Seriously, is now the time to withdraw from Iraq?

[Bird of Prey]

Progress in Iraq Raises Questions About Both Candidates’ War on Terror Policies (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/22/progress-in-iraq-raises-questions-about-both-candidates-anti-terror-policies/)

by FOXNews.com
Sunday, June 22, 2008
http://elections.foxnews.com/wp-content/themes/elections/images/red_strike.gif


http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/06/iraq_soccer_boy.jpg
Sunday: An Iraqi boy plays soccer near a concrete security wall which separates a Shiite and a Sunni area in Dora neighborhood, southern Baghdad, Iraq. (AP Photo)

Barack Obama’s goal to bring troops home from Iraq as soon as possible if he is elected president doesn’t take into account progress on the ground that could be set back with a premature withdrawal, supporters for John McCain said Sunday.
But if progress is so great in Iraq, then why do troops need to remain? countered the Democratic candidate’s backers.
Both candidates declined to appear on the talk show circuit Sunday, but had several surrogates out making their cases for them. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told “FOX News Sunday” that claims — even in Saturday’s New York Times — that violence in Iraq is the lowest since March 2004 and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government has gained political traction make Obama’s point for him — that it is past time to withdraw.
“I think that’s the whole question. Why do we need them if things are going this well?” Daschle asked.
He added that he doubts Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, will tell Obama during an unscheduled upcoming visit to the country that if U.S. forces follow his path and pull out, the gains made so far would be lost.
“He is the commander in chief and he has made very clear that we’ve already spent more time in Iraq than we did in World War II,” Daschle said, referring to the Democratic candidate.
“We really have to begin to understand that this has to be an effort that we turn over to the Iraqis. Let them govern themselves. Make sure we have a much more effective multilateral presence, but above and beyond everything else, let’s understand that the real threat is not Iraq. The real threat is what we see in Afghanistan and around the world through the War on Terror. And let’s put our focus where it really has to be put,” he said.
Former Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge said McCain should get the credit he deserves for insisting on the “surge” — sending more U.S. troops a year ago to get a grip on the violence — and that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s clear understanding of the challenges means he is better able than his opponent to evaluate when it will be time to leave the country.
“This is a fundamental venue in the war against terror. . . .

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/22/progress-in-iraq-raises-questions-about-both-candidates-anti-terror-policies/

I know we've discussed this, but there's no question about the progress in Iraq in terms of gaining a toehold on autonomy and peace. So? What do you think? Is it worth another couple years there?

[dmytryp]

I'll be damned. BoP argues for staying in Iraq and bases her decision on FoxNews article. What has the world come to.

[MattW]

Progress is what we want, progress is what McCain wants.

Effectively containing violence is not a one time achievement, but an ongoing goal over time. You need to get everyone used to the idea that peace is possible while keep US troops there for the flareups. Post-war presence in Japan took 10 years to build the country back to any industrial capability. The US no longer needs strategic bases in the region (SA, Kuwait, and Qatar will suffice), so a slow draw down seems more appropriate.

I'm an optimist, and even I don't think anything more than a 50% withdrawal will be possible within the next four years.

[Bird of Prey]

I'll be damned. BoP argues for staying in Iraq and bases her decision on FoxNews article. What has the world come to.


This article came up on Google News, and seemed surprisingly nonpartisan so I thought I'd use it.

Btw, I added a poll.

[dmytryp]

This article came up on Google News, and seemed surprisingly nonpartisan so I thought I'd use it.

Btw, I added a poll.

That was a joke. You know that, right?
And i won't participate in the poll as I am not US citizen

[Bird of Prey]

That was a joke. You know that, right?
And i won't participate in the poll as I am not US citizen

By all means, participate, dm. You don't have to be a US citizen..

[donroc]

We are in the ME for the long haul regardless of political bs as we have been in S. Korea and Europe for these many decades.

[InfinityGoddess]

We are in the ME for the long haul regardless of political bs as we have been in S. Korea and Europe for these many decades.

South Korea and Europe aren't the same as the Middle East. There's a civil war going on Iraq, for one thing and for another South Korea and Germany are their own countries whereas the Iraqis see their government as a puppet of the US. Plus, the Iraqis don't want us to stay and they will fight us every step of the way until we DO get out.

Of course, Japan and South Korea aren't thrilled with us staying in their countries, either, but see at least they aren't blowing our boys and girls up.

[mscelina]

To leave now would be to cheapen the deaths of those who have served. To stay indefinitely would be to cheapen the turmoil the war has caused in our own country. Somewhere in between is the happy medium.

[whistlelock]

I think the lower levels of violence and the rise of the Iraqi government is directly related to our talks of getting out now.

The Iraqi's know it's coming so now instead of hiding behind the shield of American troops while they take pot shots at each other they are having to deal with each other.

I have felt for about a year now that our presence has prolonged the violence and allowed the government to remain weak.

[MattW]

Plus, some Iraqis don't want us to stay and they will fight us every step of the way until we DO get out so they can resume killing other Iraqis.

Fixed.

[Don]

Bring 'em home from there and the other 134 countries. The United States has troops in 70% of the world's countries.

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Just how does this 'provide for the common Defense'? If your child kept getting stung because he played in hornet nests, would you blame the hornets or teach your child the error of his ways?

[Don]

To leave now would be to cheapen the deaths of those who have served.

Unfortunately, that logic got a lot of good kids killed in Vietnam.

[MattW]

Bring 'em home from there and the other 134 countries. The United States has troops in 70% of the world's countries.

