Ahhh... here is where the liberal media in America has become a bane on public opinion.

Simply put, the Iraqi Army and police forces have the financial resources to pay for tanks, thermal imaging, body armor, etc. The reality is that Iraq has OIL. Saddam spent decades being philanderous with the Iraqi people's financial resources, but the nation could easily become one of the world's players in the oil market, allowing the policing action to become as high tech as it needs to be.

How long is it going to train the Iraqi army?
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007004.php

The simple point is that our military has been, and will continue to take the time to train Iraq to be self-sufficient. Bin Laden's resources and subversive organization doesn't have the resources to mount continuous frontal attacks on the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people may very well engage in civil war upon our departure, but it's still better than two decades of oppression hung upon whole sections of the Iraqi society (i.e. the Kurds).

Recruitment for our military service is down for very obvious reasons. It has everything to do with a conflict that most people who joined the Armed Forces never actually believed they'd be engaged in. Sleeping on a cot in the sand is far less glamorous than the "Go Army" television ads make it out to be. (I can tell you from personal experience... I did my time and when my reserve-enlistment is up... no mas for me).

The alternative that you mention is probably happening in far larger form than you get from CBS nightly news. If major media outlets broadcast military success in the middle east, it wouldn't bear well for their seemingly endless anti-war agenda. Take this Washington Post article for example...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091801593.html

Regardless of what the US Generals are saying, you see plainly that the Post decides to put it's own SPIN on the article.

There are some sites that include the good news coming from Iraq....
http://www.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006177.php

If you want to know about the time table for pulling out of Iraq, maybe we should consider the fact that many men and women have lost their lives in this undertaking, and if we left prematurely, this might be for not. I personally would like to see it done with, as I have close friends in uniform abroad, and am sick of spending tax dollars on this mess. However... we're left at a crossroads in which we have to make the decisions as an American people whether to finish the job or to tuck tail and run, leaving an even more volatile and Anti-American middle east than before...

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
Murtha's resolution is based in large part on the Center for American Progress' study titled Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists. It was coauthored by an asst. secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and calls for a 2-year withdrawal and redeployments to the area.

The number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq’s borders at this point is as questionable as the Iraqi civilian casualties count as reported by the Red Cross and The Lancet. Some top brass say “U.S. forces [are] fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.”

Unfortunately we’re simply not going to get the straight dope from the administration. White House: There are “more than 100 battalions are operating throughout Iraq.” Reality: “The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one.”

William Saletan lays it out:


Like Wertz I believe we have a moral obligation to Iraqis. We simply can’t pull out altogether, but appeals to the public’s virtue is no substitute for an actionable demarcation. Whether or not Iraq will be an incubator for terrorism depends on how it holds up after we pull out. Right now an MNF presence doesn’t seem to deter inter-tribal hostilities. One purpose of the violence we see against the Sunni Arab minority is to incite civil war, but its ultimate purpose is to remove the foreign multinational military presence. Chances are violence against a Sunni minority will continue after we pull out and why a redeployment of forces is the best middle-of-the-road shot we have to finish the job without straining our forces to the breaking point.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
Yes.

Terrorism is, of course, merely one method of waging war. If we had invaded Canada instead of Iraq, then after crushing Canada's military, we would have been (one presumes) confronted by Canadian terrorism. One uses the weapons that he has; one uses the tactics most likely to benefit his cause. There is no use worrying about good or evil methods of waging war; they are all evil, however necessary they may be. The only point is, to win. Our enemies understand that, and so, I can assure you, do we. Rhetoric about the enemy's evil is really for fools.



I am not sure whether that passage were better accompanied by blaring trumpets or sobbing violins, but it is ignorant of the nature of the enemy that we fight in Iraq.



This plan would indeed be a very good one if it had any prospects of subduing the enemy, but since it has failed in two years time to achieve any progress in that, one must conclude that it has been a failure.


The enemy is who he is. It does nothing to characterize him; the point is, to defeat him. This, no matter how evil the foe may be, is something that the U.S. military has singularly failed to do.



You misunderstand the nature of war, which is a test not only of military power, but of national will. The people in control of the United States incorrectly reckoned on a quick victory in Iraq, followed by maidens tossing flowers. They knew that there would be little national patience for anything else. For one thing, 30% of the people were opposed to the war from the outset: was that a satisfactory basis for initiating a bitter, long-lasting struggle? Instead of the glorious victory that our leaders expected, our forces are stuck in a nasty quagmire. If they had foreseen that, they would never have gone in in the first place. Now, they have no idea what to do except to keep slogging ahead and hope that something good happens. It won't.

2,000 casualities in two years would be acceptable if anyone really thought that the national interest were at stake in Iraq, but no one does. Not even the administration believes that; if they did, they would institute a military expansion sufficient to provide all the ground troops needed to pacify Iraq; they would fund it properly, through increased taxation; and they would probably re-institute the draft to ensure a sufficient supply of manpower. Since they haven't done those things but instead have merely jawboned about about freedom, democracy, courage and determination, one must conclude that they're not serious. They, like everyone else with any degree of perception, understand that there really is not enough of the national interest at stake in Iraq to do the things that would actually make victory there possible.

It is actually possible to subdue an enemy like the one with which the U.S. finds itself engaged in Iraq, but it would require many more ground forces, and it would require a policy of absolutely indiscriminate and brutal reprisals after every incident of violence. In the countries they occupied, the Germans killed 10 or 20 "innocent" civilians for every German killed by insurgents, and the eventual effect was that these insurgencies ran out of steam. That is undoubtedly what we would do if bringing peace to Iraq were necessary to our national survival. But since it isn't, it would be idiotic to pay the enormous price in international good will that such a draconian policy would cost us.

