We hear little in the mainstream media about the cost and consequences of losing the war in Iraq and allowing the terrorists and insurgents to “win”.

Joe Lieberman put it this way.
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Speaking from Baghdad on his fourth trip to Iraq since July, Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Wednesday said failure in Iraq would be "catastrophic" for the United States and the entire Middle East, and that U.S. forces should not pull out before Iraqi forces are fully trained.
"The two extremes that are often described by different people here ... is that everything is going fantastic here in Iraq or that the country is about to collapse. In my opinion, neither one is true," he told CNN. "We are somewhere in between."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/23/liberman.iraq/

So questions for the debate

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?

2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere?

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?
We've already failed or didn't some folks notice? Yes they have elections and relative freedom of speech but with no security and massive ethnic-religious killing who much cares. And the Jihadists are primarily there because we opened the door to them and keep recruiting and supplying them.

Joe has been wrong from the getgo. Why not start listening to somebody who has been right for a change?

2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere?
Temporarily, but if we divert some of the money we are spending in Iraq to rounding up Osama and his associates then their celebration would not be long lasting.

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?
How much oil are we getting from Iraq now? Money we're spending in Iraq would be available to invest in becoming energy self-sufficient.

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?
They could come here now. What would our pulling out of Iraq have to do with it?

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?
This has been my biggest complaint with the pro-Bush/Iraq crowd. I'm frankly surprised that a jihadi hasn't walked into the Mall of the Americas with a TNT vest, and desired to meet Allah sooner rather than later. Our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan or Djibouti or Somalia or The Phillipines or Khazakstan or (fill in the blank) has not drawn would be jihadi's from the US towards those other locations or into Iraq. No one has realistically exchanged their United ticket to NY and changed it to Damascus just to fight us over there.
There is absolutely no credibility to the argument that if we pull out of Iraq, that they will come hunt us down in Walmart of Starbucks.
To believe that is to only foster a micro outlook. I do believe, however that to not engage jihadis on some sort of field of battle, would embolden more attacks on our homeland. That is a macro outlook, but one I'm not prepared to attribute to Iraq. We may have invaded Iraq in the beliefs of WMD, but we never invaded Iraq to fight fundamental Islam.

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?
Assuming that the surge strategy fails, then the cost will be the failure of a democratic Iraq, and the prestige and morale of our military. None of which is worth a substantial number of American lives.
As for Joe..........he is a republicrat.....who really cares what he says?

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?

There will be no cost and rather quite the opposite. We will no longer be spending fantastic sums there.

The goals in Iraq have been unrealistic. Iraq has a chance to have a more free society than before. It is up to them to progress. It will take generations.

2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere?

The main effect on terrorists will be that they will need to cross an ocean to get to Americans instead of us delivering Americans to the middle east. The idea of emolden is purely speculative.

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?

It may. However, the money spent on the war would be much better invested in research into alternative energy sources. If energy costs are the rationale for our involvement in Iraq, we have made a poor choice in investing money. Four hunderd billion would buy equipment and materials and would pay the salaries of many scientists towards the goal of making the United States energy self sufficient.

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?

I expect as fewer American targets are available in the middle east, some the terrorist will decide to come here.

--------

Lieberman's comments are based on a misguided belief that the United States can fix anything. He has a fanciful delusion as to what is possible in Iraq. His use of "catastrophic" is extreme. He is not realistic. His judgment is poor.

So you feel the US has done nothing to secure us from harm and it has been a combination of dumb luck and complaceny by the Jihadis that has kept us safe these past few years?

I don't mean that as a snark... You can think that I'm just trying to understand you.

I most certainly feel that our presence in Iraq has done nothing, absolutely nothing to deter any jihadi from attacking us here on US soil.
I do not posses any explaination as to why we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. Maybe it is simply complacency. Maybe jihadi's, like so many other cultures, have much more patience than we do, and are simply biding their time. Maybe our offensive in Afghanistan has disrupted AQ to the point where they must regroup and re-constitute. Maybe our efforts in the financial interdiction arena have borne fruit. Maybe there are other classified efforts that have yet to come to light. But there has been no public correlation between that lack of attack, and our presence in Iraq.
To truly believe that such a relationship exists, one would need some sort of proof.

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - that we are doing to prevent terrorists from entering our country. Our borders are wide open and George Bush favors giving those people - regardless if they are Mexican or Arab - amnesty. I can't fathom how a Bush supporter can look at the situation and not realize they've been suckered. Stirring the hornet's nest in the middle east while leaving our borders unprotected is like welding without a mask: it defies common sense.

The Muslim extremists would rather us fight them in the middle east rather than here because they can hide in the general population in the middle east. They can't do it as easy here. They know that if they launched major aggression on our soil, there would be 200 million rednecks with guns willing to take out anybody who looks like a threat. We do not shelter these types of people like they do in the middle east.

The Muslim extremists can't beat us militarily, but they are beating us politically. Much of the world hates us much more than them. We are the aggressors and they are the freedom fighters. They just need to do enough damage to us to be relevant. They don't need to do that here and they don't need to do a lot of it. Look how much they milked 9/11. We're still going around the world bat<crap> crazy acting like scared lunatics 6 years later. They should be able to squeeze a few more years out of this nonsense before actually having to do anything.

If we left Iraq now, we could use all that money and resources to secure our borders and send our troops to confront true sponsors of terror - like...I don't know...Saudi Arabia maybe. The "mission" has been accomplished long ago. Saddam Hussein does not have WMD and is not a threat to his neighbors. Mission accomplished - now go home.

