Al Q has it's back broken in Iraq. ZERO Al Q control in Baghdad!!
- Thread starter Bruxley
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
I agree.
Now this is where I start getting fuzzy. "AlQ free" means what exactly? If it means no AlQ at all, then we will never meet that criteria. There are still Nazis in Germany 60 yrs after WWII ended.
I could argue that Iraq is already "civil war free", since our official position is that there is no civil war going on in Iraq.
Also "Iraq secured" is going to be an impossible goal to meet unless we do something about Iran.
Why can't our leaders just be honest and tell us that we intend to keep a military presence in the mid east til their oil supplies are exhausted and Iran's nuclear plans are destroyed? I believe these are two very good reasons for us to continue on in Iraq. I think that most people would understand the necessity of that. But to keep leading us on with this lofty but unobtainable goals that involve "spreading democracy" is absurd.
AlQ free may be too specific if your an absolutist. Does free of AlQ influence/control make it less fuzzy? I'm sure the US isn't AlQ free. It's not Nazi, Stalinist, Marxist, or communist free but they do lack influence/control.
As far as civil war free I'll quote from an apparently unread post.....
As for honesty, let's be honest, why can't the Democrat leadership just admit they are more interested in the political equity failure in Iraq would bring them then they are about the consequences of defeat or surrender.
You DO realize we PAY for every drop of oil we buy from Iraq don't you? And you do understand that the US as a nation doesn't buy oil directly right? Companies buy oil as a raw comodity, refine it, then sell the refined products. There isn't an un-noticed spigot that Exxon or BP pull up to and fill up at.
As far as civil war free I'll quote from an apparently unread post.....
As for honesty, let's be honest, why can't the Democrat leadership just admit they are more interested in the political equity failure in Iraq would bring them then they are about the consequences of defeat or surrender.
You DO realize we PAY for every drop of oil we buy from Iraq don't you? And you do understand that the US as a nation doesn't buy oil directly right? Companies buy oil as a raw comodity, refine it, then sell the refined products. There isn't an un-noticed spigot that Exxon or BP pull up to and fill up at.
Unregistered
Moderator
I certainly agree the Democrats are trying to gain politically from Iraq, and they have no idea what to do about the situation there.
And yes, I know we buy the oil, but I think our military presence in the Mid East will help ensure that we are the ones who continue to get to buy the oil in the future.
And yes, I know we buy the oil, but I think our military presence in the Mid East will help ensure that we are the ones who continue to get to buy the oil in the future.
The point (hopefully?) was more than punitive; it was to prevent Afghanistan from being a terrorist haven. (On a more dubious note, that was our excuse for Iraq along with WMDs)
Maybe the real problem, initially at least, was that at a strategic level this was all about punishment. Maybe no one thought about "wow, what happens after we kill all the booger eaters?" I can tell you that it isn't all sunshine and lollypops, the good guys wearing white hats don't appear after the bad guys are gone and open up a Starbucks and everyone starts loving America (I imagine that some people were this naive).
I think we are seeing the results of that now and realizing that unless we either seriously rebuild Afghanistan/Iraq we are going to have 2 breeding grounds for people that hate America and have nothing better to do than become terrorists.
This has nothing to do with $$ or Congress. This is much more to do with a poorly implemented strategic plan that is really going nowhere, this country should be progressively getting safer and more prosperous, it isn't.
Blatant hyperbole. If you want to draw more realistic parallels try Vietnam (closer but still not the same as our current situation). Germany and Japan were not guerrilla wars nor was there any real resistance once we occupied (one confused Japanese soldier running around in the Philippines does not compare to a country full of militias and terror groups vying for power).
I don't have an answer to any of the problems in Iraq/Afghanistan and I am not convinced that there is an effective overall strategic plan or goal. I do know that people are going home in boxes for reasons that are unclear. We are fighting a war against vague boogey men for some fuzzy idea that keeps changing (what is the reason du jour: WMDs? Freedom for Iraqis? American security? OBL? Al Queada? Axis of Evil?)
You can vilify the Democrats for capitalizing on an anti-war sentiment, but they are reflecting people that are starting to ask tough questions like "Why did little Johnny come home in a box?" and seriously I don't think there is a good answer to that at this point, especially in regards to Iraq.
While the body count might not be significant to you, I promise you that it is very significant to some people. Sure past wars have massive body counts but don't use that to trivialize the deaths of the current wars.
Wow, you're either being shamelessly disinginuous or your reading comprehension could use some work. You're really trying to characterize my statement as trivializing the deaths of our soldiers? Did "honored dead" throw you?
