Van Creveld's piece in Forward is well worth reading. But I think that our escapade in Iraq compares much better to Napoleon III's ridiculous project in Mexico than it does to the loss of the three legions in Germany -- something that was due to bad generalship. If Augustus had sent a more capable commander than the incompetant Varrus, we might all be speaking Latin today.

(carlotoswhey)
.

To use a Reagan phrase, "there you go again ........." In his New Yorker Article in 2001 Hersh did not imply US forces couldn't take Kabul. Read it! He merely did what good reporters do - located sources and reported what happened, in this case a screwed up operation that the Pentagon and Bush Administration kept from the public. Hersh had enough confidence in his reporting of this incident to use it essentially unchanged in the Afghanistan Chapter of his book Chain of Command: the Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib published in 2004. He did acknowledge one error pointed out in the Slate Article - erroneously reporting that 16 AC-130s were involved in the operation.

As for the second link, it appears to be broken or the alternet server is down. I doubt that Hersh implied the military couldn't take Bagdad. He's not in the habit of making predictions unless they are based on good sources. The only Hersh article I could find for late March, 2003 was this one on the use of forged yellowcake documents. It makes an interesting read, knowing what we know now.

The UN does in fact give America the right and even obligates her to use force of arms in order to defend or promote their defined objective in the world. Peace and Security. Read for yourself it is chapter 7 article 43 of the UN charter.

And you can use what ever words or terms in which ever manner you feel best suits your argument ..that is not mine to decide. And I will in return do the same. I just don't seem to view the world as compartmentalized as you do. I recognize the world community we share and hold responsibility to (I do hold a EU passport) and so I don't really believe in this idea of self contained "foreign societies".



Well I disagree. I believe the right was introduced when the UN..the world community..agreed to allow America..American forces, American military power and American men and women... to enter Iraq and by force of arms dictate what Iraq must do. I feel then it became our right to dictate how we must contain the threats in Iraq in order to best secure stability and peace . There was never a do over announced...thank you your work is done...adieu. This was an escalation of forces not an introduction of them.

I have no idea where you have spent the last decade or so but my coming of age in America.. we have always had Saddam Hussein as our enemy, we have always had troops deployed in Iraq and we have always been dictating what Iraq can and can not do by force of arms. The UN willingly and wantonly afforded the US this right

And then in return ..when America was attacked and felt threatened as a direct result of her role and military presence in this region of the world they wished to deny us the right to then contain our threats. We were denied the very right we had been sent to protect.


Ugh the red text is just awful to read.

Paladin I was really hoping you would take on the challenge I proposed..to support your argument with other sources or examples. I will quickly post some bits I find important from the article I linked to earlier in order to once again dispute your claims.

Hardline insurgent leaders remain even more adamant. Baathist websites denounce Iraq's government as “spies and agents”. A statement from Mr Zarqawi denounced the Cairo conference as an American ploy “to make Sunni Muslims accept the dirty political game”. The only dialogue permissible, he said, was “by the sword and seas of blood”.

You really believe Iraqi Sunni Muslims en masse feel this way? If so I really must insist that you offer something to support this assertion other than just ethnic identity.

And when will the anti-war supporters in America cease with the peddling of this debate? It is as if many believe just the chanting of the words..Sunni, Kurd..Shiite... allows them to foresee the catastrophic future the mixing of these peoples make. Isn’t the whole entire world made up of people of different faiths, ethnicities and races? If we are to believe this argument that Iraq is doomed because of centuries of conflict doesn’t this then lead us to believe that the whole world is doomed too?



You Keep saying this well prove it.
Despite deep mistrust of political institutions that have failed to provide security and a decent infrastructure, and despite the heightening of sectarian loyalty generated by two years of fear and chaos, the weary Iraqi public does not appear to have lost faith in the possibility of a political solution.
The two largest forces in the fragmented Sunni spectrum, the Iraqi Islamist Party and the Iraqi National Front, a more secular grouping that includes former Baathist officers, are actively rallying Sunnis to turn out to vote. Other Sunni politicians report a growing willingness among the non-jihadist groups, which make up the bulk of the insurgency, to consider a deal to wind down the fighting.

I have no desire to debate Northern Ireland but I will say this...Catholics and Protestants have had their problems with one another all over Europe and still they somehow overcame their own inbreeding. How did they cheat their fate? And why is this not possible for others to achieve?


Hmm...funny I don’t recall being the one who argues the idea that there seems to be a a hereditary trait needed for one to desire or think fondly towards a progressive, pluralist society. And yeah I have no qualms saying that I believe a democratic, progressive and pluralist nation has a superior or better system opposed to an authoritarian or ethnocentric one. I just feel that all peoples of the world are capable and even desire this superior or better existence.


Who here supports or believes in the argument that military might alone will solve the situation in Iraq. That is what all this jabbering about democracy addresses..that in order for Iraq to succeed it needs more than just US forces. I think the political solution is one that is much discussed for those of us who support the war...you choosing to overlook this is a very selective means of response.


It has nothing to do with condescension..it is reality. The physical truth is that there are not currently enough Iraqi bodies prepared and trained to hand the responsibility of security in Iraq over to. It is our responsibility to remain in Iraq until there is. Most of the anti-war crowd bemoans the admin's inability to adhere to the Geneva Convention..they claim they are deeply troubled by this lack of adherence but in reality they have no care for that document's entirety.

Perhaps your or anyone who supports your view could explain to me why the GC must be ignored now...why is it so important when it comes to the detention of terrorists but when it comes to the reconstruction and security of the innocent Iraqis lives it has lost it's relevance?


Allawi is not in a position of power. He was the Iraqi interim PM...but lost reelection..you know by freedom of choice and mandated by the people of Iraq. Something you claim is not in practice or all that popular of an idea to Iraqis.

You are obviously an intelligent person but choose to cling to the hope that a constructive outcome in Iraq is possible. Those who think as I do, however, believe that the initiation of the war was an historical strategic mistake, that the occupation has been characterized by one mistake after another, that US military actions have increased the insurgency, and that the new constitution and transfer of power to the Kurds and Shiia has exacerbated sectarian divisions in Iraq. The best I can hope for now is some political solution that gives a reasonable modicum of stability within Iraq backed by agreement among its neighbors. In this regard, I held out some hope for the Cairo communique but it already appears fairly obvious that our administration will not accommodate this hopeful but improbable solution.

It's not that we think Sunni, Kurds, and Shiia are incapable of living together but that their recent history makes this very difficult and that our shifting occupation strategy has increased these difficulties. The new Iraqi security forces you hold out so much hope for are themselves factionalized by ethnic, religious, and party divisions. Read this Jim Lobe Article.