People like me are commonly referred to as anti-war when in fact, I am very much pro war when it comes to the war on terror. The difference between me and my counterparts is I'm smart enough to know that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam Hussein was a lot of things, but a state sponsor of terrorism wasn't one of them. Regardless of all the "Well, Clinton said! Well, Kerry said!" quotes, it was clear just before Bush pulled the inspectors out of Iraq to launch an invasion (well after all those quotes), WMD couldn't be found. Bush was authorized to go to war once inspections failed (which they didn't) and he built a coalition much like Bush 41 did (which he didn't).

Finally, I don't buy that whole "trustworthy terrorist" rhetoric. Meaning, I don't believe there is a leader in the world that would give somebody that is crazy enough to kill an unlimited amount of innocent people the power to destroy his own country. One thing all leaders - crazy or not - want: to remain in power. Giving someone the tools to either use them against you for more political gain and/or cause your annialation (e.g. Al Qaida tells Iran, "Give us money and power or we'll use the WMD easily traced back to you and make sure you get nuked") defies logic as well. It's never happened because leaders of countries aren't as suicidal as our government wishes us to believe.

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?

If we were so concerned about the cost of defeat or to embolden our enemies why did we bail in Somalia after Blackhawk down. I mean that is what people are looking for right the existence of an event that proves that the U.S can be beaten or what not. If I remember correctly just about everybody demanded that Clinton pull out of Somalia, primarily republicans but I am sure that has more to do with politics as usual then some objective analysis of conflict and peace. If we are so worried about that signal well we already sent it a long time ago, and I think we send it by not putting full focus on crushing the people behind 9-11 and instead destabilizing the mideast with a mismanaged war that should have never occurred. My guess is the next president will win on the ticket of bring the troops home, and my next bet is Iraq will be a bloody mess for a very long time after that and that our troops may not have the time to unpack.

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?


We simply need to get off of oil. it’s a finite energy supply that of course everyone is going to want. This is not going to be positive overall more so giving the concept of peak oil. The other idea is that of course hydrocarbon usage is truly bad for the environment and we should make changes to get off of it now because its just going to be that much worse later in the game.


4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?

Well giving the fact that the people behind 9-11 took so much time to conduct an attack while we were not in the grips of the WOT I would think it a rather safe assumption that such people are constantly looking to cause high degrees of devastation to us. I also don’t see any connection to Iraq as much as the fact that like mr.bush said it would draw them to fight us, it does not mean they would simply stay there, and most likely its probably growing them, also that nations like Saudi Arabia have terrorists coming from them, like all over the world pretty much destroyed in my eyes the impact a democratic Iraq would have ever held on stopping terrorism anyways.

What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?

I do feel things would be worse, I have made my arguments for this elsewhere on the board. I think if we look to elsewhere in the region we can get a pretty good idea as to how things usually play out when we are not there in person to assert our demands. Lebanon is a good example. As is Israel's constant violent existence.

I think some of the major instant consequences would be Turkey taking a more aggressive action into Northern Iraq, Iran exerting greater regional control, KSA getting even more heavily involved believing it needed greater defense and Israel becoming increasingly paranoid. I do feel it would all go down in Iraq as that is how they do things over there, using weaker states to stage their proxy wars. Again see Lebanon.

Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?
Well it would throw some imbalance into the oil economy. Who would gain control over Iraq' s oil reserves if we were to depart too early?
But I do not think that ought to be our most pressing cause , the human toll if we were to leave would be great, again look to past regional wars, like the Iraq-Iran war for examples of how little life means to the Islamic Republic when pursuing strategic wins on the battlefield ...
After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies
link

Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?

I am not sure what this is addressing, we already have seen terrorists strike in the US, without any troops in Iraq. Do I believe we would see more attacks if we were to leave Iraq? Well I suppose there is a good chance that if you were to hand over one of the oil rich nations on earth to our enemies that they would have a greater amount of resources for waging their war with us. They did it with poppies before, imagine what they could do with barrels of black gold.

Now I do not think that the entire Iraqi state would become OBL's headquarters but again I think if you look to the region you will see that weak, war tired govt's are heavily exploited by regional terrorist regimes and that Iraq would likely become a state within a state of many messed up states.

The logic as I have herd it is - The AQ folks need a MAJOR attack to follow 9/11 and feel that small “TNT vest” attack will show that they can no longer kill Americans by the thousands, and are therefore weak.

And of course we are more alert and have stopped major attacks since 9/11.

Arms dealer of Indian origin held in US missile smuggling plotIn-Depth Coverage
By Ellen Wulfhorst
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. authorities arrested three people on Tuesday in a sting operation that foiled a plot to smuggle a missile into the United States that could be used to shoot down a commercial airliner, officials said.
One suspect, a British citizen, was arrested in Newark, New Jersey, trying to smuggle the Russian-made surface-to-air missile into the country. Two others were arrested in New York, officials in Washington said.
The Briton believed he was selling missiles to would-be terrorists, but he was nabbed in the international sting by the FBI, British and Russian authorities, officials said.
The man is an established arms dealer, thought to be a middle-aged man of Indian origin, who lives in London, it said.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, which first reported the story with ABC News, said the suspect was a British arms dealer who successfully imported a Russian Igla missile into the United States and believed he was selling it to a Muslim extremist.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...smuggling01.htm

OK, I can grant the above as a given. But where is the correlation between what you posted and our presence in Iraq? How can what you posted be attributed to a perspective that we have kept or lured terrorists to Iraq as opposed to the US.

The terrorists themselves have said this and this implies (to me) that if they were not facing us in Iraq/Afghanistan (and have not given up) they would be facing us elsewhere. Bin Laden himself has said he plans to hit the US mainland.

This from 2006:
Jan. 20, 2006 — Security is being stepped up across the country today after the release of a new audiotape in which Osama bin Laden threatens to attack the U.S. homeland
He has renewed his threats against the United States," said FBI Assistant Director John Miller, who once interviewed bin Laden as a reporter for ABC News. "He has renewed his threats to have an attack on U.S. soil."

