Plan? There’s no plan! All Patraeus said was that he needed more time, money and resources. But for what? To do what? There’s no plan. It’s all more of the same! Make sure nothing changes until after idiot boy is out of the white house.
I listened to it. I'm glad you did as well. I wanted to ask you what you think about Petraeus contradicting Bush. Was Bush lying, or is it another example of his administration moving the goal posts. Bush told people that a stable democracy was the goal in Iraq, but before congress Petraeus said that Democracy wasn't a goal in Iraq. Which one is lying?
Not only that, but Petraeus agreed with Barack and said that it was time to start engaging and talking to Iran. Hum...
BJ, I am going to come back to your posts later today, because I don't have time to address them all right now (have class shortly). Just didn't want you to think I was ducking them when I respond to the shorter point by SC here. I follow your analogy, but disagree with some of the inferences made. You are arguing that the cause of global warming would determine the policy, because made made global warming could have a man made solution, while natural global warming would laugh in the face of human efforts to reverse it. I would say that the causes are irrelevant, and we should only determine what we should do from here forward based on how our current efforts can reach an optimal solution. If global warming were caused by sunspots, transformers, or fairy princesses, but through the reduction of carbon emissions we could reverse the trend, we should do so regardless of the non-human cause of the problem. If global warming were 100% caused by America's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty, but we had reached some sort of critical tipping point and there was no possible way to reverse the warming trend, then it would be a tremendous waste of effort and resources to work toward that impossible goal. The past would not make a lick of difference with regard to how to proceed toward the goal of stopping global warming (outside of scientific studies of the mechanics of global warming and how to reverse it). To bring this back to the topic of Iraq - let's say that the only reason for going to Iraq was WMDs. Having invaded the country, we have found no significant stockpiles of NBC weapons. If the reason for the invasion was the only determining factor in how we went forward, then we should obviously leave immediately. What that doesn't consider is the consequences of leaving or staying. If leaving would result in the end of the world and staying would result in heaven on earth, wouldn't you agree that it makes absolutely no difference why we went there in the first place? That is why we should look forward, not backward, because the difference between that and reality is a matter of degree.
Looking forward to your responses to my posts, SM. Quick response to this one: I don't suggest we look backward to solve forward problems in Iraq. I suggest we look backward to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Why do you you suggest we not only look forward but also suggest we refuse to look backward?
The first "IF" shouldn't even be an "IF". IT IS the reason we invaded Iraq. The second "IF" is just pure conjecture and just plain silly. Leaving is NOT going to bring the end of the world. No ifs, ands or buts about it. And staying is not going to bring heaven on earth. It's funny how republicans/conservatives have become the pie in the sky idealists when it comes to Iraq. It must be saved to bring about democracy in a region where true democracy hardly exists. Imagine shrub trying to convince the royal family of Saudi Arabia to be more democratic. HA!! Hell the only muslim country in that region whose voting system is not totally a sham is Iran. Iran!!
Just when this thread was getting to be way too tiring to consider keeping up with, we get this succinct piece of truth. If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. To the extent that mistakes have been made, you have to analyze why they were mistakes and find a better way to do things. If you do not, you will end up in a far worse situation.
This reminds me of one of the early statements from the first Bush admin explaining the need for the first Gulf War. I think it was from James Baker but it might have been someone else. They said we needed to go in there "to restore democracy to Kuwait." That stuff seriously cracked me up.
As Batman said one reason we need to study how we got into this Iraq War mess so that we don't blunder again. Specificallyy the same crowd is frequently urging war with Iran. One of the things from the past we have to study is exactly how we were deceived by our leaders/ media about the facts on Iraq. We need to know how to properly evaluate what our leaders/media are telling us now.. How we decide to go forward on Iraq will be decided on how we evaluate the present facts and the predictions about the various options.