These are the forces that the US wishes to "stand up" while we "stand down" and support with air power targeted by these same waring factions. (See this Amy Goodman interview with Hersh or his original New Yorker article). You seem willing to follow this discredited administration into yet another misadventure in Iraq.

I think this article in Newsweek sums up this debate quite nicely.



It has gotten to the point where I have “tuned out” the never-ending pessimism from those that believe we should pull out. There is not one single good argument for withdrawing because the simple fact is we would be worse off if we pulled out. I do not mean to minimalize the sacrifice that we have endured in this struggle, but in the battle of Antietam (during the Civil War) there were 2,200 casualties in a half hour of fighting. That in mind I do not believe that the sacrifice is too high considering we have been at war for almost four years. No one can guarantee when troops will leave. We still have some troops in the Balkans, seven years later.

You're right. I was thinking of something he said literally days after the bombing - I think it may have been in October - the new yorker website won't let me get there.


Indeed. I can't find a live link, so I'm copying the attached from a text file I have on Iraqi quagmire. Believe it or not.

He made the situation sound quite deparate, both in Newsweek and in interviews. I heard him on BBC 4 at the time, and he all but said "quagmire" and how the disconnect between Washington and the troops in the field reminded him of Vietnam. Of course, troops are looking at Iraq through a straw. We took Bagdad that week. On the date this article was published actually.

Anyway, this debate could be moot as Bush has published the plan anyway The Plan for Victory in Iraq.

I don't like debating with you, bucket. And I do not feel a particular need to spend my time proving to you what is readily picked up on any given cable news network or by Congressman Murtha, or by the testimony of Iraqis who assert that the continuing presence of American soldiers fosters a dependence on the Americans that does not encourage self sufficiency.

See Senator Kerry's rebuttal of the President's speech at the Naval Academy today. Notice that EVERY TIME the President speaks, it's to select groups like the armed services, or among Republican supporters, so that he NEVER hears ANYONE questioning or calling him to task on his policies. Even the news media noticed this and commented on it. I myself could look like some kind of good guy savior if I always had a supportive audience to listen to me and applaud right on cue.

In the meantime, look at the other nations. There's no "amen corner" for Dubya in their countries, and extra, extra security is always needed when the leader of the United States is there for a visit. The man is distrusted and despised. Gee--could it have ANYTHING to do with his policies?

You can argue with the rest, bucket; I'm done with you. Whether or not you or I (and believe me, I've been raised in this culture of "America First" longer than most posters here have) believe that ours is the better way, what we think does not amount to a hill of beans in a country where U.S. treachery was shown first by supporting a brutal dictator, and then attacking him and his people on some trumped-up, now admittedly falsified (the Niger document) in some cases and insufficient evidence to disrupt an entire country ostensibly to protect our own.

This is George W. Bush's mess; unfortunately it has become the mess of families of soldiers who had to go there and Iraqis, innocent or otherwise, who were caught in the line of fire. I didn't trust Bush then, I don't trust him now, and I surely cannot encourage others to trust him.

And that's what it boils down to. Check the polls to see the lack of confidence that George W. Bush fosters in the American people, especially as it relates to the war in Iraq. Many of us feel helpless knowing that should, God forbid, something happen to our leader, we would have an even worse Commander In Chief named Dick Cheney, or even Dennis Hastert if something happened to the President and the V.P. Just more of the same garbage, too many billions of dollars and thousands more lives spent on rectifying the mistakes an arrogant President made the people think was retaliation for 9/11/2001, and too many more lives and billions of dollars spent primarily because HE wouldn't own up to his mistakes and had to have troops stay somewhere where they are not welcome and become casualties to factionism as well as terrorist attacks from across Iraq's now porous borders (thanks to the war).

So we want to bring the troops home before many, many more have to die or be maimed for life. Yeah, such a "cowardly" way to look at things, until the soldier in question is related to you. It's always easy to send someone else, one of the statistical "them" to "defend freedom," as long as the caskets and the mournful homecomings are not dwelt upon by the news media.

Yes, the United States will have a victory, a Pyrrhic Victory. What will befall the country we're living in while this victory is being achieved, will affect all but the most comfortable, affluent families here.

I'm not going to be participating in this thread further (Truthfully, I don't have that much energy), so please address your comments, if any, to the other posters who might share my point of view. You know where I stand.

Nemov, Fareed Zakaria has some credibility with me because he has fairly consistently criticized the bungling actions of the administration in Iraq. However, he does suffer from the need to always see the silver lining. Here is an article in this vein from one year ago in the Washington Post by Zakaria that shows his optimism then. The article you posted is in the same vein and fails to confront any of the bad trends in Iraq like the factionalism of the army and police, the effort of Kurds to continue the ethnic cleansing of some areas and their push for independence, and the inability of US military to sustain its current level of operation in Iraq. From my perspective, Hersh and Lobe have been far better at indicating the likely outcome of events than Fareed Zakaria.

Incidentally, few have suggested sudden withdrawal as Fareed implies. Rather, as Murtha suggested, we need to recognize reality, make a realistic plan for withdrawal in a set time frame, and plan for the future defense of our vital interests in the region.



You're still distorting the truth by characterizing quotations from an intelligence officer reported by Hersh as his opinion. Even if we accept your characterization, however, it is true that U.S. forces were over extended and short of supplies. The fact that there were far too few troops became obvious early in the occupation. That fact contributes significantly to the "quagmire" that exist today if it didn't in 2003.

I have a simple question in response to this....WHY do we need a set time frame? This is an oft-repeated statement, yet I have never heard a good reason for why. I suspect its because of internal political reasons...we need one because the American people need one. To which I ask the following...should realities of war be dictated by commanders in the field, or domestic politics? I do understand the frustration with the length of the effort so far. I do also see the need for a framework within which success can be measured. However, I don't really see the need for that framework to have a definitive timetable. If progress is being made towards the goals, and success therefore seems within reach, is it really necessary or desirable to abandon the effort simply because an artificial date in the calendar passed? What benefit is derived from that? I do see that part of the evaluation framework needs to be a time frame, in that there should be intermediate milestones and dates associated with those. In fact, I strongly suspect that those are in place, and have been in place. To be sure, they have been adjusted as events took place....anyone who has ever been on or managed a complex project will tell you that this is the norm. There hasn't been a victory timetable on any other war America has ever been engaged in. Yet, there seems this implied assumption that for some reason this war needs one. Why? For those espousing this viewpoint, is it truly your point of view that once that date, whatever it is, is reached, we should really leave, completely, regardless of whatever the current situation at that time is? If not, then what's the point of the timeframe? The more I think about it, the more this strikes me as political rhetoric, which has its place, but, IMHO, not in warfare. Wars do need to be managed, there does need to be a plan, that plan does need to have criteria against which it can be evaluated, the administration does need to be help accountable to that....but I fail to see the benefit of stipulating a 'cut-and-run' date, at which point we leave no matter what the situation.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
I see no relation to time when it is associated to mission if the mission is defense of American interests. Have we ever set a timetable for any conflict? What is our timetable for withdraw from Bosnia?
Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
Terrorism should be confronted regardless where it is found. The only justification for terrorism is fanatic insanity. Terrorist are produced by the insanity of their creators and not by westerners. Once created, a terrorist will kill infidels as defined by his or her creator. To create a terrorist requires a terrorist and not an American. To refute this fact one must acknowledge a terrorist should be negotiated with. I do believe we don’t negotiate with terrorist since they have only one reason for existence and that is to remove us from the face of the earth. I think we should make the most of a target rich environment.