What an absurd notion. You are saying that Canadians would blow up innocent men, women and children if we were to invade. French Canadians would kill Anglo-Canadian schoolchildren. Raiders from Toronto would go to Detroit and murder Americans at wedding receptions. Terrorism is not simply another form of warfare, as it does not target "the war machine."

As for asserting the "evil" of the enemy being for fools, I'd suggest that you have it backwards. Denying evil is far more foolish than calling it by name.

Just today I read somewhere in Washington Post that according to our own estimates, more than 90 percent of insurgents in Iraq are not the enigmatic "foreign terrorists" but natural-born Iraqis (who is saying there's no Civil War in Iraq?)
Terrorism is another form of warfare, and has been used against both civilians and military throughout history (bombing of King David Hotel in 1948 in which 90+ civilians have died, would be a good example. Menahem Begin, who ordered the bombing, became a prime minister eventually).

I haven't commented one way or the other on 'civil war' in Iraq to the best of my knowledge. Who cares if the terrorists are foreign or not? Just because there are evil bloodthirsty Sunnis in Iraq, are you saying that Western Canadians would do the same if invaded? Really?


You always have an anti-Zionist jab handy, I'll give you that. Rather than give you my own words, let me use an impartial source.

Are you suggesting that killing 74 worshippers in a shia mosque, or murdering schoolchildren in Russia is equal to targeting the British Secretariat and military command? Not to mention that the Brits were probably warned in advance to evacuate?

If invaded, I would expect Canadians to resist with any means possible. If you would read into my post instead of searching for "anti-Zionist jabs" you would realize that I consider the attack on King David hotel at least partially justified (even though it was without a doubt a terrorist attack - your own source says that most of victims were civilians) since Jews were defending their land against invaders. Why would I expect any less from Canadians if a foreign power would occupy their land?

If you are equating the result (dead civilians) with terrorism, then you and I disagree on the definition. If they meant to destroy the British HQ, (allegedly maybe) warned them in advance, and ended up killing civilians that is not terrorism. Intentionally targeting civilians is terrorism. Accidentally killing civilians in prosecuting a war is not. This is the biggest difference between us and them.

(Jack22)
Please provide some original source documentation (not media commentary) for the following points:
1. That WMDs were the primary or sole original justification for the war.
2. The administration alleged Saddam and Al Qaeda were in cahoots.
3. The administration alleged Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

1. That WMDs were the primary or sole original justification for the war.

We all lived through these events and have discussed them again and again. I have never claimed that other justifications weren't advanced but the immediate threat of WMDs was used to sell the war to the American public and the Congress and to advance a false justification for a preventive (not really preemptive) war. The President, the Vice President, and then National Security Advisor Rice (among others) personally threaten us with mushroom clouds over American cities and bio weapons spread with pilotless drones. (See here, here, and here).

2. The administration alleged Saddam and Al Qaeda were in cahoots.

The President, the VP, Secretary Powell and the rest of the talking heads put forward to sell the war to the public contiually linked Iraq to al Qaeda. (See this website, you probably won't accept the quotes as accurate so be sure to follow the links to original documents).

One example:


3. The administration alleged Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

I don't think anyone came right and said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 but the continual references to Mohamad Atta's meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents long after the report was discredited comes very close to assigning some responsibility to the Bathist government of Iraq. (See here.

Thanks for the clarifications, Ted. I still think they tend to support the points I was trying to make.


Perhaps "a" false justification, among "many" perfectly true justifications. I have never claimed that WMD were not mentioned, only that WMD was just one of many reasons given, so the weakness-in-hindsight of one of those many arguments doesn't necessarily make the others any less valid. It may score political points to pretend that WMD were the primary or sole reason for the war, and that the reasons given for continuing the war were not also present in pre-war speeches; but such assertions would not reflect truth.



Eight meetings and a few training sessions is not an alliance. I've had dozens of meetings with my business competitors, and several regularly attend our product training sessions, but for anyone to characterize us as collaborators would be wrong. Sadam's regime apparently met with terrorists from many groups and occasionally offered various kinds of support. Perhaps the meetings with Al Qaeda were among the most alarming, but I still fail to see any insinuation that Osama and Saddam were already significantly collaborating with one another pre-war, only that evidence existed that Saddam was toying with such a relationship. Again, there would not have been a need to call the war "pre-emptive" if the administration believed Saddam helped plan 9/11-- it would have been a reprisal.



No offense, but your own post could be cited as a prime example of how well-meaning people can continue propagating misleading claims long after they have been discredited. It is understandable and natural that when humans hear a misleading summarization repeatedly, we tend to remember the summarization rather than the full text of the original sources. We read the talking point "Bush ties Saddam to Al Qaeda," and forget the details of what kind of ties (very, very weak ones in this case) were actually alleged. It happens to us all.

Furthermore, discreditors are quite often themselves discredited. A good case in point is the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame scandal. Wilson returned from Niger with a report discrediting pre-war intelligence, then the intelligence community discredited Wilson's report (and the Wilson report remains discredited). In the same case on the other side, Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger, then Cheney discredited that assertion; but later, Cheney discredited his own previous statements after discovering someone on his staff had actually approved the trip to Niger. Discrediting something is rarely a final word-- the credibility of the original statement and the discreditation must be weighed, and reasonable people may disagree as to which is more credible. I'm not saying that's what happened with the Atta-Saddam meeting, only showing how something is not necessarily false just because someone else discredits it.

