The basic problem with this argument is that you assume that we are fighting "terrorists". Most of the fighting the US is doing is against several different factions in Iraq that want us out so they can rise to power. When we invaded Iraq, which had nothing to with terrorism at the time, we created a power vacuum and armed groups started settling old tribal and religious scores. Call it a civil war or not, there are militias that are vying for power and killing each other and us to do so. Creating this unstable environment in Iraq is the Presidents fault. When you release the dogs of war no all bets are off as to the out come. No one ever goes to war thinking they will lose, but someone always does, and usually both sides do. Peace should try to be achieved but I don't believe that can be accomplished through the use of our guns. As far as the Nuke comment goes, big talk when it's in a foreign land and you care more about the US saving face than the lives of other human beings.
Stop being such a coward and join the fight. You support the war. You are an adult American man. Go enlist. I'm serious. Support the troops in a tangible way. The enemy is getting stronger. What are you doing about it? Whining at liberals. Coward.
It should be noted that before the war just about every general and study group consulted (from what I have read, the Bush administration consulted and initiated more studies/war games for Iraq than any other administration going into war in history...that they ignored pretty much all of it is another matter) suggested a much larger troop size to go in (usually 200,000+). The idea was to maintain security and prevent civil war/conflict. So they absolutely requested more troops before. Things are different now as that civil strife has already begun and outside armies generally have little influence aside from suppressing everything and creating an authoritarian rule. As such, they are speaking out against the idea. Also, as has been noted, there really is not a surplus of troops from which they can pull. The numbers would mostly be boosted by delayed release and moved up deployment.
Solid post. We may be past the point when additional troop strength can help the situation. Unfortunately in the past, because they didn't want to alarm the American people with the gravity of the Iraq situation, the Bush administration denied needing more troops. In fact, didn't some mid to high level Pentagon official say in 2004 that 200,000+ troops would be needed in Iraq and within 3-4 weeks he was gone? At this point in time Iraq has been broken and probably cannot be put back together. The problem is the country is so full of sectarian hatred that people there cannot live in peace with one another. We could send more troops in to kill 10,000 terrorists but 20,000 more would take their place.
Let's use our own history as an example. Did sending more troops to Vietnam help? Would Vietnam have been worse off today had we left in '68 instead of years later? What is gained by staying longer and with a few thousand more troops? By who's rationale will that make a difference? What difference is that going to make other than to add fuel to the insurgent fire? Please tell me what is going to improve with more troops, and how that will happen?
If I was a terrorist...I'd be sitting at the TV every night with a bowl of popcorn and laughing at the United States. Then, I'd grab my terrorist friends, hold hands in a circle, and sing "Ring around the Rosie". There is no victory in sight. We lost this war the second it started. There is no positive outcome to this...game over. The sooner the U.S. comes to this conclusion, the better off the world will be.
Completely incorrect. We won the war. Period. The occupation has been the irritant. Time will tell, but leaving as of now would be a grievous mistake.
??? Can you explain how we have won? The entire region is unstable, our global standing is at an all time low, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, and lots and lots of people on all sides are dead. Hell, even GWB is saying that we are not winning the war. The occupation has been an irritant? Can you explain what the effects of this irritation has been and how adding more troops will make the situation better?
I'd like you to answer the questions in my earlier post. Thanks. If leaving now (which actually means within 12-18 months) would be a grievous mistake, what about waiting longer, bleeding 1000-1500 more troops to death (and who knows how many more injured) and having the same exact result? Which scenario would be more humiliating and injurious to the United States? Would you at least acknowledge the possibility (1) that Iraq may be unsalvageable because we completely destroyed the infrastructure that existed? (2) that the presence of U.S. troops is actually toxic and inflammatory to solving the problem? (3) that the current "government" in Iraq is incompetent garbage and incapable of governing the country? (4) that rooting out Al Qaeda's and Iran's control over various terrorists groups in Iraq is just plain impossible at this point?
Why? What will be different if we leave in 2 years besides more dead U.S. soldiers? Seriously, what do you think will change if we stay for another 2-5 years?