I think the press has defined the answer to this question by giving bias towards the poor Islamic people being invaded by America. The world press was kind to America after 9-11 but soon returned to the anti-Israel stance supported pretty much worldwide afterwards.

European Union didn’t support the Iraqi War because Germany was having an election and the Turkish immigrant vote could swing the outcome. France didn’t want a part of it because... well, let’s say they also have an Islamic influence in the suburbs...

If one looks objectively at the situation the press has supported the anti war agenda. From the detention center in Cuba to the prisoner mistreatment in Iraq the press approached it from how the Muslim world viewed such actions. Well, the Kingdom of Jordan should have listened more closely to the world press as how Muslims should react to terrorist. They should blame the evil US and GB rather than the terrorist for the recent bombings. It seems to me the entire Muslim world and the press should approach terrorism as Jordan is now approaching it and not how the press “excuses it!”

I use Jordan as an example but regardless the country you live in you should not concern yourself as to how terrorist are treated because they are the scum of the earth. One person, or one country cannot create more terrorist! Terrorists create terrorist! Is Jordan placing a chip on its shoulder by denouncing terror and actually “creating terrorists? Saddam was offered every opportunity to live up to his obligations to prevent further hostilities and he bet on the world press and the UN in his pocket to be means to continue business as usual. How does one create a terrorist, a person willing to die for the cause by killing innocent people? If you ask the people in the twin towers in NYC or the people in Jordan or perhaps the people in London they would tell you they were minding their own business and the terrorist were there without provocation. It has been that way since the 1970’s and there are many examples of terror targets outside of Israel that you all are familiar with. The recruiting poster for terror is to kill the infidel and if you are not a terrorist you must join the terrorist or you are an infidel. So, the US helping Iraq to establish a democracy makes those who support the infidel equal to infidels. Hey, imagine that... they are killed equally. So is that recruiting terrorist or fighting terrorist?

Is there another option?
Yes, we can surrender or cut and run and when they come to our shores to kill the infidels once again we can dump nuclear bombs over all of Islam because we will have proven we don‘t have the will to face them eye to eye.

Body counts don’t count! Mission counts!

The short answer to why we need to set a time frame to leave Iraq is this:

1. The continuance of this war is costing the United States a billion dollars a week.

2. There are no signs that the insurgency is waning.

3. The ideal that democracy can be imposed at gunpoint upon a people whom have never known the concept is doomed to failure. The best we can ever hope for is a funhouse mirror version of a distorted democracy that will remain in place only as long as we do.

4. The president today unveiled his plan for victory in Iraq. Finally. However, despite all the rosy rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" there is still only one battalion of trained Iraqi soldiers ready to take up arms against the insurgency. Not much return for all the dollars America is throwing at the problem.
You can read all about the Bush Administration's master plan here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...egy11-30-05.pdf

5. Yes, the American people need some timetable for Iraq. Why shouldn't they when it's their kids who are dying for it and their tax dollars are paying for it. The fact that the generals in the field have to take orders from the bureaucrats in Washington who have to be sensitive to the concerns of John Q. Public is a system that works well and forces the military and politicians to every now and then take into account the sentiments of the ordinary citizen.

6. It's not enough that the Republicans try to smear those who question how the war is being waged and the reasons that led to it. Now we hear the military is paying Iraqi newspapers to run propaganda....sorry...."good news" stories about the situation over there written by "information operations" employed by the Pentagon.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...-home-headlines

7. You don't have to be a psychic to see that a civil war looms large in Iraq's future and apparently some of the Shites can't wait to get the ball rolling:

A spate of articles in the mainstream U.S. media since the discovery two weeks ago by U.S. troops of a secret underground prison in the Iraqi Interior Ministry, where some 170 Sunni Arab men and boys had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment, has detailed the existence of death squads in the largely Shiite police and special commandos or operating with their support.

These units appear to be under the control of two sectarian militias that have successfully infiltrated the state security forces -- the Iranian-trained Badr Organisation, the armed wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI); and the Mahdi Army, which is led by the Shiite nationalist politician, Muqtada al-Sadr.

Operating through or with the Iraqi security forces, the two groups, which are themselves rivals, have abducted, tortured and executed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Sunni males, according to front-page reports that have appeared this week in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Knight-Ridder newspapers.

"Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged in recent weeks, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or explanation," the New York Times reported Tuesday.

"Some Sunni males have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies apparently made by electric drills. Many have simply vanished."

7. Despite the happy talk from Bush, Iraq is a basket case of a country which is held together soley by the fact our money and military is propping it up. When both are removed it will swiftly sink into even more blood, violence and chaos.

8. False reasons for war. Over 2,000 American troops dead. Profiteering. Loss of prestige internationally. Unknown number of civilians killed. Prison scandals. Sending detainees to other countries to be tortured. No clear objective. No exit strategy. No end in sight.

How many more reasons do you need, Hobbes?

I listened to President Bush today. He spoke of victory and winning. But, he did not say specifically what that was (again). He put forth the concept of winning to be when Iraq is able to protect itself.

Well, for specifics, we have ousted Saddam Hussein, we have rebuilt infrastructure for a number of years, and we have trained Iraqis for the same number of years. We also now have Iraqis training other Iraqis. Sounds like success to me. Is that not victory? Is that not winning? If so, it is time to move out. We have reached our goals of removing Hussein from power and getting Iraq back on its feet.

If these specifics do not define victory, what specifics will ?

I will agree that their are a great many reasons for getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible. What I don't see is, specifically, how setting some arbitrary date addresses any of the reasons you list.

Let's say we set a date of....Dec 31st. We get to December 30th, and things are markedly better, but not complete (whatever that is, which is a separate debate). How does leaving on the following day help anything? Especially if it, as it likely would, leads to the situation then getting worse again. See, it seems to me that asking for more information regarding the plan, goals, successes, etc...ie, how the war is being managed, is very reasonable. It would address most of the items on your list. What I don't see is how a date in the sand does. I could see how it could be (and probably is) being used with private correspondence with the Iraqi government, to help with progress. I don't see how it would help achieve anything if made public. It's never been done before in any other war, and I think for good reasons. I don't see anything unique about this war that suddenly changes that.