I'm curious what the roles are in each country?

Are we talking a handful of Marines on embassy duty and military attaches? Or training advisers to anti-terrorist units?

And I'm certainly not denying there's some egregious deployments for sure, and some that never end. Just wondering about the breakout...

ETA - Link to some tables, etc (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/tablesindex.htm)

[Don]

I'm curious what the roles are in each country?

Are we talking a handful of Marines on embassy duty? Or training advisers to anti-terrorist units?

And I'm certainly not denying there's some egregious deployments for sure, and some that never end. Just wondering about the breakout...

ETA - Link to some tables, etc (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/tablesindex.htm)

Interesting link you found. I'm not particularly interested in why they are there, however. There's are reasons that the Constitution does not allow for a standing army by requiring that no funding be allocated for more than two years. Empires have a historically nasty habit of going broke.

Article I, Section 8 again:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Mighty clever, those politicians. They've managed to get around this with lots of creative accounting. :)

[James81]

I am trying to understand why pulling out of Iraq will mean "setbacks". I mean, we've killed their leader, destroyed their land, and killed their economy. What kind of possible threat are they going to possibly mount without us over there policing them?

Any possible threat they COULD mount will probably take a decade or more to mount. Are we really going to stay over there that long?

[Paichka]

Plus, the Iraqis don't want us to stay and they will fight us every step of the way until we DO get out.

This is only partially accurate. It's like saying all Americans love cheeseburgers -- it describes a certain portion of the population, but to say that all Iraqis are so fed up with our presence that they are running around planting bombs is overstating the case.

Some Iraqis think we need to leave. Most Iraqis believe that if we do, they will have an outright civil war. Many do not want us to leave, particularly if you talk to the sheiks and civilians in the north of Iraq, where I am.

Also, many of the people who are emplanting bombs are not Iraqi at all. Most of the insurgents are actually foreign fighters, particularly Iranians. The Iraqis who are emplacing IEDs are usually coerced into doing so, and when you catch them in the act, they can't tell you anything more than, "'Mohammed' paid me 50 bucks to put this in a hole alongside the road."

I want to come home. I have spent entirely too much time in this country, and I've only been deployed twice compared to many of my Soldiers who have been deployed 3 or 4 times. However, if we leave, we are basically saying, "F you, Iraq...we broke your country, but suck it up." It would be a disaster, even more so than it already has been. So Obama is wrong when he says he wants to pull us out immediately...but McCain is wrong if he's singing the "for the foreseeable future" tune.

My 2 cents, for what they are worth. :)

[Autodidact]

Very interesting perspective, Paichka, thanks. My view, which sounds in accord with yours, is that we screwed up massively and it's very hard to unscrew something up. We never should have invaded, and now their country is broken and we don't know how to fix it. How do you unbreak an egg? Would you agree?

[SPMiller]

To leave now would be to cheapen the deaths of those who have served. To stay indefinitely would be to cheapen the turmoil the war has caused in our own country. Somewhere in between is the happy medium.In business, there's the concept of trying to not throw good money after bad.

[Bravo]

Also, many of the people who are emplanting bombs are not Iraqi at all. Most of the insurgents are actually foreign fighters, particularly Iranians.

unless you're privy to some info that no one else is sharing, then this statement is not true at all.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/29/anbar.security/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Foreign_participants

[InfinityGoddess]

Fixed.

You know, that's really annoying.

[InfinityGoddess]

This is only partially accurate. It's like saying all Americans love cheeseburgers -- it describes a certain portion of the population, but to say that all Iraqis are so fed up with our presence that they are running around planting bombs is overstating the case.

Some Iraqis think we need to leave. Most Iraqis believe that if we do, they will have an outright civil war. Many do not want us to leave, particularly if you talk to the sheiks and civilians in the north of Iraq, where I am.

Also, many of the people who are emplanting bombs are not Iraqi at all. Most of the insurgents are actually foreign fighters, particularly Iranians. The Iraqis who are emplacing IEDs are usually coerced into doing so, and when you catch them in the act, they can't tell you anything more than, "'Mohammed' paid me 50 bucks to put this in a hole alongside the road."

I want to come home. I have spent entirely too much time in this country, and I've only been deployed twice compared to many of my Soldiers who have been deployed 3 or 4 times. However, if we leave, we are basically saying, "F you, Iraq...we broke your country, but suck it up." It would be a disaster, even more so than it already has been. So Obama is wrong when he says he wants to pull us out immediately...but McCain is wrong if he's singing the "for the foreseeable future" tune.

My 2 cents, for what they are worth. :)

The thing is, if we don't leave, the Iraqi government has no motivation to fix their own country. That's the biggest reason why I think we should leave. We are occupying a foreign country where people don't want us there.

Besides, the UN mandate that allows us to stay is set to expire in December. The Iraqis don't like that "treaty" thing Bush is trying to jam down their throats and that is proof enough that they don't want us to stay with no deadlines.

[Christine N.]

We have no business being anywhere when OUR country is so screwed up. Seriously, I still can't for the life of me figure out how we can continue to spend BILLIONS of dollars overseas when our own crises here get worse by the minute. Healthcare, homelessness, gas prices, housing, jobs, flooding in the Midwest, STILL cleaning up after Katrina. We can't even take good care of our people, and yet we continue to spend like we grow it on trees. My taxes go up every year, and yet I don't seem to be making more money, and nor am I reaping the benefits of these higher taxes. We CUT Medicare and Education, and INCREASE Defense spending.

Someone PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.If our goverment were a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago.

