Oh Ted.... not even close.......not even remotely close.....

The problem with the Iraqi and National Police is that we have given their corruption legitimacy with the surge. We are tasked to conduct more joint patrols and operations with more frequency, to put an Iraqi face on the event, but the citizens see through this. We know with absolute surety that a huge number of officers are JAM, yet we turn a blind eye. In many cases, we are in essence training and equipping our own enemies. They scowl at us when we pass through checkpoints, hardly even faking any form of solidarity. The NP/IP's routinely shoot up rival neighborhoods, and are not the recipients of any modicum of trust by the people. When they do decide or are pressured to enter a Sunni neighborhood, most often it is only with American escort, so they don't get shot by Sunni militia or Sunni Volunteer Police Auxilliaries. If ever there was a more convoluted, chaotic stretch of acerage where oxygen and rainwater were wasted upon, it is here. And we're dying, trying to play sheriff in Deadwood.

The next time that you provide us with text from an analyst.....can you choose someone who is not from the Heritage Foundation, AEI or some other right wing think tank? Someone fair and impartial perhaps? This is coming from a conservative mind you, but parroting the Republican meme is no better than parroting the Democrat.

Here is my prediction. When the change in Presidency occurs and we have a likely Democratic President, Ted's wait-and-see, give-them-more-time tune will suddenly change. He'll want them out because the lack of progress will clearly be the fault of the new President. Anyone taking wagers?

The solution is a political settlement that brings all parties to an agreement to work together rather than try to kill each other. If this can be done, and it will not be easy, then we could see peace in Iraq.





Ya right like Iran??? We are having lots of “luck” negotiating with them aren’t we. And didn’t out nucase buddy say he was ready to “fill the gap” in Iraq when we run out.

You have to be kidding.

The same Sunnites who were on their side up until recently? If there's a complete U.S. withdrawal, how likely do you think the Sunnites will remain committed to fighting al-Qa'ida, once the Shi'ites begin stepping up the attacks on Sunni civilians? You think it's possible that AQI will unite the Shi'ites and Sunnites. I think it's just as likely if not moreso that the Shi'ites will reunite Sunnites and AQI. AQI and the Sunnites are natural allies. Shi'ites and Sunnites are not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the only reason Sunnites are currently turning on AQI is that you and your comrades have kept them safe enough from the Shi'ites that they feel they can afford to turn their guns on AQI. Do you have a different impression?

Yes, I do. I believe, based on open source reporting and analysis that the pro-nationalist Sunni's who are in favor of consolidation of power, will win over the Sunni's who would continue to support AQI. The Sunni's and AQI only share the flavor of Islam. AQI is much more fundamentalist and orthodox than most Iraqi Sunnis's and AQI came in heavy handed, alienating many Sunni tribal leaders. I believe the push for a national level Sunni council will prevail, and this council willl attempt to win over moderate AQI supporters, casting out the ones who do not align with them.

AQI has largely shot it's proverbial wad. It has shown Shia and Sunni alike that it does not have the homegrown support base to be a major player in the future of Iraq. VBIED's aside, AQI is ineffectual when compared to the combined Sunni militia's and Jaysh Al-Mahdi. The major reason that Sunni militia's and AQI have had a falling out is based on the interaction and disparate goals of the two - not the protection from US forces - though that is working in their favor now that they have largely split.

Yes and its so bad for AQI now that OBL is apologizing for the “mistakes” made there – as in blowing up civilians to cause unrest and all the other butchery his “men” have participated in – a little late


“In the tape broadcast by Al Jazeera on Monday, a voice sounding like bin Laden admitted that mistakes had been made in Iraq and exhorted the fighters to rectify them.


"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said. "Beware of division... The Muslim world is waiting for you to gather under one banner."



In the audio recording, entitled A Message to the People of Iraq, bin Laden called on tribal leaders and the leaders of armed groups to initiate an agreement between the different groups.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/561...49D764076CE.htm

1. Is the surge working?

The surge is working. I ti saccomplishing the goal of allowing the war to last into the next administration without the present administration having to try to come to a realistic conclusion. At least LBJ made a good faith effort to extricate American troops.

Fortunately, the Administration has a bare majority and incompetent congressional leadership as its foe. Even had they not risked the lives of the additional troops to allow the administration to coast to the next election without having to take its medicine for a failed war, the Democratic Congressional leadership likely could not have made an impact. Wars have inertia and stopping them is harder than starting them.But now the debate will be whether or not to scale back the surge, which was designed to be scaled back in the first place. In the meantime, soldiers are stuck in a place without a workable solution of any kind in the works.


2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

Korea reached it's military impasse in 1951 and soldiers had to die for two more years before the stalemate was acknowledged.
Vietnam had become militarily mired down by 1967 and the end took seven more years.
We won what we were capable of winning in 2003. Every day since has been a day that an infidel army has occupied the Fertile Crescent. Every day in the future. Ire is the only thing we will accomplish. We can shap the direction of the region (with increasingly less influence) from the periphery far better than what we can do while we are riding the tiger's back. Leaders with stones have to step up and stop the nonsense.

