home

Iraq

Let's pretend for a moment that we do not already know Iraq is lost. Now consider the reported testimony today before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Abizaid was particularly weak:

Gen. John P. Abizaid made it clear that he did not endorse the phased troop withdrawals being proposed by Democratic lawmakers. Instead, he said the number of troops in Iraq might be increased by a small amount as part of new plans by American commanders to improve the training of the Iraqi Army. . . . Under the immediate initiative that General Abizaid described, the number of American military advisers working with Iraqi forces will be increased, with advisers to be assigned even to small Iraqi units with fewer than 200 soldiers.

"We need to put more American capacity into Iraqi units to make them more capable in their ability to confront the sectarian problem," General Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is possible that we might have to go up in troop levels in order to increase the number of forces that go into the Iraqi security forces, but I believe that's only temporary."

Is that all we have left? More.

Does General Abizaid, a smart man, really  believe that will work? I think not:

General Abizaid did not rule out a larger troop increase, but he said the American military was stretched too thin to make such a step possible over the long term. And he said such an expansion might dissuade the Iraqis from making more of an effort to provide for their own security.

"We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect," he said. "But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps."

General Abizaid also publicly said for the first time that the American position in Iraq had been undermined by the Bush administration's decision not to deploy a larger force to stabilize the country in 2003. That decision was made after Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff at the time, told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed. His testimony was derided by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the general was ostracized at the Pentagon before his retirement a few months later.

"General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations," General Abizaid said. "I think you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable in the early stages of May, June, July."

What is Abizaid saying really? I think he is saying any chance we had was blow by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz when they didn't listen to Shinseki. His new initiaitve is just window dressing.

And if you listen to the intelligence agencies, they think that too:

. . . General Maples said that the violence continued to increase in "scope, complexity and lethality" and that it was "creating an atmosphere of fear and hardening sectarianism, which is empowering militias and vigilante groups."

. . . Reinforcing this view, General Hayden said the C.I.A. station in Baghdad assessed that Iraq was deteriorating to a chaotic state, with the political center disintegrating and rival factions increasingly warring with each other. "Their view of the battlefield is that it is descending into smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory," he said.

Embeds in the  Iraqi Army won't change that. Abizaid was asked how long we have:

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, asked General Abizaid how much time the United States had to bring down the violence in Baghdad before events there were beyond the control of the Iraqi government. General Abizaid said the answer was four to six months.

Another Friedman. Ok, enough pretend. Let's face it, what is left now is the political cover. LBP (Last Big Push) as Josh Marshall calls it. But the last big push is based on absurdity:

Securing Baghdad, the general said, was the main effort. But there are other difficult missions ahead, he said. One is supporting an Iraqi-led effort to disarm the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia nominally loyal to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Another is securing Anbar Province, the seat of the Sunni Arab insurgency. General Abizaid said that to try to hold the line there, he had decided to dispatch a 2,200-strong Marine Expeditionary Unit. "Al Anbar Province is not under control," General Abizaid said.

Iraq-led effort to disarm the Mahdi Army? Who are we kidding here? 2,200 soldiers for the  whole of Anbar? Come on.

And now who won the war?

Many experts have advocated talking directly to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq, an approach the Iraq Study Group is expected to endorse. General Hayden said that Iran's ambitions inside Iraq seemed to be expanding and that Iran had been conducting a foreign policy of "dangerous triumphalism."

David M. Satterfield, the State Department's coordinator for Iraq, told the Senate committee that the United States was prepared "in principle" to discuss the situation in Iraq with Iran, but the timing was uncertain.

"We are prepared in principle to discuss Iranian activities in Iraq," Mr. Satterfield said. "The timing of such a direct dialogue is one that we still have under review."

Yep. Just as we predicted. Who will be the last person to die for this Debacle?

< Stupid Prosecution of the Week | Abramoff's Final E-Mail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What Edger Said (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by john horse on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:56:50 AM EST
    Completely agree with what Edger (one of your best posts yet) wrote.

    We have made one mistake after another in Iraq beginning with our decision to invade (for more information please read Thomas Rick's book Fiasco).  At each step in this march of folly there were those who provided a more rational course of action but, for the most part, they were ignored.  Given their demonstrated deficiencies in credibility and competence, I don't see how we can trust those who got us into this mess to get us out.  You don't stay the course when there is an iceberg straight ahead.

    Re: We broke it, We fix it. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    It's broken. The Iraqi's will fix it if they can. The US obviously can't, and I have my doubts that the Iraqi's can. The entire history and progression of the war has been from bad to worse since the invasion, and shown NO movement from bad to better.

    Sad. But more of the same that brought it to this point won't help it. Neither will abdicating responsibility and trying to shift blame as some commenters here do.

    Iraq's been handed to Iran on a silver platter, which, I suspect, may have been the objective all along.

    We may soon start seeing this situation being used as justification in a drawn out and all out Neocon propaganda campaign to convince people that since Iran wants to overrun Iraq and become the controlling power in the Middle East that an attack on Iran is now necessary.

    Operation Comeback, or how the neocons plan to save themselves:

    Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.


    When you start an illegal war ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Sailor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    What squeaky and edger do not understand is that the war is being extended by terrorists that will kill themselves to establish a theocracy.
    What ppj doesn't understand ... aw hell, I don't have all day so I'll just keep to his lack of understanding of the war.

    There were no WMDs and bush knew that, he cherry picked bad intelligence and manipulated America and the congress to tie it in with 9/11.

    saddam was not a threat to us and had no ties to AQ.

    Things are worse under our occupation than they were under saddam.

    The majority of iraqis want us out.

    AQ wants us there because we make great recruiting points for them daily.

    The war is not being extended by terrorists, it is being extended by our prescence, religious militias, religious cops and religious interior ministry thugs, we are merely the convenient targets who keep trying to put out the flames with gasoline.

    Beg the world for help, beg every ME country for help (yes, that includes iran and syria), and get the hell out.

    Last, but not least (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    Beg for forgiveness.

    Parent
    Re: forgiveness (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    GOOD idea, Peaches. And do it remebering that asking for it is asking a yes or no question. And they are under no obligation to forgive, and they might not be in the mood for awhile, unfortunately.

    Wow, what a fu*king mess, huh?

    Thanks, George.

    Parent

    Yer right, it didn't work in 'Nam... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    ...and it ain't gonna work in Iraq.

    Parent
    Iranian client state (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    Beg the world for help, beg every ME country for help (yes, that includes iran and syria), and get the hell out.

    Sailor, are you really naive enough to think that Iran and Syria will help???

    Gesh.

    If we leave the war will be over shortly. An Iranian sponsored group will simply kill everyone that protests and Iraq will be a Shia client state of Iran.

    Would you really want that Sailor?

    Parent

    Gesh yourself. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    Well, you guys supported and armed Saddam and used him keep the Iranians from doing that for years.

    Then you broke it. Now you have no suggestions except to keep breaking it.

    Brilliant. Impressive. Way to go.