Woah, there, Nelly. There's a big difference between freedom fighters and terrorists-- terrorists commit evil acts against innocent noncombatants to promote oppression. Freedom fighters resist oppressors for noble causes, like freedom. Terrorism, as its name implies, is not merely a tactic in everyone's arsenal to be pulled out when necessary-- it is a cruel disregard for the value of innocent life, and the promotion of a violent way of life through violent means. In your outlandish scenario, "we" would be the oppressors and the Canadians would be the freedom fighters. Terrorism is all about evil. However, by "we" I must assume you are not implying Americans, as Americans would not invade a peaceful democratic neighbor.


Again, I'm not sure you're "we" refers to Americans. The enemy the coalition is fighting in Iraq has two primary goals: to restore a genocidal regime, and to massacre innocent Iraqi non-combatants attempting to institute democracy. If you think that's a legitimate cause and not evil, then you and I are most definitely not part of the same "we".


No, as I explained, the increase in attacks has been expected. Just because attacks are increasing doesn't mean the US plan is failing, it means the enemy is following the expected strategy-- bide time and slowly increase attacks to lure unwitting voters into believing the US plan is ineffective. Apparently, the enemy has found many willing participants in their strategy.


Au contraire. Although the attacks are increasing, few of them have required more than a handful of enemies to rig. Defeating an enemy who is using the tactics we believe they are using means that the rate of attack should actually increase the more desperate the enemy becomes as a result of taking hits-- not believing that there remains good enough incentive to bide time. Characterizing the enemy is highly important-- failing to do so will lead you to draw wrong conclusions about them, such as defeat should be measured by less attacks rather than more.


Hmm... not sure how you can be responding to what I wrote and think that I don't understand that war "is a test not only of military power, but of national will." I was discussing the national will aspect of war. What I misunderstand is your assertion of my misunderstanding.




Just flat out unfactual. In speeches before the war, the administration clearly stated that control of Iraq would be won as quickly as possible, and that coalition troops would need to remain in Iraq for the long haul, in terms of years or tens of years, to secure the peace. They said that American's patience would be tested and that it would not be easy, and it would get harder over time, but we would need to show our courage, resolve, and stamina. Downright prescient of them-- not at all like a group of idiots who didn't know what was in front of them. Oh, and by the way, there are maidens tossing flowers. And many who are understandably sick and tired of
violence, and want the coalition forces to go home as soon as it's safe. I share that sentiment.


Nope. Doing the right thing is the basis for doing the right thing. If your numbers are right, 70% supported the war from the outset-- a stark contrast to the estimated 20% of American colonists who supported (80% who opposed) the American Revolution from the outset. Those who do not know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, have little to contribute. Poll-based governance is not good leadership. If 70% of the population had been clamoring to invade Iraq and it were the wrong thing to do, Congress should not have authorized the President to go to War, and the President should not have committed the troops. However, it was the right thing to do, so we did it, almost unanimously in Congress. Winning the war was the right thing to do, and staying until we can help the Iraqis secure the pease is the right thing to do. The right thing may be temporarily unpopular, but it's still right.


You are welcome to your own opinion, but please do not ascribe it to me. Unless you are a mindreader or have some credible evidence to say the administration doesn't believe its own strategy (reducing troops to encourage Iraqis to take up the slack, which does appear to be going almost as well as planned, but not quite), then you have no credibility when accusing them of not taking their own strategy seriously. You think we need more troops and more taxes-- then who will take over when the US leaves? The Iraqis are going to have to deal with the various malcontents anyway, why not persue a plan to help them become self-sufficient?

We're not fighting brigades of troops here against which extra troops would be more effective. Lone bombers hide in basements making IEDs, then send one guy out to plant it where troops might look, and leave. Sure, there are hundreds or thousands of them, but they don't stand up and fight like soldiers, they try to blend in among the innocent. Throwing more troops at that problem is not a recipe for victory-- it requires investigating tips, following up on leads, a few well-trained counterterrorism experts, not massive numbers of troops.

Obviously, not everybody agrees with the administration's assessment and strategy, but propagating the lie that it doesn't exist or that it isn't serious undermines the US military and gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who is banking on people buying into the bill of goods the liberal press is selling these days.


Here again, the fact that only the evil would ever take such an action doesn't figure into your calculation. If becoming more evil than our enemies is really the only way to beat them, then life as we know it on planet earth is doomed and we should all just give Osama our weapons and crown him king of the world. Instead, I tend to believe that there really is a difference between right and wrong. If we do the right thing for the right reasons, we can beat an impossible foe in the face of overwhelming odds, just as we have always done throughout history, because "right makes might."

You are so out of sink with recent history that it makes little sense to continue our exchange. Cheney repeated the al Qaeda connection to Iraq over and over again in the pattern you erroneously ascribe to his detractors. The repetition was clearly designed to form a connection in the minds of the public between Iraq and 9/11 and it was very successful. At least 70% of the public when polled before the invasion had that impression. Even at the time of the 2004 election, close to 50% still labored under that assumption as did a significantly higher proportion of Bush voters.

Many members of the administration also cited the presence of Zaquawi (Zaquari) in Iraq as evidence for a Saddam connection to al Qaeda even though they knew he was in Northern Iraq and not in an area controlled by Hussein. The President also past up 3 chances to take Zaquawi out before the invasion, presumably to preserve his propaganda value.

To any but the most blinded observer, it is now obvious that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic error of extra-ordinary magnitude. It killed and maimed thousands, it diverted resources from the real struggle against terrorism, it radicalist additional thousands of Arabs and embittered Muslims throughout the world, and it ruined our reputation with our closest allies. The remaining issue which we should be discussing here is whether, having made the blunder of invading, should we withdraw in an orderly manner or are we better off in remaining for the longer term in the hope of stabilizing the situation we have created?