I'll make my statement again to make it easier for you to speak to if you wish to address it. Here:
If that was the plan (and I believe we all agreed that it was) then we've been doing a pretty good job of accomplishing it. Political attacks notwithstanding, there are lots of dead terr'rists these days.
Trivialize deaths? You should know that your not the only vet here. And to hoist such an allegation is beyond reprehensible.
I find posting of resumes poor form. I will not. The irrevocable effects of war on a psyche are not lost on me. And let's please stop pretending that Democrat leadership is acting ignorant of the effective progress while impeding the resources of those in the fight because of some sense of empathy for the family of 'little Johny'.:barf: If that were actually the consecensus of Americans or thier TRUE conviction they fully have it in their power to stop funding it and they DON'T.
Remember friend, yours is not a unique experience and about 75% of the membership here are veterans.
Sufficed to say, mine are from a war that the Democrat Party worked long and hard to help lose for nothing more then political capital and those vets by and large are still unrecognized. No, not Vietnam.
Novel idea.....LEAD....try that. Where is the JFK Democrat? Why has the party abandoned that example of leadership? When did it become bad for Democrats for the United States to prevail and good for the Democrats for the US to be portrayed as evil? Can they do no more then work to make their opponents look worse then them? LEAD already.
Is it sooooo hard to swallow the tangible blatant fact that we are succeeding in Iraq? Why is it so repellent to so many? 'Little Johny' should be honored for fighting an enemy and not be used as a Democrat prop for narcissistic political sophistry.
I find posting of resumes poor form. I will not. The irrevocable effects of war on a psyche are not lost on me. And let's please stop pretending that Democrat leadership is acting ignorant of the effective progress while impeding the resources of those in the fight because of some sense of empathy for the family of 'little Johny'.:barf: If that were actually the consecensus of Americans or thier TRUE conviction they fully have it in their power to stop funding it and they DON'T.
Remember friend, yours is not a unique experience and about 75% of the membership here are veterans.
Sufficed to say, mine are from a war that the Democrat Party worked long and hard to help lose for nothing more then political capital and those vets by and large are still unrecognized. No, not Vietnam.
Novel idea.....LEAD....try that. Where is the JFK Democrat? Why has the party abandoned that example of leadership? When did it become bad for Democrats for the United States to prevail and good for the Democrats for the US to be portrayed as evil? Can they do no more then work to make their opponents look worse then them? LEAD already.
Is it sooooo hard to swallow the tangible blatant fact that we are succeeding in Iraq? Why is it so repellent to so many? 'Little Johny' should be honored for fighting an enemy and not be used as a Democrat prop for narcissistic political sophistry.
There is where I think you have it wrong. I'm guessing that by Iraqi promise keepers you mean people more loyal to the nation of Iraq than to their tribe, because those are the kinds of people who might actually stop a civil war among the tribes. From what I've seen, Iraq has a very, very small population of such people.
I think we should stay, and try to grow the population of such people, but I'm not too optimistic about success, especially in the short term. We're still licking a few wounds from Reconstruction in this country, and we were trying to reestablish loyalty to the Union. It will probably take several generations for the sectarian hatred to subside in Iraq enough that a civil war would not break out if we left.
Bruxley,
This is eerily reminiscent of the story of the Hydra. Until you realize that 1) it's never going to run out of heads and 2) that it's your methods that are making it stronger, your efforts are doomed to failure.
Maybe you need to study up on your enemy.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
You've got it backwards. If our stack is small, then the stack of Al Qaeda members we've traded them for is even smaller. We've also traded more than lives in this war and what we have to show for it is this: Our enemy's ranks are growing, not depleting.
This is eerily reminiscent of the story of the Hydra. Until you realize that 1) it's never going to run out of heads and 2) that it's your methods that are making it stronger, your efforts are doomed to failure.
Maybe you need to study up on your enemy.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
Marko Kloos
Inactive
The question is not whether we can keep killing AQ or insurgents--of course we can.
The question is how long we can afford our presence there, when the cost is a thousand American lives or more a year, and a billion dollars a day. We spent a three quarter trillion dollars on the national credit card so far to prosecute this war, and we can't keep running up the tab forever. That's a mathematical certainty.
Then there's the question of whether that kind of human and financial sacrifice gets us an adequate return.
