitude of the challenge and why it is taking time for things to improve, consider what happened as the result of the invasion and post-invasion decisions. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost and hundreds of thousands have fled the country. We dismantled the civil government, police, armed forces and the nation's infrastructure. We closed critical industries and businesses, putting as many as a half million people, including those who best knew how to run the infrastructure and factories, out of work and filled with resentment. We left arms caches unguarded and the borders open to infiltration. We allowed schools, hospitals and public buildings to be looted and created conditions that fanned sectarian conflicts.

It is just not realistic to expect Iraq or any other nation to be able to rebuild its government, infrastructure, security forces and economy in just four years. Despite the enormous challenges, the fact is, the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving in multiple and important ways.

Regardless of one's politics or position on the invasion, this must be recognized and welcomed as good news.

Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.

Without question, these gains are still precarious and there are very real and troubling problems with the current Iraqi political regime and parliament at the national level.

The Iraqis are addressing these problems along with our own State Department but these issues will not easily be resolved and could, if not solved, throw the success of the entire endeavor into jeopardy.

Those problems notwithstanding, to walk away now from the recent gains would be to lose all the progress that has been purchased at such a dear price in lives and dollars. As one soldier said to me, "We have lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn't make sense to quit now when we're finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone else, but I want this mission to succeed and I'm willing to do what it takes. I just want to know the people back home know we're making progress and support us."

From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.

Our citizens should know that this belief is shared by virtually every national leader in the Middle East. There is also near-unanimity among Iraq's neighbors and regional leaders that partition of Iraq is not an option.

"You may think you can walk away from Iraq," I was told by one leader. "We cannot. We live here and have to deal with the consequences of what your nation has done. So will you eventually, if the Iraq conflict spreads and extremists bring us down as well."

I do not know the details of what the September report will contain, but I trust and respect Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I have seen firsthand the progress they have made, and I firmly believe we must give them the time and resources they need to succeed.

Though we would all wish this conflict would end tomorrow, it will not. We are going to have to begin to withdraw troops next spring because our equipment and our soldiers are wearing out. However, even with the progress that has been made of late, we will have a significant military and civilian role in Iraq and the region for some time to come. That is the price we must all pay for the decision to invade. We cannot shirk that responsibility.

Progress is being made and there is real reason for hope. It would be a tragic waste and lasting strategic blunder to let the hard-fought and important gains slip away, leaving chaos behind to haunt us and our allies for many years to come.

Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, represents Washington's 3rd Congressional District.
 
I believe the latest definition of ?success? is:
A working government
Defeat and elimination of AQ and other terrorist groups
Peaceful relations between the various ethnic groups

In essence a viable working state.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe the latest definition of ?success? is:
A working government
Defeat and elimination of AQ and other terrorist groups
Peaceful relations between the various ethnic groups

In essence a viable working state.

Yeah good luck on that on that day dream. Of course almost none of this had anything to do with 9/11 period. Getting AQ out of Iraq after we let them in after toppling Saddam is a wishful but worthy goal but the rest is just not going to happen. Might as well go back and work on the Palestinian and Israel thing instead.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe the latest definition of ?success? is:
A working government
Defeat and elimination of AQ and other terrorist groups
Peaceful relations between the various ethnic groups

In essence a viable working state.

A working government is only what the Iraqis can achieve if they want it - our being there does nothing to help them toward that goal as time has made clear...

And you're never going to defeat and eliminate terrorist groups....

Peaceful relations between the ethnic groups will have to be achieved by the citizens of Iraq.... They are unwilling to do and the U.S. can't make them be nice... Hans Brinker can only plug the dam for so long...

It's nice to dream, but then you have to face reality....
 
Brian Baird was elected in a very liberal state and he is the representative of those liberals. If he doesn't want to do the bidding of his constituents, well, he knows where the door is. We got the F out of vietnam they seem to be doing okay now.
 
I have always felt, also, that the war was a huge mistake, but that when you make one of that size you owe the people you screwed a fix. I thought that was possible at one time and doubt it is now. That is the rub. Seems the only answer would be a three way partition of the country, not a very good fix.
 
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We got the F out of vietnam they seem to be doing okay now.
Tell that to the 2 to 3 million southeast Asians who were massacred after we pulled out... oh ya, WOOPS!
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We got the F out of vietnam they seem to be doing okay now.
Tell that to the 2 to 3 million southeast Asians who were massacred after we pulled out... oh ya, WOOPS!

