Full Version: Iraq Reconstruction Effort in Jeopardy?
Recently, the Bush White House has caught flak from members of both parties for failing to spend money allocated to Iraq's reconstruction - article.
Given that the situation in Iraq seems to be worsening daily, soldiers are dying and being wounded daily, and Iraq seems to have entered the second phase of insurgency one has to ask what does it all mean?
Hal Crowther writes:
At this point, with the way events are shaping up in Iraq you have to wonder if he has a point. Virtually every civilization in history has learned this lesson numerous times, but forgotten it decades later.
Questions for debate:
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
QUOTE
Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.
"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.
"It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.
QUOTE
But Hagel said the shift in funds "does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we're winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble."
Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued -- even before the war -- that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.
<snip>
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."
Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued -- even before the war -- that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.
<snip>
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."
Given that the situation in Iraq seems to be worsening daily, soldiers are dying and being wounded daily, and Iraq seems to have entered the second phase of insurgency one has to ask what does it all mean?
Hal Crowther writes:
QUOTE
Where does it go from here? The nightmare misadventure in Iraq is over, beyond the reach of any reasonable argument, though many more body bags will be filled. In Washington, chicken hawks will still be squawking about "digging in" and winning, but Vietnam proved conclusively that no modern war of occupation would ever be won. Every occupation is doomed. The only way you "win" a war of occupation is the old-fashioned way, the way Rome finally defeated the Carthaginians: kill all the fighters, enslave everyone else, raze the cities and sow the fields with salt.
Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the last peasant, and why shouldn't they? If our presidential election fails to dislodge the crazy bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this country would welcome regime change by any intervention, human or divine. But if, say, the Chinese came in to rescue us--Operation American Freedom--how long would any of us, left-wing or right, put up with an occupying army teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A guerrilla who opposes an invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's a resistance fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting enemies but making enemies. As Richard Clarke and others have observed, every dollar, bullet and American life that we spend in Iraq is one that's not being spent in the war on terrorism. Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a precious shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda.
Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the last peasant, and why shouldn't they? If our presidential election fails to dislodge the crazy bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this country would welcome regime change by any intervention, human or divine. But if, say, the Chinese came in to rescue us--Operation American Freedom--how long would any of us, left-wing or right, put up with an occupying army teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A guerrilla who opposes an invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's a resistance fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting enemies but making enemies. As Richard Clarke and others have observed, every dollar, bullet and American life that we spend in Iraq is one that's not being spent in the war on terrorism. Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a precious shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda.
At this point, with the way events are shaping up in Iraq you have to wonder if he has a point. Virtually every civilization in history has learned this lesson numerous times, but forgotten it decades later.
Questions for debate:
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
It don't think there's necessarily causality between points A &
B here--ie, we'd need to see why and where the funds/projects are being held up before making any conclusions.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Absolutely. If that was not factored into the thinking, then I will have to agree that plan, whether justified or not, was ill-conceived. Further, simply stating that 'failure is not an option' does nothing to insure that that would not in fact be the outcome. So, to tie in with my comment above, the reasons for the holdup need to identified and fixed.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
Personally, I'd hope this issue is dealt with in a non-partisan fashion. Solving the problems in Iraq is to the benefit of everyone (and is certainly critical to our long-term security interests). Also, I myself don't really see it as a deciding factor for anyone. Those against Bush might relish such criticism--but your vote was already decided. I doubt that such information will sway anyone currently for Bush. It doesn't seem to be getting alot of airtime to effect the undecideds--and probably won't, as Kerry is on pretty much the same page as Bush on the situation in Iraq (and wouldn't want to call attention to any problems he might not be able to solve were he to take office).
It don't think there's necessarily causality between points A &
B here--ie, we'd need to see why and where the funds/projects are being held up before making any conclusions.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Absolutely. If that was not factored into the thinking, then I will have to agree that plan, whether justified or not, was ill-conceived. Further, simply stating that 'failure is not an option' does nothing to insure that that would not in fact be the outcome. So, to tie in with my comment above, the reasons for the holdup need to identified and fixed.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
Personally, I'd hope this issue is dealt with in a non-partisan fashion. Solving the problems in Iraq is to the benefit of everyone (and is certainly critical to our long-term security interests). Also, I myself don't really see it as a deciding factor for anyone. Those against Bush might relish such criticism--but your vote was already decided. I doubt that such information will sway anyone currently for Bush. It doesn't seem to be getting alot of airtime to effect the undecideds--and probably won't, as Kerry is on pretty much the same page as Bush on the situation in Iraq (and wouldn't want to call attention to any problems he might not be able to solve were he to take office).
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
I agree with Hobbes. I don't believe a poor reconstruction strategy necessarily implies anything about the lack of a plan (ahem...series of actionable items) or lack of an exit strategy.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Of course, it is possible. However, without a clear notion of what it means to be "successful", the outcome seems a matter of definition. In other words, Iraq can be deemed a "success" right now should the spinmeisters choose to define it that way. I reject the notion that we're waiting for some magic line of democratic stability to be crossed. I believe the line is determined solely by our political will and not by something objectively measureable.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I suppose ideology outweighs reason in this case. Ideologues believe Dubya's right because...well...he's right (or wrong because he's wrong). In this case we have "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Thus, I don't see harsh criticism affecting the vote for or against Dubya. I believe that proper debate on this matter cannot happen since ideology has trumped reason. If true believers cannot admit failures in Dubya's policies and anti-Dubyas find Dubya repugnant, then there is no debate and no reconcilation and no ability to discuss the facts. There are only "talking points".
In my opinion, this is the recipe for failure. Without debate there is no learning. Without learning there is no guidance in policy. Policy decisions become ideological, ignoring the pragmatic in preference for "moral certainty".
I agree with Hobbes. I don't believe a poor reconstruction strategy necessarily implies anything about the lack of a plan (ahem...series of actionable items) or lack of an exit strategy.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Of course, it is possible. However, without a clear notion of what it means to be "successful", the outcome seems a matter of definition. In other words, Iraq can be deemed a "success" right now should the spinmeisters choose to define it that way. I reject the notion that we're waiting for some magic line of democratic stability to be crossed. I believe the line is determined solely by our political will and not by something objectively measureable.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I suppose ideology outweighs reason in this case. Ideologues believe Dubya's right because...well...he's right (or wrong because he's wrong). In this case we have "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Thus, I don't see harsh criticism affecting the vote for or against Dubya. I believe that proper debate on this matter cannot happen since ideology has trumped reason. If true believers cannot admit failures in Dubya's policies and anti-Dubyas find Dubya repugnant, then there is no debate and no reconcilation and no ability to discuss the facts. There are only "talking points".
In my opinion, this is the recipe for failure. Without debate there is no learning. Without learning there is no guidance in policy. Policy decisions become ideological, ignoring the pragmatic in preference for "moral certainty".
