Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska(go huskers!) has called for a phased reduction of troops from Iraq in his recent Washington Post editorial.



and...




Questions for debate:

1.)Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?

2.)Explain how increasing troop levels will or will not delay the possible likelihood of the Iraqi government falling flat on its face


And most importantly:
3.)Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?

1.)Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?

It's attainable in the abstract, but the current political climate in Washington makes it extremely difficult. As long as everyone (both supporters and opponents) insists on viewing this issue as basically a referendum on Bush, we're going to keep getting stuck. It's too bad we can't seem to break out of that paradigm. If only there were more people in the world of political commentary who understood that you don't have to like Bush at all in order to understand how essential victory is in Iraq.

2.)Explain how increasing troop levels will or will not delay the possible likelihood of the Iraqi government falling flat on its face

That's a good question. The standard criticism of our presence in Iraq had been that it has only inflamed the situation. But when we cordoned off Sadr City a short time ago, it actually reduced the levels of violence in that city, according to a New York Times reporter on the scene who was interviewed by the PBS NewsHour:


I think it may be time for some public pressure to be brought upon Mr. Maliki not to screw up things that actually work. I'm all for helping him out, but he needs to pull his share of the weight, too. It's one thing to ask our soldiers to fight and die to keep Iraq from falling to the mercy of al-Qa'ida and like-minded scum. It's something totally different - and totally unacceptable - to ask them to sacrifice their lives just to cover Maliki's rear end.

Sorry, not buying it. You can't pin the blame on the anti-war crowd or the Dems. Look at your history. Take the Soviet-Afghan war. Do you think the Soviet citizens got any information that the USSR didn't want them to hear? The citizens were told that the troops were building schools and hospitals, not fighting a war. (sound familiar?) The only bad news they Soviet citizen got was from returning soldiers and do you think the Soviet Government even cared what the citizens thought? Do you think the Soviet troops doing the fighting knew if they were being supported or not? My guess is they were probably told that they had 100% support from their country men. I highly doubt there was a Soviet equivalent of John Stewart or Hannity and Colmes. And I doubt there was very much dissent within the Soviet political ranks. So there's an example where there was no "referendum" and you had the popular support on the homefront (for a few years at least) and yet the Soviets lost and withdrew accomplishing...nothing.

Well, I don't think it is true for most that Iraq is a referendum on Bush Jr, I think rather the opposite. The disaster in Iraq is what causes them to think ill of the President, not the other way around. The fact that the situation has developped in this manner is a reason, not an excuse to have serious reservations about the President, a fact which is sustained by polls regarding people's opinions of his reign.

Secondly, I do not think a 'Victory' in Iraq IS obtainable, in the abstract or in the concrete. The situation is simply out of control and deteriorating day to day. To assert that the situation is unresolvable is because of the 'political climate' in Washington is to ignore the reality of the situation on the ground. Remember that it was a revolt of republicans in Washington led by James Baker which forced Bush to abandon his 'stay-the-course' rhetoric.




This is a good example, but not how you were trying to use it. Firstly, the term 'for political reasons' sounds so benign, when in fact the reason Malki demanded the cordon be removed is because the local Militia and religious commander demanded it of him, and Maliki could not refuse.

Furthermore, your comment seems at odds with the fact that there were resonable sized celebrations in the streets of Sadr city when the US was forced to remove the cordon. This case study shows just how incapable the Iraqi leader is of governing his own country.


However, even if you were correct about the 'effect' the cordon had on levels of violence, it is unfortunately irrelevant. The Sadr city operation was a massive one, involving significant US manpower. As has been shown time and time again (such as in operation Together Forward in Baghdad) that the US can launch large scale operations committing huge troop concentrations to an area, and Yes, while they are they the violence does sometimes drop slightly due to their overwhelming presence andfirepower. And as soon as they leave, the levels of violence shoot back up again.

And as the US does not have the manpower on the ground to conduct more than one or two of these operations in small, specific regions every few months, nor to sustain them for long, this clearly is not a solution.

UNLESS the US is willing to quadruple troops on the ground (a political impossibility), and even then long-term success seems unlikely...

?

Certainly. We must commit the men and equipment required and demonstrate we have the will to win. Unfortunately we have now sent a clear message to the terrorists and “insurgents” we do not have the will and are ready to cut and run. This make it much harder.



Increasing troop levels does two things if done properly. It sends the message we are not ready to hand the country over and giver the Iraq government time to build up the strength to control the country.




There is no honor in defeat and this would be our worst defeat since Vietnam. And this is a bout security not honor. Handing the terrorists a victory in Iraq will embolden them. They will be here killing American not long thereafter.

Now that's one hell of an assumption. Where's your evidence of this popular support? I wasn't aware that the people of the Soviet Union supported their government at all. The fact that it had to be so repressive should be evidence against this.



Leaving aside the loadedness of this statement, it still doesn't change my point. Too few people are able to discuss the question of what to do from here without constantly making it into an issue of what Bush did or didn't do wrong prior to this point. It's not necessary to agree with any of it in order to see that victory is essential.


Unless, of course, the political climate in Washington just might possibly have some kind of effect on the ground in Iraq. If, as so many people are claiming, our presence there is causing increased hostilities against us, then it's not inconceivable that the intemperate rhetoric coming from our own opposition, which then gets amplified by European opposition, just might be stoking those flames.


If you say so. Personally, I don't see what bearing that has on the issue.


Could not, or would not? What would have been the consequences of his refusal, and would we have been able to protect him from those consequences, if we had the political will?


Oh, how soon we forget. Remember the "reasonable sized celebrations" of Saddam Hussein that went on routinely under his rule? Now this wasn't some Fox News Rove minion giving us this account. This was a reporter for the New York Times - a newspaper which, if you've been following the news over the past few months, hasn't exactly been on the best of terms with the Bush Administration lately. I'm therefore willing to put a little bit more stock in an NYT reporter who's actually been on the ground talking to people, than in some propaganda exercise orchestrated by Moqtada al-Sadr's goons.


Mr. Burns' account seemed to suggest that the level of violence had dropped more than "slightly" in Sadr City. But as regards Baghdad, you were actually too diplomatic. Op Together Forward didn't drop the level of violence at all in Baghdad. So why did OTF fail where the Sadr City cordon succeeded? Probably because the Sadr City operation was less ambitious, in terms of square miles. Probably also because troops didn't actually enter Sadr City and cause disruptions to people's daily lives (like curfews and such), but instead stayed on the periphery. If that could be done in a single similar-sized location (perhaps one more palatable to Maliki politically), that could probably become a self-sustaining seed. I think most Iraqis don't want to be involved in this violence. They just do it because they figure it's the only way they have to defend themselves.

