In Speech Bush Returns to Fear Mongering as Polls Drop

1. It is still debatable what percentage of the insurgents are not Iraqi and
2. glynch seemed to be allluding to the death of civilian non-combatants-- a group to which insurgents do not belong.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

"While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents." Sept 2005

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

according to general abizaid "the most dangerous enemy to us at the present time are the former regime loyalists"

"In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said that Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter."

"London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency."

"Foreign fighters are a small component of the insurgency and comprise a very small percentage of all detainees. Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iranian nationals make up the majority of foreign fighters."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1576666,00.html

"Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)."

 

I'm really not sure what you're basing your numbers or estimates on.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22126.pdf

I think you're taking an extremely large estimate not only of how many people have been killed to date, but how many will continue to be killed. Currently there is one Iraqi battalion capable of operating independently. One friggin' battalion. What makes you think that things will somehow be better once we leave? Who is going to maintain order in the city? Who is going to secure basic utilities such as food and electricity? Who is going to insure a viable system of governance.

I agree, things were comparatively better under the secular government of Hussein. People didn't have much in the way of civil liberties, but they weren't dying in the streets. But if there's no system of governance firmly entrenched when we leave we are looking at a very real possibility of a civil war. One which would involve and effect far more people than the insurgency does now because every ethnicity in Iraq would have a stake in the fighting.

Finally, for all these people who keep nit-picking about Vietnam. It was only meant as an example of how things aren't peachy keen after we leave as wnes asserted they were. However, as I agree with Glynch. The fact that there are different ethnicities involved makes it uniquely different.

 

Actually, the VAST majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out NOW, not later on or want protection.

(Notice this poll was conducted over a year ago, which means that Iraqis would be much more in favor of an American withdrawal AND much less likely to view the American occupation as 'doing good' after nearly a year and a half of no progress):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

 

I never said the situation became rosy in Vietnam the moment U.S. withdrew its troops there. Don't put your words in my mouth. Thanks in advance ... ugh ... it's postmortem now ... whatever, brah!

 

No update since 2/2005? The guy who ran that website probably got himself bombed.

Here's a latest bombing campaign by US forces in Iraq:

 

President Bush's Major Speech: Sounding Old Themes on Iraq

We've lost track of the number of times President Bush has told Americans to ignore their own eyes and ears and pretend everything is going just fine in Iraq. Yesterday, when Mr. Bush added a ringing endorsement of his own policy to his speech on terrorism, it was that same old formula: the wrong questions, the wrong answers and no new direction.

Mr. Bush suggested that people who doubt that nation-building is going well are just confusing healthy disagreement with dangerous division. "We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with one another," he scoffed. What he failed to acknowledge was that the Iraqi power groups seem prepared to go through the motions of democracy only as long as their side wins.

Just this week, the United Nations narrowly averted disaster when it convinced Shiite and Kurdish officials to drop a plan to fix the upcoming constitutional referendum to eliminate Sunni voters' capacity to vote down the constitution. But their promises to follow the rules seem likely to hold up only as long as the game goes as they want.

Americans want to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq, and Mr. Bush offered quite a bit. "Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning," he said. Best of all, there were "more than 80 Iraqi Army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces." Unfortunately, the real questions are how many of the cleared-out towns actually stay clear once American troops have gone, and how many Iraqi units are capable of fighting on their own, without American soldiers at their side. In both cases, the answers are far more dismal than Mr. Bush suggested.

As a candidate, Mr. Bush got a lot of mileage out of offering the same simple, positive thoughts over and over. But now the nation doesn't need more specious theories about why the invasion was a good idea and cheery assurances that the original plan is still working. If Mr. Bush still cannot acknowledge the flaws in his policy, how can he fix them?

Americans need clear guidelines for judging how long it makes sense to stay in Iraq. Are our troops helping create a nation, or simply delaying an inevitable civil war? Does a continued American presence help push the Middle East toward peace and democracy, or simply inflame hatred of the United States and serve as a rallying point for Al Qaeda? The fact that the president isn't willing even to raise the questions does not increase confidence in the ultimate outcome.