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
I think that the underspending of the Reconstruction money reflects the lack of a clear plan and a solid use of caution. We are not going to get that kind of money again, and it will be the leverage we will have to get a sovereign government to want to cooperate with the United States. So I lean more seriously toward another explanaiton as the answer to this question.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
There is a high probability we will be ultimately unsuccessful in Iraq in terms of making it a model of democracy for the Middle East. If we aren;t very careful it will become a model of how to defy American military might and how to create a haven for terrorists by creating a political vacuum.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
Sadly I think not. Even a lucid, focused and, well crafted critique of the Bush administrations policies in Iraq (and the filures and shortcomings are easy to catalog) will not overcome the perception that the Dems are weak on foreign policy. To restate, even presented with clear evidence that a Reupblican administration botched a major piece of foreign policy, would not dissuade a majority of voters whose primary concen is foreign policy from voting republican. That is a catastrophic failure of the Democratic failure.
I think that the underspending of the Reconstruction money reflects the lack of a clear plan and a solid use of caution. We are not going to get that kind of money again, and it will be the leverage we will have to get a sovereign government to want to cooperate with the United States. So I lean more seriously toward another explanaiton as the answer to this question.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
There is a high probability we will be ultimately unsuccessful in Iraq in terms of making it a model of democracy for the Middle East. If we aren;t very careful it will become a model of how to defy American military might and how to create a haven for terrorists by creating a political vacuum.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
Sadly I think not. Even a lucid, focused and, well crafted critique of the Bush administrations policies in Iraq (and the filures and shortcomings are easy to catalog) will not overcome the perception that the Dems are weak on foreign policy. To restate, even presented with clear evidence that a Reupblican administration botched a major piece of foreign policy, would not dissuade a majority of voters whose primary concen is foreign policy from voting republican. That is a catastrophic failure of the Democratic failure.
Situations like this frankly make me sigh in frustration...
Iraq rebuilding efforts 'pitiful'
No word yet on what he and the other senators will do about it of course...
Don't hold your breath.
One of the things that has endangered the future of Iraq (and the safety of our troops) the most is the fact that Congress has been willing to leave the entire job up to the executive which itself has not been wise enough to ask for help. We have been holding back in a number of areas and it shows.
Frankly, until the American government (ALL of it) starts actively working towards the goal of a prosperous Iraq. I won't care what these do-nothing Senators say.
QUOTE
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican described the rebuilding effort in Iraq so far as "beyond pitiful".
"It's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," he said.
"It's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," he said.
Iraq rebuilding efforts 'pitiful'
No word yet on what he and the other senators will do about it of course...
Don't hold your breath.
One of the things that has endangered the future of Iraq (and the safety of our troops) the most is the fact that Congress has been willing to leave the entire job up to the executive which itself has not been wise enough to ask for help. We have been holding back in a number of areas and it shows.
Frankly, until the American government (ALL of it) starts actively working towards the goal of a prosperous Iraq. I won't care what these do-nothing Senators say.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
Well, there's a bit more to the issue than under-utilization of reconstruction money. The problems with reconstruction are inextricably tied to problems with security. Both are due to inexcusably poor planning by our national-level decision makers. (And deliberate discarding by the administration of planning that did exist, i.e. the DoS Future of Iraq Project).
I highly recommend reading a couple of excellent analytical papers that address this issue and its contributing factors:
This one is from ICG: Reconstructing Iraq
...and these from CSIS: Inexcusable Failure: Progress in Training the Iraqi Army and Security Forces, Cleaning Up the Mess: The Failures of the CPA and the US Effort in Iraq, and, finally, the most recent paper describes negative trends in reconstruction and how they affect stability, but states that Iraqis themselves remain optimistic: Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it?
I'm slightly more optimistic than Eeyore - I think we've got about 50/50 chance of ultimately being able to sucessfully establish a stable government in Iraq. I feel that there is enough going well in Iraq that there is no reason to believe
that the our effort is doomed to failure - despite the numerous and crippling mistakes that have been made along the way. With every day that passes, however, the potential end cost seems to be rising inexorably - but the price of failure would be awful. Not only would it result in significant destabilization throughout the region, seriously damaging our interests and our influence (well beyond what has already been done), but I think Eeyore caught a very important point: "...it will become a model of how to defy American military might...".
From the Chatham House (formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs), here is a pessimistic paper that puts forward possible scenarios for the future of Iraq - with, in their view, civil war and fragmentation being the most likely: Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?
Edit: Just caught this on the morning news...US Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
Well, there's a bit more to the issue than under-utilization of reconstruction money. The problems with reconstruction are inextricably tied to problems with security. Both are due to inexcusably poor planning by our national-level decision makers. (And deliberate discarding by the administration of planning that did exist, i.e. the DoS Future of Iraq Project).
I highly recommend reading a couple of excellent analytical papers that address this issue and its contributing factors:
This one is from ICG: Reconstructing Iraq
...and these from CSIS: Inexcusable Failure: Progress in Training the Iraqi Army and Security Forces, Cleaning Up the Mess: The Failures of the CPA and the US Effort in Iraq, and, finally, the most recent paper describes negative trends in reconstruction and how they affect stability, but states that Iraqis themselves remain optimistic: Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it?
I'm slightly more optimistic than Eeyore - I think we've got about 50/50 chance of ultimately being able to sucessfully establish a stable government in Iraq. I feel that there is enough going well in Iraq that there is no reason to believe
that the our effort is doomed to failure - despite the numerous and crippling mistakes that have been made along the way. With every day that passes, however, the potential end cost seems to be rising inexorably - but the price of failure would be awful. Not only would it result in significant destabilization throughout the region, seriously damaging our interests and our influence (well beyond what has already been done), but I think Eeyore caught a very important point: "...it will become a model of how to defy American military might...".
From the Chatham House (formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs), here is a pessimistic paper that puts forward possible scenarios for the future of Iraq - with, in their view, civil war and fragmentation being the most likely: Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?
Edit: Just caught this on the morning news...US Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
Interesting topic for debate, Cube. I do, however, question your choice of analyst on this one. Anyone who uses the word "chickenhawk" has dubious credibility at best (what DOES Maureen Dowd think about this, anyway? 
)
On to the serious discussion:
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
There are a couple of factors here. The first is found in the article:
Does anyone seriously want to start pouring billions into reconstructing areas that are still subject to insurgent attacks? Security must precede rebuilding. The rebuilding is most necessary in the areas where there was (or is) heavy fighting. If the fighting is not yet done, then the rebuilding cannot begin.
With our elections approaching and Iraq's elections not far behind, the insurgents have a sense of urgency right now. This is completely expected. After the elections (especially the Iraqi elections), I think things will calm down significantly.
Now, if the emphasis here is that the security situation in Iraq is not where we thought it was (as Luger and Hagel bring to light again that some people miscalculated the reception we would receive in Iraq, somehow implying that the policies of the subsequent year and a half are still based on this outdated assumption) then that is legitimate. But throwing in red herring, tangent arguments does not focus on the solution to the problem.
The problem is not that this money has not been spent, it is that it cannot be spent without the risk of throwing it away. Instead of focusing on the fact that Bush's advisors were not Karnac the Magnificent, they should focus on solutions. As should Bush, by the way. Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric detracts from Bush's ability to do his job. It is a real Catch 22.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Of course there is that possibility. I agree with what others have said that since the goals are not clearly defined (Iraqi democracy? stable Iraq, regardless of government? some other goal), it will be difficult to judge success.
