Ive been thinking about this lately - and there are some things that I jsut dont understand.

For example...

If we just follow GW's plan - when can we expect to declare victory?

By that I mean - what events have to happen to accomplish that?

A few things occur to me...

First, We accomplished regime change. Saddam is gone. A new government is in place.

Now, the reason for still being at war seem to have changed.

Are we -- protecting the Iraq government from outside influence? ie. Iran

or

Are we -- in the middle of a civil war and trying to keep it from either getting worse or actually becoming a more traditional civil war?

If its not one or both of those -- then - what are we doing?

I think this is the issue the american people are having the hardest time with. I know its a dem talking point, and I dont mean to be using it. But, what will victory look like? Put a different way - what has to happen for us to be able to say, we won, bring our soldiers home?

Ok - that question aside. I have been asking myself - what should we be doing now / next.

Well, short answer is, I have no clue.

I dont think we have enough troops to really effect ongoing security in Iraq. And I dot think we could really assemble much more in the way of troops to send there. Many of the troops we have there now have been there much longer then they anticipated / were promised.

On the other hand, if we just leave, then we will likely face an Iraq that would be worse then before. I think if we just left tomorrow, Iraq would just become a satallite Iranian state.

Proverbial rock and a hard place.

Wow - no responses --

I hear you Joey... I can't see by leaving Iraq that we have lost... I thought that we won when we got rid of Saddam. We did what they said they would do...

Now we are just protecting our interests that we don't own...

Ive been thinking about this lately - and there are some things that I jsut dont understand.

For example...

If we just follow GW's plan - when can we expect to declare victory?

By that I mean - what events have to happen to accomplish that?

A few things occur to me...

First, We accomplished regime change. Saddam is gone. A new government is in place.

Now, the reason for still being at war seem to have changed.

Are we -- protecting the Iraq government from outside influence? ie. Iran

or

Are we -- in the middle of a civil war and trying to keep it from either getting worse or actually becoming a more traditional civil war?

If its not one or both of those -- then - what are we doing?

I think this is the issue the american people are having the hardest time with. I know its a dem talking point, and I dont mean to be using it. But, what will victory look like? Put a different way - what has to happen for us to be able to say, we won, bring our soldiers home?

Ok - that question aside. I have been asking myself - what should we be doing now / next.

Well, short answer is, I have no clue.

I dont think we have enough troops to really effect ongoing security in Iraq. And I dot think we could really assemble much more in the way of troops to send there. Many of the troops we have there now have been there much longer then they anticipated / were promised.

On the other hand, if we just leave, then we will likely face an Iraq that would be worse then before. I think if we just left tomorrow, Iraq would just become a satallite Iranian state.

Proverbial rock and a hard place.

i am a vet from nam 1969-1970 our country was in that war for over ten year...it was a waste of over 60,000 young mens lives and countless numbers of wounded...when we left nam, it took the the north and vc less than a week to take over the south..if the people don't care about their country or being FREE it makes no differents how long our military stay.
i say pull out of irag now!!!

Proverbial rock and a hard place.

Yes. In order to discuss this issue, it is absolutely crucial that you put partisanship aside. And you have to realize a few basic truths.

1. There was uniform support for the action when it started.
2. There had been overwhelming and conclusive evidence in place to justify the war for over a decade.
3. That there were significant mistakes made at all levels of government throughout the entire conflict.

Bush lied, it's a war for oil, and all that other stuff is bullcrap. And by repeating it, it becomes impossible to honestly discuss what has happened.

The intelligence on Iraq before the war was not accurate and incomplete. Even in the minutes before the war started, the military was plagued by bad ground intelligence. Remember the air strikes attempting to get Saddam that eliminated the opportunity for a sneak attack. Based on bad intelligence.

McCain made a statement in his Presidential announcement today that is especially relevant:

America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success, and unless all relevant agencies of government are committed to that success.

Fault is abundant. The Bush team were much to optimistic in their design, and not forceful enough with the Democrats to secure funding and troop size. The Democrats are horribly negligent and liable for committing troops while having no long term interest in success, and staking their political future in failure.

There are profound lessons to be learned here. It's horribly callous to say this, but in a historical sense, the losses are modest. As mentioned, there were 58k American causalities in the Vietnam. And we, as a nation, are going to face similar, probably greater, challenges in the coming future, so it's important that we learn from the experience.

To leave now puts us at great risk. It further destabilizes the region, threatening to throw the entire thing into war. An abrupt pull-out is in defiance of every basic rule associated with foreign policy. Anyone who thinks that is an option, or that it will save lives, maybe well intentioned, but ignorant.

Repeatedly it has been stated, a political solution needs to be reached. The government of Iraqi needs to be functioning. Not perfectly. And violence isn't going to end. But some uniform semblance of stability needs to be achieved. The birth of a nation is a messy and violent process, if you don't believe me, you can even look at the history of this country.

Announcing a pull out BEFORE the troop surge is complete is a political gesture designed to appeal to weak minded, short-attention spanned American voters.

Having authorized the military action, sending troops in, investing lives,time, and equipment, now is not the time to pull the plug. Now is the time to do a major push and correct the mistakes of the pass. Increase troops, increase funds, and increase the use of force (and maybe a media black-out for a little while).

i am a vet from nam 1969-1970 our country was in that war for over ten year...it was a waste of over 60,000 young mens lives and countless numbers of wounded...when we left nam, it took the the north and vc less than a week to take over the south..if the people don't care about their country or being FREE it makes no differents how long our military stay.
i say pull out of irag now!!!
After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, Pol Pot massacred about 2 million people. Similarly, should the U.S. leave Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis would likely be killed as a result of terrorism and sectarian violence. It's not as simple as pulling out and letting Iraqis fend for themselves since the prospects of all out civil war looms over innocent people should the U.S. leave. Little by little the Iraqi military should be able to take over.

Now guys Im no politition nor do I speak to much politics.

I dont think there is much we can do besides what we are doing now, dealing with it. If you start to withdrawl at one point remainding troops will be left voulnerable and attacked eventualy anyway. What happens when we get attacked? We go to war, conflict is iminant with Iraq untill we completly leave alltogether. What some people dont understand even tho its told time and time again is we are not dealing with a small country, we are dealing with the Muslim radicals all over the world.

With out the worlds suport, this conflict will not end if we stay and try to clean up further. But at the same time it almost seems we have no choice but to have to stay till the end as much as it sucks.

This is a hostile part of the world no matter how you look at it, eventualy things wil go corrupt again no matter how its delt with now.

After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, Pol Pot massacred about 2 million people. Similarly, should the U.S. leave Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis would likely be killed as a result of terrorism and sectarian violence. It's not as simple as pulling out and letting Iraqis fend for themselves since the prospects of all out civil war looms over innocent people should the U.S. leave. Little by little the Iraqi military should be able to take over.

they had enough time!
do you see how many iraqis are being killed by road side bombs now?
what terrorist group will kill thousands of iraqis after we leave that their not killing now?..if there is a civil war looming, our presents there is only prolonging the inevitable.

they had enough time!
do you see how many iraqis are being killed by road side bombs now?
what terrorist group will kill thousands of iraqis after we leave that their not killing now?..if there is a civil war looming, our presents there is only prolonging the inevitable.

Here's the first problem with what your saying, our actions aren't in a vacuum. If the only consequences were to befall the Iraqi people, the situation would be different. The problem is, a retreat on the part of the U.S. will have consequences that dramatically affect US as well.

In addition to the continues loss of prestige and reinforcing the notion that the U.S. is a paper tiger with no will and who can be defeated simply through the media and some photo-ops, AGAIN, there will be other consequences.

Those eager to attack the U.S. will be embolden. The country would likely descend into madness. Unlike now, where you're dealing with pockets of violence. The Kurds in the North may likely move for independence, thus motivating the Turkish Southern Kurd population to do the same, and then the inevitable response from the Turkish government. The same may happen in Iran. Iran will continue to influence the substantial Shiite populations in Iraq. The Saudi's, fearful of this, will then increase their funding of the Sunni populations, and possibly even commit troops. Now we have a defacto war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraq. And if that doesn't happen, then we'll end up with a terrorist Shi'ite state, aligned with Iran, funded by Iraqi oil.

This is one of those things that can spiral out of control.

There are a couple acceptable outcomes possible, but they are extremely unlikely. But even those solutions end with $6+/gal gas and profoundly dangerous long term threats.

Vietnam wasn't "lost" because of the politicians and the media who deceived the public. We can't allow Iraq to be a loss for those same reasons.

i'm not a politician either. there are good statements made in some of the previous posts. but if we do pull out of iraq now, will the iraqi's feel they have defeated the united states or will they feel its their turn to cause ruckus and start some nonsense. plus if we do pull out of iraq then it will have the look of defeat. if you listen to the news (which you probably do) you will hear that the worst parts of iraq is baghdad. reports from citizens that live way out in the "countryside" of iraq say its not bad and that the u.s is doing a good thing right now, flip side the citizens of baghdad are saying the u.s. is not doing the right thing and things in baghdad right now are horrible

You say this:
Yes. In order to discuss this issue, it is absolutely crucial that you put partisanship aside.
And then you say:
Fault is abundant. The Bush team were much to optimistic in their design, and not forceful enough with the Democrats to secure funding and troop size. The Democrats are horribly negligent and liable for committing troops while having no long term interest in success, and staking their political future in failure.So much for putting partisanship aside. It was Rumsfeld who insisted on a small force, against the recommendations of actual military experts, like General Shinseki:
SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.Sounds like a pretty damned accurate assessment to me. Not to mention that fact that Democrats weren't in control of Congress during the buildup. Many of them were calling for more troops at the time. The fact that they're calling for a withdrawal three years later doesn't make them flip-floppers, it simply means that they recognize the fact that that window of opportunity has already come and gone.

While I do agree that a full pullout would be a disaster, these doomsday scenarios of Iraq being taken over by terrorists if we do is nonsense, in my opinion. The vast majority of the Iraqi population are not terrorist sympathizers, and would never allow that to happen. It's the Shia vs. Sunni violence that is now the primary problem, and we're mostly just getting caught in the crossfire. It's very likely that if we were to leave, the Shia majority would have things cleaned up in fairly short order, although it wouldn't be pretty.

In any case, if I had to make a choice for a solution, I'm afraid it would be the "three-state" solution. Three semi-autonomous regions, with a weak central government. We could then concentrate our forces on securing the borders instead of scattering them over the entire country, putting out fires every time one flares up.

As disruptive as it would be to set up, both practically and politically, I think it's the only option that has any chance of success, at least in the near term. Otherwise, if we plan to stick with the current plan, we can count on being there for the next fifty years. I honestly believe that. There is no way to win this thing militarily at this point, if there ever was.

Its what ive been saying all along.

We used 500k troops in gulf war I -- and that wasnt to occupy. If we are going to effect anything there - plan on a number much about the 160k we have there now. This 20k surge is a masterbation practice session. Another 100k at the minimum. But we cant do that because Rummy wanted a smaller for with more special ops, and now dont have the troops or the equipment.

This is the problem with not getting a sizable international force from the beginning. if we had 20k each from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, then we could do this. This is where cowboy diplomacy really cost us.

Joey, I don't think you or I are qualified to critizise the specifics of the plan, in reguards to troop levels needed. I am no military expert, I don't think u r and either way, neither of us is fully up to date on all aspects of the military campaign. Most of the "so-called experts" in the media are not qualified either do to at least one if not both of those reasons. There is a lot of evidence that the surge is working.

as to "cowboy diplomacy", that is just spin from the anti-Bush crowd and people who support a more appeasement style foreign policy. Weak appeasement foreign policy has never, I repeat NEVER worked!! the "cowboy diplomacy", which is basically to come from a position of strength has been the only thing to every work when it comes to foreign policy. Either way, it is irrelevant to what we should do in Iraq now (though these debates usually get caught up on weather we should have gone or not, and therefore become pointless because we r there now). After a point, u have to put some faith in the people running the war (hard to do with the media conducting a campaign of their own against the commander in chief). By faith, I mean "benifit of the doubt". We are not in a position (meaning qualified) to question military strategy, unless it becomes obvious that the strategy has changed from trying to win, like in Vietnam (which was mainly due to politics). Mistakes are always going to happen in any war, and with 24 hour media wanting to sqeeze as much out of a story as possible, they r going to sensationalize any minor event as much worse then it acctually is. From a purely number or deaths standpoint, this is the most effective military campaign in world history, though u wouldn't know that from listening to the media.

But common sense tells you that if it took 500k for Gulf I - which had no occupation aspect, then 150k wasnt going to be enough this time around WITH occupation. I said this when they were contemplating the war, started the war, and ever since.

We have put faith in the people running the war, and repeatedly had bad results. The invasion went fine. Downhill since with really, no signs of progress. Why? This is literally no longer our war, this is a civil war amongst the iraq people.

And "Cowboy Diplomacy" --- is exactly what GW practices. In his mind, its his way or no way. Listen to the few press conferences he has held. He is indignant and defiant with anyone who questions his motives or methods in the least. The UN kept saying no, not yet... GW said "with us or against us."

