I saw a report that the number of roadside bombs was the highest ever. Oh it could have been such a glorious little war if it wasn't for the liberal media that falsely reports these types of numbers and Cindy Sheehan and Ned Lamont the AlQaeda sympathizer.
Dubious, that was a very good post. Very heartfelt frustration, and more honest than some of the other die-hard supporters of the Iraq adventure. What would have been the course for success in Iraq? To do what we have done countless times before, and do to this day... leave him alone. We leave the Saudi monarchial dictatorship alone. We leave the Egyptian dictatorship alone. We leave the oligarchy of China alone. We leave dictatorships alone all over the world, because it serves our national interest. That may not be very idealistic of us, but it is a foreign policy that at least makes some sense from a national interest standpoint. Leave the overthrow of a dictator to the people within that country. Encourage it, if destabilizing that dictator doesn't harm the national security of the US and it's allies. (do we still have some??) I guess that would be my answer. Invading Iraq without having taken care of bin Laden and his crew, and the war in Afghanistan, was an act of madness, in my opinion. Foreign policy based on fantasy and ignoring the voices of your own experts, pushing those dissenting voices aside, and promoting those who tell you what you want to hear. The hallmark of a weak and ineffectual "leader." That they continue to promote this fantasy, this tragic farce on the American people, knowing full well that they are lying when they declare the insurgency is "in it's last throes," and that, "if we leave Iraq they will follow us here," all the while trying to base their political campaign on these lies and on fear, just sickens me. Let new leadership attempt to straighten out their mess. Bush has already as much as said exactly that. Someone else following him will have to clean this up. One thing for sure... they couldn't do a worse job of foreign policy, or fiscal mismanagement. Keep D&D Civil.
Afghanistan? Oh yes, the little country that provides most of the world's opium... doesn't look like that one's going well either...
MSNBC.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. troops express worries about Iraq progress Joint Chiefs chairman says forces air concern, frustration with Iraqi people The Associated Press Updated: 5:52 p.m. CT Aug 17, 2006 WASHINGTON - President Bush is not frustrated over the slow progress in Iraq, the White House insists. But a lot of other Americans are — apparently including U.S. troops. The Pentagon’s top general says troops suggested to him during a recent trip to Iraq that they are among those who are worried. White House spokesman Tony Snow took pains to deny a report Wednesday that Bush had privately expressed frustration with the Iraqis for not appreciating American sacrifices made there, and with the Iraqi people and their leaders for not supporting the U.S. mission. “We don’t expect ... an overnight success,” Snow said when asked Bush’s opinion on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Just when success might come — and whether it is even possible — are key questions for war-weary Americans. And the latest setbacks in Iraq come as congressional elections approach. Troops are also disgruntled over Iraqi efforts, according to questions put to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visited the country over the weekend. One asked how much more time the Iraqi government should be given to achieve the political unity needed to stabilize the country. Another wanted to know whether U.S. forces will stay if Iraqis descend into all-out civil war. And a third ended a question about continued U.S. troop deployments to Iraq by asking, “Is the war coming to an end?” Pace said his talks with troops reassured him that they are proud of what they’re doing and satisfied with what they’ve accomplished. But he also said he detected among them “some frustration at the Iraqis for not yet grasping the opportunity that’s in front of them.” Rival Shiite and Sunni sects have failed to reconcile their differences and establish an effective government capable of taking over security responsibilities for the country. Pace said the troops feel, “‘We’re doing our part. When is the (Iraqi) governance part going to kick in?’ And that’s a fair question.” Pushing Iraqis along for three years through formation of an interim government, the writing of their constitution and election of the current government — only to have the fighting worsen — has grown old for many in civilian and military quarters. Levin calls for Iraqi compromise Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, sounded one of his recurring themes at a recent committee hearing: Iraqi politicians must get the message that U.S. troops can’t stay indefinitely, and should make political compromises to stop insurgents and avoid all-out civil war. “There’s a certain irony if military and political leaders seem to be losing patience with the Iraqis,” said Charles Pena, a fellow at the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy and George Washington University’s homeland security institute. “We’re the ones who created this situation.” “It’s perfectly logical for Americans and the president to be frustrated” by lack of political progress in Iraq, said CATO Institute’s Christopher Preble. He blamed Bush’s “grave error” in assuming that Iraqis would unite after Saddam Hussein’s fall. Eric Davis, a Rutgers University political science professor and former head of the university’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, said he’s disturbed that the Iraq debate is “increasingly being turned into a referendum on George Bush.” Suggestions that Iraqis own some of the blame infuriate him as well. “This whole ‘blaming Iraqis’ thing is a simple way of trying to weasel out ... to say, ’They’re not really trying to make political change, so we should leave,”’ said Davis, one of several outside experts invited to a Monday meeting of Bush’s war cabinet. Snow refutes Times report Snow worked hard to knock down a New York Times report Wednesday that Bush seemed frustrated with Iraqis during Monday’s meeting. “I’ve spoken with the note-taker in the meeting. I was in the meeting. I’ve talked to others in the meeting,” he told White House reporters. All attending took exception to the use of the word “frustrated” to describe the president’s thinking, Snow said. Sectarian tensions have been rising following the Feb. 22 bombing at a Shiite shrine, which triggered a wave of reprisals against Sunni mosques and clerics and sent tens of thousand of Iraqis fleeing from their homes. U.S. generals say Iraq could slide into a full-blown civil war if the killing isn’t tamped down. Though they’d hoped U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, officials have extended some tours of duty, sending 5,000 additional Americans to Baghdad to help with security. The total there now is some 133,000. © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14398361/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2006 MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14398361/
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. We are where we are and we have to move forward. I think it's pretty clear that the partioning of the country is going to have to happen. Iran wins because the Shia control most of the oil. The Kurds make out OK because the US in Iraq will move into their region and protect their claim to Kirkuk (and it's oil) The Sunnis get the wastelands and western Baghdad...only to harrass the Iranians for generations, oh well. We tried, it didn't work out, we learned a lesson AND we repeal Executive Order 12333 (no assassination of forgein leaders). Oh and the Republicans lose the house Senate and Presidency.
