Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
To Marincounty---who notes---Amazing how a bunch of draft-dodging chicken hawks have brainwashed so many into thinking Iraq is a just cause that must be continued at all costs.
I don't think there is any remaining doubt about Iraq being an unjust cause we never should have gotten ourselves involved with----but the justice myth is something the right wing will cling to justify the stupidity.
The real question we must honestly confront now is what happens if we just withdraw from Iraq?
The real monkey paw question implicit in that Iraqi withdrawal is that our withdrawal could ignite a larger mid-east war as various neighbors squabble over the fate of Iraq in anarchy. GWB&co. don't have a monopoly on greed.---and there are always others who will fight to prevent someone else from stealing what they can steal themselves. And then there is always the Kurdish problem and the Turks who are already quite upset.
Getting in was easy---getting out may well be much harder.
I don't think there is any remaining doubt about Iraq being an unjust cause we never should have gotten ourselves involved with----but the justice myth is something the right wing will cling to justify the stupidity.
The real question we must honestly confront now is what happens if we just withdraw from Iraq?
The real monkey paw question implicit in that Iraqi withdrawal is that our withdrawal could ignite a larger mid-east war as various neighbors squabble over the fate of Iraq in anarchy. GWB&co. don't have a monopoly on greed.---and there are always others who will fight to prevent someone else from stealing what they can steal themselves. And then there is always the Kurdish problem and the Turks who are already quite upset.
Getting in was easy---getting out may well be much harder.
And you can call Bush a "unitier" for all I care. That doesn't mean anybody with half a brain believes you.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
:roll:
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Sorry if this offends you but you don't see the truth about Iraq despite the fact that it is clearly biting you on the ass just like everyone else.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
It's not a war that can be won, at all.
So all hope in that direction should be abandoned.
And Palehorse74 why don't you just keep your trap shut right about now and join us.
This war is as much against international law as any terrorist attack and when it comes to harming innocent people, the US tops any terrorist.
What?
So all hope in that direction should be abandoned.
And Palehorse74 why don't you just keep your trap shut right about now and join us.
This war is as much against international law as any terrorist attack and when it comes to harming innocent people, the US tops any terrorist.
What?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I think Starbucks 1975 has asked a legitimate question when the assertion is----The entire premise of the article I posted, and the subsequent discussion, is that if you examine the war in Iraq INDEPENDENT of the partisan and political spin surrounding it, you will find a conflict that is very much winnable...assuming that we institute a strategy for which the endstate is our withdrawal.
And now one can look at this question two ways----(a) What if from day one of the Iraqi occupation, Rummy had listened to Shinseki---and we went in with the required 250-300
thousand troops. We could have secured the ammunition dumps Saddam left and maybe prevented the insurgency from getting started in the first place. But the opportunity was lost in 2003.
Or (b) we can look at Iraq as a question of what to do now after all the past mistakes have allowed the insurgency to grow, become entrenched, and now the insurgency--not
Al-Quida is the enemy. The first thing one must understand is that its really a question of power--of who rules the streets---and who the Iraqi people must look to for protection.
And now the death squads on either side are very real---so the Iraqi people need protection---and can maybe in rare cases get 8 hour a day protection from the US military, can get 0 minutes a day protection from the Iraqi government, but if they join up with local neighborhood Iraqi strong man---they get 24 hour a day protection.
And the job of any US withdrawal plan involves two somewhat similar requirements---to break the power of the local Iraqi strongmen on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis---and to patrol and police the streets 24/7 to protect the Iraqi civilians and allow the local Iraqi government to grow into the role of policing the streets. To do so in a country the size of Iraq is going to take something on the order of 500,000 plus disciplined troops now that the insurgency is established.
And actually the plan GWB laid out in January sounded credible---and it called upon mostly Iraqi army and Iraqi police personnel to organize on a police precinct by police precinct basis. That plus extra US troops might have pulled this off and been able to patrol the streets 24/7 at least in selected parts of Iraq.
But in a month or so the original plan had already become a debacle---because GWB&co. assigned such a low priority to training Iraqi troops before the surge---those hastily assembled Iraqi troops proved totally unreliable---and joined the insurgency making the problem worse not better.
And now this mini surge is still back to an early 2003 square one---at least 200,000 plus troops short of what is needed to stabilize Iraq.
As as to the newspaper article of Ms. Kagan---in my humble opinion, just another clueless reporter who confuses Al-Quida for the Iraqi insurgencies.
And now one can look at this question two ways----(a) What if from day one of the Iraqi occupation, Rummy had listened to Shinseki---and we went in with the required 250-300
thousand troops. We could have secured the ammunition dumps Saddam left and maybe prevented the insurgency from getting started in the first place. But the opportunity was lost in 2003.
Or (b) we can look at Iraq as a question of what to do now after all the past mistakes have allowed the insurgency to grow, become entrenched, and now the insurgency--not
Al-Quida is the enemy. The first thing one must understand is that its really a question of power--of who rules the streets---and who the Iraqi people must look to for protection.