But none of it's going to happen unless we get over ourselves and resolve to do it.

I'm not sure what you mean by victory and from whose standpoint. From the standpoint of the transnational corporations who are being allotted millions of dollars a day by their representatives in power, the Iraq occupation is already a victory. To me it's a complete disaster because I lost one of my best friends, it's created more terrorism and hatred of the US, civilians have been slaughtered, food and water in parts of the country are scarce, our tax money is being funneled into the bank accounts of defense contractors and into the energy industry, and thousands of American soldiers have been maimed and damaged physically and psychologically. If you define victory as setting up a democracy in Iraq, I'd argue that real democracy was never the intention in the first place. If you read through Paul Bremers 100 orders, there's absolutely no hint of giving the people of Iraq access to their own resources. They even imposed an order (#81) stating Iraqi farmers could no longer save seed - they had to buy in patented seed from US-based agribusiness like Monsanto, and pay royalties on the sales of the produce. Another "victory" for big business and a blow to any hope of a democracy imposed from without.



Increasing troop levels will increase the likelihood of the current puppet government continuing to stay in power in Iraq. It will increase American deaths. The Shiite insurgency won't quit. They'll just get angrier and recruit more people to it's ranks. Now 61% of Iraqis are in favor of insurgents attacking and killing Americans. That will increase.



No.

I have pretty much given up on making comments regarding Iraq in this forum because everyone's opinion seems frozen in place. However, I do occasionally drop in to see if there has been any movement. I do see less participation by those who supported the invasion and a recognition by some of the supporters that things are not going well, but I observe almost no one admitting they were wrong in supporting the war and the way the occupation was conducted.

1.)Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?

No! The situation is almost a classic illustration of anarchy pitting Sunni against Shia, Shia group against Shia group, and Kurds against both and Turkmen in and around Kirkuk. There is no government that has any real authority.

2.)Explain how increasing troop levels will or will not delay the possible likelihood of the Iraqi government falling flat on its face.

Theoretically, I suppose it would be possible to institute a draft and flood Iraq with enough American troops to reduce the intra-Iraqi violence substantially - at least 400 to 500 thousand. This, however, is not possible politically less of all by an administration that led us into Iraq implying the adventure would be a "cakewalk", that no civilian sacrifice was necessary, and that we should all go spend our money.

I do agree, however, that the stakes in Iraq are huge. Unfortunately, we have already lost the hand and we can't recover by shuffling the deck and redealing.

3.)Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?

Of course we can't leave honorably! After carrying out an illegal invasion in violation of the UN Charter and Nurenberg Principles, is an honorable outcome possible? After initiating a conflict that has resulted in the deaths of 400,000 to 900,000 Iraqis and making refugees of several million more, is honor possible? After sacrificing 3,000 soldiers and maiming 10s of thousands more in an imperial war, where is the honor? After destroying one country and threatening the stability of the whole region, is there any honor? After facilitating torture and refusing to hold the responsible high officials responsible, can there be any honor?

No, the best we can do is to leave and stop our participation in the killing while removing our soldiers from the chaos. Stop the lies, stop the spin, confront the utter failure of our aggression and do what we can to help the UN and others to bring some healing Iraq and the region.

Well firstly, there IS a rather substantial issue of all the things Bush did wrong. If harping on is, as you suggest counter productive, then so is pretending these blatant errors never happened.

However, that aside, I don't accept your contention. I think it is quite possible for people to discuss what happens next as a seperate discussion from how Bush jr got the US in this mess in the first place. In fact the discussion is happening all the time, Baker and his group are heading up a group dedicated to the principle itself. There are plenty of people who abhor Bush Jr's foolishness, and yet are still able to contribute ideas to the future. The problem is nobody has been able to come up with a realistic solution that does NOT involve leaving.

As for victory being 'essential': firstly, thats such a vague term. If you mean essential for the survival of the US, then clearly it is not. If you mean essential for the security of the US, then in fact the continuing stalemete and diversion from the WOT is in fact COUNTER productive, and an end would be BETTER.

Secondly, even if it was 'essential', that does not make it possible. History is full of plenty of nations for whom victory was 'essential', and yet still lost.



This is a common assertion, but I don't buy it. It essentially implies that an assortment of terrorists are sitting at home not sure if they should attack US forces or not, then read about Howard Dean's speech in the international Herald tribune and decide to attack. Its absurd. Firstly, the insurgents don't need encouragement, they seem to be doing just fine. Secondly, any encouragement they MIGHT need is provided on the ground in Iraq, by the occupation of their netion by a foreign power, by Abu Grab, by the recent killing of 6 teenage girls in a firefight by US forces. The idea that AFTEWR all that, a speech by a Backbencher democrat in the US might REALLY inflame them is silly. Since there is no evidence of your assertion, it remains conjecture, and somewhat silly conjecture at that.



The consequences would be that he would have defied the will of the man who was one of the key people who put Maliki into power. The fact that this man is ALSO the single largest contributor to the insurgency seems to be less important to Maliki. In fact, this very reluctance caused an uprising of Iraqi representatives in the government this week. (See other thread for a post I just made on that subject)



Unless you can provide ANY evidence of your accusation, that the celebrations were staged, then its irrelevant. I might as well say the celebrations at the fall of Hussein were staged by foreward US troops. Great rehetoric, but a complete assertion.



For four years the government has been in the hands of Republicans, and there has been no lack of 'resolve'. This 'resolve' got the US to the sorry state it is in now in Iraq, losing a war. Look, I don't mean to dampen enthusiasm or 'can-do' attitude, but up-tempo spirits do NOT trump military reality. The war is being lost, and it is being lost badly. Leaving honourably is the last real option apart from fleeing dishonourably in 2 years when the situation is 5 times worse. Winning is, at this stage, simply not an option. Apart from flooding the country with drafted troops, what else can the US realistically do? And even that would meet with limited sucess I suspect.

No, your strawman is the only thing that's absurd. Maybe you can't fathom how it is that a belligerent in a war may be encouraged by the ongoing, festering divisions and lack of resolve among his enemies, but I think most people who have any understanding of how war works, or how human nature works, don't have any problem at all understanding it. The more attainable your goal appears to you, the more encouraged you're going to be to pursue it.

Likewise, the less attainable your goal appears to be, the more likely you're going to feel that the sacrifice isn't worth it, which is exactly the attitude you've been counseling in Iraq.


