Yes all us liberals want things to go badly. The worse it goes the happier we will be. One thing that I agree with is that it is sad to see politics trumping the greater good of our country. Right now, despite whichever view you take of the surge, being in Iraq is not for the greater good of our country.
Oh yeah, we're all out on the streets of Hollywood waving our Cosmos into the air over the news of this cluster****.
The article from the members of the 82nd seem to back up the assertions that we saw earlier in this thread from the reporter who had been over there for so long. The progress is a result of making deals with groups that undermine the govt. that is in place in Iraq. Thus we aren't really stabilizing the nation in what everyone agrees is the most important sphere(political). But of course according to New Yorker the memebers of the 82nd who have just served in Iraq and have been involved there, are really just hoping to see failure, and are scared that we might actually achieve victory in Iraq.
I'm waiting for you guys to put them under the same scrutiny that you did with the ones who posted positive news about Iraq. Funny how you haven't questioned their motives or political affiliations the way you did the positive reports. The letter is clearly not written by them by the way, unless one of them works in journalism as well as being a GI.
And yet both Obama and Clinton warn against a withdrawal that leaves the country in Chaos. How is leaving Iraq to the extremist elements, which now includes Al Qaeda - better for our country? Didn't Afganistan teach us anything. When you leave extremists in control and allow an organization like Al Qaeda to take hold, they can extract a terrible price on us. So yes, staying in Iraq does serve a purpose...if we leave, then we are creating a new home for terrorism.
Except most people understand that our presence there acts like an irritant, inflaming anti-American hatred and creating terrorists, so by being there we are creating more terrorists than if we weren’t there.
First, they don't have a 5 year thoroughly documented history that they and there supporters pretend to not have. Second, I think it is clear that their motives are driven by what is best for the Army. Third, just because you're against something in the orthodoxy of one party doesn't necessarily make you a member of the opposite camp. I don't know what their political affiliations are, but it wouldn't surprise me greatly if a number were registered Repubs. Finally, your last letter shows an incredible amount of contempt for the troops. Do you think they are all stupid or didn't go beyond 8th grade? Perhaps in your view, everyone who joins is just too third-rate or too minority or too white trash to be able to string a sentence together with multi-syllabic words? Really now. I think the education level of some of the troops might surprise you a bit... and these days it doesn't take much to write to the level of journalists... you do realize most newspapers are written at the 4-6th grade level, right?
So do you support withdrawing from Afganistan as well? Or are you saying Iraq is different? And based on what evidence?
Al Qaeda is in Iraq because of us. If we get out they don't have much support there. We are the reason that allows Al-Qaeda to make whatever modest gains they do there. Furthermore across the world our presence helps Al-Qaeda's overall cause. Extremists aren't in control. Obama's plan does call on the U.S. to withdraw but provides other security in the absence. That is exactly what we should be doing. Withdraw does not leave the country in significantly worse chaos than it is in now, and furthermore following any of the plans on the table for withdraw it still provides for Iraqi security.
Reading that letter, it's clear it's politically motivated and written by professionals. I recognize it because I work in the industry. It's clear that they are not addressing some individual, but speaking to a public audience. Thus, their letter was designed to be spread throughout the media under a guise of being written by 7 all-American GI's but in reality it's very contrived and has a polical agenda. So I'm skeptical of it's intent, and I am sure there are plenty of guys on the right debunking them just as you guys did to your own liberal think-thank guys who wrote some positive news and now have been turned into Bushies.
While I agree that Al Qaeda is in Iraq because of the invasion, that doesn't change the fact that they are in Iraq today and still a threat to America. We have to deal with the current situation, not the past. You can't say what will happen if we do even a partial withdrawal. No one really knows that. But we do know this - adding 30K troops seemed to make a positive difference. It can be then said that withdrawing will have a negative impact. You also have Obama saying that it doesn't matter if we leave and the Shiites commit genocide against the Sunnis - it's not our problem. That's terrible - it is our problem. We messed that country up - we have to take responsibility for getting it back on it's feet. The time to oppose this war was before we invaded and overthrew the gov't. We're stuck - that's the definition of a quagmire. Leaving now would certainly buld the case that terrorists have a model for making us leave any nation - and can rid the Arab world of all U.S. companies and embassies. Al Qaeda wouldn't leave Iraq, they'd make it into a safe haven. The country would descend into anarchy - a perfect place for Al Qaeda to set up base and operate without fear of western reprisal - just like pre 9/11 afganistan. I'm sorry, but withdrawing now would be foolish at best. We're seeing positive progress, and we know the risks of leaving. No one has shown that staying is creating more terrorists compared to what happens if we leave. That's all speculative. So long as there is a chance for success in Iraq, we should stay. It's clear we are going to stay throughout 2008, and perhaps beyond, even with a democrat in office.
You are accusing them of being fronts, patsies or plagiarists. It is obvious that they are addressing it to a general audience. It is well written but that doesn't mean they couldn't have written it, or that it doesn't accurately reflect their opinion. Furthermore it is also supported by other testimony which already appeared in this thread. However, it doesn't seem to have a political agenda except spreading information or combating what they see as misinformation. If you find any evidence to show that these guys are phony or all this debunking that you believe is going on, feel free to post it.
We aren't seeing positive progress. We are seeing military successes at the expense of political stability which is the only way to real success.
Well the statistics seem to indicate that it is different. I assume this has to do with the fact that most Arabs and Muslims seem to believe that the war in Iraq is unjustified. I'm sure it is also affected by the fact that Afghanistan is not a central location of the Islamic world and I'm sure that there are some other additional complexities that I don't understand. But survey after survey indicates that people of the ME are fighting mad about what the USA is doing in Iraq, but that Afghanistan is either not an issue or viewed as justified.
So you are saying that we should leave Iraq to civil war and bloodshed and that no one will be angry at us for that right? And that the fact that Al Qaeda will be able to fester there and grow will not be a threat to us and be the base for the next 9/11? I just don't know how you can be so sure of what will happen if we withdrawal. It's not like there are legions of terrorists blowing up building in the U.S. - we haven't had an attack in the time we were in Iraq, so yes, it's not good to make Muslims mad, but I think the damage is done at this point.
Iraq is currently in the grips of civil war and bloodshed. Leaving it now or in 6 months or 1 year won't change that. Except that it might make it better. Most of those fighting us won't fight us if we aren't there. That violence will disappear. Furthermore you act as if we leave and no security comes in in our place. That is not the proposition. Quit acting as if that is what is being proposed.
I am just skeptical based on the way it was written. It's spurious to think that 7 guys sat in a room and then composed a letter and just sent it out and it got picked up by all the major news outlets. Things don't work that way. But anyway - that's not the point. Point is that it's a reaction to what's been put in there, and I don't even know when their tour of duty ended. No one knows a lot - like who are they - were the decorated? What is their credentials for 7 to represent 150,000 troops? But we do see dems saying military progress is being made - so these 7 are now contradicting even democrats. Very intriguing.
What do you propose? What is a timetable for withdrawal? 5 months? 2 years? 10 years? And if we have less troops, what if violence increases? What if the 30K is really having an effect? People say it's too small...or maybe something else is going on. Well, something is going on. Have you ever read a book called the tipping point? I recommend it. It may help you understand why I advocate giving this more time and seeing where things net out.
I think military success is key right now. If we can end the violence, then there is some framework for politcial progress. Cutting down on the violence is a good first step.