And now the death squads on either side are very real---so the Iraqi people need protection---and can maybe in rare cases get 8 hour a day protection from the US military, can get 0 minutes a day protection from the Iraqi government, but if they join up with local neighborhood Iraqi strong man---they get 24 hour a day protection.
And the job of any US withdrawal plan involves two somewhat similar requirements---to break the power of the local Iraqi strongmen on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis---and to patrol and police the streets 24/7 to protect the Iraqi civilians and allow the local Iraqi government to grow into the role of policing the streets. To do so in a country the size of Iraq is going to take something on the order of 500,000 plus disciplined troops now that the insurgency is established.
And actually the plan GWB laid out in January sounded credible---and it called upon mostly Iraqi army and Iraqi police personnel to organize on a police precinct by police precinct basis. That plus extra US troops might have pulled this off and been able to patrol the streets 24/7 at least in selected parts of Iraq.
But in a month or so the original plan had already become a debacle---because GWB&co. assigned such a low priority to training Iraqi troops before the surge---those hastily assembled Iraqi troops proved totally unreliable---and joined the insurgency making the problem worse not better.
And now this mini surge is still back to an early 2003 square one---at least 200,000 plus troops short of what is needed to stabilize Iraq.
As as to the newspaper article of Ms. Kagan---in my humble opinion, just another clueless reporter who confuses Al-Quida for the Iraqi insurgencies.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
There is a section on Nationalreview.com that talks about the war and it is filled mainly with military personnel and experts. If you go there you will read a lot of stories and posts similar to the OP.
By most accounts our military is doing an excellent job in Iraq.
The problem is the failures of the political leadership in both Iraq and America.
The Iraqis can?t put aside their differences in order to solve long standing questions. And our anti-war supporting leaders send the message that if you can just kill enough people that we will give up and go home.
Some time around next April the surge will run out of man power and we will not be able to maintain the current level of troops in Iraq. At that time I would expect us to begin a gradual withdrawal of as many as half our forces. (The writing is on the wall based on recent stories coming from the White House.) Let?s just hope that this gives the Iraq people and government enough time to get it right.
By most accounts our military is doing an excellent job in Iraq.
The problem is the failures of the political leadership in both Iraq and America.
The Iraqis can?t put aside their differences in order to solve long standing questions. And our anti-war supporting leaders send the message that if you can just kill enough people that we will give up and go home.
Some time around next April the surge will run out of man power and we will not be able to maintain the current level of troops in Iraq. At that time I would expect us to begin a gradual withdrawal of as many as half our forces. (The writing is on the wall based on recent stories coming from the White House.) Let?s just hope that this gives the Iraq people and government enough time to get it right.
Nice link, too bad your source has ZERO credibility.
link
I vouched for Kimberly Kagan's academic credentials in linking to her assessment of the progress of the "surge" for the Weekly Standard. I should have disclosed that Kagan is the wife of Frederick Kagan, the principal author of the surge; and his brother is Bob Kagan, another pro-surge advocate and editor at the Weekly Standard, and they're both sons of Donald Kagan, who is also a neoconservative intellectual. More to the point: Kimberly Kagan is listed as one of the participants in her husband's research team that came up with the surge in the first place. So when the Weekly Standard decided to compile a regular report on the surge's progress, they picked the wife of the main author and one of the plan's original architects. And they never disclosed these relevant facts. So allow me.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seldom have I read a post more chock full of total delusions. But when you read a passel of articles written by our military its hardly surprising that the military gives itself the high marks and shifts the blame elsewhere. But the problem is that our military wants to think its fighting and beating Al-Quida when the real enemy is local Iraqi leaders who took at advantage of the anarchy to set them selves up in local fiefdoms---and now they are entrenched, have power, and are not going to give it up.
But at least one point is right---Iraq is more of a political than military problem. And when it comes to the political solution, GWB&co is not only totally clueless, they are the roadblock to any political progress. And our anti-war people have nothing to do with the current failures in Iraq. GWB&co. has had his almost complete way in Iraq for almost the past four years. And at the start was handed a total military victory in a few weeks---and has been steadily losing the peace ever since with inspired incompetence and ineptness. Simply because the insurgency connects to the Iraqi people and the mythical Iraqi government in the green zone does not. And the US military can't do what an occupation is required to do under international law--namely provide law and order by patrolling the streets 24/7. But the insurgency connect to the people 24/7.