There will always be fear-mongers. It is always a challenge to face the doom sayers and do the right thing.

I will go on record here and now as saying I will join the call for withdrawal from Iraq if I could be assured that what you're saying is true, and Iraq would not host a group with similar ambitions and connections to conduct terror attacks against the West. What concerns me, however, is this: I don't doubt at all that Iraqi Sunnites really really can't stand AQI. Then again, I don't think most people in Afghanistan ever had much love for the Taliban. They accepted the Taliban because the Taliban offered them a long-yearned-for reprieve against the constant unbearable death and destruction. That's why I have to wonder what happens when Shi'ites start slaughtering Sunnites again. Will the latter swallow the bullet and go with the people, however hated, who appear to have the best chance of offering them protection?

Short of that, my recommendation would be to keep forces there at least until this council can convene and consolidate its support. They don't want American forces there, so it's not like they'd be inclined to drag their feet the way the government in Baghdad does.

.

Did you miss Petraeus? The Surge plan has a built in scaleback and is on or ahead of schedule. The success so far will either lead to political success at the government level as it has in local areas or we will lose.

The Dems could stop the war at any time and force us to run out. Fortunately we don’t have an LBJ in office who tried to run the war from his office – never listened to his commanders and threw away the lives of 58,000 Americans before even starting a drawdown.

Vietnam was “mired” because idiot LBJ made the military fight with both hands tied behind their back – same for Korea with total incompetence at the UN and in the White House.




Except the “fear-mongers are from both parties and all disciplines. What is the “right thing”?

You mean the cross-your-fingers-and-hope-it-all-work-out strategy? We already know that "political success" cannot be brought at the hands of a gun. We already know that the Iraqi government of the Green Zone is corrupt AND ineffective. We already know that we are forced to follow a "built-in scaleback" as there will be no more troops available to be on active duty. We already know that the pro-war folks are just fine sitting back here in the US "supporting" while our troops spill their blood: such bravery, such support.


Great. So, instead of Dubya doing the right thing and ending this war, you want the Democrats to remove its funding. How about this. How about you and all your pro-war buddies sign up in the Army today to go to Iraq to fight.

Define “ending the war” and its consequences and then try to convince me this is the “right thing”.

Needless to say if your Dem buddies though it was the “right thing” we would not be having this debate but would be watching the troops get off boats and planes outside of Iraq.

Certainly your left wing buddies think this is the right thing – but apparently not enough to get the troops out.



I find dismissing it because of “source” and not substance troubling. There are no “neutral” sources in this partisan environment. I found that the only person who came close was Greenspan who said we need to protect the oil supply and this is a valid concern.

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I want is for them to either put up or shut up. If they think this is such a disastrous war, then they should just pull the plug and accept responsibility for the consequences. But they want it both ways: they want to make it as unsuccessful as they can make it, but in such a way that would enable them to avoid blame (or so they think).

Unfortunately for them, continuous progress is being made against al-Qa'ida over there.

There is no convincing you, Ted. You want to continue this war indefinitely "until the job is done". All I'm asking is that you help out. Sign up. Get other people of your sentiment to sign up. Raise war bonds. Do something other than sit your <blank> and complain about how the Dems want us "to lose".


I agree that the Democrats should remove the funding to end this terrible war. But, I'd like the Republicans to put up or shut up. Specifically, I'd like them to call for the Draft. By not doing this, the Republicans are sacrificing our troops so they won't completely lose the '08 election. Such bravery I see exhibited by our "hawks".

The traditional mechanisms for reviewing intelligence are withheld from the majority of members (on both sides of the isle). Any opposition needs to cite basic figures and then turn those figures into public support. That can't happen anymore so the best the Democrats can do is complain.

There is no 'put' to up

At this point I'd like to see some accountability by employing the you break it you bought it approach. Collective trauma is a key component in taming foreign policy. Reaping what you have sown can be a humbing experience.

How do you know Petreaus is pulling a Westmoreland?

Let me ask you, Is your position on Iraq a highly negative one, where you believe this war is a waste of time, life, and money? My thinking is probably so based on some of your post. If so, could this in turn be the very root of your willing disbelief in a highly ranked general who brought news that has likely maintained support for a war you don't agree with personally, because there certainly is no evidence that says he is lying. He is very highly regarded in fact, and the consensus on the ground in Iraq is that terror cells are now on the run, civilians are now in many cases standing with American troops, and in general the situation is improving. Are things going perfectly? Nope, but there is improvement. Furtermore Ive been hearing this more and more on the news as well, it goes beyond the testimony of Petreaus.

