What should we do about Iraq?

[Freedomv]

Well said, Bullet.

I had not thought of it like that but I believe that you are correct. During WWII we bombed entire citys into rubble. We did not have the precision/accuracy with weapons that we have today which accounted for many civilian casuallties.

However when we showed that we had the will and the way of the atomic bomb it did not take Japan long to capitulate.

We also fire bombed Dresdin, Germany (along with many other cities) which many peoples decried as it was historic etc etc and didn't need to be blown away to win the war. But we did it and we broke the "will" of the people.

If we look back in history it seems that all wars were won by brute force against an enemy and the annihilation of his will to fight and die. Sherman's 'March to the sea.' at the end of our civil war is a good example.

Real war is something like playing Chess, useing stratigies to accomplish a goal, etc. but in real warefare contestants/players do not walk away uninjured, returning to fight another day. They are eliminated and their source of equipment and supplies is destroyed.

As the Japannese Naval Officers is said to have stated after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. "I am afraid that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." The resolve today lies with the terrorist and in are professional military men and women who would like to finish the job and go home, but not in the American public.

To win the war on terrorism the young muslims of the Region must have something to live for, not to die for. Why is it that they are all so willing to die.
It takes more than a motivational speaker to persuade someone to kill himself and others. I believe that most of the bombers have no life to live and therefore not sacrificing much when they are brainwashed by their leaders. Of course their leaders must live on to instruct the new expendable resourses at their disposal.

I am not sure if I am conveying my thoughts too well. Point being that there is no tangible infrastructure of the terrorist. There is no Bomb factory to bomb and destroy, no bearing factorys, no war material factorys etc. The only thing that we might have a chance at destroying is their supply of willing bombers. The only way to demoralize a terrorist is to get them or give them something to live for.

Vern

 

[RangerHAAF]

The bottom line is that everything that has followed in regards to Iraq started with 9/11. If there had been no 9/11 Afghanistan(something of a success story) would still be in the same sorry state that the Russians left it in; Saddam would still be in power with George W. Bush looking for excuses to invade Iraq, which would be much harder to justify. Of course oil will always play into the equation, they have it, we want it.

We pay them billions every year for it, they pay their terrorist proxies millions to keep the political and religious pot stirred by blowing up and killing people every day. It's a vicious repeating cycle that has no end except a newly available, on a massive scale, energy source.

So, it's a deal with the devil that we are all indirectly responsible for. Even Bill Gates , the richest man in the world doesn't have a product that is bought and sold 24 hours a day, globally. They do.

 

[Art Eatman]

Bullet, the main problem with your "attack them all" idea is that too many of the "bad" governments haven't done anything overt to justify an attack. And, it's hard to go name-calling over covert actions, since that has been a two-way street since such things as the CIA and Mossadegh et al.

Language gets in the way of discussing the whole deal, as much as do the complexities of what Kipling called the Great Game. That is, we have the extremist, jihadist Moslems engaged in a religious war against us. Yet, there's no word other than "terrorist" for the newsies and the public to use to identify the enemy, and the non-extremist, non-jihadist Moslems get caught up in the emotional labelling.

JFK, a conservative by today's standards, made his "Go anywhere, pay any price" speech about spreading freedom. Okay. Then came LBJ and his Great Society. Bush grew up within these contexts as the son of a man who spent his entire life in government. Dubya's mindset, then, (seems to me) MUST be that of one who sees our government as obligated and able to use its power for this perceived Good of spreading freedom.

To me, all the above is just background before entering into discussions of the Good or Bad about Iraq. And, after all, Dubya had the precedent of Clinton's war against Serbia...

To me, the biggest mistake about Iraq was in not waiting to rebuild our basic manpower after the Clinton drawdown. We're over-using the National Guard and the Reserves beyond what anybody ever expected.

Art

 

[NMshooter]

Vern, you make sense to me.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Take Saddam, out of what ever jail we hideing him in. Give him a new suit tell him how sorry we are for killing his sons, and put him back in power.
Then leave and stop messing in places we don't belong. The puppet govt. we trying to install will not fly. Their is a civil war coming and Bush and his buddies are the cause of it.
Bush is playing RISK except he moved from the board game to real world and is using real troops, our sons and daugthers. I sorry I ever voted for the jerk.This is not a war on terror its a war about power and oil Bush wants both.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Iraq

For all the grass-eating, hand-wringing neo-pacifists out there:

1. Troops are not invented just so we can "bring them home".

2. We had the Vietnam War 90% won by 1968. Then, LBJ and his boys started listening to the anti-war press and their whinning, bliss-ninny Make-Love-Not-War girlie-men. And we sat there on our aircraft carriers in the Tonkin Gulf watching helplessly as cargo ships from China and the USSR shoved tons of fresh war materiel into North Vietnam -- stuff that inevitably would be used to kill our troops and allies next week. And so, we let the enemy off the hook. And caved in... as millions later died... and thousands of MIA's went unaccounted for when we pulled out... for, umm, "peace with honor".

