The President Can't Find a "War Czar"

[iplaw]

quote:
This thing in Iraq is done. Let 'em have their civil war without us. It's already going now; it's just in a slower motion. All American troops are doing is prolonging the inevitable.

So, you're okay with the impending genocide once we leave, is that correct?  you'd rather have a mass humanitarian crisis than an attempt to broker peace.

Personally I'd rather have a hand in controling the violence and protecting the Iraqi people, unless you feelt they don't deserve to be protected from these militant islamic goons.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

There are only two options.  

1.  The first is to stick this out until a peace can be brokered; or

2.  To pull out and watch as mass destruction and genocide take over and be forced to re-commit troops back to the region to quash the inevitable genocide being perpetrated against either the sunni or shia, whichever group gets the short end of the stick.  I would assume that to be the sunni since Iran is currently funding the shia uprising.

#3 The Decider's choice.  Sit there.  Stall.  Drag it out through the next election cycle.  Then it's somebody else's quagmire.  There is no peace in sight.  Honestly.  Is there?  

Our soldiers have been giving it their best for four long years.  And they are the best there has ever been.  In spite of this, the Sunnis and Shias are having their civil war.  Is there any good reason for our soldiers and Marines to continue getting shot at from both sides?  They're tired.  They're exposed. It's time to get out of the way.

[iplaw]

quote:#3 The Decider's choice.  Sit there.  Stall.  Drag it out through the next election cycle.  Then it's somebody else's quagmire.  There is no peace in sight.  Honestly.  Is there?

There is most certainly hope, but it's not to be found by someone who's committed to and hoping for defeat so that their political party wins the next election.    

quote:
Our soldiers have been giving it their best for four long years.  And they are the best there has ever been.  In spite of this, the Sunnis and Shias are having their civil war.  Is there any good reason for our soldiers and Marines to continue getting shot at from both sides?  They're tired.  They're exposed. It's time to get out of the way.

These factions are being driven by outside forces and Al-Qaeda on the inside, and can, eventually be controlled.  Simply walking away and letting genocide happen is not only callous, but reprehenisble and quite honestly very selfish.

[Conan71]

Even Hillary Clinton has said in recent weeks that after the official conflict is over, there will be need to keep about 50,000 troops on the ground to protect "sensitive" interests.

How do you people feel about 800,000 killed in genocide in Rwanda?

[rwarn17588]

Badly, but there's nothing we could have done about it, either. The killings in Rwanda happened so fast, that by the time an effective number of troops would have arrived, it was all but over.

Ditto for the Balkans.

If you have a society that's so diseased that religious sects start killing each other, intervention is going to contain only a little of it, if at all. And that's assuming you can get the intervention there fast enough.

(Please note this is different from the Nazis setting up concentration camps in conquered countries. I'm talking about civil wars here.)

To effectively keep the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other, we would need triple the number of troops we have now, maybe more. Those are troops that we don't have. And the guy in charge doesn't want to institute a draft.

So we're stuck. And so is Iraq.

Those are the facts, folks. I wish I could change that, but I can't. And I see no point in a commander-in-chief that's half-hearted on this issue.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:I've never understood why some people are so willing to let a handful of radical creeps determine our next move for us.  Zarqawi is a dead thug.  Just like Saddam.  Ahmadinejad is a blowhard.  I certainly understand that there is an cavernous void where there should be a US Middle East policy, but since when are the motormouth ravings of zealots a reasonable facsimile?

That was the exact same attitude we had towards OBL before 9/11, in fact the exact same attitude this country had when we were given the opportunity to take him out.  We ingore these fanatics at our own peril.

So, knee-jerk reaction to the ravings of fanatics...that's our foreign policy?  

We've been down this road before.  You seem to think that diplomacy and intelligence is an either/or choice.  This isn't the cold war.  We aren't squared off against states.  States are potential allies.  You build good relationships with the good guys, kill the really bad ones, and watch everybody else like a hawk.  Fact is, if you are good at diplomacy, you create the elbow room you need to allow the rest to work effectively.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Badly, but there's nothing we could have done about it, either. The killings in Rwanda happened so fast, that by the time an effective number of troops would have arrived, it was all but over.

Ditto for the Balkans.

If you have a society that's so diseased that religious sects start killing each other, intervention is going to contain only a little of it, if at all. And that's assuming you can get the intervention there fast enough.

(Please note this is different from the Nazis setting up concentration camps in conquered countries. I'm talking about civil wars here.)

To effectively keep the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other, we would need triple the number of troops we have now, maybe more. Those are troops that we don't have. And the guy in charge doesn't want to institute a draft.

So we're stuck. And so is Iraq.

Those are the facts, folks. I wish I could change that, but I can't. And I see no point in a commander-in-chief that's half-hearted on this issue.

So basically, pull out, leave it in total anarchy as opposed to semi-anarchy and leave it up to survival of the fittest.  And let God deal with those who are wrong.

I'm as tired as anyone else of this war.  No, actually, I think I'm more tired of the divisiveness in our own country about it.  