But if anyone thinks GWB&co will be calling any shots in Iraq come next April when we run out of manpower, I have to wonder about their grip on reality---the real question is will the myth of the mini-surge even last the 20 days until August 1? But come September---its almost 100% guaranteed that the US congress is not going to buy any more GWB pie in the sky. And the first thing thats certain to suffer a serious spanking is any notion " that by any account our military is doing an excellent job in Iraq." Sorry---there is no way you can put lipstick on that pig anymore---too many moderate GOP senators have bolted or are ready to bolt.----and the US congress is gonna have to give GWB&co enough dope slaps to rein them in. And is likely going to have to take his allowance away also.
jhbball
Platinum Member
- Mar 20, 2002
- 2,917
- 23
- 81
Guest on NPR tonight pointed out that the surge was working, but people were not allowing enough time to pass to judge its successes. He mentioned that the number of suicide bombings had decreased significantly, and named a city (can't remember which) that was once heavily infested by the terrorists, but is now safe. He is right to say that it's difficult to measure progress in a very short span of time. Though, it must be said, even with progress in Iraq, it's unlikely that the majority of citizens in the United States will change their already faltering opinions of the war.
Progression will be too slow to keep the American public interested in seeing out the war anyway.
Progression will be too slow to keep the American public interested in seeing out the war anyway.
We already won the war, the military part of the operation. What the Bush admin has failed to do is to win the peace, which is political.
No amount of troops can do that. Claiming that such means will accomplish the desired ends is, at this point, merely self-serving ontology on the part of the Bushistas. The small window of opportunity that existed early in the occupation was closed by application of the "Baghdad Year Zero" delusion of reconstruction strategy.
Of course rightwing sources like the WSJ and members of the Olin institute will claim otherwise, and I'll grant it's a little early for definitive judgement. OTOH, the Bush Admin is currently practicing what Repubs claim the Dems do with anything- "just throw more money at it"... It's extremely unlikely that the surge will accomplish the stated goals or is sustainable with a truly volunteer military...
Well, unless the whole definition of volunteer is changed to be like the Mafia, where once you'r in, you're in, with the grave being the only way out...
No amount of troops can do that. Claiming that such means will accomplish the desired ends is, at this point, merely self-serving ontology on the part of the Bushistas. The small window of opportunity that existed early in the occupation was closed by application of the "Baghdad Year Zero" delusion of reconstruction strategy.
Of course rightwing sources like the WSJ and members of the Olin institute will claim otherwise, and I'll grant it's a little early for definitive judgement. OTOH, the Bush Admin is currently practicing what Repubs claim the Dems do with anything- "just throw more money at it"... It's extremely unlikely that the surge will accomplish the stated goals or is sustainable with a truly volunteer military...
Well, unless the whole definition of volunteer is changed to be like the Mafia, where once you'r in, you're in, with the grave being the only way out...
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Perhaps you recall that US involvement in WWII lasted only 4 years. Not 20 or 30. I think if we were still fighting in Normandy in 1950 there would be some expressions of concern among US citizens. But not you of course.
And I am fully prepared to support a US administrations continual war on extremism. But it cannot be won with 100,000 troops in one country. We need the help of other countries and a reasonable plan that doesn't alienate the billion other muslims in the world. Iraq may have been a good idea if it worked. It didn't. Time to try something else, because direct confrontation featuring 30 years of urban guerilla warfare doesn't make us safer.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
This battle against fanaticism is not even remotely comparable to a war against specific nation states. There is no single authoritative entity that can surrender or call for the end of hostilities.
I agree that our current efforts and troop strengths in Iraq need to be adjusted significantly. Once the surge has done what it can, I too believe it's time to draw down our numbers there and refocus our efforts on establishing QRF teams throughout the world. I believe we should at least double the number of Special Mission Units (SMU) we have available. My personal opinion is that we should convert many of our regular troop units to SMU's ASAP.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Misleading.
Are there still U.S. military bases in Germany, due to the war in in 40s? Yes/no.
Are there still U.S. military bases in Japan, due to the war in the 40s? Yes/no.
I don't necessarily disagree that Iraq should be considered a failure, but any attempt at national reform in the world is not going to be a 4 year campaign. Try 40.
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Your post is a deflection...all your post establishes is that Kagan's assessment has a bias given her relationship to the surge as a strategy...but it is logical to expect that she would support the very strategy she perhaps helped to define.
You are attacking the source, but have yet to comment on the premise of the OP...which does not establish any credibility for your position, as you have yet to define one.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I don't object to maintaining an indefinite presence in Iraq and do not support an immediate withdrawal of all troops. But the ongoing "plan" isn't working, it's just setting up our guys as targets. My original statement stands. Open hostilities in WWII lasted 4 years. This country would not have supported maintaining high troop levels in Germany if an insurgency had taken hold and lasted years. That said, Allied forces firebombed entire cities of civilians, killing tens of thousands, so resistance forces probably realized there wasn't much point in attacking civilians to prove their point. If this was 1945, Fallujah would be a crater. In comparison, our "compassionate" warfare today and attempts at minimizing collateral damage does present insurgents with places to hide and continued motivation to attack. Flame Note: I'm not advocating the intentional killing of civilians, just making an observation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter