The same as they were the day we went in, oil. It's interesting to here this "we already won the war now we are fighting the war on terror" thing. I saw someone else post this on another BB. Did FOXNEWS or Rush say this recently? Sounds like a way to lay the ground work for a couple of different possible angles. 1. To make a brand new sales pitch to the American public that this is not about Iraq anymore but about that it's just like Afghanistan. 2. So if we do pull out the President can say, "We Won the War! Now it's just the Iraqi's problem", and try to save face. Sort of a "peace with honor" concept
This is an interesting point whether Iraq could've been a success. Lets say that the Admin. had listened to Gen. Shinseki and assembled a very large force with an emphasis on immediately establishing security, had undertaken the type of diplomacy that the Bush 41 had done and brought in a wider coalition including Muslim countries, had come up with a transparent and equitable way to distribute reconstruction contracts, and immediately following the fall of Saddam had maintained the Iraqi army for security along with securing Iraqi infrastruture would things have gone differently now? All of those would've been good but I don't think things would've been vastly different than they are now. Iraq would still consists of mistrustful ethnic groups, Al Qaeda would still want to kill Americans, their would still be hardcore Baathists, Iran would be uneasy about Americans on their doorstep and there still would be radical nationalists. Iraq might not be as bad but given the nature of the country I don't think it would be peaceful.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/blair-no-plans-attack-iran-$466641.htm He's like Bush's mini-me. Same complete lack of responsibility, same bubble-boy type inability to comprehend something greater than "us vs them".
I've been saying this for some time. Iraq was at it's best point in late 04/early 05. If we'd have declared victory then and began drawing to a support role, rebuilding and protecting what was rebuilt, we'd be in a lot better shape right now.
I am not sure about that. At the heart most people want to have a good life, they want security, a good job and provide for their children. The goal had to be not what will the US gain from Iraq but to think what will be best for the Iraqis people, that is the most effective way to combat insurgency. The US government does not have a good track on this kind of actions historically.
If every decsiion Bremer made hadn't been wrong If we left the Iraqi civil organization and army in place and just embedded US advisors to guide a shift to a more pluralistic society. (rapidly to appease Shia) If we had offered every young Iraqi a job and paid for it with the money that went to US corporations. (where is that C147 load of palleted $100 bills?) If we had provided every Iraqi with a crank powered television and established and information (propaganda) network to reinforce a a sense of national victory and unity. I swear a trained monkey could have run this occupation better.
I have an untestable theory that had the US handled Fallujah correctly, we'd be well on our way. At that point, "Shock and Awe" was working as advertised. But by sieging Fallujah and letting Al-Sadr out with the citizens, it let the largest antagonist out and showed the kind of weakness that "emboldened the terrorists". Even so, had there been enough troops on the ground we might could have quelled the escalation that happened after that.
Sorry for the mass reply but all of you make good points that I can't disagree with individually and have the same response too. Pirc and Dubious are right in regard that the ability to deliver stability and a good quality of life were very important and I think weslinder is right that had we showed definative convincing success against the insurgency it might've discouraged other insurgents even with those there still are the strong feelings of nationalism and tribalism that the Iraqis feel that I felt would've still led many of them to want to fight. At the same time the wider implications of Iraq make it irrisistable for outside forces to want to intervene. I don't see Iran leaving things alone in Iraq when they know they are the second member of the Axis of Evil and the US is at their front and back door. I also agree with GW Bush that Iraq has become central (in terms of that it is the most prominent not that it is the lynch pin to success) to the War on terror by our own actions. Even if everything that y'all say had come to pass I think Al Qaeda would still want to kill Americans in Iraq. If everything else had gone right Iraq might be better but not vastly better. My own opinion still is that Iraq was going to be a problem from the beginning.
Oops! Why the British are scaling back in Iraq The military can't fight there and in Afghanistan without approaching 'operational failure,' one critic says. Something had to give. LONDON — Britain's decision to pull 1,600 troops out of Iraq by spring, touted by U.S. and British leaders as a turning point in Iraqi sovereignty, was widely seen Wednesday as a telling admission that the British military could no longer sustain simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The British military is approaching "operational failure," former defense staff chief Charles Guthrie warned this week. "Because the British army is in essence fighting a far more intensive counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, there's been a realization that there has to be some sort of transfer of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan," said Clive Jones, a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Leeds, who has closely followed Britain's Iraq deployment. "It's either that, or you risk in some ways losing both," he said. "It's the classic case of 'Let's declare victory and get out.' " http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php...?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
more from the LATimes article -- The Bush administration hastened to present the British decision as an indication that the U.S.-led military operation was succeeding. Vice President Dick Cheney called the reduction "an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the U.S.-led coalition "remains intact" even though the roster of nations contributing troops, excluding the U.S., has fallen to 25 from 35. But the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities. Once a promising beacon, Basra suffers from sectarian violence as well as Shiite militia clashes over oil smuggling. Ferocious street battles have broken out between rival Shiite Muslim groups in provincial capitals such as Samawah, Kut and Diwaniya in the last year.