P.S.
When I started this post I meant to link this article as recent evidence of the administration's failure to come clean on the intelligence they had access to and their uses of that intelligence prior to the invasion.

To any but the most blinded observer, it is now obvious that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic error of extra-ordinary magnitude. It killed and maimed thousands, it diverted resources from the real struggle against terrorism, it radicalist additional thousands of Arabs and embittered Muslims throughout the world, and it ruined our reputation with our closest allies. The remaining issue which we should be discussing here is whether, having made the blunder of invading, should we withdraw in an orderly manner or are we better off in remaining for the longer term in the hope of stabilizing the situation we have created?

[/quote]


There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq not the least of which was the numerous UN resolutions Saddam never complied with.

To say Cheney “hyped” anything is ludicrous since all we have to do is go back to 1998, when the same intel was available (from the same CIA director) and see how Clinton and every other Dem ‘hyped” the attack on Iraq as “justified” by the danger he represented to the region and the world.

We made NO blunder in invading. As we now know, some countries in the UN security Council had reasons ($$$$$$$$) to allow Iraq to not comply with the resolutions. That is were the mistakes were made. 21.3 BILLION stolen to insure Iraq’s WMD programs – with the help of the UN.

Setting a timetable is a good thing. Making it public so that the insurgents in Iraq have the information and can work against it would be the mistake.

IMO Iraq will be much less an “incubator” for terrorism than it was under Saddam. The Iraqi security forces, once fully trained, should be able to deal with them effectively and the overall anti American bias of the government will not be there.

It depends on what the USA wants. If the USA wants to cut and run, then yes, by all means, they should set a date and wash their hands of the whole mess.

Democracy cannot be imposed by an outside force. That simply isn't democratic. Democracy must start from within, and I can't see how an Islamic nation can do this. Pouring American (and Danish) blood in to the dirt for Iraqi democracy seems like self delusion when the Iraqi's themselves don't care enough about it to nurture the advantage they've been given.

Is it going to happen?
No.
To do so would undermine everything GW Bush has stood for since the day Osama Bin Laden gave him his excuse to invade Iraq.


hmmm.... The invasion has certainly given a good 'moral foundation' upon which to build up a solid Islamic terrorist movement. The Muslim world is hopping mad about Iraq.

On the other hand, they were hopping mad about us before Iraq as well. Does it really matter if the terrorists are in iraq or in Europe? I think it does. At this point in time I no longer care what happens to the people of Iraq, I have more pressing concerns about what is happening to the people of Europe!

In order to protect Europe I would wage war in Iraq, so I can't really blame the USA for keeping the terrorist threat at arms length and protecting the USA in this way.

I recognise that the need to do that would probably not have arised under a more intelligent president, but looking back in bitterness isn't going to change the situation we face today. Right now we in Europe are facing a wave of ethnic violence unseen since the days of the 1920's.




Not any more. The moment passed us by many months ago. GW Bush did exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted him to do and all we can do now is wait for the next terrorist attacks in Euope and America and hope these put the war into enough perspective to wake the west up to whats actually taking place in the world today.

I have no objection to a well defined plan of action..that which I do not feel this admin communicates or feels they have any need to communicate with the American public. Yet I am quite certain things are not so vague and loosely portrayed on the ground in Iraq. I must admit I have a lot of faith in our men and women of the US military.

What I do object to is this debate...the manner in which it is so often presented and touted by those here in the US who do not support the Iraq war. It is a complaint of a lack of substance with a lack of substance. It reminds me of when I am in a foul mood and pick an argument with my husband (who I do adore) and he says you always do _______..oh yeah yeah..when when do I do ______ show me proof..documentation, dates, exact frequencies or else I won't believe you. And then I usually allow myself to believe I never do anything of any sort since he can't give me a detailed timetable....hahahahaa I win the argument.

Just seems a bit impossible to give a detailed plan of events for what is going to and should from this day forward happen in Iraq and I feel most often those who demand it know this better than anyone.

If we could so easily organize world events in accordance to our own designs and desires I would imagine we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

And moif..just because we have fulfilled one of OBL biggest dreams going to war it does not mean we must be following his timetable instead. Hitler wanted war too and I never considered the allies as just followers of Hitler's designs. Sometimes we are pushed into situations that we would rather not be in by those we wish to not be influenced by. I am just glad this time around it is not America that is so late to recognize the need to succumb our preferences for peace.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
The Department of Defense actually has two time tables for withdrawing ground troops from Iraq proper. One is the 'big picture' matrix for proposed withdrawl, and the other is the minutiae filled schedule for exactly how long it will take to extract units and their equipment from theater. However, these both depend on the security situation and political progress in Iraq.
Even the most ardent 'cut and run' proponents are compelled to admit withdrawing troops on an order given today will not be complete for at least three to six months. Equipment and weaponry will not be abandoned, and even while withdrawing, troops must be fed, equipment maintained, while security remains high. The most sensible and logical way to conduct a withdrawl would coincide with handing over security duties to the Iraq Army and Police. High expectations haven't yet been met, but it is absurd to state that progress has not been made.
Any timetable released for public consumption should be made public only in the broadest of terms. Any withdrawl under duress will also have politically imposed tightened rules of engagement, thus bringing us back in full reality to the very dark days of Vietnam, where our soldiers died while commanders hands were tied.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
I differentiate between the terrorists (AQ and other foreign nationals) and the deposed Ba'athists. Our presence definitely has brought about the ire and insurgency of those who once held power, and now do not, or are finally forced to answer to an electorate. This was expected to some degree.
The presence of terrorists however, I attribute somewhat to our presence, but they would exists regardless. They now simply have porous borders, a population to blend in, and weak internal security to oppose them

Is there another option?
Phase in a robust peacekeeping force from surrounding gulf states, while withdrawing our forces on a timeline commensurate with the build up of Iraq security. These gulf state forces speak the language (mostly), exhibit similar culture, and would place a non 'American imperialist' face on the situation.

