Okay Ted, I will break it down so even you can understand it maybe?

Ted- where do these suicide bombers come from, and what do they have that are finite compared to ours? If you are talking a finite amount of suicide bombers- you are probably right. If you are comfortable with about double the number of potential suicde bombers are on the planet than we have US citizens?

What cost is involved in an AQ, Sunni or Shi'ite attack on Americans in Iraq? Especially if they are Iraqi- not normally even found outside thier own borders?

Who are we degrading and killing that helps our interests globally?

Ted, can you give any evidence beyond administration talking points that would lead an educated person to believe that Al Qaeda has any chance in the world of 'taking over' Shia dominated Iraq? The logic for this argument is preposterous.



AQI has their TTP's (tactics, techniques and procedures) just as we do. And just as we vary and experiment to gain the upper hand, so does AQI. Women are not allowed (by our ROE) to be searched unless it is conducted by a female. Since females are far less likely to be searched, AQI has been planning on using this TTP for some time. Add to that, the two mentally retarded women were well known in the area of the market, and obviously not inclined to understand what was going on anyway.

This is evidence of smarter tactics by AQI, not evidence of a lack of religious zealots seeking martyrdom.

Not if the country breaks apart and they get Anbar, for example, with its Sunni population.

Can anyone guarantee that if we run out on the Sunnis they will be totally crushed and taken over by the Shia majority in all of Iraq? I don’t thing so. And if not – will there be any love lost for the Americans who ran and left them? Will they not gravitate to AQI and give them sanctuary – and more?




OK – and it is my contention that this is doable in this country and has not happened because we are tying up a good deal of AQ people, energy and money in Iraq.

Who cares? I don't. We can excuse Rwanda (then) and Darfur (now). We can certainly make excuses for a Sunni purge.

Except we don't need to make excuses in the case of Iraq. We've spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the hopes that, given time, Iraq will get its act together and move past decades of sectarian divisions in a few years. Iraq isn't worth another life or another billion, especially with the government that came into being under our protection siding with Iranian interests and killing our own.

The original goal of the Surge was to quail violence so that the Iraqis could have political reconciliation and some political progress. The Bush administration keeps moving the goal posts to define "success". Without any political progress what you have is a void that will be filled by strongmen when the US leaves. Even though there was a decrease in violence there is no political progress so there can be no real success. And when you think about it the basic premise is flawed. If a surge in troops is what it takes to lower violence; logic would seem to dictate that removing troops would cause an increase in violence.

And I think its obvious that many Middle Eastern countries (and the populace of those countries) see us as Imperialists and not spreading democracy. With no bid contracts and some American Companies trying to get oil deals before there was a real government it can be easy to think of us as a self serving country. With gas nearing $4 a gallon I don't see any of this exploitation coming my way. How do we show we are trying to spread democracy? I say by sticking by our "core principles" even when the results are not to our liking. If we are trying to spread democracy we can't continue support people like Musharaf or turn a blind eye to the problems in China or Saudi Arabia. If we are trying to spread democracy we have to do it all the time not when its convenient.

Well Ted, can you guarantee that the Sunni clans will be inclined to renew a relationship with Al Qaeda after the disastrous go around previously?

Al Qaeda in Iraq is exceptionally violent, and not only against Shia and Americans. Sunnis whom AQI leadership felt were not sufficiently devout or committed to the jihad were also targeted with extraordinary brutality. Additionally, the Sunni clan structure trumps everything except Islam. AQI attempted to subvert the tribes’ version of Islam for their purposes, and failed. Only a naïve outlook would lead someone to believe that AQI has any chance of actually holding territory in Iraq. The Sunni clans won’t allow it, the Shia majority won’t allow it, and Iran won’t allow it.

What’s ironic is that not only have we been marching to the beat of Al Qaeda’s drums up to this point, but if they actually took over Anbar Province and somehow held it as their own, it would be a huge tactical blunder on their part, for they would be far easier for us to attack and destroy.

As long as our presence remains in Iraq, it will be a magnet for AQI and other groups to attack us there, and kill American soldiers. Once we leave, it takes away that draw and allows Iraq to determine its own course.

Going back to AQI’s tactics, they continue to evolve. Just yesterday, 5 American soldiers were killed by an AQI insurgent wearing a suicide vest. One of the previously touted success stories of the surge was that patrols were staring to be conducted dismounted (on foot); this theoretically allowed Americans to meet and bond with the Iraqi’s in the neighborhood they patrolled, fostering a greater sense of security. If AQI continues this tactic, whatever progress that was made in this regard will be undone.

American presence in Islamic holy land will only serve to fuel the global jihad movement; I’m quite confused how anyone could think that not to be the case. Our invasion has radicalized innumerable Muslims than existed previously. AQI uses Iraq as a training ground and the Sunni and Shia clans and militias bide their time with training and arming, waiting for the day we leave.

