Another American security failure in Iraq

[Sanaz]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/18/iraq.main/

A suicide car bomb detonated Saturday in front of the Iraqi national guard headquarters in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing 19 people and wounding 39 others, including guardsmen and recruits, according to Iraqi officials.

It is continuing to be obvious that the US can not maintain security in a country that they decided to attack and occupy. As the occupying force, security is the direct responsibility of the US (even though they try to pawn it off on a UN coalition, when the UN said that war would be hasty at the time the US decided to proceed mostly alone, with a very week coalition of forces from a few other nations). These latest attacks are on new Iraqi security recruits (today, and earlier in the week), so they can't even be called terrorist attacks, but are instead just a continuation of the war that the US started.

Is there any way for the US to win this war? Some political decisions were made which are quite obviously flawed, but how can the US proceed from here to give peace back to the Iraqi people? It will be harder to get Iraqi involvement in their own national security if the US can't keep the new recruits safe until they are fully trained and deployed. Does the US increase it's presence in Iraq to ensure security, which would likely increase the flow of anti-US fighters to the area? Or do they leave, and admit defeat? Or, is there a third option that I don't see, and the US has failed to implement? Maybe they beg for help from the UN, which they continue to denounce and make a joke of?

I am extremely discouraged for the future prospects of Iraq, and question why young Americans are there dying. My most cynical side tells me they are there to prop up the US defense (Cheney) and oil (Bush) industries, but so many Americans still think it is the "right" thing to do that I need to be open minded. What is considered "victory" in Iraq? (Remember, Hussein was installed and supported by the US, so removing him can only be considered cleaning up an old mistake; and, freedom for the Iraqi people would mean a true election, not just a choice between several US appointed candidates). Is there a plan that can work?

 

[Jawz II]

hey maybe we should sticky a thread for explosions in iraq?

we could call it KAABLAAAMMMO!

 

[JollyRoger]

This first step is new American leadership. The international community will never cooperate with the current administration. This new leadership must be willing to give something in return for help from the international community - like more international firms receiving private contracts. There will still be insurgents, but some will be less likely to stay in the insurgency movement and there will be a backlash against insurgents amoung the Iraqi people once the effort is seen as an international recovery effort - not a one nation occupation (I know that technically, there are several nations with a presence in Iraq, but I am talking about perception and practical reality).

Is there a solution besides either sticking it out or withdrawing? How about just giving Iraq away to it's neighbors in return for certain concessions? Maybe not fair to the Iraqi people, but they did not overthrow Saddam themselves, so they are somewhat at the mercy of those who did.

 

[BasketCase]

#1: The radical Arab response to the above-mentioned international efforts is usually to call the international community a bunch of American-controlled puppets.

#2: We've had 13 years to see what the international community did about Iraq, since Iraq War #1: argue. All talk and no walk.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Well the conflict desert storm was a lot more different, than Operation I-raki freedom.
First the U.S is protecting Israeli interests and not I-raki ones.

 

[North King]

No, this war is a lost cause. Quite obvious to me, and there's no chance of stopping it with violence. American retaliation will almost certainly cause collateral damage, this will make the Iraqi people more angry, this will lead to more terrorism, etc.

 

[Sanaz]

#1: The radical Arab response to the above-mentioned international efforts is usually to call the international community a bunch of American-controlled puppets.

Obviously they are, but not without very good reason. The US is the strongest economically - who would want to ruin trade agreements? I don't expect them to do any different, but very few nations will stray very far from American interests.

#2: We've had 13 years to see what the international community did about Iraq, since Iraq War #1: argue. All talk and no walk.

You mean since the first Bush urged the Shia Iraqis in the south to rise up against Saddam, and then left them to get slaughtered by the (originally) American installed and backed dictator? I'd hope there's a better answer than that, of course. The US tends towards too-much-walk and not-enough-talk, and that is the problem and the often deserved "cowboy" image. Since all of Bush's reasons for occupying Iraq have been shown to be false, it is hard to defend the intentions.

For the record, I am very far from a fan of Hussein. I'm not concerned that he's gone, but I am concerned that there is less security in Iraq today than the day before American troops entered. There is potential for Iraq to be a great nation, but only if the US (Bush and Rumsfeld, with help from Cheney and Ashcroft, in this case) stops tripping over their own feet.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well the conflict desert storm was a lot more different, than Operation I-raki freedom.
First the U.S is protecting Israeli interests and not I-raki ones.

I-raki should be Iraqi.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

I meant to say it like "I-raki" i fully well know that the correct english is Iraqi.