But common sense tells you that if it took 500k for Gulf I - which had no occupation aspect, then 150k wasnt going to be enough this time around WITH occupation. I said this when they were contemplating the war, started the war, and ever since.

We have put faith in the people running the war, and repeatedly had bad results. The invasion went fine. Downhill since with really, no signs of progress. Why? This is literally no longer our war, this is a civil war amongst the iraq people.

And "Cowboy Diplomacy" --- is exactly what GW practices. In his mind, its his way or no way. Listen to the few press conferences he has held. He is indignant and defiant with anyone who questions his motives or methods in the least. The UN kept saying no, not yet... GW said "with us or against us."


As to troop levels, the way u present it, yes it would seem that way. But you nor I have all the info as to why the troop levels are the way they are. As I said before, evidence is that the surge is working (though it is rather early to tell). The complaint about troop levels is really a "best guess". I would say troop levels aren't the problem, but trying to minimize civilian casualties and accomplish military objectives. As with most things, when u try to accomplish two things at once, u end up half-ssing them both. Prime example, Fallugah (I don't know how it is spelled). We tried to sugically cut out the insugents, when we could have carpet bombed it and not risked any American lives. Maybe a little, extreme but u get the point. Either way, there is no way to know that I am right just as your troop level issue.

We have put faith in the people running of this war, and they did a near perfect job with the invasion. When it comes to the "occupation" ect, the view of abolute failure here is largely media made. Yes mistakes have been made, but no bigger than in any other occupation in U.S. history. Do u think, Rossevelt and his administration, or Lincoln and his administration could have done any better? In addition to running the occupation, Bush has a 24 hour media that is blatantly hostile to him to deal with. There isn't a "civil war" anywhere except in American news stories. Really, the only problem area is in Bahgdad and the surrounding 45 mile radius. At this point, we need to give the surge a chance to work. Like I said, u and I are not qualified to say it won't, only time will tell.

The "cowboy" thing...
This type of diplomacy is the only kind that works. The UN has been proven an irrelevant organization, much like the League of Nations before it. The UN always puts off any strong action to avoid resposibility for it. So what the UN says, is irrelevant. "cowboy diplomacy" is what the media has long used to discribe diplomacy they don't like. Reagan was labeled a "cowboy" and the media claimed his was gonna cause WW3. Instead, he defeated the USSR without a single shot. Agressive, stand your ground diplomacy has always worked, while any other kind hasn't. In reguards to Bush, again time will ultimately tell. U can't say his diplomacy has failed yet, it is too early to tell. The only thing u have to go by right now is that a lot of people and countries don't like it. That is hardly a measure to judge by. Diplomacy isn't about making countries like you, it's about protecting your interests. What matters is, does it accomplish what it tries to. Ultimately history will judge it.

After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, Pol Pot massacred about 2 million people. Similarly, should the U.S. leave Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis would likely be killed as a result of terrorism and sectarian violence. It's not as simple as pulling out and letting Iraqis fend for themselves since the prospects of all out civil war looms over innocent people should the U.S. leave. Little by little the Iraqi military should be able to take over.

pol pot was the prime minister of cambodia ( and the khmer rouge )who massacred his own people..had nothing to do with viet nam..our pull out of viet nam had nothing to do with that mad mans quest to purify his country..as a matter of fact in 1979 viet nam invaded cambodia and lead to the collapse of the khmer rouge.

.

So much for putting partisanship aside.
That's not partisanship. That's accurate. When one group is doing something for partisan reasons, it's foolish to NOT note that.

It was Rumsfeld who insisted on a small force, against the recommendations of actual military experts, like General Shinseki:
I indirectly addressed this in my previous statements. Overly optimistic expectations based, in large part, to what has now been demonstrated as a bad intelligence and military theory.

Sounds like a pretty damned accurate assessment to me. Not to mention that fact that Democrats weren't in control of Congress during the buildup. Many of them were calling for more troops at the time. The fact that they're calling for a withdrawal three years later doesn't make them flip-floppers, it simply means that they recognize the fact that that window of opportunity has already come and gone.
That's bull-crap. The people calling for a withdrawal now are not the people who were actively supporting a greater force in the past. The people calling for withdrawal are the people who were against the war from the start, OR, worse yet, supported the war purely for political reasons and now are following the political winds with the finger in the air.

This is emphasized by the fact that THE ENTIRE SURGE FORCE HAS NOT EVEN REACHED IRAQ YET and these defeatist are already calling for a full withdrawal.

While I do agree that a full pullout would be a disaster, these doomsday scenarios of Iraq being taken over by terrorists if we do is nonsense, in my opinion. The vast majority of the Iraqi population are not terrorist sympathizers, and would never allow that to happen.
How can you possibly rationalize this? Look at Iran, the majority of their population isn't terrorist, yet their government is a theocratic terrorist sponsoring rogue nation.

It's the Shia vs. Sunni violence that is now the primary problem, and we're mostly just getting caught in the crossfire. It's very likely that if we were to leave, the Shia majority would have things cleaned up in fairly short order, although it wouldn't be pretty.
What you mean is that the Shia would kill all the Sunni.

And do you think the Sunni neighbors in the region would be comfortable with a mega-Shiite state smack dab in the middle of it, a puppet of Iran, with Iraqi oil? The Sunni Saudi family. Or the Syrians? What about even the Egyptians a little further away? And Israel?

There are no guarantees as to what will happen. But the only "positive" scenario that is possible would be that the region explodes in violence and they just consume each other. That's a long shot. Things are never that neat.

In any case, if I had to make a choice for a solution, I'm afraid it would be the "three-state" solution. Three semi-autonomous regions, with a weak central government. We could then concentrate our forces on securing the borders instead of scattering them over the entire country, putting out fires every time one flares up.
And why do you think we don't have something similar to that right now? It's divided into 18 governorates, and 111 districts.

The formal three state solution isn't going to work, because the issue of sharing oil revenue can't be addressed.

As disruptive as it would be to set up, both practically and politically, I think it's the only option that has any chance of success, at least in the near term. Otherwise, if we plan to stick with the current plan, we can count on being there for the next fifty years. I honestly believe that. There is no way to win this thing militarily at this point, if there ever was.

This isn't a military issue any more. The military battles are always won by the U.S. If the military wants to shut down a town, they can. If they want to move, they can. Military isn't an issue.

Everything about this military operation now is ENTIRELY perception. We need to help secure the country long enough for the government to take root. If it looks like we are leaving in the short term, things will not improve. Regular people will not have the confidence to stand up to the minority of thuggish terrorists ruining the country.

But, unfortunately, from the start, this entire thing has been plagued by partisans and moronic peace-nics and America-haters that we can't win, we need to leave, and anything else they can say to undermine us.

Gen Petraeus has recently been put in charge with overwhelming support. A surge has been approved and is being implemented. But before it's even been fully achieved, these Senators are undermining the war calling for a complete withdrawal, assuring failure.

In the meantime, the Democrat Leadership, repeatedly passes on requests by Gen Petraeus to meet them in person:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3075560

These people are fighting for the people, there will not be a mass murdering. There will be a much needed civil war as soon as we get out and stop "stopping" it from happening. No other Country wants a part of this or we wouldnt be haveing such a problem so why should our Economy just keep suffering when we say it is to better the world when the world has been shrugging its shoulder to the US.

This isnt about war and millitary right now its about assets, whats going to happen when we keep going at it with this BS and end up with no assets and no one to help us with any cause of the way we handled this?

We can leave with what we have now or wait till we get cut off by everbody once we waste it all.

What the hell are you talking about?

Why is a civil war needed, and if so, what will the political divisions be?

Second, our economy is not suffering at all. The Dow just reached 13,000. Unemployment is at a historic low, and past statistical zero. And quarterly growth is strong. So, our economy isn't suffering at all right now, and certainly not because Iraq is bankrupting us.

Why is a civil war needed, and if so, what will the political divisions be?


Because there is a bunch of pissed people that live there and want it to happen. What should we do force them into segragation and divideing it up into a :q load of different states so the Islamic nation can blame us for more tampering with Islam and dividng the Holy Land up. Obviously our way of teaching them how to run a gov. aint working so let them deal with it, look at the way ours is working now anyways.

Trust me that would cause a hell of a lot more Terrorism than there is right now.

Our economy surges and when it hits lows it hits hard lows and it is because of wasting time on this war and the more gas prices rise sooner or later our industry will bomb.

Iraq didnt bankrupt us anyway, we owe how much money?

Gen Petraeus has recently been put in charge with overwhelming support. A surge has been approved and is being implemented. But before it's even been fully achieved, these Senators are undermining the war calling for a complete withdrawal, assuring failure.

You mean the stink between General David Petraeus vs General Harry Betrayus?

Yes, we don't want one of our most decorated military commanders running this war, we want the turn-coat land grabber used car salesman from Nevada.:rolleyes:

pol pot was the prime minister of cambodia ( and the khmer rouge )who massacred his own people..had nothing to do with viet nam..our pull out of viet nam had nothing to do with that mad mans quest to purify his country..as a matter of fact in 1979 viet nam invaded cambodia and lead to the collapse of the khmer rouge.

You really haven't a clue about Vietnam do you?! wow.

Because there is a bunch of pissed people that live there and want it to happen.
Violence does not mean a civil war. By definition, a civil war must have two sides fighting each other. Right now, you only have violence. Groups targeting innocent civilians with no strategic goal (other than demoralizing the American public and motivating us to withdraw.)

What should we do force them into segragation and divideing it up into a :q load of different states so the Islamic nation can blame us for more tampering with Islam and dividng the Holy Land up.
...........:confused: ..............
I think you meant to include a comma and question mark in this sentence. If you're having a discussion like this, punctuation is even more important than it is in the tech forums...

Obviously our way of teaching them how to run a gov. aint working so let them deal with it, look at the way ours is working now anyways.

Trust me that would cause a hell of a lot more Terrorism than there is right now.
:confused:
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/8952/englishac9.jpg

Our economy surges and when it hits lows it hits hard lows and it is because of wasting time on this war and the more gas prices rise sooner or later our industry will bomb.
Our economy hit a low in 2001, was that a hard hit? What are basing this claim on? And are you saying by withdrawing from Iraq immediately, the resulting consequences won't ultimately have a negative impact on the economy? An Iranian superstate, or widespread regional warfare in the Middle East won't hurt our economy?

Iraq didnt bankrupt us anyway, we owe how much money?
We're not bankrupt, but if you want numbers look how much money is spent on entitlements and social security compared to the military.

You really haven't a clue about Vietnam do you?! wow.

i'm not saying i'm a historian on viet nam..but for you to tell me i haven't a clue..seems to be a little funny to me ..being that i was there for two tours..and you weren't even born at the time..i got my information first hand..show a little respect..i had enough disrespect when i came home in 1971 and i don't want it now.

pol pot was the prime minister of cambodia ( and the khmer rouge )who massacred his own people..had nothing to do with viet nam..our pull out of viet nam had nothing to do with that mad mans quest to purify his country..as a matter of fact in 1979 viet nam invaded cambodia and lead to the collapse of the khmer rouge.

Then let me respectably expand upon a few things you've mentioned. I've been fortunate enough to spend a considerable amount of time with the Vietnam Vet community and it's not uncommon to have been to close to the situation to see the entire picture. I'll do it in a cliff note version.

When you talk about the pull-out, you're really talking about two phases. After the the American media had effectively been used to defeat us, despite having militarily crushed the North Vietnamese, Nixon and Kissinger negotiated a ceasefire. This was done along with the promise of ongoing financial and logistic support to the South Vietnamese.

But after Watergate, the Democrats with all their new power, were not satisfied with just a ceasefire. They hadn't completely lost the war or damaged our reputation enough. They then passed the Foreign Assistance Act, CUTTING OFF ALL FUNDING and evacuating personnel, leaving the South Vietnamese virtually defenseless against the well funded and vicious North.

And once we were gone, fleeing the country, the massacres and killing fields began.

Calabrio, you win. I am not in to politics enough to care about what you have to say about my grammar so I am out of this but there are plenty of sides that want the country for they're own...Kurds..Suni...Shi'ite, they can fight amongst them self because they have different belifes on how the "COUNTRY" should be run some people might say that is a civil fight, but the wide spread violence that you have confused for this is only caused by the frustration of a "free" country dictateing them and breaking promisses.

And seeing on how you replied so well without confusion, I dont realy see my grammar as to much of a issue but I guess that means as a Elitest... you win.

Calabrio, you win. I am not in to politics enough to care about what you have to say about my grammar so I am out of this but there are plenty of sides that want the country for they're own...Kurds..Suni...Shi'ite, they can fight amongst them self because they have different belifes on how the "COUNTRY" should be run some people might say that is a civil fight, but the wide spread violence that you have confused for this is only caused by the frustration of a "free" country dictateing them and breaking promisses.
There are three dominant groups inside Iraq, you are right. The Kurds, the Shi'ite muslims, and the Sunnis. The Kurdish, in the North, finally free of the genocide imposed by Hussein, are living very well in the North right now. The area is peaceful, the economy is strong, and it's safe.