Wow, it's just so unlike you to put words in my mouth.

Anyway, I provided evidence that they're likely at odds with how the people of the district actually feel. Besides, I don't know why the burden's any more on me to show that they were staged than it is on you to show that they're genuine. Why does a thug like al-Sadr get the benefit of the doubt?


That's about as false a statement as has ever been made on this subject. This war effort has been subject to non-stop attack by the Dems and by the chattering classes in the media for quite some time now, and it just got used to whack the Republicans hard in an election. Are you really trying to argue that the only place that resolve or lack of resolve can be found is in the hands of those who happen to have the votes in Washington at a particular time? Maybe in a dictatorship that's the case, but not in the U.S. You'd have to have been living deep in a cave not to know that there's been a huge momentum building up against the war. And if you think that that nobody outside the country could ever have picked up on that - actually, I give you enough credit to say that you really don't think that. There's no possible way you could truly believe such a ridiculous notion.

It's funny, reading the last couple days, it seems everyone is accusing everyone else in almost every post of making a 'stawman' argument. Personally, I suggest you look up what that term means, because it certainly does not apply here.

Your last three posts you have taken every argument and put the cart before the horse. I must say it is... unusual.

You claimed the people were using the Iraq war as a plebicite on Bush Jr, when in fact the exact opposite is true, people are voting against Bush jr and his party because of the disasterous war.

You claim that the divisions and lack of resolve are causing the growth of our enemies, and yet the exact opposite is true, it is the complete and constant inability to defeat our enemy and prevent him from getting stronger day to day that makes most people (Democrat and Republican) now question this losing war.


You asnwered my specific comment with the generic, another thing I have seen from your posts a lot. Yes, of course I can understand how in general weakness among your enemies might strengthen you. I assert that has little application here, and your appeal to the general does not address my concerns. The insurgents do not watch C-Span, they do not follow the stump speeches of the various significant figures in both parties. They are fighting for very simple reasons, reasons which are familiar to every single insurgent throughut human history. They are fighting for their tribe, for their religion, they are fighting to remove an occupying foreign power, they are fighting for revenge against American atrocities, real or perceived. Pick one, or two, or all. They have all the incentive that they need on the ground in front of them.

The argument that 'division strengthens the enemy' has been used by hawks to try and silence dissent for eaons, it was certainly used in Vietnam, and it is being used now. What this argument ignores is the real situation on the ground, that NEEDS to be questioned and NEEDS to be addressed. Within two months the US will have reached 3000 dead and 25,000 casualties. In every imaginable measurable sense, the situation on the ground in Iraq is worse than it was 6 moths ago, and that is worse than it was a year ago.

You may choose to deny the war is lost, thats arguable. You cannot choose to deny the war is loosing, that is not arguable. So to pretend that now, after mismanagement, bad planning, poor decisions and idiotic assumptions on the part of the ruling party led us to where we are today, that the OPPONENTS bear the blame for 'inciting' the insurgents because they dare bring up the aforementioned stupidity, is laughable. Furthermore, when faced with the extent of their failure, the ruling party can suggest NO MEANS WHATSOEVER to improve the situation except s'stay the course', then it becomes the requirement, nay the patriotic duty of people to stand in opposition, to question and to try and come up with alternatives.

So I don't buy your argument, but here is the thing: EVEN IF you were right, and questioning the war somehow provides incentive to the insurgents, then its a necessary evil. Besides, the Insurgents don't get incentive freom the fact that most Americans THINK the insurgents are winning, they get incentive from the fact that they simply ARE winning, period.




What goal? As Bush Jr. has been moving the goalposts so much, it is impossible to know what goal you are talking about. After all, a couple years ago he stood on an aircraft carrier and told the world that his goals were accomplished.

So, would the goal be making the US a safer place? Failed: Al Qaeda is being left essentially alone and is now stronger than they ever have been. What then is the goal? Stable Iraq is essentially impossible, especially under the current non-government, even the President's national security advisor agrees with this as of two days ago.



What are you talking about? I responded exactly to your stated point. Drop the martyr complex.



Not even CLOSE. You presented a news report that disagrees with another news report. Don't pretend you have some deep psychic knowledge of what the people on the ground feel. Which returns me to my original ststement, unless you can prove your glib dismissal of the celebrations as being staged then drop it.



Oh come on. Firstly, 'Al Sadr' does not get the benefit of the doubt, unless he was the one who wrote the CNN news report. Secondly, why is the emphasis on you? I don't know, maybe because you brought up the point in the first place? That is how this sort of thing works. Thirdly, personally I have no idea which one is true, its possible BOTH are, Sadr city is a big place. The point is that the curfew WAS lifted by Maliki, upon the demand of Al-Sadr, proof again of the inability of the government to govern.



No, your interpretation of that statement is false. Come on Blackstone, you know very well what I meant. The party in power showed no lack of resolve, and the party out of power was powerless. Yet this complete resolve from the decisionmakers in the government under republican control led the US to where it is now. What was my entire point.

Pretending lack of resolve will lose the war is simply false, the war has been in the hands of the reuling party with no brakes on their power or resolve, and THEY lost it.

And yes, you are correct about one thing, there has been momentum building against the war. But why is it SO hard for some people to see that maybe, just MAYBE the reason for that is not the leftie-media or cowardice or treason or the poison of dissent or anything like that, but the fact that the war is a horribly bloody, insanely expensive complete and utter failure to date?


Honourable withdrawal (the point of this thread) is the only option right now. The Iraq government is a farce, they haven't LOST control, they never had it. The very article YOU cited states the same thing.

Disagree? Well there is one easy way to prove me wrong: suggest an alternative course of action. Oh and 'keep doing the same thing the US has been doing until now' isn't an option.

Great Repub talking points there Ted- with no factual basis to them, as usual- the will and equipment WAS there- at first- but because GWs admin really had no clue- there was never a "Clear Message" to anyone- and, oh, BTW- "cut and run" - um, October called- they want thier lame slogan back -

How do you propose to increase troop levels? Where you gonna get these magical troops?

There is also no honor in entering a war injustly- or through lies, bull headed nes, and wasting our troops lives on a fool's errand. To have honor, a country must exhibit honor- NOT from the troops, but from the onset of the war. The troops can be the best trained, most enlighted and freedom loving troops on the planet- but P poor planning will still lead those troops to dishonor.

Ted- can you prove ANYTHING you say- or back it up with real solutions? You offer NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to even counter the claim that our VERY PRESENCE is the reason they are "emboldened" in the first place.