And this latest on Iraq
"In his latest speech, Bush said in his ramblings that he would send 20,000 of his soldiers to Iraq. I ask him: why send only 20,000 soldiers? Why don’t you send 50,000 or 100,000?" he said.
"Don’t you know that the dogs of Iraq are impatient to devour the carcasses of your soldiers? On the contrary, you must send your entire army to be annihilated at the hands of the mujahedeen so that the whole world will be rid of your wickedness."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2561973,00.html


Obviously “luring more terrorist to Iraq” is not the reason we went there. WND and unfulfilled resolutions was.

Nope Ted, still not buying it. Your presumption that if we pulled out of Iraq, the chance of terror attacks would increase here at home, still doesn't have any factual basis behind it. Bin Laden's threats against our homeland aren't (in his own words) contingent on whether or not we remain in Iraq.
If/when we pull out of Iraq, Al Qeada fighters are far more likely to migrate to Afghanistan and continue the struggle there. Any current or future plans to attack the US wouldn't be affected by our withdrawl. If anything, current discontent with AQ by Sunni and Shia nationalists would degrade 'Al Qeada in Iraq', immediately after our departure.

I tend to agree. I do feel it would free up more people/money but the real threat we face if everything goes to hell in a hand basket in Iraq is to our interests in the region. If the terrorists get Iraq or part of it we are in trouble. And if the conflict widens and effects our oil supply it could do hundreds of billions in damage to our 12 trillion dollar economy.

Although AQ is ultimately a loosely affiliated organization with some independently operating cells, it still has organization with resources. It's not a matter of "changing my ticket to Iraq" it's a simple matter of resource allocation. If I put a certain amount of resources here obviously that drains the resources for other ventures. So with pouring money into Iraq that leaves less money for other operations.

I disagree with you on points but agree with you on the whole.

I do think the US Gov is actively doing things to keep terrorist out of this country. I think some of them are shady and other are not. I really, truly, believe the NYT should not report them just because they can. I do. I realize that's probably unpopular here but I think that freezing bank accounts and using phone records to make correlations should still be happening and I'd prefer it be done in secret.

The strategy of Iraq has little to do with many of the things people think it has to do with. It's really about being in the dead center of the ME and showing force. While you may point to 3000+ US deaths, of which 1 was too many for this, the Jihadis point to hundreds of thousands of Muslims deaths. On that count we're winning.

I do believe Saddam harbored and sponsored terrorists. Not the 9/11 gang that was all Saudi Arabia.

As for a "leader in the world" working with someone crazy - I must remind you of Arafat and the unspellable leader of Iran.

However, DR the plain points you make are undeniable. It's time to go home and let the Sunnis & Shi'ites slaughter each other. Some one has to win that thing. Let's just let them go. The insane amount of money we're spending there could be used to clamp down the borders in a serious manner. Terribly sorry US Argiculture and construction you'll simply need to take a pay cut and pay Americans for those jobs... oh and screw you Mexico, fix your own country and then come to us and talk about job trading.

As I see it, we have already failed. We invaded a nation who was not provoking us nor threatening us. Our credibility with the world is lost as far as a leader and champion of human rights. Throw in the torture and the refusal to leave, and we pretty much have a redefined America as an imperialist bully, IMHO.

I think nothing emboldens the terrorist cells groups more than our being in Iraq...at least our presence there has certainly raised the number of persons willing to join the fight. As to elsewhere, Bush has ignored the terrorists outside the range of oil, IMHO, and they have been building forces in Indonesia and Africa because of it.

Oil prices are rigged in this nation now. It was admitted that price gouging is not illegal. I don't think it could devastate our economy anymore than it already has. Eventually, when the wealthy see we cannot be squeezed anymore, they lower the price. They want our money...they won't let this economy get devastated until they want to create new money for the North American Union.

There you have it fellas, I'm also a conspiracy theorist......

Anna I apologize if this is tongue and cheek and I'm not getting it.

I just paid 2.25USD/per gallon in New York State. The economy is doing really really well. There was another major stock rally today. So are we closer to the North American Union or is your idea a little off?

I don't think foriegn fighters will last long at all in Iraq even- only the strongest and best organized and led will win- hasn't that always been the case when the super powers stop messing with them?

In response to BaphometsAdvocate:



When somebody can come across the border on an elephant with a Mariachi band in tow - without being detected - there is nothing effective they are doing. You can wish it all you want, but George W Bush cares little about border security and doesn't apologize for it. This fact in itself should make any Bush supporter question Bush's motives in Iraq.

And nobody has a problem with reasonable investigations. Anybody with an ounce of sense hopes they are occurring. My problem is that allowing Bush unchecked powers that circumvent the constitution based on vague interpretations gives President Hillary Clinton and Vice-president Obama the same powers. This is giving the party who is for more government in our lives gifts that will always keep on giving.


Unfortunately, that's illegal. Besides - I wouldn't cough up one soldier's left testicle for the lives of a country full of Muslims. That crap has been going on for 8000 years and 21,000 troops next week isn't going to change it.


The terror camps were in Kurdish territory protected by the no-fly zones. Saddam had little - if anything - to do with them. There is not one example of terrorism sponsored by Iraq - ever. And by "terrorism", I'm talking about blowing babies up in school busses type terrorism. It hasn't happened.


There's a difference between working with someone and supplying him with the power to destroy yourself. There's a reason Hamas and Hezbolla have never used WMD. They'd use them on their own neighborhoods if it got them on television.



If the Bush adminstration was actually winning the war, nobody would be demanding a withdrawl. But each month, the violence is worse than the month before. And each year is worse then the year before. This is called "losing". Bringing the troops home now is not surrendering. It's accepting the defeat Bush handed us.

you may be right but let’s remember that are already in Afghanistan and even a rag tag army can only be in so many places at once. We could therefore assume that with forces freed up in Iraq (if we left) some of them would be directed here since Bin Laden himself has said he will strike here. They could also be used a in the 90s against out embassies and interests abroad.