    Parent

    Not to mention ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Sailor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    ... we had previously put and kept the shah in power in iran, and helped him train his police to torture, which was why the people revolted. We also armed the taliban in afghanistan to fight the soviets. That's also turning out so well.

    If you keep propping up dictators and selling arms to them, you keep getting bit in the a$$.

    Parent

    More ideas instead of attacks... (4.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    Squeaky put forward what I though were some insightful evaluations and some of the best suggestions I've seen so far the other day here, and here.

    To save everyone the effort of clicking links, here they are:

    Our soldiers cannot tell the difference between the resistance and the population at large, what does that tell you. That is a big problem and it is not going to change. Since the middle class and intelligencia have fled Iraq there is no one to 'liberate'. Not that we were able to distinguish them from the insurgents either. By now our motives are transparently clear to all Iraqi's:  occupation, oil, Iran and Israel, not to mention the ringing cash registers for the US military industrial complex. Liberation was a smokescreen as is any argument to stay the course.

    Pay the Iraqi's 10 billion dollars (minimum) reparation, as a token gesture for the destruction and havoc we have wreaked on their country,  wish them well,  and leave immediately. No more blood needs to be on our hands. Enough already.


    -----
    OK. Ten billion is too little to repair the emotional and physical damage that we have delivered to Iraq. Population of, let's say, 20,000,000....if every Iraqi gets $1000. that equals 20 billion. Throw in another 20 billion for infrastructure, no US companies allowed, and I think that the Iraqis will have hope and feel that there is goodwill toward them from the US. That is as long as we apologize, admit defeat and our mistakes and, leave.

    That kind of goodwill can be matched by other countries and philanthropists. It is true that you can not buy off a people that you have humiliated, tortured and oppressed, but $$$ can turn things around.



    And, as a bonus... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    ... Squeaky's ideas are cheaper, I think, than the trillion dollars a year Bush is spending to create a bigger problem than there was to begin with.

    Parent
    Money?? haha hoho (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    What squeaky and edger do not understand is that the war is being extended by terrorists that will kill themselves to establish a theocracy.

    They don't care about money.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#49)
    by aw on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    they're just not cooperating at all by continuing to kill themselves.  So I guess we just wait them out until everybody's dead?

    Parent
    winning (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    aw - I could say something like, sure... and that a dumb comment deserves a dumber answer.

    But I won't.

    I will try and explain it to you.

    Since money is not important to them, a promise to rebuild's Iraq's infrastructure will do nothing.
    The world did not have electricty, etc., 700 years ago, so it means nothing to them now.

    So what you have to do is kill them before they kill themselves while they are killing others.

    It's call winning a battle.

    You do want to win, don't you aw? aw? You do....?
    ?? aw...

    Parent

    This "Don't you want to win?"... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    ...has also worn thin already.

    OF COURSE we want to win when we ere FORCED into war and we always have. We've won every war forced upon us, and LOST every war we pursued electively (Except for the one Clinton managed quite admirably).

    But the time to win passed when we went in with too few, ill-equipped troops and with no plan for the aftermath. Hell, Rummy threatened to FIRE the next general who asked for the plan to pursue after fighting ceased!

    Reverse the question: You don't want our troops dying needlessly do you?

    Parent

    this is more like it... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    the war is being extended by terrorists that will kill other people's kids to establish a client state.

    They don't care about spending other people's money.




    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#52)
    by aw on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    cracked PPJ's code.  Well done.

    Parent
    Start with honesty!? (4.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Sailor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:52:59 PM EST
    The only encouraging thing is that despite making the most noise they are not the majority.
    The majority of Americans and the majority of iraqis want us out.

    The majority of republicans want us in.

    I don't see a lot of use in compromising with people who (and I'm talking about bushco, et al) have consistently made the point that people who disagree are traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

    This 'reasonable voice' you assume is quite contrary to your posts calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid or worse.

    You've always been on the personal attack, frankly I'm surprised you'd even try to play the voice of reason considering your past behavior.

    I'll reaffirm my solution to iraq in 3 lines.
    Beg the UN for help.
    Beg the ME for help.
    Beg the world for forgiveness. (Thanks Peaches!)

    Of course it isn't as simple as it sounds, but it beats the hell out of more Americans and iraqis dying because we f***ed up!

    They are not interested... (4.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 07:43:17 AM EST
    ...in Bidens plans, Bushs plans, the ISG's plans, or ANY American plans.

    They are in a full blown civil war. US Troops are in the way and dying in the crossfire - similar to  intervening in a domestic fight between a wife and her man - they'll both turn on you.

    Taking sides in their civil war will become necessary the longer America stays in Iraq.

    Bush is not attempting and has never attempted to conduct a war between the US and Iraq, and has absolutely zero concern for the lives of Iraqis, anymore than he does for the lives of American soldiers.

    It is a proxy war between the US and Iran.

    Here is the Shia sides views and intentions. It's not too hard to imagine the Sunnies intentions.

    Iran preparation for the occupation forces withdrawal. A Chilling Letter from the Badr Brigade
    By Mr. Sadr's Office
    Nov 16, 2006, 18:56

    A chilling letter from "Badr Brigade" addressing Shiite parties, giving instructions for the preparations after occupation forces withdraw from Iraq.

    In the name of Almighty.
    Extremely secret.

    The General Secretariat of the Badr Organization, all offices and branches.

    Political Department
    No. / 2371
    Subject / instructions
    Iraq / date July 11, 2006

    The current stage Witness a sharp and dangerous turn in the political process at all the local levels, regional and global, After the overwhelming victories achieved in the political, military, social, economic and cultural Thanks to the efforts of our political leadership, our religious authorities and the struggle of our religious Shiite follower of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and unlimited support from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    As a result of the disappointment of the public [Sunnis], the political, social isolation, their failure to achieve any gain through their participation in the political process.

    A desperate attempt to break the siege, they are planning to establish alliances and treaties with the Wahhabi and infidel Governments of in the neighboring countries, especially (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen) to change the character of the political map in Iraq and the region, in coordination with the Anglo-American occupation forces to agree on a draft resolution seriously threaten our existence, our identity and our future, not only in Iraq, but in the Middle East in general, to eliminate our plans and to disassociate our destiny and in the light of these facts and the implications of all possibilities attributed by our wise leadership, the following :

    1 - There is a need to exercise restraint and patience and calm in the face of the full military and political escalation of the Anglo-American occupation forces and not respond to them, so that the enemies will not be able to transfer of the battle to their areas, drain our energies

    2- Unity, efforts unification, cooperation and full coordination between the political parties and armed organizations for the confrontation of any possible threat.

    3-Vigilance and extreme caution and control the movements and the plots of the enemies in all areas.

    4- To continue the policy of liquidation and dimensions of the public in offices departments and institutions, tightening our grip on them and forcing them to emigrate and to leave the country.

    5- Emphasis on the need to control and monitor the movements and activities of Arab residents, visitors, diplomatic staff and workers in companies, especially (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt and Sudan) and get rid of them in all ways and means.