I’m simply astounded Ted, by your consignment of so many American soldiers to certain death, the longer we stay in Iraq. Is this the Republican version of ‘supporting the troops’?

Yes and an AQ leader said today it was a blunder – one they are trying to reapait.


Great idea – lets pull out DTOM – let Iraq go to hell and Anbar fall to AQ and then come back to fight them – wonderful.



DTOM They are hurt badly and will not recover easily – unless of course we pull out and allow it to happen.





I agree. We are working on ways to detect explosives at distance and other means to defeat this tactic.



We are not pulling out of Saudi Arabia and this was Bin Laden demand and the force behind the founding of AQ. We are not abandoning Israel and even if we left Iraq AQ will not just go away – unless you know something the rest of us don’t.

Hmmmm......more in depth analysis from Ted......

Are going to answer my question to you?

...can you guarantee that the Sunni clans will be inclined to renew a relationship with Al Qaeda after the disastrous go around previously?

DTOM, Ted has been fairly consistent in his views. As long as he doesn't have to pay $5 for a gallon of gas, it's ok for you to die over there. He will pretend to grieve and feel bad, but just like the other 4900, he'll get over it. You see, he supports the troops. People like me that would rather you guys come home safe if you are not going to "win" with overwhelming force, don't. In Ted's world, I'm the bad guy.

If you go through his posts, he makes no apologies for justifying actions in the middle east because failing to do something could cause the cost of gas to skyrocket. I'm not sure how he squares that with $107 a barrel while we are "winning the fight" regardless of the non-action of the "party of surrender". Maybe when it gets to $200 a barrel, he'll decide that maybe with a better investment, we could bring those costs down by doing something different then sending the troops he supports into a meat grinder.

This was the case initially but over the last year the opposite has been the case. Far more people see us as liberators – not withstanding the pronouncements of some high profile sectarian leaders.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=O...zhmYjkyZTdkN2E=

Well your source is nice and all, but like all biased sources.......only tells one side of the story. We'll probably just have to disagree on that premise......I'm not really getting the 'liberator' vibe here in Baghdad.

War supporters are seemingly caught in a vicious circle in regards to Iraq; the longer we stay, the longer we'll have to stay, to justify the invasion and all the killing and maiming since we've arrived. After all, we surely don't want the previous American lives to have been lost 'in vain'. Sadly, that will come at the expense of even more American lives.

You quoted but still didn't answer my question: what makes you think that a US pullout from Iraq would drive the Sunni clans into the arms of AQI, and would it even have any effect given the Shia majority and the prevasive presence of Iran?

If you think the article is all positive and “biased” you havn’t read it DTOM. Some of what you have said is cover in detail.



As you know many of the clan leaders have asked us to stay. Some of them have even said AQ would make a resurgence if we left so I tend to agree. Add to that the fact that if we left and things went badly for the Sunni minority, as they most likely would, there would be no love lost for the US and AQ then becomes the “enemy of my enemy”.

This may be simplistic but certainly not out of the question. Fellow Sunni AQ folks have realized their error in killing Sunni civilians in Iraq and are desperate to get back in.

And it is my opinion we can still win in Iraq and that this is worth doing.

From The Times
February 11, 2008
Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'
Martin Fletcher in Baghdad

“Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group's security structure suffered “total collapse”.
These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November.
The US military released extracts from that letter yesterday along with a second seized in another November raid that is almost as startling.
That second document is a bitter 16-page testament written last October by a local al-Qaeda leader near Balad, north of Baghdad. “I am Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector,” the author begins. He goes on to describe how his force of 600 shrank to fewer than 20.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3346386.ece

You are correct; some Sunni leaders have asked that we not withdraw soon. This is primarily for two reasons. Sunni’s have recently been able to consolidate their hold in areas, and regain some other areas where they had been pushed out by Shia militias. Of course this has been enabled by the fact that we pay the salaries for the Son’s of Iraq, and we protect them from some Shia violence.
Other Sunni leaders believe that working with US forces is the fastest way to get us to leave. Make no mistake, they are not our friends, not our allies……the Sunni clans want an Iraqi state free from western influence just as badly as the Shia do.



The problem with this belief is that you have outlined the reason for the initial Sunni-AQI alliance. Once we leave Iraq, it is naïve to think that they will return to that alliance. Living under AQI domination would be just as unpalatable and rip apart the fabric of Sunni tribal society as living under Shia domination. The concept that AQI would ever be able to establish a base of operations in Iraq that would compare to Taliban Afghanistan, is naïve to the Shia majority and pervasive Iranian influence that would not allow that to happen. That concept rivals the administrations pathetic paranoid fear mongering of ‘if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here’.

And as I have said I am in favor of leaving with most troops asap. NOT running for the door.

Latest Pew poll shows clear change of sentiment on Iraq.