What should be done? We should clearly outline our goals in Iraq. Right now, the focus is on the upcoming elections. I think stability and security after that point then becomes the focus. That is the goal right now, but I don't feel that Bush has outlined this clearly enough in order to generate confidence that we are moving towards that goal.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
The Republican party is not monolithic, just as the Democratic Party is not. Criticism from his "own party" should be more focused on defining the goals and coming up with solutions instead of focusing on the assumptions that may or may not have contributed to the current situation.
There is definitely room to criticize how things are going in Iraq. The thing is, unless you are willing to forward an alternate route that is plausible, it is simply empty criticism.
)On to the serious discussion:
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
There are a couple of factors here. The first is found in the article:
QUOTE
"We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher.
Does anyone seriously want to start pouring billions into reconstructing areas that are still subject to insurgent attacks? Security must precede rebuilding. The rebuilding is most necessary in the areas where there was (or is) heavy fighting. If the fighting is not yet done, then the rebuilding cannot begin.
With our elections approaching and Iraq's elections not far behind, the insurgents have a sense of urgency right now. This is completely expected. After the elections (especially the Iraqi elections), I think things will calm down significantly.
Now, if the emphasis here is that the security situation in Iraq is not where we thought it was (as Luger and Hagel bring to light again that some people miscalculated the reception we would receive in Iraq, somehow implying that the policies of the subsequent year and a half are still based on this outdated assumption) then that is legitimate. But throwing in red herring, tangent arguments does not focus on the solution to the problem.
The problem is not that this money has not been spent, it is that it cannot be spent without the risk of throwing it away. Instead of focusing on the fact that Bush's advisors were not Karnac the Magnificent, they should focus on solutions. As should Bush, by the way. Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric detracts from Bush's ability to do his job. It is a real Catch 22.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Of course there is that possibility. I agree with what others have said that since the goals are not clearly defined (Iraqi democracy? stable Iraq, regardless of government? some other goal), it will be difficult to judge success.
What should be done? We should clearly outline our goals in Iraq. Right now, the focus is on the upcoming elections. I think stability and security after that point then becomes the focus. That is the goal right now, but I don't feel that Bush has outlined this clearly enough in order to generate confidence that we are moving towards that goal.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
The Republican party is not monolithic, just as the Democratic Party is not. Criticism from his "own party" should be more focused on defining the goals and coming up with solutions instead of focusing on the assumptions that may or may not have contributed to the current situation.
There is definitely room to criticize how things are going in Iraq. The thing is, unless you are willing to forward an alternate route that is plausible, it is simply empty criticism.
The mission to make Iraq a democracy has been a fool's mission from the beginning. We have not learned one lesson from Vietnam which is: We are not able to go into another country and fix it because we are the United States and we are the best. Mistakes happen but not learning from those mistakes is stupidity.
The voters in this country are in denial. They do not wish to believe the United States can fail. Hence, President Bush will continue to have voter support in spite of the huge mess we are involved with in Iraq. It is good that some in Washington are speaking out and recognizing the situation.
A man has to know its limitations. A country has to know its limitations. All the talk of "How things will never be the same" and "The world is changed after 9/11" has gone to our heads and obliterated our common sense. We have policy like we are running around like a chicken with its head cut-off. Over reaction and self inflicted pain is the result of 9/11.
I doubt voters will realize the situation, due to patriotism, denial and the overselling of the threat. Bush will not be affected by the few in Washington speaking some common sense.
The voters in this country are in denial. They do not wish to believe the United States can fail. Hence, President Bush will continue to have voter support in spite of the huge mess we are involved with in Iraq. It is good that some in Washington are speaking out and recognizing the situation.
A man has to know its limitations. A country has to know its limitations. All the talk of "How things will never be the same" and "The world is changed after 9/11" has gone to our heads and obliterated our common sense. We have policy like we are running around like a chicken with its head cut-off. Over reaction and self inflicted pain is the result of 9/11.
I doubt voters will realize the situation, due to patriotism, denial and the overselling of the threat. Bush will not be affected by the few in Washington speaking some common sense.
QUOTE(Mustang @ Sep 16 2004, 10:13 AM)
I'm slightly more optimistic than Eeyore - I think we've got about 50/50 chance of ultimately being able to sucessfully establish a stable government in Iraq.
To clarify, I actually support this assessment. We have been in countries that had precarious positions and left them with stable governments. Many of those were autocratic governments that denied civil liberties compared to the American standard of freedom.
If we lower our sites and simply try to set up a stable government that has potential to become an example of democracy in the world and potential to become a new dictatorship, then I think we do have a 50/50 shot or better.
But sticking to a plan that will by definition be received hostilely (word?) by its neighbors (what else can model for democracy mean but a democratic domino theory, and why would an existing government want to become one of the dominoes?) will have its resistance movement supported by neighbors from every direction save, perhaps Kuwait.
We need a regional solution that is supported by key neighbors. Why is that the right policy in North Korea (can anyone really argue that the world would not be better off without Kim Jung Il (or is it Kim Il Jung?) in terms of seeking a regional solution there and it not be the right way to go in regards to Iraq?
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 16 2004, 10:27 AM)
The mission to make Iraq a democracy has been a fool's mission from the beginning. We are not able to go into another country and fix it because we are the United States and we are the best.
I (and a majority of Iraqis) disagree strongly. This in not about the US fixing Iraq it is about the US and its coalition partners removing some of the most potent the forces that kept Iraq from fixing itself.
If you believe it to be impossible, prove it. I have watched the situation and am of a decidedly different opinion.
QUOTE(Gray Seal)
The voters in this country are in denial. They do not wish to believe the United States can fail. Hence, President Bush will continue to have voter support in spite of the huge mess we are involved with in Iraq. It is good that some in Washington are speaking out and recognizing the situation.
Ha! I'm willing to bet these Senators recognize nothing, except that the winds of political expediency are changing and now many of their constituents oppose further US involvement.
If they were to offer a detailed analysis that supports their views I could listen. Leave the soundbites for the press.
QUOTE(Gray Seal)
doubt voters will realize the situation, due to patriotism, denial and the overselling of the threat. Bush will not be affected by the few in Washington speaking some common sense.
Common sense is of limited value which is evident because it is common...
Edited because it seems I neglected to spell check
I do think it is possible there will be a successful transition to democracy in Iraq in the next few years. I believe it to be a fools mission as that chance is at best 5% and the cost is so great.
Turnea, you state your opinion is shared by the Iraqs. Stating your opinion is fine but representing the Iraq people is most profound and would require some sort of proof.
Turnea, you state your opinion is shared by the Iraqs. Stating your opinion is fine but representing the Iraq people is most profound and would require some sort of proof.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
In and interview on tv last night (can’t find it on the net) it was mentioned that the water conditions in Iraq are worse than they were prior to the invasion/occupation and unfortunately for the Iraqi’s the number of water borne diseases are on the rise, further increasing their contempt for the occupiers. It was also mentioned the delays in reconstruction of the water treatment plants and sewage systems (and I would imagine most of the other reconstruction efforts) were based on concerns for the safety of the contractors.
