Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

[CartesianFart]

The problem with Iraq is the factionalism. Japan and Germany were strongly united nations so there were fewer post-war problems. The very same nationalism that made the War so bloody, kept the peace afterwards.

That is "patent nonsense" to say that the difference of our nation-state projects of Japan and Germany in comparison to Iraq is because the former was unified and the latter not unified.The reason why Iraq is not unified as Germany and Japan is that the factionalism is being fueled by outside pressure from Iran and Syria.Germany and Japan never had these types of problem to begin with.

The other problem is the lack of political will to solve problems.

No.It is the problem of the Left in our Country that have a sick distortion of reality on how to conduct foreign relations.

The President and member of both parties in congress would rather due what is politically expedient than actually do anything.

No.When conducting a War,politics interfere the objective of "winning the war."

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The problem with Iraq is the factionalism. Japan and Germany were strongly united nations so there were fewer post-war problems. The very same nationalism that made the War so bloody, kept the peace afterwards.

Its true, Iraq was never a real country. We're going to be seeing alot more of this all over the world, particularly Africa, as the complex web of arbitrary lines the colonial West drew all over the globe continue to unravel, and the natural native forces in the respective regions begin to reassert themselves.

The other problem is the lack of political will to solve problems. The President and member of both parties in congress would rather due what is politically expedient than actually do anything.

Its not even will, its really a lack of competence. Bush didnt want this mess in Iraq, Rumsfeld didnt want to go down as the worst Sec Def since McNamara. They just arent very bright people. Or maybe to be more precise, they arent competent administrators. They dont understand how to utilize the power at their disposal, so all they leave in their wake are swaths of destruction.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

That is "patent nonsense" to say that the difference of our nation-state projects of Japan and Germany in comparison to Iraq is because the former was unified and the latter not unified.The reason why Iraq is not unified as Germany and Japan is that the factionalism is being fueled by outside pressure from Iran and Syria.Germany and Japan never had these types of problem to begin with.

Japan and Germany did not have different religious sects killing each other after WWII. Though I admit that Iran and Syria are not helping matters there still would be problems without them.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Its not even will, its really a lack of competence. Bush didnt want this mess in Iraq, Rumsfeld didnt want to go down as the worst Sec Def since McNamara. They just arent very bright people. Or maybe to be more precise, they arent competent administrators. They dont understand how to utilize the power at their disposal, so all they leave in their wake are swaths of destruction.

I admit that mistakes made during in the after the war haven't helped any but mistakes can be corrected. It is merely politics now.

 

[CrazyScientist]

As I said earlier, sure mistakes get made and not all your goals get realized. But that happens in every war, win or lose. Just because you havent reached 'goal X' yet, is not a reason to take your toys and go home.

What negative things would you have to see happening in Iraq for you to conclude that its time to go home because theres no point in staying any longer?

For some reason both of these quotes illustrate the problem for me, and why I remain torn about what to do regarding Iraq.

I'm pretty sure for instance, that the answer to Bozo's question is that no number of negative events should dissuade us from achieving our objectives if our objectives are correct, just, and attainable (short of the total annhilation of our forces, which I think we can all agree is pretty much impossible). For the record, I think those are all very big ifs in this case.

On the other hand, Mobboss's quote assumes that there are a series of military objectives, which if there were only time for them be accomplished, would succeed in attaining our political objectives which are presumably a stable, democratic, pro western state in Iraq, alongside a broader objective of maintaining US power, prestige and influence in the world. But the fact that the invasion itself seems to have dealt a significant blow to the latter, and that there seems to be little hope of attaining the former in the near future, is why many people consider the mission in Iraq a failure.
The question one needs to ask oneself then is whether the continued presence of our forces in Iraq at this time is accelerating, neutral towards, or impeding the accomplishment of these objectives at this point.
Since the violence in Iraq (be it directed against us, or each other) seems to be increasing, not decreasing, I don't think it's crazy to argue that our presence is not helping the situation, and that it may even be making things worse. I also don't think it's crazy to argue that our forces are making progress towards stability, or at least slowing the descent into chaos, but then again, if a descent into chaos is inevitable at this point, do we really want to spend our soldiers lives just to slow it down?