Seems to me we need to take care of our own house before we go helping everyone else.

[Bird of Prey]

We have no business being anywhere when OUR country is so screwed up. Seriously, I still can't for the life of me figure out how we can continue to spend BILLIONS of dollars overseas when our own crises here get worse by the minute. Healthcare, homelessness, gas prices, housing, jobs, flooding in the Midwest, STILL cleaning up after Katrina. We can't even take good care of our people, and yet we continue to spend like we grow it on trees. My taxes go up every year, and yet I don't seem to be making more money, and nor am I reaping the benefits of these higher taxes. We CUT Medicare and Education, and INCREASE Defense spending.

Someone PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.If our goverment were a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago.

Seems to me we need to take care of our own house before we go helping everyone else.

Christine, I have a question, and I ask it with all due respect.

I know Iraq was a mistake, more than a mistake. . .a debacle. But if you knew that Iraq would descend into chaos - murder in the streets at another appalling level: men, women and children. . .would you favor an immediate withdrawal? Do you think our problems here trump what we've done there? I'm not baiting you; I'm asking what you think.

[Christine N.]

I'm thinking I barely have enough to pay my bills - and I've downsized quite a bit. I'm thinking my husband gets a raise just barely higher than the rate of inflation, miraculously enough to keep up with the increase in taxes so we ALMOST break even. And now that gas is so damn high, that's even less money for us to figure out how to keep our home and feed ourselves. And now food is going up at an astronomical rate, so how are we to survive? I wonder...and I'm afraid.

I'm thinking that while I feel for those people, why should we always be the ones to bail other countries out, even when it hurts our OWN PEOPLE.

It's not about a mistake, it's about perpetuating the mistake to help other people when we can't even help ourselves. It's about pride. We're too proud to admit that we need to concentrate on ourselves and fix what's wrong here. I'm sorry, but there are many countries whose citizens are better off than ours. It's not a bad thing to admit you need to help yourself first, if it will make you stronger and better able to help others LATER. We need to get people working HERE. We need to get people housed HERE, and we need to educate people HERE. Yet we cut money for education and healthcare in favor of a new and faster way to kill people.

Once WE are stong, we will be in a much better position to help the rest. How can we do so when we're limping along? A strong-able bodied America is better able to help. Our economy is in the toilet, and we keep spending money? How irresponsible is that?

Maybe I'm selfish, but when I see my hard-earned money practically flowing like water away from our country, while our people struggle DAILY to keep it together, I don't care. Ten years ago, when things were better, sure, it was humanitarian. But to continue to do so when we are in such a shape is just plain stupid.

We watched Katrina swirl in the gulf for DAYS and did NOTHING. We can't even get our own people help when they need it, but we can send millions halfway across the world? Gimme a break.

[kuwisdelu]

I usually have an opinion on things, but Iraq is probably the one issue about which I truly have no idea.

All I know is it can't be immediate and it can't be indefinite. It's just...well...a quagmire.

The sooner the better, of course. I voted for "A.S.A.P." since the "possible" in A.S.A.P. can be left up to interpretation... But I do think we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made before walking away. I don't think it's necessary for Iraq to be a bastion of stability before getting out, but as we are now, it's barely even a house of cards.

[sulong]

If the US were to leave Iraq immediately, it is not a forgone conclusion that Iraq would fall into full blown chaos. Murder in the streets is not the only outcome possible, or even likely.

However, if we pulled out, and Iraq did fall into chaos, how long would this chaos last? Days? Weeks? Months? Surly not years or generations.
The future is always scarier to face than the past.

Assumptions are the bane of clear thinking.

[Bird of Prey]

I'm thinking I barely have enough to pay my bills - and I've downsized quite a bit. I'm thinking my husband gets a raise just barely higher than the rate of inflation, miraculously enough to keep up with the increase in taxes so we ALMOST break even. And now that gas is so damn high, that's even less money for us to figure out how to keep our home and feed ourselves. And now food is going up at an astronomical rate, so how are we to survive? I wonder...and I'm afraid.

I'm thinking that while I feel for those people, why should we always be the ones to bail other countries out, even when it hurts our OWN PEOPLE.

It's not about a mistake, it's about perpetuating the mistake to help other people when we can't even help ourselves. It's about pride. We're too proud to admit that we need to concentrate on ourselves and fix what's wrong here. I'm sorry, but there are many countries whose citizens are better off than ours. It's not a bad thing to admit you need to help yourself first, if it will make you stronger and better able to help others LATER. We need to get people working HERE. We need to get people housed HERE, and we need to educate people HERE. Yet we cut money for education and healthcare in favor of a new and faster way to kill people.

Once WE are stong, we will be in a much better position to help the rest. How can we do so when we're limping along? A strong-able bodied America is better able to help. Our economy is in the toilet, and we keep spending money? How irresponsible is that?

Maybe I'm selfish, but when I see my hard-earned money practically flowing like water away from our country, while our people struggle DAILY to keep it together, I don't care. Ten years ago, when things were better, sure, it was humanitarian. But to continue to do so when we are in such a shape is just plain stupid.

We watched Katrina swirl in the gulf for DAYS and did NOTHING. We can't even get our own people help when they need it, but we can send millions halfway across the world? Gimme a break.

Heh. Thanks for your opinion and for being so admirably honest.

[Bird of Prey]

If the US were to leave Iraq immediately, it is not a forgone conclusion that Iraq would fall into full blown chaos. Murder in the streets is not the only outcome possible, or even likely.