I wholeheartedly support this point. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, and Egypt could and should be pressured to help stabilize this important country in their own region. Finding ways to give ownership to the Arab countries in this region to the stability of Iraq seems like a slam dunk good idea. They should have been involved all along.

This is similar to what I have been pushing for months but I suggested doing it under the auspice of the UN. There are some complications, however. The main one is that all neighboring states except Iran are Sunni and look unfavorably on a Shiia dominated Iraq. It is unlikely that the GWB government would agree to a role for Iran. Even so, some such solution may be within our grasp if the administration will just facilitate it. Ray McGovern discusses the difficulty of getting the administration on board in this recent article.

I am sorry but I find this to be a horrible idea. Iraq needs to become a physically self sufficient independent, self governed democracy...or else we have failed. The last thing we want to have happen is to allow the surrounding gulf states so much control and influence over Iraq's political rebirth as it is the exact opposite we wish to have happen. Transitioning from one foreign occupation to another is a bad bad idea, especially considering the latter occupiers would have a more logistical friendly position to never leave..think Lebanon and what a mess it was for so many years.

I know some gulf states have offered their help...like Jordan but I believe the only thing these offers are good for or useful to our efforts in Iraq is that it shows that some Gulf states are very supportive of the US and are willing to say so openly.

Can we say that al Qaeda has chosen to fight this war so poorly that it has become an advantage to us in the region? Can we ever praise their mistakes too? The more they murder civilians with such abandonment and disregard the less and less of a viable option they present. And the fact they have chosen to broaden their attacks outside Iraq the less and less it becomes a result of America's foreign policy..but rather their own foreign policy. And it becomes ever more apparent to the importance of America's success in Iraq.

What the gulf states need to work together and form a peacekeeping force for is terrorism not nation building. Iraq is but only one piece of the problem.

I can't figure how now we have so many here standing up claiming our failure is currently too great that we have no ability to ever recover. These same people were the same ones who informed us all of the great importance "winning the hearts and minds" would be to our success in Iraq. Am I the only one who feels that there very may well be a great turning of hearts and minds in the Arab street (whatever that entails)? Am I the only one who saw the people take to the streets in Lebanon and demand Syria's withdraw? Or the millions who risked their lives in Iraq to bring democracy outside of just the hearts and minds of Iraqis? Or the protests in Jordan? Why now? The whole world is turing against Syria and Iran's designs for the future. Why now when Iran has a madman sitting at her helm? Why now when Zaqarwi's name is being chanted in the Arab street with disgust?

Bucket,
I don't believe the presence of gulf state forces (read: UAE, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Bahrain) to be any more destabilizing or impeding democracy than US forces. But face facts, we are the outsiders and we are wearing the face of imperialism to many Iraqi's.
I think the most prudent course of action is to continue training ISF both in country and in Jordan (as we are doing presently), assuming the security situation improves draw down US ground forces while simultaneously phase in the gulf forces; leave air support, some artillery and intelligence on the ground for support; and make the bulk of US forces Military Police, Special Forces and Civil Affairs.

Like it or not, many Iraqi's still blame the loss of civilian life by terrorists on the US. It defies common sense, but it happens. I agree with you that US influence and actions may have well brought about an insurgence of liberal democratic thinking on the arab street. But we will soon wear out what welcome we have left. You mention Syria and Lebanon, but if we remain the only force in strength in Iraq, that is what the arab street will be comparing us to.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

There is another reason to withdraw. We can't afford not to. See this article by Robert Reich, economist and Clinton Secretary of Labor. Of course there is an alternative, we could eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and raise taxes on everyone or we could reinstitute the draft and throw the entire burden on the young. Are there any supporters of "staying the course" who want to support one of these alternatives?

It seems like quite the recipe for furthering expansion of the battlefield for this war. Jordan has already been targeted for her minor logistical support she lends now...what happens when these nations actually have the dominant defining role like you desire ? Won't we only be further delaying our inevitable engagement like we did in 1991?
And do you honestly believe they would allow this without America being the main body of support? I think more or less their troop contributions would look a lot like the other allied forces contributions we have already had committed...minimal.



Well I can easily see why they would look to the US for blame..our security and infrastructure attempts in Iraq have many times had many failures. Not that I am in the mindset that this is a loss cause we can't do anything right..but I do recognize the many failures this admin has had in waging war.
You say the US is the only force of strength present in Iraq and I could not disagree more. Every day Iraqis have another force of strength present in their lives and it is spreading..it will not remain contained in Iraq and in that sense I do agree with you that the gulf states must recognize the importance of their role in this war but I do feel they have plenty to deal with in their own borders.
So I do believe the "Arab Street" does have a very frightful comparison to already make and it is in my opinion deeply changing and shifting attitudes and political beliefs.


I have my own article to share... it further echoes my question that has yet gone unanswered...why now?

Unfamiliar questions in the Arab air

First: bucket has touched on a theme I believe is important. The middle east is a rapidly evolving society. It is coming from a nomadic structure and moving towards a sedentary capitalism driven society. There are religion clashes in the region. There are huge political conflicts. The structure of their society puts the wealth of their lands into relatively few hands. There is a huge sex based inequality. There is overpopulation.

Sounds like a recipe for civil war to me.