The delusions on this entire thread seem to be popping faster than popcorn.

But we have two big delusions here.

a. We did ultimately get the F out of Vietnam and all the predicted dire consequences of falling dominoes and the Vietcong following us home did not happen. But Vietnam was way out in left field and Iraq is right square in the center of the center of the oil patch. We very well may get a buster of a mideast war if we get the F out of Iraq and we should not generalize on a N of one.

b. Getting militarily involved in Vietnam was the precursor mistake that resulted in the deaths of millions while we were in and another big bunch after we left. The point is, we tried an imposed military solution to a diplomatic problem. It was historically inevitable that the two Vietnams would be reunited. We fought that historical inevitability and quite predictably lost. The political solutions in Iraq are far more complex, and the USA position is only a small part of any possible diplomatic solution for Iraq. And the decider has yet to decide about even exploring diplomatic options in Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law

The delusions on this entire thread seem to be popping faster than popcorn.

But we have two big delusions here.

a. We did ultimately get the F out of Vietnam and all the predicted dire consequences of falling dominoes and the Vietcong following us home did not happen. But Vietnam was way out in left field and Iraq is right square in the center of the center of the oil patch. We very well may get a buster of a mideast war if we get the F out of Iraq and we should not generalize on a N of one.

And yet that is largely where the progression of Communist influence in the world halted...

b. Getting militarily involved in Vietnam was the precursor mistake that resulted in the deaths of millions while we were in and another big bunch after we left. The point is, we tried an imposed military solution to a diplomatic problem. It was historically inevitable that the two Vietnams would be reunited. We fought that historical inevitability and quite predictably lost. The political solutions in Iraq are far more complex, and the USA position is only a small part of any possible diplomatic solution for Iraq. And the decider has yet to decide about even exploring diplomatic options in Iraq.

We lost in Vietnam because we failed to defeat the opposition militarily first. When you have people back in the US telling soldiers on the front line they can't engage the enemy because it's Tuesday, or because that tree line is 20 feet across some imaginary line, or because China wouldn't like us to have gone after targets rich in populated areas of the North, you indeed have mistakes being made. When you put soldiers in impossible situations and then have support back home be 50%, you indeed have mistakes being made.

That you ignore Korea as an example of what could have happened had China not become involved is interesting...

...however I will cede that the South Viet's don't appear to really have wanted freedom from the North's system quite enough, else they would have more All In than they did (and I'm talking across the board, as obviously many millions of them did).

I wonder if we're reaching a point where the normal Iraqi over there (whichever sect they might be), is just plain sick and tired of the BS and the hopelessness, and are just overall going with the more positive flow.

Who knows...time will tell...

Chuck
 
I believe chuckie2 may be right when he says---I wonder if we're reaching a point where the normal Iraqi over there (whichever sect they might be), is just plain sick and tired of the BS and the hopelessness, and are just overall going with the more positive flow.

The problem with that assertion is that since day one---the vast bulk of Iraqis are not part of the problem and would like nothing better than to go with a more positive flow. The problem is that since day one a few Iraqis have been building their own private fiefdoms and have been getting more and more entrenched for 4.5 years.

And today its those same private armies that become the day to day reality the vast bulk of the population has to deal with. The US military has a slight presence in their daily reality and the Iraqi government has no impact on their lives at all.

And its going to take 500,000 troops to break up those private fiefdoms and restore law and order.

And its the same people who have their own fiefdoms that populate the Iraqi government. For the insurgents, a do nothing Iraqi government becomes what is desired.

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I don't think anything will convince the anti-war crowd on P&N that we should stay and try to finish the job. But I agree with this guys reasoning on staying. And I know that there are several people on here who were against the war who have said similar things.

We made a big mess and now we need to stay and clean it up or else the results down the road will be a disaster.

Wow. At least you are coming around a tiny little bit.

You still don't give a good reason of why we need to stay there.

What exactly do you consider "cleaned up"?

What exactly would be the "disaster"?
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We got the F out of vietnam they seem to be doing okay now.
Tell that to the 2 to 3 million southeast Asians who were massacred after we pulled out... oh ya, WOOPS!
Whats Cambodia have to do with Viet Nam? Oh yeah it was the Vietnamese who kicked out the murderers the Khmer Rouge from power in Cambodia, Whoops.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I believe chuckie2 may be right when he says---I wonder if we're reaching a point where the normal Iraqi over there (whichever sect they might be), is just plain sick and tired of the BS and the hopelessness, and are just overall going with the more positive flow.

