Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many su

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.
By Ned Parker, Times Staff Writer
July 15, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story
BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

The problem casts a spotlight on the tangled web of alliances and enmities that underlie the political relations between Muslim nations and the U.S.

Complicated past

In the 1980s, the Saudi intelligence service sponsored Sunni Muslim fighters for the U.S.-backed Afghan mujahedin battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan. At the time, Saudi intelligence cultivated another man helping the Afghan fighters, Osama bin Laden, the future leader of Al Qaeda who would one day turn against the Saudi royal family and mastermind the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has long been a source of a good portion of the money and manpower for Al Qaeda: 15 of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks were Saudi.

Now, a group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq is the greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security, U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said Wednesday.

The group, one of several Sunni Muslim insurgent groups operating in Baghdad and beyond, relies on foreigners to carry out suicide attacks because Iraqis are less likely to undertake such strikes, which the movement hopes will provoke sectarian violence, Bergner said. Despite its name, the extent of the group's links to Bin Laden's network, based along the Afghan-Pakistani frontier, is unclear.

The Saudi government does not dispute that some of its youths are ending up as suicide bombers in Iraq, but says it has done everything it can to stop the bloodshed.

"Saudis are actually being misused. Someone is helping them come to Iraq. Someone is helping them inside Iraq. Someone is recruiting them to be suicide bombers. We have no idea who these people are. We aren't getting any formal information from the Iraqi government," said Gen. Mansour Turki, spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry.

"If we get good feedback from the Iraqi government about Saudis being arrested in Iraq, probably we can help," he said.

Defenders of Saudi Arabia pointed out that it has sought to control its lengthy border with Iraq and has fought a bruising domestic war against Al Qaeda since Sept. 11.

"To suggest they've done nothing to stem the flow of people into Iraq is wrong," said a U.S. intelligence official in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "People do get across that border. You can always ask, 'Could more be done?' But what are they supposed to do, post a guard every 15 or 20 paces?"

Deep suspicions

Others contend that Saudi Arabia is allowing fighters sympathetic to Al Qaeda to go to Iraq so they won't create havoc at home.

Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, accused Saudi officials of a deliberate policy to sow chaos in Baghdad.

"The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia has strong intelligence resources, and it would be hard to think that they are not aware of what is going on," he said.

Askari also alleged that imams at Saudi mosques call for jihad, or holy war, against Iraq's Shiites and that the government had funded groups causing unrest in Iraq's largely Shiite south. Sunni extremists regard Shiites as unbelievers.

Other Iraqi officials said that though they believed Saudi Arabia, a Sunni fundamentalist regime, had no interest in helping Shiite-ruled Iraq, it was not helping militants either. But some Iraqi Shiite leaders say the Saudi royal family sees the Baghdad government as a proxy for its regional rival, Shiite-ruled Iran, and wants to unseat it.

With its own border with Iraq largely closed, Saudi fighters take what is now an established route by bus or plane to Syria, where they meet handlers who help them cross into Iraq's western deserts, the senior U.S. military officer said.

He suggested it was here that Saudi Arabia could do more, by implementing rigorous travel screenings for young Saudi males. Iraqi officials agreed.

"Are the Saudis using all means possible? Of course not…. And we think they need to do more, as does Syria, as does Iran, as does Jordan," the senior officer said. An estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters cross into Iraq each month, according to the U.S. military.

"It needs to be addressed by the government of Iraq head on. They have every right to stand up to a country like Saudi Arabia and say, 'Hey, you are killing thousands of people by allowing your young jihadists to come here and associate themselves with an illegal worldwide network called Al Qaeda."

Both the White House and State Department declined to comment for this article.

Turki, the Saudi spokesman, defended the right of his citizens to travel without restriction.

"If you leave Saudi Arabia and go to other places and find somebody who drags them to Iraq, that is a problem we can't do anything about," Turki said. He added that security officials could stop people from leaving the kingdom only if they had information on them.