So what do I conclude from this? Many people simply did not want to hear what they did from Petraeus on September 10'th, particularly those who think this war is a lost cause. Had the news been highly negative, continued support for the war would have been much more difficult and that serves the purpose of many who want us out of their. So naturally the messenger of this good news is having his credibility attacked in an attempt to further project the situation in Iraq as being hopeless, in hopes that the war effort loses its remaining support. I'm not surprised Moveon.org, in fact was right on queue, I expected responses like that from many.

And if Gen. Petraeus had come out with a negative outlook on the surge, he wouldn't have been attacked for his message by your side???? Haven't former commanders and recent retirees stated that we should pull out of Iraq, and had their credibility attacked? I can't believe that you don't see the hypocrisy of both sides, aside from a very real and often tragic conflict, the Iraq war has been THE political football of our times......and both sides are playing the game.

Im highly skeptical people in our military are commonly fired based on critisisms of bush, bush atracts critisism all the time from those in our military. Some complained they didnt have the proper amount of troops for example, others said they needed more armor. People are replaced or let go all the time it doesnt mean its because they are skeptical of bushes war tactics, otherwise we would have to initiate a draft just to fill the enoumous hole that firing all bush critics would create.

Now since your also pointing out that people on both sides are often critical of Generals or politicians for all the wrong reasons, I'm not disagreeing with you and never said that war supporters are always fair. Hypocrisy and misplaced criticism is not solely a pro-war or anti-war trait, just like its not solely a left or right wing trait. The only fair and accurate way to put it would be to say it's commonly a human trait in general.

However this particular case is a fine example of misplaced criticism from many of the anti war in this nation, because I'm not much for taking seriously (what if scenarios.) What if Gen. Petraus is lying? What if our government is torturing terrorist in unimaginable ways? What if the president uses the Terrorist Survailince Program to listen to me and my girlfriend on the phone, as if he has time? Or what if JFK was killed by aliens who traveled to earth from Uranus?

The only way I can make sense of people who are otherwise intelligent encouraging things such as that is because people like those responsible for that moveon.org ad for example probably know they have nothing much to go on other than one key thing. That being Americas frustration with this war, and they thought thats all they needed but they were wrong, for the first time in a while misplaced criticism on this war backfired. Not that all criticism on the war is misplaced so long as it is fair and factual, but celebrities and often the media try and get away with what they can.

If politics really is a game of football as you said, some people are cheating by taking performance enhancing drugs while the rest of us just have to deal with the unfortunate corruption that yes, is a part of both sides. Sad but true

Color me confused......I don't really understand what you're referring to.



Gen. Petraeus, whom I respect, did an admirable job of pointing out the successes that have so far occurred in Iraq.....notably during the surge. However, he did not to any great extent, speak of the ongoing issues that make reconciliation and stability merely one possibility. I won't go so far as to say that he sugarcoated the reality, but he certainly weighed more heavily on the positive side, rather than the negative. I view the MoveOn.org ad as childish, the same way I view the congressional censure of MoveOn. But the facts remian the same.......we are not just around the corner from success.......and no amount of pollyanna positive feelings and good vibrations are going to change that. The lastest rumblings have Al-Sadr retracting his cease-fire, not exactly positive news if true, eh?



I agree, but both sides are cheating. Both sides are spinning, and both sides are repugnant.

Your assessment of the Republicans' state of courage is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the security of this country. That means, among other things, making sure al-Qa'ida doesn't set up a base of operations in Iraq the way they did in Afghanistan. That in turn means giving the Iraqi Sunnites a chance to provide for their own self-defense so that they don't have to lapse back into a sense of dependency on al-Qa'ida the way the Afghan people allowed themselves to become dependent on the Taliban for safety. That goal is in the process of being met, no thanks at all to the Democrats.

Hang on a sec. Didn't you just write:
Apparently, you get to make an issue of the Democrats attempting to avoid blame but, when it comes to Republicans, opinions are not justified? Umm.... How about this. I'll agree that Democrats have been singularly spineless when it comes to ending this war if you'll agree that Republicans are cowards for not instituting the Draft.


I'll grant you that the security of the US is important. What does that have to do with Iraq? Talking points are disallowed.


This is like debating with Ted. No amount of evidence (presented on this thread no less) will convince you that Al-Qaeda is almost meaningless in Iraq. Al Qaeda is at best 2%, that's 1/50th, of Iraq's troubles. The surge seems to have had some effect on Al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, it has had little overall effect. You just want to keep fighting and fighting and fighting and fighting. Fine. Sign up. If you're too old, get your family who supports this conflict to sign up. Donate your money to the troops. Ask your representatives to institute the Draft. C'mon. Support our troops. Don't just wave a flag.


Here you just got done saying that the Democrats haven't killed the funding for the war. The inconsistency here is...well...not surprising.

The only things that "aren't justified" are logic fallacies, such as ad hominem. That's when you try to hold a particular stance invalid on the basis of your opinion of the people taking that stance. That's different from pointing out the destructive effects of a particular stance, and then going into the motives behind it.


