Forget an 'exit plan' for Iraq

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

If we have learned nothing else in the last couple of years it is that terrorists and terrorists orgs. and states are anything but amorphous

Explain?

I was referring to the fact that they are better organized, armed and supported than anyone really thought they were. They have clearly defined chains of command, logistic and support structures.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Rice in February

This has not been a three-month process, as some have suggested, Rice said, but a road that the world has traveled for 12 years since the 1991 Gulf War. "It's time for this to end," she said on Meet the Press. "Enough is enough."

Clearly that's not a reference to autocratic rule, political corruption, and human rights violations b/c those go all the way back to the early 80's.

Rice contended that inspectors are in Iraq only because the Security Council, prodded by President Bush's September 2002 speech, has put enormous pressure on Iraq. "If that pressure releases," she said, "I can assure you that we are not going to get to a peaceful solution."

Uh . . . yeah . . . right . . .

Rice denied that the current inspections process is working. Iraq filed a false declaration in December, she pointed out, and UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei continue to call for greater cooperation.

So what have we found so far . . . that was not in the declaration . . . outside of the material found by Blix/El Baradei? I know . . . nothing.

"They give a little bit here on process, a little bit there to show that a few people can be interviewed in a hotel, which is clearly monitored," Rice said on Fox News Sunday. "But when it comes to answering the tough questions about VX or anthrax, or those mobile biological laboratories, the Iraqis have failed to do that. So they're not cooperating, they're deceiving."

Umm . . . didn't the US government insist on monitors when US Senators and Representatives were viewing Iraq intelligence? We are still waiting on some answers to those tough questions. Well except for the mobile labs . . . hydrogen anyone?

Last I heard, we were reducing the number of "experts" looking for WMD. I guess we found what we were looking for. See . . . we didn't need UN inspectors after all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I was referring to the fact that they are better organized, armed and supported than anyone really thought they were. They have clearly defined chains of command, logistic and support structures.

I certainly agree but I don't think my point is coming across. Do the Boy Scouts resemble your post as well but if they started a campaign to terrorize Canada we would have a hard time 1) identifying them and 2) stopping them.

The war on terror . . . much like the war on poverty, drugs, and crime . . . will be a tremendous failure. But not before it consumes trillions in global resources and countless lives. Our world will forever be a conflict of ideas and clashes of culture but that does not mean "By any means necessary" is a useful strategy. I would propose that it is not. We will not overcome the enemy "out there" b/c it's the same enemy we fight on our streets (crime, drugs, poverty) and personally (crime, drugs, poverty, hate, greed).

 

[UltraQuiet]

I certainly agree but I don't think my point is coming across. Do the Boy Scouts resemble your post as well but if they started a campaign to terrorize Canada we would have a hard time 1) identifying them and 2) stopping them.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and their yellow neckerchiefs would probably givem them away.

The war on terror . . . much like the war on poverty, drugs, and crime . . . will be a tremendous failure. But not before it consumes trillions in global resources and countless lives. Our world will forever be a conflict of ideas and clashes of culture but that does not mean "By any means necessary" is a useful strategy. I would propose that it is not. We will not overcome the enemy "out there" b/c it's the same enemy we fight on our streets (crime, drugs, poverty) and personally (crime, drugs, poverty, hate, greed).

So does that mean we don't even try? I'm certain that's not what you mean. I'm sure you are at odds with our methods and not the battle itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[sandorski]

Bush has an exit strategy, it's to have someone else to come in and clean up the mess, but remain under US Command.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So does that mean we don't even try? I'm certain that's not what you mean. I'm sure you are at odds with our methods and not the battle itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course we try. But unlike the "authority" in the piece . . . I believe you must have a plan and sometimes your enemy must know it as well. Ultimately, Civilization (not Bush's definition) will win IF it rallies around truly universal concerns. Namely the safety, security, and reasonable prosperity of all human beings with the clear caveat that every person on the planet deserves a legitimate shot regardless of the conditions of their birth and residence.

Bush says it but he doesn't practice it. Hence our country lacks credibility and allies. It is true that many respect power and resolve but it hasn't been nearly as convincing in the region as the NeoCons had hoped. When Blair said it . . . I almost believed him but he's hooked his red wagon to Bush's Ford F-250 SuperDuty . . . not a pretty picture.