U.S. officials had not shared with Iraqi officials information gleaned from Saudi detainees, but this has started to change, said an Iraqi source, who asked not to be identified. For example, U.S. officials provided information about Saudi fighters and suicide bombers to Iraqi security officials who traveled to Saudi Arabia last week.

Iraqi advisor Askari asserted that Vice President Dick Cheney, in a visit to Saudi Arabia in May, pressured officials to crack down on militant traffic to Iraq. But that message has not yet produced results, Askari said.

The close relationship between the U.S. and oil-rich Saudi Arabia has become increasingly difficult.

Saudi leaders in early February undercut U.S. diplomacy in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by brokering, in Mecca, an agreement to form a Fatah-Hamas "unity" government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And King Abdullah took Americans by surprise by declaring at an Arab League gathering that the U.S. presence in Iraq was illegitimate.

U.S. officials remain sensitive about the relationship. Asked why U.S. officials in Iraq had not publicly criticized Saudi Arabia the way they had Iran or Syria, the senior military officer said, "Ask the State Department. This is a political juggernaut."

Last week when U.S. military spokesman Bergner declared Al Qaeda in Iraq the country's No. 1 threat, he released a profile of a thwarted suicide bomber, but said he had not received clearance to reveal his nationality. The bomber was a Saudi national, the senior military officer said Saturday.

Would-be suicide bomber

The fighter, a young college graduate whose mother was a teacher and father a professor, had been recruited in a mosque to join Al Qaeda in Iraq. He was given money for a bus ticket and a phone number to call in Syria to contact a handler who would smuggle him into Iraq.

Once the young Saudi made it in, he was under the care of Iraqis who gave him his final training and indoctrination. At the very last minute, the bomber decided he didn't want to blow himself up. He was supposed to have been one of two truck bombers on a bridge outside Ramadi. When the first truck exploded, he panicked and chose not to trigger his own detonator, and Iraqi police arrested him.

Al Qaeda in Iraq and its affiliate groups number anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 individuals, the senior U.S. military officer said. Iraqis make up the majority of members, facilitating attacks, indoctrinating, fighting, but generally not blowing themselves up. Iraqis account for roughly 10% of suicide bombers, according to the U.S. military.
 
Already read this story. Fits with what I've been saying - that we need to go after Saudi Arabia to finish this war. Of course, we don't know what Phil thinks, since he doesn't post his opinions outside of personal attacks on members or Bush.

By the way, interesting last few paragraphs - I thought Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? :rolleyes:
 
I like how the majority wants the troops back home, but at the same time I hear. "AL Qaeda/terrorist are at the same strength as pre Sept. 11". I am tired of the politics involved in war. I am starting to think the U.S. government is more worried about who is going to win the election vice who is going to come out on top in the middle east. If we withdraw, the violence is going to explode in the middle east. I think they need to follow through. It is obvious that the Iraqi government is years away from being able to control anything over there. Too many influences. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sunni, Shiite, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah. If we arent going to finish what we started, then we need to back up and play umpire. The Umpire runs the game. For that matter, we need to spend some money and bribe the coaches. Terrorist are not going to quit until they are dead or until they have no one to follow. The only way to win is to have them kill each other.
 
There is little BUT politics in this war.

The Bush family has been in bed with the Saudi's for DECADES. That wont change.

The Dems only want to show that the President and Republicans have no clue what to do about the war. But truth is, they have no real plan either.

The repubs run around claiming they are doing all this anti terror stuff, but the source of the problem is just as strong as it was 6 years ago. So we know they have accomplished little as far as the long term goes.

TO be honest, I dont know what we can do now. I dont think the country is up for another round. Hundreds of Billions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost. And can anyone honestly say we are really better off then 6 years ago?

We went down the wrong path. Now nobody wants to back up and change direction except to just come home. That also wont solve the problem.
 