I understand the anti- Bush stuff but this seems like logic to me.

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq?

In my opinion we don't have the option to fail in Iraq! I don't agree that we should have gone over there in the beginning, but since we are there now, we must succeed.

2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere? 3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?

What will embolden the terrorists will be if "they" succeed in booting us out of the Middle East. Because if they succeed in getting us to leave, their next move will be to destroy Israel, take charge of the oil supply and then strangle us to the point where we will have no choice but to go back in again.


4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?

We have the terrorists already inside the USA. The situation however, will only get worse if we "cut and run" now! Contrary to President Bush's remarks following 9/11 when he said "....the best thing you can do, America, is live your lives normally....", I don't think that is an option for us now. Fighting an insurgency such as the one we are confronting now in Iraq will take much longer than our people are willing to give the military to do the job. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that the USA will be involved in Iraq and surrounding area many years more than we would like to be! The recruitment effort on behalf of the military must be stepped up dramatically to meet the upcoming demand.

You lost me anna. Iraq never complied with a single resolution from the first Gulf War. They shot at our planes daily and never came clean on the WMD. And they trained terrorists. So “not provoking us” means what to you?




Not ignored but you have to admit that oil is the primary reason that the ME is so important to us and our 12 trillion $ economy. And if you think “oil prices are rigged” by anyone in the US I disagree. Evey senator has looked at it 50 times. The prices are “rigged” by OPEC and oue stupid refusal to dill and use our own oil and develop alternatives.




I never would have guesses anna!!!

Ted, you'll just never get it.

Your argument - much like George Bush's - assumes there are a finite number of terrorists who bounce around from one place to another.

That's not happening. Terrorists aren't moving to Iraq - they are created in Iraq. Obviously, some go for training because we're the best training a half trillion dollars can buy, but that number is minute compared to how many we motivate to become active extremists as opposed to passive ones.

But really, foreign fighters are hardly even a factor because their numbers are so low. The violence is overwhelmingly Sunni and Shiites - not Al Qaida.

We must succeed? Must we? At what cost? At what point does it simply become tilting at windmills? At what point do our soldiers unnecessarily become cannon fodder just to maintain the notion that we must succeed. The same argument was used in Vietnam... I'm sure we had to succeed there, too.

What if the primarily Shia government decides that we're done despite continued Shia death squad attacks on Sunnis? What if the Iraqi government decides that they want military and economic support from Iran? Do we say no? Do we leave? Do we say that we must succeed and stay despite the wishes of the Iraqi government?



Which terrorists are you referring to? After all, we aren't fighting nearly as many Al Qaeda members in Iraq as we are fighting Sunni and Shia insurgents.



Well, I doubt you'll see a draft coming up anytime soon. And with the majority of Americans being against the war, I doubt you will get the necessary volunteers... I mean, the people already fighting don't really want to go back... how are you going to get new soldiers? Lie to them? Already been done.

No one has infinite resources and even before 9/11 AQ only accepted 15% of ‘applicants”. There have always been plenty willing to die to kill Jews and Americans. Also we know that the suicide bombers ore not Iraqi insurgents but AQ or foreign fighters – and while there numbers are smaller their effect is much larger because the tactic created the mass civilian casualties that so terrify the people in Iraq. The sectarian violence was an outgrowth of this.

Our support of Israel has and will be the prime motivator for AQ as well as our presence in the ME. We were there and not leaving in 2002 and would still be flying over Iraq today (and getting shot at) if we had not invaded. I would have waited for the UN to show that they would not respond but that is history.

Except to observe that the notion of Iraqi insurgents coming here to fight is deserving of ridicule, I'm not going to answer any of the topic questions directly. I will simply say that if the costs of losing are indeed so horrendous, why hasn't the Administration been asking (1) for the ground troops necessary actually to stabilize Iraq -- which many experts agree would be on the order of 350,000 - 400,000, and (2) for anyone actually >to pay< for the cost of fighting the war?

The obvious answer is that the Administration does not believe its own rhetoric that victory in Iraq is of vital importance to the nation. Nor does the American people believe it, and I very much doubt that John McCain will be the next president if he continues to argue that the war must be won at all costs.

Whatever the costs of defeat will be, and they will be significant, they became inevitable on the day that we invaded Iraq in the first place. There is no way to avoid them now, only to postpone them. Those who favor continued war can wring their hands all they like over these costs, but the fact remains that it is better to pay them sooner than later. It is better to wash our hands of this neoconservative fiasco and get on with a Middle Eastern policy that actually makes sense. It is better to stop the killing and the dying. It is better to stop the expenditure.

And great as these costs are, it is not as if a horrendous national disaster will ensue. America is a mighty nation, and it can afford the occasional humiliating defeat. It can even afford to pay significantly more for oil, should that be among the consequences of all this (I am by no means sure that it will be, and indeed, the case could be made that oil prices will fall). The only horrendous disaster will be to the reputations of George Bush and his fellow cheerleaders of imperialist hegemony. But why should we worry about the reputations of these adventurists, fools and liars?



Dear me. It would seem, then, that we are rather like the man who cut off his hand so that he could throw it at an annoying housefly.

Intelligence analysis warns against rapid withdrawal from Iraq
By Greg Grant
ggrant@govexec.com
Violence and sectarian killing is likely to worsen in Iraq over the next year as the country continues a gradual decline into fragmentation and chaos that could draw its neighbors into a larger regional war, according to a newly released collaborative analysis compiled by all 16 U.S. spy agencies.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released in a summary version Friday, identified certain political steps Iraqis could take to reverse the decline, such as major conciliations on the part of the Shia and Kurds toward the Sunni population, or stronger national leadership. But it said those are unlikely.
The 9-page declassified summary did not address President Bush's recently announced "surge" of additional troops to Baghdad, but it did say U.S. troops at current levels are the "essential stabilizing element in Iraq." It warned that rapid withdrawal would be disastrous for Iraq.