    6 - Neutralizing and curtail the activities of journalists, media, intellectuals and researchers from the Sunnis, destroying their bases, the destruction of their symbols and the liquidation of the activists.

    7- Eliminating any attempt whatsoever to rebuild the former sacked Iraqi army and the security services and challenge these attempts forcefully and decisively.

    8- Continuous education to support the idea of federalism, the actual direction to create the necessary means to be applied by force.

    9- Rallying all efforts and the readiness of a high armed confrontation with the enemies taking into account the intervention of the Anglo-American occupying forces.

    The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing us with all weapons and equipment needed for the battle, as well as the preparations of troops from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for rapid intervention near the border areas of "Badrah and Jassan" Mandali, Hamrein Mountains, Mandali and Klar.

    10- In the case of starting the battle, all Shiites, followers of Imam Ali (peace be upon him), as well as employees of the Ministry of Defense and Interior Ministry to join "Badr Brigade" forces, the Mahdi Army and the Al-Dawa Party, stealing arms and ammunition, machinery and equipment to increase the battle.

    Secretary-General
    117200611 7 2006

    Copy to the Islamic Dawa Party-Iraq Organization

    Mr. Sadr's office
    Shiite Directorate Office

     



    It's time to get out of Iraq or (3.66 / 3) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    admit that you willing to kill hundreds of thousands and potentially millions before its over in order for you to drive to the corner store in your Hummer and let the elite play their suicidal geopolitical games.

    Those really are the only 2 choices everything else is moral masterbation trying to justify what is in the end genocide.

    to keep Iraq from falling into Irans' clutches.

    spoken like a member of the war party. So is your complaint that the war is not being executed properly, btw, the basic proposition of the Dem party. The real question is are you in favor of imperialistic wars of aggression to maximize the lifestyles of the elite.

    Hummer (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    Al Gore is being carted around in a hummer. I have a hybrid.

    I am a registered dem, although libertarian by belief.

    I loathe the thought of any american soldier dying.

    I loathe the thought of Iraq slipping into a civil war after we depart.

    Call Al about the hummer....

    Parent

    Escalade (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    Escalade, Caddillac, not a hummer

    Parent
    Like a monkey after the brass ring. (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:19:09 AM EST
    Like a compulsive obsessive gambling addict whose lost all of his own capital as well as nearly all the money his family had, Bush the "decider" has "decided" that he's going to "show them all" by placing one last huge bet of more money stolen from his family on one last roll of the dice, risking all for the big payoff.

    He's painted himeself into a corner and he's dreaming, or rather fantasizing, and refuses to leave the casino until he's blown his whole load and completely ruined his family and their reputation and solvency.

    Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
    ...
    This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

    The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

    Secure Baghdad? Who the hell is he fooling, other than himself and a few fawning in denial worshippers? No one. Absolutely no one. As Patrick Coburn explained in stark terms in the Independent Online on 11/05/06 Bush will be be lucky to have US control of anything beyond a few hundred yards outside the Green Zone:

    At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are dying every month. The failure of the US and Britain at every level in Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not one of them.

    The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and Blair no longer touches reality at any point.
    ...
    In the first year of the occupation it could be argued that Bush and Blair were simply incompetent: they did not understand Iraq, were misinformed by Iraqi exiles, or were simply ignorant and arrogant. But they must know that for two-and-a-half years they have controlled only islands of territory in Iraq. "The Americans haven't even been able to take over Haifa Street [a Sunni insurgent stronghold] though it's only 400 yards from the Green Zone," a senior Iraqi security official exclaimed to me last week.

    But the refusal to admit, as the British army commander Sir Richard Dannatt pointed out, that the occupation generates resistance in Iraq, means that no new and more successful policy can be devised. It is this that is criminal. And it is all the worse because the rational explanation for Mr Bush's persistence in bankrupt policies in Iraq is that he has always given priority to domestic politics. Holding power in Washington was more important than real success in Baghdad.

    The US media was under extreme pressure to report the non-existent good news that the White House accused them of ignoring.

    I used to think how absurd it was for me to risk my life by visiting the Green Zone, the entrances to which were among the most bombed targets in Iraq, to see diplomats who claimed that the butchery in Iraq was much exaggerated. But when I asked them if they would like to come and have lunch in my hotel outside the zone, they always threw up their hands in horror and said their security men would never allow it.

    The fantasy picture of Iraq purveyed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair is now being exposed. The Potemkin village they constructed to divert attention from what was really happening in Iraq is finally going up in flames.

    And who is going to pay for Bush's last bet, like they've paid for all of his other ego and denial driven bets? Paid for them with nothing other than the blood and the lives of their sons and daughters.

    "You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall."

    Iraq is a 'failed', or more accurately, a 'destroyed' state'. The country is in civil war and rapidly descending into a chaotic hell created by Bush's invasion that sadly probably nothing that can stop now, short of setting up the same kind of heavy handed brutal police state that Saddam ran.

    Stay the course is not helping anything except Bush's ego.

    3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are dying every month.

    It's time to get out of Iraq. Time to bring American troops home to their families so no more die for Bush's addiction and fantasies. Not send more in so they too can die for nothing.

    We've been hearing the same old same old from Bush ever since "mission accomplished". A little more time, a lot more money, a lot more dead American soldiers and grieving families, two nations torn in half. A bill of a trillion dollars a year. Completely blown reputation around the world. Possible world war looming.

    It's time to go into the White House and escort Mr. Bush out. In a straitjacket if necessary, or in chains if he resists.

    3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are dying every month.

    Nancy?

    Congratulations (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:25:42 AM EST
    edger writes:

    It's time to get out of Iraq. Time to bring American troops home to their families so no more die for Bush's addiction and fantasies. Not send more in so they too can die for nothing.

    And the more the Left calls for this, the more the terrorists hear this and the more convinced they become that the Left will prevail, and that they can win if they just hang on and kill a few more Americans.

    Congratulations, edger. Tell us again how you support the troops.

    Parent

    Jim, this is exactly the same kind of... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    ...argument made about Vietnam, and I just don't think we need to stay engaged in a hopeless battle and lose 50-60-thousand American dead, many, many hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, a hundred thousand or more wounded Americans, AND WE STILL WILL NOT WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ.

    I do agree that we owe them reparations, oh lordy do we owe them that, but useless and senseless bloodshed in a fruitless war that cannot be won simply shows the world just how weak America has become.

    America is now a paper tiger, rapidly disintegrating into a tissue-thin paper tiger, and it serves us ill to keep throwing more and more resources and more and more troops to die in this debacle of a war.

    Like I asked you yesterday, Jim, if we had kept fighting in Vietnam another ten years it would probably only led to another 50-60-thousand American dead and WE STILL WOULD HAVE LOST.

    The nature of warfare has changed dramatically and we have seen now examples of the fact that you can be the world's mightiest superpower and still lose when facing civil wars and insurgencies in the countries we invade.