Then you have the divisions between the Muslims in the South.

You presume that by simply leaving the country, the violence and damage won't reach beyond the borders of Iraq. This is where you are wrong.

And you also presume that the violence taking place is being done by "sides." There are no sides. There is no civil war. There is simply violence and terrorism directed at civilians. The only strategy is terror and inflicting public relations damage to the U.S. in the world media. The United States had a civil war, there were two sides, two governments, military actions, and a strategic objective. In Iraq, you can't even identify the leadership associated with the violence. There is no one to negotiate with and there is no stated objective. Additional, there are several, unaffiliated groups all perpetuating violence as well.

And if you think this violence is because "another country is dictating how they are to run their government" then you've bought the lie. We don't run the Iraqi government. The closest explanation to your description is that a handful of sick and violent extremists resent the fact that they can't impose their will on the population so long as we stand in the way and support the FREE AND DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Iraqi government.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Iraq is some kind of isolated situation. That it's outside the War on Terror. The problems in Iraq are directly related to the world wide problems associated with Radical Islam. And the violence directed at us is because we're standing in the way of their plans to rebuild an empire.

And seeing on how you replied so well without confusion, I dont realy see my grammar as to much of a issue but I guess that means as a Elitest... you win.
All of us who read your posts lost. You're trying to express an opinion, take a second and re-read it. If you can't speak what you wrote, re-write it. Typos happen.

OK Bryan - that cartoon gave me a good laugh.

However. I really think this characterization is just the right wing spin.

I think the Dems belive we are not going to win anytime soon, especially under GW's leadership, and they want us out now before more US soldier's lives are lost fighting a losing battle. A battle none of us signed up for.

We signed up for regime change, disarmarment and establishment of a new Iraq government. All of that has been accomplished. This war has morphed into the beginning of a civil war, which is not what any of us signed up for.

Thats alot different then they WANT us to lose.

You presume that by simply leaving the country, the violence and damage won't reach beyond the borders of Iraq. This is where you are wrong.


Yes, I agree. Maybe, since the war has become so much different, we should appeal to the UN and NATO for a peacekeeping force. Because really, that is what we are doing today.Unfortunately, I think the UN might just tell us to clean up our own mess and reiterate that, they told us so.

OK Bryan - that cartoon gave me a good laugh.

However. I really think this characterization is just the right wing spin.
It is 100% accurate.

I think the Dems belive we are not going to win anytime soon, especially under GW's leadership, and they want us out now before more US soldier's lives are lost fighting a losing battle. A battle none of us signed up for.

We signed up for regime change, disarmarment and establishment of a new Iraq government. All of that has been accomplished. This war has morphed into the beginning of a civil war, which is not what any of us signed up for.
No one thinks that the U.S. should maintain a heavy military presence forever. Nor do they think that "victory" will only come when a totally peaceful society resides there. The goal is simply stability and the ability of the government to stand up on it's feet and take charge.

And the more we discuss pulling out immediately, the less likely this will ever happen. If we telegraph our departure, that means that the public, the regular people who need to take a role in the civil structure of that country, will be scared into remaining quiet. Because, if we leave quickly, those brave people will likely be slaughtered by the minority of vicious animal terrorists. If it's uncertain that the country will be stable, would you sacrifice your life and that of your family?

The nature of the political debate right now is serving to undermine success.

Thats alot different then they WANT us to lose.
And you base this claim on what? The Democrats have invested their political fortunes heavily in our failure. Reid just spoke the other day about how he expects to pick up seats due to the war.

A premature withdraw is a concession of defeat. They clearly want us to lose because they are not interested in finding a way to win. They clearly want us to lose because they are trying to pull the plug on the war before they even allow the surge to be implemented. They want us to lose because if we win, they will lose power.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, let's assume they don't understand what the consequences of our loss will be. That's reasonable, Democrats have a long history of bad foreign policy. But the long term affect will be the same, regardless.

At the moment, a new commander has been put in charge in Iraq. A surge has been authorized. Before all the troops have even reached Iraq, the Democrats are now in a rush to pull funding and withdraw all troops. They are sabotaging things before they even start.

They arent sabotaging anything. Thats a right wing talking point and utter garbage. They are doing what they are suppose to do, they are listening to the Ameican people. Thats how they got there, the republicans wern't listening.

Now, if the public has the wrong idea - blame Bush and the republicans. They have had years to convey their message. Trouble is, they aren't trusted by the american people. When the President's approval rating is so low for so long, and he seemingly could care less, the American people get pissed and fight back. They did so in the last election, and my suspicion is that they will again in 2008.

Either GW needs to repackage this war effort and present it in a whole new light with new ideas and fresh people, or lose. As long as he has his "Im the Boss" attitude and refuses to pay attention to the will of the American people, he will lose every battle. Dont blame the democrats, because you can talk about them and the 'liberal media' all you want. Fact is, if things were going well, they wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Then let me respectably expand upon a few things you've mentioned. I've been fortunate enough to spend a considerable amount of time with the Vietnam Vet community and it's not uncommon to have been to close to the situation to see the entire picture. I'll do it in a cliff note version.

When you talk about the pull-out, you're really talking about two phases. After the the American media had effectively been used to defeat us, despite having militarily crushed the North Vietnamese, Nixon and Kissinger negotiated a ceasefire. This was done along with the promise of ongoing financial and logistic support to the South Vietnamese.

But after Watergate, the Democrats with all their new power, were not satisfied with just a ceasefire. They hadn't completely lost the war or damaged our reputation enough. They then passed the Foreign Assistance Act, CUTTING OFF ALL FUNDING and evacuating personnel, leaving the South Vietnamese virtually defenseless against the well funded and vicious North.

And once we were gone, fleeing the country, the massacres and killing fields began.

i totaly agree with you..i never said there weren't massacres in viet nam i know there were..(pol pot in cambodia had nothing to do with it) .. my piont was the south did nothing to defend themselves and let the north walk through their county in less than a week..i repeat , if a county isn't willing to defend itself it doesn't matter how long we stay to defend it when we finally leave it will fall..

They arent sabotaging anything. Thats a right wing talking point and utter garbage. They are doing what they are suppose to do, they are listening to the Ameican people. Thats how they got there, the republicans wern't listening.
The American people don't have the ability or information to run a war. You don't run a war by committee. Furthermore, the are disseminating incorrect information in order to further deceive the public.

You said the Republicans weren't listening? Who did they not listen to, and who was listening to them?

If you're going to argue that we needed a larger surge, I must have missed the guys like Ted Kennedy standing on his soap box asking for more troops and increased spending.

Again, they changed commanders and they've authorized a surge. Why aren't they going to give it a chance to work? And why aren't they willing to discuss what the consequences of such a pull-out will be.

Here's the reality, the Democrats KNOW Bush will veto the disastrous legislation they have passed. But they are laying the foundation for defeat. They are hurting our country, they are threatening our security, and they are putting the military at greater risk. They are doing this PURELY for political reasons, securing their radical left base at all costs.

Now, if the public has the wrong idea - blame Bush and the republicans. They have had years to convey their message.
When did the Conservatives gain control of the media? When did the New York Times start honestly reporting the news, without it's far-left editorial agenda? How many times was Abu-Ghraib on the front page of the times?

Because of the media and political opportunist, the government has felt the need to fight this war encumbered by political correctness and timidness.

But, the administration certainly deserves some blame for poorly explaining and informing the public regarding the war. They also do deserve criticism for making mistakes.

Mistakes are made in ALL WARS. Pre-war intelligence was wrong. The Rumsfeld theory of the light force and quick occupation was wrong. We need to learn from those mistakes. (One lesson currently being ignored, INCREASE MILITARY SPENDING and expand the size)

But this isn't supposed to be a political pissing match. This is a security issue, not a political one. Unfortunately, the Democrats have made it one. They have INVESTED THEIR POLITICAL FORTUNE ON AMERICA'S DEFEAT.

Do you not understand that?? They have staked their future on us LOSING!

A surge has been approved. A new General has been put in charge. Tactics are being changed, strategy is evolving, and progress continues to be made. Yet, before this strategy is even IMPLEMENTED, the Democrats are moving with a high profile attempt to defund the war!!

That's damn near treasonous.

There is no reason we can't achieve a victory over there. Unfortunately, the Islamisists, just as the North Vietnamese before them, fully understand that you can defeat the United States but just prolonging the war and by utilizing the Democrat party and the American liberal media.

Trouble is, they aren't trusted by the american people. When the President's approval rating is so low for so long, and he seemingly could care less, the American people get pissed and fight back. They did so in the last election, and my suspicion is that they will again in 2008.
Perception isn't reality, and you should be aware of that. You're buying a very dangerous lie from the Democrats and the press.

Withdrawal is not consequence free. Unfortunately, you fail to understand that, or the nature of our enemies.

Iraq is not isolated. It is not simply an internal issue. We can not hide behind our borders, content that the great oceans will protect us. And you can NEVER project weakness.

Either GW needs to repackage this war effort and present it in a whole new light with new ideas and fresh people, or lose.
Remember the surge that was approved? Remember the confirmation of Gen Petreaus as the commander of the forces in Iraq? This happen only about 2 months ago.

The Democrats are gesturing to pull funding and defund the war before these NEW EFFORTS have been implemented. That editorial cartoon is 100% accurate!

As long as he has his "Im the Boss" attitude and refuses to pay attention to the will of the American people, he will lose every battle.
What is it your speaking of? They've changed commanders, they are implementing the NEW Iraqi Strategy Plan. Perhaps you should follow things more closely. Change has been made. The Democrats, now that the election is over, are now trying to surrender before these are even implemented, for fear of success.

Dont blame the democrats, because you can talk about them and the 'liberal media' all you want. Fact is, if things were going well, they wouldnt have a leg to stand on.
Going well? Define that.
You tell me. What is the definition of going well?

Are the Kurdish in the North doing well? They are. Funny though, I never see that story on the cover of the Times. How about MOST of the area outside Baghdad? Those are doing well. How about the fact that free elections have been held at least three times now? That sounds pretty good to me.

But since ONE scumbag terrorist can sneak into a market place with a bomb belt on, you think all is lost? These are terrorist. They operate by fear. They're only strategy is to manipulate the emotions of the consumers of media. There's no military strategy in blowing up a market place. It takes one person to scare the population, and then it gets on the Western news and erodes support for the war.

Stop responding defensively and think about what it is you're saying and my responses. You clearly don't get it. You think this is an election issue. You think it's like a big city wide debate regarding what color to paint the street lamps. You have to understand, if the U.S. fails to achieve success, if we turn tail and run, we will be destining millions of other people to die and greater destruction in the near future.

And the Democrats passing legislation, knowing FULL WELL it will be vetoed, that telegraphs a desire to cut and run, only serves to undermine our efforts in Iraq and help assure failure.

Petraeus Eyes Long Commitment in Iraq
Apr 26 02:59 PM US/Eastern
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.

Speaking as the Senate debated veto-threatened legislation to start bringing home U.S. forces in October, Petraeus called the war there "the most complex and challenging I have ever seen."

The four-star general, named by President Bush to oversee the recent buildup of American forces, cited some progress in the two months since the troop increase began. Still, he said, "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort."

He avoided commenting directly on the legislation before the Senate, which passed the House Wednesday night. "I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals," he said.

But his comments made it clear that his war plan did not include a significant reduction of U.S. forces anytime soon.

"This effort may get harder before it gets easier," Petraeus told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, depicting the situation as "exceedingly complex and very tough."

He said that the increasing use of roadside bombs and suicide attacks, plus the greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has "led to greater U.S. losses" as well as increased Iraqi military casualties.

Asked how many troops he thought would have to remain in Iraq—and for how long—to finish the job, Petraeus said, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what level might be some years down the road." However, he noted historical precedents to long U.S. peacekeeping missions.

"It is an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time, but beyond that time I don't want to get into try to postulate how many brigades or when we would start to do something," he said.

Petraeus said matters were made worse by "exceedingly unhelpful activities by Iran and Syria, especially those by Iran."

Asked whether senior officials in the Iranian government were sanctioning sending weapons and technology to insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. general said it was hard to say. "We do not have a direct link of Iranian involvement," in attacks, he said.

Petraeus also said that, while the fledgling Iraqi government is often billed as a unity government among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it actually is not.

"It is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said.

He said that was one reason why progress has been so slow on deciding how to divide up oil revenues and pass budget and emergency powers laws.

Despite the disappointing pace, Petraeus said he believes that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders "are committed to achieving more in this area in the months ahead."

Petraeus cited slowly improving conditions in turbulent Anbar province in western Iraq, noting it had been "assessed as lost six months ago."

He said the increased U.S. presence in various outposts has enabled Iraqis "to stitch together the fabric of society that was so torn."

But he said improvements, such as the reopening of shops and the return by some residents to their homes, are "often eclipsed by sensational attacks that overshadow our daily accomplishments."

"Iraq is in fact the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign," he said. "Al-Qaida-Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks."

"This group's activities must be significantly disrupted at the least for the new Iraq to succeed," he added. "The key to success is disrupting their attacks."