Personally, I was actually ready to support such a timetable, as I thought it might truly help progress. There didn't seem to be any real measurable goals to judge progress against. What I thought significant from Bush's speech was the inclusion of just exactly the goals. Iraq is being returned to Iraqi control, sector by sector. This seems both reasonable, and measurable. If that 'map' doesn't get progressively more colored in, and in some reasonable time frame, then there are valid reasons to question the policy. I think a more prudent thing to do at this point would be to ask at which point is 'success' determined? When half the map is 'colored in'? 75%? The whole map? As Iraq gains more autonomous control, what does that do to our need for troop deployment? I'm not sure why this isn't being made public (or, for that matter, not being reported by the media....why hadn't these Iraqi zones of control been reported before?). We all want the troops to come home, and I think we'd all like for them to come home victorious. I don't see how setting a deadline helps that.

Since this is my first post I would like to say "hello" to everyone. This site seems really interesting. With that said, a timetable for withdrawal on the Iraq war is pretty much irrelevant to the argument of freedom, or stopping terrorism. Terrorism is created by the poverty and hopelessness of the frustrated majority. The Bush administration will have us believe that our withdrawal is based upon the abilities of the Iraqi military forces to maintain security. What we really should understand is that the Bush Administration is not concerned with the capabilities of the Iraqi military, their target is the will and the minds of the Iraqi people. Bush uses terms like democracy and freedom, but in a democracy, the majority rule, well......they're supposed to rule. That means that if a majority of the Iraqis wanted the government that we are creating, then the abilities of the security forces would be secondary, given that a majority of the population is content. It is clear by our continued presence that the majority of Iraqis are not content and really do not want "freedom and democracy." I am sure they want freedom, but the Iraqis do not want the American version of freedom as it applies to other countries. The U.S. domestic definition of freedom is far different from the U.S. international definition of freedom. In any case, Bush is most concerned with breaking the spirit of the Iraqi people so that apathy will rule the day, just as it does here, where a majority of the people don't bother to vote.

As for the second question about creating more terrorists, I look back to my previous answer and suggest that apathy will overtake the population and I predict there will be less radical behavior as the machinations of capitalism grind away at the spirit of the people until finally the entire population is content with having enough money to be broke.

There are many options, the one I propose would to return Saddam Hussein to power, remove all our troops from the Middle East and make our support of Israel as clandestine as possible. Then, when the masses suffer at the hands of their brutal dictator they will only have their brutal dictator to blame and not the American infidels since we no longer have a presence in the region. Of course we will have to pay higher prices for gasoline but the peace of mind would be well worth the price.

Hobbes asked the same question, has there ever been a timetable for wars in the past?

Well, as a rule, no. However if you look at wars in the past, they have either been decided by the obvious end to the war (unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan) or by a negotiated settlement between both parties (North Korea). In both cases there was an obvious visible end.

This war is more like Vietnam. There is no obvious visible end, it is not possible to 'defeat' the insurgents conventionally using US force of arms, the more the US squeezes the more the insurgency grows. In addition, there is not one insurgency, there are about a dozen, centring around three main ones all with diferent goals and objectives, and even these do not necessarily have a centralised command capable of negotiating, if indeed they had any desire to.

Thus, with those two posibilities gone, the options seemt o be to try and outlast the insurgency, which is pipe-dream, or build up local forces to take over, as Bush Jr. has claimed. While this goal is, realistically, really the ONLY way the war could end well, it is a long way off, if it is possible at all. Worse still, it is scarily reminiscent of the US in Vietnam, who only provided more troops to 'support the ARVN in their struggle for independence, and made repeated promises to withdraw once the ARVN were capable of taking over the fight. In the end, due to lack of will, divided loyalties and weak ledership, the ARVN were never able to take over the fight, and the US was eventually forced to withdraw with its tail between its legs.

Is that situation possible here? Well, nobody knows, but one certainly has to aknowledge the fact that it is possible that the 'government' of Iraq may never be able to keep the peace or maintain law and order in its own house, it certainly has shown astonishingly incapable so far.

In fact, the quietest zones of the country have been handed over, not to the central government, but to local warlords and religious leaders who keep the peace semi-effectively with their own militia, but also run the regions like their own feifdoms.



This kind of blind rhetoric really does not help the situation. While elements of the Iraqi insurgents are indeed fanatics, are they very different from the fanatics in the IRA in the 1970s, or the Basques in the 1980s? Yes, in one sense, in that neither of these groups resorted to suicide tactics, but that is literally nothing but a tactical difference brought on by the usurpation of religious beliefs into this fanaticism.

The debate over wheither the west had a hand in crating the current conditions in the midle east is an old one, and not the topic of this thread. But what you cannot deny is that the current presence of the US forces on the ground in Iraq is one if several motivations for insurgency. Nobody likes being occupied, in particular by people who seem to operate above the law. Abu Graib may have been an example of widespread policy, or it might have been an isolated incient, but the effect on Iraqi citizens was terrible.




Where did all these Iraqi terrorists come from? As we have seen, only a tiny fraction, about 7% or less, are foreign fighters, so where did the rest come from? Were they all there, justwaiting in case the US invaded? Or is it possible, just possible, that some of these insurgents are patriotic Iraqis who, seeing a neighbour killed in by a bombs in 'Shock and Awe', or humiliated in Abu Graib, decided to take up arms to fight his ocupier?

Perhaps the existence of the US troops and their actions is what MAKES it such a target rich environment. All we can say for sure is that Iraqi citizens had been responsible for exactly ZERO deaths since the last war, prior to the invasion, while now they have caused 2100 dead and 17,000 casualties. I wonder if the Iraqis make the same comment as you, that they should take advantage of such a target rich environment?

The US is not stopping terrorism in Iraq, there was no terrorism from Iraq prior to the invasion, but there certainly is now...



The world press was kind to the US after 9/11 when it kept its eye on the ball, it was generally kind and supportive to the US when it invaded Afghanistan, where troops from all over the world fought, including the French by the way. Then the US abandoned Afghanistan (say, how are things going there now, by the way?) and attacked Iraq, and that is what lost the US the support of the world and the media.



I suppose thats possible, but another posibility is that the rest of the world thought the US was wrong. Canada supported the US more than any other nation post-9/11. It took in thousands of your citizens, and Canadian jets patrolld US airspace. It sent, and still has, pretty much every ground troop we have stationed in Afghanistan, where it sent troops to back the US without hesitation. Yet Canada refused to assist in the invasion of Iraq. Is that because of islamic influence or because they are all traitors, or was it because they thought the US was wrong?