I’ll place the blame directly on the Bush administration for their lack of foresight and contingency planning. Many who opposed the invasion knew we would win the war and loose the occupation for these very reasons. Maybe now we now know the definition of strategery – n. 1. A horribly dangerous and expensive plan that is better than no plan.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Depends on your definition of success. According to the GOP we’re already successful because Saddam is no longer in power, but this is the only positive I’ve seen so far. You mention ultimately, and for me that will be 10-20-30 years from now, and I won’t measure this success by the physical and political rebuilding of Iraq alone. I want to see if the flames of terrorism have been tempered by this mess, after all that was the reason our administration gave for this conflict.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
In the same interview session a talking head from the GOP felt that Bush most vulnerable with his war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq, and I would agree. Supposedly Kerry is re-tooling his campaign and if I were calling the shots this is where I would focus, throw in criticism from his own party and it could make Bush more vulnerable. Our current leaders got us into this mess apparently without a plan, and now we’re to believe this same group can get us out?
In and interview on tv last night (can’t find it on the net) it was mentioned that the water conditions in Iraq are worse than they were prior to the invasion/occupation and unfortunately for the Iraqi’s the number of water borne diseases are on the rise, further increasing their contempt for the occupiers. It was also mentioned the delays in reconstruction of the water treatment plants and sewage systems (and I would imagine most of the other reconstruction efforts) were based on concerns for the safety of the contractors.
I’ll place the blame directly on the Bush administration for their lack of foresight and contingency planning. Many who opposed the invasion knew we would win the war and loose the occupation for these very reasons. Maybe now we now know the definition of strategery – n. 1. A horribly dangerous and expensive plan that is better than no plan.
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
Depends on your definition of success. According to the GOP we’re already successful because Saddam is no longer in power, but this is the only positive I’ve seen so far. You mention ultimately, and for me that will be 10-20-30 years from now, and I won’t measure this success by the physical and political rebuilding of Iraq alone. I want to see if the flames of terrorism have been tempered by this mess, after all that was the reason our administration gave for this conflict.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
In the same interview session a talking head from the GOP felt that Bush most vulnerable with his war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq, and I would agree. Supposedly Kerry is re-tooling his campaign and if I were calling the shots this is where I would focus, throw in criticism from his own party and it could make Bush more vulnerable. Our current leaders got us into this mess apparently without a plan, and now we’re to believe this same group can get us out?
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 16 2004, 11:48 AM)
Turnea, you state your opinion is shared by the Iraqs. Stating your opinion is fine but representing the Iraq people is most profound and would require some sort of proof.
For that I point to polling data, which lately has been more difficult to find than it was earlier in the occupation period (I suppose some find it less interesting...).
Latest Scientific Poll I see is Gallup's in April.
This one does not deal with the political side but practical matters. It reveals that most Iraqis still believed they were better of after the war. (51% believe they and their families were doing better as opposed to 25% worse off)
Earlier polls reflected a majority of Iraqis desire democracy and are optimistic about their countries prospects.
The newer poll...
Poll: Iraqis conflicted about war, its impact
Full Poll Results(PDF)
I HIGHLY recommend reading the full poll, it's not too large..
and the older poll
A Better Life
As I'm sure many will point out, Iraqi opinion won't be the deciding factor in all this, but I suggest it's one of the big ones.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
I personally conclude the same as these senators, and am suspicios that there is foul work afoot. The question of course is WHY? What could be the reason for reserving 94% of the funds given to reconstruct Iraq? My first instinct is this: We are fighting a war against the civilian population, not directly persay, but our stated enemy is any civilian willing to pick up a weapon and fight for their nation. Obviously reconstrunction is going to happen for two reasons: A) To set up livable circumstances for the citizens of Iraq, and
to secure US interests in every possible industry. Which will get primary spending? Who knows... but still, why not spend?
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
I think so. Iraq has been compared to Vietnam before, and however credible the comparison is today, the comparison can still be made. I wasn't alive at the time, but from what I have heard, Vietnam was a quagmire, a slow drawn out struggle where exponentially more Americans died than in Iraq. Even if the rate of death is different, Iraq still feels like a slow drawn out struggle with no specific end in sight, obviously no plan for ending, and worst of all, a disregard for the people we are supposedly liberating. It would be one thing if the fighting ceased, the money was spent, and we could go on with our lives, then the Bush Administration could boast. Because things are getting worse and worse, the only option I see is to prop up the new government until an election can be had to elect a truly Iraqi government, meanwhile the US must clear out their/our troops entirely, apologize, and pay reperations. Such a showcase of accountability will not come from the Bush camp or the Kerry camp, so good luck kids.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I hope so! It all depends on the success of the media in spinning the war along with the economy as a positive for Bush. They've been doing a heck of a good job so far, but obviously there are many holes to punch in their story. I only hope that myself and likeminded individuals can reach enough people by november improve those people's ability to filter out the partisan rhetoric and use their candidates policy decisions, like Bush's many bad ones, to justify their vote.
I personally conclude the same as these senators, and am suspicios that there is foul work afoot. The question of course is WHY? What could be the reason for reserving 94% of the funds given to reconstruct Iraq? My first instinct is this: We are fighting a war against the civilian population, not directly persay, but our stated enemy is any civilian willing to pick up a weapon and fight for their nation. Obviously reconstrunction is going to happen for two reasons: A) To set up livable circumstances for the citizens of Iraq, and
to secure US interests in every possible industry. Which will get primary spending? Who knows... but still, why not spend?2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
I think so. Iraq has been compared to Vietnam before, and however credible the comparison is today, the comparison can still be made. I wasn't alive at the time, but from what I have heard, Vietnam was a quagmire, a slow drawn out struggle where exponentially more Americans died than in Iraq. Even if the rate of death is different, Iraq still feels like a slow drawn out struggle with no specific end in sight, obviously no plan for ending, and worst of all, a disregard for the people we are supposedly liberating. It would be one thing if the fighting ceased, the money was spent, and we could go on with our lives, then the Bush Administration could boast. Because things are getting worse and worse, the only option I see is to prop up the new government until an election can be had to elect a truly Iraqi government, meanwhile the US must clear out their/our troops entirely, apologize, and pay reperations. Such a showcase of accountability will not come from the Bush camp or the Kerry camp, so good luck kids.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I hope so! It all depends on the success of the media in spinning the war along with the economy as a positive for Bush. They've been doing a heck of a good job so far, but obviously there are many holes to punch in their story. I only hope that myself and likeminded individuals can reach enough people by november improve those people's ability to filter out the partisan rhetoric and use their candidates policy decisions, like Bush's many bad ones, to justify their vote.
QUOTE(Hero @ Sep 16 2004, 01:28 PM)
My first instinct is this: We are fighting a war against the civilian population, not directly persay, but our stated enemy is any civilian willing to pick up a weapon and fight for their nation.
Not according to the Iraqis... 62% believe the attacks are meant to stir up civil war and division in the country.
These people aren't fighting for the nation of Iraq, they are fighting to ensure chaos in the country. Why else attack the police, and the Red Cross, and the UN, and the Aid Workers and the truckers, and the journalists....