However, if we pulled out, and Iraq did fall into chaos, how long would this chaos last? Days? Weeks? Months? Surly not years or generations.
The future is always scarier to face than the past.

Assumptions are the bane of clear thinking.

O.K. So we're here; they're there.

Do you think that if we pull out, that some kind of peaceful meeting of the minds will take place?

[SPMiller]

I don't have the energy or emotional investment to write up a full opinion on this matter, so you're going to have to settle for a drive-by.

At this point, I no longer care if the country will descend into murderous anarchy followed by another brutal authoritarian regime. There are plenty of brutal authoritarian regimes we don't confront all over the world. We have supported, currently support, and will support such regimes. I would feel absolutely no guilt if we retracted most of our troops today. The USA is not the world's policeman.

Why can't we just come out and honestly admit we're there to protect our own best interests and we aren't leaving, ever, unless we manage to install a puppet government carefully designed to funnel a lot of oil into our economy?

At least then we'd have a clear, well-defined objective that the average citizen can easily grasp and use to hold our government and military accountable.

[Bird of Prey]

I don't have the energy or emotional investment to write up a full opinion on this matter, so you're going to have to settle for a drive-by.

At this point, I no longer care if the country will descend into murderous anarchy followed by another brutal authoritarian regime. There are plenty of brutal authoritarian regimes we don't confront all over the world. We have supported, currently support, and will support such regimes. I would feel absolutely no guilt if we retracted most of our troops today. The USA is not the world's policeman.

Why can't we just come out and honestly admit we're there to protect our own best interests and we aren't leaving, ever, unless we manage to install a puppet government carefully designed to funnel a lot of oil into our economy?

At least then we'd have a clear, well-defined objective that the average citizen can easily grasp and use to hold our government and military accountable.

I think you're missing a key component to the American psyche, and a component that I don't want to lose:

We don't send our children to war for money.

If we can't find a higher reason - which is what these lying politicians understand - to put our children at risk, we ain't killin our own to line pockets. That is why GWB had to emphasize Saddam's role as a monstrous dictator in league with the devil: Al Qaeda.

Of course, ultimately, hanging Hussein like a pig in public became the basest point of GWB's presidency and exposed our president as the ugly barbarian he is: human life means nothing to him imo.

But life - all life - means something to me, so I'm not sure I would rest easy knowing that more Iraqis could be slaughterd by the truckloads because we elected a barely moral man for a president.

[Don Allen]

What just pisses me to know end about this argument is that not one person here will acknowledge the roll of Islam in this conflict and the fact that America won't solve their problems. We leave - they fight and die until they decide to stop fighting and dying, it's that freaken simple and NOTHING we do or no matter how many boys and girls we bury for this noble sacrafice will change the eventual war that is to come. To believe otherwise is idiotic, it totally ignores the historic brutal nature of the laws these people choose to live under.
Islam,,,, and radical Islam is not a religion to these folks, it is Holy Law, something we in the West can't understand because most of us treat our religions as nice little guides to keep us in line rather than steadfast rules punishable by death if broken.

Bottom line..... We haven't accomplished shit, the decrease in violence is do to the fact that we have a soldier on every block, a tank in every street, sorties flown three times per day, and Independant contractors that have built seperation walls in every part of the fucking country....This is sustainable peace????? We leave - Islamic law demands retribution for all wrongs, and Iraqies go on the war path. Let them have their god forsaken country and bring our kids home now...That would be the best way to honor the soldiers that have fallen, by saving the lives of the rest of our kids....

[Don Allen]

I think you're missing a key component to the American psyche, and a component that I don't want to lose:

We don't send our children to war for money.

If we can't find a higher reason - which is what these lying politicians understand - to put our children at risk, we ain't killin our own to line pockets. That is why GWB had to emphasize Saddam's role as a monstrous dictator in league with the devil: Al Quaeda.

Of course, ultimately, hanging Hussein like a pig in public became the basest point of GWB's presidency and exposed our president as the ugly barbarian he is: human life means nothing to him imo.

But life - all life - means something to me, so I'm not sure I would rest easy knowing that more Iraqis could be slaughterd by the truckloads because we elected a barely moral man for a president.


Jesus Bop, I can't believe you wrote this, We don't send our kids to war for money??????????

FYI because you must have missed this somewhere. Whenever the President of the United States uses the term "In our best interest" He means someone is screwing with our cash.

The Iraq war has funneled billions of dollars into Defense Department contracts that have direct ties to this administration. It has also contributed mightily to the increase in oil prices... If you don't think this war is about money, WOW is all I can say.......

[Bird of Prey]

What just pisses me to know end about this argument is that not one person here will acknowledge the roll of Islam in this conflict and the fact that America won't solve their problems. We leave - they fight and die until they decide to stop fighting and dying, it's that freaken simple and NOTHING we do or no matter how many boys and girls we bury for this noble sacrafice will change the eventual war that is to come. To believe otherwise is idiotic, it totally ignores the historic brutal nature of the laws these people choose to live under.
Islam,,,, and radical Islam is not a religion to these folks, it is Holy Law, something we in the West can't understand because most of us treat our religions as nice little guides to keep us in line rather than steadfast rules punishable by death if broken.

Bottom line..... We haven't accomplished shit, the decrease in violence is do to the fact that we have a soldier on every block, a tank in every street, sorties flown three times per day, and Independant contractors that have built seperation walls in every part of the fucking country....This is sustainable peace????? We leave - Islamic law demands retribution for all wrongs, and Iraqies go on the war path. Let them have their god forsaken country and bring our kids home now...That would be the best way to honor the soldiers that have fallen, by saving the lives of the rest of our kids....