(Aside: on this issue, it always astonishes me how the right refuses to hear anything against the motives of their own leadership, but leaps to the chance to make vast generalisations about the motives of the leadership of other countries, about which often enough, they know nothing...)


Ranting about the omnipresent 'evil fanatic terrorists' in Iraq shows that you really have very little idea of what is going on in Iraq. Yes, there are evil fanatic terrorists there, who have the only goal of the destruction of the west. But they are few and far between, The rest have different motivations, many might be considered evil, some not. Be it the establishment of a Sunni state, the establishemtn of a Shia state, or simply the elimination of foreign influence, the desires of the insurgents are varied and comnplex, and some of them are only reinforced by the fanatic US 'kill em all' mentality typified by some people on this board...

The short answer to why we need to set a time frame to leave Iraq is this:

1. The continuance of this war is costing the United States a billion dollars a week.

Wars cost money. If the deficit becomes a concern to the economy (which it is not hurting at the current moment), taxs can be raised or cuts to spending can be made.

2. There are no signs that the insurgency is waning.

Are there signs that it is getting worse? Iraq is not spinning out of control. As time passes this will become less of a problem.

3. This is an ideological argument.

4. Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman: “Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year.”

5. Yes, the American people need some timetable for Iraq. Why shouldn't they when it's their kids who are dying for it and their tax dollars are paying for it…

Anyone that believed we would invade Iraq, overthrow a dictator, and leave in two years was kidding themselves. Iraq has made remarkable progress in two years and the sacrifice to American lives has been much less than many expected before we invaded.


6. It's not enough that the Republicans try to smear those who question how the war is being waged and the reasons that led to it. Now we hear the military is paying Iraqi newspapers to run propaganda…

This is a reason to leave? There rest of your points are just more pessimistic defeatist rhetoric. It is unbelievable the amount of pessimism, doom and gloom coming from the left on this issue and the economy. America has always been a nation of optimism, of big dreams, difficult tasks. When the naysayer says, “it can’t be done,” we’ve done it. This is not Vietnam and it is not Korea. It is not even in the same ballpark. The sacrifice that we have made in Iraq has not even remotely approached the level of being “too much to bear.” If it has, Bin Laden has appropriately labeled the American public as being soft.

The only thing this war has in common with Vietnam is insurgency and the lack of political will and the support of the majority of the American people. You are very correct about the different factions involved in the insurgency.

Islamic fundamentalism is not separated by lines on a map so those in that category find the US presence a target rich environment and would feel the same way if they could take a six hour flight to America to kill us here. The fundamentalist come from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others along with funding. The governments of some of these countries have a dog in the fight too since if Iraq successfully becomes a democracy their people will probably seek the same style of progress and freedoms.

The insurgency from within comes from the Sunni’s. The Sunni’s, a minority, lets say like the Chinese Canadians had control over the entire Iraq and ruled with an iron fist for decades with control over education, oil wealth, commerce and so on... Then an outside force removed the minority dictatorship from power and they find themselves back in a realistic minority without any of the above and have the hate of the masses they oppressed for decades. The Sunni insurgency mission is to retake control from the masses and use methods like killing different groups of the majority, something like the Chinese Canadians killing French speakers and then English speakers until they agree to give them back power in exchange for dictatorship and peace and normality of life.

Why must we stay as long as it takes? Think about the above and remove US forces and what happens? The Sunni’s will try harder to defeat the fledgling Iraqi government resulting in a Civil War. One would think the majorities could easily defeat this small minority, right? Well, NO! For the reasons stated for the other insurgents and regional governments the Sunni’s would retain the same group of allies and direct all force towards the majority until the Iraqi government was defeated. And then what would the Sunni’s simply go back to pre war or would the allies want a slice of the pie?

To make the problem more complex than Germany and France having a swing vote the entire region is interest to the US, EU, Russia and China for the natural resources there. Iran has always been influenced by Russia and all the other regions in the area by Europe and the US. Since the US was not a signature to the League of Nations after WWI the regions were mainly divided by GB and France including Iraq. As learned in WWI and WWII the control of the region is the nation(s) that can prevent WWIII. That is why Saddam was forced out of Kuwait so he wouldn’t then take another and another oil region controlling the major world oil supply.

This is indeed the question, and the reason I don't support a timetable for withdrawal is that it doesn't do anything to supply an answer. I found one thing very noteworthy in Bush's speech, which was the detailing of the handover of various sectors to Iraqi control. That is indeed the path to the victory that is envisioned, and, to me, is what should therefore be evaluated. If demonstrable progress towards that is being made, then it seems that continued effort is justified and worthwhile (hopefully we can all agree that leaving Iraq in chaos doesn't do us any good). If progress towards that is not being made, then policy needs to be examined, and, at some point, leaving becomes the outcome. Again, I don't see how imposing an artificial date helps this.




This was another section of Bush's speech that I found very noteworthy. He discussed the various insurgent factions, and did indeed state that 'evil fanatic terrorists' made up the very small minority. However, he also stated that this small minority conducted the majority of the attacks. This is very important to note, I think, because victory against this group is much more achievable. I think (and would interested in hearing your thoughts) that this is what differentiates this conflict from Vietnam. In Vietnam, I think the opposition more closely resembled those Iraqi's against occupation, and not the terrorists that are causing most of the difficulties. The terrorist group in Iraq is much more 'defeatable', IMHO, in that Iraqi forces would have the same incentive to stop them (in fact, given recent attacks, perhaps even more so). In Vietnam, I don't think this was the case....the Viet Cong received growing internal support, ultimately making the war unwinnable.

Whoa. Quoting both a Democratic neo-conservative AND the world's worst terrorist to support your "ideological argument," Nemov? I'm almost impressed.

What you dismiss as "pessimistic, defeatist rhetoric" is supported both by fact and reality. Your refusal to acknowledge and accept that is your choice. Both you and Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the rest of the apologists for the war can sing your happy-happy, joy-joy songs of blue skies and a land of milk and honey blooming in the desert, but until you can drive the nine miles from the airport into Baghdad without fear of being blown to bloody pieces by a bomb, you're selling a pipe dream.

And as ALL the polls had made it painfully obvious the majority of American citizens have turned away from Bush's war. They want an exit strategy and as nervous Republicans eye the 2006 elections, it's looking more and more like they're going to get one.

It's a specious argument to make that the number of dead soldiers in Iraq isn't great enough to warrant our concern. It's ridiculous to suggest the United States can continue to hemorrage money in unlimited quantities to prop up Iraq. OUR national security and welfare of our citizens must be our top priority. I am far less concerned about providing electricity in downtown Baghdad than I am about rebuilding the Gulf Coast devastated by the hurricanes.