I do not think is is sensible to believe the United States can put itself into this part of the world and fix it. This problem will or will not be fixed in the near future by its people. The first Gulf War as well as the second were ill conceived. If we had stayed out of it Saddam would have attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and others, the entire region would have fought back and put Saddam out of power by their own free will. This would have a much better chance of change for the better than our optimistic attempt to instill democracy via force.

It is time we recognize our hubris as a country. We should pull out and let the people of the region resolve their many issues. I am not convinced we have facilitated the process by our country's actions but may have hindered it.

Second: we can not continue to use such a tremendous portion of our country's wealth on folly.

Both of the rationales means we should have a timeframe for withdrawal.

I am not sure we can control terrorism. We have to realize it exists and we can not wipe it out. I do think it was proper to invade Afghanistan to topple the government there which was supporting the Al Queda and its attack on America. I do not think it is fruitful to remain in Afghanistan for an extended period of time. Iraq was never about terrorism. It has become a haven for terrorism since our intervention. So much for our ability to stop it.

The other option is to promote liberty and freedom by example. We have a President who leads by force. We should try a different option. Promoting liberty and freedom by example will do more to limit terrorism than all the troops in the middle east.

The attack on September 11th was an abberation, not a pattern. Our President has led us towards a chicken little approach to terrorism which is causing a multitude of problems for us, just like the terrorist hoped it would. The terrorist are only successful if we do what they want us to do. We reacted like the bully nation Bin Laden claimed. We torture. We imprison without due process. We move towards a country united by christianity and a government which embraces it. We have to be a better example to the world than this. That is our number one option.

It seems to me I heard on the History Channel that the Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims have been quarreling with each other since the time of the Crusades--perhaps Vermillion can verify this. How like our United States of America to assume that we can solve a problem that has existed for many centuries by just staying the course and keeping our soldiers deployed in that land!

So we rebuild what we bombed to smithereens and see about having available water and electricity for Iraqis...Then the Iraqi insurgents and imported extreme Muslim terrorists undo the work that our armed forces and contractors have done. Ultimately, whose fault is that? They are doing it to protest the continuing presence of "the infidels" in arab land. It would make sense to just let the infidels fix things up and then they could leave, but we're not talking about people driven by logic but fanaticism.

It seems the sooner we send the troops home, the sooner Iraqis and the rest of the world will recognize the problems there as the responsibility of the Iraqis to solve. We cannot stop the bombings and assassinations; witness the news reports every week of the year of these things going on in spite of the continued U.S. military presence. Is there a week in anyone's recent memory where there wasn't a report of bombings? Not only is Iraq a money pit; our top leaders insist that the only way of honoring the sacrifice of fallen heroes is by sending more to die there.

Congressman Murtha's resolution to have the troops pull out of Iraq in the next six months is neither the murmuring of a malcontent nor the whimpering of a coward, as some would try to characterize him. The man has been there, and he gets it, unlike the current Commander in Chief.


I agree with what you are saying, except that I believe that the Christianity represented is as representative of Christianity as the Muslim terrorist extreme behavior is representative of Islam. Jesus Christ said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Not all Christians believe that the kingdom of God will be inaugurated with armies and weapons.

If adjectives were worth anything in war, this post alone would secure U.S. victory in Iraq. I said, "Rhetoric about the enemy's evil is really for fools," a point that the quoted passage confirms with vivid self-parody.

It is much more important to know the enemy than to devise bad names for him. This point has been unfortunately missed by the current leaders of the United States, in which error they are absurdly aped by their supporters.

Bucket, I read the Economist article you linked. I found it interesting but un-supportive of the arguments you have made. If Muslim populations are reacting to the extremism of the jihadists, that is certainly good news. They also reacted against the extremism of the American invasion and occupation behavior as is demonstrated in the poll cited in the article. This is illustrated in the increased support for confidence in bin Ladden in Jordan and Pakistan from the summer of 2202 to July 2005. The article even spells out this theme:

(Economist Article)

You ask why now? One answer is that the Iraqi factions have shown some sign of compromise and that fundamental to such a compromise is a firm American commitment to complete withdrawal on a fixed time table. If there is any lingering doubt about the permanence of U.S. bases it may prevent a political solution. There are other reasons more fundamental to U.S. interests that have been advanced here.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

Yes, we should have done that 2 years ago.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

I think the evidence speaks for itself about making Iraq an incubator for terrorism. The US has conveniently provided incident after incident that can be used for propaganda material. The insurgents are getting more aggressive and the US forces are helping to train hundreds of future terrorists. People can claim all they want that the military doesn't target civilians but that really doesn't matter, when your kid gets blown to smitherines by a US bomb you really aren't going to care if it was intentional or not and you are likely to pick up a gun and use it against those responsible. When your friends and relatives are whisked away by US soldiers to some prison, never to be seen again, you aren't going to have a high opinion of the US.

Even our man in Iraq, Ayad Allawi believes that things are worse now than under Saddam:


Or perhaps it could have something to do with Contractors shooting civilians for fun:


However, to the second part of the question - we are the problem and continued troop presence is going to make it worse.


We have already failed Bucket, it is just a question of how many countless billions of dollars we are going to spend and how many more American lives we are going to lose before we own up to it.

We hope to solve a centuries old problem by encouraging a progressive, pluralist and democratic society. That is the whole point of a progressive society...you progress.

This argument always comes off exceedingly condescending to me and makes me uncomfortable.
I feel that anyone who spouts the centuries old idea... that certain persons of particular ethnicities or religious beliefs can not learn or even desire to seek social advancement, is so prejudiced towards the idea of failure in Iraq, so much so, that they even claim the failure is biological.
Not only is the current admin wrong on this democracy thing...but Iraqis by design...socially, culturally and biologically... are incapable of a democratic and pluralist society.