 

[Atlas14]

Perhaps what Iraq needs is time to become a fully functional country once again, something it never was under Saddam Hussein or any preceding dictator. As Iraq as a new country with a new govt. matures, so will its leaders and citizens. The Iraqi people will just have to devote a lot of time and resources to security for a while, not unlike most countries in the world right now. Thank you Captain Obviouses (Democrats/liberals) for pointing out that there are bombings and and deaths in Iraq virtually every day. Id rather see Iraq pull through and attempt becoming a pioneer democratic country in the Middle East and hopefully form some loyal allies in the Middle East in the process. Bombings and attacks are the sad price this country will have to pay for its freedom. Guess what the U.S. had to pay for its freedom, a few wars and millions of lives lost. The Security in Iraq is not a failure.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I meant to say it like "I-raki" i fully well know that the correct english is Iraqi.

What does I-raki mean that Iraqi doesn't?

 

[Sanaz]

The Iraqi people will just have to devote a lot of time and resources to security for a while, not unlike most countries in the world right now.

It is the sole responsibility of the US to ensure security in Iraq. It is not the responsibility of the Iraqi people.

Thank you Captain Obviouses (Democrats/liberals) for pointing out that there are bombings and and deaths in Iraq virtually every day.

Personally, I am neither liberal nor a Democrat. I'm not sure who you are referencing here.

Id rather see Iraq pull through and attempt becoming a pioneer democratic country in the Middle East and hopefully form some loyal allies in the Middle East in the process.

Wouldn't we all. That's the exact point of this thread.

Bombings and attacks are the sad price this country will have to pay for its freedom. Guess what the U.S. had to pay for its freedom, a few wars and millions of lives lost. The Security in Iraq is not a failure.

Of course it is. How could it be considered anything but that. Every day less area is safe to travel in, Americans are killed almost daily, and Iraqis are being killed 10 times as much. Don't forget it was the US president who said "mission accomplished" over a year ago, and the failure rests on his shoulders. He likes to state that anyone who doesn't share his hallucination is "negative", and hinders the peace process in the region. But of course, this is the same person who was deluded enough to think he would contribute to a lasting peace in the Israeli-Palistinean conflict.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

I don't see how any of you guys can say this if your own countries couldn't even come to help the US. Don't even reply stupid threads that show something bad about Iraq when your country isn't even in their helping or freeing Iraqis.

 

[MarineCorps]

by the (originally) American installed and backed dictator?

Erm, I don't recall America having anything to do with Saddams rise to power.....

 

[MarineCorps]

I don't see how any of you guys can say this if your own countries couldn't even come to help the US. Don't even reply stupid threads that show something bad about Iraq when your country isn't even in their helping or freeing Iraqis.

Well seeing as everyone but HamaticBabylon and BasketCase have their locations listed as America.....

@HamaticBabylon: Show me proof America is doing this for Israel.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Well seeing as everyone but HamaticBabylon and BasketCase have their locations listed as America.....

@HamaticBabylon: Show me proof America is doing this for Israel.

I'm talkign about the people who keep posting these threads. Its starting to get annoying. Everyone always looks at the negative side but never the positive side.

 

[Zeekater]

I don't see how any of you guys can say this if your own countries couldn't even come to help the US. Don't even reply stupid threads that show something bad about Iraq when your country isn't even in their helping or freeing Iraqis.

WE have to help, because the US decided to go in unilateraly?
The US decided they didn't need approval from other countries, well then the US will have to do without help too.

 

[Sanaz]

I'm talkign about the people who keep posting these threads. Its starting to get annoying. Everyone always looks at the negative side but never the positive side.

OK, the positive outcome from my point of view is a government that truly represents the Iraqi people which can become an active player in Middle Eastern politics, economy, and alliances. So I see Bush and the current policy as very negative, harmful to stability in the Middle east and to long term prosperity for the Iraqi people. So I am looking at the positive side, but it probably looks very different from the positive viewpoint you want to see and believe in.

 

[North King]

I'm talkign about the people who keep posting these threads. Its starting to get annoying. Everyone always looks at the negative side but never the positive side.

Mainly because it's hard to find the positive side. The only thing the threads about good Iraq news have shown is what hasn't happened.

 

[MarineCorps]

The US decided they didn't need approval from other countries

We don't need to.

well then the US will have to do without help too.

Then you have no right to critize us. It's like a spectator standing on the sidelines yelling at the losing team that the are really screwing up, but he isn't playing the game so he has no idea what it's like out there.