I've never seen Bush as half-hearted on it, he's always been full-steam-ahead and never considered an alternative to it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:I've never understood why some people are so willing to let a handful of radical creeps determine our next move for us.  Zarqawi is a dead thug.  Just like Saddam.  Ahmadinejad is a blowhard.  I certainly understand that there is an cavernous void where there should be a US Middle East policy, but since when are the motormouth ravings of zealots a reasonable facsimile?

That was the exact same attitude we had towards OBL before 9/11, in fact the exact same attitude this country had when we were given the opportunity to take him out.  We ingore these fanatics at our own peril.

So, knee-jerk reaction to the ravings of fanatics...that's our foreign policy?  

We've been down this road before.  You seem to think that diplomacy and intelligence is an either/or choice.  This isn't the cold war.  We aren't squared off against states.  States are potential allies.  You build good relationships with the good guys, kill the really bad ones, and watch everybody else like a hawk.  Fact is, if you are good at diplomacy, you create the elbow room you need to allow the rest to work effectively.

The alternative would be after they've detonated a nuclear device in Israel, London, New York, or elsewhere: "Gee we should have taken those nuts a lot more seriously."

[rwarn17588]

<Conan wrote:

I've never seen Bush as half-hearted on it ...

<end clip>

I disagree. Scads of generals in the Pentagon begged him to deploy many more troops in Iraq. But they were ignored.

And it IS anarchy in Iraq now. You have a government that that can't or won't (I'm betting on the latter) to restore public order. Plus you have a president there that's in bed with the Shiite extremists. He has no incentive to stop the bloodshed.

And if you're sick of the divisiveness over the war, that happens when a war is going badly -- as it should. There were many, many bad decisions over this thing, and it's good that people are mad and want to hold others accountable.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:#3 The Decider's choice.  Sit there.  Stall.  Drag it out through the next election cycle.  Then it's somebody else's quagmire.  There is no peace in sight.  Honestly.  Is there?

There is most certainly hope, but it's not to be found by someone who's committed to and hoping for defeat so that their political party wins the next election.    

That's beyond the pale and you know it.  Americans of all stripes are grappling with this thing.  And many of us would agree that the President's pride is not worth the life of a single soldier.  I don't give two sh*ts about his legacy.  I do care about who he might be willing to sacrifice to protect it.  

What I was saying is that it's not a partisan issue; it's not about who the next president is.    It's about this President.  Is he a boy king with an underdeveloped soul?  Is man enough to face failure?  20 months is a long time and lives hang in the balance.  

quote:These factions are being driven by outside forces and Al-Qaeda on the inside, and can, eventually be controlled.  Simply walking away and letting genocide happen is not only callous, but reprehenisble and quite honestly very selfish.

You don't have any idea what will happen.  Nobody does.  I'm supposed to be the speculation and hyperbole guy, remember?[]

[iplaw]

quote:That's beyond the pale and you know it.  Americans of all stripes are grappling with this thing.  And many of us would agree that the President's pride is not worth the life of a single soldier.  I don't give two sh*ts about his legacy.  I do care about who he might be willing to sacrifice to protect it.  

I could care less about his legacy either, but nor do I think his "pride" is the reason we are still in this fight.  

There were many, many good and justifiable reasons for deposing Saddam, not the least of which were about a half dozen critical human rights concerns.  Unfortunately Al Qaeda elements within the country have inflamed already ignitable factions for no other purpose than they know that is the ONLY WAY to defeat us.

We cannot simply walk away at this point and pretend as if we can just wash our hands of the situation.  One way or the other we are STUCK there.  Either by our choosing, or by being later compelled by the ensuing humanitarian crisis.

quote:
You don't have any idea what will happen.  Nobody does.  I'm supposed to be the speculation and hyperbole guy, remember?[]

Well, let me wear your crown for a moment[].  

It's guaranteed genocide just as it was in Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur when these factions go unchecked.  This was the ultimate end game of these nihilistic cave dwellers from the beginning.  Did you read that game plan by Zarqawi?  Sectarian violence was their ace in the hole, and someone is still carrying that plan on despite his absence.

It would be great if they just killed one another, but that won't happen.  They will en mass kill innocents, and then turn on the Kurdish in the north (per Zarqawi) until they are exterminated.









If we pull out you will end up with either a Sunni Al Qaeda stronhold or a Shia Iranian proxy state.  

Which one do you prefer?

[rwarn17588]

Does it make any difference what we do?

It looks like right now it's an Iranian Shiite republic. And that's with the U.S. as kinda-sorta occupiers.

Thanks a lot, Bush, for going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, screwing it up big time and thus destabilizing a huge chunk of the Middle East. I'm sure that's the result you wanted. Sheesh.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Does it make any difference what we do?

It looks like right now it's an Iranian Shiite republic. And that's with the U.S. as kinda-sorta occupiers.

Yes it does matter what we do if you give a damn about the people there.  Right now there is a genuine attempt at creating a SECULAR democracy with all parties involved and no particular sect having control.