^We made the UN impotent. We pushed the stakes so high that Blix's results didn't mean a damn. I wanted to overthrow Saddam too, but with the UN's approval. It was clear that they wouldn't do anything without nukes. Now, they probably won't give a damn when Iran gets nukes, and it's our fault for making the UN worthless. I'd think the best outcome would be another Manhattan Project to starve our dependence on oil and create a modern energy infrastructure, but that's more of a dream. Consumers are still wondering how gas prices can be cheaper....
Agree with Deckard on your earlier post. Very heartfelt. For me I was always dubious regarding invading Iraq and it always seemed like a very half-baked proposition with oversold and with too little thought. As for what we do now I still don't think a partitioning of the country is a good idea but there may be nothing we can do about it. I still don't see any good solutions to what's going on in Iraq and am have been recently leaning more towards a unilateral US withdrawl since its clear we are causing problems with the insurgence and don't seem to be helping. A few months ago I posted a thread regarding a possible solution where he US basically begs and bribes other World powers to replace US troops but I don't think ther eis any chance of that happening. Iraq is too much of a mess right now that any other country besides Iran would want much to do with. In the end Iraq might have to go through a tough period as a failed state before there can be a return to peace and order.
why? there would have been a power vacuum. and factions would fight. it probably wouldn't be this bad. but it would be bad.
Well hopefully you have gotten over your naivete. You have to look at more than the removal of Sadam Hussein to see the real picture; not just look at that fact in isolation as the war apologists would like. "America is beautiful, but it has an ugly side" to quote some lyrics from Neil Young's Living With War Album that I highy recommend. It was not a good deed to kill what will soon be a couple hundred thousand people. Along with the sanctions it is probably closing in on a million Iraqis killed by the US to create the present mess. NOT A GOOD DEED.
I think we will be withdrawing troops from most of the country, regardless of which party is in power, and despite the BS put out by the Bush Administration for public consumption during the runup to the November elections. I don't, however, see us pulling out of the Kurdish region. It's true that Bush would be stupid enough to do it, his stupidity being on display for the world so much already, but if we leave Northern Iraq, the Northeast made up largely of the Kurds, Turkey will swoop in and gobble it up, saying the whole time that it is because of the PKK, but really doing it for the oil. We can't allow that. If nothing else, we should remain there, in my opinion. Yes, that is a Democrat saying we should remain in part of Iraq, now that Bush has created this nightmare. You heard it here first. Keep D&D Civil.
Even if the US does leave tikrit, the turks will never attack. there just flexing there military Muscle. trying to scare them. the us and britan will not tolerate a Turkish incurssion into southern Iraq.
^ If the US withdrew the Turks might not occupy Northern Iraq but I wouldn't put it past them to make incursions and at the minimum they would probably intervene there by funding, training and arming the Turkmen minority there. I could easily see a situation where there is a terrorist attack in Turkey and Turkey attacks Northern Iraq under the argument that Kurdish terrorists are based there. Another scenario would be that Turkmen in Northern Iraq start an insurgency against the Kurds and there is a massacre of Turkmen and Turkey moves in on the pretense of protecting ethnic Turks.
All are good points, there is a lot of potential for escalation of violence between the two (or three) sides. Turkey and Iran now have a common interest in keeping the Kurds from making trouble for them.
Chang, but dont you think that turkish Intelligence service has been doing the things you just mentioned. i doubt the turks have been sitting on there hands and just watching the PKK and kurds in iraq AGAINST THERE NATONAL INTERESTS whithout having a group of proxies in northen iraq?... the Turks have tried everything without a full scale invasion.
I don't. Our President equates leaving with losing and has already said troops will remain there until the next President. I'm sure he thinks he only has to hang on for 885 more days and then he can blame the Iraq disaster on the next President like he's tried to blame a bunch of his administration's screwups on Clinton. Face it, we're screwed and this administration is so incompetent that I do not have any confidence they will handle the Kurd issues well at all. Global politics is 3-D chess and we're represented by people who can't even fold a paper football. Really, the only path I see is to get through the Bush Presidency (thanks again Nader and Florida and Ohio!) and then pull the troops out and let the slaughters commence. If we're lucky and we work like hell over the next few decades, then the best case scenario would be decent, basic relations with whatever people are running Iraq, Iran, etc. in about 30 years, sort of like Vietnam. In the meantime, we all better start driving hybrids.