[quote name='Ted' date='Feb 2 2007, 09:53 PM' post='206483']
Intelligence analysis warns against rapid withdrawal from Iraq
By Greg Grant
ggrant@govexec.com
Violence and sectarian killing is likely to worsen in Iraq over the next year as the country continues a gradual decline into fragmentation and chaos that could draw its neighbors into a larger regional war, according to a newly released collaborative analysis compiled by all 16 U.S. spy agencies.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released in a summary version Friday, identified certain political steps Iraqis could take to reverse the decline, such as major conciliations on the part of the Shia and Kurds toward the Sunni population, or stronger national leadership. But it said those are unlikely. [/quote]
[/quote]

Interestingly, the same NIE report also refers to the failures of the war, the errors and mistakes which led to a failed occupation and borderline civil-war. The report says a rapid withdrawal would be unwise, but it does not examine other options, such as a gradual, phased withdrawal. Nor does it weigh the potential impact of sending in thousands more troops, as the president is urging.

It does say that the Iraq war has been a boon to terrorists, confirming its previous year's report in which it stated unequivocally that the Iraq war has made the United States less safe from terrorist attacks, has allowed Al Qaeda to rebuild because of the de-emphasis of the war on terror, and has destabililised the Middle east.

I assume, since you chose to quote the NIE, that you agree with its findings? The failure-to-date rests squarely on the head of the originator, planner, and executor of the Iraq War, Bush Jr. If this troops surge has the effect pretty much every military planner in the western world believes it will, ie: nothing, then the deaths of the US soldiers killed during the troops surge will weigh even more heavily than the blame for the 300+ soldiers killed before that.

I very much doubt that rapid withdrawal would be any worse for Iraq than the unending continuation of the violence our continuing military presence engenders there. In any case, what was principally disastrous for Iraq was the invasion itself. All else has been epilogue. If a stable Iraq is what was desired, the Ba'athist regime already supplied it.

Whatever our troops supply in Iraq, it certainly is not stability. Read the news, for crying out loud. If they merely stand between two sides that would like to engage in even more fierce civil war than already exists, I think a large majority of Americans will say, however bad this war will be, it's not our job to prevent it. But even the most ferocious civil wars eventually end. With U.S. forces present in Iraq, the current immensely bloody and chaotic situation will simply go on forever (unless, as I said, the 350,000 - 400,000 troops are committed necessary to actually control the ground in Iraq, and even then, this goal would be uncertain).

The principal disaster that continued military engagement is designed to prevent is the political disaster for George Bush and other supporters of U.S. military adventurism, of having to look the American people in the eye and admit that it was all a colossal mistake. Most people already understand that, but to save the face of this president and a few dozen right-wing senators (or rather, to postpone its loss), two more years of perfectly futile war will have to be fought.

And this is called, "supporting our troops."

They certainly did at the cost of about 100,000 murdered and tortured a year, a war with Iran and an advanced nuclear, and biological WMD programs. Ya it was a real success of stability at work!




Certainly mistakes were made and I, as I have said many times, would have waited for the UN to show their true corruption on the issue before doing anything. But that is pure 20/20 and we are there and most people say leaving would be a disaster and I agree. The Dem plan of “phased withdrawal” without a plan to stabilize the situation (except say to the Iraqis – you do it we won’t help) is so ludicrous that it is not worth discussing.

Well, the 100,000 per year number is such an obvious exaggeration as to be unworthy of response. The war with Iran happened with the blessing and encouragement of the United States, and as it happens, we now know the UN did manage to eliminate all active Iraqi Nuclear and Biological weapons programs.




It is not at ALL 20/20. If it were 20/20, you would not had had hundreds of people saying that these were mistakles before they were made and while they were being made. Everyone from pentagon analysts to people on this board loudly and clearly stood up and pointed out these were mistakes. Claiming that these mistakes are only known through hindsight is utterly false.

As for 'most people say leaving would be a disaster', that is also false. In fact most people WANT the United States to leave. Polls of the American people are strongly against this escalation, and in favour of withdrawal. Polls of the Iraqi people are strongly in favour of US troops withdrawal. polls of US forces in Iraq are majoritarily in favour of US troop withdrawal.

The plan of phased withdrawal is certainly worth discussing and is a significantly better plan than the one currently in place: send more troops into the grinder with little or no chance of sucess. It is amusing that you believe asking the Iraqis to take over their own security is 'ludecrous', yet at the same time you have no problem with an escalation plan that DEPENDS on the actions of the very same Iraqi military, despite it having been a universal dissapointment over the last 4 years.

You Demonstrate that the Phased withdrawal plan NEEDS to be discussed by the way you mischarictarise it, by the way. Nobody is suggesting complete abandonment, the phased withdrawal plan calls for US trainers and supervisors to remain on the ground, as well as a posible SF presence, and military aid in the form of equipment. You making the plan out to be 'abandonment' does not make it so.

Mistakes were made, yes, the principal one being the invasion of Iraq itself. But leaving that aside, I don't think that anyone proposing immediate withdrawal, or phased withdrawal (there is no single "Dem" plan, as you should know)proposes that the troops will withdraw and nothing be done to "stabilize the situation" or that no further assistance of any kind be given to Iraqis. One assumes, on the contrary, that there would be discussions with the neighboring states, including Iran and Syria, to enlist whatever help may be had from them in preserving regional stability. The price for that will be high, but everything has its price. The United States is a powerful country, and it has many carrots and many sticks available for these purposes.