Bush wanted to make an example out of Saddam but instead he's resurrected Saddam's reputation in the region. Bush (and Sharon) wants to push Arafat to the sidelines but instead they boost his support. Failed leadership throughout the Middle East has been propped up by the US at every turn. We blame Arafat for undercutting Abbas but Abbas would have had a fighting chance if Israel had cleared at least ONE large settlement in the West Bank. Not only did it not happen . . . the Israelis started building a fence . . . through the Occupied Territories. At the same time, the US gave Israel more funds, more hardware, and more loan guarantees. Arafat is certainly an obstacle to peace but his greatest allies in the endeavor are Sharon and Bush.

Instead of spending $1B to convince the world that America is the beacon of hope for the future. We should help the people throughout the region and the world decide for themselves what form of government they want. Until we stop our patronage of Mubarak, the family Saud, Musharaff, and Sharon we cannot claim the high road.

We will indeed suffer in lives lost (abroad) and money to bring such a future to fruition but the world will indeed rally to our side if we do it right. I'm not saying Bush has done nothing correct . . . granted, nothing comes immediately to mind. But he certainly said the right thing during the campaign when he said a humble America can lead. It is possible to advance bold ideas in a humble fashion. Bush just isn't the man for the job.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Of course we try. But unlike the "authority" in the piece . . . I believe you must have a plan and sometimes your enemy must know it as well. Ultimately, Civilization (not Bush's definition) will win IF it rallies around truly universal concerns. Namely the safety, security, and reasonable prosperity of all human beings with the clear caveat that every person on the planet deserves a legitimate shot regardless of the conditions of their birth and residence.

Laudable goals Doc. How do we get there? When someones ethos is different than yours, and clearly inferior, how do you effect change? How long do you wait for change and hope it evolves by itself? Cuba is obviously a conversion failure. What about Afghanistan? Former Soviet? Where is the model for success and what drives the method?

Bush says it but he doesn't practice it. Hence our country lacks credibility and allies. It is true that many respect power and resolve but it hasn't been nearly as convincing in the region as the NeoCons had hoped. When Blair said it . . . I almost believed him but he's hooked his red wagon to Bush's Ford F-250 SuperDuty . . . not a pretty picture.

I say he is practicing it, his methods are sh!t. At least they appear to be to date although it is still too early to tell in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The wagon and the truck are painted to match.

Bush wanted to make an example out of Saddam but instead he's resurrected Saddam's reputation in the region. Bush (and Sharon) wants to push Arafat to the sidelines but instead they boost his support. Failed leadership throughout the Middle East has been propped up by the US at every turn. We blame Arafat for undercutting Abbas but Abbas would have had a fighting chance if Israel had cleared at least ONE large settlement in the West Bank. Not only did it not happen . . . the Israelis started building a fence . . . through the Occupied Territories. At the same time, the US gave Israel more funds, more hardware, and more loan guarantees. Arafat is certainly an obstacle to peace but his greatest allies in the endeavor are Sharon and Bush.

I disagree with you about Saddam. Arafat is going to be a martyr or a pain in the ass no matter what. I agree with you about the settlements but the fence was planned/started long before Abbas was in the picture (still stupid) and we should continue to help Israel until all the Arab groups in the area agree that Israel has a right to exist.

Instead of spending $1B to convince the world that America is the beacon of hope for the future. We should help the people throughout the region and the world decide for themselves what form of government they want. Until we stop our patronage of Mubarak, the family Saud, Musharaff, and Sharon we cannot claim the high road.

Spend the money how? Allowing Islamic goverments to form in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq would be contradictory to what you propose in your first paragraph,

We will indeed suffer in lives lost (abroad) and money to bring such a future to fruition but the world will indeed rally to our side if we do it right. I'm not saying Bush has done nothing correct . . . granted, nothing comes immediately to mind. But he certainly said the right thing during the campaign when he said a humble America can lead. It is possible to advance bold ideas in a humble fashion. Bush just isn't the man for the job.

I know it has been beaten to death but quite honestly I think 9/11 changed everything. I honestly think what drives these guys is the fear that we will be attacked again. I'm not a fan of their "megaphone diplomacy" , I'm not a fan of leading by the point of a gun but I think when you get right down to it, this is what's driving them. We can debate their methods and there's much to debate. We can debate whether someone reacts this way to pressures is fit to lead. Trust me I've seen men crack under the pressures of a life/death situation, people transform when fear is an underlying factor. You know what I'm talking about. But I dismiss out of hand all the oil, money, power conspiracy theorists. I think these guys would do anything to ensure the countries safety. Methods and execution aside I think that's what they're all about.

 

[Rockhound]

BOBDN,

Why have we been in Europe for 60+ years now? What is our exit strategy there?
Why are we still in Japan and South Korea after 50 years? What is our exit strategy there?