    Parent

    Bush, Chenet, Rummy (3.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    They say what you say. And gawd knows they have a good track record.

    Parent
    Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    How about you... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    ...tell us how you do.

    Come back if you ever have a real thought of your own.

    Parent

    Jim, this boogeyman is coming... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    ...to America to kill you has worn so thin anyone can see through it.

    You talk as if there were vast organized groups of terrorists planning to invade and conquer the world when the last estimates I read supposed there were MAYBE somewhere between 20-60-thousand terrorists WORLDWIDE, meaning they are scattered around the globe in small groups, relatively speaking.

    So when, exactly, did America stop being the home of the brave and instead a bunch of whiny scaredy cats fearful of a group of terrorists with insufficient numbers to populate a small town?

    Iraq is only the central front for the oil we wish to commandeer, and I, for one, would rather spend the trillions of dollars we have wasted there to convert every gas engine in America to engines that will run on gas/alcohol/or any combination thereof (Detroit says a cost of $100 per vehicle) than to EXPEND A SINGLE LIFE in pursuit of oil.

    Brazil did it in thirty years and could now lose ALL it's imported oil and function just fine.

    Why kill people in fruitless wars when peaceful means to insure energy independence are available?

    Parent

    Strait Jacket (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    Perhaos you would feel more comfortable if you put yours back on.

    Is it better that the Iraqis slide into civil war killing hundreds of thousands or that America fixes what it broke?  

    Like it or not, Bush is your president and the 60% of the idiots in this country that believed Iraq had something to do with 9-11, should continue to PAY for the war along with the rest of us until we have STABILIZED their country.  

    Don't like the cost?  Don't like the loss of life?  Too f*cking bad.  that is what war is, and you should not leave unless the country is stable and safe, lest you be responsible for the bloodshed that will follow in the form of a civil war.  Or is there no civil war?

    Parent

    How do we fix it? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    Good Question (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    How do you put a genie back in the bottle?

    It's a question they have no idea how to answer so they just repeat crap about BAD THINGS happening if we leave. As if they aren't happening now with us there.

    They would have been comfortable writing for Pravda 20 years ago, explaining why the Red Army could not leave Afghanistan in shame. Of course, the rich irony there is that the U.S. was backing the Bin Laden forces at that time. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we want to dominate the world.

    Nixon let 20,000 more U.S. troops die so he could have an "honorable" exit out of Vietnam. That was Kissenger's advice...and he is still giving that advice to people who make the decisions today. That's just one of the reasons this Debacle will cost at least few more thousand dead troops, tens of thousands more wounded and hundreds of billions out of the treasury before we leave in disgrace. Congrats PPJ, Jl et al. You will get your way on this one.

    Parent

    "Like it or not, Bush is your president" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    ...but he is not my boss, he is not my king, he is no more important than any other American, he does not command me or my respect, and he has proven that he is not only a lousy leader, but a DISASTER for America. And HE works for us, not vice-versa

    Furthermore, again, we never stabilized Vietnam either, and they did a better job of stabilizing the country and getting back on the right track.

    The Iraqis will find their own balance once they are relieved of the hell on earth of American creation. Of course there will be blood shed, but by Iraqis, for Iraqis, and with the intent of restoring control to Iraqis.

    THEN they will own their country and not be a slave state dependent upon America.

    Parent

    Bill (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:46:14 PM EST
    you are 100% right and the parallels of Vietnam are staggering.  I think this is a different beast than Vietnam, but truth be told no one really knows until we leave.  The question in my mind is, are we willing to risk the sacrifice of thousands of Iraqis to a civil war because we cannot figure this out?

    I also think that the policy of ceding authority to the Iraqis and allowing them to fend for themselves creates more idiocy in the american public.  The american public overwhelmingly supported this war thinking that it would be quick and cheap.  Now that that has been proven as idiotic, they want to cut and run for OUR sake not the Iraqis.  I have heard very little talk on this site as to the safety and long term well being of the Iraqi nationals and that is disturbing to me.

    I am not excited about my tax dollars going to a bs war nor am I excited about more troops being killed, nor do I have a degree of confidence that Bush can solve this.  I do believe that an active and agressive House and Congress can force change and bring about some dialogue that is meaningful for Iraq.  But our party seems divided on how best to do it.

    No matter how much I disagree on this topic, I still think the country is better off in Dems hands than repubs, but when the left is clearly demonstrating opportunism, I don't feel so good about our party.

    Parent

    nice metaphor! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:42:07 AM EST
    Re: Metaphor (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:49:38 AM EST
    Thanks, Molly. But you know. I'd much rather it didn't apply, if you know what I mean?

    Parent
    Know When To Hold Em . . . (none / 0) (#79)
    by john horse on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    Edger
    re: "Like a compulsive obsessive gambling addict whose lost all of his own capital as well as nearly all the money his family had, Bush the "decider" has "decided" that he's going to "show them all" by placing one last huge bet of more money stolen from his family on one last roll of the dice, risking all for the big payoff."

    As Kenny Rogers once sang "You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away . . ."

    Parent

    Heh! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Well... if I thought he had anything in his hand (or his head, for that matter) that was worth playing, I wouldn't be pushing so hard for them to pull out and let the chips fall where they may.

    Some feel that is abandoning the Iraqis to hell, but I think the way things are, and considering that the Iraqis want the US out because they think American troops are just in the way and creating the problems, that it's not "abandoning" - it's giving them room to move and rebuild.

    Some of them will kill each other -but I think most will start rebuilding rather quickly, and make Bush look like a fool.

    Maybe that's part of the reluctance to leave?

    Parent

    Appearances (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    And Bush really doesn't need any help looking like a fool, does he?

    Parent
    Waste of time (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:51:32 AM EST
    Reading Ricks, like most of the posts here, is a waste of time. His book like your posts starts with the assumption that Bush and his pack of war criminals had some, as yet unexplained, valid (i.e. morally defensible)reason for invading Iraq. Therefore everything that followed the invasion was screwed up. Since this assumption is patently false any thing that follows from it is irrelevant.

    The reason for the invasion was simply to control the energy resources of the region, energy  = power, and to exert geopolitical power throughout eurasia to offset the growing influence of Russia and China. Thats why the US is not leaving. The citizens of Iraq are of no concern to this administration.

    You keep accusing them of failing at tasks they had no intention of doing. From the war party's perspective Iraq is not lost at all. The energy is still in the ground, the embassy is on schedule and the enduring bases are coming along nicely.

    To say that Iraq is lost is like saying the Sothwest was lost because the Indians were getting killed.
     

    When black is white... (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:14:55 AM EST
    This is going to sound like one of the most insane ideas there could possibly be, but as a way of contextualizing clearly what Bush has done to Iraq, consider this a 'thought experiment', though it may actually have merit in the real world.

    Saddam Hussein is scheduled to be executed, possibly by the end of the year.