Freeper-republican talking points and sloganeering are starting to get more and more stale, and more and more unbelievable, even by the US public in general.

Blackstone I must quibble with your use of the phrase "human nature." Like "common sense," I don't think it has any universal meaning. It looks "good" on the screen, but doesn't really enlighten us.

Sans a definition from you, use of the "human nature" adds nothing to this debate.

I'm just trying to make sure were all on the same page.

Actually I stated that people were viewing the question of where to go from here in Iraq as a plebescite on Bush. Reading is essential.


So the country was fully behind the war effort until it started going badly? That's not how I remember it. What you're describing is really just a chicken/egg effect. One feeds off the other.


And you're wondering why I used the term "strawman" to describe your strawmen. They don't have to peruse Howard Dean's speeches in order to know that we're divided on this issue. Are you really trying to argue that they have utterly no clue of the political situation here? That for all they know, the American people are 100% behind the effort and that there's no sign of faltering on our part?


If they're fighting to remove us then they're being illogical, because the insurgency is the reason we're still there. If they were to stop fighting, we'd have no reason left to be there.


How an argument allegedly gets used by someone has no bearing at all on how true it is. The argument that our soldiers have committed atrocities in Iraq has been used to justify horrible atrocities by the insurgents. That doesn't necessarily mean that none of our soldiers have ever committed atrocities.


Lots of things need to be questioned. Questioning strategy isn't what encourages the enemy. What encourages him is when we throw our hands up in the air and keep saying "we'll never make it, they're too strong for us, we should give up."


What specifically are you referring to? I'm aware that Mr. Hadley wrote to express doubts about Maliki personally - and I myself don't doubt that Maliki may be a significant part of the problem. But where did he say or write anything to the effect that a stable Iraq is essentially impossible?


Oh really? The other news report claimed that the celebrations were genuine?


I'm just chomping at the bit to see this CNN report which claims that these celebrations were genuine. But just in case you're jumping the gun slightly with this claim, I'd have to say it's a perfectly legitimate default assumption to say that they were staged. Sadr had the means and the opportunity, and it's very much a standard M.O. of cult-of-personality-type slimebags like him. This becomes even more likely in light of the NYT reporter's testimony, and in light of the fact that it's more than just a little counterintuitive that people would be genuinely celebrating the fact that their lives are once again in heightened danger.


So winning an election is a sign of powerlessness? I'm sorry, but there's just no way that argument's gonna fly. Again, things may be different in a dictatorship, but in our system, when public opinion is so lopsidedly arrayed against you, especially when egged on by the media, it's you who becomes powerless, even if you happen to hold the reins of power temporarily. No one's clueless enough to think that a vastly unpopular policy is going to hold sway indefinitely in the United States. The enemy knows that. They've known that ever since we cut and ran from Somalia. They also knew it from studying Vietnam.



And as with your objection to the use of "common sense", my answer is the same: unless you actually disagree with my point, then we have nothing to debate.

This is the type evasive answer I expected.

If you can't or won't define "human nature" then how does this phrase have any relevance to this debate. Without a definition, this is merely hollow rhetoric. Without some indication of what you mean by "human nature" how can I agree or disagree with your point?

Words deserve better treastment than you give them.

Thank you for your advice. Actually, if you insist on being semantic, you asserted that the question of whether or not victory and a military solution in Iraq was obtainable is being used as a plebiscite on Bush.

And as I answered, I think exactly the opposite is the case, that its the failure and lack of any viable military solution that reflects badly on Bush jr, a fact which was borne out by every poll taken before and after the election.



Firstly, no not the entire country, but a majority of it. A february 17th 2004 Gallup poll showed that 57% of Americans were in favour of invading Iraq, with only 38% opposed.

Now, 56% of Americans believe Bush jr made a mistake in invading Iraq, and 63% are in favour of bringing all US troops home within the next 12 months. So what made the difference here? What reversed the numbers? Is it the media and their evil habit of reporting the news? Or might it just be the real events that they are reporting which are making the difference?

We NOW know that the Iraq war made Al Qaeda stronger, weakened the war on Terror, was never actually connected to Al Qaeda at all, and has left 24,000 US casualties, cost about $600 billion US dollars, and has solved nothing whatsoever. The bloodshed in Iraq is worse than it has ever been, the insurgency is stronger day to day, and the Iraqi government is utterly powerless. I think it might just be THOSE facts that turned people against the war, rather than the media reporting those facts.

As I concluded my last post by saying: if you truly believe 'honourable withdrawal' is not a valid option, all you need do is suggest a better one. I not you did not do so.



Firstly, I suspect a lot of them have NO idea about the political situation in the US. Some do I'm sure. Secondly, no that’s not what I was arguing. I'm arguing their knowledge of the internal politics of the US is limited, but far more importantly, that they don't care. They are fighting the US for very simple practical reasons on the ground, same with every insurgency.

As I said (again) if they are getting a boost because they are winning, I suspect that boost comes simply because they realise they are winning, and they can see for themselves the ineffectiveness of the US forces, rather than the fact that some people back in the US might see the same facts and think the same thing.

Do you disagree? Do you think the US IS winning?




Then I repeat myself. Provide a better option. Failing that, then the fact that people are saying "we'll never accomplish our mission, they're too strong for us, we should withdraw" might just be true. Why is it so impossible for you to consider that very obvious likelyhood? The US is losing in Iraq, that isn't debatable. If you have a plan to turn that all around, one which is possible) then I'm all ears.

You said ‘previous use of an argument in an invalid manner does not invalidate it’. Well, that’s true enough. But it does bring the argument into question if used again in the same manner, and it does require that the argument be justified and evidenced. So have you any evidence that the strength of the Insurgency in Iraq waxes or wanes according to US popular opinion on the war? Any at all?



He didn't as I said. he said a stable Iraq under the current regime may be impossible. And considering the source, that pretty damning condemnation. As to making a stable Iraq possible full stop, well I personally think it is impossible, at least, Iraq as it exists now in the form the US desires. But like I said, its easy to prove me wrong, just tell me how the US can accomplish this miracle.



I disagree. I think given the polling date we have on the opinions of most Iraqis at the moment, it is quite legitimate to assume that they would cheer the US being forced to withdraw its presence by their militia leader. However thi point is moot. We each have a news report, we can't disprove the veracity of one or the other, so lets drop it. Besides, as I said in my last post (again) its irrelevant, the fact of the withdrawal itself is the significant issue as it shows clearly how incapable the Iraqi government is of governing.