And we've been in Iraq for what, 5 months and you are complaining?

So why are we still on those other places for 50 to 60 years? What are we getting in return for being there?
Are we getting oil from those places? No.
Are we getting revenge? No.
Are we paying to be there? Yes. How much has it cost us over those 50 to 60 years to be in those places exactly?

We've been in the Middle East for what, 12 years now? In those 12 years, how much oil did we get from Iraq? Remember, Saudi Arabia doesn't count in this calculation since we've always been getting oil from them.

 

[CaptnKirk]

UQ -

Early in this thread you mentioned the Terrorist Organizations of today and their co-ordinated capabilites -

"I was referring to the fact that they are better organized, armed and supported than anyone really thought they were.
They have clearly defined chains of command, logistic and support structures."

One of the sad facts about this truth is that in the past our assistance to Bin Laden set the course for
their organization, training, and logistical capabilities, as our traininfg them as our proxy for combat
againts Russia after the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.

The al Qaeda trainning camps in Afganistanalong with munitions, supplies, and other equipment that were provided
have been used to establish 'The (Data) Base' that became al Qaeda, and has returned to haunt us.

Just as our proxy support of Iraq in the war against Iran, our past policies have hurt us.
It's sad when good intentions on our part go astray, and technology furnished is turned against us.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
UQ -

Early in this thread you mentioned the Terrorist Organizations of today and their co-ordinated capabilites -

<STRONG>"I was referring to the fact that they are better organized, armed and supported than anyone really thought they were.
They have clearly defined chains of command, logistic and support structures."
</STRONG>
One of the sad facts about this truth is that in the past our assistance to Bin Laden set the course for
their organization, training, and logistical capabilities, as our traininfg them as our proxy for combat
againts Russia after the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.

The al Qaeda trainning camps in Afganistanalong with munitions, supplies, and other equipment that were provided
have been used to establish 'The (Data) Base' that became al Qaeda, and has returned to haunt us.

Just as our proxy support of Iraq in the war against Iran, our past policies have hurt us.
It's sad when good intentions on our part go astray, and technology furnished is turned against us.

No question our past policies have hurt us. We abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet left and Al Queda filled the vaccuum. Iran, Iraq, Central America, the list goes on. All (most) in the name of stemming the Red Tide of communism. Maybe we learned the lesson and will stay in the ME until it is complete. Or maybe we should just butt out altogether.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Until we know why we are in Iraq, we won't know when to get out of there.

Aren't we there because of the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMD?

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." GWB

Reasons cited:
1) Regime Change
2) Democratization
3) weapons of mass destruction
4) support of terrorism
5) human rights

1 has happened
2, we are hopeful, will
3 has been proven in the past, and will hopefully be proven in the future
4 has been proven in the past
5 has been proven in the past

3.5 outta 5, with 1.5 outstanding. Not bad IMHO.

Without #3, Bush and this administration wouldn't have given two hoots about the rest of the reasons. Number 3 is the biggest, most important, and the primary reason for going to war with Iraq. This war was about WMD, period. Without the threat of WMD, real or perceived, we wouldn't have gone to war.

"We are going to war because of WMD. While we are over there, we'll take care of all this other stuff." <---This should've been what was said as why we went to war because this is the reality of it, IMO.

alchemize - <<3 has been proven in the past, and will hopefully be proven in the future>>

When you say past, how far back are you talking about? When words such as past, before, did, at one time, etc, are used, doesn't that make this a punishment rather than a deterrent?

 

[CaptnKirk]

UQ -

"Maybe we learned the lesson and will stay in the ME until it is complete. Or maybe we should just butt out altogether."

The way our politics change every 4 or 8 years with the rollup or roll-off of the "Elected Administrations"
actually damages the political continuity as the incoming party and agenda tries to undo the policies of
the previous administrations agendas. THis damages our credibility, as past treaties are tossed out if
they do not meet the perceived standards or the 'New Administration" and its advisor, hence we are
severly handicapped on our ability to "learn the lesson". The current Administration is a classic example
of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, many countries that had been working under specific treaties
and policies saw those policies just cut off and abandoned after years of implementation, with no replacements.

Perhaps making the Presidential term of tenure 6 years instead of 4 would alleviate some of this, but most likely
it would make it worse, since now the game of politics has become so self-serving instead of serving the public.

I don't think that 'butt-out' would be the correct approach, but there should be a bigger emphisis on our policies
being enacted to help the world community - and less to support specific limited self serving agendas.