Further, if the world community agrees that U.S. military withdrawal will cause insupportable regional instability, then peacekeeping forces can be supplied under the aegis of the U.N.. Peace in Iraq does not have to be a particularly American project. Merely because the world's nations have declined to participate in the project of turning Iraq into a U.S. client state does not imply that they have no interest in a stable Iraq, or willingness to help bring that about once the U.S. gives up on its imperial objectives.

As for the supposed evils of the Ba'athists: what is your source for 100,000 murdered and tortured per year? Deaths on that order presuppose either genocide or civil war, and neither was happening. And these retroactive justifications for U.S. aggression weren't offered by anyone supporting the war in the first place. It was all about support for terrorism and W.M.D., remember? There was no hue and cry that the long-suffering Iraqi people required American salvation.

It's interesting, too, that the U.S. supported the Ba'thist regime during most of its history, and both assisted and encouraged Iraq in its war with Iran. Of course that regime was authoritarian, but so are many currently and formerly supported by the U.S. I mean, look at Iran under the Shah, Chile under Piinochet, or Greece under the generals. Look at Uzbekstan and Turkmenistan today. This has never been about eliminating an authoritarian regime. The people responsible for this war would be entirely happy to see an authoritarian regime in Baghdad today, if only it would be cooperative with American interests and be able to control the country.

But my main point about the Ba'thists was: those tearing their hair over the need for stability in Iraq might wish to remember that the instability is of our own making.

Here's my opinion on Iraq:

There are two philophies currently on the table about how to fight terrorism.

One is the Liberal response, make the US less of a target, improve our worldwide image, peddle our soft power. The other is the conservative response, go looking for a fight, torture if you have to, but bring those guys to justice.

I don't think either are workable.

We're caught between those choices. Even if we leave Iraq, build a mosque and a school for every prisoner we tortured, apologize profusely to families mistakenly bombed by our aircraft, we will still have to defend Israel. And unless we make the withdraw look like a victory -- kinda like Dick Nixon parading outta the White House -- I suspect we might confer upon OBL and AQ a sense that they are on the cutting edge of history.

Meanwhile the more we seek out terrorists with the most ignoble of methods, and maintain our image as an 'occupier' in the Mid-east, the more we will continue to attract new terrorists. As of yet the bulk of us don't see any sign that Iraq is discouraging rather than encouraging terrorism, and I don't think we have the indefinite decade or so years Bush seems to be asking for to find out. So our presence in Iraq emboldens terrorists too.

We all know all of those things. Those are our options. Clearly, we've chosen the latter route, in our vain attempt to get Shi'a and Sunni sitting together at internet cafes sipping lattes over the latest Tom Friedman column.

For my money, Bill Clinton's policy represented as much of a middle ground as exists, but, well, attacks only intesified during his reign. (and the first 9 months of Bush's relative silence on the matter).

My personal preference is, let's start de-escalating and see how the country responds. Or let's see if we can't get a NEW peace keeping force in there, say an Arab or at least Muslim peace keeping force. Not all Muslim nations are as virently hostile to us as the ME, Burkina Faso, to name one.

You know, US military incursions spark civil wars all the time. We did a number on Guatemala in the 70s. How many African nations have been rattled if not torn apart in the wake of CIA-backed coups? (Congo, Liberia, Ghana). (To our credit, the USSR fared no better, i.e. Ethiopia, Somalia)

Iran wants Iraq to be a client Shiite theocracy and that would not bring any “stability” to region – IMO only make it worse since it would then draw Saudi Arabia in as support of the Sini minority in Iraq. They have said as much.




Yes and if you can please post any offers of same here. I have seen none and if you think the UN – that did squat for years is going to belly up to the bar here I disagree.

"People in Iraq won't talk freely, because they are terrified that their friends are working for one of Saddam's nine horrible security services. Because of this atmosphere, it took us three or four months to learn some details about the uprising. The Iraqis made people lie down in the streets and then buried them alive under asphalt. They killed everyone who looked a little religious, because this was a Shi'ite area. It was forbidden to take the corpses from the street. All in all, 60,000 or 70,000 people were killed in this area in 1991. “
You have said that estimates are that Saddam has killed approximately one million of his own citizens since 1979.

"Yes, that would include Kurds, Shi'ites, Christians and Sunnis. There were two huge massacres. There was the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurds at the end of the 1980s when 4,000 villages were destroyed, and about 100,000 to 150,000 persons were killed, some with poison gas. Up to a million people were sent into internal exile. The other big massacre was in the south in the 1990s, where the regime has killed about 300,000 Shi'ites in the last 10 years
. In addition, there have been enormous massacres against communists over the past two decades.
"The estimate of one million killed only includes civilians
http://www.occupationalhazard.org/article.php?IDD=590

Ted- we have killed 600k - so what is your point? Saddam wasn't murdering enough Iraqis- so we had to send in the US army to do it right?

Of course- you were called on the fact that the war with Iran- WE supported Saddam- a conveniant fact you ignore now that you have been called on it.

In every measurable way- we have already lost-

1) Iraq is far less stable and far more dangerous now than it ever was under Saddam
2) We have managed to further destabilize the entire region more than it has been since 1948
3) It is a bottomless pit of money and men with no end in site.

Worst of all-

1) When you can't define a clear "win"- all you have left is defeat.

This number is an high estimate and not believed by many – of course CR sucks it up and you say WE as if the US did this. Saddam killed over a million.