If you want to ENSURE that one sect wins and the ensuing theocracy gets to oppress all teh other minorites, then understand we'll be right back there in 6 months to stop the bloodshed.

quote:
Thanks a lot, Bush, for going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, screwing it up big time and thus destabilizing a huge chunk of the Middle East. I'm sure that's the result you wanted. Sheesh.

What a bunch of sloganeering babble.  I thought you were through throwing out these worthless canards.  Again with the 9/11 line?  It's not even worth addressing.

Secondly, I hate to inform you, but the ME was unstable already, and the Saddam regim had begun the process of collapsing upon itself for quite some time and frankly, I'm glad we were the ones who chose time and place.  And I also hate to be the one to inform you, but if you think any of the non-secularize regimes in the area are our "friends" you are sadly mistaken.  Those who are annry now would hate us regardless.  



To your last comment:

1.  After 12 years of stonewalling we can now ENSURE that WMDs will never be purchased by Saddam or used on his neighbors as was done twice before.  So, the ability to certify Saddam as disarmed, rather than simply believe a psychopathic autocrat.

2.  No more concerns over Saddam paying off UN inspectors like Rolf Ekeus who stated for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe by Tariq Aziz.

3.  The overthrow of Baathism and targeting of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi, moved from Afghanistan to Iraq right before the coalition intervention, even naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.  So we are fighting them over there and not here.  Unless you are willing to say that Al Qaeda could never attack us here.

4.  The subsequent roll-over of Libya over WMD which was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

5.  No more ability for Saddam to pursue a nuclear program because Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein.

6.  No more concern for Saddam to purchase banned weapons.  Because his agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea.

7.  Peace for by the Kurdish people now without threat of extermination.

8.  The gruesom deaths of thousands of OBL infiltrators into Iraq from Afghanistan, and the hope of greatly enlarging this number.

9.  The prospect of a secular government.

10.  The return of hundreds of thousands of exiled Iraqis to their homeland.




Yeah. You're right, that just SUCKS.

[rwarn17588]

You have these 12 reasons it's good we overthrew a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I can counter with 12 on why it wasn't:

1. It destabilized the entire Middle East, which is quite a neat trick.

2. It created MORE terrorist attacks around the world. Invading a country that didn't attack you will do that.

3. Instead of a relatively stable country, we now have one plummeting into anarchy. Nothing like yesterday's bombing of Parliament and a major bridge in Baghdad to point that out.

4. Iraq distracted us from helping make Afghanistan more stable.

5. The invasion of Iraq led to more extreme elements taking over Iran.

6. The war led U.S. soldiers to the shameful acts of torturing detainees, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and thus kept us from being on the moral high ground.

7. 600,000 dead in Iraq and counting, and little to show for it.

8. A destabilized Middle East means higher oil prices, thus providing more profits to the terrorist-funding despots (i.e., Saudi Arabia).

9. Instead of a secular government in Iraq, we have an Islamic republic. Ditto for Iran. Which means more extremists.

10. This long exercise in Iraq has severely strained our military forces and their ability to act in other world crises.

11. The U.S. has suffered a loss of stature on the world stage. At a time when we can use the help, other nations are telling us to screw off.

12. Big friggin' deficits, which leads the red Chinese to lend us more money. Niiiiiiice.

I could add more.

Iplaw, I know you're digging through tons of crap in an effort to find a pony. But the fact remains that this misadventure that is Iraq is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in our history, and will take decades to recover from. It's time to stop being in denial and face up to the ugly truth.

[Conan71]

"7. 600,000 dead in Iraq and counting, and little to show for it."

Hey, that's still 200,000 to 400,000 less than were killed in Rwanda in about three or four months.  Can't we be proud of that?[}:)]

Both "lists" are somewhat valid assertions.  I'll admit I tend to agree more with IP, but I won't summarily dismiss RW's list either.  How long are we going to continue to hammer on each other on this issue?  I think the usual suspects have all weighed in and I don't believe anyone's positions have changed in the 9 or so months I've been hanging around here.  Other than there are a few who don't visit the political arena snake pit anymore.

The media is probably the worst place to get any info on the war.  The more liberal outlets are telling us it's all bad, it's stupid, poorly run, etc.  People who never watch Fox believe it's all bad, and see no good.   Conservative talking heads are all telling us it's all roses and we are close to winning.

I have a very strong feeling that even if this had been a 12 month milk run there are dyed-in-the-wool liberals who would still find fault with the war because in their mind W stole the 2000 election and anything he does is just stupid and wrong.  At the same time there are some people who would blindfold themselves and fall off a cliff walking behind Bush.

Fact is, without a lot of the information that our government cannot release to the public, it leaves much up for open, and sometimes wrong conjecture.

A friend of mine who is in the military was in town a few weeks ago.  He works with the reserve state-side in the capacity of dealing with the families of troops when they are deployed as to benefits, counseling, etc.  When the troops return home, he helps acclimate them back to life here.  

He's been deployed to Iraq since the invasion doing intel work.  I asked point blank what the consensus and feeling is amongst the troops.  He said by and large the troops support that we toppled the Hussein regime, but that they are tired of being there as a police force.