    As brutal as Saddam was while he was in power in Iraq, he had achieved some sort of calm and control between the factions there. By no means do I advocate his kind of regime, but I think the reality is that the Iraqi people suffer even more now than then.

    Aahhh, here we go: If he was released and put back into power, with the support he still has throughout the country the violence between the factions would probably be quelled by the tactics he would use in rather short order. Shorter order at least than it will be otherwise, if indeed it ever is before Iraq collapses and splinters and bceomes a client if Iran.

    And brutal though it would be for the Iraqis, I suspect that far less Iraqis would die than are dying under Bush's plan(?).

    And given US military support Saddam might be able to keep Iraq from falling into Irans' clutches.

    Nancy?

    ..or white is black (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    Is there any moral or ethical or philosophical or practical difference between restoring Saddam to power, and not impeaching Bush, now?

    Parent
    'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:39:49 AM EST
    Is there any moral or ethical or philosophical or practical difference between:

    • 1) Not prosecuting Rumsfeld and the others

    • 2) Not impeaching Bush

    • 3) Releasing Saddam

    ?

    "But I don't want to go among mad people" Alice remarked.
    "Oh, you can't help that" said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad."
    "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
    `"You must be" said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."



    Parent
    xx (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:28:04 AM EST
    So your solution is to turn the country back over to Saddam?

    Well, it has been apparent that you didn't want to win, but I never thought you would say give up and put the Butcher of Baghdad back in power.

    That you would even say that demonstrates that you believe the Left has power it doesn't. It is called over playing your hand.

    Parent

    Winning? (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    it has been apparent that you didn't want to win,

    Please define "winning" in this case.  The president refuses to do so, but apparently you know what it will consist of, so why don't you tell us what fantasy condition would satisfy you that our mission is, um, "accomplished."

    Certainly the current "government" is dead meat as soon as it steps out of the Green Zone, so how long must we finance their security at the cost of a billion and a half a week?

    Parent

    That aint winning (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    Repack - If it is good enough for the Pres, it is good enough for me... oh well...

    Get a stablized democracy in Iraq as a checkmate to Iran and a democracy in the ME.

    Now, your turn.

    What is your plan for winning? Oh, don't have one.. except cut and run...

    That aint winning, RePack.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by aw on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    What is your plan for getting a stabilized democracy?

    Like Squeaky said, we don't even know who to kill.  So do we just kill everybody?    

    Parent

    Stabilized Democracy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    They had elections. They are still unstable. Democracy hasn't fixed the stability problem. The U.S. military hasn't been able to either. In fact, our presence there is probably a big reason for the instability. Removing the U.S. military would take away a large focus for the violence. Iraq would be more stable without us there. Let's try it, and if things destabilize to the point where there is a massive humanitarian crisis we could redeploy, along with coalition troops. Deal?

    Parent
    Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:32:18 AM EST
    Saddam was positively a piker... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    ...compared to bush when it comes to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and killing more Iraqis in 3 1/2 years than Saddam did in the entire history of his reign.

    And THIS makes it a moral imperative that we stay?

    Just like Vietnam, Iraq will never achieve stabilization until we leave and give them back their country. They could not possible make any more or serious mistakes than bush and the neocons.

    Parent

    Brainstorming hurts. (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:12:26 AM EST
    Because it involves using the brain, sometimes in ways you hadn't for awhile, if ever. Brainstorming is gennrating all the ideas a group of people can think up, throwing them onto the table, and considering them one by on, tossing out the ones that, on inspection, show no value, and keeping the ones that do for more detailed evaluation.

    Brainstorming has nothing to do with attacking the others around the table for throwing out ideas for consideration, instead of simply reating "we have to keep on doing what has been causing the problems because we hope that one day it won't cause the problems"

    You hate Democrats more (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:35:01 AM EST
    I am sure of it.

    Stay the course? (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    LOL.  Why didn't you cut and paste my STC comment?  Because it was not in there.  Not only are you a moron, but you are an a*wipe also.

    We need more trooops.  We need a reallocation of resources to infrastructure in all of Iraq not just Baghdad.  We need to apologize to our allies for our arrogance and insults in leading up to the war and we need to solicit their assistance in making the country secure.  We need to do this through revenue distribution to FOREIGN companies not just Halliburton and Friends of Cheney.  We need to have a clear timeline for withdrawal that does not concern itself with politics or "timely withdrawal" rather coincides with the benchmarks for successful turnover of the security forces.
    We need to apply pressure to our allies in the Middle east to help us with setting up a government that is representative of the will of the people, not the will of the US gov't.  I have said all along that a democracy will not work and a federation of 3 states with equitable revenue sharing rights for oil production would be more sustainable long term.

    Unfortunately, you have not been here as long as I have and have no idea where I stand on this issue and you have provided SQUAT in terms of analysis or conflict resolution.

    You are an embarassment to my party, the democratic party and an a*wipe.  

    Please, for the love of god give us something with an ounce of intellect peppered in, or go back to Jiffy Lube.

    Attack content not messengers (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    Jlvngstn, I would have thought you above the level you've lowered youself to here today.

    If you don't like what someone has to say I suggest that you try addressing what is said instead of letting anger control you and spewing juvenile insults like "moron", "a*swipe", and "May the fleas of a thousand camel infest your pubic area".

    And before you respond with something like "he started it" please THINK, and hold youself to the higher standard you claim you's like others to adhere to. In other words, lead by example, you know?

    You are blowing your reputation and credibility with me, and I suspect with others as well.

    Parent

    I apologize (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    You are correct Edger.  My apologies BTD.  

    Parent
    None necessary (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:44:47 PM EST
    These are words.

    They mean little. You don't know me and I do not know you.

    The ideas matter.  We have an incredibly profound disagreement on the most important issue of the day.

    Words fly. It means little in the scheme of things.

    Parent

    The ideas matter. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:41:43 PM EST
    You have a gift for understatement, Big Tent. ;-)

    The ideas matter. We have an incredibly profound disagreement on the most important issue of the day

    An issue that can impact whether or not 'civilization' as we have known it will continue, or whether we are living through "The End of Empire..."

    Parent

    Nice... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:58:44 PM EST
    Public apologies are never comfortable. I, for one, am impressed.

    Parent
    deleted comment (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    I deleted that comment you are referring to as violative of talkleft's commenting rules.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, no offense but ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Sailor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:12:50 PM EST
    Whether I look at it nested, threaded or any other way, I can't figure out who you are referring to when you say 'you are referring to.'

    I know it sounds like an Abbot & Costello routine, but 'you' who?

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:57:02 PM EST
    If you set the view to 'nested', all replies to a comment will be below and slightly indented to the right of the comment they are replies to.

    Parent
    As I said ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:16:44 AM EST
    I set the view every which way and I have no idea 'who' she was referring to.

    Parent
    Blog-rage (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    Its like road rage. If you drive long enough you know we've all had it and we've all been a victime of it.

    Jonathon,

    BTD is a bully! I agree with you. But, don't stoop to his level.

