I think people only talk of being involved in a quagmire now because we are so f***ing impatient and we want everything done NOW NOW NOW! I might agree with the talk of us being bogged down if casualities were high, but they simply aren't. Things don't just change overnight. This same quagmire bull**** talk is from the same people who thought we were getting bogged down during the war when victory wasn't happening instantaneously. We never fooled ourselves into believing that this was going to take 3 months and then the Iraqi nation would be transformed into an Arabian utopia without any resistance from the Iraqis and without any Americans being hurt. It's the media who turns this into a thing about us being bogged down because we aren't getting immediate results and it's really freaking annoying. Give the people some time. If we haven't got anything done within the course of a year after major fighting has ended then start b****ing.
First of all it's partially the effects of Clinton's military that won us the victory in Iraq. Bush didn't rebuild the military between 2001 and the Iraqi invasion. It's the exact same military that's fighting now. Why do you make me have to defend Clinton. It's not something I want to do, but I can't let misinformation like this stand. There were attacks on Osama which as they missed him by only minutes. Recently it came out that in addition to that Clinton had handed over plans for taking out Osama in Afghanistan, and the only reason he didn't do it in his last days was not to saddle the brand new administration with a war. Clinton, however, did leave the plans for Bush, with strong suggestions to use them. It didn't happen. While in retrospect it's obvious that Clinton didn't do enough, he did do something. And until sept. 11th. He did more than our current president did.
I dont think so. Put the 8500 liters of missing liquid antrax (still unaccounted for) in terrorists hands and you have havoc. I wouldnt want to trust Saddam not to give it to them.
MacBeth: Oh, come on, MacBeth. Who exactly do you think is doing it? The freaking Irish mob? What do we know about what is happening? Let's just take a look at what we know: 1) These attacks are being committed with RPGs and land mines as well as rifles - that is hardcore military equipment that your average Iraqi is not likely to have access to. 2) About a week and a half ago we raided what was believed to be a command nexus for the attacks; what was netted in that raid included sophisticated communications and cryptographic equipment, in addition to classified documents from the former regime's intelligence services relating to ongoing operations against US forces. 3) These attacks have the appearance of closely and carefully coordinated military strikes, not just random terrorist or guerilla strikes of the sort that anyone outside of the military would be likely to plan. 4) They have recently begun to target Iraqis who could be seen as anti-regime collaborators, and probably not by accident. 5) As the Saddam message indicates, there is a regime force behind them... It is not impossible that these attacks are originating from sources that are not formally connected with the former regime. It is possible that they are being directed by the Iranians (unlikely, as it does not appear to be Shiites who are doing it), Syrians (unlikely, as getting caught would bring down more wrath than would make it worth it), Hizbollah (likely helping), or Al Qaeda (also likely helping). It is extremely unlikely that they are originating with some popular movement that sprang up after the regime fell. We know who is doing this. It doesn't take a brain surgeon - or even a general - to figure it out. As for "general support" from the populace - there is no doubt that the Tikriti region harbors support for the former regime. They are, after all, the ones that we expelled from power, and can not be expected to be happy with what we are doing: redistributing power away from the Sunni center. So, undoubtedly, yes - the former regime does draw some popular support from those areas. Again, unavoidable to an extent, and to be expected. What we are not seeing is support for such attacks coming from Shiite or Kurd corners - it would be worrisome if we did, but they are still of the mind that, even being impatient for us to enact changes there more swiftly, that they are still far better off without Saddam. I think that if we get to the point that Shiites are supporting Saddam en mass, then we have really f*ed up somehow... But we are certainly a long, long way from reaching that point. FB: I personally have mixed feelings on how Clinton "destroyed the military". In many ways the military drastically improved itself under his reign - it certainly got smarter and much more precise, and much more effective pound for pound. On the other hand, cutting the active army by a quarter million bodies was probably not a good idea in hindsight, as the requirement for bodies has gone up, not down. It is not, after all, any coincidence that we've had to mobilize a quarter million guard and reserves... Just something to think about.