Opinion on the critical question of whether the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq is now about evenly divided, the first time this has happened since late 2006. About half of those surveyed (49%) say they favor bringing troops home as soon as possible, but most of these (33%) favor gradual withdrawal over the next year or two, rather than immediate withdrawal. Similarly, just under half (47%) say that the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, with most of these (30%) saying that no timetable should be set.


http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/02/p...ter-poll-on-ir/

That's hardly surprising when most of the public gets their 'news' from the MSM. Compare the in depth article by Nil Rosen in Rolling Stone to the puff piece I mentioned a couple of months ago by Geraldo on Fox.

Compare your Pew poll to this one:

Public Is Less Aware of Iraq Casualties, Study Finds

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.

Related Pew surveys have found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. "Coverage of the war has been virtually absent," said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.

The public is bound to be more optimistic when they are in the dark about what's really going on in Iraq. And that is what the administration counts on.

Come on please – from day one the coverage has been overwhelmingly negative. So much so that reporters from magazines like TIME would come back from Iraq and not believe the negative bias
Since the serge the reporting of “progress” has been grudgingly presented at best – always highlighting the negatives – such as “political progress” at the top. Then when that happens it is nearly totally ignored.

That’s why coverage has dropped off – negative events have dropped off.

First of all, 'serge' is the name of an Italian guy. Second, you have proven my point quite succinctly. The administration counts on you.

If negative events have dropped off, then why is violence picking up as the surge troops leave? If negative events have dropped off, why hasn't the surge been successful? Why does the administration not want to release the new NIE on Iraq to the public?

No comment on my Pew Poll?

I was talking about the last few months, until just recently – naturally as soon as AQ kills someone the press is all over it – that is what they DO. You made my point sir.

AQ is now desperate to get the headlines back – esp. as we go toward the election – certainly they would love a Dem in the house – not imo that it will do them much good since I see no candidate likely to “pull out” as you advocate.

Just like an administration spokesperson, you attempt to paint the majority of casualties and attacks as being from AQI; because it weakens your case for occupying Iraq when we get attacked by Iraqi nationalists who simply don't want us in their country. Of the 12 Americans killed in the last few days, 7 were from Shia extremists, not AQI.

Jaysh Al-Mahdi cease fire aside, JAM members have been instructed to defend themselves against US/ISF attacks, and the number of attacks by mainstream JAM, as opposed to Special Groups alone is up.

So up until recently, violence had dropped to 2005 levels. That's a barometer of success?

Do you ask yourself why the administration does not want to release the NIE on Iraq to the public? Or do you simply assume that dear leader knows best?

I'll be waiting for your evidence that AQI is stepping up suicide bombings to influence the elections. All you have right now to back that up is dusty fear mongering rhetoric from McCain. It is more likely that they would want McCain as the next president. The nominee that espouses an enduring presence of armed infidels on Muslim holy land is the best recruiter AQ could ever hope for.

AQ is part of it and you are right – militants are a factor as well – do you think Iran could be pushing this?

As for the US in the Muslim “holy” land do you labor under the delusion we are leaving Saudi Arabia. You know of course this is the primary reason bin Laden “declared war” on the US. Any place in Iraq more “holy” than Mecca? Do you think we are running from Afghanistan as you would have us do in Iraq? I don’t think so – and so I miss the point of your argument.

Clearly nothing we can do will appease AQ – the war goes on – in Iraq or out.


McCain says al Qaeda might try to tip US election “

McCain, at a town hall meeting in this Philadelphia suburb, was asked if he had concerns that al Qaeda or other groups in Iraq might intensify their operations to try to increase casualties in the autumn and influence the November election.

"Yes, I worry about it," McCain said. "And I know they pay attention because of the intercepts we have of their communications ... The hardest thing in warfare is to counter someone or a group of individuals who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others."

He said such groups could still mount strong attacks.

"We still have the most lethal explosive devices coming across the border from Iran into Iraq. We still have suicide bombers landing at the airport in Damascus and coming into Iraq as we speak. So I would not be surprised if they make an attempt. I believe we can counter most of it as we are countering them," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidate...1/idUSN14417731

If you are unaware of the sanctity of places like Karbala and Najaf to the Shia Muslims, I would suggest that you look into them if you want to be informed to how the Muslim world sees us. That is my point. Armed infidels on Muslim holy land.

If you believe that we will not continue to be attacked by jihadists, extremists and nationalists as long as we remain in Iraq, then you are looking through a neo-con prism. Keeping our forces in Iraq under such conditions for political purposes is a perverted, selfish and treasonous method of 'supporting the troops'.

We are marching to the drum beat of our enemy. John McCain's policy to keep US forces in a meat grinder of politics and religion is a policy of treason.

Combat forces have left Saudi Arabia, for Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq. How many more of Osama bin Ladens demands will we inadvertantly meet? I don't see the relevance of your McCain quote. I already referenced his dusty fearmongering rhetoric in my last post. I wonder what the Iraq NIE has to say about Iraq.....your administration doesn't want YOU to know.