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.




Havent I heard this before? Im not disputing it, just saying, I think we've been told this a few times.

Look. 2/3 of the American people have little or no confidence in the President and it has been that way for some time. This is what happens when people dont believe you, trust you, like you.

GW rarely has press conferences, and when he does, he often comes off as arrogant as well as stupid. He cant sell this war. He barely sold it in the beginning. Every little thing he has done has made him look bad. Like the whold aircraft carrier thing. Like the whole swift boat thing. Right or wrong, things like those make him look as though this is all politics. He looks inept because when we had one isolated dictator as an enemy, now, we are faced with Iraq becoming an iranian puppet and a haven for terrorists. How can we trust what his plan is now?

Should we leave Iraq? My first answer is, I dont think so. Unfortunately, I dont see much good coming from us being there.

This is literally a no win situation I think. If we stay, our overall troop strength might suffer. People might not want to enlist in the military because they anticipate being sent to Iraq. Not many people want to put their life at definate risk like that. On the other hand, if we pull out, well, there will be long term consequences there as well.

Point being - nobody has a good answer. The question becomes which is the lessor of 2 evils? I dont know that EITHER side is wrong or that EITHER side is right.

Were we not in a similar situation 40 years ago? Except wasnt it the Republicans that wanted us out of Vietnam?

GW rarely has press conferences, and when he does, he often comes off as arrogant as well as stupid.
First off, I don't agree with that claim. If you're already predisposed to believe that, then perhaps that how you'll see it.

But when he does have press conference, he isn't dealing with honest journalists. He deals with a succession of loaded questions, intended to embarrass or undermine him. "Gotcha questions," crap designed to smear his administration in the form of a sound bite.

It's not just journalism or probing for the truth, it's adversarial.

More importantly, except for people inside the Beltway or closely associated with politics, who watches those press conferences anyway. They take place in the middle of the day. In the meantime, his press secretary does it daily, and Rumself, Rice, and now Gates routinely have them. It would seem that the agenda driven, liberal press, is very selective as to what they lead their stories with.

He cant sell this war. He barely sold it in the beginning. Every little thing he has done has made him look bad. Like the whold aircraft carrier thing.
At the time, people thought the aircraft carrier celebration for the returning seamen was on of the best photo op in history.
Like the whole swift boat thing.
Bush had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Vets for truth. But with that said, what was wrong with them?
Right or wrong, things like those make him look as though this is all politics. He looks inept because when we had one isolated dictator as an enemy, now, we are faced with Iraq becoming an iranian puppet and a haven for terrorists. How can we trust what his plan is now?
Wrong. The mere fact that Bush continues to pursue this War demonstrates that it is NOT political. Everyone knows that it is unpopular. Yet despite this, despite the fact that the Congress was in jeopardy, ON PRINCIPLE, Bush has remained resolute reguarding the importance of Iraq.

It is the DEMOCRATS who have staked their political fortunes on our failure. It is the Democrats who have misled the public and are trying to profit on our vulnerability. And it is the Democrats who are risking our security in the name of political opportunism.

They just passed legislation that calls for withdrawal starting JULY 1. They know that it will be vetoed. They know that this telegraphs weakness, a desire to retreat, and it will embolden the enemy to intensify their attacks, but they have done it anyway. They did it to secure their radical anti-war base.


Should we leave Iraq? My first answer is, I dont think so. Unfortunately, I dont see much good coming from us being there.
There is no good coming from us being there, waiting to lose. You're right.

Thank the Democrats for that. If we have no intention of winning. If the Democrats are going to telegraph this defeat. And if the public lacks the will to win, then there's no point in staying. But you better fear the consequences.

What we should do is intensify the effort. Commit ourself to victory and then succeed.

This is literally a no win situation I think. If we stay, our overall troop strength might suffer. People might not want to enlist in the military because they anticipate being sent to Iraq. Not many people want to put their life at definate risk like that. On the other hand, if we pull out, well, there will be long term consequences there as well.
SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY!
It's a no-win situation if we resign ourself to defeat.
Troop enlistment will decline if we send the military into battles that we have no intention of winning.

Point being - nobody has a good answer. The question becomes which is the lessor of 2 evils? I dont know that EITHER side is wrong or that EITHER side is right.
No one has an EASY solution. The Democrats are trying to trick you into think they do. The good answer is a difficult answer, and get ready, there are a hell of a lot more difficult problems about to face America and Western civilization in the next few years, Iraq just happens to be one of the earlier ones. And our answer now will profoundly affect the stakes and challenges we face in the future.

Were we not in a similar situation 40 years ago? Except wasnt it the Republicans that wanted us out of Vietnam?
How many hippies do you know that voted for Nixon or Goldwater? No, the Democrats were the same cut and run party back then too. They supported the war at the beginning and then they sacrificed the troops at the end.

Fortunately, the situation was different. Other than the loss of face in the international world (which would go on to present America as a paper tiger providing our enemies with a blue print as to how to defeat us through the use of the left wing segment of the population and our media) the consequences associated with Vietnam weren't felt in the U.S. That conflict remained isolated to Asia. Abandoning Iraq will not be the same.

They did so in the last election, and my suspicion is that they will again in 2008.

The power in the Senate was decided by less than 6000 votes.

The power in the Congress was decided by less than 100,000 votes.

Hop off the high horse. Take a look at history. The party in power has always lost seats in midterm election in the 2nd term of a Presidency. Reagan was the only one to buck that trend.

Truth is, the media won the election for the Dems. Plain and simple. People in the country with the attention span of a knat and the brain power of an ant feed off of 10 second snippets. They don't know how or what to think on their own.

Search for the media reporting on the war, economy, blah, blah, blah. I bet you'll find it to be at least 75% negative.

Hell, the Dow screamed past 13,000. Check out how it was reported. And don't think for a second if Kerry had won the election how great a leader he was and how the Dem agenda and lead to this profound wealth.

Oh, and check out how the media treated the record tax receipts that plopped into the treasury today. I'm sure they'll give credit to Clinton for his Tax increases.:rolleyes:

The power in the Senate was decided by less than 6000 votes.

The power in the Congress was decided by less than 100,000 votes.



If you want to compare:
Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 by more then Half a million votes...
Hardly a ringing endorsement....

The Repubs lost 6 seats in the senate, 27 in the house. (about 6% of seats for both) This is after gaining seats in both in 2004;

GW won the popular vote by 3 Million votes in 2006.... Less then 3% of the votes cast.

The republicans also lost 6 Governors in 2006 -- 12%

BTW - where was the liberal media when the whole Swift Boat campaign occurred? The republicans got their message out then didnt they?

Democratic populations lose faith to a degree in the middle of any war. Look at how Churchill was rewarded during WW2. There was negative sentiment about the war in the middle of the Civil War and both World Wars. The American people as a whole r rather fickle, and u can't just do what they (supposedly) say at any one time. U do what is right and neccessary to do. The biggest problem with Vietnam was policial concerns that tied our hands behind our back and kept us from having the option to win (couldn't cross into North Vietnam). We had leadership that had lost the will to win. We don't have that hear. Bush is hardly my favorite president, but he is fighting this war to win, unlike Johnson. That is why this is different then Vietnam.

If you want to compare:
Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 by more then Half a million votes...
Hardly a ringing endorsement....

The Repubs lost 6 seats in the senate, 27 in the house. (about 6% of seats for both) This is after gaining seats in both in 2004;

GW won the popular vote by 3 Million votes in 2006.... Less then 3% of the votes cast.

The republicans also lost 6 Governors in 2006 -- 12%

BTW - where was the liberal media when the whole Swift Boat campaign occurred? The republicans got their message out then didnt they?


Joey, u were doin so good at the beginning of this thread. It seems u r either unwilling or unable to look past your personal bias against Bush (probably due to the 2000 election) and republicans or acknowledge the fact that the mainstream media is highly bias and exerts considerable influence...


BTW, popular vote for president...doesn't matter.

BTW - where was the liberal media when the whole Swift Boat campaign occurred? The republicans got their message out then didnt they?
The Swift Boat campaign was entirely funded by a private donations. They didn't carry the water for the Swift Boat Vets, to the contrary, the only press they received in the MSM were negative attacks.

And the SBVFT weren't expressing a "republican message," they were a single issue group- they didn't trust Kerry. They campaigned against him in the primary and they continued to do so in the general election.

And your election numbers prove what we already know. Bush defied convention by picking up seats in both a midterm election and when he ran for re-election. The 2006 numbers were consistent with historic trends, and the result of a Republican smear campaign by Democrats with the full assistance of the media combined with frustrated conservative voters who wanted to send a message.

And Joey, don't get distracted. I've composed responses to your posts that directly challenge every false impression and claim you made.

I disagree. There is little else to really talk about besides the war. The nation is fixed on it. And its been mismanaged, its not the war we were sold on, the basis on which we were sold the war turned out to be red herrings, and we are seeing a lack of progress at the present time and really since the invasion was completed we have seen little tangible progress.

Do I think we can leave now? No, honestly I dont. I think long term we have a bigger mess if we leave. But we need a better strategy for staying there for it to work. Otherwise, we will be in the same place in 2 years.

How far are you willing to go? That is the real question. Are you prepared to enlist or send your children to Iraq to risk their lives?

I mean, come on. Bush has ignored everyone, even his own Baker commission's recommendations. Thats my problems. I know we dont run a war by committee, but GW, while his policy is failing, seems to refuse anyone else's advice.

And its been mismanaged, its not the war we were sold on, the basis on which we were sold the war turned out to be red herrings,
No, it wasn't a red herring, but it was oversold. But that's something that we need to learn on. More money needs to be invested in human intelligence. We had virtually eliminated all humint during the 90s. That wasn't even Clinton's fault, the idea was that we could make due with technology.

and we are seeing a lack of progress at the present time and really since the invasion was completed we have seen little tangible progress.
A new strategy and a new commander have been put into place. There has been much progress since the invasion, and even since the announcement of the surge, progress is being reported. Why not give the strategy time to be fully implemented before retreating?

Do I think we can leave now? No, honestly I dont. I think long term we have a bigger mess if we leave. But we need a better strategy for staying there for it to work. Otherwise, we will be in the same place in 2 years.
No offense, but this very frustrating. You make the same statements, based on your "observations" over and over. And I respond to them each time, yet you never acknowledge them. You never disprove them, you never even effectively argue the point. You just restate it.

Once again- WE HAVE JUST ENGAGED IN A SUBSTANTIAL STRATEGY CHANGE IN IRAQ.

WE HAVE JUST NAMED A NEW, HIGHLY RESPECTED, COMMANDER TO OVER SEE THE FORCES IN IRAQ.

WE HAVE AUTHORIZED AN ADDITIONAL 21,500 TROOP SURGE TO GO TO IRAQ. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS NUMBER WILL BE DOUBLED.

You're getting what you're asking for. The rules of engagement and the strategy being used to secure the country are being changed under Patreaus.

How far are you willing to go? That is the real question. Are you prepared to enlist or send your children to Iraq to risk their lives?
As I mentioned in the self-fulfilling prophecy comment that you've ignored, enlistment will continue to fall. It would be foolish to commit yourself to fighting a war that the Congress is trying to lose.


I mean, come on. Bush has ignored everyone, even his own Baker commission's recommendations. Thats my problems. I know we dont run a war by committee, but GW, while his policy is failing, seems to refuse anyone else's advice.
It's like talking to a wall. You make posts, you don't read the response, and then you repeat your initial post.

The Baker Commision wasn't totally ignored, but it was a political document. Vernon Jordon (of Monica Lewinski fame) and Leon Panetta were part of the group.

One more time. You say the policy was failing and he refuses anyone's advice.
first of all, the first strategy was the suggestion of the military and Gen. Abizaid

A NEW GENERAL IS IN COMMAND OF THE FORCES IN IRAQ.
HE IS IMPLEMENTING A NEW STRATEGY.
THERE IS A TROOP SURGE UNDERWAY.
AND WE CHANGED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. Rumsfeld is out. Gates is in.

Not let it work.

The Surge: First Fruits
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 13, 2007; A17

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner."

Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now."

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger," ABC's Terry McCarthy reported on April 3. "But over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal." He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley." He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets," and he concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal."

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements in Iraq while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton-- do you think are acting in the same spirit?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

No, it wasn't a red herring, but it was oversold. But that's something that we need to learn on. More money needs to be invested in human intelligence. We had virtually eliminated all humint during the 90s. That wasn't even Clinton's fault, the idea was that we could make due with technology.


Ok - I can agree to lower the intensity of the language. I havent gone so far as to belive that it was a deliberate measure on the administration's fault. I belive they believed what they said, and then pressured people to give them evidence in support.

I agree about the intel. I think it started to degrade with Bush I and continued. I think the last 3 presidents all made the same mistake, thinking that since the fall of the USSR, that a large military and strong human intelligence corps were unecessary.

Technology is great and quite helpful, but cannot replace boots on the ground.


A new strategy and a new commander have been put into place. There has been much progress since the invasion, and even since the announcement of the surge, progress is being reported. Why not give the strategy time to be fully implemented before retreating?