The question is how long we can afford our presence there, when the cost is a thousand American lives or more a year, and a billion dollars a day. We spent a three quarter trillion dollars on the national credit card so far to prosecute this war, and we can't keep running up the tab forever. That's a mathematical certainty.
Then there's the question of whether that kind of human and financial sacrifice gets us an adequate return.
Marko and GoSlash,
I opposed this war because I figured we would wind up managing a country which was unstable because the people really kind of need three countries. I think that is what has happened. I appreciate the fact that nation building is expensive and full of unintended consequences.
My problem with leaving Iraq right now is that I think there would be a civil war which would almost certainly draw in other countries in the region. Turkey and the Kurds can be expected to continue their long fight, and Saudi Arabia and Iran can't help but notice that one sect or another will soon control Iraq. Each will want it to be their own sect, and other powers in the region will want the same things.
A wider middle east war would be worse for us than trying to stabilize an inherently unstable Iraq, and would be very likely if we left right now.
I opposed this war because I figured we would wind up managing a country which was unstable because the people really kind of need three countries. I think that is what has happened. I appreciate the fact that nation building is expensive and full of unintended consequences.
My problem with leaving Iraq right now is that I think there would be a civil war which would almost certainly draw in other countries in the region. Turkey and the Kurds can be expected to continue their long fight, and Saudi Arabia and Iran can't help but notice that one sect or another will soon control Iraq. Each will want it to be their own sect, and other powers in the region will want the same things.
A wider middle east war would be worse for us than trying to stabilize an inherently unstable Iraq, and would be very likely if we left right now.
Publius,
I hear you and I was also opposed to the Iraq war from the outset simply because it was strategically counterproductive and a diversion of resources.
But as you correctly point out; what's done is done and we have to look forward.
What I'm stressing is this: The downsides you're envisioning are already happening as we speak. The Turks are already attacking the Kurds. The Saudis and the Iranians are already supporting their proxies in-country, grabbing for their piece of the pie. Our presence has not kept this from happening.
We can either allow Iraq to splinter along it's sectarian faults as it seems to intend, or we can continue to pour lives and money into the effort of stabilizing an Iranian puppet state. Either way it's an AVP solution set; no matter who wins we lose.
And as Marko points out, we cannot continue this effort indefinitely. Our economy cannot sustain it indefinitely and we will bankrupt ourselves if we try. I'll add that it's not only for financial reasons, but political ones.
The writing is on the wall. The electorate wants to end this war and they're not going to elect a candidate who wants to continue it or expand it into Iran.
Any hope of stabilizing Iraq dies in January 2009, so unless you envision the possibility that we can somehow complete the mission by then, every life we lose and every dollar we spend over the next year is wasted.
I hear you and I was also opposed to the Iraq war from the outset simply because it was strategically counterproductive and a diversion of resources.
But as you correctly point out; what's done is done and we have to look forward.
What I'm stressing is this: The downsides you're envisioning are already happening as we speak. The Turks are already attacking the Kurds. The Saudis and the Iranians are already supporting their proxies in-country, grabbing for their piece of the pie. Our presence has not kept this from happening.
We can either allow Iraq to splinter along it's sectarian faults as it seems to intend, or we can continue to pour lives and money into the effort of stabilizing an Iranian puppet state. Either way it's an AVP solution set; no matter who wins we lose.
And as Marko points out, we cannot continue this effort indefinitely. Our economy cannot sustain it indefinitely and we will bankrupt ourselves if we try. I'll add that it's not only for financial reasons, but political ones.
The writing is on the wall. The electorate wants to end this war and they're not going to elect a candidate who wants to continue it or expand it into Iran.
Any hope of stabilizing Iraq dies in January 2009, so unless you envision the possibility that we can somehow complete the mission by then, every life we lose and every dollar we spend over the next year is wasted.
That's true, but I think it would get much worse without our presence. The Turks are not going to try to absorb the rest of Kurdistan while we defend it. I think they would if we left. Saudis and Iranians are aiding their respective proxies in Iraq, but at least they are not fighting an all out war with each other. While less likely than the Turk/Kurd conflict, I think that's likely. What will happen to the oil wells and the ports?
Never said I was and it wasn't directed at you, but at Thumper for dragging other body counts into a debate. If you find that reprehensible that is your right, but I find it offensive to compare stacks of bodies from totally different wars and say "see it ain't so bad!".