Actually, that number just refers to overall numbers of individual fighters, not the effects of their actions. AQI has been the single largest catalyst of violence in the country. But more relevant than the troubles they've caused for Iraq are the troubles they'd be putting themelves in a position to cause for us if we let them get set up in Iraq.


I know there are many here who like to pretend that when opposition politicians at the highest levels rail against a war effort with all their might and claim that the war's lost, it has no effect at all on the success of that effort, but that pretty well flies in the face of all logic and experience.

He outlined many problems, particuarly regarding that while political progress is being made with the Iraqi gouvernment, its not near enough, and we have a long way to go. He also made it clear that we in fact are not right around the corner from sucsess, as you added. So this makes me understand the position of the far left who critisised him severely, even less. He simply had mentioned that progress is being made, and if everyone wants us out of their so much why not let our military finish the job? I mean we have notable sucsess to talk about for the first time since the capture of sadam, thats exciting, and its a clear indicator that the problem was that the rumsfeld aproach was flawed, and we clearly needed more manpower.

Hilary clinton is talking about needing troops in Iraq till 2013, so if the democrats are going to have an American presence their that long, why not be in it to win it? Of course I dont really believe a word she says because thats the first time Ive ever heard her say that in debate, but wether it be a democrat or republican in office next year, if are going to have troops their that long I say do what we can do to win in that time frame. If Hilary clinton pulls all our troops out but say about 20,000 then we wont have the manpower we need, yet the war will continue. In turn everyone loses, both the left and right.

I say try and win, why not ? The news we got recently from Iraq came not a second too soon, and we have one last window of opertunity to turn this thing around and I say take it. Im confident we can win this war, but the war in a sense is like the lottery. If you dont play the lottery you cant win, and if you dont fight a war like its a war then you cant win. If we abandon this thing next year, the deaths of all our soldiers become meaningless overnight, and Iraq will be worse off than it was than when Saddam was in power.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that I'm making an ad hominem attack and you're not? Perhaps, if you can explain yourself in more detail, then we can move forward. As for the destructive effects of a particular stance, I'm pointing out that Republican "support" consists of not really wanting to win in Iraq. If that's not destructive, I don't know what is.


This is false. DTOM has made some very good posts debunking this claim. But, even if it were true, it isn't now. And yet, somehow, magically, Iraq still isn't stable, is it?


I know there are many here who like to pretend that when pro-war politicians at the highest levels don't pony up the troops to really win this war, it has no effect at all on the success of that effort, but that pretty well flies in the face of all logic an experience.

logophage


What Blackstone said couldnt be closer to the truth actualy, in my war on terror post this is how I described shia and sunni violence in Iraq.
(in section 3)...


Section 3 of that post covers much more and the entire post contains almost 100 links total so I plan to use it on this site to substantiate topics related to it, so long as thats ok with the mods. It can be read here... http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304

Yes, we're all real excited over here......we have party hats and everything! Saddam was irrelevant the moment we invaded. His capture was a PR dream, but had absolutely no impact on the situation on the ground. That's the problem with the rah-rah folks....they gauge success by news sound bites and talking points.



Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the second most popular pro-war-but-I-never-served quote, coming in right behind freedom isn't free.......



Which news was that?



Wrong. AQI is the single biggest boogeyman in Iraq, as stated by the administration. Bush is trying to hold on to war supporters by touting the AQI menace....it's far sexier and scares far more people than saying Jaysh Al-Mahdi, which brings out a collective "who?" from most people. AQI didn't start the Shia/Sunni violence, and the total eradication of AQI from Iraq is not going to bring an end to it. AQI infiltration of the government and the security forces is virtually nil. AQi retains the ability to detonate a VBIED now and again, and they continue to run cells in Baghdad, but they are a blip on the radar compared to the other militia's.



Do you describe this violence and the Shia/Sunni paradigm from your experience? Or from intel reports? Or from Fox/CNN/MSNBC? I've said this in english before, but again.......the Sunni militia's are nationalist and/or clannish, and have seen their trial alliance with AQI fail for some very core reasons. The Sunni militia's are nowhere near as orthodox and fundamentalist as AQI, they do not get along. I do not believe that they will ever again unite against the Shia militia's. Will AQI continue to entice recruits? Sure, just as they do in any other muslim country, but the idea that if we pull out of Iraq, AQI will be able to setup shop and operate with impunity has no factual backing.

The mere fact that there is a major effort to unite the Sunni militia's into a national council, that does not include AQI, gives more refutation that support for that claim.



You're joking right? This is the epitome of a simplistic interpretation.