I appreciate your opinion, Don, but I don't see how over fifty thousand US soldiers maimed and four thousand plus killed is somehow a clean slate if we bring the rest home.

I'm not baiting you; I understand. I'm just wondering if there is a way to make America better than George W. Bush.

[Bird of Prey]

Jesus Bop, I can't believe you wrote this, We don't send our kids to war for money??????????

FYI because you must have missed this somewhere. Whenever the President of the United States uses the term "In our best interest" He means someone is screwing with our cash.

The Iraq war has funneled billions of dollars into Defense Department contracts that have direct ties to this administration. It has also contributed mightily to the increase in oil prices... If you don't think this war is about money, WOW is all I can say.......

You missed the point. If you tried to sell the war on money, it wouldn't fly; that's why is was sold on a murderous dictator and the terrorist threat. That's what I was trying to say.

[Don Allen]

You missed the point. If you tried to sell the war on money, it wouldn't fly; that's why is was sold on a murderous dictator and the terrorist threat. That's what I was trying to say.


Thank you.....I did miss that and you know I love you but "Holy Cow" did you get me with that....I'm sorry for the tirade..

[Bird of Prey]

Thank you.....I did miss that and you know I love you but Man did you get me with that....I'm sorry for the tirade..

We're good, Don, as is the case most often.

Edit: always the case on my end but I didn't want to speak for you.

[sulong]

O.K. So we're here; they're there.

Do you think that if we pull out, that some kind of peaceful meeting of the minds will take place?
I really don't know, and can't predict what would happen if we (the US) pulled out immediately.
But, if history is any reliable indicator, these things don't end until a large majority of the people involved are too heart-sick from despair to continue.


As long as the US is there nickel and dimeing or piece mealing the violence, it'll take decades to be over.
It needs to end in a climax, not a whimper. The only difference between a 100,000 people dieing from violence in a month, or a 100,000 people dieing in violence in a decade is the time left for healing. Dead is dead.

[Bird of Prey]

I really don't know, and can't predict what would happen if we (the US) pulled out immediately.
But, if history is any reliable indicator, these things don't end until a large majority of the people involved are too heart-sick from despair to continue.


As long as the US is there nickel and dimeing or piece mealing the violence, it'll take decades to be over.
It needs to end in a climax, not a whimper. The only difference between a 100,000 people dieing from violence in a month, or a 100,000 people dieing in violence in a decade is the time left for healing. Dead is dead.

So if he decision was yours, and we pulled out tomorrow - regardless of the consequences - your conscience O.K. with the outcome?

The reason why I ask is because it seems like such a simple thing: just pull out. And I grapple with it. But it's the endless stories of real people at risk. . .real families wiped out and/or suffering despite their noncontribution to the war effort - people mentallly and physically destroyed - that has me wondering if I could live with that, were the decision mine.

[sulong]

So if he decision was yours, and we pulled out tomorrow - regardless of the consequences - your conscience O.K. with the outcome?

The reason why I ask is because it seems like such a simple thing: just pull out. And I grapple with it. But it's the endless stories of real people at risk. . .real families wiped out and/or suffering despite their noncontribution to the war effort - people mentallly and physically destroyed - that has me wondering if I could live with that, were the decision mine.

If the decision were mine, I would first make very public announcements that anyone who wants to leave the country, can, and do it on our dime. Then I would pull the troops back to the boarders for ninety days or so, to stop people from entering the country, and assisting people leaving the country. We can only help those who want to be helped.



My conscience would be fine.

[Bird of Prey]

If the decision were mine, I would first make very public announcements that anyone who wants to leave the country, can, and do it on our dime. Then I would pull the troops back to the boarders for ninety days or so, to stop people from entering the country, and assisting people leaving the country. We can only help those who want to be helped.



My conscience would be fine.


O.K. If it gets through the pipeline, we'll see how it goes. Appreciate your comments, sulong.

[dmytryp]

I really don't know, and can't predict what would happen if we (the US) pulled out immediately.
But, if history is any reliable indicator, these things don't end until a large majority of the people involved are too heart-sick from despair to continue.


As long as the US is there nickel and dimeing or piece mealing the violence, it'll take decades to be over.
It needs to end in a climax, not a whimper. The only difference between a 100,000 people dieing from violence in a month, or a 100,000 people dieing in violence in a decade is the time left for healing. Dead is dead.

How long and how many dead did it take for the Lebanon civil war to die away (until Israel went in and they found a common cause that is)?

[She_wulf]

If the decision were mine, I would first make very public announcements that anyone who wants to leave the country, can, and do it on our dime. Then I would pull the troops back to the boarders for ninety days or so, to stop people from entering the country, and assisting people leaving the country. We can only help those who want to be helped...Would you leave America if given that choice? Would you leave your home because someone told you it's better in say...Canada? I'll disagree with your solution because it seems unrealistic in my opinion.

...
But, if history is any reliable indicator, these things don't end until a large majority of the people involved are too heart-sick from despair to continue.