To sum up. Iraw is a thorny problem and I have no idea how to solve it, either in terms of what's morally the right thing to do, or in terms of what best advances our nation's political interests, and frankly, I don't think anyone in power on either side of the political spectrum knows either. Given that, my personal instinct would be to withdraw, since without knowing what the correct solution is we have little chance of success. But as you can probably tell from the above rambling, I'm a bit on the fence, and could probably be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You may be a crazy scientist, but there was no rambling at all. Excellent analysis

 

[CartesianFart]

To sum up. Iraw is a thorny problem and I have no idea how to solve it, either in terms of what's morally the right thing to do, or in terms of what best advances our nation's political interests, and frankly, I don't think anyone in power on either side of the political spectrum knows either. Given that, my personal instinct would be to withdraw, since without knowing what the correct solution is we have little chance of success. But as you can probably tell from the above rambling, I'm a bit on the fence, and could probably be persuaded otherwise.

Maybe sitting on the fence too long have got you paralyzed? Maybe your instinct is determined by not knowing the correct solution to achieve success is at fault here?

It does not matter if this whole endeavor is morally right or wrong or that it advances our political interests but it is a just simple a war that is answered from being attack by Islamic fundamentalism on our soil.When the war is finished,it will then give the question of why it is fought and what is the repercussion it will bring.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Maybe sitting on the fence too long have got you paralyzed? Maybe your instinct is determined by not knowing the correct solution to achieve success is at fault here?

Just to clarify, my instinct to withdraw isn't due just to the fact that I don't know what the solution is. That would be foolish, since I probably don't have enough information to know what the solution is anyway. The problem is that nobody seems to know, and that those that advocate staying seem to think that sticking around will somehow make things better all by itself, without any significant change in what we're doing over there.

 

[nc-1701]

I pretty much agree wuth CrazyScientist here... You made some really good points that basically mirror my own thoughts on the subject.

 

[CartesianFart]

Just to clarify, my instinct to withdraw isn't due just to the fact that I don't know what the solution is. That would be foolish, since I probably don't have enough information to know what the solution is anyway. The problem is that nobody seems to know, and that those that advocate staying seem to think that sticking around will somehow make things better all by itself, without any significant change in what we're doing over there.

The problem is that trying to understand what it really going on in Iraq and what is its importance of sending our men and women over there is something to ask a complex set of questions of asking; what is the nature of the relationship of Russia and Iran;what are we achieving politically and militarilly against China and Russia and other nation-states that want to put their investment in a oil-wealth nation of Iraq;can this nation-state building project by means of US dollars in a place where other foreign interest are trying to subvert by terrorism and media distortions and other means by their dollars be won by any parties at all;and the lists go on and on and etc.etc.

 

[MobBoss]

But MobBoss, what if the failure of subsequent objectives (stopping the Shia/Sunni from killing the Shia/Sunni) is so enormous that it deems nearly irrelevant the success of the earlier objectives?

Well, here is the truth of it. What we are reaping right now in Iraq is largly in part to one of our earlier mistakes. It was a huge mistake to totally get rid of the Iraqi military apparatus. We should have merely removed the leadership and gone from there....however, the act of dismissing the military did several things that were unforseen at the time. One. It allowed the militias to gain dominance as the only alternative armed power in the land. Two. It flooded the ranks of those militias with now unemployed soldiers. Three. It greatly increased our time of presence in Iraq because no one forsaw the problems in reforming the Iraqi military and police.

So essentially, the fix to all of this is adequately training and fielding the new Iraqi Army and Police. But even under the most ideal of circumstances that could take years, if not decades to accomplish....add in insurgent activity and attacks upon recruiting centers....well you get the picture.

Just like our police or national guard would step in if there were mass civil unrest in a major city, so must the Iraqis step in to take care of their own in house violence.

So basically, at this point we are trying to correct the ramifications of our biggest mistake in the campaign. And to be honest, the US military recognizes that the time is rapidly approaching when the Iraqi military, police and the people themselves must take the final step to quell the violence that country is experiencing. Is this achieveable? I personally think so, but we have got to stop babysitting the Iraqi military and force them to step up and do what is needed.

Given the fact that there will probably ALWAYs be some type of unrest for decades to come there, our 'exit condition' does not need to mean total and utter peace...but a realistic expectation that the government and people can survive with their current military and police forces working for them. Thats already the case in several areas in Iraq and if we can just realize it to some extent in Baghdad, then our goals will have all been met.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, here is the truth of it. What we are reaping right now in Iraq is largly in part to one of our earlier mistakes. It was a huge mistake to totally get rid of the Iraqi military apparatus. We should have merely removed the leadership and gone from there....however, the act of dismissing the military did several things that were unforseen at the time. One. It allowed the militias to gain dominance as the only alternative armed power in the land. Two. It flooded the ranks of those militias with now unemployed soldiers. Three. It greatly increased our time of presence in Iraq because no one forsaw the problems in reforming the Iraqi military and police.