The government of Saudi Arabia is not the source of terrorism, they aren't state sponsored. There certainly are terrorists within Saudi Arabia though.
The Saudi's are not the same as the Syrians or the Iranians. Their very existence is threatened by the terrorism.

Be careful to not paint with too broad a brush here. The Saudis shouldn't be considered friends, but they aren't the enemy right now either. They do provide intelligence, they have historically acted as a stabilizing force with oil prices, increasing production to offset shortages elsewhere. And they violently address domestic terrorists.

And we are better than we were six years ago, provided this new, even less popular congress doesn't make decisions to contradict that. But people to realize this threat from Islam isn't going to go away in 2 years, six years, or even 15 years. This is going to intensify and there's no way to avoid it.

We have enough on our plate without having to worry about the Saudi royal family. They are motivated by self-interest at this point and that means they are the enemy of our enemy.
 
As long as they are teaching their children that Israelis are apes and pigs, and that they will be heroes if they become suicide bombing killers of the hated Jew-allies (the Americans), they are our enemies.

Don't accuse me of painting too broad a brush while they're teaching this in their schools. Don't you try to minimize this issue. You're trying to inject Middle East politics into this situation rather than focus on our interests.

Joey, I would argue that we are safer than we were 6 years ago. We haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11.
 
And to support your claim about the education, here's an article from last May regarding the "intolerance free" revisions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html

But our interest is what? Increasing hostilities with Saudi Arabia? How do you NOT recognize Middle Eastern politics and government when determining what our interests really are.

Increasingly, the Saudis government has been moving away from the appeasement policy with terrorism, the "just terrorize somewhere else" philosophy, because it's backfired on them. They are in the cross hairs as well. It's fine to recognize the social problems within Saudi Arabia, but it's not the same as Iraq was and Iran is.

Again, they are not our friends. But what would you like to see done? Embargo the Saudis? Regime change? Maybe we can just hope a regional war erupts pitting the Sunnis Saudis and their proxy armies against the Iranians Shiites and their extensions in Iraq? Hopefully it won't spill into other regions. Reality is, we have limited leverage over the Saudis.

Those who misunderstand the Saudi situation as some kind personal relationship with the Bush's don't understand modern history. Every world leader dealing with that region needs a relationship with them.

And, as I stated, the terrorist from Saudi Arabia aren't state sponsored. And unfortunately, that alone is an important distinction when dealing with the region.
 
There is little BUT politics in this war.

cartoons071407dql1.jpg
 
And to support your claim about the education, here's an article from last May regarding the "intolerance free" revisions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html

But our interest is what? Increasing hostilities with Saudi Arabia? How do you NOT recognize Middle Eastern politics and government when determining what our interests really are.

Increasingly, the Saudis government has been moving away from the appeasement policy with terrorism, the "just terrorize somewhere else" philosophy, because it's backfired on them. They are in the cross hairs as well. It's fine to recognize the social problems within Saudi Arabia, but it's not the same as Iraq was and Iran is.

Again, they are not our friends. But what would you like to see done? Embargo the Saudis? Regime change? Maybe we can just hope a regional war erupts pitting the Sunnis Saudis and their proxy armies against the Iranians Shiites and their extensions in Iraq? Hopefully it won't spill into other regions. Reality is, we have limited leverage over the Saudis.

Those who misunderstand the Saudi situation as some kind personal relationship with the Bush's don't understand modern history. Every world leader dealing with that region needs a relationship with them.

And, as I stated, the terrorist from Saudi Arabia aren't state sponsored. And unfortunately, that alone is an important distinction when dealing with the region.

You assert that it's not state sponsored, but you have no proof. The fact that they allow indoctrination of their children into terrorists via public airwaves and schools indicates a tacit endorsement of terrorism.

Regardless of your attempts to make this a political issue, you are ignoring the underlying cause: ISLAM. That is the real evil here. Islam is not a religion of peace and you know it. Islam is the force behind most of the terrorism in the world with the possible exception of the IRA. So what should we do about this? First of all, stop looking at this as a political problem.