3. The loss of life is always tragic. However, with less than 1,400 U.S. military deaths to date, we're a long, long way from our 58,000 deaths in Vietnam... let alone the tallies in WW II... or even the Civil War. My view as a veteran is that the mega-hullabaloo the anti-war press makes over combat losses is a sad measure of just how pacified and politically-correct elements of American society have become. Given this corrosive lib-wimp mind-set, do you think we could even fight the Revolutionary War today? I mean, my god, people would die! This avoid-ALL-violence world view, by the way, is at the root of those who wish to disarm us, or reluctantly allow gun ownership only for "legitimate sporting purposes".

4. Viewed in its proper long-term strategic role in the larger Cold War, we "won" the Vietnam War in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, the USSR collapsed, and freedom renewed its course. The pursuit of the Vietnam conflict, by any measure, was central to this result. The other key component, of course, was President Reagan's relentless military-muscle build-up... in the face of the usual left-wing protests. And do not doubt this: we ARE in a long term war of great strategic importance today. I urge all doubters to (a) read that Harvard prof's "Clash of Civilizations" book, and (b) turn a deaf ear to CNN and the Main-Stream Media, because THEIR agenda is not one for a world most here may want to live in.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Tonkintwentymil wrote:

"And we sat there on our aircraft carriers in the Tonkin Gulf watching helplessly as cargo ships from China and the USSR shoved tons of fresh war materiel into North Vietnam -- stuff that inevitably would be used to kill our troops and allies next week."

Are you suggesting we should have enagaged the USSR and China in a shooting war? Now there's a plan. We saw how well that worked out in Korea. What makes you think the results would have been any more positive in Vietnam?

 

[Topgun]

We were so helpless in the Gulf of Tonkin that we had to start "shooting at whales."

...or at least as far as our "president" knew.

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

Iraq will cost ALL of us more than we can ever even IMAGINE.

"REMEMBER 9/11 !!!!"

dat's da war cry of Islam. THEIR finest day. They blow up 2 buildings and kill 3000 in the buildings, some more in Iraq (however IT got involved) destroy America's currency, and turn the world against the US.

Now I'd call that an effective use of resources.

Bush is a clown.

We have lost more liberty under his Homeland Security than Osama could have ever hoped for. (If indeed it was Osama)

And .....REAGAN?


Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Art Eatman]

TonkinTwentyMil, if you're interested in long term problems and strategies, today's NYT is loaded up with some very interesting commentaries about long term stuff.

The article on Bangladesh and the "Talibanization" of the Islamics there is at the very least somewhat unnerving.

And, I tend to agree with some of Friedman's conclusions...

Art

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Comparing U.S. involvement in Iraq to U.S. involvement in Vietnam probably is misguided. A more appropriate comparison might be with Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, which did more to destroy the Soviet Union than anything the U.S. ever did.

 

[Topgun]

Lobotomy Boy.....You better get a refund on that lobotomy.

They did NOT remove part of your brain.

 

[Rebar]

I find it telling how the Bush-haters have already called this war a loss.

This is despite the fact that every report from people who have actually been to Iraq saying that things are going well, and that the vast majority of the country is peaceful. This is despite the fact that they haven't even had their elections yet, nor the bulk of their army and police on line yet.

The Bush-haters want us to lose, they want the Iraqi people to suffer, they want our solders to die, just so they can point their fingers at Bush and say "I told you so, you suck". I find it pathetic and sad that anyone can be like that, in fact are proud to be like that.

The truth is, we're winning this war, the Iraqis will have their election, their army and police will smash the insurgency, and Iraq will become a peaceful and stable democracy.

And just like the left-wingers denied that Reagan won the cold war, they will deny that Bush won the war on terror.

 

[macavada]

The Bush-haters want us to lose, they want the Iraqi people to suffer, they want our solders to die, just so they can point their fingers at Bush and say "I told you so, you suck". I find it pathetic and sad that anyone can be like that, in fact are proud to be like that.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Iraq

I find it curious that those raising doubts about our Iraq policy seem inclined to quote the NYTIMES, Thomas Friedman et al, and others Main-Stream Media sources. Their pro-UN, pro-Euro-socialist agenda has been well documented.