What a mess we have made of things. Instead of fostering peace and stability, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused instability and conflict in the Middle East, and acted as a catalyst for terrorists and insurgents that now threaten not just our interests but those of other nations. Do the world’s powers stand with us? No. Is it our position to police the world? - To what end? Are we not, by pursuing such a policy, making more enemies than friends? (Can we, a nation now so dependent on other nations, afford to do so?) In the final account, are we more safe - more secure?

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
~ William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act III, Scene ii, Line 115

Dontreadonme


Saddam was irrelevant? Hrm well thats not what this link dated March of 2003 says.........

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR303A.html

The link above is titled (U.S. government objectives in Iraq) Look at the quote below, and remember this is dated at the start of the war, which also proves this was about much more than WMD and our objectives were available to the public since the wars start........



As for the impact it had, the country is still at war so that comparison cant be made yet. If you compare the situation on the ground in Iraq before the wars start to the situation on the ground during the war then of course things are just as violent if not more so as of now. The goal is clearly stated at that link, so compare (pre-Iraq war, Iraq) to (Post Iraq war Iraq.) We haven't completed the objectives which were set at the wars start. Objectives that people like Hilary Clinton and John Carry darn well knew about when they voted to fund this war effort.

Also if you've been hoping for America to win this war and supported the troops since the start of it all, then yes good news is exiting.





The fact that I have not served for our military has absolutely nothing to do with the support I hold for our troops, and this war. Astronauts risk their lives, I support them without being an astronaut. Construction workers responsible for building Sky scrapers or bridges risk their lives, yet I support them having never done construction work, but you are right about one thing freedom is not free.




The news that came with the highly anticipated September 10'th Iraq report. It wasn't the best news possible but it sure was better than many had anticipated.



The research was done at a number of places, and of course there are some underlying differences between AQI and other sectarian violence, but this is a war being fought primarily for religious purposes. So in other words are there differences between the belief systems of Bin Laden and the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Yup. Were there differences between Zarqawi and Muslims fighting outside the confines of (AQI)? Sure, but that doesnt change the fact that the root of the problem is Muslim extremism, and from Bin laden, to Zarqawi, to Hamza Walker Lindh, to Mohammed Atta, to even some unknown Sunni in Iraq, if you pick up a gun and kill our troops, or anyone else in the name of your religion then your part of the problem.

Keep in mind nearly all this violence is occurring within the Islamic religion, and nearly all of it is taking place in one region. Ahfganistan and Iraq are only 700 miles apart, thats roughly the distance between Miami and New Orleans. People want to see Al Qaeda violence and Muslim violence in Iraq as two entirely separate entities in order to show this war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror in relation to the U.S.. The truth is actually somewhere in between, while there are some differences, AQI for example strongly supports Al Qaeda of course and vice versa.

If you believe that AQI will not expand its efforts if we leave prematurely then read the quote below from the following link, listed in my post.....

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm



I don't know about you but I highly disbelieve that AQI members will take on exiting new careers as veterinarians, or computer game designers just because we leave, in fact I believe just the opposite. The Iraq military is not yet in the position it needs to be to defend itself. If we leave now Iraq will be overrun.



Joking? Nope

So all Sunnis are AQI members? Isn't this like saying all Americans are members of xyz organization, say the Arian Guard or whatever? Looks like that to me, and DTOM is correct, this is obviously oversimplifying reality, although I've seem much more simplistic thinking regarding the Iraq project.

Well, we waited for the Surge to work. We've been told it worked. Our troops should be coming home then.

I hear a small draw-down is in the future.

That's something positive that's come out of the Surge, maybe, if it actually happens.

Heh, I love it when Republicans blame Democrats for not supporting the war [Republican-favored terminology] and thus stopping a win. Then in the next breath, blaming Democrats for allowing the war to continue by giving the Bush administration everything it asks for, regarding Iraq anyway.

I think in psych terms this is called projection. In simple terms it's called not taking responsibility for your own actions. It's always the other guy's fault.

It is amazing that there are still those that continue to make excuses for President Bush and his failed policies. If not for their sad ignorance, the Bush apologists would be laughable. They must suffer from some defect that blinds them to the truth. Balzac described it in his famous novel Pere Goriot when old Goriot, blind to the insensitivity and excesses of his vulgarian daughters, continues to dote on them. No doubt when Bush’s excesses have succeeded in bankrupting the country over this stupid war, his sycophantic supporters will continue to sing his praises.

I never said that all Sunnis are AQI members, and read the details of my last response here. Yes there are underlying differences here, but if you believe there is no relation between AQI and other Shia Sunni violence in Iraq, or no relation between Al Qaeda and AQI, then substantiate that. I never said there weren't differences, but AQI, Al Qaeda, and other Islamic violence are all related, and therefore are all apart of the bigger picture, Muslim Extremism. Thats not over simplifying anything, unless you can show me why these groups are in no way related.



Bush apologist? yikes. Read section 9 of this post... http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry228304
Its in relation to my thoughts of what I think of George Bush in relation to the war.