Which would be a valid argument, if it were true. However as I have pointed out, the war was NOT a vastly unpopular policy at the beginning. Its only when it started to be revealed as a complete debacle that public opinion (quite rightly) switched against it. The media did not make the war fail and people turn against it, rather the war failed because of Bush Jr. and the administration, the media reported the failure, and thus the people turned against it. By the time the election came around, the war was obviously being lost, and no amount of right-wing pundits shouting "But they never report the GOOD news! We don’t HAVE any good news, and we can't give you any, but we're still blaming the 'Liberal' media..." could make a difference.

Its a pretty simple equation.
-Bush jr goes to war. People don't really understand, as they thought we were fighting Al Qaeda (remember those guys who attacked the US?) but they bought into the president's appeal and a majority went along with it.
-Bush Jr's pretexts for war all turn out to be false (lets assume errors rather than lies).
-Real enemy, Al qaeda, gets stronger due to Iraq war.
-Americans start dying a lot, money is being poured into a hole, Bush Jr gives up on any pretence of 'reconstructing' Iraq, the Insurgents get stronger and the new Iraq government fails even the most basic tests of governance.
-People turn against the war.

Thats it. Given the above facts, of COURSE people dissent, as I mentioned in my last post (again) given the situation it was their DUTY to dissent. But importantly, MOST importantly, the dissent was an effect, NOT a cause.


Blackstone Let me ask you this. If the poll numbers were back to 2003 ranges, if 60% of the people were STILL for the war, do you really think the war would be going any better? Would the number of attacks per day NOT be increasing every single day week after week? Would the Iraq government suddenly have the will and strength to govern? Would the Iraq police not be riddled with insurgents and actively helping the militia death squads? Would 24,000 US troops not be casualties of war?

[quote name='nebraska29' post='201789' date='Nov 25 2006, 11:45 PM']Questions for debate:

1.)Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?

I think the time for a military solution has long passed and is now only exacerbating the situation. From what I have read and from polls, it seems the majority of Iraqis consider the US military a foreign occupying force and they want the US to leave. The Iraqis are against being occupied and the longer the US stays the more the insurgency grows. So what do they have to do for the US to get the message? They voted and they did everything the US asked in the beginning. But all the promises of democracy and liberty are meaningless as long as their country is under occupation by a foreign military. I think it is time for the US respect the Iraqis wishes and pull out the military forces.

Perhaps a US presence could still be maintained in the area by a redeployment to the Arabian gulf and the Northern Kurdish areas as a staging area to send in air power and batallions if intense fighting broke out. But the military should not be used for policing and raiding like they have been.

I don't mind the idea of embedding a few troops and advisors within the Iraqi forces if it will make the US feel better. But other than that I don't think the presence of the US military should be dominant or even seen in the area. And as far as the US training of the Iraqi forces...IMO it has been ineffective and an absolute disaster. I wouldn't even consider that a valid excuse to stay.

The only way to find out if the US presence is causing the insurgent problem is to pull out and redeploy. How else can we ever really know?


3.)Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?

No, I don't think so. The US went into Iraq dishonorably, so any expectation of leaving honorably seems like an oxymoron. No matter how or when the US leaves, the insurgents who for all intent are the Iraqis themselves are going to claim it as a victory at driving the US forces out, no matter what.

IMO, the whole idea of being able to leave honorably was Kissingers and it didn't work in Vietnam, so what ever makes him or us think it would work again? History has shown that more troops were killed in Vietnam after Kissingers plan for honorable withdrawal, than during the entire war previous. Now here we are again, with Kissinger secretly advising Cheney for the last two years. Shouldn't that clue us in as to what to expect?

Now this is an evasive answer. My point was not hard to understand at all, and there's nothing esoteric about the words I used. If you truly don't understand what I wrote, then I'm sorry, but I'm satisfied that it's clear enough to most people who read it. So the only issue left as far as I'm concerned is whether or not anyone disagrees with it.



Bearing in mind that "for the war" doesn't necessarily mean for Bush's handling of it (the whole point I'm making here), I think it would improve the chances of it going better. The whole strategy of the anti-American elements in the Arab world is based on the idea that they can hold out longer than we can. Saddam Hussein said it in the run-up to the first Gulf War. Bin Laden drew that conclusion from the Black Hawk Down incident. It's a recurring meme among them that we're too decadent to hold out for a long fight.

Also, as I said above, opposition in America gets amplified by opposition in Europe. I've heard European opponents of the war justify their position by pointing out how controversial it is "even" in America. So it just feeds on itself. And that gives rise to a similar meme: that the administration is just out to dominate and impose, and cares nothing of freedom; that the very goals are disreputable, not merely that we've picked a bad way of pursuing them. Those notions aren't lost on the Iraqis either, which makes it that much harder to get them to see things our way.

And given that Bush Jr HAS been handling the war, and that his handling of the war has led to the current situation, I don't think it is possible to separate the two. Being for the war if Bush hadn't been handling it is an interesting academic excersise, but it is practically irrelevant. Its like being in favour of the war, if the Shia's were not fighting back.

Even if you accept that the principle behind the initial invasions was a good one (which leads to the question, which principle, exactly?) one cannot ignore the reality on the ground now, and that is that EVEN IF there were good motives for going to war (which I do not accept) then they have been long abandoned in the relentless casualty and budgetary figures and the increasing toll of misery that is being extracted from this country. The war is what it is, and it is being lost.

To put it another way, it doesn't matter who got us into this mess and why, wheither it was Bush because God told him to, or Pelosi and Ted Kennedy's fault (as Ted seems to assert on the board from time to time). What matters is that the war is being lost on the ground. Is it being lost in the media back home as well? maybe. I don't think so personally, but it is arguable. But it IS being lost on the ground in Iraq, and that fact is inescapable.

Which returns me to my twice-launched challenge. If you think Honourable withdrawl is such a bad option, all you need to do is propose a better one...




Well, aren't their comments true? This war, which was unpopular outside of the US since its beginnings for clear and obvious reasons, is now umpopular in the US for the very same reasons. Nobody in the US would ever admit this of course, but France was right all along. So using the truth doesn't seem like too atrocious a 'justification' if you ask me...



Well, since the Administration never made its goals very clear, or at least kept shifting them as their old 'goals' were dispriven by fact, you can understand the uncertainty of many. Again, this is the fault of the administration.