    Edger,

    It would be nice if you would call out Big Tent once in awhile too. But, you know what will happen. You'll be his enemy when that happens.

    Parent

    Re: It would be nice... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    Peaches, I agree with your sentiment there.

    I have actually, but in more subtle ways. Big Tent knows where.

    Parent

    Edger scolds me often (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    And not always subtly.

    Edger is fair.

    The next time you scold Decon wil be the first. The difference between you and Edger.

    FAIRNESS.

    Parent

    Oh take it easy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    If jlvingstn has earned your respect, a few nasry words should not change that.

    jlvngston has not earned my respect on this issue.

    I find his comments as divorced from reality as what I hear in the Media.

    My response to him details why I think so.

    Here's something for all of you - sticks and stones.

    The ideas are what matter - jlvngstn's on Iraq are weak and unrealistic imo.  

    Parent

    Me too. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:35:23 PM EST
    I find his comments as divorced from reality as what I hear in the Media.

    Parent
    Your plan is (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    "We need more troops."

    How many? Where do we get them from? Do you favor a draft?

    "We need a reallocation of resources to infrastructure in all of Iraq not just Baghdad."

    What resources? What infrastructure? What parts of Iraq? What is this supposed to do in terms og the war?

    "We need to apologize to our allies for our arrogance and insults in leading up to the war and we need to solicit their assistance in making the country secure.  We need to do this through revenue distribution to FOREIGN companies not just Halliburton and Friends of Cheney."

    This will happen? Is it realistic to expect it? This was a nice idea for 2004. It is too late. BTW, I had the same thoughts in 2003 and 2004.

    "We need to have a clear timeline for withdrawal that does not concern itself with politics or "timely withdrawal" rather coincides with the benchmarks for successful turnover of the security forces."

    What benchmarks? How do we measure them?

    "We need to apply pressure to our allies in the Middle east to help us with setting up a government that is representative of the will of the people, not the will of the US gov't."

    What type of pressure? Why do you believe "pressure" will be effective?

    "I have said all along that a democracy will not work and a federation of 3 states with equitable revenue sharing rights for oil production would be more sustainable long term."

    Will the Shia agree to it? The Kurds? The Sunni? Have they? How does that plan look?  How long will it take?

    You think that is a sensible discussion of the Iraq issue. I think it is not  because it simply is divorced from reality imo.

    Let me be blunt, this is a stay the course strategy. I am not sure what you think is different about it.

    Parent

    Dissertation (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    How many? Where do we get them from? Do you favor a draft?

    At least 50,000 and I will support a draft so that the American public will take greater pause when it comes to war.  Certainly our representatives are clearly underrepresented in the military and if their sons and daughters were in harms way, they might feel differently.  Same goes for soccer moms whose children are going to college and not war who might feel differently with a draft.  I have a 17 year old son, a 7 year old daughter and two boys under 2.  I served, my father served and his father served.  I would prefer my children not join the military and would prefer they do not have to, but I am financially better off than 90% of America and most likely my kids will not serve.  I served because I had limited options and the college money paid for my education.

    What resources? What infrastructure? What parts of Iraq? What is this supposed to do in terms og the war?

    Electricity, schools, hospitals, roads etc.  There is not a war, there is an insurgency and Iraq needs in a horrible way, a Police Force and Military to enforce martial law where applicable and common law where a semblance of order is still in existence.

    What type of pressure? Why do you believe "pressure" will be effective?

    I think careful consideration of our foreign aid should be the primary pressure, secondly we should expect more from the Saudis and Egypt and Pakistan.  There are a variety of means at our disposal relative to pressure and we should call in some cards to exploit those relationships in rebuilding, not necessarily specific to force.

    Will the Shia agree to it? The Kurds? The Sunni? Have they? How does that plan look?  How long will it take?

    There have been several plans floated out by liberal think tanks and I can send you a few links if you have not read them.  I imagine that is part of the problem here, you have not read them.  The plan does have its challenges, especially since most of the oil would be concentrated in 2 of the 3 areas and would require a revenue distribution system to the third state which will inherently piss off the other two, but separate states has been called for by many much smarter than I for 5 years.

    Let me blunt.  I do not find it conscionable that we would openly leave Iraq to fend for itself in a civil war which could cost possibly hundreds of thousands of lives.  Perhaps you can live with that, I cannot.

    If we start spreading some of that 200 billion a year with other companies from other nations and take a MUCH smaller amount of the contracts, we will demonstrate some good will immediately.  Companies in Pakistan, EGypt, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, China, Russia to start.  

    I think pressure needs to be put on the administration to get its head out of its ass and rebuild the confidence of our allies and it starts with about 200 billion in contracts.

    Perhaps you feel intellectually superior because you can cite a talking point of the demo party, I feel intellectually inadequate when i am paying deference to an equally reprehensible strategy of "fend for yourselves".

    Do not confuse support for the innocent Iraqis and our troops with support for this president and his policy.  

    The  stupid Americans who STILL think Iraq was involved in 9-11 are what put us in Iraq and despite my loathing of their ignorance I like to think that the higher ground on this issue is the preservation of innocent life long term.

    When you give the group here something other than a talking point perhaps some respect might develop for you.  Until then, you are a patronizing opportunist who cares only about himself and his party.  

    Do you think we should pull everything out of New Orleans because FEMA and the after planning sucks?  Or do you pressure the administration and those responsible on a daily basis to help correct the situation?

    We have not made the Iraqis safe and their lives hang in the balance.  You want to do the right thing?  Tell the spineless democratic leadership to talk about how to fix it every day to the MSM and the administration.  Do not abandon the innocents in Iraq.

    Parent

    The vast majority of Iraqis want us out (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    Your notion that we are the only thing keeping the nation from descending into worse chaos suggests a certain ignorance of the nation we're talking about, and of the limitations of our kind of military might in this kind of conflict.  Generations of dysfunction and violence supported by us for a long time cannot, in any way, be mitigated or made better by an occupying American military force that has f*cked up over and again for 3+ years already.

    And of course I don't want Sudan, but it is pride and pride alone that leads to the belief that more military might be solve the problem.  It is not logic, it is stubborn pride.  For every Sudan I can give you a Vietnam, where we should've left long before we did.  No one knows what will happen exactly beyond it will not have been helped by our murderously mistaken and abusive presence.  I am a liberal who realizes there are some things for which there ARE no solutions.  When you f*ck up as badly as we have there, no amount of effort can repair the damage.  

    And don't give me a bunch of sh*t about the draft, you would NEVER send your child into Iraq, for anything or any reason, unless you are completely insane, inhumane and a wretched parent.  That you could blithely (it sure seemed so) say you would send your child is frightening and leads me to believe your humanity has become wrapped up in that pride rather than humanity.

    I respect your opinion, but don't think you can logically support it.  Our failures there are too massive, too deadly, too vain for their to be any military solution on our part.  Or any solution.  Some things broken cannot be fixed.  Our mistakes are such.