FYI... Here are the four main statues around the National Archives Building in DC: The Future Architect John Russell Pope placed four monumental statues around the National Archives Building. Each was cut from a single block of limestone weighing 125 tons. Aitken's "The Future" sits on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the building. The young woman lifts her eyes from the pages of an open book and gazes into the future. Its base is inscribed with a line inspired by Shakespeare’s play The Tempest: "What is Past is Prologue." The Past In "The Past," on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the building, an aged figure with a scroll and closed book imparting the knowledge of past generations "stares down the corridors of time." The words on the base enjoin, "Study the Past." Heritage James Earl Fraser’s young female figure in "Heritage" holds a child and a sheaf of wheat in her right hand as symbols of growth and hopefulness. In her left hand she protects an urn, symbolic of the ashes of past generations. The base is inscribed, "The Heritage of the Past is the Seed that Brings Forth the Harvest of the Future." Guardianship James Earl Fraser’s "Guardianship," on the Constitution Avenue side of the building, uses martial symbols, such as the helmet, sword, and lion skin to convey the need to protect the historical record for future generations. This sculpture is inscribed "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty."
Up to and apparently including Hilary Clinton. For the record, I think going into Iran would be a mistake longterm.
I agree that the final goal could be political reconciliation (I also think the division of Iraq into three separate nations could be a potential, though not as optimal, solution. If only the oil were spread more evenly around the country, but alas...). I disagree that withdrawal is the way to reach that goal. The only way I could see withdrawal leading to a stable Iraq would be either some sort of heavy handed military enforcement of peace (as was seen under Saddam) that is controlled by the Shiite majority, or following the annihilation of two of the adverse factions in a full scale civil war. I would suggest that we increase our presence in Iraq, possibly through the use of a new law that would require service of all males for some period of time. With an increased presence we are able to improve upon the positive effects on security obtained by the surge (it would be like a super surge). Once the nation is not only more secure, but actually reasonably secure, then we could get down to the business of hardcore reconstruction. Water, power, roads, schools, hospitals and oil production (which I think should probably be nationalized, though it pains me to say so, and some percentage of revenue spent on the reconstruction efforts, while the remainder is split among the factions in some equitable manner, probably between percentage of population and thirds) would be at the top of the list. There would be more oversight of the reconstruction than has been seen in the past (no more losing billions of dollars unaccounted for, no more buildings that are literally full of ****, etc.). Once the infrastructure was rebuilt, establish a number of large military bases throughout the country, staff those bases(there must be enough troops and equipment left in country to crack down on anyone that tries to stir up violence after the withdrawal), and withdraw the remaining troops. With a functioning infrastructure, improved facilities, and a still present American military, I think political reconciliation would be easier to come by. I don't have a problem with discussing the lead up to the war. I still hold out hope that we might find evidence of WMDs (unlikely though it may be) which is why I would prefer to wait until the war is over, but it can be talked about now. I don't feel comfortable speaking for the feelings of others on the subject, but my problem is simply in talking about the reasons for the war/lead up to the war/whatever as a means of determining what should be done from this point forward. To me the argument that there were no WMDs so we should withdraw is meaningless. What we should do now wrt Iraq should be based on what the consequences of each choice would be, not on what reasons were given for invading in the first place. I have absolutely no problem with people discussing the various candidates views on the war (both before the invasion and now) or even with people making their voting decisions based solely on these issues. None of the candidates really share my views on the reasons why going to Iraq was good, though McCain at least comes close on the reasons for staying (if not on the overall strategy on how to move forward, but mandatory or semi-mandatory service is not going to win elections). I also think discussion of the lead up to the war is totally appropriate in discussions of the decisions to be made regarding Iran, though I do not think arguments like Bush lied to get us into Iraq so we should not go into Iran are persuasive. If anything jumps out at me that I don' feel I covered above, I will attempt to go over it here. Covered above. My maybe pie in the sky notions that many of the lefts complaints about the reasons given for going to war would prove unfounded. As for Iran, as I said, my