Interesting article in the NYTimes today essentially calling Iraq a failure on all fronts, the most critical being relegated to the last two paragraphs. And by the way, why are we just now seeing a decrease in US deaths attributable to improved armor? How long have we been there? OH, not long enough to do a second NIE, probably because the Administration didn't want one done because it would show even in 2004 that things were going to hell. Greatest strategic mistake in American History executed by the worst administration in our history. It's not even close folks... in 6 years we've flushed 100 or more years of hard work down the toilet.
They are averaging more than a hundred deaths a day...no, that's not a typo...I said A DAY! Yup, it's a disaster, it's official, everyone knows it now, it's just a matter of figuring out how to get out of it with as minimal a damage done to our reputation/interests -- and those of our allies in the region, who will have to now suffer the folly of the Neocons -- as is possible. RIP Iraq...
Indeed, we messed up. I did not support this war, nor did I support the politicians who supported this war. And yet, I have to pay for this conflict.
But there are still plenty of people who believe there are WMDs in Iraq and the Iraq war made America safer today.
. . and a bunch of folx beleive we never been to the moon they both may all be right but . . Rocket River
If we leave [Iraq] before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home. --W, 8-17-06
Does what this man says have any credibility with anyone? Out side of its network cheerleader at Fox News that is.
I, as a activist liberal supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Not on weapons of mass destruction, not on any terrorist connections but because I believed he was a murderous dictator and his family was shaping up to be a sadistic dynasty that would never afford the people of Iraq their freedom. I wished there was an alliance of the Free World to take him out but whatever mandate their was in 1991 fell apart. I opposed all dictators and would think it is the duty of all free peoples to take them all out, when it was justifyable, doable, and supported by the people, with a volunteer army in a way that did not jeopardize the security of the United States too gravely. I thought Saddam was the right target but perhaps just a bit early since we needed to secure Afgahnastan first. But I never, ever imagined the emnity between the various factions of Iraqs muslims. I never ever imagined their capacity for violence on their own people. I thought the Shia supported by Iran would use political means to control the nation not mass violence since killing other Muslims is supposed to be a religious taboo. I thought the remaining Sunni leadership would ally with the US to secure some political influence. Frankly I though the whole of Iraq would look a lot more like the Kurdish sector. I'm not George Bush, but I am just as shocked as he is at the condition of Iraq six years into this thing. 150,000 soldiers, only two times what you could fit in Reliant Stadium cannot provide security in a country bigger than California. Without the collective will of the 26,000,000 in the country you couldn't provide security with a million US troops. They could have had jobs, reconstruction, modernization, what the **** is wrong with those people? Everyone blames the US. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. In past wars, countries fought ruthlessly and killed indescriminately and once the opposition was totally eliminated the victors were the good guys. That was how you defined victory in a good war. The paradigm has changed. War is on TV, collateral damage is unacceptable now (as it always should have been) so I don't think you can determine success or failure by outdated standards. Iraq is a failure, leaving Saddam in power to torture and murder his people would be a failure. The United Nations was impotent, What would have been the course for success in Iraq?
