What should we do about Iraq?

[Lobotomy Boy]

Ryan, the U.S. government never set out to overthrow the government of North Vietnam. Rather, we were trying to prop up the government of South Vietnam. It seemed that many Vietnamese never accepted the western world's partitioning of the country. We were trying to prevent insurgents from the communist North from taking over the capitalist south, but the people of Vietnam didn't seem to care if they were communist or capitalist. They just wanted us round eyes gone. Thus we were fighting a war of western ideology in an eastern country that had no interest in western ideology. This is why tactical arguments about whether or not we could win the war on a military basis are beside the point.

 

[telewinz]

Leaving would be a horrific mistake , in all likelyhood it would be the worst foreign policy mistake the US has ever made : it would show the United States as weak , unable to accept losses and would give the US no credibility whatsoever ever again in the region . For the alledged isolationists here , I propose that your view of the world is incredibly short sighted and unrealistic

We felt pretty much the same way about Vietnam and when South Vietnam fell to the North, it was a terrible time for us. But what hurt us more was the election of Carter and the decline of our military which resulted in the Iran Hostage crises. We survived pulling out of Vietnam, surviving Carter was the real hardship!

Telewinz, I am waiting for your answer... where do you get those poll figures? Refer to my post above.

From one of the network news reports within the past two weeks. Do a search, don't rely on some 3rd party for your information, thats how we got into this mess.

while security is so bad in four of the country's provinces (accounting for more than half the population) that both the US ground forces commander and US-installed prime minister Ayad Allawi said this week it would be too dangerous for many people to vote.

 

[Delmar]

"Pull all our troops out of the cities and have them set up camp way out in the desert."

Talk about a comparison to Viet Nam-the French tried that, called them "enclaves" or some such. I have my doubts that would work. I do think that pulling out now would be a big mistake-Iraq is just now getting some kind of government.
The days of minute men have gone by the wayside, and since we took out their "government", like it or not, I think the right thing to do is to help their new government at least get on their feet and form some sort of an army. That takes time, as anyone who has served could testify to.

What that is going to look like remains to be seen, regardless of what your personal crystal ball might tell you. Dividing the lands up to the historical tribes might end up being a way-not the only one, but a way to get the place stabilized.
I doubt there would be interference from the UN on that. More likely more of the same mealy mouthed fools spouting their hatred of us, but I think that might take an even greater participation from us than what we have.

Given the course we have set, there are a lot of ifs as there is in any war such as this, some with failures, and some worked out. In the end, its up to the Iraqi people whether they have what it takes to make a free country-thats not the hard part. Keeping it free is.

Telewinz-I served under Nixon-both terms, Ford, and Carter. Stationed in I Corps, 2 tours in ROK-kept asking for Germany, wouldn't you know? State side-Ft Knox, Ft Bliss, Ft Campbell, Ft Carson, and I guess you could say stationed at Fitsimmons AMC in Denver. Took em about a year to put humpty-dumpty together again. Some assembly is required in the morning, but its amazing what carbon fiber can do for ya

 

[308win]

I have been following the results of the stay/leave poll and it is interesting that 44% of members are voting leave. Poll results were reported on Thursday or Friday that 48% of the American public thought we should leave Iraq now.

If I were an outsider I would expect the members of The High Road to be more 'conservative' and thus more likely to hew to the Administration line. The results of this pole demonstrate that the member's positions on non-2d issues are much closer to the general non-member public - at least on the Iraq issue.

For my part, I choose to believe that most members who consider themselves 'conservative' in fact are in the classic definition exactly that - individual freedom with the responsibility/ accountability for one's actions - and not very tolerant of the authoritarian views of many in the current Republican and Democrate parties. Maybe I am making too great of a leap of logic but doing so makes my day begin with hope.

USA Today in late September reported a in poll that 50% of John Kerry's supporters were actually against Bush not for Kerry and 17% of Bush supporters (I believe that was the number) were actually against Kerry versus for Bush. If these numbers held true to November 2 that means that one third of the voters did not support either candidate. It seems to me that there is a message here for the parties and I expect that this gulf between the parties platforms and the voting public to widen as the parties become more polarized. Of course another possibility is tha both candidates were such a**es that people couldn't stomach them - that view would be hard to disagree with too.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[chickenfried]

I voted stay. But only because we're already there and need to bring stability to Iraq before we leave. But the best thing would've been to not invade Iraq in the first place.