Of course when we first went to war attitudes and perceptions were very different then they are now. That is the main argument I am proposing here. Instead of increasing the hatred of America and decreasing support for democratic or political solutions the opposite has occurred. The run up of the moment in time we chose to send our troops to Iraq was momentous but it is now the past and we are still there and yet attitudes amongst those living in the region are changing. Of course they are internal that is how true change occurs... internally...but I would never claim America and the war in Iraq was not a factor or an influencer.

Even with America in the heart of the MIddle East in a full fledged occupation..blowing up babies, shooting Iraqis like they were game and sadistically mocking their beliefs ..even with all that we still somehow contrasted against our enemy appear to be on the right side. In reality all these examples many offer up as indications of failure in my mind indicate the strength and commitment the Iraqis have to our shared ideal of a politically progressive society. Even when we mistreat them, dishonor them or kill them they still see the value in our shared vision of Iraq. And they know better than anyone that there is a big difference between the vision America has for Iraq and the vision the jihadists have. You all act like it is such a difficult decision for them to all make..as if they were still struggling with the idea and at any given moment could switch. .Some even believe they are physically and mentally incapable. Yet I disagree it is obvious it is an easy choice to make for most.



I am not really sure I understand your point..are you saying that the fear America may have permanent bases in Iraq for ever and ever is a far more heightened obstacle to political stability than say ohh....war? That is how I interpret your comments above and I totally disagree..obviously the violence and total instability of the nation is the first and foremost priority to achieving a "political solution" . Also who here that argues your points for an accelerated withdrawal supports the American military never ever leaving Iraq?

Well, bucket, do you think politicians here can work to actually eliminate the (reputedly) hated Electoral College? Of course, it involves the will of a plurality of people. Surely, that should be easier than changing centuries-old practices in a country where we don't even share the same language. In comparison, that should be a minor problem for our leaders to address.

But why do you think I'm condescending for suggesting that a centuries-old problem won't be solved by the presence of foreign 'infidel' soldiers trained to fight organized armies and solving problems with force and American prestige? (How many years have the British been trying to calm things down in Northern Ireland? Wouldn't they be pleased if the solution was deployment of American soldiers and American values?)

I'm not saying that these Iraqi factions "can not learn or even desire to seek social advancement"; I'm saying that with weekly and sometimes daily suicide bombings taking place all over their country, just maybe they don't want to. And just maybe they don't see our way as social advancement, but as polluting their culture. Ayad Allawi had plenty to say about his country under our influence (see Cube Jockey's post).

And one point of information: Nowhere in my previous post did I claim that "failure is biological." But the person who needs to change must be willing to. There is an old saying, "Just because you have silenced me doesn't mean you have changed my mind."

But the poll shows nothing about attitudes toward America or democratic political solutions. It does demonstrate that Muslims are becoming more disillusioned with jihadist violence. (Aren't we all). At the same time, it shows that confidence in bin Laden has actually increased in Jordan and Pakistan. (One wonders why major countries link Egypt and Saudi Arabia weren't included in the poll). Attitudes toward attacking civilians versus attitudes toward the US intervention in Iraq isn't a zero sum problem. Just because people sensibly react against senseless attacks on civilians doesn't automatically increase support for US behavior in Iraq!



I am saying that full sovereignty is one of the fundamental objectives of the insurgents and that there is no hope of a political compromise with the non jihadist parts of the resistance without a clear understanding that American forces will be removed in firm time frame. The removal of American forces is also a majority objective of the Shiite population. If the US had held immediate elections after the invasion and offered assistance to a truly sovereign government and quickly drawn down its troop levels, things might have stabilized. Instead, the actions of US forces has acted as a stimulus to violent resistance.

I remain fundamentally pessimistic about any kind of constructive outcome in Iraq even with the ray of hope offered by the Cairo statement. The country is already in a low grade civil war and there is little prospect that the administration will give up on their desire for a long term military presence within Iraq.

The government of the United States has no right to dictate, by force of arms, what "problems" in foreign societies are to be solved, or by what means. Moreover, the supposed benignity of American intentions in Iraq, original or current, is believed almost nowhere outside the United States, where American goodness and "heroism" have heretofore been unquestioned. The German people were convinced they were liberating Poland, you know? If the "progress" that we would impose on Iraq were all that welcome, there wouldn't be a war, would there? But even in America, the absurdity and destructiveness of an occupation that relies more on 500-pound bombs dropped from on high than on police work; systematically employs torture, humiliation and intimidation; grossly enriches U.S. contractors without ever actually rebuilding anything; and never manages to bring the peace; is starting to undermine popular faith in the innate goodness of this project.


Oh I fully agree, there is no reason to deny to any people the benefit of U.S. military invasion, merely on account of ethnicity. People of every race should be equally elligible for having their futures dictated from the decks of U.S. aircraft carriers, at high cost in their own blood.

But throughout this world and not the least in Iraq, many people think that the real objective of the invasion was to bring about an Iraqi government open to U.S. investment and ample trade with U.S. partners -- primarily characterized by liberal exports of low-priced oil -- and a permanent platform for U.S. bases in the region. They rather strongly suspect that any Iraqi government delivering these things would be labelled, at least on a workable basis, as "democratic" and "pluralistic." Just, for example, as Israel is called pluralistic, though it is a nation for Jews only, founded upon contempt for Arabs.



"Appear" to be on the right side? Where, on Fox News? Rather than body armor, then, we should be straining to produce more white hats.


"In my mind," indeed. Not even Pentagon press releases depart this much from reality.

We really do not know what vision of the future of Iraq is held by the insurgents, many of whom certainly are not jihadists. The only thing certain is that, like a majority of Iraqis, they want U.S. forces out of their country.