Given the state of the American adventure in Iraq and the way it has sapped the strength and flexibility of the United States armed forces, it was unnerving to hear Mr. Bush talk so menacingly about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set them in motion.

It is hard to argue with his assertion that if militants controlled Iraq, they would be well positioned "to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation." It is also hard to resist the temptation to say he should have thought of that before invading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/opinion/07fri2.html

 

nytimes, mc mark, stuck on stupid.

 

I listened to Bush's speech the other day and thought in general it was a good speech that hit upon some important themes but what's so troubling about it though is that while Bush might be right about the need to fight terrorism he's been wrong about how he's doing it. What's bothered me all along is the nature and tools brought to the fight. The Admin. seems so heavily focussed on military solutions that they've not only sacrificed out capabilities in regard to other solutions while causing more problems than solving.

The analogy I've always used is that the war on terror is akin to fighting a cancer. You don't fight cancer with a sledgehammer but with a scalpel but so far we're mostly seeing a sledgehammer.

Unfortunately we're stuck with the mess that's been created by a flawed policy that was based on flawed reasoning and flawed information. While we can and will continue to debate endlessly the rightness or wrongness of the invasion that's an immaterial question now and IMO in regard to Iraq there is only two issues worth debating.

1. How soon should we withdraw from Iraq?

2. What tactics should we use to withdraw from Iraq?

I think its given that we will eventually withdraw from Iraq. I don't believe there are many people who cling to the belief that Iraq will become a friendly vassal state that will allow us to maintain longterm bases there. Its a matter now of figuring out withdraw now or if its withdraw later what do we need to do to get us to a point that we feel we can withdraw without causing more damage to Iraq, the region and us.

 

Basso, stuck on the Bush Kool Aid and third grader insults. You honestly think that Bush accurately gauged the logistical problems of occupation? Can you please point out the tangible benefit to security or people's lives the war has created?

Just so you understand my question in advance. Tangible means real or concrete, something which is measurable.

Before the war in Iraq there was no WMD program in Iraq and no insurgencies or bombings. Now there are. Before the war there was no threat of a civil war due to ethnic tensions. Now there is. Before there was no threat of an Islamic state rising in Iraq with strong disdain for an occupying US. Now there is.

 

tell you what basso

You list the news organizations you find appropriate so I'll know better next time.

 

It is much easier to simply berate the source - thus enabling those who support certain policies to ignore hard to answer questions, uncomfortable facts, and ideologies adverse to their own.

 

First, let me says it's nice to disagree with someeone I actually share the same goal with, so this is all a respectful difference in opinion.

I think that the main reason we should remain is to rebuild that infrastructure that has been destroyed. If you're concerned about the effects of displaced persons, how do you think these problems can be rectificed with an Iraqi government that lacks the legitimacy or the resources to deal with them? I agree that we are aggravating certain situations by being there by causing an insurgency that leads to isolated attacks. But how is an Iraqi government with no truly servicable military or police force going to deal with ethnic conflict, build political consensus, and rebuild the country?

 

Don't make me find you quoting NYT, basso.

 

I saw at least ten threads started by basso quoting NYTIMES articles.

 

Basso like many New Yorkers has a love hate relationship with the Old Grey Lady. He'll bash them and call them a rag and just as quickly trumpet an article or op-ed from them as the empitome of excellent journalism.

 

Yeah, I should've said "find you having quoted."

 

1. Actually most reports confirm that only roughly 6% of the insurgency is composed of foreign fighters, contrary to propoganda spewed by the Bush administration.
2. I don't see how that is relevant if you consider that this is not the Iraqi military we are fighting. Those are civilians defending their country from a foreign occupation. You wouldn't fight tooth and nail if the Chinese overthrew the United States military and attempted to occupy Houston?

 

a 15 second basso thread starting search brought these up...

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=102319

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=101620

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=101441