As long as the US is there nickel and dimeing or piece mealing the violence, it'll take decades to be over.
It needs to end in a climax, not a whimper. The only difference between a 100,000 people dieing from violence in a month, or a 100,000 people dieing in violence in a decade is the time left for healing. Dead is dead.
Using history as an indicator, about two thousand years ago the Roman empire went about dismantling a religious/political structure to "ensure the protection of upstanding Roman citizens" Claudius began to repeat/finalize Julius' invasion of Briton by discrediting the religious society there, subverting native citizens to fight amongst themselves to subdue factions that were Anti-Rome and most of all used economic blackmail to ensure Roman foothold in that nation. Their efforts which spanned over 35 years ensured a Roman presence in Briton long after the actual empire crumbled. Briton replaced Egypt as a trading source ensuring decades more of economic bolstering for the Empire. Defeating the druidic power structure helped insure revolutionaries in Gaul had no place to hide. Briton acted as both an economic resource and a political buffer to insulate Rome. Seems to me that is a damning historical parallel.

So, given that history repeats itself, how long will we be in Iraq? Until the current generation in power is gone or subverted and the younger generation grown fat on cheeseburgers and fries in their Levi's take over. Does that seem like a good answer, because that is precisely what we are doing but under a forced timeline because Americans like to "believe" they are not the Roman Empire.

LOL

...If you don't think this war is about money, WOW is all I can say.......I agree. All wars are about money in one way or another. Even the crusades were about control which eventually would equate into funds.

What just pisses me to know end about this argument is that not one person here will acknowledge the roll of Islam in this conflict and the fact that America won't solve their problems. We leave - they fight and die until they decide to stop fighting and dying, it's that freaken simple and NOTHING we do or no matter how many boys and girls we bury for this noble sacrafice will change the eventual war that is to come. To believe otherwise is idiotic, it totally ignores the historic brutal nature of the laws these people choose to live under.
Islam,,,, and radical Islam is not a religion to these folks, it is Holy Law, something we in the West can't understand because most of us treat our religions as nice little guides to keep us in line rather than steadfast rules punishable by death if broken.

Bottom line..... We haven't accomplished shit, the decrease in violence is do to the fact that we have a soldier on every block, a tank in every street, sorties flown three times per day, and Independant contractors that have built seperation walls in every part of the fucking country....This is sustainable peace????? We leave - Islamic law demands retribution for all wrongs, and Iraqies go on the war path. Let them have their god forsaken country and bring our kids home now...That would be the best way to honor the soldiers that have fallen, by saving the lives of the rest of our kids....
I'm going to shake my head at that one and disagree with you because you are (IMO) overgeneralizing. Not all Iraqis are Islamic, not all Muslims are radicals, not every Iraqi city block has an American soldier on it. Wars are complex, delicately balanced dances with each move choreographed to bring the victor spoils. What may seem like useless death to you can be fodder for revenge, a calculated risk to obtain a particular goal, or a rallying poster to fight harder. What seems like endless funds thrown away now means that in ten years when alternative fuels STILL are not available on a mass scale means we aren't paying $20/gallon for gas and utterly crippling the economy because goods won't be able to be moved throughout the country.

The problem is that TOO MANY Americans think the answer is simple: pull out of Iraq. It's most assuredly not that simple. What we are doing is establishing a micro-economy that will supply US with a valuable resource for LESS COST than the assets currently being used to accomplish that goal. What the long term benefits of having a stable Middle Eastern trading partner with POWER to influence not only by wealth, but by LOCATION will mean that we won't have to rush into economic ruin. And we won't be picked apart by militant factions blinded by fanaticism. Iraq not only has oil, it is in the middle of it ALL. We trade with them, make them rich and others will follow suit. By the nature of location we break the backroom shuffling going on between Syria and Iran. Iraq can be our Briton. It may be our one legacy that will keep the region from destabilizing completely when other economies go down the drain.

By having bases there we can monitor the comings and goings of known spy countries. By trading with them and making it into "little America" we insure a bit of dollar envy throughout the region.

It really isn't a stupid thing to be in Iraq. Americans (overgeneralizing) are too impatient and don't recall history too well.

[sulong]

Is that in mHow long and how many dead did it take for the Lebanon civil war to die away (until Israel went in and they found a common cause that is)?
Is that in Montana? Or Utah?

[Paichka]

unless you're privy to some info that no one else is sharing, then this statement is not true at all.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/29/anbar.security/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Foreign_participants

That's interesting. It's different from what our Intell Officer briefs every day in our morning meetings, but it's interesting. Clearly I was incorrect when I stated that "most insurgents are foreign". I should have said "many", which would have been more accurate.

The first article is from 2005, so my assumption there is that the data is out of date. I know for a fact that we have seen an influx of "foreign fighters" into Iraq in the last three years, because our battlespace keeps catching them when they raid IED making facilities. The types and technologies used in IEDs now also indicate the influence of foreign insurgent groups. And again, the emplacement of an IED is a process. The first dude goes and digs a hole under the cover of darkness. The second dude comes by and lays the control wire. The last dude, who is usually some poor schmuck off the street who was bribed or threatened, comes by and puts the IED in the hole, then stands by to detonate it. He's usually the guy we catch.

The second article is about the Anbar region, which is to the south and west of where I am. It's possible that the percentages of foreign fighters in different areas of Iraq (MNF-W, MND-C, MND-B, MND-N and MND-NE) vary depending on the local population. Fallujah in particular has quieted down some due to the action of Concerned Local Citizens groups and partnerships between American forces and local sheiks.

Same with the wiki article. I know that between my two deployments, the look of the battlefield (plus the way we interact with the local populace) has changed drastically. I can only speak from the perspective of my time in Baghdad, and now my time in northern Iraq, so my information might not be representative of the entire country.

We Army types are only as good as our intel. Thanks for the links, they were good reading.