Ya right pal. “Sign up” I am a little old for this one and the argument is so stupid as to not be worth discussing. It is equivalent to me asking you to pay the increased taxes (and not me) for programs I don’t like. I work and pay lots of taxes and so does my wife (while raising 3 kids) - You?

All I expect is that we do “what is right” in leaving Iraq so that we 1. don’t have a disaster in the region that will hut our economy and 2. Insure that there is some good chance that Iraq will not descend into chaos. IMO we will have bases there for some time to come unless we run out and then we will be back to deal with the chaos later.

I believe you are wrong on all counts.

First, an astronaut trains to go to space and accept the risks. Most of us support that.

Second, our military is trained to kill people and blow crap up. That is NOT what they are doing in Iraq right now. They are mediating a civil war while building a nation - the most socialist policies known to man.

Third (and this is not directed at you or any other member of AD), I believe it takes a special kind of coward to be so afraid of terrorism, that you would give up liberties, support unlimited executive power, and countless lives for the appearance of safety. Osama Bin Laden instilled so much fear in people, that as long as we're fighting brown people, we feel safer.

You would figure the people so eager to send your neighbor's kid off to die so Osama Bin Laden doesn't take your lunch money would be equally as outraged at our open borders. Instead, they pretend the war in Iraq is making us safer while those same leaders have no problem granting amnesty to Muslims sneaking in the country.

The reason the term "chickenhawk" is so popular is because it's true - the same people who call for other people to be their body armor haven't served a day in their life to pull their own weight. I had this discussion before and one of the leading Bush apologists on this board PM'ed me to tell of his/her 4 years in the army, but that information wasn't for "public consumption". I mean seriously, WTF?

If you feel nation building is in our best interests, suck up a little courage, enlist, pick up a gun, and man your post like many of us have. That is, as long as you have the courage of your convictions.

This only holds true if you think the military is capable of nation building. The training and tactics needed to move the conflict in a new direction are just not there. I'm not trying to defame any members who may be enlisted, I'm suggesting that when we need a screwdriver, using a hammer isn't going to solve the problem. Courage as I would define it is taking responsibility for one's actions, not offloading the surge's failures with zest and a smile on the first Persian diplomat that has the misforture of being caught. The surge is a last ditch attempt find a patsy, the sucker to which we will pin all of our failures upon under the guise of 'making a difference'. Should this fail the entire foreign policy will be under public scrutiny, including the expenses, SOFA aggrements, preemption, you know the entire post 911 kabuki of proactive policing. These are the motivations for finding a sucker. This is the artful form of passing the buck.



I cannot accept your premise of cultural slur with broad overtones. I also think you are stretching DTOM's comments which were to the effect, 'we have bigger problems than AQI'.

Your heckling of him is misplaced. The Sunnis orthodoxy has been referred to as a 'very big tent' for the simple reason there are branches of moderates, hardliners, and revolutionaries which all take the same name. We can confirm the Sunni origins of the group by tracing the different angles including; chronicalling the Iranian resistance from late 2001, through the failed attempts targetting and recruiting Iraqi Sunnis, or through sifting the origins of the Taliban. Shia orthodoxy was absent in every case. Are they all Sunni? No, the drug money has splashed on a generic criminal element which has diluted the original incarnation but enough of the original exists to demonstrate AQI still has selective traits in determining who becomes a member and by extension validates 'net's comments.

We can demonstate AQI doesn't actively recruit from the Shia so if Sunni drive fails, so does their ability to expand their presence. This is the case here.

Ok several things here don't add up. For one I'm not a bush apologist and many who support this war have no problem criticizing our president for a number of reasons.

You said here that (an astronaut trains to go to space and accept the risks. Most of us support that.) Now that being said a soldier trains to protect our country, and accept the risks. Being the reason I made the comparison, because to put it simply nobody has to serve for this nations military to support our troops and this war effort. You wouldn't make the criticism that if someone isn't an astronaut, they are hypocritical to support space exploration so why would it be hypocritical to support our troops who sacrifice their lives to make this country safer just because you haven't served? Ive heard that on a number of occasions, yet that sort of criticism is quite easily taken with a grain of salt as it holds no water whatsoever.

Lets look at what you said here...


Third (and this is not directed at you or any other member of AD), I believe it takes a special kind of coward to be so afraid of terrorism, that you would give up liberties, support unlimited executive power, and countless lives for the appearance of safety. Osama Bin Laden instilled so much fear in people, that as long as we're fighting brown people, we feel safer.

So what your saying is in general those who take seriously mad men who fly jumbo jets into sky scrapers, or take seriously a regime in Iraq that was responsible for using chemical weapons in some cases outside the context of war are cowards? Really? While we're at it lets hear about these civil liberties we've given up as you claim. I'm dying to hear the specifics of that statement. Furthermore lets talk about the unlimited executive power our president has.