 

[telewinz]

So say we pulled out of Iraq tommorrow, whats the worse that would happen? Violence in the streets? Bombings? The murders of innocent civilians? The disruption of the oil flow? The desertion of the Iraqi military? The decline of law and order? Iran might develope nuclear weapons? What the heck have we already been experiencing? What, World opinion of the U.S. might decline? Maybe hostile militant groups might attempt/threaten violence against us. What is their left for us to lose? The drain of our tax dollars? If we stay and PRETEND to create an effective Iraqi army/police force, THEN LEAVE, we will fully equip the hostile force(s) that defeat our "effective Iraqi Army" (BTW...the same thing that happened in Vietnam). GET OUT OF IRAQ BEFORE WE MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE. 2+2=4, being a noble cause won't change the math, no matter how hard we try. :banghead:

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Admittedly, all of those things are already happening, but they are happening fairly infrequently and in isolated regions. And if we pull out tomorrow the following will happen;

1. Joe Citizen the average Iraqi is now left with a void which the insurgents will gladly supply filler for. "Why is that OUR responsibility?" Because right or wrong, WE created the void.

2. Most, if not every citizen of every third world country will say, "America is a nation of women, a country of 2 sec attention span children that NEVER finishes what THEY start!" And right they would be!

3. Worse, the radical Islamic community, the "terrorists", will be able to say, "See! The Great Satan is strong for a moment, but gives up quickly like a small child. They claimed to be helping the Iraqi people but gave up as soon as some of their own blood was spilled! The infidels are WEAK! Now that they are out of Iraq and done being killed in muslim streets, it is time to take the war to THEIR streets!" Again, they would be absolutely right!

4. And finally the ultimate betrayal will be against our own troops, the men and women who have died for nothing and the troops which only want to be allowed to win.

I know some will say that it's all for pride, or that it's horrible to continue just because it's noble, or that the damage done via withdrawal is easily surmountable, but I submit that what is right is rarely easy or clear and if no one is willing to give their lives for what is right and noble, than the end truly is nigh.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I voted "stay," even though I believe that invading Iraq was the single most mind-numbingly stupid thing any administration has done in the past 100 years. That's because I believe Colin Powell had it right--we broke it, we bought it. I can hardly stand to see American soldiers dying for the hubris and incompetence of a bunch of candy-assed fat old men who have never seen combat themselves, but we can't in good conscience abandon the people of Iraq at this time. What the insurgants and terrorists are doing to our troops, they are doing to the people of Iraq tenfold.

Hopefully some day Rumsfeld and company will pay for their mistakes. Until then we are stuck with the bungling pieces of excrement that comprise the Bush administration and we have to make the best of it.

 

[telewinz]

Joe Citizen the average Iraqi is now left with a void which the insurgents will gladly supply filler for.

Only IF Joe Citizen lets it happen, if "Joe" doesn't care, why should you or I. Let him fight his own battles.

Most, if not every citizen of every third world country will say, "America is a nation of women, a country of 2 sec attention span children that NEVER finishes what THEY start!" And right they would be!

That was our concern about Vietnam also (the Soviet Union's re-action), we survived. We are still here...they aren't.

the "terrorists", will be able to say, "See! The Great Satan is strong for a moment, but gives up quickly like a small child.

So? What can they do that they already haven't done? Attack us?

And finally the ultimate betrayal will be against our own troops, the men and women who have died for nothing and the troops which only want to be allowed to win.

Boy, I thought we wore that reason out during Vietnam (another "oldie but goodie")! So we took your advice and increased our KIA's to over 50,000. AND WE STILL LOST! You are kidding, Right? How large does the U.S. body count have to be before YOU have had your fill and develope the wisdom/courage to walk away?

we can't in good conscience abandon the people of Iraq at this time.

I can. Its called making the hard decisions when it counts.

but I submit that what is right is rarely easy or clear

In this case it's clear, it's just not pleasant.

 

[Art Eatman]

Old age does provide a certain perspective, even if us Old Farts don't have to go out and face bombs and bullets...

Harry Truman put the deal together to fight the North Koreans, in large part so that the South Koreans could be self-determinant.

JFK said (approximately), "Go anywhere, pay any price, to bring freedom and democracy."

SEATO got us into the Vietnam deal. We were obligated by that treaty to go in. How we did things once we were in is what the arguments have been about...

This country has been fortunate. We managed to fight the Cold War while creating a tremendously rich and hedonistic society. We've had gunznbutter beyond LBJ's wildest dreams.

We had Gulf War 1, mostly due to the uncertainty of Saddam's plans for further actions beyond his taking of Kuwait. Had he openly said he'd done all he wanted, and done some pull back from the Saudi border, GW 1 might well not have happened...But that's a "damfino" thing.

Regardless of the totality of Clinton's motivations, we got rid of Milosevic and his own version of genocide.

Then came 9/11. It's generally agreed that our Afghanistan venture was worthwhile and justified--and reasonably successful, overall, insofar as self-determination for the citizenry at large.