I agree except with the NO ONE FORSAW part
HELL the military tried to change the course tried to alert the president. They should have pushed harder in hindsight and be prepared to be alienated and fired. Like Zinni did stick to hes guns no matter how unfavourable it was and be pushed aside.

Jay Garner, a 64-year-old retired three-star general and defense industry executive to head the postwar office.

He said four of the nine tasks his small team was supposed to be in charge of in Iraq under Bush’s NSPD-24 were plainly beyond their capabilities, including dismantling weapons of mass destruction, defeating terrorists, reshaping the Iraqi military and reshaping the other internal Iraqi security institutions.

The president nodded. No one else intervened, though Garner had just told them he couldn’t be responsible for crucial postwar tasks—the ones that had the most to do with the stated reasons for going to war in the first place—because his team couldn’t do them.

The import of what he had said seemed to sail over everyone’s heads.

“We’ve made three tragic decisions,” Garner said.

“Really?” Rumsfeld said.

“Three terrible mistakes,” Garner said. He cited the extent of the de-Baathification, getting rid of the army, and summarily dumping the Iraqi leadership group. Disbanding the military had been the biggest mistake. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. Garner made his final point: “There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.”

Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. “Well,” he said, “I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are.”

So basically, at this point we are trying to correct the ramifications of our biggest mistake in the campaign. And to be honest, the US military recognizes that the time is rapidly approaching when the Iraqi military, police and the people themselves must take the final step to quell the violence that country is experiencing. Is this achieveable? I personally think so, but we have got to stop babysitting the Iraqi military and force them to step up and do what is needed.

Security is a big issue. the OTHER corner stone is the fragile, corrupt and inept democratic government. Hopefully if security dose stablise we would see something like kurdistain. though as a democracy will remain under attack for a long time to come.

 

[MobBoss]

I agree except with the NO ONE FORSAW part
HELL the military tried to change the course tried to alert the president. They should have pushed harder in hindsight and be prepared to be alienated and fired. Like Zinni did stick to hes guns no matter how unfavourable it was and be pushed aside.

Fair enough, however, there were other generals more than willing to sign on for the operation as originally thought out as well. So feel free to make the distinction that 'some generals' in the military forsaw this, but not all. Possibly not even a majority. Perhaps the 'we can win it cheap' crowd of generals made a for a more convincing arguement at the time. /shrug.

Again, 20/20 hindsite is precisely accurate. The finger pointing does nothing to resolve where we are today.

But to state that there was never any plan is just a false statement, as I have pointed out.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well, that is why you need a good President to sort out if the Defense Secretary and his cadre of generals are right, or if some opposing cadre of generals is right. This is exactly why I think it is Bush's fault for not being able to make that important decision about whose opinions were more logical and based in history (forget the fact that I think the war shouldn't have happened at all... but if it were going to happen...).

I think Bush was partially swayed by the fact that he wanted the war to appear "feasible" even to himself. If he was told it may take 500,000 troops in Iraq for a long time for it to work he may have deemed it infeasible to fight the war. He wanted it to be feasible so he listened to Rumsfeld and the crowd because they told him what he wanted to hear.

 

[GenMarshall]

Here is at least one story...there are plenty more on it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042400850.html And I could give a crap about that 'first person' nonsense.

Does not convince me that he accepted the blame. Unlike you, I do give crap about the "first person" stuff .

Ummm, no you dont. There have been plenty of conflicts won that involved insurgent activity. Do your research.

Name them. The only conflicts won that involved insurgent activity were the ones we backed.

Errr. Historically, the casualties we have experienced in Iraq are one of the lowest ratios we have ever had for such a conflict, if not THE lowest.

That I find VERY hard to believe .

Apparently you are ignorant of what happened after our withdrawal. Hundreds of thousands were imprisoned and its estimated that 1.5 to 2 million were killed in the following genocides in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Got proof? Besides, I care less about those whom were killed in the genocides in Vietnam. At least the entire Southeast Asia did not capulate to Communism like we feared.

Do you think that acceptable in Iraq if we cut and run? Because its highly likely that the same exact thing would happen there.

It is very acceptable that we pull out right now. I don't care if the same thing happens there because it already was happening in Saddam's reign. So, who cares about the bickering Iraqis?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

"Errr. Historically, the casualties we have experienced in Iraq are one of the lowest ratios we have ever had for such a conflict, if not THE lowest."

That I find VERY hard to believe

United States Casualties of War

Casualties have been light in the grand scheme of things. For instance the total number of American deaths due to the Iraq war is less than that of the Philippine War. I bet most people didn't even now we fought a war against the Philippines.

 

[MobBoss]

Name them. The only conflicts won that involved insurgent activity were the ones we backed.