If you are buyin' what they're sellin', that's your choice, but it's also indicative of your mind-set. I'll bet there's a whole ton of other issues we'll never see eye to eye on.

Additionally, for those questioning my point about whether we should have exercised a more confrontational policy with China and the old USSR during the Vietnam War: (a) we were somewhat handicapped, militarily, because of the Butter-over-Guns policies of prior administrations, however (b) when Niixon mined the port of Haiphong in 1972 -- thus cutting off those communist supply ships -- the Soviets DID NOT attack the U.S. Sometimes you just gotta take the bull by the horns and risk p****** off the other guy. And, no, we all CAN'T get along.

You can't do that if your guns are loaded with daisies.

 

[jlwatts3]

We need to divide the country into three semi-autonomous states one in the north for the kurds and another town for the sunni and shiia. There should be a central government that controls all three and doles out oil revenue etc. I can't see any other way to get those people to cooperate.

 

[Ralphpeters]

We cannot give the Kurds a homeland. The Turks would invade right quick. The shia in the south can be puppets, of Iran. I believe the sunnis do not have a future. Im seeing an exodus of Sunnis and baathists to Syria.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Tonkintwentymil wrote:

Sometimes you just gotta take the bull by the horns and risk p****** off the other guy.

That's pretty much what MacArthur told Truman at Wake Island in 1950. But he was wrong; the Chinese and Soviets proceded to whip MacArthur's troops into bloody submission. Had Mao decided not to take the entire Korean Peninsula--he just went far enough south of the 38th parallel to make his point--Kim would control an united Korea today.

Those who pigheadedly refuse to acknowledge history are doomed to make the rest of us repeat it, or something like that.

 

[Sam]

No war is worth a %@!^.
Given that, once you have one you need to deal with it.
I believe the best possible outcome is to play it exacly like we did the Phillipines.
Quell the insurrection in whatever way we can, right up to leveling an example town or two. It will cause less death and suffering in the long run.
Peacefully stand beside whatever government comes to power, then ease out.

In this case I believe that we will have some presence there for every bit as long as what the Phillipines took, 40-50 years.

I wish we had an Arthur McArthur and a Pershing to administer it.

Sam

 

[Ralphpeters]

Chalabi has spent a lot of time in Iran

After Saddam was deposed, Chalabi returned to Iraq on an American aircraft and was put in charge of government finances as a member of the Iraqi Governing Council.

He fell out of favor with U.S. officials as the intelligence he supplied about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction failed to pan out. In May 2004, U.S. troops and Iraqi police searched his home and office in Baghdad, and U.S. officials accused him of passing closely held U.S. secrets to Iran -- an allegation he denied.

Sha'alan, speaking on Al-Jazeera, accused Chalabi of defaming him and the ministry, but didn't explain how. He also blamed Chalabi for the dismantlement of the Iraqi army and police forces after the U.S.-led invasion -- moves that were the decision of the U.S. military.

In a separate interview with the Arabic-language network al-Arabiya, Sha'alan also blamed the United States for dismantling the Iraqi army.

In September, Chalabi escaped injury when two carloads of gunmen opened fire on his convoy south of Baghdad, an aide said. Chalabi's bodyguards returned fire, but the gunmen escaped.

Chalabi discusses elections
On Friday -- before Sha'alan's remarks -- Chalabi talked to CNN's Christiane Amanpour about the upcoming elections.

Asked whether the Shiites, Iraq's majority, would set up an Iran-style Islamic republic if they win, he said that would not happen. The goal, he said, is to establish a pluralistic democracy.

The election will produce a "legitimate government," he said, even though many Sunni Iraqis may not vote, either because it's too dangerous for them or they want to boycott the election.

"The government is seeking a second mandate. On security, they have failed. On delivering basic services -- electricity, water -- they have failed. On delivering fuel to the people, they have failed. The price of gas in Baghdad now on the black market is higher than it is in Washington," he said.

If Shiites gain power, Chalabi said he expected the American presence in Iraq to be "regulated."

"They will not be in your face. They will not be present at street corners, they will not be compelled to shoot people," he said.

CNN's Ingrid Formanek contributed to this report

 

[Art Eatman]

No doubt the NYT is anti-war; it's anti- anything a Republican does. I don't recall a lot of foaming at the mouth over Serbia, though.

Where Friedman's commentary in today's NYT might have merit is in its reflection of other comments I've read about morale among the National Guard and the Reserves. Many of these guys are either serving far longer than expected, or are getting unexpected repeat tours to the Sandbox. Now, sure, it's part of the deal they all signed up for, but it derives from Clinton's draw-down in active-duty manpower.