I don't know if it's a quagmire or not, but as long as this administration keeps making decisions based on politics instead of ability, it won't be long... _____________________ washingtonpost.com Appoint the Best to Iraq, Not the Best-Connected By Michael Massing Sunday, July 6, 2003; Page B04 In March, as war against Iraq loomed, Frederick "Skip" M. Burkle Jr., a senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), traveled to Kuwait with a disaster relief team to prepare for the aftereffects of the fighting. It was a natural assignment for Burkle. A physician with a master's degree in public health, he ran a trauma center near the Kuwaiti border during the first Gulf War and then went to northern Iraq to help with the Kurdish crisis. He traveled to Somalia and Kosovo to deal with the humanitarian emergencies there. A Naval reserve officer who earned several combat medals in Vietnam, Burkle set up a center at the University of Hawaii in the mid-1990s to promote cooperation between the military and relief organizations. In 2002, he joined AID as deputy assistant administrator for global health. On April 10, as fighting continued in Baghdad, the 63-year-old Burkle arrived in the city to visit local hospitals and assess their needs. His convoy came under fire, however, and he was forced to leave. Two weeks later, he returned at the request of retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, then head of the U.S. Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. The two men visited Yarmouk Hospital, where they heard pleas for security, electricity, supplies. Told that he was to serve as the senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi ministry of health, Burkle returned to Kuwait to collect his belongings. There, however, he was abruptly informed that he had been relieved of his duties and replaced by James K. Haveman Jr. Unlike Burkle, Haveman, 60, was largely unknown among international public health professionals. A social worker by training, he has no medical degree or any formal instruction in public health, and he hasn't been in the military. From 1991 to 2002, he served in the cabinet of John Engler, the Republican governor of Michigan, directing state health programs. Most of Haveman's recent overseas experience had come through International Aid, a Christian relief organization that provides health care and spreads the Gospel in the Third World. To manage postwar Iraq, the Bush administration has assigned senior advisers to the major Iraqi ministries. These choices have received little scrutiny. In some cases, political connections seem to have played as large a part as professional credentials in determining who has been chosen. The Haveman appointment baffled many public health workers. "There was widespread endorsement of the job Burkle was doing," said Ron Waldman, a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health who has two decades of experience in international relief. "He's a solid public health professional with a very deep background in emergency and post-emergency public health. . . . To have someone come in who's not credentialed raises eyebrows." Bradley Woodruff, an epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control who worked with Burkle in Kuwait, said, "I think it was a shame he was recalled. He has tons of experience in international public health, and he's certified in three medical specialties." According to Garner, Burkle "was strictly an A-team guy." Burkle was asked to serve as Haveman's deputy, but he declined. He worked in Iraq with the disaster-relief team until the end of May, then returned to academia. He was reluctant to speak about his recall, but he said he had been assured that his performance was not the issue. He acknowledged that he was told he had been replaced because the White House wanted all senior positions in Iraq to be filled with loyal Republicans who could be trusted to carry out administration policy. Burkle, though a political appointee when he was at AID, has no formal ties to the Republican Party. Haveman does. A native of Grand Rapids, Mich. -- a stronghold of conservative Republicanism -- he served on Gov. Jeb Bush's transition team in Florida in 2002. It was Engler, with his strong ties to the Bush White House, who proposed Haveman for Iraq. "I was recommending that federal officials look for people with state government backgrounds -- people who've actually run programs," said Engler, who now works for Electronic Data Systems in Northern Virginia. Haveman did a very good job running the state's health department, Engler said -- and that, the former governor added, was good preparation for rebuilding Iraq's health system. Haveman agrees. "I was the chief spokesman for public health in Michigan, and I know these issues extremely well," he said by phone from his office in Baghdad's Republican Palace. He listed the jobs he's held over the past 30 years -- managing mental health programs in Grand Rapids, running Bethany Christian Services (the largest adoption agency in the United States) and serving for 12 years as a top state health officer. For the last seven of those years, Haveman ran Michigan's Department of Community Health, a $9 billion agency