I dont see a new strategy really, I see a troop increase. And prior commanders were respected and talented as well. Further, im not retreating, im frustrated. this is a consuming national issue. I want us to win. I just dont have the confidence in GW to make that happen.



Once again- WE HAVE JUST ENGAGED IN A SUBSTANTIAL STRATEGY CHANGE IN IRAQ.


Whats the change?


WE HAVE JUST NAMED A NEW, HIGHLY RESPECTED, COMMANDER TO OVER SEE THE FORCES IN IRAQ.


See my above answer


WE HAVE AUTHORIZED AN ADDITIONAL 21,500 TROOP SURGE TO GO TO IRAQ. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS NUMBER WILL BE DOUBLED.





You're getting what you're asking for. The rules of engagement and the strategy being used to secure the country are being changed under Patreaus.


As I mentioned in the self-fulfilling prophecy comment that you've ignored, enlistment will continue to fall. It would be foolish to commit yourself to fighting a war that the Congress is trying to lose.


I'll take you a little more seriously when you stop blaming congress for everything and at least include GW in these statements. The dems didnt get us into this war, and they didnt get us to where we are today. Stop blaming them for doing their job, which is to express the will of the American Public. They dont believe the current policy to be working or likely to work, and they also dont see GW willing to consider other options. SO, they are forcing him. (although Sen. Mike Gravel was a little over the top when he suggested making it a felony to continue the war, how entertaining that nutcase was)


The Baker Commision wasn't totally ignored, but it was a political document. Vernon Jordon (of Monica Lewinski fame) and Leon Panetta were part of the group.


The commission also had
James Baker, (R) a former Secretary of State
Sandra Day O'Connor, (R) former Supreme Court Justice
Lawrence Eagleburger, (R) former Secretary of State
Edwin Meese III, (R) former US Attorney General
Alan K. Simpson, (R) former U.S. Senator from Wyoming


Lee Hamilton, (D) a former U.S. Representative.
Vernon Jordan, Jr., (D) business executive
Leon E. Panetta, (D) former White House Chief of Staff
William J. Perry, (D) former US Secretary of Defense
Charles S. Robb, (D) former Governor and U.S. Senator from Virginia

It was an equal bipartisian commission. 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Lets not make it out to be a Dem controlled commission.



One more time. You say the policy was failing and he refuses anyone's advice. First of all, the first strategy was the suggestion of the military and Gen. Abizaid


SO what are you saying? That they were the inept ones?


A NEW GENERAL IS IN COMMAND OF THE FORCES IN IRAQ.


This is not the first new general we've had.


AND WE CHANGED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. Rumsfeld is out. Gates is in.

For that, Im grateful. Rumsfeld is partly responsible for this mess. I say that because the 'leaner military' that was suppose to be reliant upon technology and special forces, is a big part of why we dont really have the troops to spare right now.

Had GW made that change 2 or 3 years earlier, maybe the American people would be more tolorant today.


One more point.

I was watching the debate tonight. (former Sen. Mike Gravel was quite entertaining. I loved his "potted plant" remark)

One thing struck me as so very true. Sen. Joseph Biden noted that all we have right now are 2 options on the table. Keep on our present course with GW or pull out like so many dems want. We need OTHER options. I dont know if his idea to decentralize its control of Iraq and share the nation’s oil wealth will work, but at least its another thing to consider.

I belive they believed what they said, and then pressured people to give them evidence in support.
You're failing to note that the previous administration had come to the same conclusions based on the evidence. The British came to the same conclusion as well. So this wasn't based on one administration saying "make it so" as you seem to imply.

Furthermore, the extent that the intelligence was flawed is still highly controversial. The state of the programs were simply over-estimated. To what degree, we don't know.


I dont see a new strategy really, I see a troop increase. And prior commanders were respected and talented as well. Further, im not retreating, im frustrated. this is a consuming national issue. I want us to win. I just dont have the confidence in GW to make that happen.

Whats the change?

First off, the fact that YOU don't see a new strategy is irrevent. Sitting in the Mid West, you wouldn't. You don't follow these things very closely.

Let me repeat. NEW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. NEW COMMANDER OF THE MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES. NEW STRATEGY. AND TROOP SURGE.

Bush did not create the strategy before, that was the product of Gen. Abazaid. It was based on the idea that is we left a light footprint, the Iraqi's would be more inclined to step up on their own. Gen. Petraeus, the new commander of the multi-national force, is implementing a TOTALLY DIFFERENT STRATEGY.

And while you say "YOU" are not retreating, the Democrat party is.


I'll take you a little more seriously when you stop blaming congress for everything and at least include GW in these statements.The dems didnt get us into this war, and they didnt get us to where we are today.
I place blame accordingly. The Democrat Congress is the one threatening to choke the military of funding and telegraph defeat to the world, not the President. The Congress is equally responsible for getting us involved in Iraq, with it's virtual unanimous support, as the executive branch.

Stop blaming them for doing their job, which is to express the will of the American Public. They dont believe the current policy to be working or likely to work, and they also dont see GW willing to consider other options. SO, they are forcing him. (although Sen. Mike Gravel was a little over the top when he suggested making it a felony to continue the war, how entertaining that nutcase was)
You're simply wrong. And even if the public wanted something, they are supposed to know better than to do thing that jeopardize our security.

You keep repeating this idiotic mantra "Bush won't consider options." LOOK:


NEW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
NEW COMMANDER OF MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES.
NEW TROOP SURGE
NEW STRATEGY CREATED BY THE NEW COMMANDER.

You can't get a more clear "change of strategy" than that.

The commission also had
It doesn't matter. It was a political document and that undermined it's value.

SO what are you saying? That they were the inept ones?
No, but the strategy employed did not succeed. That doesn't even imply they were inept. It's a complicated situation and one we've never encountered before. But, consistent with your call for a new approach and strategy, the leadership has been changed.

Here's some news, the White House doesn't create the "strategy." They rely upon the Generals and military leaders to do so. You seem to be unaware of that.


I was watching the debate tonight. (former Sen. Mike Gravel was quite entertaining. I loved his "potted plant" remark)

One thing struck me as so very true. Sen. Joseph Biden noted that all we have right now are 2 options on the table. Keep on our present course with GW or pull out like so many dems want. We need OTHER options. I dont know if his idea to decentralize its control of Iraq and share the nation’s oil wealth will work, but at least its another thing to consider.
Biden is a blow hard and he's making these comments in vacuum, repeating the obvious like he's some sort of sage.

Of course you have only two options, if you make them as broad as you and the Democrats are doing. "Stay or Go." There are infinite number of different ways you can stay or go though. Biden and the left are framing this debate dishonestly, implying that "staying" means a static situation with no change in tactics. That's just not the case, nor has it ever been.

Ultimately, victory or defeat are the ONLY two options in a battle. You have this desire, based on your ill-informed bias against Bush, to want to see failure to spite him.

As for Biden's point, decentralize control and share oil wealth. DUH. That's what they ARE trying to do. The problem is finding a way to SHARE that oil between the ethnic groups.

Mind you, this isn't Biden's first "big idea" on the war, every few months he comes forward and states the obvious easy answer. It sounds good, until you learn how it's nearly impossible to implement as things currently are. Then he repeats someone elses idea a few months later.

Do us all a favor, do some reading on this. Your not acknowledging facts, you just stubbornly cling to the unsupported impressions you've made.

President Bush laid out his administration's vision yesterday for winning the war in Iraq, acknowledging that the U.S. military has suffered "setbacks" but asserting that it is making unmistakable progress in training Iraqi security forces -- a mission he vowed will not be cut short by political pressures on the homefront.

December 1, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113000164.html

New Iraq strategy: Stay in hot spots (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/p01s02-woiq.html)
November 23, 2005

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

Let the Iraqis lead;
Help Iraqis protect the population;
Isolate extremists;
Create space for political progress;
Diversify political and economic efforts; and
Situate the strategy in a regional approach.


January 10, 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html


U.S. considering new Iraq strategy
WASHINGTON -- As the Bush administration considers military options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: Take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick government collapse. The "inside-out" approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would capitalize on the U.S....

July 29, 2002 - Link (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F53CC6C12FB7BBB&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM)


Ive heard all about the 'New" strategy in Iraq - a number of them over the years. We've been through a few generals over the years as well, so many I cant remember them all.

Joey pointed it out before I had a chance. This "new" strategy is no different than the previous strategies, especially the "clear and hold" part of it. This same strategy was announced in 2005 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html). The only difference is additional troops.

The famous definition of an insane person is "one who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result".

NEW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
NEW COMMANDER OF MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES.
NEW TROOP SURGE
NEW STRATEGY CREATED BY THE NEW COMMANDER.Translation: Put another coat of paint on it.

Your claim is incorrect. The strategy and approach is NOT the same.
If you simplify any strategy to three words, they all sound about the same. You are simply wrong.

Abizaid and Casey are different than Petreaus.
Rumsfeld is different than Gates.

The former supported the "light foot print" idea of occupation. Petreaus, a Princeton graduate and the guy who wrote the manual on counterinsurgency, and Gates, have a different approach.

The fact is...


There have been several "New Strategies"
There have been several "new commanders"


Its a little hard to continue putting faith in things when they repeatedly dont work.

You have to recognize that, at best, almost everyone agrees we went to war on inaccurate intelligence information, at worse, fraudulent reasons.

You also have to realize that since the actual invasion ended, there has been little ongoing success in Iraq. We caught this guy and that guy, yet the troubles dont stop.

Its hard to keep believing in things when every time we belive, it turns out we're believing in the wrong things.

Know what I mean??

The fact is...


There have been several "New Strategies"
There have been several "new commanders"


Its a little hard to continue putting faith in things when they repeatedly dont work.
There really have only been two major approaches to the conflict. The strategy has continually been refined up until this point, but the prevailing philosophy behind it was consistent, and dictated NOT by President Bush but by the Generals.

So, what is your point. Since things haven't worked properly yet, they can't? You fault the operation for not changing strategy, then when it is demonstrated they have, you dismiss it?



You have to recognize that, at best, almost everyone agrees we went to war on inaccurate intelligence information, at worse, fraudulent reasons.
First of all, that is not true. The at worst scenario you presented is nothing but a LIE that ignorant people may WANT to believe. In regards to the WMDs, the associated inaccuracies were not regarding his motivations or his intentions, simply the state of the programs and available weapon caches.

You also have to realize that since the actual invasion ended, there has been little ongoing success in Iraq. We caught this guy and that guy, yet the troubles dont stop.

Its hard to keep believing in things when every time we belive, it turns out we're believing in the wrong things.

Know what I mean??
I know what you're saying.
And frankly, it means nothing.

Just because we can't fit an entire difficult and complicated military and social operation within the public's five minute attention span DOES NOT mean it's not worth doing.

Going into the 21st century, Western Civilization is going to have to deal with a number of challenges. Iraq is not where it's going to end, and it'll be far from the greatest challenge we face. Unfortunately, you're demonstrating that this nation, and our society, is simply to fat and lazy to commit itself to victory. It's too much trouble to win, maybe we can just put our heads int he sand and hide.

From a military stand point, this war has demonstrated some of the internal problems we have in the military and the intelligence communities.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=31976

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be frustrated with this war. I'm saying that we need to have the resolve to win it. A withdrawal might feel good for a minute, but ultimately the consequences of such action will catch up to us.

The military is in DESPERATE need of reform from within. The guiding military philosophies of the 20th century need to be refine and re imagined for the 21st.

If it takes a surge of 50k troops, I support it. whatever it takes, so long they have the conviction to win this.

There has been a significant change in the leadership regarding this war. Not just window dressing, but a major change. Give it the opportunity to work. And in distinct contrast to those in the Democrat party, all of these men are INVESTED IN SUCCESS. They have staked their legacies on making this work, on victory.

There is NO positive for our country if we withdraw from Iraq defeated. That will be a disaster for us in the Islamic world, where a handful of Muslims who managed to kill a low number of Americans, were capable of chasing the most powerful nation the world has ever seen out of the Middle East. Our reputation will be secured as a paper tiger, our word will be worthless, and our ability to threaten or intimidate will be lost.

What does that ultimately mean? MUCH MUCH GREATER LOSS OF LIFE IN THE FUTURE.

Do you not understand that? That means they will be emboldened to hit us. And that we will have to strike in the future, with unreserved, vicious force. And when dealing with an asymetric enemy, funded by terrorist states, that means LOTS of innocents will die. On both sides.

This isn't a game. Iraq doesn't exist in a bubble. And just because you have this idiotic, mindless hatred for the President based on the 7 years of venom from the media, doesn't mean we can afford to have you abandon the effort.

And finally, if the Democrats are going to force our hand and slowly defund the war, they should have the damn decency to do it all at once. Don't starve the effort. Have the political will to say "we can't win. We're pulling all funding immediately, bring them home NOW." Not this slow march to defeat, while they look for political cover.

Either completely end it now, or commit to victory, whatever the cost. And, if you know anything about history, the enemies we are facing in the world today, and the situation of the world, you'll realize that the cost of victory is MUCH less than the price we'll pay for defeat.