[dmytryp]

Is that in m
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmytryp http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2478233#post2478233)
How long and how many dead did it take for the Lebanon civil war to die away (until Israel went in and they found a common cause that is)?

Is that in Montana? Or Utah?

You claimed that the chaos would be short lived. I pointed out that history disagrees.


However, if we pulled out, and Iraq did fall into chaos, how long would this chaos last? Days? Weeks? Months? Surly not years or generations.
The future is always scarier to face than the past.

Assumptions are the bane of clear thinking.

[Joe270]

All wars are about money in one way or another.

This statement is a bit too simple to fly. Certainly an aspect of economics can be made for most wars, if not all wars. Ideology plays a factor, often a large one. Reference the Lebanon War, which had no financial gain for any players.

Lebanon, in the early sixties, made a friggin' mint with European tourist dollars. The war devastated the economy, which has not recovered.

Vietnam is no powerhouse in international economics, either.

Sometimes, no matter how much the liberal left wants it to be for money, the wars are, at least, started because of reasons which have nothing to do with cash.

[mscelina]

Very true, Joe. Straight-up post--I commend you.

[Joe270]

Thanks, MSC, but the attacks will come fast in the morning.

The thing is, the liberal left wants the US Civil war to be nothing but a war fought for ideological considerations, i.e. slavery, and will not consider that the war was fought by the South for economics and factors of production. The South didn't recover from the civil war until the 1970s. This is a nice example of both the economics of war and the ideology of war.

What's funny about it is that it clearly shows the leftist slant for economic or money pushing wars is why wars are fought, but they can't get past the 'we are so for the oppressed' that they can't take one clear example for their case.T

The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. It was a states' rights, economic fight. The North won, controlling the economic factors of production, the south was reduced to slavery in producing the raw materials for that production and none of the profits of it.

Short, but accurate.

[mscelina]

Yes...they probably will, Joe.

But to continue your analogy, the Union states really didn't get that much of a economic gain from the Civil War. Aside from the thieving Yankees stealing my great grandmother's jewelry and silver, of course, what could they have gained?

Let's see. They gained the costs of Reconstruction, the costs of freeing the slaves, the costs of getting all those factories again, the costs of medical care for released POWs and severely injured men on both sides of the lines. They got the cost of setting up military governments in the rebellious states as well as the costs of getting those vital Southern farms and mills up and running again--oh and let's not forget repairs: to roads, railways, and towns.

Yes, they gained the reinstatement of the Southern states, which incubated the divisive political structure that we have today. Remember the eighties, when the Southern vote was so important in order to get to the White House and how shocked we all were that Reagan--a Republican!--had managed to pry those electoral votes from a still-embittered South?

If we're wanting to look for the repercussions of THAT particular war, then there you go.

Now, I'd like my silver back damnit.

[cethklein]

To leave now would be to cheapen the deaths of those who have served. To stay indefinitely would be to cheapen the turmoil the war has caused in our own country. Somewhere in between is the happy medium.

I gotta' respectfully disagree on this one. We used that logic in Vietnam and many more of our soldiers died. And despite that, as soon as we left, Vietnam went right back to the way it was. We cannot win in Iraq. Even if the violence completely stops, the moment we leave, it will ramp up again. These people are fanatics, they're not going to give up. The only way to beat them is to stamp out their ideology, and sole use of force won't do that.

If we pull our troops out now or if we wait three years, the end result will likely be the same, and that is that Iraq will fall right back into turmoil. The "success" we're seeing in Iraq now really doesn't mean squat in the long run as it will all be undone when we leave, no matter the timetable. So all that's left is to decide "do we keep letting our citizens die for a lsot cause or do we bring them home."

[Christine N.]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not heartless, nor am I insensitive to the plight of the people there. But the PRIMARY JOB of government is to look out for and take care of the people who pay their salaries - namely US. They haven't done that in a very long time, and quite frankly I'm tired of it. I'm tired of working to finance the war. I'm tired of scraping by to give money to a government that couldn't care less about me or my family, when it comes right down to it.

I want government to be the way it used to be, to WORK the way it's supposed to.

[Don Allen]

Would you leave America if given that choice? Would you leave your home because someone told you it's better in say...Canada? I'll disagree with your solution because it seems unrealistic in my opinion.


Using history as an indicator, about two thousand years ago the Roman empire went about dismantling a religious/political structure to "ensure the protection of upstanding Roman citizens" Claudius began to repeat/finalize Julius' invasion of Briton by discrediting the religious society there, subverting native citizens to fight amongst themselves to subdue factions that were Anti-Rome and most of all used economic blackmail to ensure Roman foothold in that nation. Their efforts which spanned over 35 years ensured a Roman presence in Briton long after the actual empire crumbled. Briton replaced Egypt as a trading source ensuring decades more of economic bolstering for the Empire. Defeating the druidic power structure helped insure revolutionaries in Gaul had no place to hide. Briton acted as both an economic resource and a political buffer to insulate Rome. Seems to me that is a damning historical parallel.

So, given that history repeats itself, how long will we be in Iraq? Until the current generation in power is gone or subverted and the younger generation grown fat on cheeseburgers and fries in their Levi's take over. Does that seem like a good answer, because that is precisely what we are doing but under a forced timeline because Americans like to "believe" they are not the Roman Empire.

LOL

I agree. All wars are about money in one way or another. Even the crusades were about control which eventually would equate into funds.