We will never leave the ME and AQ will never just say “oh they left Iraq lets have a truce”. Never happen. They will attack us and our interests and our interests are in the ME until we get off the foreigh oil – which we know will never happen.

Ya we will be attacked there – and here and in Africa and in Kuwait (if we leave Iraq) and in Afghanistan etc

You are now accusing John McCain of TREASON? What's next, DTOM? You gonna come back to the US and run for office in Massachusetts?


Aquilla

So if your argument is that AQ will attempt to attack us no matter if we are occupying Iraq or if we withdraw..........why don't we try a novel approach instead of acting like the antithesis of what we purport to stand for as a nation. Give Iraq back to the Iraqi's, save American lives, and save $12 BILLION dollars a month.
You're correct in one regard, dependence on foreign oil is a problem. But we weren't dependent on Iraqi oil prior to 2003, and we will be just fine until Iraq solves its problems and rejoins the community of nations.



I'm saying that a perpetual and imperialist foreign policy that wastes American lives and American dollars, for political purposes -and- plays directly into the hand of our purported enemies, is tantamount to treason.



Unless you're a student of the Ted school, where there is only Democrat and Republican, and Democrat=bad and Republican=good.......then that statement is simply silly.

Not an argument a reality – unless you can show me something I haven’t seen. We have hundreds of people in SA (non military buy still infidels) – we are in Kuwait, we support Israel etc. AQ will not stop.

And we do not depend on “Iraqi” oil – just the oil market , that has little slack capacity. As I have said before – while we are married to OIL and refuse, as we have for DECADES, to do anything about it including drill for oil – then we need to be in the ME.

The only good news for you with Bush in is he will not send you to Africa. If the Dems take over you will be oiling your gun and heading for Darfur. The same people who want us out of Iraq are screaming for us to send you to Africa. Stupid idea.

http://www.savedarfur.org/newsroom/release...dan_divestment/
http://www.newser.com/story/19102.html


By the way DTOM it seems like you have been in Iraq for a long time – when do you come home?

So if I understand the essence of your argument, or your point, or whatever.....you believe that we should keep a colonial presence on muslim holy land, using American soldiers as a sort of 'live bait' in the hopes that enraged muslim jihadists will spend their time and resources attacking us there instead of in America?

Economic gain trumps military force every time. Our armed presence in the middle east is not going to ensure the free flow of oil, the safety of Americans or the spreading of democracy. Unprovoked military aggression in the name of national interest wasn't a correct policy in 1939, and it isn't in 2003.



I got my all expense paid trip to sunny Baghdad on the 15 month plan. I get paroled next month.

HAPPY FIFTH BIRTHDAY, WAR IN IRAQ!!!

Wow. Look how the years have just flown by. Seems like it was only just yesterday when The President was saying, "Mission Accomplished." That bad man Saddam Hussein has been cold, stiff and buried for almost two years now and we're still there spending money like water and still bleeding (albeit a bit slower) to prop up this experiment in nation building.

Here we are five years and spending between $10 to $12 billion bucks every month later and still no closer to the exit sign than we were when we got in. Gosh, who knew that democracy could be so expensive (certainly not Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and all the other neo-cons that lied us into this misadventure).

Wonder how many uninsured kids we could have insured or crumbling bridges and roads we could have fixed or much stronger our economy might be if we weren't flushing billions away on Iraq? Guess we'll never know...

...as the scenes of jubilation gave way to a deadly insurgency, Iraq has become the biggest test the U.S. military has faced without a draft since the fight for independence from Britain in the 1775-83 Revolutionary War.

Nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, more than 3,200 of them killed in action. Almost 30,000 have been wounded.

When he returned to Iraq for his second tour in November 2005, Wharton found a tougher environment. One sergeant was hit by three bomb attacks during an 18-hour patrol, he recalled.

Some U.S. soldiers are now on their third or fourth tours. Deployments have been extended from a year to 15 months, with only a year at home between tours. link

Buoyed by the success of "the surge" supporters of the war insist now is not the time to "cut and run" from Iraq when victory is within our grasp. Seems like we've heard that one before.

With John McCain running for George Bush's third term and the U.S. building 14 permanent bases in Iraq it looks like we'll be celebrating birthdays in our newest 51st state for years to come.

Happy Birthday again, War in Iraq! If McCain wins we're certain to be celebrating your birthday next year. And the year after that. And the year after that...

I

Gotta love that.


There is nothing “colonial” about our presence in ME countries – and outside Iraq and Afghanistan and Kuwait – most of it is not military. Makes no difference to AQ – they want ALL infidels out and we both know this will never happen.

After we win in Iraq we should draw down to numbers consistent with what we have in say Germany – only not keep them there nearly as long. In fact if we just took troops out of places they have been for over 50 years we would have no manpower problem to speak of.