serving 2 million people, many of them elderly, deprived and disabled. In Iraq, Haveman said, "every issue I've ever dealt with has come together in one place, from dealing with equipment issues, to holding vaccination days, to preparing a budget." Yet Haveman's performance in Michigan was highly controversial. I first heard of him at a public health event in Chicago in May. Ron Davis, a preventive medicine physician who served in the Michigan Department of Public Health during Engler's first term, told me of the dismay Haveman's appointment was causing among public health professionals. In interviewing a number of them, I was struck by the severity of their assessments. They complained that Haveman had cut back or closed programs aimed at the needy. They claimed he had ignored scientific data to follow his own convictions about which policies worked best. And they criticized what they called his confrontational and secretive manner. John Petrasky, the medical director of a local health department in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, said he was so upset about Haveman's appointment that he called the Pentagon to protest. "I wanted things to go well in Iraq and felt that Jim Haveman was probably not the right person for the job," he said. And it's not just Democrats who grumbled. Shirley Johnson, a Republican who chairs the state senate's appropriations committee, said, "I do not believe that [Haveman] did a very good job with regard to health care issues in Michigan. I especially do not appreciate his lack of compassion and attention for the mentally ill. I have no idea why he was selected for the position in Iraq, but I think it was a very poor choice." Haveman's defenders say he was a "change agent" who shook up a public health system that had become bloated. He shut down mental health facilities that were overmanned, they said, and consolidated state agencies, reducing overhead. "He's a very capable administrator," said Dan DeGrow, former senate majority leader in Michigan. "He spent 12 years running Michigan's health system, so he understands public health." Yet DeGrow, a Republican, said, "I would like to know how he got the job in Iraq. Yes, he's qualified, but he was one of 50 state health officials." Until recently, Haveman served on the board of International Aid and, in that capacity, traveled frequently to the developing world. He visited Kenya and South Africa to distribute AIDS testing kits, and Honduras to assist victims of Hurricane Mitch. International Aid's strategy is to work through local churches. Evangelical in orientation, the group has close ties to the Christian Reformed Church, a Calvinist denomination with a strong fundamentalist flavor; Haveman is a longtime member. According to its Web site, the Grand Rapids-based church regards Scripture as the "infallible Word of God" and opposes abortion, homosexuality, divorce and birth control. In our conversation, Haveman said his religious beliefs were irrelevant to his current job. "My staff is made up of Muslims, non-Christians and a variety of people from different faiths," he said, adding that in Michigan he had frequently worked with the Arab communities in Dearborn and Detroit. He also noted that he had visited 26 countries and felt very comfortable working in battered lands. William Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of defense for health, said that when it became apparent that the job in Iraq involved "building a new health care system" rather than providing humanitarian relief, the Pentagon chose Haveman because of his background in managing a large organization responsible for providing health care to a large number of people. "I can assure you that political considerations played no role whatsoever," Winkenwerder said. However capable an administrator, Haveman has modest experience in the Arab world and limited knowledge of Islamic customs. This is a deficit he shares with many U.S. officials now running Iraq. In contrast to Afghanistan, where reconstruction has been carried out under the aegis of the United Nations, in Iraq it has been led almost exclusively by Americans -- and not Americans like Skip Burkle, with long records of working with the international community in alien environments. Thus, to reconstruct Iraqi agriculture, the Bush administration has named Dan Amstutz, a one-time executive at Cargill, the grain giant. To manage Iraq's media, it chose Robert Reilly, who served for less than a year as director of the Voice of America, leaving in August 2002. And to train the Iraqi police, it has named Bernard Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner. Like Haveman, these men have a knack for getting things done. But their lack of exposure to the Middle East is already causing the United States problems in Iraq -- in its intrusive searches of Iraqi houses, its awkward encounters with Iraqi women, its uneasy relations with Shiite clerics. These officials reflect the Bush administration's determination to remake Iraq in America's image. And this is intensifying the resentment and frustration many Iraqis seem to feel toward the U.S. occupation. Michael Massing, a New York-based journalist, frequently writes on foreign policy issues.