Its not unlimited for one, and secondly ask yourself Is this bushes own doing? Did he just unrightfully initiate this war, making this entire war a criminal act in which he is solely responsible for, as Ive heard many suggest. Lets get really specific on this, for one this war was initiated with the support of congress, including many who today are against the war effort.

The following is a link to [H.J. Res. 114] (A Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.)
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

What it was about was very straight forward, take a look at this part.......



George bush didn't go to war, America went to war and thats the no spin version. The 2nd section of my post that I linked earlier shows the position of some key democrats at the start of the war and how that position has changed. This war could not have been initiated if not for the democrats, libertarians, and Republicans who voted for it.

Lastly lets look at what you said here...


If you feel nation building is in our best interests, suck up a little courage, enlist, pick up a gun, and man your post like many of us have. That is, as long as you have the courage of your convictions.

Lol, man my post? Did you look at the War on Terror post I did? Look, I don't know what your getting at but why I haven't enlisted is not something I shouldn't have to explain. Simply because I support our troops and want them to win, doesn't mean I have to pick up a gun. However like I said that argument I take with a grain of salt. Its something I see people use as an argument, when they have no other argument, so in turn they resort to criticizing ones fundamentals or credibility. Oh well

And the Iraq Study Group.


Are there any indications of JAM possibly orchestrating terrorist attacks on the U.S. even if we pull out? If not, then there's a good reason why AQI gets more attention.


I'm not denying that eliminating them won't end the sectarian violence, but they've been a huge instigator of it, especially with the Samarra Mosque bombing. Clearly, it suits their objectives.


You don't think they'll ever unite because they don't like each other's views on religion? What happens when JAM steps up slaughtering Sunni civilians again after a U.S. pullout? Common enemies make strange bedfellows, as history in general, and history of the Muslim world in particular, demonstrate over and over again. What history also demonstrates is that when things get really hot, people will prefer oppression to endless, wanton slaughter. They will go with those who appear to have the best chance of protecting them. That is why staying in until this Sunni council gets itself solidly established will provide the best chance of driving AQI out and actually keeping them out.

Fighting and dying in Iraq is equivalent to paying taxes? If that's what you believe, then it's no wonder you want to continue fighting indefinitely. It's only money, right? Be sure to inform your fellow citizens currently fighting in Iraq your thoughts on their "welfare". Such support...


Yes, I (and everyone on this board) know(s) your concerns about Iraq and the soldiers fighting there. I'd like to see some evidence of your convictions. If you aren't going to sign up, are you advocating others to sign up? Are you donating your money to the fight (and not just taxes)? What are you doing to help us "win" in Iraq apart from complaining how everyone who disagrees with the war wants us to "lose"?

Are there any indications AQ in Iraq will attack us? Or are you still wanting to attack dangers that only exist in your head?

How about taking it one step further - are you suggesting Al Qaida exists in only 2 locations - Afghanistan and Iraq? Meaning, as long as we are fighting them there, the factions in every other part of the world (and probably already here in the US) won't cross our borders the same way you believe AQ in either Afghanistan or Iraq will? Can you not see the absurdity of your argument? From a simple plausibility standpoint, why would AQ fight us "there" when they can just walk across our borders and attack unarmed Americans?

Some of us would rather have had a true coalition with more allies helping us deal with those factions all over the world. Instead, Bush wanted a war at any cost thinking we can do it alone. The failure is monumental. But Bush STILL has people believing our unilateral presence and actions in Iraq is helpful. This is clearly the worst military strategy and foreign policy ever.

The fact that Bush supports an open border policy should prove your fears are bogus.

You and I had a brief discussion concerning AQI's lethality in Iraq a few weeks ago. That's why this statement stands out. Here you cited the ISG report and said you wanted to prevent AQ from using Iraq as a base of operations. I pointed out that AQ was using Iraq as a base according to the report.

Now you're attributing AQI as the "largest catalyst of violence" to the report. Here's the report, again. Just Ctrl-F "al qaeda". Here are a few sentences:

• [Violence] is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias and death squads, al Qaeda, and widespread criminality.
• Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations.
• A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.
• It is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including al Qaeda.
• There are multiple sources of violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite militias and death squads, and organized criminality.
• Al Qaeda is responsible for a small portion of the violence in Iraq, but that includes some of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, large truck bombs, and attacks on significant—religious or political targets. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run and composed of Sunni Arabs. Foreign fighters—numbering an estimated 1,300—play a supporting role or carry out suicide operations. Al Qaeda's goals include instigating a wider sectarian war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq.

There's nothing in the report that speaks to AQI being the largest catalysm for violence in the country, Blackstone. Causes for the violent turning point have been debated, but determining this wasn't on the ISG's agenda. More to the point, the administration blames the Al-Askari mosque bombing as the source of woe. The first bombing was carried out by men dressed as Iraqi special forces personnel. The second, in 2007, by AQI.