I mean seriously, how are the Amearican people SUPPOSED to get behind a costly war, when none of them are even sure why they are fighting it? Is it to counter world terrorism? (Turned out to be false) To remove WMDs? (Turned out to be false) to free a people who would welcome the US with open arms? (Turned out to be false)

How are the American people supposed to believe when they don't even know what to believe? You one stated on this thread you believed the main reason to stay in Iraq was to control the growth of Al Qaida in Iraq. But Al Qaida internationally has grown and prospered as a direct result of the war.

Can you blame people for questioning? For arguing? For blaming the administration? In past wars the theme of 'what are we dying for' was a popular one, even in song: here it is a literal honest question.

If you don't want Honourable withdrawal Blackstone Then please tell us all clearly WHAT the value of US troops staying and dying in Iraq is, and WHAT they are dying for.




Maybe, thats an assertion either way. But I still maintain that as motivation goes, US bombs killing people, Abu Graib and similar atrocities and the presence of occupying forces in their country is incentive enough. To assert that opposition to the war is in any significant part based on the political situation in the US is, well...quite an assertion.

Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?

We've already got our "military victory". We successfully, if illegally, invaded the country, overthrew its leadership, slaughtered thousands of its innocent citizens, and accomplished our original mission of eliminating all those weapons of mass destruction. Establishing a stable democracy is not a military problem, it is a political problem - and there is no possible military "victory" in this regard.

Explain how increasing troop levels will or will not delay the possible likelihood of the Iraqi government falling flat on its face.

Any "democratic" Iraqi system that attempts to govern the territory over which Saddam Hussein held sway is destined to fail. The only possible solution to the Iraqi problem is - as it always has been - partition. The presence of American troops will only delay the inevitable.

Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?

Absolutely not. We entered Iraq dishonorably - as war criminals. There is no honor whatsoever in the entire enterprise and never can be. We will remain war criminals until the last American soldier has left Iraqi soil - and there is no way on God's earth to regain such honor lost.

As far as human nature goes, I don’t know any group of people that have derived joy from living in a war torn country really, as far as happiness or bliss is considered really. I also don’t understand how the American public is to sit by and be "happy" while our troops face what seems to be the same battle day to day, without there ever being some battle to break the cycle. I personally don’t blame them, and I don’t know how you should either. No one is against the troops really, war to war popularity of our armed forces goes up and down like a stock market, I think the problem is really that Americans no longer see in Iraq what was originally sold to them, and why would this occur, whose shoulders would that fall on? The only person I could look to or people would be the bush party, after all they did sell us the war on various angles and well it did not come to life in reality. Bush may think he is a strong leader, but really, what’s the reality of it.

As for leaving honorably, how would you do that, say sorry for what you did, dump some money in there lamps and leave? Or stay until no point really exists for such anymore and the nation is a smoking crater full of corpses?

Among all of this, which could truly make a long post, is what, our dear leader talking about defeating an ideology of hate and be optimistic, wow, my confidence in now glowing. The high school football pep speeches really got old years ago, but I guess staying the course applies to a great many things in the life of the W.


Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?

No. Not enough troops from the start running a really really bad plan.

Explain how increasing troop levels will or will not delay the possible likelihood of the Iraqi government falling flat on its face.

I don’t think nothing short of moving large amounts of the American public to Iraq would bring any halt to something that has already occurred really, the sectarian violence just takes a new face in Iraqi politics.

Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?

What a relative term, and no we cant.

Victory is a point of view. Nothing more.

People speak of victory when often they have no clue what they are talking about. Most wars through out history have been fought to bloody stale mate and the 'victor' is usually just the last one standing. Sure there is always a winner, but what does this word mean in the modern sense of fighting a war? Who wins a war any more? The last soldiers in theatre? The generals? The politicians? The arms dealers?

Yes it is possible to win in Iraq. You simply declare yourself the winner and leave. Its that easy. Lots of people will call the USA a war criminal for what has happened in Iraq, but none of them that any viable alternative to the problems posed by Saddam Hussein. Most of them would have let him carry on raping murdering and generally being extremely unpleasant.

As always it is left to the tyrants to do what has to be done whilst the pacifists stand in the safety of their enclaves and scream abuse at their own.


They will make no difference what so ever. It would be better for the USA to withdraw from Iraq and prepare itself for the next war... because there will be another war, of that I am in no doubt. Global war is coming and I have no doubt where the blame will rest for it when it happens, no matter what the truth of the matter is.

The government of Iraq is up to the people of Iraq and they have been given a golden opportunity. If they choose to waste it on in fighting. Big deal. Let them. Its their problem and their responsibility, not any one else's.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy and now he is defeated. If another enemy arises (and one surely will) then they will have to be destroyed as well.


Again, what is honour? An out dated concept which was used through out history to placate tyrants and murdering thugs and fool innocent men to go out and die for their masters.

There is no such thing as 'honour' beyond the individual. It can't be found in such things as war, nor in sacrifice nor in pacifism. Except in personal integrity, it is a trick of the quick to fool the gullible. Human beings are ignorant, stupid liars who will gladly slaughter each other in the name of their trivial belief's. and then use words like 'victory' and 'honour' in order to justfy what they did. The world would be a far better place if people were more honest about why they were killing each other.

Every thing we are was born from warfare. Democracy, science, education, medicine, even most of our art. It is all born of and feeds upon war and always will and always has. This computer I am writing this post with was born from the greatest conflict humanity has yet witnessed. Its forebears were built to break the codes to hunt down u boats in the freezing sea's. Hundreds of thousands of men died as a result and today I can write in the safety and warmth of my flat in a city that was once liberated from the same people who invented the rockets that put the satelites into space so that I could use a wireless internet connection or cell phone

Where is the 'honour' in any of it? There is none. There is only the fighting which must be done in order that each generation can survive and have a fighting chance against their enemies also.

America has done its job in Iraq and should pull out and leave the Iraqi's to their own ends. They obviously want a civil war, so let them. People in th ewestern media keep saying we 'owe it to the Iraqi's to stay', but I disagree entirely We don't owe these people any thing. If anything they owe us. Our soldiers fought and died to liberate them and they don't even take advantage of the boon except to start their own petty wars.

How many places on Earth have screamed for liberation? Begged to be set free? How many millions have not died under the rule of cold blooded tyranny for want of a liberating army to save them? Here is a country that has had that golden chance denied to so many and yet they have utterly failed to grasp it. They will choose war instead. They will turn to their religion for answers and in answer their religion will condemn them to slavery and death and they will remain pious despite it all.