    Parent

    Brainwashing (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    P.S. If it isn't right for the wacko christians to brainwash their kids, it isn't right for us to do so with our political leanings either.  We discuss our grievances with the administration each night with as fair representation as possible from the WSJ or Tribune or Right think tank.  My eldest son considers himself an independent who leans right and his mother and I lean left and you know what?  I am so proud of him for having the courage to tell his father that he is wrong on issues and that he agrees more with Friedman than I.  

    That my friend comes from good parenting, not brainwashing.

    Parent

    My son (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    My son and I have had many discussions surrounding the military and I have never and would never tell him he "cannot".  You see, I take great pride in being an American and Democrat and a Veteran.  And my son knows this.  When we discuss military service I tell him that I would be devastated if he were killed in Iraq and I was not a fan of the military when I was in it.  However, I tell him that it is a PERSONAL decision that cannot be made or influenced by me.  He is his own man and is highly intelligent and street smart.  His mother feels differently and I respect that inasmuch as I respect HIS decision.  So please do not ever talk about my children and my involvement ever again.

    Secondly, perhaps you are correct.  Peraps we can pull every soldier out of Iraq and it will correct itself.  I do not see that happening any more than I see Dubya's plans working.  

    What I do not see is the aftermath planning by the democratic party. What support will we provide to Iraq to insure the safety and well being of the millions of innocents in the country?  

    What safeguards will be installed to prevent another brutal dictator from securing power and reverting back to the past?  What plan of withdrawal has been submitted by our party detailing how it will happen and how long?

    Parent

    Sons (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    Jlv,

    My greatest fear is that there is some truth in the fact that sons will eventually rebel against their fathers. I am raising my sons also to be their own persons. I want them to independtly make up their own mind. If they wanted to rebel against me, they could not disaapoint me by grwoing their hair out long, smoking some dope, not getting a job, joining a rock band, dropping out of college, or any of the things I tried to be my own person when I was growing up.

    But, if they joined the marines....

    Phew, I'd have a heart attack.

    Anyway, I am sure we will always proud of our sons one way or another.

    Parent

    Choice (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    I agree Peaches, and my 17 year old vacillates on a daily basis as to what he wants to be as I did when I was his age.  He definitely has more option than I had and I would hope that college would come first and then the Peace Corps to fulfill his need to serve.  I do not want him to join the military but all I can do is show him Iraq ER and let him research the ugly side of war and hope that he does not choose that path.  
    Either way, I will be proud of him and support him 100%.  It can be hard to reconcile my beliefs that this was a bs war started on false pretenses and that politically I believe it is a disaster, but my son is a bright kid and despite the ignorance of youth (it's the other kids that get killed in combat, not me) I will respect that decision.  Does not mean I will not worry and be sick to my stomach, but the choice to serve is a deeply personal one.....

    Parent
    I want the troops to come home, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    but, Jonathon,

    if you were in charge I would have some hope that some good might come from delaying the process.

    Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment that AMericans wanted this war because they were hoodwinked into believing the WMD and that Saddam had links to AQ, but I also agree with SD that we are there because some big money interests think our presence in the ME is necessary for them to retain their hold on power. They did the hododwinking and They could care less how many people kill each other. They will drag this out a long time. I even believe they instigate much of the sectarian violence.

    How else to explain the corruption, the lack of accounting for money and arms sent to Iraq, the death squads in Iraqi uniforms, etc. It is chaos and its a chaos we created and still are responsible for creating even more. Now for the most difficult part to wrap your mind around. Somebody wants chaos there. Someone benefits from it. Who?

    Some people in Saudi A, some in Iran, some in Iraq, Some in CA, some in Texas, some in Britain, some in Germany, some in Japan, SOme in CHina. WHo are these people? That's the question.

    I want to bring the troops home and I want to dismantle our Military industiral complex at the same time. Stop arming both sides. Stop producing weapons. Build an economy that relies on building up infrastructures not tearing them down. That isn't realistic, I know. But, time is short and we can't keep it up much longer.

    I see the empire coming down. Its coming down fast. Iraqis will work out their own problems quicker when we get out of there. As long as we don't profit off arming the opposing sides and the international community gets together to support the building of Iraqi communities- but thats not going to happen anytime soon. That'll happen when financial circumstances dictate. In the meantime, we do need more people with intentions such as your own making decisions. That much I agree with.

    Parent

    MIC (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    Peaches.  I would love to see the MIC pared back heavily but do not believe any politician can survive an election on a platform of reduction in military spending.  Healthcare and education and possibly social security should trump our obsession with spending a 1000 times more than any other nation.  Perhaps I am naive but I just cannot see that as a battle that can be won, so I have relegated my protests to fighting battles that I think can be won.

    A majority of the nations that could be of assistance in this "war" have been turned off by our foreign policy and more importantly the distribution of revenue to American companies exclusively.  There are no incentives for any other nation to get involved and each have their own pressing issues to attend to, however an equitable distribution of contracts and monies to other nation states would encourage broader participation.

    I believe the quagmire is what it is because the left has not even attempted to broach the root causes of our ineptitude.  It is not the military that is failing in Iraq, I think we all agree on that.  So calling them home to protect them from the poor strategy is logical but similar to putting a bandaid on your stomach when you have cancer.

    The democrats do not want to submit a strategy (IMO) because they are afraid the right will take credit for it and reap the electoral benefits, or they lack the depth that is required to address the serious issues of consequence surrounding our foreign policy failures.

    Foreign policy always has a difficult time usurping the domestic agenda during the electoral process but that should not prohibit us from doing the right thing.

    I want the left to submit a plan that addresses the foreign policy failures and demand that foreign companies secure at least 70% of the contracts we are awarding so that we can leave Iraq in a position where they have hope and maybe electricity on a regular basis.

    I wish I had the confidence you have in the Iraqi leaders but I simply do not.  Afghanistan is a perfect example of what happens when you leave before establishing law and order.,  Kabul is relatively safe but the rest of the country is run by the drug lords and various militias and the taliban still has a stronghold on the country at large.

    In my mind, the left has not pushed a strategy (publicly anyway) that addresses the root of the problem so I feel like we are giving up without at least submitting a strategy that helps end this thing with the Iraqis having a chance.....

    Parent

    A chance (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peaches on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    I wish I had the confidence you have in the Iraqi leaders but I simply do not.

    It is more that I don't have confidence in our leaders. I also am not someone who thinks much of leaders. I have confidence in people (any people) working together to solve local problems. Iraqis didn't need Saddam any more than they need us. They need less leaders from afar and more power from communities and tribes (without the arms and militias, of course.)


    Afghanistan is a perfect example of what happens when you leave before establishing law and order.

    I don't think we ever had any intention of establishing law and order in Afghanistan. I also think we don't have any intention of doing the same in Iraq. The Taliban is not locally supported, but rather a tool of the ISI in Pakistan. The ISI works closely with the CIA. We don't want a safe haven for AQ to operate, but we also have no intention of letting the people of Afghanistan run their affairs. WHether it is pipelines, opium poppies or both, there is money to be made off of corruption and chaos in Afghanistan and working closely with Pakistan.