All of this stuff that came out about how Clinton supposedly "just missed" hitting Osama with cruise missiles is a classic CYOA. The legacy of Clinton's military is that our military would: 1. Engage constantly in this so-called mission of "peacekeeping" in all these third-world hellholes that meant nothing to our vital national interests. 2. Spend more money on recycling than bullets! If you think I'm kidding, as a former Marine, I'm not. 3. Be forced to endure such ridiculous social engineering as gays in the military and women allowed to fill combat billets. Women are not suited for some types of duty because of their smaller muscle mass and lack of endurance. Clinton did nothing about terrorism! He sent the FBI to investigate the U.S.S. Cole when he should've sent the USMC to find who did it and kill them. Clinton also, as I said earlier, hamstrung our intelligence services with budget cuts and ridiculous rules that largely corralled our HUMINT efforts. The Time story that detailed Clinton's supposed plan on getting Bin Laden and almost missing killing him either was a crock. The sources used in the story were all former Clintonistas who were trying to cover their boss's butt. Also, when Clinton was elected, a large proportion of his advisors were forced to use "temporary" security clearances because they failed security background checks. Usually policy is that your temporary check must be exactly that, temporary, until you get a comprehensive background check. A large number of staffers privy to top secret documents could not pass a background check and lasted throughout the life of the admininistration with temporary clearances! Last but not least, here is one undisputable factoid about Clinton that showed how asleep at the wheel he was in matters of national security. According to White House records, Clinton hardly ever consulted with the head of the CIA, ever! And need I add how he lost the "football" or the case containing the nuclear launch codes! Lost it! I don't like Bush at all, but still, he meets with the head of the CIA and Conde Rice every morning to brief him on national security matters.
1. Peace keeping missions in and of themselves aren't bad. If we can help innocent people and to keep the peace, then I think that's great. 2. I also don't mind spending more money on recycling than bullets. Especially if the bullets are used in places like Iraq where our safety isn't threatened. And if recycling helps cut down on pollution which is a definite threat, then it's money well spent. 3. Gays in the military are just fine. It's bigots that bash them in the military that are the problem. Gays have already been in the military, and were on the front lines in places like Normandy beach in WWII. That was hell on earth fighting, and if Gays can contribute there, why wouldn't they be able to contribute other places. Women have also been filling combat roles, and doing it admirably. Every women in a Mash unit that is under fire is serving combat duty, and they do it admirably. My father served in WWII, and other memebers of my family have been Viet Nam, and Korea, as well as many friends that I have. I honor your service to the country, and I agree that Clinton could have done more. But to say he did nothing is not accurate.
The problem here is that Saddam hasn't had a history of selling chem weapons to terrorists. Instead he's horded it himself to help ensure his own power. While he has supported Palestinian terrorist groups in other ways, there has been no indication that he would likely sell those to terrorists, certainly not the kind of proof that would justify the action as part of the war on terrorism.
I know that peacekeeping sounds great on paper, but is that a suitable role for our military? Peace can only be achieved in these countries when there is a military victory by one side or the other. As I said in an early post, imagine what would've happened if, say the Brits, had intervened in our civil war and forced us to stop fighting? In Bosnia and Kosovo, as soon as we leave, the two intractable enemies will start fighting again. Amazing what years of being raised in hatred will do to a man's heart. As a veteran of several of these missions, let me say that this kind of duty is harrowing and a morale-sapper. The role of the military is A. prevent wars through deterrence B. fight wars when they occurr. In peacekeeping, there is no enemy to fight. You never know who's your friend, who's a sniper trying to wax your ass. You have to wait to be fired upon before you can return fire. You can't do what I joined the Marine Corps to do at age 17, kick ass and take names. And on the bullets issue, anything that cuts into those two aforementioned military missions is a bad idea in my book. I knew a few gay Marines and they were good people, but in my book, they didn't belong in the Few and the Proud. And lastly, on the women in uniform issue, what happens when women get pregnant? They leave a hole in the unit that must be filled. I say if women want to serve in combat units, they should get on mandatory birth control and not be allowed to have children until they go to a support unit. I know we lost several women in my unit just because of that and we went to the Adriatic without replacements. Just my .10 cents.
