Doing nothing is way different from "too little." What was the motivation to assist us in rebuilding Iraq? Greed. Make no sacrifice, bear no expense but still line up for the largesse? I don't think so. I still don't see those same nations offering to do anything but profit on the situation. So the perspective is if we don't annhialate we arent' winning?
Our allies offered to help rebuild Iraq. We should have let them in to make Iraq truly an international burden. Our efforts to build on our own failed. We needed more feet on the ground and missed the chance. Sure it would have meant sharing some of the largess (if things had turned out better), but that's where leadership and vision come in. The Iraqis aren't stupid and would have remembered who had the troops on the ground and who drove out the old regime. Right now, our allies aren't offering anything and I can't blame them. I don't understand your last sentence. We aren't winning in Iraq in any sense that I can see. Things are spiraling out of control. What does annihilation have to do with it? How do you define winning in Iraq?
I understand those are possible consequences... But those consequences won't change if we pull out in 2 - 5 years. They will be the exact same consequences, only we will have lost more troops in the mean time. The consequences also don't seem different from the consequences of staying except that, again, we have more U.S. troops getting killed in the meantime. basso doesn't believe we are losing, but despite being asked hasn't been able to give any criteria by which we are actually winning. basso also ignores the fact that Al-Qaeda WANTS the US to stay.
As so many here are fond of pointing out, we needed more feet on the ground to better secure Iraq after the fall of Saddam. Couldn't/shouldn't those have been Allied feet? ... even while we were winning the initial military thrust not to mention during the re-building? Indeed things are tougher than imagined but why the past tense? We kill more of them than they do of us. They kill more of each other than they kill of us. I think we are winning in Iraq in many ways. We dominate Iraq-- as well as it can be dominated given their in-fighting. If we had the political will, we could devastate that place with our military might.
The fact was our allies (save for Britain) weren't going to put soldiers on the ground because they doubted our basis for invading. After the invasion they were willing to help in a limited way and we said no. That was Bush's fault. We should have taken whatever help they were willing to give at the time and given them a stake in the country. So winning only means killing more of them than they kill us? That's a sorry definition because the insurgents are willing to take indefinite casualties. They will not go away and if you think Iraq can be pacified primarily by military means you are way off target. Even our own president George W. Bush admits we aren't winning in Iraq so you are on a tangent by yourself. (Though you are still entitled to have that opinion). You last sentence: Define devastate and how much military might you mean. Our armed forces are already at the breaking point. Do you mean add 50,000 or more troops for the next couple of years? If so, that is a fantasy because we cannot spare that many for that long. Even if we did, there is no guarantee Iraq would be pacified. One of the downsides of this disastrous invasion is the world now sees the limits of our might. The light is shined on it each and every day. Insurgents don't fight like standing armies. When overwhelming force is used they cut, run, disappear and reappear later when it's convenient. The only way to "win" using your methods is by instituting a police/totalitarian state in Iraq by using American troops indefinitely. You willing to do that? I wonder what the Shias would say. I hope you know if we lose the mainstream Shia leadership then we have no support left in Iraq besides the Kurds, who are an island unto themselves.
Sounds to me like you're the one taking the selfish view. Since the US invaded, we get the "rewards". There's the problem. The goal should have been to do what's best for the Iraqi people, not what was most profitable for the US. They weren't willing to help invade because they could see what was going to happen. You, of course, chose to believe the super-rosy "everything will go smoothly" strategy. As you can see, your preferred route in both cases led straight to hell in Iraq. Umm, you missed the point entirely. The point is that Bush (and you) continue to ignore the reality of the situation and choose to look at things through your rose-tinted glasses and then 3 months later, when you realize what everyone else knew a long time ago, you/he'll come back and say "there was no way to predict this!"
WTF? The point is not to devastate the place. Do you even have any clue why we're there in the first place? Not all wars are won militarily. This is one of them. If you believe you can defeat terrorism through military might, you're completely and totally clueless.
The US military dominates Iraq; that doesn't mean that we control each and every micro-event that occurs-- don't you be naive. We could dominate even more if we chose to; we choose not to. That has its consequences. The enemy is killing more Iraqis than US soldiers. What's wrong with that picture? Why do you reserve your criticism for what you perceive is someone not doing the best for the Iraqi people to the US? Greater military might would have helped from the outset. Where were the rest of our "allies" then who want to position themselves now for the re-building? As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day. To have said four years ago that Iraq would be a disaster was nothing but an eduated guess as was saying that it would go to form. People more studied on the matter than you or I were pledging both sides of that story. BTW, there is no "everyone else" knew anything three months ago. My preference for isolationism pre-dates this conflict by twenty years or more. I'm not into the invasive or colonial language either. I wish we would mop up and get out now that we are there.
Somehow I am reminded of the phrase "stuck on stupid".....Hey, how about that moon landing - anybody else sides me think it was faked?
I'm going to have to borrow the phrase because "stuck on stupid" describes the Bush administration Iraq policy all too well. From the decision to invade until now.
one frenchman. read this little bio - he served under napoleoan and seems to have quite a knack for survival. http://www.thealamofilm.com/articles/moses_rose.html "Was this the act of a coward? Some may think so, but consider the fact that Rose had been a soldier most of his adult life and had done his fair share of fighting up to that point, in Russia as well as in Tejas. More likely his decision to leave was based on his military experience and the belief that a withdrawal in the face of overwhelming odds meant one survived to fight another day. Additionally, in a combat situation a man will instinctively seek the comforting companionship of his comrades, but Rose decided not to. Perhaps he felt that a fight to the death to further delay the Mexican advance into Tejas was a useless sacrifice, having seen the same type of action fail to stop Russian attacks on the French columns during the retreat from Moscow so many years before." i wouldnt fault anyone for leaving - it was suicide and they all knew it. if you are interested in reading about the alamo or texas history i would highly recommend "duel of eagles". it is my all time absolute favorite book. ive probably read it 5 or 6 times. http://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eagles-Jeffery-Long/dp/0688109675
Jomama, That link you provided to the Alamo article in on the STOP list for my Web protection program called StopZilla....I think they have blacklisted that site for evil cookies. FYI. DD
the choice at the alamo, if you know your history, was not between fighting and dying, and withdrawing to fight another day. it was between dying while fighting, or surrenduring and dying. santa ana may have let women and children walk, but able bodied men? no way. unless you were french...
