G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 "I would say that not enough strategists discussed this before we got involved and not enough strategists are discussing it now." to further respond to your post, there is no doubt there was a partisan, political move to invade Iraq- ever heard of the book "hubris" by Isakoff and Corne- interesting read. Yes, more people should discuss it, my comment is mainly aimed at people's knee jerk reactions saying that we should just pull out, without a grasp of the consequences of those actions. But obviously what we're doing isn't working either. So if we can't pull out then what is the alternative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 Your logic is flawed my friend- however badly we screwed things up on the initial occupation does not determine that the only policy is leave the region. Just to be clear we are talking about leaving Iraq, not the region. Do you really think that if we leave Iraq, everything will be OK? Get real! The fact of the matter is the place will go to hell in a handbasket, and the insurgency that is plaguing Iraq will spread into into a regional war. Well, Iraq has gone to hell in a handbasket. with more than 100 Iraqi's dieing every day in attacks, and 250 attacks on our forces a week. The question isn't whether if we leave will things go back to normal.. They won't. The question is whether our forces their make a difference? Our forces are there in the middle of an increase in violence. Will that violence run it's course whether we are there or not? According to US military inteligence the attacks will continue to increase throughout 2007. We can't even control bagdad with our current troop levels much less the rest of the country. And the Iraqi army which we are training is not dependable regardless of how long we train them. Iraqi's don't want to fight for America. The Iraqi people don't want us there, so what the hell are we doing there? Only making the situation worse. Do we hold their hands and go through this mess with them? That's not an option either; because although we aren't able to win; we are able to put off loosing. So our presence just puts off a solution. The Malaqui (sp.) gov't is too weak, and corrupted by al Sadr to succeed without our boots on the ground. In Vietnam we said the same thing about Diem's government right before we assasignated him and engineered a military coop. That's the next step in Iraq. Our boots won't make a difference. Didn't make a difference in Vietnam either. Installing a pupet government which lacks the popular support of the people will never work. The people are pro-Iranian.. ( 65% Shiite population )... The people want security and their basic infrastructure needs met. We can't do that job. And the job won't get done by anybody as long as we're their keeping the problem from being sorted out. I'm not saying I like the situation- but the alternative that you and others present is a receipe for a larger conflict that we would again find ourselves involved in- spreading to Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. That may be true. But it's going to happen whether we are their or not. We cannot continue to spend 2 billion a week on this mess, just because we fear to face the inevitable. The complete destabilization of the region is at stake, and like I said earlier, we are stuck with the mess we made, we can't just leave. The region is destabilized. Our solution cannot be "stay the coarse". Our solution has to be to try to make the situation better by getting out of the way. Baker and his commitee has it right. We are making it worse every day we stay, not better. Soon as we understand that our choice is easy. I don't disagree with any of your issues though, just your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 "I would say that not enough strategists discussed this before we got involved and not enough strategists are discussing it now." to further respond to your post, there is no doubt there was a partisan, political move to invade Iraq- I think the same dilusions which got us involved in Iraq are still at play. Nobody is willing to say the emporor has no cloth. Nobody is willing to say the emporor has been naked on that stage for years now. Originally after 911 anybody who was anti war with Iraq was shouted down as Pro Terrorist or pro Al Quada.... An appeaser who would rather live under the shaddow of a nuclear Iraq under that "mass murder" Saddam. All of that was Bogus. Not a single valid defendable reason for invading Iraq stands. So now life long conservatives who have been anti nation's building their entire carreers are newly minted humanitarians.... " Our mission now is to spreading democracy thoughout the world..." because democracies don't attack democracies... FALSE!! Now those same folks are framing the argument which you put forward. It will be worse for America if we leave. It will be worse for Iraq if we leave. The entire Middle east will be destabilized... Stay the course! Stay the course!!! Problem is the inteligence reports just don't bare those conclusions out. The vioilence in Iraq isn't getting better.. its getting worse. It's accellerating. We don't have more troops to put in ( THANK YOU MR BUSH )!!. The Iraqi's which we have trained desert almost 30% of them every time we send them into the field. They just aren't reliable. And still nobody in the press, no elected officials, non of our leaders are being honest about what's going on... How many mis-truth's do you allow these guys.. ( Republicans and Dems ) before you start questioning their assertions.? ever heard of the book "hubris" by Isakoff and Corne- interesting read. Yes, more people should discuss it, my comment is mainly aimed at people's knee jerk reactions saying that we should just pull out, without a grasp of the consequences of those actions. In the book Hubris.. When Bush first called for the invasion the then Chairman of the joint cheifs told Bush, told Congress, told Rumsfeld that according to occupation numbers we used in WWII that America would need 250,000 to 350,000 troops to occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfwowitz responded that they couldn't believe it would take more troops to occupy Iraq than to invade it..... Now that we know one core problem with this occupation is that we never had enough troops. How can stay the course be a reasonable approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSKINZ80 Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 In my opinion, we HAVE lost. Its over! Its just a matter of time b4 we admit it. There's absolutely no hope in Iraq. I just came back from