You can't cut spending enough to balance the books for Bush's war and there's not a snowball's chance this motley crew of credit-card Republicans are going to raise taxes on the same monied elites they're constantly giving tax breaks to.

If you don't believe Iraq is the Wild, Wild Middle East, I would heartily encourage you Nemov, to go and visit beautiful Baghdad, tantalizing Tikrit or shimmering Samarra.

Just make sure you go strapped.

In Samarra, only 100 of the 700 police on the city payroll are showing up for work most days, even as U.S. soldiers prepare this week to turn over control of the inner city to Iraqi forces. The Americans tried twice before to do that in the city of 200,000 but failed when insurgents moved against police.

As he did before the invasion, Bush tied Iraq to terrorism, to make the case that a stable Iraq would make for a safer America.

He declared, “The terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity. And so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.”

Iraq was not, however, the terrorists’ chosen battlefield until Saddam was defeated and extremists poured across unsecured borders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10267077

I thought the explanations covering the elementary question wouldn’t have gone missed but here goes…

Our equipment is taking a beating in the desert. (nemov,) our politicians refuse to raise taxes and—God forbid—part with precious pork to fund this war. They lack the political will to reinstate the draft besides. The stop-loss program is straining the Army and Marines, both of which are facing critical recruitment shortages. The number of foreign fighters crossing into Iraq is questionable and more officers are coming out saying the U.S.’s continued presence is fueling the insurgency. (Link)

No matter how you look at it, you’re screwed. Without raising taxes or cutting pork, you don’t have the capital necessary to invest in replacing busted equipment. Drill instructors, I’m sure, don’t want to deal with compelled recruits. But what happens after the strain on your pool of until-now reliable combat veterans is too much? Do you rotate personnel and adopt an apprenticeship program, keeping a few of those veterans on site long enough to take newbies that may or may not have combat-related MOSs under their wing to show them the ropes, thereby necessitating our continued presence while we concentrate on acclimatizing our own military to guerilla warfare before resuming to train Iraqis on the same?

Something has to give. An organized drawdown that can meet the needs of the military DTOM ticked off (“...even while withdrawing, troops must be fed, equipment maintained, while security remains high…”) and give us the opportunity to observe hot spots that will most likely require our attention when the military redeploys to the region. It’s more productive than sitting on our hands guessing/estimating how bad things will turn out once we leave.

This stresses my point. As DTOM stated in that same post:



...is exactly what is happening now. So, this is just supporting the status quo, with only the addition of adding a VBT (Victory By Terrorists) date to it. How does that help anything? How much more funding/lives will leaving before the job is done cost? Strange, those supporting the 'cut-and-run' policy seem to ignore this very fundamental question, which would be, it would seem, absolutely relevant to their supposed stance. If saving lives/money is the objective, but the chosen path is quite likely to lead to higher future costs of both, then less than nothing has been achieved.

I do agree with your analysis of war funding, however. As with all 'extraordinary' funding (such as with the cost of hurricane relief), Congress should be compelled to come up with a plan for providing that funding. Simply going to the ATM and extracting the money, as anyone with a grade school education in finance will attest, is not a plan. The sad state of reality (which is a separate discussion) is that our government is really simply unable to fund any extraordinary measures, thereby drastically affecting both our domestic and our foreign security. Unfortunately, the public seems all too willing to simply let them continue to extract from the ATM, with no plans in place to ever replenish the funds. Personally, I think a very good case for treason could therefore be made against all Congressmen on these grounds, because their current fiscal tactics directly negatively affect the security of the United States....but that's another story.

Actually, the road is quite safe at the moment. I guess this isn't reported quite as much as it was when it was unsafe. I am not sure which is more annoying, Bush not acknowledging mistakes or liberals who will not admit progress. It is also a choice to ignore progress and to cling to pessimistic thoughts of the future.

Given this pessimistic criteria for success the US would have lost every significant struggle in its history.

Is it? With a few exceptions I haven't heard of a quota enforcing regulated drawdowns staying down. We have redeployed the same service members to Iraq, deployed the guard, and put a stop to inactive reserve discharges all in an effort to maintain an agreed-upon number of boots on the ground. Where is our brigade coming home for every Iraqi brigade that stands up? Does our presence encourage the Iraqi government to divert their energies elsewhere? Perhaps they're not home because the success of Iraqi security forces is overstated, and if they are, how long is long enough?

The White House/Pentagon has been slow moving with regards the needs of generals. Rummy would cut them off when they called for a greater presence after the invasion, now he seems to be ignoring them.


I don't follow you here. Are you saying terrorists/insurgents will latch on to a withdrawal plan as a propaganda tool? If you are, these groups would say the same under the best of circumstances for the U.S.


It keeps us from destroying our ability to deal with other threats. Iraq is important, but it's not important enough to sacrifice our ability/preparedness to maintain national security.


I don’t disagree with you out of hand but I know this will never happen. To do so, the public would have to hold itself accountable, and people are reluctant to do so. Here’s an analogy explaining why that is. I may’ve posted this before on

I am not clinging to anything...my beliefs or views on Iraq are not subject to fall out from under me if I loosen my grip. My opinions on how I feel about Iraq are an easy choice for me to make as I feel there is no other choice.

As I said before I think the GC is the preferred laws of military engagement and as much as I feel we must follow the rules when holding internees I also feel we must follow the rules when occupying a territory and that we must fulfill and complete our responsibilities. I feel that to do otherwise would be criminal

I asked before and not one person bothered to address it so I will ask again in hopes of an explanation. Why does the GC not hold relevance in how and when we must withdraw from Iraq?


There are also signs the "insurgency" is changing and that it's objectives and goals are not shared...at all. Do you believe that when we view this factor that context is important? I do. I think it is very misleading to classify all violence in Iraq as "the insurgency". We are now seeing this claimed sense of brotherhood or cooperative insurgence, that many opponents to this war before told us the US would create, is not so consolidated or united.

Some of those in “the insurgency” do in fact have another enemy besides America and I guess just by sheer coincidence... it’s the same one America has too.

And this division or newly accepted perspective is not something only Iraqis have gained.
The anti-war supporters have told us time and time again that the US would unite fractured militias, militant groups, local tribes under one flag in order to fend off the occupation. Well it is clear the Iraqi people are uniting in order to defend themselves but mostly it is from the Jihadists and Islamic militants.

Part of the plan or idea that the Iraqi people must rise up and fight for their country does in fact require that the insurgency does remain strong and does not wane. Claiming that all Iraqis fighting for an independent Iraq are only fighting for independence from American forces I feel is without question out of context.


