What should we really do with Iraq...?

[Joeychgo]

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??

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[Joeychgo]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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?

 

[Joeychgo]

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.

 

[shagdrum]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[TheDude]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[MonsterMark]

See the dabate?

 

[Joeychgo]

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.

 

[Joeychgo]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[shagdrum]

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.

 

[shagdrum]

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.

 

[Joeychgo]

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

 

[Frogman]

About to?

 

[shagdrum]

According to who?

 

[Frogman]

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.

 

[shagdrum]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[Joeychgo]

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