The problem with that assertion is that since day one---the vast bulk of Iraqis are not part of the problem and would like nothing better than to go with a more positive flow. The problem is that since day one a few Iraqis have been building their own private fiefdoms and have been getting more and more entrenched for 4.5 years.

And today its those same private armies that become the day to day reality the vast bulk of the population has to deal with. The US military has a slight presence in their daily reality and the Iraqi government has no impact on their lives at all.

And its going to take 500,000 troops to break up those private fiefdoms and restore law and order.

And its the same people who have their own fiefdoms that populate the Iraqi government. For the insurgents, a do nothing Iraqi government becomes what is desired.

Then the average Iraqi needs to start speaking up and kicking in, rather than just going with the flow. I do agree though, we have way too few troops over there. McCain has to be going F'ing nuts seeing the mistake made in Vietnam repeated over again...that and he's been calling for troops everytime I see him on CSPAN now for like years. Now, whether or not we could actually field more troops (even in the beginning), that's another question...

I get the feeling that China and Russia are licking their lips seeing us bogged down...not because militarily one on one they think they can take us, but rather, they see all they have to do is get the defeatists in the US going and our Leadership overall doesn't have the b@lls to tell them where to stuff it.

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Brian Baird was elected in a very liberal state and he is the representative of those liberals. If he doesn't want to do the bidding of his constituents, well, he knows where the door is. We got the F out of vietnam they seem to be doing okay now.


Really? Vietnam is doing OK? Wow. I would hate to see your definition of "not doing OK".
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Lemon law

The delusions on this entire thread seem to be popping faster than popcorn.

But we have two big delusions here.

a. We did ultimately get the F out of Vietnam and all the predicted dire consequences of falling dominoes and the Vietcong following us home did not happen. But Vietnam was way out in left field and Iraq is right square in the center of the center of the oil patch. We very well may get a buster of a mideast war if we get the F out of Iraq and we should not generalize on a N of one.

And yet that is largely where the progression of Communist influence in the world halted...

b. Getting militarily involved in Vietnam was the precursor mistake that resulted in the deaths of millions while we were in and another big bunch after we left. The point is, we tried an imposed military solution to a diplomatic problem. It was historically inevitable that the two Vietnams would be reunited. We fought that historical inevitability and quite predictably lost. The political solutions in Iraq are far more complex, and the USA position is only a small part of any possible diplomatic solution for Iraq. And the decider has yet to decide about even exploring diplomatic options in Iraq.

We lost in Vietnam because we failed to defeat the opposition militarily first. When you have people back in the US telling soldiers on the front line they can't engage the enemy because it's Tuesday, or because that tree line is 20 feet across some imaginary line, or because China wouldn't like us to have gone after targets rich in populated areas of the North, you indeed have mistakes being made. When you put soldiers in impossible situations and then have support back home be 50%, you indeed have mistakes being made.

That you ignore Korea as an example of what could have happened had China not become involved is interesting...

...however I will cede that the South Viet's don't appear to really have wanted freedom from the North's system quite enough, else they would have more All In than they did (and I'm talking across the board, as obviously many millions of them did).

I wonder if we're reaching a point where the normal Iraqi over there (whichever sect they might be), is just plain sick and tired of the BS and the hopelessness, and are just overall going with the more positive flow.

Who knows...time will tell...

Chuck

Finally, someone knows why we lost Vietnam, and why we are so far behind the gun in Iraq.

 
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Lemon law

The delusions on this entire thread seem to be popping faster than popcorn.

But we have two big delusions here.

a. We did ultimately get the F out of Vietnam and all the predicted dire consequences of falling dominoes and the Vietcong following us home did not happen. But Vietnam was way out in left field and Iraq is right square in the center of the center of the oil patch. We very well may get a buster of a mideast war if we get the F out of Iraq and we should not generalize on a N of one.

And yet that is largely where the progression of Communist influence in the world halted...

b. Getting militarily involved in Vietnam was the precursor mistake that resulted in the deaths of millions while we were in and another big bunch after we left. The point is, we tried an imposed military solution to a diplomatic problem. It was historically inevitable that the two Vietnams would be reunited. We fought that historical inevitability and quite predictably lost. The political solutions in Iraq are far more complex, and the USA position is only a small part of any possible diplomatic solution for Iraq. And the decider has yet to decide about even exploring diplomatic options in Iraq.