While the Democrats are blamed at each and every angle, we've had a Republican President and until recently, Republican controlled houses during the duration of this war.

While the Democrats are blamed at each and every angle, we've had a Republican President and until recently, Republican controlled houses during the duration of this war.
Through the course of this thread, what are the Democrats being inappropriately blamed for?

And, ultimately, whether mistakes were made or not have no bearing on whether we should pursue victory. You don't lose a war to punish the President.

If it takes a surge of 50k troops, I support it. whatever it takes, so long they have the conviction to win this.


And therein lies MY point. I would happily support a real surge. 50-100k would be a real surge. I have said from day one they went in without enough troops.

See, to me, that is a significant change in strategy.

Take those troops and start clearing entire towns of known insurgents, weapons and explosives, then securing those towns so new weapons cant get in. Go into these towns heavy, with many new troops, bomb sniffing dogs, etc. Search everyone, search every home, every car. Search the friggin sand! But clear the weapons out. ALL of them. Focus on one town at a time, one neighborhood at a time. Chase the insurgents into the desert.

Then you'll see the insurgency end and be under control and the american people will see tangible progress. In the meantime, your handing a much more managable situation over to the new Iraqi government. If they want to hand out guns to its citizens later, then they can do so at their own peril, not that of our troops.

THAT is something I think most americans would see as a strategy change.

And you, like so many Americans, are completely inconsistant when it comes to what you want to see regarding this war. Petreaus is responsible for the 21,500 troop number, NOT Bush. If Petraues decides that more troops are need, it has been expressed that they will authorize double that number.

Petraeus is NOT a "soft footprint" guy. If he feels a greater number are necessary, he will indicate so. For the record, all of the troops associated with the surge have yet to arrive in Iraq.

And the mid-level leaders are learning from this war, unlike the old upper level Generals. They are learning from these mistakes. Longer deployments so that the troops can better understand the communities and region, instead just being there long enough to learn it, going home, and then retrain a new person.

Now, in contrast, the Democrats are ordering a slow bleed of support and a withdrawal. So if you think that we should engage in an even large and aggressive surge, how can you support the Democrats? They are in favor of defunding the war effort. That means less and less resources, and killing off the military effort through a slow bleed. A prolonged defeat, followed by a retreat.

There are only two sides at play here. You either support victory in Iraq, or you support the Democrats in their claim that we have been defeated and we must retreat. There are no other sides. You can discuss strategy to achieve victory, but that's not even the debate right now.

You wanted new leadership. You got it.
Gates and Petraeus are a night and day difference from Rumsfeld and Abazaid.
You wanted more troops and a more aggressive military campaign. You've gotten that, starting with a 21500 increase in troops and significant changes in tactics and rules of engagement.

If you opt to support the Democrats on this issue, you're supporting a public admission of defeat. They aren't supporting a change in tactics, Reid, Pelosi, and the like are supporting our surrender and retreat. And worse yet, they aren't even brave enough to call for an immediate withdrawal. They lack the courage to be resolute and do it fast. If they declare defeat, then immediate withdraw.

Is that what you support?

Ok, first, there is one HUGE flaw in all of your reasoning.

You dont know if most of what you rely on is true or not.

You arent sitting with GW or Gates or Petraeus. You dont know what was said or not said. You dont know if Petraeus asked for 100k troops and was told he could have 20k. You have no way of knowing that. Neither do I. Many people have come out and said this and said that, so many so that honestly, I dont know who to believe anymore.

What I do think, is that if a 20k troop surge is good, then 50k is better. I think that Gulf I had 500k and didnt occupy anything. Im pretty sure the people running that war felt the 500k was necessary, and they truly got what they wanted and succeeded.

My point is, you dont know, I dont know. All I can do is look at what has worked and what hasnt.

so now u are agreeing with the "we don't have enough info to know" argument? In that situation, in any type of reasonably "free" and democratic society u should (logically) give the benifit of the doubt to the government. To do anything else, would be to justify constant fear of government, and contrary to all the hype, we don't live in a "1984" totalitarian state, like in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, among others.

Ok, first, there is one HUGE flaw in all of your reasoning.
There is no "flaw" in my reasoning. There is clearly a limit to the information I have available to me, but my reasoning is both sound and informed. To the contrary, you are displaying a critical lack of reasoning.

My point is, you dont know, I dont know. All I can do is look at what has worked and what hasnt.
And your solution is what? We have two options-

1. Bush who has recently changed leadership, new strategy, new leaders regarding the war.
2. Democrats- starve troops of funding, shameful retreat and defeat.

That's it. I've gone over the details and implications of these decisions countless times in this thread alone. You've opted to not address them, probably because it's too difficult for you to do so.

That's all there is to it. If you have the ability to contradict ANYTHING I've said, do so. But since everything I've said is absolutely true, the conclusion reached is also sound, as is the reasoning.

If you want to see victory, support victory. The only people who are invested in achieving victory are the Republicans.
If you want to see a shameful defeat, join up with the Democrats. The Democrats have invested their political future on an American defeat in the Middle East.

Through the course of this thread, what are the Democrats being inappropriately blamed for?

And, ultimately, whether mistakes were made or not have no bearing on whether we should pursue victory. You don't lose a war to punish the President.


Until recently, the Republicans were the one holding the reins and they were the ones calling the shots in Iraq and the war, no? When a situation goes sour, who do you blame, the management or the staff? You can argue until you're blue in the face about deceitful and undermining Democrat tactics and the MSM mobilizing a character assassination on Bush at every opportunity; it still doesn't take away that Bush has been president and the Republicans have been in control throughout Iraq. It's not like things were going perfectly and suddenly after the elections we're doing a 180* for the worse.

I agree there, and that puts me in a quagmire... I don't want Iraq to become another Vietnam, and I have no confidence with the current management.

It's not like things were going perfectly and suddenly after the elections we're doing a 180* for the worse.
Have you not bothered to read anything in this thread? This is not about what "has" happened in Iraq, it's about what will happen next.

While the Democrats have been undermining this war for a long time now, ultimate responsibility for any problems lie in the leadership. No one would argue that this campaign has been flawless..... I've been through all of this, repeatedly in this thread. Ultimately, we have to hope and encourage that the lessons being learned are being retained by the younger officers in the military and we see the necessary changes in culture and strategy.

I agree there, and that puts me in a quagmire... I don't want Iraq to become another Vietnam, and I have no confidence with the current management.
And, for the umpteenth time, THE MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN CHANGED.

The President was never responsible for strategy. And those that were responsible for the strategy have been replaced. And even internally, within the Army officer community, we are seeing some cultural changes recognizing, in public, the need to change.

So, you might be in a quagmire, but you only have two options.

One side has invested their legacies in America's victory. The other side has bet their futures on America's failure and defeat.

See the dabate?

so now u are agreeing with the "we don't have enough info to know" argument? In that situation, in any type of reasonably "free" and democratic society u should (logically) give the benifit of the doubt to the government. To do anything else, would be to justify constant fear of government, and contrary to all the hype, we don't live in a "1984" totalitarian state, like in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, among others.


WRONG! COuldnt be MORE WRONG.

Our government is designed so that we SHOULD QUESTION our leaders. Its called Checks and Balances, Its also why there is freedom of the press. You dont give the benefit of the doubt. Go read up on American history and constitutional history.

2. Democrats- starve troops of funding, shameful retreat and defeat.


Stop saying that -- its not true.

This isnt a war we signed up for. Our goals were to remove saddam, install a new government and de weaponize iraq of WMDs.

All that was accomplished long ago. We already WON the war.

Whatever is going on today is NOT what we signed up for.

Stop saying that -- its not true.

This isnt a war we signed up for. Our goals were to remove saddam, install a new government and de weaponize iraq of WMDs.

All that was accomplished long ago. We already WON the war.

Whatever is going on today is NOT what we signed up for.

It is absolutely the truth. What is going on today is the byproduct of what we signed on for. Allowing ourself to be defeated by the terrorist from Iran and Al-Queda will nullify any positive that had been done up until this point.

I have written quite a bit in this thread, and with every comment, I've provide ample context. You have YET to address or challenge anything that I have stated, in particular, you refuse to address the CONSEQUENCES of our leaving in disgrace.

I'm not going to continue repeating my sound argument, that you are unwilling to address, in this thread any longer.

WRONG! COuldnt be MORE WRONG.

Our government is designed so that we SHOULD QUESTION our leaders. Its called Checks and Balances, Its also why there is freedom of the press. You dont give the benefit of the doubt. Go read up on American history and constitutional history.

Never said u souldn't question your leaders...but they should (at least initially) get the benifit of the doubt, in certian situations. Remember these r elected officials, representatives of the people, and as such r given a certian level of trust and respect. If u constantly look at the government with distrust even in situations that may not yet warrent it, then u basically are choosing to live under paranoia of the government. 'Checks and Balances' is a system of internal governmental controls, has nothing to do with the people, just elected and non-elected representatives (in theory anyway). In the freeiest (is that a word) society in the world, it is only logical to give the government the benifit of the doubt, especially in areas that will are neccessarily kept for the most part in the dark (like security issues). In situations like this, where the general motive is clear (stable Iraq) and our leaders are oriented toward victory, we should give their plan the benifit of the doubt until it is proven to be flawed (by rational standards, not the mainstream media.) As for American history and the Constitution, I know quite a bit more then most Americans on those subjects. Give me an example that supports your view and not mine.

Stop saying that -- its not true.

This isnt a war we signed up for. Our goals were to remove saddam, install a new government and de weaponize iraq of WMDs.

All that was accomplished long ago. We already WON the war.

Whatever is going on today is NOT what we signed up for.


When have we NOT rebuilt a country we have gone into and taken out the government? Vietnams biggest mistake was not letting us win! EVERY country we have gone to and defeated in war, we have rebuilt and they r better for it. That is part of the job, and we r obligated to stay there until it is finished. Read your american history. :)

But this is way past rebuilding a country. We are dead square in the middle of 2 factions about to start a civil war.

About to?

According to who?

According to people at ground zero, and people who see this trend emerging.

We could still win this "war" with the current troop level if the media were to be kicked out of Iraq and the troops would have their hands untied and allowed to do their jobs which are relatively simple: Kill people and blow stuff up.

I've seen Iraqies (is that how it's spelled) that say the "civil war" is a western (american) media made fantasy. Though, I do agree that we should kick the media out and let the military do their job.

Yes, I agree. Maybe, since the war has become so much different, we should appeal to the UN and NATO for a peacekeeping force. Because really, that is what we are doing today.Unfortunately, I think the UN might just tell us to clean up our own mess and reiterate that, they told us so.

The U.N. is a joke. The mere fact that you think that failed institution has the power to do something that you seem to think the U.S. is incapable of, only further demonstrates your gross ignorance and naivety.

And if you want to see how effective NATO is without the full force of the U.S. military, you can examine Afghanistan.

Both of those organizations have no strength, other than the strength provided by the United States. The English and the Canadians are doing some very noble and brave work in Afghanistan, but they simply are no rival to our power.

If you want to see victory in Iraq, you have to support the war- and then actively support a stronger approach. If not, you're voice is drowned out by the lunatic anti-American activists.

If you don't support victory, you're aligning yourself with a humiliating defeat and retreat at the hands of Al-Queda, Iran, and Islamic terror. And you're destining a far greater losses in the future.

Even If Entering Iraq Was a Mistake, Leaving Is Worse
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, May 1, 2007

In arriving at their decision that America should withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Democratic Party and the Left around the world regularly make reference to what they regard as America's initial error -- invading Iraq.

Perhaps the Left is correct in its contentions that bringing freedom to a Muslim Arab country at this time in history is impossible and that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein would be better for American and world security.


Iraqi soldiers line up at dawn as they prepare to take part in a joint operation with U.S. Army soldiers near Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad April 16, 2007. REUTERS/Bob Strong (IRAQ)

But even if the war was a major blunder and even if everything the Left charges -- including "Bush lied" -- were true, none of these contentions has any bearing on the question of what should be done now.

The preoccupation of the Left with the alleged wrongness of the war and the alleged deceit of President Bush is another example of passion rather than reason determining a leftist position on a major issue.

A responsible, rational opponent of the war in Iraq and of George W. Bush would say, "I am appalled by the disastrous war in Iraq, appalled by the wasted American lives, appalled by the moral wasteland of Iraq, and I loathe this president. But we are in Iraq. And as much as I loathe supporting anything this president does and as much as I oppose this war, I know what is likely to happen if we leave Iraq. So I cannot in good conscience advocate an American withdrawal or fixing a specific date to do so."

In a recent column I argued that the Left rarely asks "What happens next?" when advocating social policy. I offered numerous examples. Withdrawal from Iraq and announcing that America has "lost the war" are the latest and most egregious.

If we leave Iraq:

It will be a great victory for the most dangerous ideology on earth today. The people running North Korea are presumably as evil as the Islamists. But there is no ideology emanating from North Korea that threatens mankind. We are fighting an ideology, supported by millions of people, that wishes to conquer the world and routinely engages in mass murder of the innocent -- especially the innocent -- to achieve its totalitarian goals.