Yeah like in Japan, Germany , Yugoslavia, Italy, South Korea et al. All doomed failures.


But apparently you need to be opposed to the war in Iraq to no longer have the ability or desire to see that more than just one outcome could occur.

Why not just a peaceful dissolution of the state into separate states? Clearly the newly written constitution supports such an outcome because of it’s extremely loose federalism..it was meant to address the the division the Iraqis themselves feel.

Also why would civil war be all that much of a bad thing to begin with...if the Iraqis were to take more of the superior role in defending their nation and ensuring peace would the label we then gave this type of war fare in fact be "civil war"?

Why not use the Yugoslavian example? Just curious as it seems more appropriate..what with all the ethnic considerations everyone here keeps claiming have a heavy consideration in Iraq's stability and it has yet to end too.


That is the idea behind Federalism isn't it? So are you citing this as a success or a failure?



Terrorist activities by the evil fanatical jihadists in Iraq are so rare and scarce that Iraq has only seen the first ever female western suicide bomber and the first husband and wife team to attempt a suicide bombing. With all this rarity it's a miracle they have also seen such diversity.

Each struggle citied in order to provide a reader with hope that Iraq will turn out better needs to be taken into perspective. Nazi Germany was carpet bombed and had major armies closing in on both sides, so to me it was either give in the Americans or give in to the Russians, I don’t know what would be a better choice giving for the people of that bomb crater of a nation. Japan had been nuked twice, and had forces on its shores, this also probably feed into why Germany fell the way it did.

One could also bring up Vietnam, with after how many years and loss of life turned out to be a failure, regardless of other variables one could bring up, it was basically a decade of the same conflict one sees in Iraq. Vietnam is closer to an Iraq situation then any other cited.

My point generally is that each conflict would need to be studied, and that in origin of each you find diversity in that each conflict is a separate entity then the war in Iraq.

Just as much as you can say the plan was to be loose to take into consideration the diversity of the culture of “Iraq” one could say its that we really had to plan and to take things on the fly so to speak. I will go with the latter giving the gross amount of adjustments that seem to be needed constantly.

I am not as much pessimistic as I am unsure anymore about the situation. I also do not care to support something that really does not change because no one really knows what to do, and at the end of the day I get to read if I choose the same old reports anymore about some large sum of casualties. At least if I speak out against such from my position, and ten years down the road we bring back some battered force that was deployed out of context I wont feel as if I just went along with it all quietly.

As long as U.S forces remain an occupying force in Iraq, insurgents can do what is being successful for them. It makes it look as if insurgents and terrorist can indeed fight and win against America. This going along with the horrid situation in Iraq in relation to civilian causality from a gorilla warfare type conflict is also a wining situation for any person with an inclination towards Muslim born terrorism becoming recruited from all over the middle east, which I am sure is going on more so then anyone would like to know.

To give some point for relative judgment, its known we have much more support in Afghanistan. That Afghanistan probably overall does not have the elements that Iraq does that lends to a successful insurgency. None the less we are still in Afghanistan, still fighting and taking casualties. Not to drag on that conflict, I think its working far better, and Afghanistan is still a place full of probably terrorist ridden mountain ranges and paths, but with just the time scale on that one, what will be the time scale on Iraq before we can even redeploy a brigade home?

Good questions, which deserve good answers. I believe, based on Bush's speech, that the answer to the first is they are being redeployed into more of a search and destroy role. Keep in mind also the general consensus that troop strength was insufficient to patrol the whole country. Therefore, initial deployments of Iraqi brigades would then simply be filling holes. Until those are filled, and the search and destroy missions, etc. needs dwindle, there will likely not be significant troop drawdowns. We should be very close to that point, though...and that argument definitely loses its weight over time. Which goes to the second question. If indeed Iraqi security/military forces are making strong progress...that should be noted. If indeed they are not...that should also be noted. There does indeed come a point in time in which one could conclude it simply won't happen. However, I don't believe we have information to lead us to that conclusion at the current time.



No, I personally don't follow that philosophy. I do however believe that leaving without succeeding will indeed fuel terrorism worldwide. It would support the very thinking that led to the growth of Al Queda and UBL to begin with...that being that the US is weak, and will eventually leave any conflict if the going gets tough. That perception MUST be eliminated....which is why I firmly believe that leaving Iraq without succeeding will in the long term cost many more lives than staying.



This is another very valid point. The counter point to it is that leaving might create the very other threats we'd be hard pressed to deal with, and over a much broader area, requiring a much greater level of resources to combat, leaving us less able to deal with them.

The pessimistic thoughts that the opponents to this war are empirical and not speculative. If you need to get a view of what life will be like in Iraq after the troops are gone all you have to do is review the countries that have endured the forced transformation to Western ideals; Nicaragua, Haiti, India, Brazil, and Vietnam. These countries are riddled with poor working class who have lost the will and the ability to obtain a better life for themselves. Our Multi-National Corporations will siphon off Iraq's resources, turning those resources into profits for themselves. Do you honestly believe that our troops are going to leave that country and they are going to prosper? America is not going to allow Iraqis to control Iraq's oil. You, I, and everybody not in a coma knows that the oil belongs to the American oil corporations. Which means the Iraqis must depend on their other natural resource to re-energize their economy; sand.

Hobbes and a couple other have asked, regardless of how tbad things are in Iraq at the moment, WHY would we need a withdrawl date? How would that help?

The way I see it, it is like a failure standard. In Vietnam, despite the cries from many that 'there can be no compairason', the situation was identical to this one in this respect.

The public had turned against the war in the face of mounting losses, combined with a sense that little or no progress was being made. So the government shifted its rhetoric, from 'we need to be in Vietnam', to 'We cannot pull out now, or it will be much worse'. It is an absolute mirror image of the current situation, with more and more people popping up to speak the new line of the government, that as bad as it is now, it will be muuch worse if we withdraw.

Now, just because it was rhetoric and propaganda does not mean it cannot be true. I think if the US were to pull out now things WOULD get worse. But the problem is, there is no evidence that is going to change. The US spent the better part of 15 years trying to get the ARVN and South Vietnam to stand on its own feet, but it could not do so, no matter how much money was poured into it. Partly because of incompetence among the leaders, but partly because the nation was inherently unstable.

So, in the end, because the US refused to extablish a reasonable failure standard, they stayed far longer then was intelligent, lost a lot more people, and only left when the disaster abroad was so obvious to all that 40% of the troops had serious drug problems, and the domestic administration was on the verge of collapse.

So I suggest setting a 'leave by' date, and the date does not have to be next week, but as long as there is an idea in the US government's mind that THIS is what will constitute a failure, they will not keep pouring lives and VAST sums of money into a failed venture.