“You have said that estimates are that Saddam has killed approximately one million of his own citizens since 1979.
"Yes, that would include Kurds, Shi'ites, Christians and Sunnis. There were two huge massacres. There was the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurds at the end of the 1980s when 4,000 villages were destroyed, and about 100,000 to 150,000 persons were killed, some with poison gas
. Up to a million people were sent into internal exile. The other big massacre was in the south in the 1990s, where the regime has killed about 300,000 Shi'ites in the last 10 years. In addition, there have been enormous massacres against communists over the past two decades.
"The estimate of one million killed only includes civilians. “
http://www.occupationalhazard.org/article.php?IDD=590




Well actually just as the morons (Dems led by Pelosi) try there best to make it a defeat so they can have the White House:
WASHINGTON — House Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prepared to send the Bush administration on Friday the clearest message to date that they will not support his plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.


Things start to change. Let see if the idiots can prevent victory. I am sure they will try hard.

BAGHDAD, Iraq —
An Iraqi military official, meanwhile, said the number of attacks and dead bodies have been reduced and displaced families returned to their homes due to the Baghdad security operation that began in force this week.
Iraqi army Brig. Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the Baghdad commander, said only 10 bodies had been reported by the morgue in the capital, compared to a previous average of 40 to 50 per day.
"This shows a big reduction in terror and killing operations in Baghdad," he said on Iraqi state television.
Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said earlier Friday that terror leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded and an aide killed Thursday in a clash with Iraqi forces near Balad, north of Baghdad.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252263,00.html

And Al sader has fled the country.

Believed or not- I don't care- it is the only scientific study to date about Iraqi dead- in fact, the only EXAGERATED claims seems to be what we claim Saddam killed-

of course- the "moron in chief" (higher ranking moron than Pelosi ) program has already failed utterly- it is just your propaganda that makes you believe otherwise. Just ask those soldiers in Haifa street in Bahgdad this week.

There is no sch thing as a "Iraqi security force"- it is a figment of right wing imagination- they still have 0 ready brigades of Iraqis- down from 3 or less three years ago. Some progress.

Attempting to put a good face on a failure doesn't change the fact that the entire Iraqi war has been one bad failure after another, despite soldiers and generals and war planners best efforts to educate our Moron in chief.

No matter which way you try to spin it- the facts remain

1) We have killed more Iraqis in a shorter time than Hussien ever was able to accomplish
2) Iraq is in civil war- thanks to the US invasion
3) There is no good way out of this- only the ISG plan offered any hope at all- and GW is too stupid to see it.

Try this one. “scientific” is IMO the wrong word.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1531742,00.html



Only you and the left, including Pelosi have given up. Certainly this demoralizes the troops and is shameful at best but the idiot Pelosi and her lap dog Murtha smell blood I am sure and am rooting for defeat.

We may disappoint them yet CR.


We may disappoint them yet CR.

Where are we going and what’s with this handbasket anyway?

It seems that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Imagine that.

Ironic, that, considering NATO's request last month:

Day late and a dollar short, that Bush.

Well, duh, since we abandoned Afghanistan for Bush’s brain fart in Iraq, what did we expect, exactly?

And the Taliban and Al Qaeda are gonna laugh all the way to Kabul or... ?

Sheesh, it's like the Keystone Cops Middle East Style.

See, thats patently untrue.

Who wants to withdraw from Iraq? Well lets start with a majority of the American people. The Democrats certainly, but many republicans as well, who oppose the troop escalation and don't want to see more US money and more US lives thrown away for nothing. The troops in Iraq want to come home, poll after poll confirms that. The people of Iraq want the US to leave, same thing with extensive polling there.

As for 'rooting for defeat', you sound like Lordhelmet: anyone who opposes Bush is a traitor and on the side of the terrorists. patently absurd, of course. In fact, it would seem more likely that the majority of Americans simply place a higher value on American lives than Bush jr does, he and his dwindling supporters seem happy to keep throwing money and people down this pit, pursuing a policy which is clearly a failure to anyone with open eyes. Other Americans are wishing Bush jr would pursue the war on terror, instead of allowing Al qaida to rebuild, allowing Afghanistan to descend into chaos, allowing Bin laden to survive, and trying to disband the Military body directly dedicated to finding him.

Nobody is rooting for defeat. What people are doing is seeing the reality on the ground, and (unlike the President) are unwilling to kill more Americans in an attempt to avoid admitting error. The insurgency is stronger than ever, the Iraqi military is incapable of functioning on its own, and the US troops on the ground pay the price.





Hey, anything is possible I suppose. I'll admit that. So, will you admit the absolute and utter faulure of the president and his foreign policy if that does not happen? Or will you just try and find a way to blame all of Bush's presidency on the Democrats?


The cost of failure in Iraq is bad, no question. But refusing to admit defeat and feeding more US lives and more US dollars into the pit only makes the cost of the failure worse, and exposes the political cowardice of those who prefer to let Americans die rather than admit the possibility of failure.

No, let's not forget people like me from the right if you want to make your propaganda more effective. Statistically speaking, a fair share of republicans helped fire the party that was in power. Statements such as yours aligns you more closely with Baghdad Bob and Tokyo Rose than they do with intellectuals.

Here's the problem, Ted. Nobody is asking for a withdrawl because the violence is decreasing too slowly. Nobody is asking for withdrawl because the government is too slow to get on it's feet. Propagandists like you need to frame the argument as if those conditions exist and people here want to get in the way. The Hannity-esque talking point is that we are winning the war - slow as it is - and we don't have the patience to wait it out.

But that's not the reality. The reality is, is that over the past 4 years, violence has steadily increased each month. The government (loosely defined) has become weaker and is completely ineffective. No conditions are improving - they continue to get worse.

The democrats had nothing to do with this reality and no matter how much you want to pin it on them, this is all of Bush's making. Congress and the Senate have given Bush a blank check to do whatever it takes to win and he hasn't done it. And there is no evidence to support it is turning around. Bush has paid a lot of lip service to the issues surrounding Iraq, but he's made no bold moves to turn it around. Waiting and hoping is not leadership.