There are two fairly obvious points that I think you are failing to grasp. It doesn't matter if YOU don't believe our presence in Iraq to be colonial, Muslims DO. And that fact leads directly into the fact that as such, attacks on our soldiers will never cease as long as we remain in Iraq. The past five years of insurgency bears that point out; a three pronged insurgency that after five years, 4000 American deaths and $12 BILLION dollars a month.......shows no sign of abating.

Forcing our presence onto another nation is imperialism and our continued presence is colonialism, there's really no way around that. A foreign policy that supports those points AND is directly and knowingly responsible for American deaths is treason to the foundations this nation is purportedly based on.

You keep saying this as if this is something new. As if this hasn’t been going on since the early 90s. Did you forget the carnage in Saudi Arabia, how about Lebanon and the embassies and ………………………..

Muslims have lots of reasons to hate us and most of the world and that will NOT change if we run from Iraq – and imho it will make it worse – yes I know you disagree.



Last I heard the elected government – fist one in the arab world- wanted us to hang around – you know something I don’t?

I'm confused, Ted. You're saying Muslims will continue to attack us in Iraq if we're not in Iraq? I don't understand how you can think our absence is the same as our presence.

Muslims have been attacking us for a long time – that’s what I mean logo. In fact we would not be in this mess imo if Clinton had paid a little more attention to them in the 90s.

And they will be attacking us, as they have – even if we pull every single man from Iraq – which we will not do.
the only difference is where the attacks will be. I disagree with anyone who imagines we would get some kind of “pass’ if we just ran from Iraq – quite the opposite would happen.

Ted, you're right.........Muslims aren't going to stop attacking us anytime soon, we've done everything possible to ensure their continued anger. And we're not going to convert, subject or win the hearts and minds of billions of Muslims.

How about taking a first step of introducing a policy of non-aggression, so perhaps my children don't have to fight or worry about being attacked. Muslims attack us for the wrongs committed by our foregin policy, perceived or true. Perpetual occuaption of Iraq is only going to engender perpetual warfare.

Unless you blindly believe that they hate us for our freedoms..........

We agree that AQ will attack us no matter what. Now, what about those pesky Iraqi nationalists? Will they be attacking us in Iraq if we're not in Iraq?

DTOM Well the result of insuring success in every war we ever won was by staying a while has not failed yet has it? Yet you imply it will here – why?

And I certainly don’t think we need to stay 58 years as we have in Germany.

They HATE us regardless of what we do. They will kill us where they find us including here. We need to be there until we are energy independent. Lets all spend the next few years writing the morons that govern us all to see if we can make that happen. THEN we can leave and let them all go straight to hell.

When was the last time that we fought much less won a war, that inflamed and was viewed by our enemy as a war against a religion? Ted, we have spent five years in Iraq.....longer than we spent fighting WWII....the surge was to be the one last push, the only strategy that could prevent failure. And it has failed. As the surge Brigades are leaving, the violence, the civilian deaths, the American deaths.......are all rising commensurate with the surge departure. When you're driving the wrong direction down the road.....there has to come a time when you realize that you have to turn around.

Why will it fail? Because the Shia and the Sunni need to work out their differences stemming from years of political isolation, on their own. Not by living on the other side of concrete barriers erected by Americans, seething at one another, biding their time, waiting for us to leave. Forced psuedo-democracy by an armed and occupying western power is not going to be the path to peace. Is it that hard to understand? I'm just a dumb Infantryman, and I can figure this out.



So your argument essentially IS that you favor using American soldiers as live bait. Way to support the troops.



Simplistic argument, and you didn't venture to answer logophage's question. Will the Iraqi nationalists, who comprise a greater number of our enemy, follow us here?

I disagree and so do the majority of Americans at this point. Lets leave it at that. You will never agree we can win and I will not agree we have lost and should run away wasting all out efforts there. To you the whole area is worthless and to me vital.

Oddly enough even Obama would not just pull out – are they all wrong DTOM?





This is the last time I respond to this silly idea. We sat in Germany from 1945 to the end of the Cold war waiting, right out front, for thousands of Soviet tanks to cross the border – were they “bait”. How about Korea? We still have troops in Kosovo – “bait”?

Germany didn't have an active nationalist insurgency fighting against US occupation.
Korea didn't have an active nationalist insurgency fighting against US occupation.

Kosovo may be a valid comparison except that the US wasn't nation building AND, partially as a result, it didn't/doesn't have an active nationalist insurgency fighting against US occupation.

I noticed you've left out Vietnam from your comparisons. Wonder why?

We had and have 10s of thousands of troops sitting on the front lines – if Germany was attacked we would have been right up front. I didn’ty it was exactly the same as Iraq – only that we were there to protect our self interest and ready to fight to do that – same as Korea. Kosovo is closer and we are STILL there.

Vietnam was different. We ran, the country folded, and millions have lived in commie hell ever since. Fortunately we had no real burning self interest in this country or region.

The ME is not in the same category.