I am pessemistic about the situation in Iraq, but even I will dmit that the US MIGHT succeed in setting up a stable government which (somehow) is able to keep the peace between huge fanatic factions that loathe each other. I can admit that, however unlikely, it is possible.

The US government, and its more fanatic supporters however, need to admit that failure is possible, that it might just not be possible to set up a functional state capable of keeping the peace on its own, just like in Vietnam. If it DOES turn out to be a failure, would you rather the US left once failure became clear, or just refused to admit it, and spent a few more years a thousand more lives and half a trillion more dollars on a wasted excersise?

I hate to badger but I really am hoping to entice anyone who supports immediate or heightened withdrawal of US forces to address my comments/questions about the application and responsibilities the US has under the GC.


Is the recognition that things will get worse if we so chose to leave now or soon-ish just further acceptance of the need to ignore our obligations that the GC demands of us? How does this argument's base differ from that of the one that also encourages the denial of the GC requirements to POWs? Both seem to advocate violations of the GC in order to achieve a perceived greater good..in other words the means justify the ends.

While I applaud the cynical and pessimistic rhetoric that is at the core of your argument, that has little to do with whether or not we should set a timetable to withdraw. The anti-war left is so wrapped up in our defeat it impossible for them to even convey a rational argument about this conflict any longer. Iraqis feel things are getting better. As time passes and their economy flourishes, life for the average Iraqi will continue to get better. Despite the pessimistic economic worldview displayed in the quote above, Iraq had been under embargo for quite some time. This hurt the average Iraqi a great deal. Now that things are open again there is a great deal of opportunity available. The insurgency of around (10,000) is in the minority. It is not a popular uprising like some would like us to believe. Iraq just has to get enough police to control their county.

Think about the lawlessness that would take place in our own “civilized” nation if there were not a strong police presence. We are basically a police state, look at the murder numbers in US. That’s off topic, but my main point is this… A stable nation is not built overnight. Especially when there weren’t enough troops initially to maintain order. There is no doubt mistakes were made, but the US is learning and progress is being made. Did the Union army quit after making years of tactical mistakes against the Confederates? It seems to me the biggest potential enemy for Iraq right now is the lack of resolve from some politicians in Washington.

Ok, here is as rational as I can make it:

1.) US forces attacked Iraq, overthrew Saddam.
2.) US helped set up a new Iraqi government.
3.) New Iraqi government wants us to set a timetable for withdrawal.

This was a call not by Sunnis but by Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. So, are we going to undermined the government we just worked to set up?



That's great. However, our goal in Iraq was not to build schools or bring power plants online or make Iraqis feel good about themselves. While I applaud these actions, I'd rather get our troops home than build 15 new schools. I mean, if that's really how we're going define "progress" I think it would've been much smarter to go to back water Africa and build some schools, hospitals, and water treatment plants. I think we'd get a lot more for our money and a lot less Americans would be killed.

Gee I am really starting to feel ignored....


Do you not support the objectives and defined rules of the Geneva Convention? Since we signed that thing we are in fact obligated to build schools and bring about power plants and the reason we are not obligated to do so for Africa...any specific nation or just the entire continent?...is because we have not invaded and waged war with Africa.

If you feel we have no responsibility to the Iraqi people to provide the above because of the direct consequences of our war then do you also support the admin's own beliefs of selectively choosing how and when the GC convention should apply in this war of ours?

This is where you are missing the boat. The goal here after overthrowing the dictator was to set up a stable US friendly democratic republican in Iraq. This would a be significant victory on the War on Terror and as bucket points out, it is our moral responsibility to help rebuild Iraq. Africa is not the same breeding ground for terrorist activity that the Middle East has been. Either you think terrorism is a problem or not. Even if you choose to believe Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, can anyone argue that having two stable US friendly nations on both sides of Iran is a bad thing? These type of goals are not accomplished overnight.

Say WHAAAA????!!! Since when have morals had anything to do with the debacle in Iraq? If we were concerned about moral responsibility, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BOMBED THE SNOT OUT OF THE COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! What a load of codswallop! Arguing "moral responsibility" as justification for staying in Iraq is the height of hypocrisy.

This is nothing but a load of rhetoric. If this is the view of the left, they have no grounds for lecturing anyone on morals.

It is our responsibility to see this through - as Powell said, we broke it we gotta fix it.

To abandon the many Iraqis who are fighting for their fledgeling democracy to an extremely small minority who seeks nothing but to oppress the majority under an iron heel would be the height of irresponsibility and show a decided lack of 'morals'.

I myself feel a sense of responsibility and duty to both my country and the Iraqis who's country was in shambles before we even arrived - hence why I am in the process of enlisting in the Marines (waiting on my college transcipts to arrive so I can go to MEPS) with the object of going to Iraq (or Afghanistan) in a combat MOS.

Again - if Daffy's statement is what the left believes, they have no right to lecture anyone about morals.

I do not mean to push this too far off topic, but I believe you need to follow through with your argument here. How exactly would leaving Iraq in chaos and disorder be the moral thing to do (at least from the Iraqi perspective)? Perhaps you can put away your quasi outrage for just a moment to enlighten us. After bombing the “snot out of the country”, we have a responsibility to help them rebuild. I do not believe this is a very controversial statement.

One could make the argument that any war is wrong and thus “immoral” however, that is a separate debate. The current topic of debate deals with the static nature of time. The decision to go to war has already been made and cannot be unmade (no matter how much someone disagrees with it). If one feels that Iraq was “unjustly” invaded, does it makes sense to abandon them now. That appears to me more of a moral dilemma than my statement presented in the above quote.


edited to add: I do not want to take this discussion further off topic. DaffyGrl responds to my questions below. My points seem to have been lost in translation because none of them are addressed. There is no sense in continuing that train of discussion with more posts.

Ok, I probably more than most on this board believe in international law, UN resolutions and the GC conventions. I dropped my argument that the US was remiss of its duties as an OP when Mrs. P pointed the fact out to me even when I didn't agree with the UN. (can't remember which thread that was). However, I do have a problem with people basing our "progress" on things that a.) we have to do given the GC. and b.) things that we wouldn't have had to do if we'd never gone to war in the first place and c.) untangible things such as "How Iraqi's feel toward the US". "Progress" in this war should be measured against the objectives we originallhy went in with (finding WMDs, no wait, killing terrorists, no wait, bringing democracy.)

And heck yes I take issue with all the US presidents who have selectivly applied the GC and UN resolutions (see probably any post of mine on Palestine/Israel). And as a curiosity I wonder what the GC says in terms of our responsibilites if the new government wants us out? I haven't looked but I don't think that one is covered. I highly doubt the GC would make us stick around and keep cleaning up if we're no longer wanted in the host country. And of course if we want to g