I'm going to shake my head at that one and disagree with you because you are (IMO) overgeneralizing. Not all Iraqis are Islamic, not all Muslims are radicals, not every Iraqi city block has an American soldier on it. Wars are complex, delicately balanced dances with each move choreographed to bring the victor spoils. What may seem like useless death to you can be fodder for revenge, a calculated risk to obtain a particular goal, or a rallying poster to fight harder. What seems like endless funds thrown away now means that in ten years when alternative fuels STILL are not available on a mass scale means we aren't paying $20/gallon for gas and utterly crippling the economy because goods won't be able to be moved throughout the country.

The problem is that TOO MANY Americans think the answer is simple: pull out of Iraq. It's most assuredly not that simple. What we are doing is establishing a micro-economy that will supply US with a valuable resource for LESS COST than the assets currently being used to accomplish that goal. What the long term benefits of having a stable Middle Eastern trading partner with POWER to influence not only by wealth, but by LOCATION will mean that we won't have to rush into economic ruin. And we won't be picked apart by militant factions blinded by fanaticism. Iraq not only has oil, it is in the middle of it ALL. We trade with them, make them rich and others will follow suit. By the nature of location we break the backroom shuffling going on between Syria and Iran. Iraq can be our Briton. It may be our one legacy that will keep the region from destabilizing completely when other economies go down the drain.

By having bases there we can monitor the comings and goings of known spy countries. By trading with them and making it into "little America" we insure a bit of dollar envy throughout the region.

It really isn't a stupid thing to be in Iraq. Americans (overgeneralizing) are too impatient and don't recall history too well.

Don't you think it's just a little disingenuious to say I overgeneralized when you say "Not all Iraqis are of Islamic faith" when you must know that the percentages of those who are of Islamic faith number 95% or better?

Are you aware that the NEW Iraq constitution is heavily based on Islamic law?

Are you not aware that the surge of American troops combined with the tens of thousands of American Contracters along with the American supervised Iraqi army has a substantial presence of force in every city?

Because according to your post you don't seem to be up to date on the events.

Wars are fundamentally very simple, I suggest you read "the Art of war"
There is a winner and loser...I happen to believe we won. We took out the bad guy. Now we occupy a country because when we leave they will erupt into a civil war. True. We could stay there for 100 years and maybe by then the new generations will find peace. But America will be bankrupt because we can't continue to police that nation for 140 billion per year.

People sight Japan, and Germany as steller examples of what American peace keeping can do for a nation. But neither of those countries inhabitants were given the right to keep ak47 assault rifle in their homes as we allow in Iraq. Neither of those countries inhabitants were allowed to keep radical clerics in power to insight any form of civil disobedience as we do in Iraq, and neither countries inhabitants were brain washed into following a Holy Law that trumped their own survival as they are in Iraq. So can we stop the comparisons.

[Don Allen]

This statement is a bit too simple to fly. Certainly an aspect of economics can be made for most wars, if not all wars. Ideology plays a factor, often a large one. Reference the Lebanon War, which had no financial gain for any players.

Lebanon, in the early sixties, made a friggin' mint with European tourist dollars. The war devastated the economy, which has not recovered.

Vietnam is no powerhouse in international economics, either.

Sometimes, no matter how much the liberal left wants it to be for money, the wars are, at least, started because of reasons which have nothing to do with cash.

Sometimes the financial gain isn't obvious, and sometimes it dosen't benefit the combatants, but all wars have motive, and all motive is based upon financial gain, financial independence, or indirect financial security. Humans beings don't fight wars because of ultruism, if we did America would have 250,000 men in Darfur... But there really isn't much there for us to gain, with the exception of putting the end to the slaughter of innocents so whats the point.

[Don]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not heartless, nor am I insensitive to the plight of the people there. But the PRIMARY JOB of government is to look out for and take care of the people who pay their salaries - namely US. They haven't done that in a very long time, and quite frankly I'm tired of it. I'm tired of working to finance the war. I'm tired of scraping by to give money to a government that couldn't care less about me or my family, when it comes right down to it.

I want government to be the way it used to be, to WORK the way it's supposed to.

Bravo! When FedGov manages to competently achieve the goals set out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution while successfully protecting the citizens according to the Bill of Rights, then we can discuss whether we want them doing other things, and consider Constitutional Amendments to allow them to do so.

Personally, I think anything not in Section 8 should be for the states and their citizens to hash out. Better 50 different approaches so that we can compare and contrast, than one monolithic approach that obviously isn't working.

[MattW]

Better 50 different approaches so that we can compare and contrast, than one monolithic approach that obviously isn't working.Sadly, we have both in many areas. Redundant state and federal agencies, neither one being effective, and both sucking in more funds to grow their inefficiencies.

[Don]

Sadly, we have both in many areas. Redundant state and federal agencies, neither one being effective, and both sucking in more funds to grow their inefficiencies.

True, but at least with the state approach, those of us who believe we're more competent at spending our money than the politicians will be able to 'vote with our feet' and pick a state that's not trying to be mommy and daddy.

FedGov involvement in any program adds a dandy layer of bureaucracy, which makes for a great jobs program, but doesn't actually produce anything but paperwork.

[Bird of Prey]

Is there anybody who chose "other" that would care to elaborate?

[Christine N.]

Personally I don't think it's responsible to just pack up and leave en masse. (and we all know how responsible the US gov is, right?) I say get out, do it now, but leave in an orderly fashion, say 10% every three months?

Like quitting smoking, you can't just go cold turkey. I recognize that, and think that there needs to be a plan in place, WITH a timeline. If someone could come up with one and the stupid government could all agree on it, I'd be happy. At least there would be a light at the end of the tunnel.