the middle east and spoke with many people who travel to Iraq. Its literally the Wild West there. No laws, no safety, no security, and U.S. troops basically stay in their fortified bases. They barely go out and when they do, they get attacked. There's a freakin 24 hour satellite TV station run by former Baathists that show daily and continuous footage of all the "Resistance" operations against U.S. troops, patrols, tanks etc... The sheer number and sophistication of attacks is pretty disturbing. These aren't just some hard core zealots. Its the former army that we disbanded. Men with military training and with all the weapons in the world at their disposal. Its a pretty bad situation that isn't going to get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbasye Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 But obviously what we're doing isn't working either. So if we can't pull out then what is the alternative? I agree- things aren't getting better- as I think most will agree, there isnt a true military solution to the issue- diplomacy, coupled with an increase in the employment of Iraqis is key. Our presence there is needed until the Iraqis (who are slow to progress and ridden with tribal alliances) can provide security for themselves. The diplomacy factor comes in with respect to the Iranians- they dont want the powder-keg to go off either. I think if we threaten the Iranians with the prospect of pulling out, we may get some leverage, altough I dont see the current administration doing this. by the way- there are some sad looking ohio state fans on tv right now (its now 34-14!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 I agree- things aren't getting better- as I think most will agree, there isnt a true military solution to the issue- diplomacy, coupled with an increase in the employment of Iraqis is key. Our presence there is needed until the Iraqis (who are slow to progress and ridden with tribal alliances) can provide security for themselves. The diplomacy factor comes in with respect to the Iranians- they dont want the powder-keg to go off either. I think if we threaten the Iranians with the prospect of pulling out, we may get some leverage, altough I dont see the current administration doing this.by the way- there are some sad looking ohio state fans on tv right now (its now 34-14!) Several problems with this. 1) We don't talk to Iran or Syria, because Bush is an idiot. So that kind of limits our diplomacy... 2) Each budget for Iraq has included infrastructure money. That money is never spent for infrastructure because you can't have repair folk do thier job when they're taking fire. So the Pentigon spends the infrastructure money on security needs. The 1 billion Bush put in his latest iraq budget for jobs promotion therefore will never be spent for jobs. It will just disappear into Halaburton's pocket like much of the 500 billion America has already spent in Iraq. Our presence there is needed until the Iraqis (who are slow to progress and ridden with tribal alliances) can provide security for themselves. The major part of the Insergency is former Iraqi soldiers. This means professional soldiers who are still fighting the war which Bush falsely declaired over almost four years ago. Likewise the insurgency got more sophisticated and more effective thoughout 2006. United States Army Inteligence has told Bush that they expect the insurgency to continue to grow in strength throughout 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 In my opinion, we HAVE lost. Its over! Its just a matter of time b4 we admit it. There's absolutely no hope in Iraq. I just came back from the middle east and spoke with many people who travel to Iraq. Its literally the Wild West there. No laws, no safety, no security, and U.S. troops basically stay in their fortified bases. They barely go out and when they do, they get attacked. There's a freakin 24 hour satellite TV station run by former Baathists that show daily and continuous footage of all the "Resistance" operations against U.S. troops, patrols, tanks etc... The sheer number and sophistication of attacks is pretty disturbing. These aren't just some hard core zealots. Its the former army that we disbanded. Men with military training and with all the weapons in the world at their disposal. Its a pretty bad situation that isn't going to get better. I agree that the current group of yahoo's who lead the country who masterminded our failed strategy can't be counted on to make the hard decisions to turn this into a winner. Likely they've dug us already into too big a hole. We are very likely going to have to go back their in the future to clean up this mess. I also agree that most American's just don't understand that this civil war is a continouation of the American war of Invasion. Suddam's Sunni faction fighting American / Iranian backed Shiite faction/majority. Last month our allies in the region informed us if we leave they would come in on the Saddam / Sunni faction to try to limit Iran's new influence over the country. That means they will be backing Saddam's former military, Baathists. It also means we will likely end up backing the Baathists who we are now fighting!! Bush is a moron.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 When we decided to fight Iraq instead of spending money and resources on the devastation in New Orleans, that's when we lost and lost badly! People continuing to focus on New Orleans instead of the entire Gulf reigon is also a loss for this country also. Why is New Orleans the focus for Katrina? Because they were the most vocal? Because they received the most mediot coverage? Seriously, New Orleans didn't even receive a direct hit. They were in the streets partying the day after the Hurricane because it missed them. OH CRAP! The levees broke. No wind, no storm surge, the levee's broke. Poor New Orleans. I was on the MS Gulf Coast 5 days after the storm. You didn't see people wollering in misery begging for help. You saw people pulling together and doing whatever it took to survive. The devastation in New Orleans, that's one tired ass line. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." "A World Transformed" (1998) George Herbert Walker Bush Been looking for that quote for some time. His own father chose not to invade because of exactly what is occurring now.:notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Been looking for that quote for some time. His own father chose not to invade because of exactly what is occurring now.:notworthy Yes and how many Kurds,shiites and even Americans paid dearly for that choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.