It can't be THAT vital to you Ted, or you'd be calling for the removal of every incompetent boob having anything to do with Iraq and replacing them with someone better at those jobs - and that includes the president.

But I love the way this argument is framed. You want to blame democrats and disgruntled republicans like me as wanting to lose, but the "win" in Iraq can't even be defined - let alone completed. Furthermore, the surge was a means to an end. Now, the surge has become the goal.

Losers move the goalposts. Winners move the chains.

I see. Just to understand correctly... You believe that Iraq is in the same category as Germany, Korea and Kosovo but not in the same category as Vietnam even though Vietnam *had* an active nationalist insurgency and every one of those other countries you named didn't. It's convenient, isn't it, to cherry-pick data that confirms your bias and ignore (or in your case disregard) data that denies your bias.

The only region in your list that may be salient to Iraq is Kosovo. Up until mid-Feb 2008, this region was fully recognized as part of Serbia. As of now, Kosovo's declaration of independence is only partially recognized by the international community. There will likely be more fighting to come.

But back to 1999, NATO did indeed intervene in Kosovo for 3 whole months (from 24 March to 10 June). NATO had a very specific mission that almost entirely consisted of bombing and NOT occupation:
After the successful bombing campaign, the UN stepped in, but the UN (as usual) failed to stop the ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, the US's direct role, as part of NATO, ended June 11, 1999. At no point, did the US/NATO occupy Kosovo. At no point, did the US/NATO build military bases in Kosovo. At no point, did the US/NATO engage in any nation building exercise. The nation building fell to the UN and to some extent has worked except for the fact that ethnic cleansing and likely genocide occurred. Sigh...

So, Ted, if you want to make comparisons to nation building exercises involving an active and entrenched nationalist insurgency, the only other country that fits the bill is Vietnam. It is the only salient comparison.

Actually it has been defined and we are well on the way to getting there. I don’t want to “blame” anyone. We are there and even Obama – as far left as you can get, is not going to cut and run – because we have interests there that a lot of people think are vital to this country – obviously you are not one of them DR.


We stayed in Germany to hold back Russia and you get So. Korea I hope. Vietnam was an illusion (of a “domino effect”) and once we left was a moot point in any case – what it does show us is how fast an effort can go to hell when we run (and i agreed with the pullout)– and this was the longest war in US history – 11 years.


This was a Clinton adventure I would have stayed out of – you?

While this wasn't the only reason for our presence in Germany, it certainly was a reason. At what point did Germany have an active and entrenched nationalist insurgency? Without this factor, your Germany comparison is ill-considered. Same goes for Korea.


Vietnam went to hell the moment we started occupying Vietnam. Strike that... Vietnam was already hell before we started occupying Vietnam. I don't understand why you support cutting and running from Vietnam? Doesn't that make you a liberal?


I supported and still support what we did in Kosovo. The 3 month bombing campaign was not an occupation. The 3 month bombing campaign succeeded in what it set out to do. It was a very well-defined mission with clear goals and clear metrics for success. It had a time table. It was primarily a military mission. It did not attempt to police a break-away republic; it did not attempt to install "democratic institutions"; it did not attempt to create a civil infrastructure; it did not attempt to create a permanent military presence. It was very precise. It was comparatively cheap. It had moral authority behind it. AND because of all that, it didn't engender an entrenched and active nationalist insurgency against the US (or even the UN for that matter).

Iraq, like Vietnam, is the type of military action I will never support. It is not well-defined. The goalposts keep getting moved. It *is* a nation building exercise including permanent military bases. We have no moral authority. AND because of all that, it has engendered an entrenched and active nationalist insurgency against the US (and the UN for that matter).

We never fought the war. The idiot we had for President LBJ frittered away 58,000 Americans and never controlled the North. The War was lost by this moron in 1968 and we stayed to 1974. He makes any mistakes made in Iraq look trivial by comparison.

So your prescription today for Iraq is what – you are in command DTOM. Do you pull all troops in what 3 months regardless of anything? What is the DTOM plan.

Ahhh….if I were in command…..

Starting with the premise that one of the primary reasons we have received terrorist attacks is because of armed and economic intervention in a region of millions of fairly excitable Muslims…….and our response has been to intervene more and actually occupy a region of millions of fairly excitable Muslims…..it should be clear by now that the road to colonial hegemony is littered with roadblocks, obstacles and the bodies of Americans.

I would absolutely begin preparations to withdraw immediately. A withdrawal of 160,000 troops and accompanying equipment, plus contractors will take quite some time. But the cost of that endeavor would still be cheaper and safer for Americans than a continued occupation. Without getting into the weeds to much on details:

-I would meet with representatives from JAM, Badr, ISCI, 1920 BDE, Ansar Al-Sunna Jaysh Al-Islam, and the various non-militia political parties, nearly all of which want nothing more than to rid their nation of US armed presence. And most of whom we already have contact through unofficial channels. It is very likely that the above parties would honor a cease fire toward US forces and would free the respective militias, especially Shia, to engage AQI instead of Americans.