20/20 hindsight says we should have waited a bit and rebuilt the numbers of active-duty guys before going in.

I dunno. I like to think I have some amount of handle on the Big Picture stuff. I don't any of us here can really know more than dissociated snippets of the reality in Iraq, right now. I do believe it's going better than what the mediahcrities are busy nay-saying.

Art

 

[fallingblock]

Well, me too, Art!

"I do believe it's going better than what the mediahcrities are busy nay-saying."
*********************************************************

Considerably better, if my Australian sources "at-the-scene" are to be believed. But the mediahcrities (nice word, that) of the Australian media are even more vehement in their nay-saying than those of the U.S.


I'm not so sure about that, Lobotomy Boy:

*********************************************************
"That's pretty much what MacArthur told Truman at Wake Island in 1950. But he was wrong; the Chinese and Soviets proceded to whip MacArthur's troops into bloody submission. Had Mao decided not to take the entire Korean Peninsula--he just went far enough south of the 38th parallel to make his point--Kim would control an united Korea today."
*********************************************************

Had "Mac" convinced Harry to use the "nuclear curtain" (of which Mao was aware), things would have gone sour for the Chinese in a hurry.
There'd be one free and democratic united Korea today, perhaps with some 'no-go' radioactive zones in the far north.

 

[Apache]

As soon as possible- get off of Iraqi property!!

What if some Iraqi do gooder military Leviathan army were to invade our
country and promise us iraqi new world order democracy and freedom? For
the downtrodden Yankee dogs wouldn't this be the best option? They
would appoint the Iman G.W. as robber baron leader. Lady Bird Laura would
tend over the dead and dying yankee population- This would be required due
to the frequent demolition of businesses such as the trade towers. These
peskey Yankees must be taught reality occationally! Besides, G.W. and
Laura will visit the ground zero and make all feel gratefull for their small
sacrifice for deomocracy and freedom. The Iraqi "good guy" overseers
will raise taxes on the Yankees and take the youngest yankee daughters for
their porno inspired sex shops, the only recourse to the defeated Yankees!
I figure if we pee off enough people at any one time- this situation can become a reality!

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

It is fun to discuss nuking other countries, Fallingblock, but had Truman nuked North Korea, the Soviets would have retaliated. Remember, Stalin was calling the shots on the opposing side, which is why the war couldn't end until after he died in 1953. And the USSR also had developed a hydrogen bomb. Truman knew, as did Ike, that the opposing forces had within the means the capability to destroy most life on the planet. Using nukes under those circumstances at the height of the Cold War would have amounted to criminal insanity.

MacArthur might seem like a noble figure to those who have only a shallow understanding of history, but without doubt history has proven his decision to move UN troops north of the 38th parallel a tragic mistake. Truman's great mistake was in listening to MacArthur's advice.

I believe history will take a similar view of Bush and his cronies, and very likely the ultimate result will be similar to the results in Korea--a partitioned country that will be a perpetual political hot spot for generations. That might be the best we can hope for at this point. The worst would probably be an anti-American Islamic theocracy that makes Iran and Libya look like panty-waisted liberal nations, a theocracy exporting a virulant brand of Islamic terrorism to the west.

 

[Art Eatman]

While I don't expect the sort of church-state separation as is common in the western world, the Shiite leadership states it favors a generally-secular government. I, for one, don't see what's wrong with self-determination in a country which previously has not known that political structure

Those hoping for a U.S. failure are de facto hoping as well for some sort of chaos/civil war/religious-dictator sequel to that failure. You can't have it both ways, as is well known by the average mature adult...

Art

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

The key to a successful democratically elected government will be if the elected government maintains a monopoly on the use of violent force across the entire country. This is highly doubtful. At best the government will control most of the country--there will still be pockets of insurrection. If that insurrection is fierce enough, and if the elected government doesn't develop and adequate military and police force, there will likely be areas (hopefully small areas) that descend into anarchy, where the rule of law is not in effect. The elected government will probably try to attempt to restore order to those areas, which will in effect constitute a (hopefully) small-scale civil war. It will be very difficult for a fledgling government with embryonic police and military forces to conquor an embedded insurgancy, and the odds are that those affected areas will become defacto nation-states, partitioned from the main country. This won't be a huge problem as long as the insurgents don't control the oil fields, and as long as the elected government maintains a civil relationship with the Kurds. But if the insurgents gain control of the oil, or if the Shiite-Kurdish relations go sour, or if the insurgancy is spread across the country instead of localized, it could be worst-case scenario time.