So the problem is not one of being to hard on the insurgents, they are thugs and murderers, it is they who are the problem, which is why the money has not yet been spent and more is being shifted to security.
QUOTE(Hero)
I hope so! It all depends on the success of the media in spinning the war along with the economy as a positive for Bush. They've been doing a heck of a good job so far
QUOTE(Turnea)
If you believe it to be impossible, prove it. I have watched the situation and am of a decidedly different opinion.
I wish you’d share those rose tinted glasses. From your article:
QUOTE
Survey done mostly before recent cycle of violence
I would imagine in the minds of Iraqi’s it’s the body count that matters. And you really think Iraqi’s will flock to the polls when over 700 Iraqi security officers have been killed? Roll that bean footage….
Just hours ago:
QUOTE
Baghdad, Iraq, Sept. 16 — Insurgents kidnapped two American and one British contractor in a brazen dawn raid on their home in one of Baghdad's most upscale neighborhoods, underscoring the rapidly growing perils confronting foreign nationals in this war zone.
Or this:
QUOTE
The scale and sophistication of militant attacks in Iraq are steadily increasing, with co-ordinated strikes and complicated ambushes that increasingly hit their targets, officials and analysts say.
The spike in bloodshed - more than 200 dead in four days - has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in US troops.
Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, co-operating more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.
The spike in bloodshed - more than 200 dead in four days - has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in US troops.
Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, co-operating more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.
Emphasis mine.
Or this one:
QUOTE
By some counts, more than three dozen Iraqi cities and towns are in the hands of leaders hostile to the new government and the United States, and apparently able to dispatch gunmen and suicide bombers at will. The resistance that was spotty a year ago now launches an average of more than 50 attacks against U.S. or coalition forces a day.
Some of the most horrific attacks have been aimed at those cooperating with the United States and the U.S.-backed government: More than 700 Iraqi police officers have been killed.
Some of the most horrific attacks have been aimed at those cooperating with the United States and the U.S.-backed government: More than 700 Iraqi police officers have been killed.
Emphasis mine.
And many are saying this could be the worse week for civilian and military casualties. So if what you say is true shouldn't these news reports should tell us that the insurgency and body count is on the decrease. I don’t see it, nor do I see that corner we need to turn.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Sep 16 2004, 02:03 PM)
I would imagine in the minds of Iraqi’s it’s the body count that matters. And you really think Iraqi’s will flock to the polls when over 700 Iraqi security officers have been killed? Roll that bean footage…
I believe it, many of those security workers were killed as they flocked to sign up. Iraqi councils both local and national have taken off successfully. My glasses aren't rose-tinted but neither am I a victim of Vietnam-vision. I make my conclusions on things as the are.
QUOTE
Survey done mostly before recent cycle of violence
Yes but the survey was done after some of the worst attacks.
Here's Richard Lugar playing the pessimist at that point...
QUOTE
Since Sunday, 32 Americans have been killed in fighting across Iraq. American body bags are on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.[...]"How do you know, come June 30, that a civil war will not occur?" Lugar said on Voice of America radio. "After all, the coalition has not disarmed all of these militia that these religious groups have in various places. They still are armed and apparently ready to fight."
Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."
Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."
Growing GOP Dissent On Iraq
CONTINUING TURMOIL IN IRAQ
etc.
Every time a poll shows Iraqi optimism some say, just wait the next set of bombings will change things, well it hasn't yet...
QUOTE(Fife and Drum)
And many are saying this could be the worse week for civilian and military casualties. So if what you say is true shouldn't these news reports should tell us that the insurgency and body count is on the decrease.
Not really. The violent minority of terrorists and killers in Iraq don't need popular support to do what they do. That is why the solution to that problem is largely military.
QUOTE(Turnea)
I believe it, many of those security workers were killed as they flocked to sign up
That’s kind of my point: the lack of respect for authority, especially US directed authority. As this is repeated on a daily basis it will surely add dissidents to the insurgent ranks. And until the insurgency is stopped the reconstruction efforts will sit on hold which will continue to feed the uprising as well.
Remember, it’s been almost a year since Mission Accomplished. I’d say we’re behind schedule and I blame the lack of planning.
Time will tell on this one my friend, we’ll see how things proceed in January. I understand that baby steps are required before the full stride of democracy can run across the countryside. But this baby is still rolling on its belly.
QUOTE(Turnea)
but neither am I a victim of Vietnam-vision
I’m not guilty of Vietnam-Vision either, entirely two different animals (same genus however).
Vietnam – protecting an ally against the spread of communism
Iraq – rid a dictator and attempt to setup a democratic government
The missions of these conflicts are entirely different, their similarities are both were poorly planned and executed.
I went to the poll links you provided, Turnea. There were many question is the polls but the overall opinion of the country seemed to indicate conditions are either a mixture of good and bad to conditions being worse.
I would say people who take the time to view these links would say they are supportive of my opinion and not yours. They do not support your claim that your opinion is shared by majority of the Iraqs.
I would say people who take the time to view these links would say they are supportive of my opinion and not yours. They do not support your claim that your opinion is shared by majority of the Iraqs.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
Apparently things are not going as well in post “mission accomplished” Iraq as Bush would like. A CNN story today revealed that that a study done for Bush by the National Intelligence Council painted a pessimistic picture about Iraq’s future even as Bush continues to paint a rosy picture.
I don’t know if this will hurt Bush’s chances in November, but I am hopeful it will refocus the election on more important issues than we’ve seen in the past few weeks.
<snip>
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html
Apparently things are not going as well in post “mission accomplished” Iraq as Bush would like. A CNN story today revealed that that a study done for Bush by the National Intelligence Council painted a pessimistic picture about Iraq’s future even as Bush continues to paint a rosy picture.
I don’t know if this will hurt Bush’s chances in November, but I am hopeful it will refocus the election on more important issues than we’ve seen in the past few weeks.
QUOTE
The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined -- at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."
At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."
<snip>
QUOTE
The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html
QUOTE
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money? Does it add up to show that the Bush administration does not have a plan, an exit strategy and we are in deep trouble as the article and both Republican and Democratic senators suggest? Or is there another explanation?
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
#1: It makes sense to make sure things are secure before money is spent repairing them to ensure it's not baby going out with the bathwater. It should be clear to any casual observer of the media and this conflict that we are in deep trouble. Especially in the Middle East, where Saddam fed the people propoganda for 12+ straight years.
#2: Yes there is that real possibility we could be unsuccessful in Iraq. Now members of the senate are coming forward because the body count is rising.
What should be done is, we should ask the UN to assist us in peacekeeping efforts, as we assisted in Kossovo.
If anybody beleives any politician can get us out of occupying a country we have taken over in 4 years or less, see Germany, Korea, the Philipines, Japan.
Any questions?
I highly doubt democracy can take hold instantaneously as people purport it to.
Why should it? It took what, over 10+ years after the American Revolution before we had an actual government?
#3: Will it hurt W's chances in November?