As I said earlier in this thread, I don't know if we're in a quagmire, but for those who are certain we are not, at what point would you consider the idea? Would it have to do with number of deaths or Iraqi disenchantment or a narrowing of support here? What's your trigger point and how do you prevent it from occuring? (I think it was stupid to get into this war, but now that we're at this particular point, I'm uncertain about what course of action to take next. I do agree with those that say we're now in for better or worse and it would be unconscionable to withdraw at this time and leave the country to the clerics and radicals, but I'm also not in favor of digging deeper holes. ) My other question is when will those who blindly support this go from saying "Hey, we only have X number of deaths, which is nothing compared to what's at stake" to "Hey, we have X number of deaths which is too many to just pull out... we've now got too much at stake and need to stay to justify those sacrifices?"
rimrocker: Finally, a legitemate question. I do so like seeing those... they are in scarce supply nowadays. At what point do we consider it a quagmire? It is tempting to say something like "Well, since I was expecting about 1,000 casualties during the shooting war, when we reach that point..." but I don't think that idea confronts the issue of what a quagmire really is. A quagmire is a situation where all good alternatives have been exhausted, and only bad choices present themselves. I know, not the textbook definition, but when used in this context that's what it really means. Have all good options been exhausted yet? Someone who was opposed to the war from the start would likely think so, so in their minds this endeavor was destined to be a quagmire from day one. Someone with a more open and analytical mind would probably not think so. It it possible or likely that Saddam and sons will be killed/caught, and the resistance to US occupation will die out? Yes. Is it possible or likely that Iraq will have an indigenous democracy within a few years? Yes. Is it inevitable that radical clerics will take over the country? By no means, it is not even likely. Do most Iraqis currently want us gone, or will they inevitably want that soon? No. It is still early - certainly far to early for the issues of destroying the resistance and reconstructing the country to be played out. Those items will take time - there is no quick fix. Are we making progress on either front? Yes, both fronts, and progress in those areas would seem to contradict the requirements for a quagmire label, as that would require no progress or worsening of the situation. In a year or two we can ask the question "Are we in a quagmire", and it should be more clear what the answer is then. It is far too early right now, but it doesn't look that way if you step back and look at the situation with an open mind.
This isn't meant to be an indictment or a loaded question, but I was just curious as to what people felt was an acceptable casualty rate before considering either reducing personnel or pulling out entirely? I think if the current pace keeps up any longer than the next few months, political pressure may cause a serious re-evaluation.
No one blindly supports the loss of those who serve this country in the armed forces, they have dammed good reasons for not doing so. Where was all this concern for American deaths during the USS Cole tradegy and hundreds of others..All this concern seems political and it seems like pure BS when applied to American casualties in Iraq.
Is it inevitable that radical clerics will take over the country? By no means, it is not even likely. Do most Iraqis currently want us gone, or will they inevitably want that soon? No. That settles that.
We're in Iraq because of determined decisions by this administration. In your example of the USS Cole, there's nothing we did that would lead to that bombing. If the commander had said something like, "Hey, this is a dangerous place and my ship is in danger and I fear for the lives of my crew," and the Clinton Admin ordered him to be in that position, that would be a different story. In this case, our officials have described deaths as "militarily insignificant," ignored and dismissed and changed intelligence, ignored opinions from military experts about the size of force necessary, replaced experienced people who know how to deal with public health, infrastructure, agriculture, etc. with Republican party hacks, and generally lied our way into this whole mess by manufacturing a non-existent crisis so that the pre-9/11 desires of neo-cons could come to fruition. It's different. And yes, there was concern after the Cole and after WTC I and others and for you to suggest there wasn't makes you guilty of the "seems political" charge you make in your post. (And you completely misread my question... "this" does not refer to deaths but to our involvement in Iraq.)
