I completely agree that it is time and has been time to stop complaining about who, what, why this war was started. We created a bigger problem and now we have to deal with it. Unfortunately I don't think you can "WIN" in a situation like Iraq. There are too many factors and ultimately Iraqis will have to determine their path. Does that mean that a civil war is unavoidable? No, but if the U.S. left then that is one of two options left for the Iraqi people. The second is a national reconcilation between sects, but ultimately both lead to one having majority control over the other. I just fear future administrations trying to 'win' through proxy. I could see us withdrawing troops and all but using proxy methods to help install another 'pro-democratic' dictator ala the Shah in Iran. That will only feed the radical islamists and make us far worse off than we were before. The U.S. cannot 'WIN' the war in Iraq but they can 'WIN' the public relations battle amongst moderate muslims/young muslims. At the moment we're losing both, the latter being the one that matters the most.
nice, republicans went into a war knowing we couldn't win, and then they say that if we lose in the war the terrorists get stronger. Therefore, pro-war republicans supported terrorists. Solution: lose election, let the other party who is no better at doing this take care of it. Cut and run indeed.
What an idiot, the war was a mistake. You don't just avoid the fact that we don't have a legitimate reason for being in that country. It would be better to just leave and apologize to the world for Mr. Bush’s actions. Your perception on where/how to fight radical Islam is deluded.
Yeah, the war was a mistake because they went in for all the wrong reasons. While we don't have a legit reason for being in the country it would be moronic to leave in a rush. Admit that you made a mistake and implement a phased withdrawal, but don't abandon the country like the soviets/u.s. did in Afghanistan. Some may argue that admitting defeat will only energize the Islamists. While it may allow Al-Qaeda to point to it as a 'victory' it will mainly resonate with those whom we've already lost, as far as ideologies go. After phased withdrawal the REAL 'War' begins. The U.S. will have to show some commitment to the region, but allow the Iraqis to manage their own country. Unfortunately the U.S. along with Iraqi officials will have to answer the riddle of how to develop the country in such a poor security environment.
Good post. Your last sentence states the main problem at hand. Unfortunately the Iraqi officials you speak of are incompetent. If they were given a stable country to run it's clear they would mess the whole thing up. Resolving the current security situation is even further beyond their capability.
You're right, the only way Iraqi's officials can stabilize the country security wise is to reign in the militias and foreign fighters. Whether the U.S. likes it or not that means allowing more influence from Middle East powers from both sides. That will either curb the violence and allow some form of government to move forward, or completely destroy the country and make it a regional conflict. That's a fine line I wouldn't want to have to walk.
wow..maybe it's the season, but i wonder what would happen if we actually showed we give a crap about real people instead of interests and posturing. yeah, i know....flame away.
Very interesting. You and I think alike. Let's turn the clock back. Remember in the Fall of 2003 when our allies offered to assist us in rebuilding Iraq. Bush's reply was: Send troops, but we don't want you to have any influence. We basically slapped them in the face and said "Too little, too late." Fast forward to about 12 months later. Our allies didn't want to touch Iraq with a sterilized 10 foot pole. In late 2004, the Bush-ites would have gladly taken the offers that existed in 2003. The president and his cronies always seem to be about 12 months behind reality, which is deadly. Two months ago Bush said we were winning in Iraq despite knowing otherwise and despite understanding that everyone else knew otherwise. This month he finally admits we aren't winning but has to continue destroying his credibility by saying we aren't losing. In fact, it was obvious last year we weren't winning (and in fact were losing) but Bush doesn't admit a partial truth until now. Currently, Bush wants the help of regional powers in stabilizing Iraq, but he doesn't give them any incentive to do so. Doesn't this sound eerily similar to his stance on our allies in late 2003? Hellooooooo??? Fact: Only with the help of Iran, Syria and Sunni countries will Iraq be stabilitzed. Fact: It's fantasy to think they will help us unless we give them something in return. Time is on their side and they know it. Fact: The Iraq catastrophe has destroyed our leverage against Iran & Syria regarding other issues (like nuclear weapons and Lebanon). Fact: Because of the mess Bush has made in Iraq, we have no chance of achieving a solution in Iraq without negotiating with these two countries and compromising with them in other strategic areas. Opinion: 12 months from now, Iran & Syria will have near zero interest in negotiating with us about Iraq because we will be further chopped down to size. "Civil war" will be the common term. At that point, we will wish for the same amount of leverage then that we still have now. Those of you who rule out the idea of negotiating with terrorist states like Iran and Syria have your head stuck in the sand. Come on up and take a look at reality. It's a lot different than your utopia. It's a crying shame we have to compromise with these regimes but you can thank Bush for bringing us to this point.
Typical. Ignore every point, don't enter into a discussion of facts and just answer with a slogan or picture. Kinda of like the Bush administration. That said, I think your reply is funny. It's too bad that kind of bluffing has no chance to work with Syria and Iran because of our Iraq vulnerability. And speaking of Reagan, isn't he the president who high-tailed it out of Lebanon ~20 years ago over 250 suddenly dead Marines? Fact: The longer we stay in Iraq without a complete change of diplomatic and military strategy the more likely Bush will high-tail out of Iraq in a hurry the same way Reagan did Lebanon. Whether it's just the continual bleed off of casualties and deaths there or an additional major terrorist attack that takes out 20, 50, 100 or 200+ of our finest at one time. Please take off the blinders. We are charging TOWARDS the cliff, not away from it. Fact: Jumping off a cliff always leads to a "splat" at the bottom. No exceptions, including Iraq. The longer we stay, the LESS LIKELY we leave with any dignity. God Bless our men & women (and their families) who are being thrown into the abyss by a president who will go down in infamy. We had a guy in our church who came back from Iraq for about 3 weeks, which allowed him to see his new baby dedicated. He was a changed man (not for the better). He's a tough guy and we gave him a roaring ovation. It really broke him and his wife down. What broke me down was knowing he was going back 5 days later.
Wait a minute here....... Wasn't it the CIA who said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Maybe the CIA should shut the hell up. DD