Here is a great one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine_war

The Philippine-American War[2] was a conflict between the United States of America and the First Philippine Republic from 1899 through at least 1902, when the Filipino leadership generally accepted American rule. Skirmishes between government troops and armed groups lasted until 1913, and some historians consider these unofficial extensions of the war.[3]

The USA spent 11 years after the major conflict was over fighting muslim insurrectionists like we are doing right now in Iraq. Thats 11 years. Today, we cant stop whining about spending 4 doing it. Our nation truly isnt as great as it once was, regardless of our technology.

In 1900, Aguinaldo shifted from conventional to guerrilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited their disadvantaged situation and made American occupation of the Philippine archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans had nearly 500 casualties. The Philippine Army began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerrilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipino soldiers. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much more than the guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population tremendously reduced the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino soldiers, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

And finally:

During the war 4,324 American soldiers died

Lots of similarity in that conflict and Iraq today....however, instead of having senators saying we lost in the phillipines, instead the US got down and just as dirty as their enemies and eventually forced them into capitulation.

Thats why OBL refers to us as weak today....we no longer have the intestinal fortitude to prosecute such a violent conflict anymore.

Got proof?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Casualties

Even today the number of those killed, military and civilian, in the period covered (1959-1975) is open to debate and uncertainty. To illustrate the problem, below are three reference works by three or more authors listing casualty figures. What is remarkable about them is that the only ones that seem to match are the ones that must be, at best, approximations. None of the figures include the members of South Vietnamese forces killed in the final campaign. Nor do they include the Royal Lao Armed Forces, thousands of Laotian and Thai irregulars, or Laotian civilians who all perished in that peculiar conflict. They do not include the tens of thousands of Cambodians killed during the civil war or the estimated one and one-half to two million that perished in the genocide that followed Khmer Rouge victory

Besides, I care less about those whom were killed in the genocides in Vietnam. At least the entire Southeast Asia did not capulate to Communism like we feared.

Two things. Why ask for proof if you dont care? And I find it extremely hypocritical for you to care so much about the VT murders and not give a rats ass about millions killed in Vietnam/Cambodia. If you dont care about people beyond the shores of the USA then why do you give a crap about Iraq at all?

It is very acceptable that we pull out right now. I don't care if the same thing happens there because it already was happening in Saddam's reign. So, who cares about the bickering Iraqis?

I am sure you will have to account for this moment and this statement after you die. I hope you have a good answer for St. Peter.

 

[nc-1701]

When it comes right down to it Iraqi, or Vietnamese civilians are no responsability of the United States government. So the genocide argument barely moves me, I'm no bleeding heart.

 

[MobBoss]

When it comes right down to it Iraqi, or Vietnamese civilians are no responsability of the United States government. So the genocide argument barely moves me, I'm no bleeding heart.

Actually, according to international law and treaty, they damn well are our responsiblity in the absence of a viable presence to protect them.

If the USA isnt willing to sacrifice a few thousand to save millions who are depending on us for protection, then how can we claim to be 'moral' or 'better' at all.

 

[GenMarshall]

Here is a great one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine_war

The USA spent 11 years after the major conflict was over fighting muslim insurrectionists like we are doing right now in Iraq. Thats 11 years. Today, we cant stop whining about spending 4 doing it. Our nation truly isnt as great as it once was, regardless of our technology.

Who cares about that little footnote in history? .
We had the Spanish-American War and the Hunt of Pancho Via and not to mention the Storm Clouds of the First World War looming up ahead back then.

Lots of similarity in that conflict and Iraq today....however, instead of having senators saying we lost in the phillipines, instead the US got down and just as dirty as their enemies and eventually forced them into capitulation.

I don't see how that little backwater war in the Pacific had any similarly to the Unjust Iraq War of today. You forgot that back then we had an imperialistic mindset.

Thats why OBL refers to us as weak today....we no longer have the intestinal fortitude to prosecute such a violent conflict anymore.

Who cares if he refers to us as weak. Who even cares what now a corpse in a cave has to say about us?

Two things. Why ask for proof if you dont care? And I find it extremely hypocritical for you to care so much about the VT murders and not give a rats ass about millions killed in Vietnam/Cambodia. If you dont care about people beyond the shores of the USA then why do you give a crap about Iraq at all?

Did Vietnamese/Cambodian genocide occured in my generation? No. Why should I give a care to an event that happened before I was even born?

I care about the VT Murder and the Unjust Iraq War because it's occuring in my Generation and my lifetime.

I am sure you will have to account for this moment and this statement after you die. I hope you have a good answer for St. Peter.

Why am I not supprised that youre trying to push Religion onto this issue and onto me.