Bush's policy in Iraq has failed miserably. That has already happened. You can support keeping our troops there as targets hoping that 4 years of failure will suddenly turn around with a few thousand troops soon, or in the absence of a true strategic plan to reverse conditions on the ground, you get them out of there.

Nobody seriously believes this surge will do anything to affect the outcome of this civil war. In the absence of a plan, it's irresponsible to put our troops in harm's way because we don't know what else to do.

Bush lost this war. You can't blame the democrats, liberals, or whatever term you want to use for losing or surrendering because Bush has already done that.

LOL- Ted- where do you get this stuff? I mean- does anyone REALLY believe this stuff?

BTW= Iraqi body count is NOT scientific- John Hopkins study is- and until you have some SCIENTIFIC study- peer reviewed and non-partisan- you have nothng to counter 600k dead- nothing.

Since the vast majority of that number is the result of mass sectarian violence, not coalition bombs, I have to wonder when this body count for "American inflicted deaths" stops? This is not a coalition inflicted death number, but an Americans-can't-stop-Iraqis-from-killing-each-other number. Apparently this count didn't stop when the government of Iraq was set up, so if and when we pull out of Iraq, the direct result will likely be a civil war, and millions will die. Do we keep counting forever?

1. What will be the cost and consequences for failure in Iraq? Is Joe right?
Failure in Iraq will mean a destabilizing civil war. Likely the violence will spill over into other parts of the Middle East. Of course, our staying doesn't make this impossible or even unlikely either.

2 .Could it embolden the terrorists there and elsewhere?
I don't know, my gut feeling is maybe, but it's a cost to gains equation and right now the cost of staying is much higher than the cost of leaving, IMO.

3. Could it affect the price of oil and damage our economy - and what would that cost?
We have spent over 400 billion dollars on this war. That will likely damage our economy infinitely more than the increase in oil price will.

4. Will we then see the terrorists inside the US?
I believe we are much more likely to see terrorists inside the US if we continue along the road we are on now.

With Bush's open border policy, along with potential amnesty for illegal immigrants, how does whatever we do overseas affect what happens here?

For 8 years, Clinton treated terrorism more like a police action, but without starting any wars, spending a trillion dollars, and stripping away many of our rights, nobody attacked us on our soil for the duration of his term after the first WTC attack. I believe it was somewhere around 8 years that this same open border policy existed and nobody attacked us. And we were paying way less attention to Muslim extremists during that time.

My point is, if someone is truly a terrorist, why would they fight an armed population there when they could blow unarmed women and children up here? I just don't understand how there even is a connection, but as one of the more reasonable and credible posters on this board, maybe you could show me why where we are fighting somebody makes any kind of difference what happens here.

Thanks for the compliment, DR. I'm in a rather cynical mood today. Maybe it's because my kids were up all night vomiting, I don't know. Maybe I wasn't clear above, because I thought my feelings on that question mirror yours. From my perspective, as long as our forces remain in Iraq it serves as a recruitment tool for fanatics. On the one hand, we owe it to the Iraqis to try and fix this. On the other it is such a mess that unless we are willing to invest much more military assistance than our population will support democratically, it isn't possible. On current course we have the worst of both worlds.

On border security I agree. Here's another...why have our military installations overseas spent multiple millions on new front gates with artillary and drive-throughs with retractable claws to pierce tires since 911 in the interest of "force protection" while the rest of the installations are surrounded by low chain-link fences? Same idiocity...but oh, boy, if a terrorist ever tries to run through that front gate (without a fake ID card), they'll get 'em. Same principle, smaller scale.

Apparently some people think a few thousand troops might affect the outcome. As many reports are coming in about insurgents fleeing Baghdad including the almighty Al-Sadr. Im sure they are just biding there time and waiting it out so hopefully your viewpoint will become a reality and the US will get sick of being there and leave soon, withdrawing our additional troops in yes "the plan". There is a plan that had lessons learned from previous plans in place despite your assumption there isn't one. Seems to be quieter in Baghdad at the moment at least because of this plan. I'll just flee to Iran and wait it out and hope the Americans leave soon.... seems like a lot of them want to because im invincible and no plan will stop me.

And along with that, a proliferation of terrorist groups and strengthening of existing ones. DaytonRocker was quite correct when he stated earler in the thread that terrorists don't simply move around; they get created. The effects that you correctly state would be the result of failure in Iraq will most certainly create new terrorists, hateful of America and convinced of our decadence and weakness.



That is simply untrue. Read this account from Anbar. The milblogger there reports that the local Sunnites are very fearful that we'll abandon them to the terrorists. And as this Washington Post article notes, that fear has translated into adherence to the terrorists on the assumption that they represent the only viable protection they can count on. As the article states, "most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability." Now you tell me: Which political party in Washington has been most responsible for giving the Sunnites this impression?

Blackstone- there are 1.5 million refugees from Iraq right now in Syria and Jordon- so who do you think they blame for thier miserable lives being made more miserable? Many of them were at least, well, surviving, bleak though it is by US standards- they were surviving. Now, they are refugees.

You now have 1.5 million potential anti-American terrorists- that didn't get that way because of Americans that are against the war- they got there because of republican mishandling of the war-

this entire fiasco is 110% the fault of the republican party

and no military blog is going to make that change

You know- sometime, some real evidence in your posts will be nice- I mean, not a blog, hmmm?

That is too absurd for words. Until last month, republicans had been in control of both houses and the White House. This loss did not just suddenly happen in the last 30 days. Really, is this how little substance you need to believe what you need to believe?

One ancedotal viewpoint hardly paints the picture you're trying to find. Statistically, violence has increased steadily every month. That happened on the republican's watch. The democrats had nothing to do with that. And so far, Bush has been 100% wrong about every facet of this invasion. Every story of success in terms of reducing violence has been debunked days later. EVERY ONE.

The odds are very high that the same will happen with this surge.