Is the surge working?
Holistically speaking? No. Are there pockets of success? Yes. I don't suspect the surge will make a lasting impact because, for the millionth time, it's not up to us no matter how we feel about the insurgency, the ethnocide and the anarchy.

Should this strategy be continued?
No. We're still there for oil as far as I'm concerned.

Iraq has told the U.S. it is not reneweing its UNSC mandate for a MNF next year. That means our legal basis for being there will soon end. The UNSC "has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues". The IMF-backed oil bill is still stuck in parliament and Sunnis and Shiites are ticked off at the Kurds for recently signing an illegal PSD and oil exploration deal with Texas' Hunt Oil.

Sucks to be a foreign oil firm.

Start packing or re-occupy the same sovereign state. We may finally, unequivocally find out what Iraq is about.

logophage



Evidence of Teds convictions for defending his viewpoint that the war in Iraq is important? Ok, I'm seeing this dead argument become a trend. The argument that if you support the war you should pick up a gun and fight in the war is about the silliest thing Ive heard in debate. So while we're on the topic lets turn the tables a bit shall we?

How many Anti-war enthusiast here have actively taken part in public protest of this war? Well I guess if you haven't, supposing this argument I keep hearing about supporters of the war is true, and we should fight in the war since we support it, I suppose anyone who doesn't support the war yet doesn't protest is guilty of the same hypocrisy. Right? But you see I don't believe that, I believe you can be highly supportive of anything you choose without being a part of it directly, and that includes any anti Iraq war enthusiast here that hasn't protested, or given funds to websites called something like www.this_war_is_a_joke.com.

I mean come on folks cant we be a little more constructive than resorting to criticizing the fundamentals of individuals we do not know?

No, we are NOT fighting a war. The war in Iraq was over 15 minutes after the first American crossed into Iraq.

It is now and has been a nation building exercise while attempting to mediate a civil war. Iraq has nothing to do with defending America and we are not part of the solution.

So, the point stands. If you believe this socialist policy is worth the costs of American lives for an indefinite amount of time, than YOU do it. Man up and do your part if you are that much of a believer.

Really? Did you go to war? Are you at war now? What function are you serving in this war? How is America at war? I returned home on R & R leave in late June, and I didn't notice anybody at war. I didn't see anybody going without. A a matter of fact, judging by what I saw, you couldn't have convinced me that there was a war going on.......no spin.......Sure O'Reilly.......



Bingo! Right on the money, Net! Never a more truthful word spoken!

Except we're not protecting our country by being in Iraq......Except we didn't sign up to mediate civil wars between brainwashed religious zealots. Please explain something to me. Let's presume that a majority of service members lean conservative rather than liberal. Let's then presume that a majority might have voted for a Republican candidate. If the anti-war crowd is largely liberal, and doesn't 'want to see us win', then why do so many soldiers and marines desire us to withdraw, and believe that staying in Iraq is a waste of dollars and lives? Are they just confused since they 'don't support the troops?'




I think you might be confused about AQ and AQI, one is Al Qeada and the other is Al Qeada in Iraq. Nobody has stated that there is no difference between the two, so I have no idea where you're coming up with this. I have already stated that the Sunni militia's have turned away from AQI and are actively tying their disparate elements together into a national council, a council not affiliated in any way with AQI. The Iraqi Sunni's have no love for AQI after the way the extremists treated and attempted to oppress the largely moderate Sunni population. I would suggest taking some more time to conduct your research, rather than trying to pin all relativity to the fact that they both practice the same flavor of Islam.



Lesly and DR already did a good job at dissecting this, so I will just add the following. If your formula were true, then Saddam, a Sunni muslim and true America hater, would have allied himself with the Sunni AQ, also true America haters. The Iraqi Sunni's are tribal and/or nationalist, AQI is not. They have differing and incompatible visions for a future Iraq. If I get a chance to find some unclass material, I'll post it later.

With all due respect, DTOM, the only time national policy decisions are made strictly by members of the military are in military dictatorships. Luckily, the US isn't one of those, and therein lies the flaw in the worn out "chickenhawk" ad hom attack. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to enlist. When you made that decision, you swore an oath to the Constitution and no place in that Constitution does it say "people who haven't been to war have no right in participating in the debate of war policy". You may not have signed up for what you see as a civil war between religious zealots and you certainly have the right to voice your disagreement with the policy that puts you in that situation. At the same time, someone who isn't there also has the right to participate in this debate as well without the personal attacks and "chickenhawk" type name-calling that's been going on in this thread.

By the way, did you know FDR was never in the military either?


Aquilla

Why is it silly to ask people to demonstrate their convictions for something they supposedly so strongly believe in? If you can't fight in this war, then do something about it other than complain. Sacrifice yourself to your cause. Donate your time, your money, your energy to something you so believe in. People are dying on the field of battle for your beliefs. What is your sacrifice?