We lost in Vietnam because we failed to defeat the opposition militarily first. When you have people back in the US telling soldiers on the front line they can't engage the enemy because it's Tuesday, or because that tree line is 20 feet across some imaginary line, or because China wouldn't like us to have gone after targets rich in populated areas of the North, you indeed have mistakes being made. When you put soldiers in impossible situations and then have support back home be 50%, you indeed have mistakes being made.

That you ignore Korea as an example of what could have happened had China not become involved is interesting...

...however I will cede that the South Viet's don't appear to really have wanted freedom from the North's system quite enough, else they would have more All In than they did (and I'm talking across the board, as obviously many millions of them did).

I wonder if we're reaching a point where the normal Iraqi over there (whichever sect they might be), is just plain sick and tired of the BS and the hopelessness, and are just overall going with the more positive flow.

Who knows...time will tell...

Chuck

Finally, someone knows why we lost Vietnam, and why we are so far behind the gun in Iraq.

How did we "lose" Vietnam? The U.S. has normal relations with the country and is a trade partner...

Our relations are stronger with Vietnam, than with Cuba....
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I believe the latest definition of ?success? is:
...
Peaceful relations between the various ethnic groups

How in the hell is the U.S. supposed to fix a 1400 year old problem? Good god.
 
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Brian Baird was elected in a very liberal state and he is the representative of those liberals. If he doesn't want to do the bidding of his constituents, well, he knows where the door is. We got the F out of vietnam they seem to be doing okay now.


Really? Vietnam is doing OK? Wow. I would hate to see your definition of "not doing OK".

Check out Darfur, Mogadishu, Afghanistan (who just surpassed their largest opium production year EVER. Way to go US forces, you're fighting the war on terra and ignorin the war on drugs. ) Several places in India, Cambodia, Myanmar, the list goes on and on. What Vietnam wants right now is American tourism. They are doing fine.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I don't think anything will convince the anti-war crowd on P&N that we should stay and try to finish the job. But I agree with this guys reasoning on staying. And I know that there are several people on here who were against the war who have said similar things.

We made a big mess and now we need to stay and clean it up or else the results down the road will be a disaster.

Wow. At least you are coming around a tiny little bit.

You still don't give a good reason of why we need to stay there.

What exactly do you consider "cleaned up"?

What exactly would be the "disaster"?

And what do you think will happen if we leave now? You're good at asking questions, now how about you impart a few answers.

You want a good reason? How about the basic one. We set out to put in a stable humane government. We removed the previous government. (I'm glad myself.) Leaving now would be for that reason alone would be wrong.

I guess you don't have a problem thinking "Gee we made a mess here, screw them, We're leaving." Some of us believe we should clean up after ourselves.

I don't have a problem with you argueing we shouldn't have gone. That's fair. What I do have a problem is you thinking it's anyway, shape or form OK to cut and run. Now you know why the people of Iraq don't want to stick their necks out. Would you in their place if you thought we were going to be leaving shortly?
 
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I don't think anything will convince the anti-war crowd on P&N that we should stay and try to finish the job. But I agree with this guys reasoning on staying. And I know that there are several people on here who were against the war who have said similar things.

We made a big mess and now we need to stay and clean it up or else the results down the road will be a disaster.

Wow. At least you are coming around a tiny little bit.

You still don't give a good reason of why we need to stay there.

What exactly do you consider "cleaned up"?

What exactly would be the "disaster"?

And what do you think will happen if we leave now? You're good at asking questions, now how about you impart a few answers.

You want a good reason? How about the basic one. We set out to put in a stable humane government. We removed the previous government. (I'm glad myself.) Leaving now would be for that reason alone would be wrong.

I guess you don't have a problem thinking "Gee we made a mess here, screw them, We're leaving." Some of us believe we should clean up after ourselves.

I don't have a problem with you argueing we shouldn't have gone. That's fair. What I do have a problem is you thinking it's anyway, shape or form OK to cut and run. Now you know why the people of Iraq don't want to stick their necks out. Would you in their place if you thought we were going to be leaving shortly?

By that logic, America would never broke away from England unless we expected France and others to carry the burden of the war....
 
Back
Top