main problem is not in discussing the run up to the war generally, but rather in context of what we should do going forward in Iraq. Covered above. Covered above. The enemy are all of the forces that a) promote instability in Iraq, and/or b) attack allied forces and reconstruction contractors. That is going to largely be Iraqi insurgents with a smattering of al Queda and some foreign operatives and provocateurs. I am not thrilled with the way the war has been handled myself. Too often mistakes have been made and continue to be made. Troops are sent out in vehicles that are not rated to protect against the attacks that are being made against them. In many cases there doesn't seem to be any purpose to some of the actions taken. I don't think that simply leaving is the best solution, or even a better solution than the status quo, even though that puts me at odds with the majority. Lord knows, the majority are not always right. Again, this has relevance to some topics, but not what to do wrt Iraq from this point forward. Dreamiest possible outcome? All of the Iraqis magically transform into stunningly beautiful women, invite me to come over and be their king, and I rule over a utopia of amazonian goodness for the rest of my life. Somehow I don't see it happening. I think you misunderstood the sentence. The IF in question means if WMDs are the reason for our continued presence, not the reason for the invasion. It was illustrative, not predictive. Try not to be so literal. Actually, Iran's voting system is also a sham. They don't elect the real power in the country. PS. Is it weird that every time I see your screen name, in my head I pronounce it placemats.
Staying there is not going to solve the problem, no matter how many troops, no matter how much money is invested and no matter how long we stay. This is something to be worked out by the Iraqi's and their neighboring countries themselves. You know one of the reasons we have the scumbag Bin Laden in the first place? Troop presence in Saudi Arabia. If it weren't for Israel we would be enemy number one forever. Now we are just adding fuel to a fire that will most likely never be put out. Now I'm not saying the U.S. can't help, it can, but not directly. There is just too much bad blood. And all the troops, money and time isn't gonna change that. It is short for placemats
Thanks for the post, SM. But the problem with it -- and with the entire Bush/McCain strategy in Iraq -- is that it basically ignores the fact that there is a civil war there, barely contained by American troops, and ready to burst into flames as soon as we leave, whether in a week or in fifty years. And not a single thing we are doing addresses that problem. All we are doing is staving off the inevitable. Saddam, for all his murderous, evil practices (and he was an evil murderer) had this thing basically under control. When we removed him we removed the control. And we had no plan to replace it other than the utterly misguided fantasy that all three factions in Iraq would somehow be so happy to be rid of him that they would lay their differences aside. That plan didn't work. We need a new one. I am serious as a heart attack when I say that if someone, ANYONE, could propose an actual PLAN in which American presence might ultimately lead to political reconciliation, I would completely change my opinion and say we should stay. But that plan would need to actually address the realities there and not be based only in us playing police to villains among the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Al Qaeda in Iraq. The reason there is no end to this thing is that it is a permanent grudge match. And we, as the military authority there, are basically saying "violence is bad" and ignoring the fact that we're in the middle of a civil war. You can't kill off (or arrest) everyone that's behaving badly because there is a never ending supply of bad behavers in a civil war. Bush pretends there isn't a civil war. McCain pretends that too. Do you, SM? Do you, Jorge? Do you, basso? Does anyone, really? If there was an identifiable enemy (as in, say, Vietnam or Korea) our strategy would make sense. But there isn't one. Worse, our government refuses to acknowledge the most basic issue, preferring to blame a legitimate conflict on "terrorists." Certainly there are people in Iraq now that traffic in terror, but they are not the problem. The problem is that Iraq is an awkwardly cobbled together country of people with very different wants and concerns who hate each other and want each other dead. You don't fix that with guns, you don't fix it with bombs, you don't fix it with a zillion troops. In fact, guns and troops only exacerbate the situation. StupidMoniker: Tell me what we're supposed to do about the civil war in Iraq. If your answer has to do with us providing security while they solve it themselves, that's totally acceptable to me. But you have to explain how we're going to make them solve it themselves. Our military is not dealing with the problem -- it is dealing with the symptoms. And our people are dying in the process. They are basically as effective as Nyquil and they are dying to be that effective. That fricking sucks. We are five years into this thing. Somebody ought to present a plan for dealing with the problem itself and not just the symptoms of it.