I've told you before what we should do. We give them a show of force. That is the only thing these Islamists understand. We move tank divisions to the Iranian and Syrian borders and start bombing their cities and infrastructure. Then we tell Saudi government officials via back channel that they are next unless and until they openly renounce terrorism and pull the teaching from their schools and airwaves. Until they comply we will start breaking things.

We're going to have to settle this at some point, whether you like it or not. These Islamists are gunning for us, and they are fanatical about it. They will not cool off over time. This has been a problem for decades and we totally ignored them in the 1990s, so that should have been a cooling off period. What did they do? Hit our towers.
 
I'll tell you where I'm starting to lean. No show of force, no further engagement in the region. I've long stated that there is no security hiding behind the ocean. But it seems like the military operations in Iraq are to come to an end reasonably soon, regardless the outcome. It's of little consequence when we leave, it's just a matter of doing it safely. A military friend of mine refers to it as backing out with our guns drawn.

And if a withdrawal is inevitable, it doesn't matter when.

After that maybe let that whole region simply devolve into a broad civil war and then regional conflict. Saudis funding the Sunnis. Iran funding the Shi'ites. I doubt it'll stay contained within the Mid East, it'll inevitably spill into Europe and Asia. Hopefully we can stay isolated from it.

A nuclear Islam is damn near inevitable. Pakistan is one bullet away from become a theocratic nuclear power. (And India is not going to be too happy about this). And once that happens, it'll matter little whether Iran has fully achieved it's goal or not. It'll spread.

Pull back. Regroup. Rearm.
Build the border fence, secure them with technology.
Drill in Alaska, do a space race attempt to develop sustainable alternative energy.
And then wait until we're provoked and turn the region to glass.
 
I'll tell you where I'm starting to lean. No show of force, no further engagement in the region. I've long stated that there is no security hiding behind the ocean. But it seems like the military operations in Iraq are to come to an end reasonably soon, regardless the outcome. It's of little consequence when we leave, it's just a matter of doing it safely. A military friend of mine refers to it as backing out with our guns drawn.

And if a withdrawal is inevitable, it doesn't matter when.

After that maybe let that whole region simply devolve into a broad civil war and then regional conflict. Saudis funding the Sunnis. Iran funding the Shi'ites. I doubt it'll stay contained within the Mid East, it'll inevitably spill into Europe and Asia. Hopefully we can stay isolated from it.

A nuclear Islam is damn near inevitable. Pakistan is one bullet away from become a theocratic nuclear power. (And India is not going to be too happy about this). And once that happens, it'll matter little whether Iran has fully achieved it's goal or not. It'll spread.

Pull back. Regroup. Rearm.
Build the border fence, secure them with technology.
Drill in Alaska, do a space race attempt to develop sustainable alternative energy.
And then wait until we're provoked and turn the region to glass.


So we just abandon our long time allies the Israelis? Sure, they can take care of themselves, right? Since they're about the size of a postage stamp and surrounded by mortal enemies, they obviously don't need anyone watching their backs, eh? May I remind you that you are leaning in the direction of Ron Paul, with whom you disagree?

What ever happened to the sound military doctrine of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?" We ignore what's happening over there, we'll get hit again, 9/11 times a bazillion. (Yes, I know, that's 911 bazillion)
 
Joey, I would argue that we are safer than we were 6 years ago. We haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11.

And we are better than we were six years ago, provided this new, even less popular congress doesn't make decisions to contradict that.


2 points...

First, I am only regurgatating what our own intelligence agencies have said about Al Qaida being as strong and able to attack as they were pre 9-11

Second - less popular congress? The last poll regarding who people would elect for Congress in 2008 shows 53% for Dems and 41% for Repubs. In addition, congressional approval poll shows them at 31% - which is low, but its also higher then the repubs had since last August. Further, congress job ratings hasnt changed substantially for years. SO, less popular then who? GW sits at 29%.