On Hardball tonight, a Senator Graham (the transcript link's not up yet, but should be in a few hours)made the link to 9-11 and Iraq again and admitted telling the administration we needed more troops last year.
side note: finally! a mainstream press piece I can agree with!!
Richard Holbrook, the UN ambassador, was also on, and they both made great cases that the administration did not prepare well and that more help is needed.
I want to think that people are not so polarized and blinded by opinion in this election that they will throw W and company out because it was he who got us into this mess.
Now thats untold billions and billions of dollars that won't be spent on....
Fixed quotes. -Amlord
[quote=Pierzin,Sep 17 2004, 05:41 AM] [QUOTE]
#2: Yes there is that real possibility we could be unsuccessful in Iraq. Now members of the senate are coming forward because the body count is rising.
What should be done is, we should ask the UN to assist us in peacekeeping efforts, as we assisted in Kossovo.
If anybody beleives any politician can get us out of occupying a country we have taken over in 4 years or less, see Germany, Korea, the Philipines, Japan.
Any questions?[/color] [/quote]
Pity nobody told Bush Jr. that fact. Oh, actually they tried, but Bush Jr. specifically refused to listen to those advising on the future of post-war Iraq, and called such talk of long term commitment 'anti-war propaganda'.
Personally, I suspect that if the US really put their backs into it, they COULD set up a functioning democratic state in about 10 years, maybe. Of course time is not the only factor, the US ried to prop up South Korea for longer then that, The Rusians tried to pacify Afghanistan and prop up a government there for longer then that, both failed.
But, consider this, even IF the US was sucessful in setting up such a stable government in 10 years; if we assume the death rate does not go up (which is a large asumption, seeing as how it has ben going up steadily since the handover of power, and a civil war would be far more costly) it would cost the US about 10,000 dead and some 80,000 wounded, and thats being optimistic. To say nothing of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent...
Pity Bush Jr. never learned to look before he lept...
#2: Yes there is that real possibility we could be unsuccessful in Iraq. Now members of the senate are coming forward because the body count is rising.
What should be done is, we should ask the UN to assist us in peacekeeping efforts, as we assisted in Kossovo.
If anybody beleives any politician can get us out of occupying a country we have taken over in 4 years or less, see Germany, Korea, the Philipines, Japan.
Any questions?[/color] [/quote]
Pity nobody told Bush Jr. that fact. Oh, actually they tried, but Bush Jr. specifically refused to listen to those advising on the future of post-war Iraq, and called such talk of long term commitment 'anti-war propaganda'.
Personally, I suspect that if the US really put their backs into it, they COULD set up a functioning democratic state in about 10 years, maybe. Of course time is not the only factor, the US ried to prop up South Korea for longer then that, The Rusians tried to pacify Afghanistan and prop up a government there for longer then that, both failed.
But, consider this, even IF the US was sucessful in setting up such a stable government in 10 years; if we assume the death rate does not go up (which is a large asumption, seeing as how it has ben going up steadily since the handover of power, and a civil war would be far more costly) it would cost the US about 10,000 dead and some 80,000 wounded, and thats being optimistic. To say nothing of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent...
Pity Bush Jr. never learned to look before he lept...
QUOTE
2. Is there a possibility we could ultimately be unsuccessful in Iraq as these senators suggest? If so, what should be done about it? If not, why not?
I am trying to recall this from my memory. But I remember reading that Bushs father(George H. W. Bush) in a interview gave reasons why he didn't proceed on to Baghdad during the "Desert Storm". His reasons were that too many factions and too hard to govern that many people with American troops and the time and lives it would take.
Bush Jr. was asked about his fathers answer and his reply was that God had told him to do this or something similar to that.
Is it possible that GOD is wrong or BUSH is wrong? I am certain who I would pick, aren't you?
The plan to conquer Iraq was half-baked from the beginning. Our troops were not properly trained or equipped to do the job given them. Not given body armour. Completely untrained in handling prisoners.
There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is , to build military based in Iraq and stay there forever as the conquerors in the Middle East.
What can we do about this "quadmire" that Bush has presented us. We can't win in Iraq. There are too many Iraqis that are against us. We are called OCCUPATORS, not LIBERATORS by the Iraqis(in the polls taken).
Doesn't that tell you something.
We shouldn't lose another American life in Iraq. There is no justification whatsoever for 1 life being lost in Iraq.
How do we get out? There is no easy way really. Maybe we should ask PRESIDENT GOD.
Popeye, so many things to respond to in your post.....
If my memory serves, his reason was much more inline with it not being part of the UN mandate to remove the Hussein regime from Baghdad, unlike later resolutions that provided included the threat of military action against Saddam.
Maybe my psychic sensors aren't plugged in to read between your lines, but I would have to ask you to define you quote above. The units that invaded Iraq were highly trained for this type of war. Desert and urban warfare have been the cornerstone of training for Army units since prior to Desert Storm. Aside from some (mostly Reserve) units deploying with the earlier body armor, as opposed to the Interceptor which was still being fielded, can you describe how they were not equipped?
And for 'completely untrained', I assume you're referring to the MP units whose primary mission includes the handling and processing of EPW's? Because some abuses occurred does not translate into they were completely untrained.
And aside from an article in the Guardian about permanent bases, can you cite ANY information that that charge is true? My sources, on the ground in Iraq, completely dispute that allegation.
Your post reads like it was crafted by the Kerry camp.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money?
I think we need to revert, on the local scale, to allowing local commanders and their Iraqi counterparts to use the funds in their area. This had shown great success in most portions of Iraq after the invasion. It may not be feasible now with the Iraqi government in place versus the CPA, and I don't really know how the dollars trickle down, but it would seem to make sense to take spending out of the hands in Baghdad for all but large infrastructure projects.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I don't think so. Those firmly in Bush's camp will likely not be swayed. Those in Kerry's are already a lock, and independents are just thoroughly disgusted by both sides.
QUOTE
But I remember reading that Bushs father(George H. W. Bush) in a interview gave reasons why he didn't proceed on to Baghdad during the "Desert Storm". His reasons were that too many factions and too hard to govern that many people with American troops and the time and lives it would take.
If my memory serves, his reason was much more inline with it not being part of the UN mandate to remove the Hussein regime from Baghdad, unlike later resolutions that provided included the threat of military action against Saddam.
QUOTE
Our troops were not properly trained or equipped to do the job given them. Not given body armour. Completely untrained in handling prisoners.
Maybe my psychic sensors aren't plugged in to read between your lines, but I would have to ask you to define you quote above. The units that invaded Iraq were highly trained for this type of war. Desert and urban warfare have been the cornerstone of training for Army units since prior to Desert Storm. Aside from some (mostly Reserve) units deploying with the earlier body armor, as opposed to the Interceptor which was still being fielded, can you describe how they were not equipped?
And for 'completely untrained', I assume you're referring to the MP units whose primary mission includes the handling and processing of EPW's? Because some abuses occurred does not translate into they were completely untrained.
And aside from an article in the Guardian about permanent bases, can you cite ANY information that that charge is true? My sources, on the ground in Iraq, completely dispute that allegation.
Your post reads like it was crafted by the Kerry camp.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money?