Sorry but I think you're overestimating that by a great deal. The french colonized vietnam for over 100 years, so it's not as if they were a bunch of geico cavemen before the US showed up. Similarly, when the northern communists took over the south, their program was classic soviet style industrialization anyway. Not only that, but most northerners who controlled power had seen very little (and had much contempt) for "hollywood". Sure, Vietnam made an economic transition in the 80's - but then again they were basically following the crowd of China (which had no US occupation) and other neighbors in the region. One could even make a very good argument that the American intervention - by shoring up support for the communists on a nationalist basis - r****ded this transition rather than boosted it.
Fatty, I fear that you're confused. We won the invasion. We've lost, in my opinion, the occupation, due to mistakes that could have possibly led to a different conclusion, had the Bush Administration been the least bit competent, had the least inclination to listen to the military when it mattered, before, and immediately after the invasion. The end result is the loss of the war. One could argue that it was lost before it began, due to the incompetence of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and the toadies they eventually had running things there, once they forced into early retirement those who disagreed before the invasion with the "strategy" (it's hard to find one, thus the quotes) to be used, and those who disagreed in the early days of the occupation. It's really remarkable. That so much incompetence, on so many levels, could have gone on, unchecked by Congress, while complete fantasies were foisted upon the American public as truth. One can draw the conclusion that Bush, et al, are existing in a fantasy construct of their own making... them, and their dillusional supporters, those who still exist. Meanwhile, the blood flows. Happy holidays. D&D. Happy Holidays.
Normally leaders who fail this kind of decision makes an honorobale exit by killing themselves. Bush should resign at least. He killed many innocent families in Iraq and broken american families. He sent Powell to UN to lie about Iraq having a WMD. He stole the goverment money (surplas) to bribe americans to vote by promising tax refund ( smara$$ huh?), and what he did to John Mcain during the primary was disrespecful. Above all, he's a moron!
Rudderless in Iraq The New York Times | Editorial Thursday 21 December 2006 Anyone looking for new thinking on Iraq, or even candor, had to be disappointed by President Bush's news conference yesterday. Mr. Bush may want to defer unveiling his new strategy, but there will be no obliging pause in Iraq's unraveling. The latest Pentagon status report confirms a spiraling death toll, ever deeper sectarian divisions and near total lawlessness on the streets of Baghdad, despite repeated American vows to secure the capital. In a further sign of Iraq's descent, our colleague James Glanz reported this week that Baghdad gets less than seven hours of electricity a day, as insurgents and looters dismantle the power grid. While Mr. Bush contemplates his fast-disappearing options, competing factions in the administration and the military have been less reticent about floating their ideas. Some urge a sharp, temporary increase in American troop strength in Baghdad. Others argue that Iraqi forces should take the lead, whether or not they're ready. Still others talk about different ways of reconfiguring Iraq's dysfunctional governing coalition. The problem is not so much with the specific proposals "some deserve serious consideration" as with the illusion that the political and military components of American policy can be pursued in isolation from each other. That is the kind of made-in-Washington tunnel vision that produced the current disaster. Only a political strategy, embraced by Iraqis themselves and backed by American military muscle, can have even a remote chance of altering events, and even that may be too late. Consider the talk of a temporary escalation of American forces to impose some order in Baghdad. That is guaranteed to fail, unless it is tightly integrated with a political strategy for producing an Iraqi government finally willing to move against Shiite militias and open a dialogue on national reconciliation. Without that, any temporary increase could slide seamlessly into a permanent escalation "something America's depleted ground forces cannot handle" with no chance of containing the chaos. And while American diplomats report hints that Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, might be willing to support a genuine national unity government, it remains unclear whether he would countenance any loss of power for Shiite fundamentalists - and whether Washington has any leverage left to influence his decision. Yesterday, Mr. Bush acknowledged the obvious and desperate need to rebuild America's overstretched ground forces, a subject he refrained from talking about so long as Donald Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon. But that will take time and won't be any help in Iraq. Mr. Bush also needs to acknowledge that his course there has reached a dead end. He needs to quickly define a new direction while he still has any choices left. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/opinion/21thu1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
stupidity is making every issue a lib vs. neocon issue. people are just sick of this head-buried-in-sand rhetorics. James Baker, Colin Powell, Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith are conservative Repbulicans. They're all appalled by the incompetence of GWB in the Iraq mess. In fact, Sen Smith opined that it may even be criminal people are just sick people w head buried in sand of GWB's brain's rhetorics fail to grasp the utter incompetence dishonesty of Dubya and Rummy.