No one will trust America's commitment for the foreseeable future. Nations and forces aligned with America against freedom-hating enemies will conclude that it is actually quite easy to defeat the United States of America. Just kill relatively few of that country's soldiers, and the U.S.A. will soon abandon you.

The very best Iraqis -- and members of their families -- will be slaughtered like animals.

It will mean the end of the possibility of the rise of a moderate form of Islam for the foreseeable future, perhaps generations. In the Arab/Muslim world, might is revered, and the victorious Islamists will therefore be revered. Moreover, they will have earned the right to claim that they constitute an unstoppable force. If America, the most powerful country in the world, surrenders to them because the Islamists murder fellow Muslims and killed the indescribably tragic but militarily small total of 3,000 soldiers in four years -- one-one-hundredth the losses the U.S. experienced in World War II -- who in the Muslim world will stand up to them?

Iraq will turn into a far more potent terror base than Afghanistan could ever be. One of the major powers of the Arab world, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, may well be ruled by jihadists.

Moderate Arab regimes will likely be overthrown by a combination of an emboldened Iran and an Islamist Iraq that regards moderate Arabs and Muslims as loathsome as, if not more so than, Americans and Jews. It is almost inconceivable, for example, that the Jordanian monarchy would long survive an American defeat in Iraq.

The American military will suffer a crisis of morale that it will not soon overcome. Though defeated not by the Islamist enemy but by the American Left -- most particularly the Democratic Party and the mainstream news media -- it will be hard to convince many people to join or stay in the U.S. military. Why bother? Even if you do a great job, if you haven't done it all -- whatever 'all' means in a place like Iraq -- you will be told that you lost the war.

And those who have heretofore murdered fellow Muslims will focus their attention on murdering us. The left dismisses the argument that it is far better to fight them in Iraq than in Europe and America. But the dismissal is simply irrational. The people we are fighting, including Osama bin Laden and all the variations on al Qaeda, know that the battle for Iraq is the battle for their future -- that if they win in Iraq, they win all over the Middle East and beyond; that if they lose there, America and the West win.

But none of this matters to the Left because Democrats and others on the Left do not ask what will happen if America leaves Iraq. They are certain that the war was wrong, and that, in addition to handing George W. Bush and the Republicans a defeat, is what they seem to care about.

Billions in oil missing in Iraq

Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq's declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.

Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.

The report does not give a final conclusion on what happened to the missing fraction of the roughly 2 million barrels pumped by Iraq each day, but the findings are sure to reinforce long-standing suspicions that smugglers, insurgents and corrupt officials control significant parts of the oil industry.

The report also covered alternative explanations for the discrepancies, including the possibility that Iraq has been overstating its oil production.

More.... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4797977.html

Billions in oil missing in Iraq


If you have a point, particularly one that has something to do with this thread, please make it.

Its another demonstration of how we are mismanaging IRAQ. So it has to do with this thread...

Its another demonstration of how we are mismanaging IRAQ. So it has to do with this thread...

Well, if the oil is mismanaged, or a black market emerges, then we should hurry up and surrender..?
Flawless logic there, Joey. (/sarcasm)

In case you didn't know, oil theft is common throughout the world. Nigeria is the best example of this that I can think of. The theft of said oil really has no reflection of anything having to do with our involvement in Iraq. The only problem is that that money generated is probably being used to fund the terrorists.

I didnt say we should "surrender" --

And "Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day" is not "some" oil.

I think my position in the regard to Iraq is now something like this. No, we shouldnt surrender. But I doubt we will "Win" with Bush in charge. That doesnt mean a Dem would do the right thing either. Here is why.

Ultimately, I think GW has used up all the general public's patience for IRAQ, and you will not be able to turn public opinion in favor of doing much else with Iraq besides leaving.

Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media.... Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.

100,000 of 2,000,000 barrels a day.
That's a 5% loss.

That shouldn't be excused. But when placed in the perspective of the region, the foreign oil industry, and everything else, it's hardly shocking.

And no, the media would still find something to "harp" on, regardless the positives that were taking place. How many days did Abu Ghraib spend on the front page of the NY Times? Don't ever put it past the modern media to find ways to make America the bad guys.

Ultimately, you still can not articulate your point. That's because it's not logical or supportable. It's emotional and foolish. You fail to realize just how ambitious and "idealistic" the Iraqi policy really has been. And since things appear to be difficult, you just want to throw up a white flag and leave. You want to cry uncle, lay blame, and then run home and hide.

The real world doesn't work like that.

You personalize this war like George W. Bush sat at his desk and drew up the plans himself. That's not how it worked. We can see a military that is currently experiencing a dramatic learning curve with 30 years of bureaucratic generals who employed outdated military theory.

Again, you fail to acknowledge that THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES regarding both leadership and strategy. You wanted change, we're experiencing change. And you need to provide the military a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate whether the changed policy is yielding any results.

You also refuse to acknowledge the longer term consequences associated with a U.S. retreat and defeat in Iraq.

You're implication is that Bush isn't motivated to win in Iraq. If you think we should send in an even larger surge, then you should be vocally hostile towards the cut and run, defeatist, Democrats who are telegraphing defeat and weakness to our enemies around the world.

This is a foolish notion, and it fails to recognize just how challenging the situation in Iraq actually is. Iraq is a test for our country. What we do will have consequences you're clearly unable to even imagine. Defeat in Iraq will absolutely leader to even greater loss of life in the future. There is no doubt. If we are defeated, if we loose our will and retreat, it will eventually leader to greater loss of life in the future. On a scale and degree of brutality you don't want to think about.

"Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day" = 5% - 15%

You also refuse to acknowledge the longer term consequences associated with a U.S. retreat and defeat in Iraq.

Not true - Again, I didnt call for a retreat.


You're implication is that Bush isn't motivated to win in Iraq.

If thats what you though, then let me clarify. He may have the motivation, im not commenting on that. He isnt a good enough leader IMO. He has been wrong about this war from the start, even before then. 70% of the American people dont have the confidence in him it takes to push this war.

The democrats are only doing what the people, their constitutients, want them to do -- which is their job.

There may have been changes - but I still see no positive progress. The part YOU dont get, is that GW has had a number of opportunities where the the American people gave him the benefit of the doubt and he didnt come through.

But let me as you this. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait to see if it is working? AND -- if its not - then what?

I say again ----- Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media.... Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.

Not true - Again, I didnt call for a retreat.
The challenge through this whole conversation is, that like so many people, you're not actually "calling" for anything specific. You just sound defeatists and try to find new ways to blame people without regard to the outcome.

If thats what you though, then let me clarify. He may have the motivation, im not commenting on that. He isnt a good enough leader IMO. He has been wrong about this war from the start, even before then.
Perhaps he didn't receive the "Hindsight is 20/20 when engaging in previously unattempted military operations" manual you may have read.

70% of the American people dont have the confidence in him it takes to push this war.

The democrats are only doing what the people, their constitutients, want them to do -- which is their job.
First of all, the job of government is NOT to do exactly what people want. You have far less information available to you or understanding of international situation than the leadership. You elect them to make difficult decisions and lead. Not follow the shifting opinion polls.

There may have been changes - but I still see no positive progress. The part YOU dont get, is that GW has had a number of opportunities where the the American people gave him the benefit of the doubt and he didnt come through.
Have you looked for any progress? And if you're speaking of progress resulting from the strategy/leadership change, you haven't given it enough. And even before it was fully implemented, guys like you were attempted to have it defunded.

That's like saying my car is still running rough despite the fact that I ordered new spark plugs.

But let me as you this. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait to see if it is working? AND -- if its not - then what?
Apparently, they're saying that by Fall would should have a better answer.

Again, you have TWO choices. That's all.

1. Support the ongoing struggle for victory.
2. Support our defeat overseas and all the consequences that go with it.

I say again ----- Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media....
Blame them for what? Undermining support? The day to day erosion and attacks on the administration and the war effort? The Democrats have invested their political futures on our defeat overseas.

Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.
As stated, the liberal media will always find something to harp about. As mentioned, how many days did the Abu-Ghraib story run on the front page of the Times?

And you can recognize that there were tactical errors made during the occupation. It's unfortunate. But there isn't a playbook available for this kind of operations. The experience in Iraq is shaking up the military leadership, exposing the problems within, and hopefully improving it.

AGAIN, if we can't stomach the cost of victory in Iraq, we're in BIG trouble in the future. We're going to face considerably greater challenges in the coming years. Iraq is unpleasant, but the alternatives will be much, much worse.

A defeated and weakened America doesn't make the world safer. It leaders to greater death.

Guys like you, Joey, are well intentioned, but you simply do not understand what you're advocating. You're providing emotional reactions to serious problems. If you think we need to send in even more troops, a stronger force, and fight a more aggressive military campaign, then support that. Argue that. But you're advocating a humiliating defeat that will weaken our country, embolden terrorism, throw a region into chaos, free up terrorist assets and money, and simply put the entire world at greater risk. The end results will be more people dead.

The challenge through this whole conversation is, that like so many people, you're not actually "calling" for anything specific. You just sound defeatists and try to find new ways to blame people without regard to the outcome.

I always did call for substantially more troops. As did others. From day one when the war was being discussed, people were asking about an exit plan. There never was one. At least, not a good one.

You have to understand something. GW put us in this position, not me. I can call for and support anything - but reality is that GW has pretty much used up his credibility and likely couldnt get anything now. His 'surge' of 20k troops is little more then an excercise in futility I believe. 100k might have made an impact.

Guys like you, Joey, are well intentioned, but you simply do not understand what you're advocating. You're providing emotional reactions to serious problems. If you think we need to send in even more troops, a stronger force, and fight a more aggressive military campaign, then support that. Argue that. But you're advocating a humiliating defeat that will weaken our country, embolden terrorism, throw a region into chaos, free up terrorist assets and money, and simply put the entire world at greater risk. The end results will be more people dead.


Again, I always have. Even Monstermark will tell you that has been my position from day one. MANY more troops. You go in heavy and decisive, --- overkill. You take no chances.

I never understood this war. I always hoped and assumed that there was some hidden agenda on GW's part. Like the desire to intimidate Iran so they would capitulate on Nuclear weapons or something. But I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

throw a region into chaos, free up terrorist assets and money, and simply put the entire world at greater risk.

GW did this when he entered the war in the first place. So the question is - what do we do now? Its not that im defeatist, but im a realist. We dont have what we need to get the job done, and GW no longer has the clout to do what it will take to get the job done. SO where does that leave us while the Iraqi parliment is planning a 2 month vacation?

Give me something that makes SENSE! Leaving doesnt make sense to me, staying as we are now doesnt make sense to me.... and you know what? I belive the majority of the American public feels the same way. Its not defeatism, its frustration. Hell, for half a trillion dollars I bet Saddam would have been our lifelong ally -- what has our investment in dollars and military lives got us so far? A situation worse then we found it.

I always did call for substantially more troops. As did others. From day one when the war was being discussed, people were asking about an exit plan. There never was one. At least, not a good one.

There's no "exit plan?" No. What you mean is, there is no TIME TABLE. Huge difference between the two. There is absolutely a strategic goal.

You have to understand something. GW put us in this position, not me. I can call for and support anything - but reality is that GW has pretty much used up his credibility and likely couldnt get anything now. His 'surge' of 20k troops is little more then an excercise in futility I believe. 100k might have made an impact.
First off, elaborate what "position" we've been put in? A public with a short attention span? A hostile, anti-American media? Or a populace that doesn't even understand the dynamics of what we are dealing with?

"His" surge was not authored by "him" at all. You keep, mistakenly, associating military decisions to Bush. He's a president, a civilian. Military decisions and strategy are devised by military leaders. So, let's get rid of this image of Bush sitting down with a map and compass constructing troop movements.

Bush is invested in victory in Iraq. On a personal level, he has staked his Presidency on this. If Petraeus tells him that a surge and strategy change is needed, he provides the resources. He doesn't undermine them. He wants success.

In contrast, the Democrats are invested in our failure, regardless the consequences to our country. They are actively with holding funding, with holding resources, and projecting weakness and vulnerability. Their futures are linked to our defeat.



Again, I always have. Even Monstermark will tell you that has been my position from day one. MANY more troops. You go in heavy and decisive, --- overkill. You take no chances.
O.k. but you're thrown your support in with the Democrats, who were COMPLETELY opposed to that strong approach, and actively sought to limit the projection of strength our military made from the beginning.


I never understood this war.
That's apparent.
I always hoped and assumed that there was some hidden agenda on GW's part. Like the desire to intimidate Iran so they would capitulate on Nuclear weapons or something. But I see no evidence of that whatsoever.
Then you need to look a bit harder.

But it's difficult to project strength when you have a liberal 5th column within the country undermining our military efforts, ensuring defeat. If our country can't stay focused enough to win a military endevour (in military terms) of modest cost and loss of life, what will we do against a China, Russia, or Iran?