-Possibly engage the UNSC to assess the viability of a UN peacekeeping force, while also engaging the Organization of Gulf States. This force would only be employed to protect vital infrastructure for humanitarian purposes; not to install governments or prop up governments. The main goal of which to provide a neutral stability force during our withdrawal.

-Consolidate US forces into three main complexes; Balad in the north, Victory Base Complex in Baghdad, and Tallil in the south…….as we start the process of moving forces to Kuwait and home. Reduce the footprint while reducing force levels.

Above all, take no sides during our pullout. The sparring entities in Iraq absolutely have to work out the power struggle on their own; US presence is only serving to keep it on simmer. It has to boil over before a final resolution is reached. The average lifespan of a counter-insurgency is 10-15 years, and that is without the interference of an outside entity, especially one that is considered as infidel.

Our very presence as occupiers is directly aiding our enemy in the ‘war on terror’. A foreign policy during a time of war that aids and abets the enemy is treason.

My plan for fairly immediate withdrawal may seem far fetched to you, but in relation to the staggering waste of American and Iraqi life, $12 BILLION a month and the obvious benefits to Al Qeada [who we’re supposed to be at war with, as opposed to Iraqi nationalists], the benefit of leaving far outweighs the cost of staying.

Comparisons to Germany and Japan are completely irrelevant and devoid of the observance of fact. It has already been mentioned that neither of these countries had a nationalist insurgency; but also consider the fact that we ruled Japan for six years before they regained their sovereignty, and allied forces governed Germany for nine years after the end of hostilities. In Iraq, we are attempting to stagger along a fine line. We trumpet the sovereignty of the Baghdad government, not mentioning that they really control nothing of substance outside of the IZ, and failing to mention that in security matters, MNF-I has the final say…..no ifs ands or buts. American impatience and global media has prompted us to install our desired form of government in Iraq without the proper democratic tutelage and will of the people. Germany and Japan were allowed relative shelter from intra-national and inter-national affairs in order to rebuild their infrastructure and governmental processes; the brunt of which and the cost of which, shouldered by the US and allies. Both nations were also fairly ethnically and culturally homogeneous and highly industrialized, which lent itself to a smooth transition to self rule. None of the above is the reality in Iraq. Consider that after five years and a force surge that has over-taxed our military, we still only saw security that was in comparison to that of the third year of occupation. Now that surge forces are leaving, the violence is again rising by all metrics. Therefore, victory is not in our grasp, much less in our sights.

After five years of armed occupation, absolutely no underlying problems have been solved that would lead the nation of Iraq to true sovereignty and stability. War supporters can only point to the temporarily lowered rates of violence that came and are ending with the surge. War supporters would like the public to believe that we are waging a patriotic struggle against Al Qeada, without mentioning that we are fighting far more against Shia nationalists who we didn’t go to war with in the first place. War supporters build a facade of “fighting for our freedoms”, or “defending our country”, cowering from the truth that we’re playing directly into Al Qeada’s strategy. I certainly don’t hold the blueprint for a clean and seamless exit strategy for Iraq, but even my primitive plan holds more logic than the administrations support for an Iranian dominated psuedo-government, while trumpeting the evils of the Iranian government itself. I see Iraq and its struggle for what it is and how it has to play out, not opting to view it through a state-centric, patriotic kaleidoscope.

Now, I suppose you will probably channel words of the same vein of rhetoric that McCain so obtusely displayed during his campaign stop in Baghdad…….about not ‘surrendering’ or ‘retreating’. His slogans are vapid patriotic poppycock bereft of any critical thinking. The Democrat candidates aren’t much better, because those in the mainstream flow with the current, instead of having the courage to get out of the water.

Yes far fetched and a disaster that could make Iraq a client state of Iran as they rush to, as they have said – fill the power vacuum.

Even if AQ is booted the country would be a Shia dictatorship in weeks and civil war could break out and threaten the whole area. Meanwhile we are still in Kuwait, SA, etc. so AQ steps up attacks on the running Americans and the PR value boots their influence all over the world.


But WHY did we stay DTOM? To insure that they did not return to militant governments as Germany did after WWI. Is there any guarantee that the Iraq we run from will remain an ally? More likely the whole area, with the help of Iran, descends in chaos and we are back there in no time.

Hillary has changed he statements so many times I cannot tell. First she said – start moving out in 60 days. Then a “plan” (not specified) in 60 days to start moving out. Fortunatelly not even Obama would do anything even close to what you suggest.

I'll give you one more benefit of the doubt that you are at all interested in learning something beyond what you think you already know. Go back and read post #45, and then re-read your last post; see if you can notice the error in your theory.

Ironically, as I posted #45, I had the feeling I was wasting my time.

The rest of your post is but more partisan rhetoric that avoids the facts.