So with all that historical background for our motivations for fighting anybody, whether a Hitler or a Kim Il Sung or whomever, I can see why we went into Iraq. Saddam's a sleazoid, thieving, murdering, genocidal (bleep). We got rid of him.

The problem is the relativly small numbers of Saddamites, coupled with the nihilists of Al Qaida and its sympathizers. Those people aren't very intelligent. If they were, and only wanted us to leave, they'd simply quit shooting for a few months. Simple as that. Since what they really want is control over Iraq, and aren't very smart as to how to go about acquiring that power, they shoot. They don't want self-determination for the populace at large.

So, morally, we stay.

Art

 

[telewinz]

I know some will say that it's all for pride

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, as of Jan. 14, 10,372 soldiers had been wounded.

So, morally, we stay.

Thats a Christian/Western culture value. The problem is we are fightling a different culture. They don't even use Websters Dictionary so how do they know what our definition of freedom is, how to get it, what to do with it, and how to defend it? Sounds like more of an uphill battle (in many ways) to me. Just because they are happy to be rid of Saddam doesn't mean they wanted the U.S. to stay. We invited ourselves and wore out our welcome(?) some time ago.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Split off an independent Kurdistan, negotiate a handover of what's left to the Shiites, and say FU to the Sunni Baathists.

And then get out.

 

[telewinz]

OK, lets draw the borders on a map, hand it to them and leave. Johnson...I mean Bush got us into this mess but only WE can determine how hard or easy we want to make it to get out.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

"If these terrorists want their Jiihad, then unleash the dogs of war and give it to them. In Spades. Then get out of town."

""I think we tried the same solution in Vietnam, they were a 3rd world country also. Didn't work out too well did it?""

Actually, the Phoenix Program worked very well.

If you read former DCI William Colby's book "Honorable Men" he talks a bit about the results of the program. It virtually wiped the VC out in most of S. Vietnam. Colby describes for example being able to take a motorcycle trip through some of the formerly VC-controlled areas.

The problem was that Phoenix was ended under pressure
from leftist extremists in the US (Ramsey Clark, Walter Cronkite, et al.) on the pretext of "Human Rights Abuses."

 

[telewinz]

the Phoenix Program worked very well

WOW, and we never lost a battle either BUT WE STILL LOST THE WAR. :banghead: Besides, losses due to the "Tet" offensive just about wiped out the Viet Cong, the survivors were incorporated under the command of the North Vietnam "regulars" a few months later.

 

[RandyB]

Just my 2 cents worth

As someone pointed out on another web forum. The fact that we are over there fighting gives all those who want to hurt the US a place to fight us, instead of on our own soil. I would much rather have our troops (and yes if i wan't too old to join, I'd be willing to go) getting shot at than to have them take the war over here like they did on 9-11. At least over there Americans have a better chance at shooting back.

 

[telewinz]

You mean the administration isn't saying that we can expect another terrorist attack here in the US? Do you mean to say I should feel safer? Do you mean that we HAVEN"T caused the creation of more terrorists? BTW...If I could keep my current job, I go to Iraq in a flash. It's my personal feeling and CHOICE that noble causes ARE worth fighting for.

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

First, remember that I have never said that our losses were slight or insignificant, I would not trade one wound on a US troopers butt for the kill of 10 slack-jawed tango space wasters!

Now, with that said, we have to remember that any time the military is involved in problem solving, stuff gets broke. (x10 if the military in question is the USMC! ) Casualties suck, but the fact is our casualties are light considering the type of conflict this has been from the beginning.

Boy, I thought we wore that reason out during Vietnam (another "oldie but goodie")! So we took your advice and increased our KIA's to over 50,000. AND WE STILL LOST! You are kidding, Right? How large does the U.S. body count have to be before YOU have had your fill and develope the wisdom/courage to walk away?

I am just a poor, dumb, Texas good-old boy, but I detect a bit of Reliving-Vietnamaphobia prevailing in your posts. Considering your service, however, I can't really blame you. In fact I applaud you for stepping up to the plate in a time where the American dream was another hit of acid.

I truly don't think that several of these posts have made the leap of "Vietnam has left us with enduring lesions, but aside from obvious similarities, this conflict is NOT in any way/shape/or form a repeat of Vietnam." Plain and simple.
The risks of pulling out prematurely outweigh the risks of staying the course. If we had approached Vietnam with the national resolve we had after 9/11 the war would have taken 5 years tops. Now we have a fraction of the post 9/11 resolve and people are suffering for it. The Hollywood hippies think that all they have to do is say "I'm for the troops, but against the war." and that makes everything cool. Well it doesn’t. "If the spear is weak and brittle, it does not matter how sharp the point is."