GW did this when he entered the war in the first place. So the question is - what do we do now? Its not that im defeatist, but im a realist. We dont have what we need to get the job done, and GW no longer has the clout to do what it will take to get the job done. SO where does that leave us while the Iraqi parliment is planning a 2 month vacation?
Iraqi vacation aside. You're not a realist, you're a defeatist.

You wanted more troops. Change of strategy. Change of leadership.

We've seen that happen. Yet, before it's even fully implemented, you cry defeat. If Paetraeus needs more troops, Bush will immediately authorize them. And yes, IT WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT NOW, because simple minded people have thrown their support behind the defeatist Democrats who are invested in our failure and have aligned themself with the enemy.

Give me something that makes SENSE! Leaving doesnt make sense to me, staying as we are now doesnt make sense to me.... and you know what? I belive the majority of the American public feels the same way. Its not defeatism, its frustration. Hell, for half a trillion dollars I bet Saddam would have been our lifelong ally -- what has our investment in dollars and military lives got us so far? A situation worse then we found it.
The situation will be worse ONLY if we allow ourself to be defeated. If we leave it up to guys like you, or our Democrat leadership, we can be assured of that.

If the country has the resolve and clarity to be victorious, then the situation will be much better and probably worth the investment. (Probably because there are no certainties, ever)


This thread is moronic. I've addressed every point you've made, yet you fail to acknowledge any or the arguments or facts I present and simply repeat what you feel. You don't address the consequences. You don't address the political realities. You don't address what will happen to the world if the power of the U.S. is perceived to have been undermined by a bunch of terrorist with car bombs. You don't address anything. You have concerns, you don't understand the world, and you seem to think we'll be o.k. if we just retreat behind our borders and pull the covers over our head.

That won't work.

You keep, mistakenly, associating military decisions to Bush. He's a president, a civilian.

No - he is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF

We've seen that happen. Yet, before it's even fully implemented, you cry defeat.

Im not crying defeat - but look at the results. Can you say things have improved in the last few months since the change in leadership and strategy? Has GW been to the podium to say: "Things are getting better" ?? Nope. If things were better, I have little doubt he would be out there on an aircraft carrier somewhere talking about it.

I do understand the world. I understand that when we invaded Iraq we hit a hornets nest with a stick. When the hornets swarmed the wasp nest next to the hornets also got active and the wasps and hornets are fighting. GW didnt send us with enough insecticide and we keep getting stung. In the meantime, GW wants us to just stand there and keep swatting while most of the country thinks we should run so we stop getting stung.

Now - YOU need to go back and do some reading....


Oct. 28, 2003--WASHINGTON--The terrorist attacks that have shaken Baghdad over the last two days threaten to undermine the Pentagon's strategy for extricating U.S. troops from Iraq, senior U.S. officials and independent experts said Monday.

The brazen and well-coordinated strikes, they said, could prevent an accelerated handover of security duties from American to Iraqi forces and the creation of a new Iraqi government.

"What it means is that we're stuck," said one senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119695089.html


Dec. 18, 2003 --WASHINGTON--President Bush's top envoy in Iraq has told Washington that he wants as many as 1,000 additional personnel to beef up the U.S. occupation authority amid growing concern that the effort to return Iraqi sovereignty by next summer is falling far behind schedule.

The recent request by L. Paul Bremer, which is being fiercely debated by the president's aides, underscores growing alarm in some sectors of the government that Bush's exit strategy for Iraq is in trouble.

It's been plagued by a political stalemate among Iraqis over how to choose a new ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119490519.html

No - he is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF
Which is a position only held by a civilian.

Im not crying defeat - but look at the results. Can you say things have improved in the last few months since the change in leadership and strategy? Has GW been to the podium to say: "Things are getting better" ?? Nope. If things were better, I have little doubt he would be out there on an aircraft carrier somewhere talking about it.
Yes, actually there have been improvements. And the enemy has intensified their efforts.

I do understand the world. I understand that when we invaded Iraq we hit a hornets nest with a stick. When the hornets swarmed the wasp nest next to the hornets also got active and the wasps and hornets are fighting. GW didnt send us with enough insecticide and we keep getting stung. In the meantime, GW wants us to just stand there and keep swatting while most of the country thinks we should run so we stop getting stung.
No, you're demonstrating how little you understand.

I think you're analogy is bad, but the mere fact you're equating it to a hornets nest implies you think this is a contained or isolated problem. That it's even confined to just one yard. That's not the case.

But in keeping with your imagery, when you bust up a hornets nest, you can't run away. They chase you. And if you hide, they wait.


Now - YOU need to go back and do some reading....
I've never stopped.

You linked to stories specifying violence. I've never implied that there was a shortage of violence in Iraq. Again, you clearly demonstrate how you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what we're talking about.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/McCaffreyIraq.pdf

"Since the arrival of General David Petraeus in command of Multi-National Force Iraq – the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved. … We can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."

"We Can Still Achieve Our Objective Of A Stable Iraq"

"In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."

"We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. General Dave Petraeus, LTG Ray Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have the country's treasure and combat power at their disposal. Our cause is just. The consequence of failure will be severe."

– Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, "After Action Report Following Visit To Iraq And Kuwait"

But in keeping with your imagery, when you bust up a hornets nest, you can't run away. They chase you. And if you hide, they wait.

I AGREE!!!! However - You forgot something - We didnt bring enough insecticide. THAT is the problem.

We cant run - your right. But as things stand now we dont have the tools necessary to win either. So what the hell do we do?

Im not defeatist - I dont want us to leave Iraq - but I want us too win - not just 'buy time' with the lives of our soldiers and at the expense of our credibility.


IMO -- The US should have a very simple policy. If we engage in military action against you, we will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you from day one.

THAT is the one main thing I have a problem with.

In Gulf I -- we said -- we're not going to play around. We're sending massive amounts of everything to ENSURE victory. We are sending much more then we think we need to ENSURE victory swift and decisive.

This sends the msot imporant message of all to the nations of the world - dont F*U*C*K with us.

SO I fully support sending more troops - but in GREATER numbers. Our message today should be "Enough of this crap - Now we come down like a ton of bricks" --

http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/McCaffreyIraq.pdf


Nice site - I didnt know about that one.

On a side note - I love this: Iran Bans Jazeera From News Conference

Wow - Irans is even too screwed up for al Jazeera -- ROFL

I AGREE!!!! However - You forgot something - We didnt bring enough insecticide. THAT is the problem.

You have two choices. Again, staying within the confines of your imagery.

One guy says "I've brought in another company to take care of the hornets. The first guy said we could use smoke to calm the hornets. And while you might think we should have 10 guys spraying the nest with poison, the new leadership thinks we only need 3. But if it doesn't work, he'll ask for more people."

The other guys say, "we can't do it. The hornets hate us. We need to run away. And if the hornets make a nest in our garage, we should just avoid that as well."


We cant run - your right. But as things stand now we dont have the tools necessary to win either. So what the hell do we do?
First off, WE CHANGED LEADERSHIP. STRATEGY. TROOP LEVELS. Clearly we HAVE the tools to win, it's simply a matter of how they are utilized. And how the hell do you know if we can win or not with the current strategy. It's making progress (NO, IT WILL NOT BE REPORTED IN THE MEDIA).

Im not defeatist - I dont want us to leave Iraq - but I want us too win - not just 'buy time' with the lives of our soldiers and at the expense of our credibility.
WE CHANGED LEADERSHIP. STRATEGY. INCREASED TROOP LEVELS. Initial reports are positive, but we haven't had enough time to see the full results. I just linked to Gen. McCaffrey's highly critical report of Iraq.


IMO -- The US should have a very simple policy. If we engage in military action against you, we will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you from day one.
That's overly simplistic. But what should be policy is that military will have the full support of the public and government until the stated goal is achieved.



SO I fully support sending more troops - but in GREATER numbers. Our message today should be "Enough of this crap - Now we come down like a ton of bricks" --
Again, you're overly simplistic. But, since you don't care to actually learn what the changes associated with Gates and Patreus are, you'll find that it is a much firmer approach.

Now, next time the NY TIMES starts prosecuting our troops in the field for being "brutal" keep this in mind.

They should be brutal. We should be feared. Period.

That's overly simplistic.

Right - Exactly - leave no ambiguity. Enemies now and in the future will know that we are going to come down HARD. Period. Yes, simple. I like simple. Nothing wrong with simple.

WE CHANGED LEADERSHIP. STRATEGY. INCREASED TROOP LEVELS.

You keep saying this. We have changed strategy and leadership several times, and the increase in troop levels really is minor - I think less then a 15% increase. So im looking for RESULTS.

Now, before you say it -- tell me this. IF - in September/October, we havent seen significant improvement of things there - then what do we do in your opinon?

You keep saying this. We have changed strategy and leadership several times, and the increase in troop levels really is minor - I think less then a 15% increase. So im looking for RESULTS.
Really, I'm only aware of the Secretary of Defense being changed once. So, you're claim is incorrect. There hasn't been such a major change in strategy. There have always been evolving tactics, but we're now seeing a change in the philosophy and military theory being employed. It's a huge change.

And why do you think that you have a better idea what is needed in Iraq, compared to the General who is now incharge and already seeing improvement? Do you know something that Petreaus doesn't know?

If you're looking for results, you have to give a reasonable amount of time for those results to be seen. And even in this short period of time, we ARE seeing results. I provided you a link. McCaffrey is not a friend of the Bush administration. That report is not a glowing report on Iraq. But it does recognize POSITIVE results and it does state that victory is still very possible.

Now, before you say it -- tell me this. IF - in September/October, we havent seen significant improvement of things there - then what do we do in your opinon?
Ask General Petreaus, not me. The same thing that Bush will do. But I'll tell you what we DO NOT do. Follow the Democrats in their race to embrace defeat.

Really, I'm only aware of the Secretary of Defense being changed once. So, you're claim is incorrect.

Let me remind you:

You keep, mistakenly, associating military decisions to Bush. He's a president, a civilian.

SO you want it both ways now? You want to insulate the President from military decisions as a civilian, but then justify the Sec of Defense, also a civilian?

Ask General Petreaus, not me. The same thing that Bush will do. But I'll tell you what we DO NOT do. Follow the Democrats in their race to embrace defeat.

Thats why I ahve a hard time taking some of what you say (and GW says) seriously. You say -- give it a chance to work -- when it doesnt - well, we'll see..

When is it appropriate for people to say "Enough is enough" ?

Can the Iraq 'Surge' Be Salvaged?

As Violence Seems to Outpace Progress, Officials Talk of Next Steps
By GREG JAFFE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- When the Bush administration decided to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq, the strategy rested on an unspoken trade-off: U.S. troops would risk greater casualties to tamp down violence and buy the Baghdad government time to make the political compromises needed to reconcile the country's warring factions.

But a resurgence of sectarian violence and attacks on U.S. troops, coupled with little to no progress on crucial Iraqi political goals, is already spurring discussion about whether the current strategy can succeed.

More..... (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118056694765119209-7QM5p0ls2exFJ1SFGhtT9GaJ6zg_20070629.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top)


http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AN024A_IRAQ_20070530194435.gif

Amazing what 2 more data points do to the "trend" earlier claimed by some as "The Surge is Working"............... :rolleyes:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=275132&postcount=6

So much for "plan A". What's "plan B", designate a new Iraq war "czar" so that he can be the next convienient scape goat?? Have Gonzales testify a few more times on what a dim wit he is to distract the country's attention from this fatal failure in Iraq?

I see the US Military death cheering section is back rooting for the away team.:shifty:

I see the US Military death cheering section is back rooting for the away team.:shifty:

You sir, are dilusional. No one is "cheering" for more US military deaths. Both Joey and I (as are the MAJORITY of US citizens) are disgusted at BuSh and "his plan" of pissing away US blood just for the purpose of delaying the pull-out until it occurs on someone else's watch. Both Joey and I have been calling for MORE troops to be EFFECTIVE in squashing the "away team", but NOOOooooo, BuSh just wants to bleed our great country dry of it's blood and resources for his political gain. But since you've bought into his ideals hook line and sinker, I don't expect you to see the reality of the situation for what it is. There cannot be "victory" in Iraq with BuSh's wimpy idea of a "surge". We've been saying it for years now, go BIG or go HOME. And since BuSh isn't man enough to go BIG, he might as well go HOME.

Exactly.

Im one of the people who think the SURGE should have been 100k troops or MORE --- To me, its either -- Get the job done right - or dont do it. This halfway crap is not working. This is whats costing our soldiers' lives.

Gulf War I had the right idea. They deliberately sent way more troops then they needed. Why? It ensured victory. What iraq and her people need isnt time. Its force. These people in the middle east ONLY respond to blunt force. Look at the history in the region and look at who has been successful in maintaining governments. THAT is what those people respond to. Blunt force.

Want another prediction? Regardless of what happens now, within 10 years or so, someone will step up and take over Iraq as a dictator. He'll have the backing of the military and we'll be back where we were before. Saddam by another name.

I guess I disagree with everybody. The surge should have been in March 2003, when there was still order in the country and we might have stood a chance of maintaining it. At this point in 2007, a million troops wouldn't be able to put things right.