I think we need to revert, on the local scale, to allowing local commanders and their Iraqi counterparts to use the funds in their area. This had shown great success in most portions of Iraq after the invasion. It may not be feasible now with the Iraqi government in place versus the CPA, and I don't really know how the dollars trickle down, but it would seem to make sense to take spending out of the hands in Baghdad for all but large infrastructure projects.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I don't think so. Those firmly in Bush's camp will likely not be swayed. Those in Kerry's are already a lock, and independents are just thoroughly disgusted by both sides.
QUOTE
And aside from an article in the Guardian about permanent bases, can you cite ANY information that that charge is true? My sources, on the ground in Iraq, completely dispute that allegation.
I have to second this. I have been home for 9 months now, but in the time I was there ALL of the facilities I visited or travelled through (With the exception of the Kuwait Naval Base with is owned and operated by Kuwait) were tent cities and sand bags. Now we have some HUGE temporary buildings (The chow hall the Seabees built near us was 4-5 stories high and handled 100s of sailors, soldiers and Airman at once), but they are still temporary.
As I understand it now, in some locations we have moved from tent cities to "boxes" (they have a name but I don't know what it is) little steel boxes with doors, windows and air conditioning for housing troops.
We have also rebuilt a lot of facilities in Iraq for the Iraqis.
I would like to know where these PERMANENT bases are.
I would seriously consider supporting a permanent base, so long as it had Iraqi support. It would seem like a far better staging point for the hot beds of the Middle-East and Asia then Germany.
Just had to second DTOM's and OS's statements: We are not building permanent bases in Iraq, in the sense of the military installations that we now have in the US, Europe, and Korea, for example. However, given the fact that we have had troops in-country for over 18 months, we definitely need sufficient operating bases. Yes, they have been under continual improvement, both from a security and a life-cycle standpoint, but that is absolutely necessary. Should we work out of tents and trucks for years; like its an extended field exercise?
We are looking at operations continuing for probably another 4 years. We need hard sites for our command and control elements, and we need billeting areas that are both secure, and relatively comfortable for troops that are away from their families for a year at time, and constantly under threat during their tour. They deserve a comfortable place to sleep, decent showers and latrines, and good food while they are deployed. They shouldn't have to spend their down time burning feces.
We have permanent bases in Bahrain and Qatar. We closed down most of what we had in Saudi Arabia. We have very little left in Turkey. I could go on about world-wide installations - we are slowly and quietly (and not so quietly, in some cases) re-apportioning the stationing of our forces around the world. In most cases, for the better.
However, if you really want to look at nascent permanent installations with significant potential geo-political impact, look to Central Asia, not Iraq.
We are looking at operations continuing for probably another 4 years. We need hard sites for our command and control elements, and we need billeting areas that are both secure, and relatively comfortable for troops that are away from their families for a year at time, and constantly under threat during their tour. They deserve a comfortable place to sleep, decent showers and latrines, and good food while they are deployed. They shouldn't have to spend their down time burning feces.
We have permanent bases in Bahrain and Qatar. We closed down most of what we had in Saudi Arabia. We have very little left in Turkey. I could go on about world-wide installations - we are slowly and quietly (and not so quietly, in some cases) re-apportioning the stationing of our forces around the world. In most cases, for the better.
However, if you really want to look at nascent permanent installations with significant potential geo-political impact, look to Central Asia, not Iraq.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 17 2004, 04:42 PM)
Popeye, so many things to respond to in your post.....
If my memory serves, his reason was much more inline with it not being part of the UN mandate to remove the Hussein regime from Baghdad, unlike later resolutions that provided included the threat of military action against Saddam.
Maybe my psychic sensors aren't plugged in to read between your lines, but I would have to ask you to define you quote above. The units that invaded Iraq were highly trained for this type of war. Desert and urban warfare have been the cornerstone of training for Army units since prior to Desert Storm. Aside from some (mostly Reserve) units deploying with the earlier body armor, as opposed to the Interceptor which was still being fielded, can you describe how they were not equipped?
And for 'completely untrained', I assume you're referring to the MP units whose primary mission includes the handling and processing of EPW's? Because some abuses occurred does not translate into they were completely untrained.
And aside from an article in the Guardian about permanent bases, can you cite ANY information that that charge is true? My sources, on the ground in Iraq, completely dispute that allegation.
Your post reads like it was crafted by the Kerry camp.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money?
I think we need to revert, on the local scale, to allowing local commanders and their Iraqi counterparts to use the funds in their area. This had shown great success in most portions of Iraq after the invasion. It may not be feasible now with the Iraqi government in place versus the CPA, and I don't really know how the dollars trickle down, but it would seem to make sense to take spending out of the hands in Baghdad for all but large infrastructure projects.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I don't think so. Those firmly in Bush's camp will likely not be swayed. Those in Kerry's are already a lock, and independents are just thoroughly disgusted by both sides.AS
QUOTE
But I remember reading that Bushs father(George H. W. Bush) in a interview gave reasons why he didn't proceed on to Baghdad during the "Desert Storm". His reasons were that too many factions and too hard to govern that many people with American troops and the time and lives it would take.
If my memory serves, his reason was much more inline with it not being part of the UN mandate to remove the Hussein regime from Baghdad, unlike later resolutions that provided included the threat of military action against Saddam.
QUOTE
Our troops were not properly trained or equipped to do the job given them. Not given body armour. Completely untrained in handling prisoners.
Maybe my psychic sensors aren't plugged in to read between your lines, but I would have to ask you to define you quote above. The units that invaded Iraq were highly trained for this type of war. Desert and urban warfare have been the cornerstone of training for Army units since prior to Desert Storm. Aside from some (mostly Reserve) units deploying with the earlier body armor, as opposed to the Interceptor which was still being fielded, can you describe how they were not equipped?
And for 'completely untrained', I assume you're referring to the MP units whose primary mission includes the handling and processing of EPW's? Because some abuses occurred does not translate into they were completely untrained.
And aside from an article in the Guardian about permanent bases, can you cite ANY information that that charge is true? My sources, on the ground in Iraq, completely dispute that allegation.
Your post reads like it was crafted by the Kerry camp.
1. What do you make of this under-utilization of reconstruction money?
I think we need to revert, on the local scale, to allowing local commanders and their Iraqi counterparts to use the funds in their area. This had shown great success in most portions of Iraq after the invasion. It may not be feasible now with the Iraqi government in place versus the CPA, and I don't really know how the dollars trickle down, but it would seem to make sense to take spending out of the hands in Baghdad for all but large infrastructure projects.
3. Given the fact that the war on terror, foreign policy and Iraq are played up as President Bush's strong suit could this harsh criticism from members of his own party hurt his chances in November?
I don't think so. Those firmly in Bush's camp will likely not be swayed. Those in Kerry's are already a lock, and independents are just thoroughly disgusted by both sides.AS
Yes, Bush Sr. didn't go to Baghdad because that wasn't the plan but he also mentioned other reasons to such as:
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../408290411/1046
QUOTE
"Incalculable human and political costs" would have been the result, the senior Bush has said, if his administration had pushed to Baghdad and sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq," Bush wrote. "The coalition would have instantly collapsed. . . . Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
Bush's thoughts are outlined in A World Transformed, published well before his son became president. After Desert Storm, the nation was deeply split over whether Bush was right to bring troops home, leaving Saddam's regime intact
This is all discussed in the book "A World Transformed".
