+'s and -'s of the Iraq War

[MichaelC]

I disagree with that on a few points there, but I believe you may very well be 100% right about the need for full withdrawal.  Its an easy case to make.

[iplaw]

quote:
What do you think of the "phased redeployment" idea?

You mean precipitous withdrawal?

quote:
I too have never been in favor of this war, the only logical explanations for it are also the most distasteful.

Why bother discussing logic after invoking the ol' cut and run strategy?

quote:
placing those troops in bases far from action, and using them for support of the Iraqi military.

How do you suppose they support the Iraqi military if they're "far from action?"

quote:
Of course there would still be plenty of opportunities for incidents like those that occurred in Somalia, but those things are already happening.

Yeah, why repeat the same ignorant mistake from Somalia and run away again when doing so emboldens the enemy?

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where, after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post-cold war leadership of the new world order, you moved tens of thousands of international forces, including twenty-eight thousand American solders, into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, carrying your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden, and Mogadishu. -- OBL

[mdunn]

[/quote]
Yeah, why repeat the same ignorant mistake from Somalia and run away again?

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where, after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post-cold war leadership of the new world order, you moved tens of thousands of international forces, including twenty-eight thousand American solders, into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, carrying your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden, and Mogadishu. -- OBL
[/quote]

American forces have no control over what the higher ups do.If it would have been up to me,I would have stayed longer to finish the job,same in Desert Storm.We were more less puppets on The governments strings.

[iplaw]

I agree, Bush 1.0 abdicated his responsibility the first time around, as well as Clinton, and it would have been much easier pre 9/11 to deal with the resulting nonsense going on there now.  Every time we walk away from a battle with these nut jobs with out tail between our legs we lose because it emboldens them further.

We need to unleash hell and break the back of this in Iraq immediately with whatever resources are necessary to get the job done.  Leaving now creates a vacuum that Iran is waiting to fill, and they are hell bent on destroying Israel and the US.  Growing instability in the region only helps our enemies.  

We gain absolutely NOTHING by leaving, because we will be right back in the thick of things once Iran starts making moves.  Either we deal with it now, or we deal with it later, take your pick.

And with this announcement today, do we really think we can wait this one out?

[mdunn]

Then another answer would be to set up permenant bases as we have in Germany and Korea.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by mdunn

Then another answer would be to set up permenant bases as we have in Germany and Korea.

You'd have to willing to accept another Beirut scenario, minus car bombs perhaps, plus morters and RPGs.  If US forces are there, they will be targeted in some fashion.  Given that the world largest Navy can begin an invasion of just about any country within a month, actual stationary forces may not be necessary.

Don't know if that's acceptible or not.  Reagan's only options in Beirut after the barracks bombing were to pull out, keep the status quo, or invade.  The withdrawal wasn't pleasant, but given the other options, it was probably the right thing to do IMO.

[mdunn]

Maybe us americans need to start moving over there and buying up all the hotels and convenient stores,I would be willing to attend the Slurpee college they go to before they come over here to live.Oops,I forgot to mention liquer stores..They dont believe in alcohol,but that dont stop them for buying up all U.S. liquer stores!

[iplaw]

Keeping forces there is a moot point if we don't tamp down the insurgency and sectarian violence.  Long term deterrant against Iran...possibly, but it won't be needed if Iraq stabilizes and can keep Iran out itself.

[aoxamaxoa]

Many here have drank the kool aid!

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

Iran is not as big of threat as the Busheviks make them out to be. Fear over diplomacy? Civilized versus nomadic....
How many here really prefer to extend this debacle into Persia?


"Iran strike 'would be disastrous' "
"A coalition of charities, faith groups and unions has warned Tony Blair that any military action against Iran would have "unthinkable" consequences. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6330353.stm

Look, both countries have fanatics running the show, or so it appears.

"New Gulf of Tonkin in the Persian Gulf"

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/020407a.html

"There is absolutely nothing credible about anything that comes out of Iraq either through the administration or the mainstream press. War-weary Americans, who spoke loudly and clearly about the question of more war, are known suckers for official lies."

Some BIG SUCKERS here on this thread. We'd gain more by leaving than staying...

[MichaelC]

Speaking of Soviets, something I found interesting about the Soviet/Afghan events in the 80s (and 90s), was that 1) the Afghan Communist gov't came to power before the Soviet invasion, 2) the Afghan Communist gov't was actually stronger and more capable after the Soviets left because the Afghans took the lead role, and 3) The Afghan Communist gov't only collapsed after post-Soviet Russian withdrew its military and economic support.

Even if everyone agrees that the Afghan Communist gov't was illegitimate and should have died a natural death leading to the Taliban, there's something to be said for the idea that it is better to have locals take the lead, with an outside power providing military and economic support.  And there's also something to be said for the idea that locals will not take the lead as long as some other entity is willing to do the job for them.

Is the Iraqi gov't currently in danger?  If you're listening to the Iraqi politicians, apparently the gov't is doing fine.  They aren't worried, and they probably should be.

[iplaw]

If Iran weren't in the picture I might be inclined to agree with you...Iran is funding the insurgency and providing the weapons that are killing our troops.  We can only expect that they are waiting to move in when we leave.

As I have said before, we need massive troops on the Iranian border and massive troops on the Syrian border to cut off the flow of people and weapons in and out.  Let the Iraqis have a shot at it, but if the insurgency got out of hand we'd have to step right back in.

[aoxamaxoa]

^"Iran is funding the insurgency and providing the weapons that are killing our troops."

too much kool aid....cool it...makes you look sick!

[iplaw]

Would someone tell Dingus McGee that I can't see his posts anymore and he's wasting his time...

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Would someone tell Dingus McGee that I can't see his posts anymore and he's wasting his time...

Since he can't see this..... HE'S AN IGNORAMOUS!
NEED MORE PROOF?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

If Iran weren't in the picture I might be inclined to agree with you...Iran is funding the insurgency and providing the weapons that are killing our troops.  We can only expect that they are waiting to move in when we leave.

As I have said before, we need massive troops on the Iranian border and massive troops on the Syrian border to cut off the flow of people and weapons in and out.  Let the Iraqis have a shot at it, but if the insurgency got out of hand we'd have to step right back in.

IMO a full-blown Civil War is likely once we leave.  Whether it's now, or in 10 years.  The Iraq War has become increasingly a war of Nationalism and National Identity.  That just doesn't go away overnight.  At some point, these folks have to answer the questions "Who are we?" and "What is Iraq?"  Ultimately, we can't provide those answers.

I assume that there is some Iranian military and economic influence.  If they are supporting the Sunnis directly, I would expect that support to dry up completely once we have left.  It's more plausible that there is an indirect link through the black market, or other countries.   Most US casualties have come at the hands of Sunni insurgents.

The biggest influence Iran has right now, is in presumably arming Shias.  But the Shias also dominate the US backed gov't, and the Iraqi gov't has no intention of cracking down on Shias.  And, perhaps most importantly, Ayatollah Al-Sistani has repeatedly called for no attacks against US or gov't forces.  It doesn't always work, there are always going to be criminal/terrorist types, but the Shia majority is more interested in what the Sunnis are doing, than us.  In a way, it would be easier to make the case against Iran if the Iraqi Shia leadership weren't trying so hard to avoid us.

I don't think we in the US, have come to terms with the fact that if this gov't is to be legitimate, it also has to be predominately Shia.  It scares us a little bit, and that fear can cause us a lot of problems.  I do believe that the gov't we've established will stand as long as we keep political and economic ties open.  That would be a victory.