Partisianship aside. These numbers are dismal for all. Neither party should produce these numbers, let alone the President. It really tells me the country is unhappy in general.
 
So we just abandon our long time allies the Israelis?
It might be time to take this argument out of the idealist or theoretical realm and into reality. The U.S. isn't staying in Iraq. The mistakes made at the start have made any kind of sustainable peace very difficult, if not impossible. And the support for continued involvement is gone.

Worse yet, when I speak with military friends, the picture I'm getting is getting worse, rapidly. The concept of a broken military are coming to be true. Realities need to set in, because ultimately the reality is more important than the principle.

Ultimately, is there any achievable situation (within a year) that can be reached that won't still devolve into a regional war once we leave? And with a Democrat Congress, a frustrated public, and a unhappy overworked military, is it even possible to consider staying longer than 2008?

I reserve ultimate judgment until the fall when Petraeus says we'll have some kind of indications as to how effective this surge has been. But if it can't be done quickly, then there's no point in delaying the inevitable.

We can continue to support Israel in terms of money and technology, but if sustainable victory is no longer going to happen in Iraq, there's no point in delaying the inevitable. We might as well fix all the sand damage in our tanks in the meantime.

Sure, they can take care of themselves, right? Since they're about the size of a postage stamp and surrounded by mortal enemies, they obviously don't need anyone watching their backs, eh? May I remind you that you are leaning in the direction of Ron Paul, with whom you disagree?
1. Actually, they can take care of themselves. They have demonstrated this several times in the past, in an era before we actually did help them or watch their backs. I'm not saying we should abandon Israel, but I've said it before.

If we're going to withdraw our troops from Iraq, if it's going to be considered a failure or partial-failure/victory, then it's better to just pull the troops out quickly than drag it out. Regardless of Israel. No politician would expect an ongoing military commitment of this scale in the Middle East simply to help secure Israel. If any of us are motivated to defend Israel, perhaps they will begin to recruit foreigners to join their military.

And I know, I was highly critical of Ron Paul and his isolationism a few months ago when you brought him up. While I'm still not an isolationist, the situation in Iraq is reaching a critical point and I'm highly alarmed by state of the military and the long term consequences.

Let me make it clear, I think the lack of a clear victory in Iraq is a horrible outcome. This is a disaster. The consequences of this are going to serious and there is going to ultimately a huge loss of life will not be avoided.

If Iraq becomes a proxy battle ground for the Saudi funded Sunnis and the Iranian funded Shi'ites, the battle will expand beyond the borders. Pakistan is a bullet away from becoming a nuclear powered Sharia state. India isn't too pleased with this. Iran is close. The issue with the Kurds might ultimately cause a renewed thrust of independence in a number of countries, including Turkey. This is seriously bad. Nothing I've said before has changed, I think the consequences of an unstable Iraq are just as dire as they were before.

However, I concerned about the state of military and the will of the public. And when I can't assure a soldier that they have the full support of the public and that victory can and will be achieved, I don't see how you can ask them to risk getting their faces blown off in an effort to stay there a few more months.


What ever happened to the sound military doctrine of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?" We ignore what's happening over there, we'll get hit again, 9/11 times a bazillion. (Yes, I know, that's 911 bazillion)

I think there's no likelihood that the congress will authorize huge spending increases for the military, that the current troop surge will show substantial gains by fall, and everything else necessary for victory will take place. Unless that's going to happen, we're just killing time at this point. And it matters little if we secure one or two more of the troubled towns. If a complete sustainable victory isn't possible in the situation, then a polite political "victory" can be defined. And frankly, we can let that disgusting "civilization" go back to killing each other. We can watch by satellite.

In the meantime, fence in the borders, put the technology on the border, drill in ANWR and the Gulf, and invest the Iraq money into rebuilding the military and a space race to develop new fuel technology.

I'd like to let the Saudi's drown in their oil, but the reality is, China will move into that void... and that's another set of problems.