Let me try to put this in simpler terms. StupidMoniker: Who should rule Iraq? Should it be the Shiites, the Sunnis or the Kurds? Here's a hint: Those are the only possible answers and each one is wrong to the ones that weren't the answer. And no amount of reconstruction or American police presence will change that fact. So what will? THAT is the only relevant question. And it is stupid, irresponsible, criminal and immoral for us to have American troops in harm's way there until our government answers it.
Last thought for the night. A metaphor. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are like basketball teams playing each other for the ultimate championship. But with guns. And we are like the referees for that championship game. But with bigger guns. Why is this a good idea?
I disagree on two counts. First, those are not the only possible answers. You can have a loose confederacy of smaller states, each of which is ruled by one of those factions. You could divide the country into three separate countries, perhaps even allowing the Sunni section to be absorbed into Saudi Arabia. You could set up a triumverate that requires unanimity in order to undertake any action, with the people of each faction electing their triumvere. Iraq's fate doesn't have to be determined by a winner take all civil war. If one thought it did, I could see why they would feel leaving now was a viable option. Second, I think that reconstruction and an American police presence can in fact change the facts on the ground. It is much more difficult to recruit suicide bombers, or even just militia fighters from a pool of people who are living in a modern first world country. That is why al Queda set up camp in Afghanistan. Somebody with water, power, a good job, kids in school, and a stake in the government is going to be tough to sell on risking his life to fight for something as nebulous as his sect having more control of the national government. Most of the nutjobs in America that have similar thought processes never get beyond the talking (or getting together with a bunch of friends and drinking and "planning") stages. The strategy only becomes more effective the longer you enforce the peace, because war is a young man's game and a new generation would grow up in a peaceful environment with all of the modern trimmings. Oh, and if I had to pick one, I would go with the Kurds I suppose. They seemed to run their section of Iraq decently enough.
But it hardly seems the case or else why would there be continuing violence? They would have already split the country up. But nobody wants that. Even the administration doesn't want it. Not once have I heard them say "let's split Iraq up". It kind of defeats the purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq if there is no Iaq. Then why have so many al Qaeda members come from Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is definitely not third world. And a sect having more control in the govt. is not "nebulous", it's a fact of life for most of Iraq's neighboring countries. It's weird that already you have mentioned splitting the country up by major sects and then talk about how it's "going to be tough to sell on risking his life to fight for something as nebulous as his sect having more control of the national government". Either it is a problem or it isn't. Most but not all and we have seen what devastation one nutjob (McVeigh) can do. War is NOT a young man's game. They fight yes, but the decisions for war and how it is conducted are rarely ever made by young men, unless your definition of young is over 40 or 50 years old. But that's not what you meant, correct? So it is either a divided Iraq or by some miracle a unified Iraq with Sunni's and Shiite's working together. And just judging from how Democrats and Republicans get along here in the U.S., you are asking for a miracle for them to work together. 5 years after "mission accomplished" and nothing even close to bringing a stable Iraq has been accomplished. The fact that the future of a stable/democratic Iraq is predicated on what another country does for them is not going to work anymore than our energy future being predicated by what other countries do for us. Can we help Iraq? Yes. Is the way we're doing it now going to bring that about? No. Once we show that we're are not going to be there to clean up their mess or constantly throw money at them, maybe they'll get their **** straight and start taking some more responsibility about their country. We can't hold their hand forever.
stupid moniker. Maybe you can start to see why it was so wrong for us to destroy this infrastructure needlessly. You are right that just like the Soviet invasion and destruction of Afghanistan led to terrorism there, our invasion and destruction of Iraq led to terrorism in Iraq. About the best thing that come from this war is an "Iraqi Syndrome" that will keep us from going to war needlessly for another generation or so. By then the sheer economic burden of empire might restrain us, if nothing else, from needless wars.