But it really is a mistake to talk about the Iraqis as if Iraq were homogeneous. Far from that, a slow-buring civil war has been in progress for a long time, notwithstanding the occupation. The "Iraqi" police and armed forces that we read about consist, in large part, of Kurdish and Shiite militias. There is widespread terror being practiced against Iraqi Sunnis, much of it by these same, uniformed forces. There is no progress toward a pluralist society; there is only a change, under our auspices, in which side gets to drive the tanks.



The point is that the war is being fought to prevent U.S. occupation. That's what the war will decide. Naturally, war is not conducive to stability, but our enemies expect to obtain their own version of stability after they have defeated us. It is absurdly circular to invade a nation and then to declare that we would happily leave, if only its inhabitants would stop shooting at us. We must either win, or admit defeat. There is no middle ground such as doing this or that from the air or relying on troops from Kuwait and Bahrain -- as if those were actual nations, any more capable than a shedfull of chickens of sustaining an armed struggle.

Did I say that America was following Osama Bin Laden's time table? I don't think so.


I don't know how 'biology' plays into what any one is saying here... but culture certainly does. By any sane measure of progress, religious culture, whether it is christian or islamic, is a recipe for failure.


What do you base this upon?

It seems to me that the leadership of the USA is well aquainted with whom it fights, so much so that it has actively sought to promote the fight for own gain.


Failed in what?

To bring democracy to Iraq? Yes, in that the USA is failing... but is that what this was really about? Why is democracy in Iraq so much more important than democracy in Saudi Arabia ...or Kuwait? It seems to me that the USA is far more interested in maintaining the status quo between the USA and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia than in any notion of democracy in Iraq. We can clearly see all across the planet that the USA does not shy away from allying itself with dictators... especially dictators who have a lot of oil and a lot of dollars invested in the USA.


...or in Iraq for that matter!?

As absurdly circular as the argument might sound, it is the obligation of the occupying force to promote stability. Iraq is far from the first example. Please explain how this situation differs markedly from the one in the late 90s in the Balkans, aside from being a larger piece of real estate.

For that matter, I welcome anyone to explain to me why, if "each bomb creates a new terrorist", as seems to be a recurring argument throughout this thread, the only people harboring terrorists we have to worry about in the Balkans are not the Serbs we bombed, but the ethnic Albanians we saved from genocide.

Well, I base it upon the very obvious fact that when confronted with significant, substantive criticisms of its war policy, all the Administration can do is make moraliistic pronouncements about the Evil of Terrorism, as if terrorism were a political movement and not a mere tactic of war -- and as if anything in Iraq were connected to the attack on Manhattan.

I have encountered few persons who have expressed confidence that the United States is well aware of the nature of its enemy in Iraq. I can only assume that you accept the Administration's spurious equation of Terror Here with Terror There and even with Terror Hither and Yon; but while this equation is very useful to certain political ends, there is very scant factual basis for it.

And your assumption is founded on what, exactly?

That I asked you a simple question?

Your assumption is mistaken. I do not believe that the Bush administrations 'spurious equations' are anything but. Rather I find the Bush administration uses the convenient threat of terrorism as a means to an end.

The history of humanity is littered with similar incidents of wars being waged under false pretences and to assume the Bush administration is not also engaged in such an endeavour in order to counter an enemy it knows all to well is to dismiss an obvious and probably possibility.

You seem to be suggesting that the US government does not understand the nature of its enemy but is deluded by its own public relations statements...

Is this so?

If I am mistaken then could you explain who you suppose the real enemy is?

I apologize if I gave offense.

You said in your first post that U.S. leaders "sought to promote" a war with this particular enemy, understanding well who it was. I took this, perhaps incorrectly, as your subscription to the transparently false "Iraq is the Central Front in the War Against Terror" line of reasoning that they and others have used to justify the continuing occupation. That's why I assumed, again perhaps incorrectly, that you equated those who attacked Manhattan with those who currently fight us in Iraq.

Our blundering entrance into this war casts serious doubt on the proposition that the Administration sought this particular fight. What they certainly sought was easy conquest of Iraq, a glorious military and political triumph, and -- I would argue -- the establishment of a U.S. client state in Iraq. If they had understood from the first what they were up against, I believe they would not have attacked Iraq at all. But had they done so with cognizance of the actual character and capability of the enemy, they would at least have ensured that our forces had been better prepared for the war in which they are currently engaged. They would have made sure, for example, that there was enough body armor and sufficient armored transport. And they would have sent enough troops to control the ground.

I do not think the Administration is "deluded by its own public statements." But judging by its conduct, I think that it is deluded by exaggerated and fanciful notions of the uses to which U.S. military power can be put, by visions of Middle Eastern imperial sway reminiscent of those of Napoleon III in Mexico, and by continued false hope that the Iraq war can somehow be made to turn out all right. I think, in all frankness, that they have no idea what to do and are merely temporizing, hoping that something will happen to make the situation better. I very much doubt that it will.

If Iraq as the central front in the war on terror is transparently false, how can you explain the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi left Afghanistan and moved to Iraq to fight US troops and terrorize innocent Iraqis? He also was reportedly helped out by Uday Hussein, receiving treatment for a wound suffered when we bombed Afghanistan.

If the enemy agrees to fight us in our chosen venue, even going by the same name "Al-Queda in Iraq," how is that not the central front in the war on terror?

Does the current plan only consist or rely on our own leaders? Or even our own forces? See I had been under the impression that all this voting, constitution creating and military training was for the exact purpose of lessening the role our political leaders have in addressing the formation of Iraq.



Are you seriously comparing Northern Irelan