I'm not happy with this outcome, or my pessimism, but that's what I'm seeing now. I war in Iraq was genuine and sound theory. It was highly ambitious. It didn't work. And the political situation within THIS country made it even more unlikely to succeed. And now we have to examine the stark realities and determine what is the best way to proceed in a severely compromised situation.

But we really are looking at the "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake" situation... If we're only fighting for a PR victory at this point, and the military is severely weakened, we need to leave sooner than later.

I'll give it until fall. If there is no glowing progress and likelihood of long term stability, then both sides need to stop digging in and make some thoughtful decisions.
 
First, I am only regurgatatin what our own intelligence agencies have said about Al Qaida being as strong and able to attack as they were pre 9-11

That's not accurate.

But presuming it was, why haven't they strengthened in six years? Despite the fact that they have brand recognition, they actively are recruiting and funding other organizations under their umbrella, why haven't they gotten stronger? Further more, how are they stronger when their original leadership is dead or in prison and UBL is likely dead in a Pakistani cave right now.

But they are taking advantage of the instability in Pakistan, building training camps. And Al-Queda is sort of like a brand name, any group of opportunistic criminals can try to affiliate with Al-Queda. With the name they gain clout and fund raising ability. So even groups that aren't originally affiliated with the Islamic fundamentalism are doing it for money under the Al Queda banner.
 
Calabrio said:
If we're going to withdraw our troops from Iraq, if it's going to be considered a failure or partial-failure/victory, then it's better to just pull the troops out quickly than drag it out.

Calabrio, you cavalierly gloss over this statement as if it's as simple as a few planes taking off. Have you even begun to consider the logistical nightmare of pulling 158,000 troops out of a hostile and volatile environment?

First of all, I reject out of hand the notion that we can even pull out completely. Second of all, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw those kinds of numbers QUICKLY. Third, who's going to cover our rear echelon as we "retreat?" Fourth, who will ever trust us again as allies?

The answers to my questions can be found by examining the aftermath of our "withdrawal" from VietNam.

We can't leave the Iraqis at the mercy of the Iranians. To do so would strengthen Iran and weaken our reputation around the world. Nor should we abandon the Israelis, whether they can defend themselves or not.
 
Calabrio, you cavalierly gloss over this statement as if it's as simple as a few planes taking off. Have you even begun to consider the logistical nightmare of pulling 158,000 troops out of a hostile and volatile environment?
I don't gloss over anything that was being discussed. I would expect the expedited process to take six months. Which would mean if the decision was made in in October, we could formally turn over the keys by spring/summer 2008.

And do you understand the logistical nightmare of having 158,000 troops sitting in a hostile country with no expectation of a sustainable victory?


First of all, I reject out of hand the notion that we can even pull out completely. Second of all, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw those kinds of numbers QUICKLY. Third, who's going to cover our rear echelon as we "retreat?" Fourth, who will ever trust us again as allies?
You're dealing in the theory and principle, not reality.

Do you think given the current state of American politics, military morale, and the realities of the Middle East, we will be able to achieve a sustainable peace in that country? I've reserved final judgment, as requested by Gen Petraeus, until Fall. But if the answer to that question is no, then we need to begin the process of moving out of the country.

And we can cover our own retreat. Regardless the cost. We'll have to lift almost all the rules of engagements that had previously hamstrung the military as these men fortify the base because, you're right, the projection of weakness will mean that everyone will be taking pot-shots at us.

As for who will trust us? Doesn't matter. The writing is going up on the wall. And that's the point, it doesn't matter now. The end result will be the same. Come fall we will have the information to assess whether the surge has been successful. If it has not returned with overwhelmingly positive results, the writing will be on the wall. And I'm not going to sacrifice any troops just to save face. Besides, who's trust are we going to lose? The same dead beat countries that we can't trust to watch our back? Or the same ones that are going to come crying for help when they are over run by the terror in the next decade?