Well that is their choice as a people and it has nothing to do with us, not America, nor the UK, nor tiny little Denmark. Our interests are not served by having our men and women die in Iraq for the sake of a people who are to far gone to appreciate or understand the opportunity they are throwing away.

Not only that, it's absolutely not what I said (surprise, surprise). But what's not merely academic is being for the war without necessarily being for the way he's been handling it. Not the same thing at all as what you're saying.


Regardless of whose fault it is, it doesn't alter the fact that this disunity is causing harm on the ground in Iraq. However, the administration's goal for quite some time has been clear enough: to keep Iraq stable enough so that groups like al-Qa'ida can't do to it what they did to Afghanistan. Now you can argue if you want about the success or lack thereof in achieving that goal, or that you disagree with the method we've chosen of pursuing it, but that doesn't mean the goal itself hasn't been made clear.


As I stated before, if the Iraqis truly are fighting merely to rid themselves of an occupying force, then they're being illogical, because if they were to stop fighting, we'd have no reason to stay. But I don't think Sunnites and Shiites are killing each other in such large numbers in order to get rid of us. As I've pointed out many times before, the presence of a common enemy tends to unite warring factions. If anything, I'd have to conclude that the reason they're killing each other has more to do with the uncertainty surrounding the future of our presence there. They very likely figure they can't rely on us for protection, so they form their own militias, and strike against their enemies before their enemies hit them.

Regardless of your FEELINGS blackstone- you have not offered one iota of concrete proof of your feelings- while Vermillion has given you scads of stats, numbers, increases in violence- everthing- do you have some kind of evidence of the feelings you are putting down in the last post?

Your "feelings" is that they are fighting each other - If anything, I'd have to conclude that the reason they're killing each other has more to do with the uncertainty surrounding the future of our presence there.

Vermillion has provided evidence that they are fighting because of our presence there- but you have offered no evidence in return?

I think you are missing an important subleity here- that the anti-US forces there are EXPLOITING the divisions there, that are excacerbated by US precense there.

I started a thread about what the definition of victory is there- how about responding to that one, so I can see what that definition of victory is- because, though you say the administration;s definition is "to keep Iraq stable enough so that groups like al-Qa'ida can't do to it what they did to Afghanistan"- though, that was never the definition communicated.

A definition of what a victory even is would be nice- not some intangible "everything is peaches and roses now, we can leave".

As I have said in Iraq threads much earlier our lack to be able to control the situation makes us look weak to them, and if we cant protect them maybe they should protect themselves? I mean far be it from me to point to the hordes of people moving into the green zone because they thought it was safe there. I still don’t see how we are going to change this overall though, and the idea of staying the course would be accepting this reality for however long. As for them being united against us, last time I checked our intelligence on the insurgency isn’t the greatest, or I think we would be making larger leaps in progress overall in combating such on any level, be it political, social or militarily. So to say that the insurgency is not a product of a any particular group in Iraq would be a bit of a fallacy right on that alone. As far as I know I don’t think all the attacks on U.S forces is the product of a foreign terrorist body operating in Iraq, I could be wrong though.

While going over all of this, the thing that strikes me is how none of this was thought up before it occurred. I will not claim to be the smartest person in the world, or even close, but even with my limited knowledge on the subject I knew Iraq was going to be a Vietnam before we even went in, I also knew on a social/cultural level that such was going to be much more complex then what was being sold to our people, I also had more faith in many other sources then this administration and over time my assumptions on that have proved to be true.

This lack of solid planning in my opinion is what has fostered the modern environment in Iraq, and now our plan really is what? We don’t have one. Any threat of a terrorist takeover in Iraq is one we produced, and now we have to keep Iraq a war zone to attempt to keep us safer? How I ask is some nice little peaceful democratic nation going to be spawned from Iraq anymore? TO move in and engage militias then would to be taking on large chunks if not the fabric of the various cultures of Iraq, we would be fighting civilians at that point and in regards to your post for reasons we aided in creation of, and I can point to the Palestinians living in what kind of a condition and still fighting, and boy that sure has helped stabilize the middle east and stop terrorism. This whole war is a terrible mess that is going to cost us far more then it will ever have protected us from.

This will be the third time you have accused me of that, followed by the third time I go back, cite your exact words and show that My answer was perfectly fine. I presume this will be the third time you then drop the point having been shown to be in error.



So please your comment is not another excersise in semantics, then please demonstratw how your intent differed substantively from my response.



Two things. Firstly, as I have said repeatedly, it is NOT a fact that disunity at home is making things harder, it is an assertion by you, with no real evidence to support it. The two are quite different.

Secondly, I fmust disagree with you, I do NOT think this has been the administration's clearly stated goal, in fact I'm not even sure it is the administration's goal at all, let alone their clearly elucidated one. For it to have been a goal, would one not suppose they should have been planning towards that goal? Yet the clear lack of planning for anything that happened since the 'Mission Accomplished' speech is hardly secret. Even if that really IS the goal, I certainly disagree that this has been 'made clear' as the primary goal of the occupation. I would ask you to cite a speech maybe, or a public statement, perhaps a state of the Union, anywhere where Bush Jr makes clear that THAT is the goal of the occupation forces. Certanly they would like a stable Iraq, but they would also like a free and democratic Iran. Wanting something and planning towards it as a specific policy goal are very different things.



Well, firstly I don't really accept that. Given the wide nature, causes and reasons behind the violence, some of it , as you say, would occur wheither the US was there or not. Part of it however is directed at the US as an occupying force, and one that has has some pretty dodgy events to its name. Many people are fighting for revenge of damage done by the US to them.

And secondly, and more importantly, yes, part of the resistance probably IS illogical. But thats hardly unusual in these situations, AND it also presupposes that the insurgents in question believe that the US would just up and leave if things got quieter.


Regardless, as I have stated now half a dozen times, none of this alters the fact that because of Bush jr's handling of the war, there are really no alternatives LEFT but as honourable a withdrawal as posible. I agree mind you with one thing Moif said, and thats the artificiality of 'honour', so let us just say a clean withdrawal. If you disagree, all you have to do (still) is simply suggest a better alternative.




Actually I disagree, in the end of almost all modern wars, there is a winnder (someone who has had all their pre-war goals met) and a loser (somebody who has not). The only modern war I can think of which defies this is Korea. Now, it is not uncommon for the loser to cry 'victory', but this is usually blatantly transparent.

As you say, there is nothing stopping the US from claiming victory and departing, but who do you think would actually buy that? That is simply an 'Honourable withdrawl' hiding behind a dishonourable lie.