Also Bush Sr. didn't agree with his sons invasion of Iraq.
QUOTE
The President’s father, George H.W. Bush – 41st President of the United States – disagrees with his son’s decisions in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which is why the former President has not commented in public on the war.
“The President and I discuss the war privately,” the elder Bush said in an interview earlier this year. “That is the way it will remain.”
But sources close to the Bush family say the elder Bush thinks his son has mishandled the war in Iraq.
“They disagree on the war,” says a family confidante. “Former President Bush believes the U.S. should have sought more support before invading Iraq and feels his son did not work hard enough to secure the support of allies.”
Concerning that our troops were not trained or equipped to do the job given them.
After the initial phase of the war was over and the troops were given the job of being policemen, they had not been trained or even thought about that phase. In fact the Bush adminstration had given little thought or no thought of what to do during this phase.
And it definitely was a fact that a large number of solider didn't have protective armour which sure was much foresight if the Bush adminstration in this area. Families having to send their loved ones armour. Shame on the adminstration. No excuse whatsoever on that bungling act.
Also on the SOME abuses that occurred. I believe it has been stated that there were more than SOME abuses.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
QUOTE
GENEVA - Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday, and Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells.
Abuse was, “in some cases, tantamount to torture,” it said.
The report supports allegations by the International Committee of the Red Cross that abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers was broad and “not individual acts” — contrary to President Bush’s contention that the mistreatment “was the wrongdoing of a few.”
AS for the MPs being completely untrained. We can quibble on words but they were not properly trained.
Read Taguba's report:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html
QUOTE
(U) The 800th MP (I/R) units did not receive
Internment/Resettlement (I/R) and corrections specific
training during their mobilization period. Corrections
training is only on the METL of two MP (I/R)
Confinement Battalions throughout the Army, one
currently serving in Afghanistan, and elements of the
other are at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. MP units supporting
JTF-GTMO received ten days of training in detention
acility operations, to include two days of unarmed
self-defense, training in interpersonal communication
skills, forced cell moves, and correctional officer
safety. (ANNEX 19)
Now if you want to argue with him, go on. Is it possible that you know more than he does?
As for your brilliant observation: Your post reads like it was crafted by the Kerry camp.
For all you know it could have come from the Nader camp.
Just because you talk the military lingo and know the internal workings doesn't sway the facts one iota.
I would highly suggest anyone thinking that we are fighting the "majority civilian resistance" to take a look at some of these blogs. These blogs are written by Iraqis INSIDE of Iraq. There are many other Middle East blogs linked to these.
Iraq the Model
Healing Iraq
The Mesopotamian
Here is the Iraqi Pro-Democracy website associated with the first blog listed.
If you want real, knowledgeable analysis of the events in Iraq, these are the places to go. These guys have the stories the news doesn't get until days later.
Iraq the Model
Healing Iraq
The Mesopotamian
Here is the Iraqi Pro-Democracy website associated with the first blog listed.
If you want real, knowledgeable analysis of the events in Iraq, these are the places to go. These guys have the stories the news doesn't get until days later.
QUOTE(guy @ Sep 17 2004, 11:41 PM)
I would highly suggest anyone thinking that we are fighting the "majority civilian resistance" to take a look at some of these blogs. These blogs are written by Iraqis INSIDE of Iraq. There are many other Middle East blogs linked to these.
I would agree that anyone under the presumption that the coalition is fighting against a genuine popular resistance in Iraq is sorely mistaken and stands no chance of understanding what the real problems in Iraq are.
Reconstruction is endangered mainly by terrorists bent on keeping the country in chaos for myriad reasons. The heart of it will only be solved militarily.
QUOTE(turnea @ Sep 18 2004, 07:35 PM)
Reconstruction is endangered mainly by terrorists bent on keeping the country in chaos for myriad reasons. The heart of it will only be solved militarily.
I think that statement is simply not true.
The primary targets of the resistance is the police and military. In the process, civilians get killed. If you choose to call them "terrorists" because of that, then we are terrorists as well. Our air strikes and insurgency strikes target military targets and many innocent Iraqis get killed. There is no difference in that sense between them and us.
But have you ever stopped to think that maybe they are just defending their country from aggression? Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean the lack of jobs, money, and electricity help it make sense to them.
Heck, republicans supporting this "democratic" president (in terms of bigger government, out of control spending, opening our borders to illegals, tariffs, etc) doesn't make any sense to me any more than me making any sense to my fellow republicans when I object to the war on Iraq. It doesn't make sense to me how anybody could justify this war when it is clearly disconnected from the war on terrorism that should be getting fought.
We can't make any sense of this on an internet board, yet you want to rule out the people fighting us because they just want us out after invading them? Without links to international terrorism, my stance makes much more sense then random acts of violence for some mythical "myriad of reasons".
Until the Sunni triangle is back in government control, there is no reconstruction effort.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 18 2004, 08:01 PM)
The primary targets of the resistance is the police and military. In the process, civilians get killed. If you choose to call them "terrorists" because of that, then we are terrorists as well. Our air strikes and insurgency strikes target military targets and many innocent Iraqis get killed. There is no difference in that sense between them and us.
Not exactly. Perhaps the military and police are their primary targets, but don't forget that bombing, kidnapping and murdering civilians and sabotaging public works is a rather common part of the MO as well...
for that I call them terrorists.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
But have you ever stopped to think that maybe they are just defending their country from aggression? Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean the lack of jobs, money, and electricity help it make sense to them
Part of the reason for that is because those who try and rebuild the economy and public facilities are targets of violence. I recently read an NYT article about how workers have to sneak in to works on a water plant for fear of reprisals.
No, this isn't about self-defense, it's far more devious than that.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
Until the Sunni triangle is back in government control, there is no reconstruction effort.
So then what do we call all of the work that the US as well as NGOs have been doing all across that country?
QUOTE
But have you ever stopped to think that maybe they are just defending their country from aggression?
Please don't tell me this is what you think is going on. Why the attacks on Iraqis then? That has nothing to do with our occupation...but everything to do with them wanting to assume control themselves. You think the majority of these attacks wouldn't continue...nay, increase...if we just left? No. Because they don't want us out...they want themselves in. They just know they can't make that happen while we're their. Don't that attacks...particularly against the Iraqi security forces...just make our presence more necessary? If getting us out is the objective, their actions don't make sense. Conversely, if getting themselves in power is the objective, they make perfect sense.
Also, the target has nothing to do with whether an attack is terrorist oriented or not--the motive does. Terrorist attacks have as their primary objective the creation of terror (hence the name). Military attacks have military objectives...possession of terrority, elimination of enemy points of resistance, etc. Following this definition, which I believe accurate, none of our attacks are terroristic...in fact, quite the opposite, since the creation of terror would be detrimental to our cause. Visa Versa, almost all of the resistance attacks are terroristic in nature, since they have the creation of terror as their objective.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.