The outcome may well be the same whether we wait three more months before deciding to leave or two more years. Except a prolonged engagement with no commitment to victory weakens us more. Not only do we have the consequences of a less that successful military operation, we have the internal damage to the military, the loss of confidence in the government, the military recruitment issues, equipment damage, and hundreds of dead and thousands of maimed Americans. Same end result, but at a greater cost to us.

Wait until fall, hear Petraeus' report, and then decide. But it looks like the decision has been made and we need to brace for the consequences.


The answers to my questions can be found by examining the aftermath of our "withdrawal" from VietNam.
Actually, the consequences of leaving Vietnam were less severe than those facing the world do to our leaving Iraq. But knowing that we would ultimately fail to achieve a sustainable military and political victory in Vietnam, would you still support escalations in 1968? Why.

We can't leave the Iraqis at the mercy of the Iranians. To do so would strengthen Iran and weaken our reputation around the world. Nor should we abandon the Israelis, whether they can defend themselves or not.
The reputation issue is of no consequence. Remember, I'm not considering this on the principle of it, I'm dealing with the reality. The opportunity in Iraq was lost. If it appears that there is NO WAY to obtain a sustainable stability in that country (especially when also considering the political and social pressure from within America) and our military is stretched as thin as it is (which I've been confirming through my military friends (all branches, all ranks), not the press), then the reputation issue is over. We screwed up Iraq. The consequences of that are unavoidable.

Now it's time to cut bait while we still have a fishing rod in our hand.

And I'm fine leaving the Iraqis. I haven no respect for the culture, the people, the region, or anything else regarding the hell hole. Those sodomy loving freaks have demonstrated an important truth, one that will need to be embraced. You can't be handed liberty. That's even evident in our country, generations who live without struggle don't respect their liberties and responsibilities, but at least it's part of our culture. The Iraqis lack even that. Even the purple finger voting thing wasn't even genuine....

And I'm guilty. I bought into it. Those people weren't voting for freedom, they were sheep following the orders of their mullahs.

There's a lot to learn from this period of our history. Hopefully the lessons are learned and we don't make the same mistakes ever again. In the meantime, come fall, if things don't look bright, turn over the keys, wish them well and move out of the cities, back into the bases, and start shipping everyone home...

And then, rebuild our military incorporating what we've learned.
 
Isnt there an inbetween? What about this... Pull our trrops back to the border areas and leave the main bulk of the country to the iraqis? We can try to prevent those from outside iraq from entering, and still leave them to their own woes.
 
2 points...

First, I am only regurgatating what our own intelligence agencies have said about Al Qaida being as strong and able to attack as they were pre 9-11

Second - less popular congress? The last poll regarding who people would elect for Congress in 2008 shows 53% for Dems and 41% for Repubs. In addition, congressional approval poll shows them at 31% - which is low, but its also higher then the repubs had since last August. Further, congress job ratings hasnt changed substantially for years. SO, less popular then who? GW sits at 29%.

Partisianship aside. These numbers are dismal for all. Neither party should produce these numbers, let alone the President. It really tells me the country is unhappy in general.

Actually, the latest poll shows Congressional approval at 14%. I don't know where you're getting your figures.

Zogby poll - snip from Newsmax:

In the national survey of 1,012 likely voters, taken July 12 through July 14, about 66 percent said Bush had done only a fair or poor job as president, with 34 percent ranking his performance as excellent or good.


That is up slightly from his low of 30 percent in early March and in line with other national polls showing Bush's approval ratings lingering at or near historically low levels amid continued chaos and bloodshed in Iraq.


But the marks for Congress, mired in gridlock over a series of partisan political battles after Democrats took power in the 2006 elections, continued to drop.


While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good. Last October, in its final days, the Republican-led Congress earned ratings of excellent or good from 23 percent of voters.

"There is a growing sense that people voted for change in 2006 and they aren't getting it," Zogby said.


The poll showed only 26 percent of Americans thought the United States was on the right track and 64 percent thought it was on the wrong track.
 

Members online

Back
Top