National irresponsibility is a plague which affects the country as a whole. Teenage boys don't accept responsibility for the babies they make, consumers compile huge bills then write hot checks to cover them, and people start tasks then quit when it gets too hard. We started this conflict, we had good reasons at the time, but WE started it! The fact that we’re even talking about quitting shows what’s wrong with society.

 

[telewinz]

but I detect a bit of Reliving-Vietnamaphobia prevailing in your posts.

No, only wisdom(I hope) based on experience from "hearing it all before". Pick your battles wisely cause you ain't going to win them all. Whats that saying...."are doomed to repeat it".

we had good reasons at the time, but WE started it!

We THOUGHT we had good reasons! So did Kennedy and Johnson.

 

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Curse my caveman-like hunt and peck typing!!! Every time I try to get in on a hot conversation, by the time I hit submit there has already been 3 more posts!!!! I swear this is worse than talking on a radio.........over.

Anyway, that’s the true evil of the terrorists, that we can just sit and mind our business, stop with aid to Israel, pull all troops in the Middle East, and they would still be crashing planes into our buildings. I guess they're just pissed their kids skip their Salaah in favor of downloading the new 50 cent song. I'm Roman Catholic, (pretty crappy one though, life as a sailor doesn’t always jive with sunday morning mass...) but it's remarkable how much death and destruction has been perpetrated to either encourage or suppress some form of religion.
-"Religion's a good thing, taken in moderation."

 

[Delmar]

"Thats a Christian/Western culture value."

Well, we're kind of a christian western country too.

What is it that some folks are totally prepared to give in to the enemy without so much as a blink of an eye? This is not the first time we have fought religious zealots, nor will it be the last. Fight them there instead of here-it really helps to keep a quiet neighborhood, and I would rather not have the military running BDA's anywhere near me.

If it is even true that we created more terrorists by invasion (I'd like to see some proof of that), bring it on. One thing which sticks out in my mind is the thousands of people across the middle east dancing in the streets over the attacks on us, so I hardly think this even matters.

Shortly after America became a nation, the Marines fought muslim extremists in Libya. Place called Tripoli.

After taking the Phillipine Islands away from Spain in the Spanish-American war, we fought muslim extremists for several years there.

And of course, the Gulf war, and the war to liberate Afghanistan.......

The enemy is not 10 feet tall, does not possess some superior interplanetary alien intelligence, nor are they going to receive massive aid from some super power. What is required is the WILL to see this through, instead of cutting and running-an open invitation for another attack.

As Art points out so correctly-this is a power struggle to fill the political vaccum. Lots of Sunni's who would like to be the rulers again.

Unlike Viet Nam, where we never invaded the source, we are right in the middle of it this time. Even Germany had some issues after the end of WWII-should we have abandoned our committment there? History says no.

 

[telewinz]

As Art points out so correctly-this is a power struggle to fill the political vaccum

One of our "clear" goals is to win the peace for the Iraqs then leave. We have already done the only thing we can do for the Iraqs, we got rid of their oppressive goverment. It's impossible to do anything else for them and make it stick. They have to want freedom, so much that THEY are willing to fight and die for it. Once we leave, it will all far apart. A person who is indifferent isn't much of a freedom fighter.

Unlike Viet Nam, where we never invaded the source, we are right in the middle of it this time.

The VC were one heck of a source, we had our hands full, the enemy came to us. Just like Iraq. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[River Wraith]

Pull our troops out and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

 

[telewinz]

OR "Kill them all and let GOD sort them out" another "oldie but goodie".

 

[fallingblock]

There is very little similarity between this Iraq and the Vietnam wars

It seems to me that Telewinz is really stretching to create the similies.

I spent 67' through '72 in the U.S. Army, not in Vietnam, but with a very personal interest in the war there.

Iraq is NOT about the U.S. interfering in an intense and long-running national struggle for unity. Vietnam was. The U.S. cold warriors, in their efforts to appease the French, skewed their vision to see communist hegemony at work in Vietnam, rather than Ho Chi Minh's focus on uniting his nation. Ho turned to the communists after all other avenues had been blocked for him.

Iraq does NOT involve the continuing support by a major power of the insurgents against our troops. Syria is doing all it can to fight the 'great satan' withought drawing a bullseye on itself, and no doubt individuals and groups filter in from all quarters of the militant muslim sphere, but there is no significant infrastructure supporting them, as there was in Vietnam.

The issue is, as has been addressed above, a matter of will. If the U.S. stands by the Iraqi people and manages to establish a democratic government, then it will be seen as a stabilizing force in the region. If the U.S. cuts and runs, credibility will be lost. I think the loss of life among both U.S. troops and patriotic Iraqis who are serving to stabilize their nation is deplorable, but as Art notes, it's the not-so-bright, power-seeking Sunnis and the Al Qaeda insurgents who are perpetrating the violence. Morally, we have to stay until the nation of Iraq is stablized.