You mean as opposed to the infinitely better status quo? Bad action turned out to be worse than no action, and in fact there were alternatives, alternatives the world community was working towards, alternatives Bush Jr deliberately sabotaged and went ahead on his own, 'damn the torpedoes'.




That's an... odd statement. I don't really know what to make of it one way or the other.




Forgive me, but thats both fascile, and a bit cruel to the Iraqi people. I'm sure Baathists aside, almost all of them genuinely relished the overthrow of Saddam. Its not like they all decided to just screw themselves over. Rather, they all had very different ideas about what Post-saddam Iraq would look like, incompatable ideas.


Pretending this is all the fault of the miserable Iraqis who threw away the golden opportunity offered them by the US is horribly pretentious, and ignores the fact that people all over the planet were telling Bush Jr exactly what would happen in Post war Iraq AND how to mitigate it, and they were all ignored. There is plenty of blame to go around here.

I don't think that is the proper conclusion. These groups have been fighting against each other for a couple thousand years...our presence there is a small insignificant blip. This is precisely why, in fact, getting them to cooperate has proven so difficult. I would contend that the fact that they almost did would indicate the positive impact of our presence there, at least initially. Also, the vast majority of the violence has been directed not at us, but at other Iraqi's. If anything, we're either a buffer or in the way. To put it another way...do you really think that if we left, the violence would just stop? If indeed it is due to our presence, that should be the expected outcome, but I'd be willing to wager almost anything that that is not what would happen at all.

As for the debate question, I contend that leaving honorably is irrelevant. What we need to do is find a way to leave that is as successful as possible. Success and honor are not necessarily related at all, and success is far far more important.

Just for the record, are you saying there's no substantive difference between desiring a different handling of the war, and desiring a different person to do the handling?


You haven't provided much evidence against it either. You agreed earlier with the general observation that division in the ranks among one belliegerent in the war strengthens the other. So given that principle that operates in general, I'd think some specific evidence would be necessary to show why that's not the case in this particular instance. The most you've done is come up with other reasons for why they're emboldened to fight. But the presence of other reasons wouldn't negate this one. So you haven't really dealt with my arguments. You've just airily brushed them aside.


Well, all I can do is quote from the horse's mouth:

Now, does this leave you with any confusion as to what the stated goal here is? I'm not asking you if you think the President is sincere, or if he's been going about it in the right way, or anything at all like that. I'm just asking if you think his stated position here is clear and understandable.


As for the first point, I'm glad we agree that at least some noticeable portion of the violence has nothing to do with us. As to the second, I agree that war crimes need to be prosecuted and punished. As for other reasons for their anger, if there are legitimate reasons, we should be willing to discuss it with them openly.


Well, then maybe one change in strategy should be to do whatever we can to make it clear that that indeed would happen in that event.



I've seen this stated a lot, and it has me curious. From what quick searches of Iraqi history I was able to do, I haven't come across any major references to serious violence between Shiites and Sunnites. Iraq had a constitutional monarchy shortly after independence from Britain between the World Wars, but the violence that wracked the country that resulted in dictatorship was mostly political, not religious/sectarian. So I wonder if this isn't just one of those things that get repeated so much that they become "accepted fact", with little to actually support them.

If both arguments are retroactive, then no there is no difference. they are both academic. The war is what it is now, and the handling of the war has left Iraq in such a terrible state that there are no other options.

Any kind of past-tense 'what-if' is interesting to be sure, but nothing more than an academic excersise, and with no relevance to what is now to be done in Iraq.



That's an interesting spin on my words. What I in fact said was that in general, in conflicts, divisions or disunity in one party can lead to an increase in morale of the other, I believe my exact words were: I can understandhow in general weakness among your enemies might strengthen you. However, that is case by case as you well know, and as I have stated all along, there is NO lack of HUGE, enormous reasons for Iraqis to fight, right there, on the ground. If you are saying that divisions in the US are not just A factor, but are a MAJOR factor, so much so that the Insurgency would decrease if the divisions in the US decreased, well then that is a MIGHTY assertion indeed, and you need to support it. With something.

Besides, as I already spelled out, for a lot of the war the majority of Americans were still for the war, yet at that time the attacks per day were still increasing, the death toll was mounting and the Insurgency was gaining strength. That shouldn't have been the case if your assertion were factual.



To be fair, what I have 'airily brushed aside' is your repeated assertion, the one. Not your 'arguments'.



So... your evidence that this is the clearly stated goal of the United States in this war... is a radio address from THREE YEARS into the war in which he generally alludes to the value of a stable democracy in Iraq, as well as several other things, and never ones states this is A goal of his war, let alone THE goal?

I think you might need to do a bit better than that. generally if a war has a specific, clearly stated goal (as you said this is) it gets high speaking time, used in sound-bites, state of the union, not an obscure brief radio address more than three years after the war was launched.

While you are looking for that, perhaps you can answer these questions about this 'clear stated goal'.
-When did it become the goal? It obviously wasn't the goal in 2003, as the best way to accomplish that goal was NOT to invade. So at what point did this BECOME the clearly stated goal of Bush Jr?
-How did he announce this change of policy? Do you have the original statement when he declared this was the new goal of the US forces in Iraq? I assume, if this was the clearly stated goal, it would be echoed by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the like...


As I said... several times now, if 'Honourable Withdrawl' is not an optio in Iraq, then all you or anyone else need do is suggest a better alternative. And I would hurry, cause its getting worse every day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16050594/



http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/gates-hearing.html

1.)Is victory and a proper military solution unattainable? Why or why not?
It's not our fight to win or lose. It's the Iraqi's country and they want us out of there.

2.)Explain how increasing troop levels will or will not delay the possible likelihood of the Iraqi government falling flat on its face
I don't mind helping to train and equip Iraqi government troops at adequate levels. But why more American troops? We can give them the tools but ultimately they have to provide the will.

3.)Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?
We didn't come in honorably so it is a little late to talk about an honorable leaving. We left Vietnam and Somalia under less than honorable circumstances and I think it was a good thing in both cases. The trick is to leave with the least negative after-effects. Forget the honor.

As to how, at the very least we talk to all the nations surrounding Iraq and try to cooperate on achieving stability in that region as we pull our troops out on a time table. I wouldn't assume some secretly want to have instability, even if their name is Iran and Syria. An instability that can spill over into your country is not something usually encouraged by neighboring nations.

Then of course international involvement should be encouraged as fully as possible. If the insurgents stop getting support from the outside I assume in short order most of the insurgency would collapse.