DTOM, while your debate with Ted, well, may very well be a waste of time- really, soldiers lives, um, I am not sure if they are not valued, or rather, valued as a commodity to be traded for cheap gas? well, some folks think it is "worth it"

but what I value is not just your comments here, but it does add depth to the military bloggers we, here in the US, grabs many of us and holds us- I have nothing more to add to the debate, because, well, you are obviously the most informed on Iraq, after all, these institutions you are talking about aren't in hiding, I am sure you would have to be pretty stupid to not see it on any level- meaning, you recognize and deal with organizations that we only get snips and ends of, no matter the "news" source.

what makes your debate here unique DTOM, and frames this entire debate on Iraq- that, even more than in Vietnam- we are getting first hand information, of non-classified material, from Iraq.

I have read alot on the web and seen alot on TV etc etc on Iraq- but I had no idea, to be honest, of the complexity of the organizations, and the day to day operations, But I now have a clearer picture.

I mean, dude- you have REALLY educated me more about the practical layout of the population- Iran can't really "take over" Iraq via the Shia population- because the Shia population has no intention of giving up power to Iran, allies, perhaps- but client state> I don't think so!

Tribal affiliations vs goverment loyalty- check- means there is no real "citizen" as far as a state goes, in the minds of the population. Meaning, not really having a loyalty to "country" first- it is family first- a rather large one, but family.

I don't think it is too objectionable to veer off topic a bit to see the educational angle of this debate.

I believe others smarter than me has seen the problem of a free nation sustaining a war that does not have sound goals, entry and exit strategies, and, above all- MORAL AND ETHICAL BASIS for our being there- realpolitik does NOT sustain this kind of human and economic expense.


I believe DTOM has slammed this debate out of the park- even though there are not supposed to be "winners" and "losers" declared on this debate.

I would ask Ted one thing- what makes his beliefs and sources so much more reliable than the words you are reading from DTOM?

You have never ONCE contradicted or countered a credible source to discredit his rundown of the political situation on the ground in Iraq today.

Are you telling me DTOM is BADLY misreading the situation in Iraq- that he has, thankfully, managed to survive thus far?

Don't you think, OH, the SURVIVAL RESPONSE might make DTOM want to have absolutely correct handle on the situation on the ground?

I will tell you this Ted- NOTHING will make you call the political and tactical situation on the ground correctly like the motivator of people trying to kill you.

Do you think he has THAT BADLY misrepresented what he has been seeing here- and more importantly- having to interact and SURVIVE?

If you DO believe he has misread the situation SO BAD as to have the opposite view of you, what kind of ground shaking super info that you have been privy too that DTOM doesn't would have the credibility to discount DTOMs first hand account?

I interrupt my self-imposed sabbatical for this important message:

4,000 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq

A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall lull in violence.

The soldiers with Multi-National Division â€â€� Baghdad were on a patrol when their vehicle was struck at about 10 p.m. in southern Baghdad, the military said. Another soldier was wounded in the attack.

Identities of those killed were withheld pending notification of relatives.

Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, expressed condolences to all the families who have lost a loved one in Iraq, saying each death is "equally tragic."

"There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we," he said. "There's still a lot of work to be done."

link

Oh, I know there will be some who suggest the loss of 4,000 soldiers is a modest number compared to Vietnam and World War II or other wars. Others will say the falling of every soldier is a tragedy and emphasizing the death of the 4000th soldier trivializes the 3999th and all those before him.

Well, I've marked the 1,000th soldier fallen and the 2000th, and the 3000th, and I'm going to keep on marking these numbers until America finally elects a President with enough good sense or a Congress with a spine to stop this slow drip-drip-drip of death and devastation and brings our troops home.

And by the way...

While everyone has been busy parsing and picking apart Barack Obama's race speech and talking non-stop about Reverend Wright and "White guilt" and the latest drivel spewed by Bill Clinton and who's up and who's down in the polls and all this other happy horsecrap, somehow this exchange got lost and overlooked by all the fine minds here at

RADDATZ: Let me go back to the Americans. Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So? (emphasis mine)

RADDATZ: So -- you don't care what the American people think?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Dick Cheney's candor comes easily to a man who is supremely confident he is beyond the ability of the American public to hold him accountable and could care less about the judgment of history. Cheney wanted this war and come hell or high water he was going to get it.

Mission accomplished Mr. Vice President.

God damn the United States? That's a distinct possibility with war pigs like Cheney sneering at the stupidity of the common folk even as promises great progress has been made. And all it costs is $5000 per second and 4,000 dead soldiers.

I now return to my hiatus and the rest of you may continue as you were; transfixed by trivialities, focusing on small trees in a vast forest, divided and dazzled by fake celebrities, fake news, fake entertainment and fake controversies and generally amusing yourselves while someone else's son comes home in a box.

Your posts don't matter. Your protests don't matter. Even your support doesn't matter. Dick Cheney is going to do whatever he damn well pleases no matter what.

Same as it ever was.