Good. Than you will realize that we have not even begun to reap the price of these wars. People look at the KIAs and have yet to really address the record number or wounded and PTSD cases coming back (not to mention ruined families and other social issues). This war which has no real end in sight is going to be the gift that keeps on giving long after it is over (on the scale of Vietnam or worse).
you sure do like to point fingers at the Democrats, I suggest you save some of those fingers for the Republicans (and all the other politicos) because they (Repubs and Democrats) are all crapping in the bed and we (the American public) are going to end up having to sleep in that bed for the next few decades or more. I seriously doubt that any Democrat is "hoping and praying for failure in the war", that sounds more like an extreme right wing fantasy than anything close to reality.
You really hate Democrats don't you? Just because someone disagrees with you or thinks that the mounting number of American deaths is just not worth the returns we are getting.... does not mean that they "hope we lose". I can tell you that I fit into the catagory of people that disagrees with you and I very much hope that we win and everything works out, because the price is getting pretty steep. I think I speak for the vast majority of Americans (Republican OR Democrats OR whatever) when I say that I hope to hell that all of this was worth it when all is said and done. I'll even take it a step further: I will serve and fight in any war that my government sees fit (even if I disagree with the war and/ or government).
So go easy on the rhetoric before I raise the reprehensible flag on you.
GoSlash:
I think GoSlash right on the money here. The people of America (regardless of political affliation) are getting uneasy with the war. If this war doesn't decide this coming election, it will almost certainly decide the next. And unless we see success on a level that we have not seen yet, we will pull out and Iraq will turn into a jumbo-sized soup sandwich and sadly many of the Americans we lost and the money we dumped into Iraq will be wasted.
Thumper is a proud Veteran, too, hot rod. Thank you for your service, but your sanctimonious victim ploy is transparent.
What the hell is wrong with celebrating the idea that we lose fewer troops while doing more damage these days? It's true. It's wonderful. You're allowed to be happy about it.
Doesn't fit your world view so you're suddenly offended?
Anyway...
To those that propose the "hydra" scenario:
I think we can all agree that, for whatever reason, we're in a fight.
Does anyone here really believe that appeasement is the answer? Do you pull your punches personally for fear of pissing off your opponent?
A war is just that: You remove the threat until it no longer exists. You can do that with bullets, dollars, "hearts and minds"...whatever...but if someone has a rifle in hand, I suggest bombs and bullets.
There are a lot of Jihadi's running around with rifles in hand. They were there before Bush. Are there MORE after Bush? I don't know.
I DO know that they're not killing any civilians here these days. I think that that's what the CinC is supposed to be working towards.
I knew that my job as a soldier was to put my life on the line for folks back home. As far as I know, that idea hasn't changed (I hope).
publius,
I understand your position on the increased likelihood of neighbor involvement upon pullout. I really have nothing to add to that beyond what I've already said.
As far as this:
I understand your position on the increased likelihood of neighbor involvement upon pullout. I really have nothing to add to that beyond what I've already said.
As far as this:
I would say I don't particularly care. Harsh, but there it is. Those ports and wells have no direct bearing on our national security.
Slash, You erroneously attributed your quoted comment in post #90 to me. Just saying...
And to clarify.
I don't hate Democrats. I do resent the actions of the Democrat leadership. I appreciate the "Blue Dog" Democrats and even respect them as sincere and genuine in their actions. Democrat leadership won't or can't lead, follow, OR get out of the way. THAT is something I can't appreciate or respect. Who could? You missed what the post said that would have addressed this:
What holds true is the pattern of tendencey for Republican leadership to fight for the nation while Democrat leadership fights Republicans.
Which of these isn't true:
-One should lead, follow, or get out of the way
-Friend of my enemy isn't my friend
And how is the Democrat leadership acting in the presence of new and growing success in the war in Iraq, leading, following, friendlier to which side?
And to clarify.
I don't hate Democrats. I do resent the actions of the Democrat leadership. I appreciate the "Blue Dog" Democrats and even respect them as sincere and genuine in their actions. Democrat leadership won't or can't lead, follow, OR get out of the way. THAT is something I can't appreciate or respect. Who could? You missed what the post said that would have addressed this:
This is a very rare instance when I didn't qualify the statement with either Democrat leadership or Democrat party so that it couldn't be twisted into a personal attack on individuals that had Democrat as their party affiliation and be to broad of a characterization.
What holds true is the pattern of tendencey for Republican leadership to fight for the nation while Democrat leadership fights Republicans.
Which of these isn't true:
-One should lead, follow, or get out of the way
-Friend of my enemy isn't my friend
And how is the Democrat leadership acting in the presence of new and growing success in the war in Iraq, leading, following, friendlier to which side?