    It is similar in Iraq, I feel. I think the pressure coming from the left to bring the troops home as soon as possible is positive, given the corrupting forces that run our military industrial complex and war profiteers around. I don't think they will be effective, but any plan put forth by the left to WIN will only end up in the hands of war profiteers and private security companies who wish to continue to profit from this occupation. In addition, chaos means we can keep ATurkey pacified over the establishment of a Kurdish state, It means that Iran will not have another ally in the region to defy Israel and Challenge Saudi Arabia the control of world oil markets, and it keeps the Sunnis in contention for power by challenging both the Kurds and shias from obtaining power. In other words, this war is not going to end soon with any plan set forth by AMerica.

    We broke it before we even invaded it. Many years of corruption and outside influences on the people of Iraq are playing themselves out under the guidance of continued sinister foreign forces.  

    I don't know what will happen next if we stay or if we go. Its bad either way. Eventually, I'm afraid, we will end up leaving and it will be with our tails between our legs. The only way for us to regain our pride will be by attacking some other country and trying harder to keep the anti-war protesters to keep their mouths shut.

    I would love to see the MIC pared back heavily but do not believe any politician can survive an election on a platform of reduction in military spending.

    I tend to agree. The climate has to change in the US for that to happen. But, there is some hope for that. I still maintain, that ultimately we will not be able to afford our military expenditures. The US Gov't will suffer a financial crisis some time in the near future. It will happen very suddenly and if we have troops overseas and in Iraq, they will be looking for their own means to pay for a way home. WE have over extended ourselves financially and we are not receiving as a nation a financial return on it that can keep our economy going. In other words the profits from this war are going to a small group of people who don't add any economic resources back into the US.

    That is reason enough to come home.

    Parent

    Very Good, Jl (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:27:15 PM EST
    JL - By golly this is almost well said.

    It sounds to me as if the Democrats are against the right on this war because it is the opportunistic thing to do, because I cannot for one second believe that you really want to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves after WE caused the situation.

    Believe'em, Jl. They really want us out, no matter what. The war opposition is all about politics and winning an election. Nothing more.

    And of course they have no memory of the people that were killed because they forced us out of Vietnam.

    Just because you did not want the war, does not mean you f*ck over the poor unarmed Iraqis by leaving them to fend for themselves

    But they are most happy to do so.

    If that doesn't give you pause Jl, then nothing will.

    Parent
    Jim is not the devil (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    And I find it odd that we are bedfellows in a sense here.  However, there is a side of me that finds abandonment at leisure disgusting.  

    The reason you don't ever want to go to war is no more evidenced than right NOW.  What happened to all the posters who were SCREAMING about how George Bush I left the Kurds to die a the hands of SAddam after the first war?  

    War costs American money and American lives and as long as the american public can endorse the war by electing Bush to the second term, than by golly they can open their pocketbooks and lose some family and friends.

    Start a draft and see how many soccer moms and senators will rave about how "necessary" it is for us to make ourselves safer by taking out Saddam in Iraq.  I think public servants' kids should have to serve in the military WITHOUT FAVOR, perhaps they would think twice about such decisions....

    Parent

    Start with honesty (1.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    All of you.

     Everyone who is against the war and wants a prompt withdrawal, come what may, is not taking that position merely for political advantage.

    Everyone who is for the war and wants whatever commitment is necessary to win is not taking that position merely for political advantage.

    Everyone who thinks the war was a mistake and thinks it ins unwinnable but opposes a hasty withdrawal because of what will ensue is not taking that position merely for political advantage.

      Just because this place and other sites are peopled with  a few people who take every position about everything merely for political advantage does not mean thant many people take positions because  right, wrong, or a little of both,  they actually believe them.

      The incessant silliness of "fascist war criminals"  versus "America-hating  traitors and cowards" is saddening and speaks poorly for both sides. That kind of nonsense obscures the fact that there are people who share the opinion of these people who are not mindless slogan parroting political hacks.

      More importantly, the TRUTH is that regardless of whether you want an immediate withdrawal and then have Bush, et al, delivered to the Hague for trial for crimes against humanity or whether you want to win the last Crusade, neither is going to happen. If emotional hatred dominates it is likely to lead to a worse final outcome than if people act responsibly and recognize that it is incumbent for people of different beliefs and opposing views to work together. The type of debate about Iraq seen on this board  obviously makes that task more difficult and complicates resolution rather than helping anyone "win."

      The key is for people of good faith on both sides to ignore the shrill extremists in their midst and look across the divide to the people of good faith on the other.

      The people here who start arguments  from the premise that only those who agree with their prejudices can possess good faith  are. of course those most lacking in good faith.

      The only encouraging thing is that despite making the most noise they are not the majority.

       

    You missed this one Decon (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:04:02 AM EST


    Trifecta... (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    In the first year of the occupation it could be argued that Bush and Blair were simply incompetent: they did not understand Iraq, were misinformed by Iraqi exiles, or were simply ignorant and arrogant.

    Incompetent, ignorant, and arrogant...

    Well, I guess that sums it up pretty well.

    What if we can't fix it? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:37:33 AM EST


    What if we can? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    If you can't fix it and you put forth your best effort than there is something to be said for effort.  That said, we have not put our best foot forward and have not spread the wealth of this war to other companies in other countries which I can assure you goes a long way toward hatred for america.  Getting other countries involved with incentives is a good first step.  Showing them that we care about Iraq instead of fattening the pockets of a few no bid recipients does not build good will.

    Some of these answers are quite rudimentary, others especially those of placement of peoples and establishment of appropriate governments that are representative of the people are far more complex.  However, you cannot build on sand and we need to go back to the basics and build a foundation with our allies, not 37 troops from Poland.

    Parent

    deluded or dilaudid? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Sailor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    An Iranian sponsored group will simply kill everyone that protests
    You really have to start ignoring the voices in your head.

    And the winner is.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    Well the Iraq Debacle wasn't bad for everybody. Bechtel abandoned Irag last week with a cool $2.3 Billion semolians.

    And it only cost them 52 dead workers.

    What a deal.

    What next... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    Exporting freedom and democracy to Iraq - Bush style.

    What next in Iraq: Some thoughts from Dr. Norman D. Livergood

    World citizens particularly need to understand the truth about Iraq now, because a horrendous new outrage is soon going to be perpetrated in Iraq, under cover of the Baker Iraq Study Group conspiracy. The Bush junta sees the Baker report as a way to blunt their condemnation by the voters in the 2006 mid-term election, and the Democrats are waiting in line to approve the report and carry out its provisions, failing to remember that Baker was the architect of the first Gulf war against Saddam and orchestrated the 2000 Jeb Bush-Supreme Court coup d'etat.

         Baker, a life-time cabal consigliere, is presently the legal representative of the Saudi royal family, yet has an office in the white house right next to the president's oval office.